*NO - djpretzel VETO* Wild Arms 'Flight of the Eagle'

[Liontamer ⚖️]

ReMixer name: pu_freak

Name of game(s) arranged: Wild ARMs

Name of arrangement: Flight of the Eagle

Name of individual song(s) arranged: The Bird which Flies in the Sky (Emma's Theme)

Link to individual song(s) arranged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdAv75LhFvg

Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.:

This is my mix for the Wild ARMs album: ARMed and DANGerous. Jade asked me to do a remix for her album, but I never played the game and thus wasn't familiar with the soundtrack. I liked this source, since I could easily imagine how I could make a calm version of the so energetic (but short) source tune. One of the requirements for Jade's album was that it had to have a western vibe. To make it feel like a song that could be part of a western movie, I used a flute in addition to the piano (and the eagle at the end should also contribute to that vibe). The title of the source has inspired me a lot, because I wanted it to be like you could close your eyes while listening to this song and feel like you're an actual bird soaring through the sky. The soft flute and choir in the middle of the song would be the wind you can hear as it gently passes.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRKJaru5s6w

Edited December 13, 2013 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Liontamer ⚖️]

The track was 3:55 long, so I needed 117.5 seconds of overt source usage to pass this on the source use level.

:07.75-:12, :14.5-:30, :42.5-:46.5, :49-1:03.5, 1:10.5-1:42, 1:57.5-2:02.75, 2:04.5-2:09.25, 2:16.5-2:21.25, 2:23.75-2:25.5, 2:40.75-2:56, 3:00.5-3:17.5, 3:19.75-3:24 = 127.5 seconds or 54.26%

I wasn't worried here, but I just wanted to make sure things checked out and that I wasn't merely feeling it was a pass on that level.

Onto the arrangement itself, the woodwind sequencing/timing and realism were both weak, and improving the overall sound of the piano sample would be good going forward. While 1) many casual listeners won't notice the flaws, 2) this execution is serviceable enough and 3) a lot of care's put into this, the lack of realism in the timing is definitely the weak link here. Upgrading the samples for future tracks would be nice.

That said, the arrangement here was excellent and the dynamics were a genuine highlight. Solid stuff here from Pieter, who I hope only continues moving upward with his production as well.

YES

Edited December 5, 2013 by Liontamer
changed vote; see below

[DragonAvenger]

The emotion in this is great! I love the overall arrangement, and I definitely think you always do a great job with your writing. I agree with larry that the opening is a bit stiff overall and you could use some sample upgrades on your flute especially. Aside from that this was a wonderful listen.

YES

[Nutritious]

I was a little worried on the samples and sequencing hearing the glock & pan flute lead. However, strings are supporting the background nicely, if pretty minimally and the piano sounds good to my ears. Flute doesn't sound great, even at low velocity, because the timbre doesn't change at all.

Piano performance is spot on as usual . Very delicately handled dynamics and emotive playing are the big winners here. Source arrangement is clear and creative, getting great milage from a relatively short OST>

Ending really didn't resolve that great with the piano and the sound effect sounded tacked on to me. Still, minor gripe in what is an enjoyable listen.

Nice track here, keep working on your production chops

YES

[Palpable]

I'll pretty much just echo what Justin said. The piano is gorgeous, and since that's the basis of the arrangement, that's a great start. The woodwind is the weakest element here but because it's mostly used as a background element, it's not a dealbreaker or anything. Try to make even those little details as strong as the main elements next time.

YES

[djpretzel 🎮]

I am vetoing this.

I realize it was unanimous, which makes this all the stranger... I am hoping Pieter still has the source files and can remedy what I'm hearing as relatively evident issues that should be addressable.

Using the woodwind for accompaniment at/around 1'12" was fine, but the volume level is wayyyyyy low. Problematically low. It actually sounds accidental; the balance is just way off, to me. Bumping up the volume on the accompanying wind part is the easiest fix, but it will probably expose the weakness of the sample a bit more, so what I'm really hoping is that the artist can replace it with something a little stronger and/or sequence it with a little more embellishment, or collab with someone who can do so.

That's my major beef, but in a piece that's primarily piano & flute, it's significant. I'll also add that while there's a lot of dynamic contrast on the piano part, the loud parts are very uniformly loud, and could use a bit of a rebalance - triple forte is a great & powerful thing, but I think it's almost overused, here. This point is more subjective but again, the piece lives & dies by dynamics - they're clearly being focused on, there's good variation here already, but when it goes full bore, it stays there a little too long and loses some of the dynamics between individual notes... hopefully this makes sense.

I'd ditch the eagle cry at the end as well, or get something with a bit more fidelity - the sample employed has a noticeable bitrate reduction that makes it explicitly sound like a sample of an eagle as opposed to... an eagle. This is more of a nitpick, but it's also the last thing listeners are left with.

I don't pull vetoes often, especially on unanimous passes... but I think judges need to take a closer look here - I think the full promise of the piece hasn't been realized, and I think its current incarnation isn't quite good enough, primarily because of the imbalanced flute accompaniment circa 1'12".

Pieter knows I love him so hopefully he won't hate me too much

[Liontamer ⚖️]

So Dave checked this out and brought up a really good point that ended up changing my call. I mentioned before that the woodwind was a notable negative here, but it does end up being a larger negative than the panel felt.

The woodwind brought in at :12 was mixed too loudly, and the way it's positioned draws too much attention to the stilted sequencing.

The softer use of the pan flute at 1:12 didn't stand out to me until djp pointed it out, but listening again, the way it just sounds more like it was programmed at a fuller volume and then turned down -- rather than played lightly -- did sound too beginner-ish.

IMO, the overall dynamics/energy level of the composition were good enough; the piano writing carried it and was in play a lot more than that woodwind, and that's why I originally felt it was good to go. That said, djp's ultimately right on his call. If the sequencing and volume of that part is addressed, I'd sign off on this, but checking it out again, it's not ready for prime time on the front page.

NO (resubmit)