Jump to content

OCR02993 - *YES* Phantasy Star 2 'Take Turns' *RESUB*


Recommended Posts

previous decision

Contact Information

Your ReMixer name

Byproduct

Your real name

Juhana Honkanen

Your email address

Your website

http://byproductmusic.net

Your userid (number, not name) on our forums, found by viewing your forum profile

15221

---

Name of game(s) arranged

Phantasy Star II

Name of arrangement

Take Turns

Name of individual song(s) arranged

Rise or Fall

Link to the original soundtrack (if it is not one of the sound archives already available on the site)

http://ocremix.org/song/14844

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

An exercise in making a 54-second song into a 5 1/2 -minute one - inspired by a comment saying the original track is too short for remixing. :)

Many thanks for the feedback at the forums - extra big 1up to timaeus222 and Elrinth.

This is a resub. (Judges' decision thread here: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=45850 ) As per the judges' comments, it has much less compression, it's slightly less bright, and has more sections with less leads and drums. Most notably after 1:25 and 3:35, but there are some other changes and tweaks and increased variation here and there as well.

Edited by Palpable
Link to post
Share on other sites

It always makes me happy to see a resubmit that really takes our advice into consideration. You basically did exactly what we suggested - reduce compression, add more variety with sections - and I think the song is a lot stronger for it. 5:41 is still a little long for what this song offers, and I wish that the song didn't go right back into a repetition of the first couple sections near the end, but this is worth posting.

YES

Link to post
Share on other sites

This version is much better. Vinnie is right, you did take all our advice into account and it shows. There's more dynamic variation now. I still find that main lead a bit bright and fatiguing, but there are other softer sections that provide a brief respite from it. I agree with Vinnie it's a bit long overall. Still, it's a good track.

YES

Link to post
Share on other sites

The intro directly sampled the original track, and switched over into actual arrangement at :14. Nice nod to the original. The soundscape was loud & cluttered during the densest portions, but not bad enough to drag this down to NO.

There was a dropoff at 1:24, followed by driving beats coming back at 1:36 with some instruments dropping out, followed by another drop and rebuild at 1:50 all with beat changeups, then going back to the beats of the verse with the guitar soloing over it at 2:13 and having the guitar over the chorus at 2:37 all the way until 3:23.

2:14 segued into some original soloing with occasional pieces of the melody followed by the chorus melody. Again during the densest parts here, the parts could have been EQed a bit for some better separation, but it wasn't a huge deal by any means.

Then there's another drop at 3:35 until 4:01's copy-pasta raised the intensity back up. Really liked the chiptune-ish stuff from 3:35-4:01. Pretty good use of textural dropoffs and buildups to provide variation with the treatment of the source melody.

The arrangement felt recycled at 4:01, but it was only for about 40 seconds or so, and the final minute was a good conclusion. I didn't hear the first version that didn't make it, but this definitely had things firing on all cylinders now. Really great energy here, and a very memorable take on the source tune; I definitely hope we hear more from you! Welcome aboard, Juhana! :-)

YES

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I was a tad worried when I heard the sample from the original in the intro, but you kept it short so we good.

The rhythm guitars underneath really bring the energy to this track.

One could argue this is a conservative take on the original melody lines and sound choices, but there is a lot of care given in the writing details and dynamic contrasts, which sets this apart. Things continue to branch out after the halfway mark, which I like. The pseudo fakeout fade ending at 3:35-3:58 was a nice touch.

This is good stuff. Great mix.

YES

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Super high energy in this mix! There's quite a lot going on at times, and while it does get a little cluttered in some of the busiest sections, I don't feel like it's a huge detractor to the overall piece. Love the fake-out ending there, nice touch. If I had to critique something that hasn't been mentioned, I might say that the soloing feels a little stiff at first, and could be humanized a little more. Nice work!

YES

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Because this is a resub you've gone through a lot for this already, so I'll ease up a bit.

As far as the arrangement goes, the source tune is clearly there, and you've done a few bits and pieces to make it your own across the arrangement, including some soloing. While I would have liked to see a little more variation, it's not a deal breaker.

Production wise, I felt the track was a little thin. The individual elements also feel a little too compressed, blending into each other. This combination of problems is making it difficult for me to hear all the stuff in the background you have there, so my ear is drawn to the lead synth and left there for most of the song. You've done a lot of hard work on those background elements, it would be great to hear them more clearly. Playing with some panning, EQ, easing off the high pass filters or a combination of those would help bring out these elements. All the frequencies are having a party in the mid range, don't be afraid to send some downstairs or onto the roof.

Overall not bad. I just ask that you consider some of my points above for future mixes.

YES

Edited by Jivemaster
Link to post
Share on other sites

This track has some mud in the mid-range. There is a lack of definition in the guitarish rhythmic synths. There is also too much compression on everything, so the mix has an abrasive quality.

I am hearing a lot of nice subtleties in those mid-range synth patches, but they’re being obscured by the mud. I would suggest working the mix to bring out definition in these sounds. Some precise EQ cuts & more subtle compression would go a long way in cleaning up and clarifying your mix.

Your percussion sounds are not too bad, but they are and mostly crammed into the mid-range, so they are contributing to the muddiness.

The percussion rubato at 5:00 doesn’t quite work. It’s a bold move (which I respect), but it ends up sounding awkward to me

Production gripes aside, you’ve got cool lead patches, a powerful driving vibe, and the source usage is there along with tasteful ornamentation & reinterpretation. Unfortunately, The production quality makes me say

NO (borderline)

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO (borderline as hell)

This one is so borderline, it’s ridiculous. I went back and forth on it for a while. Since I’m having a hard time trying to phrase my reasoning into a coherent paragraph, let me just rattle off a few things, list-style:

1.) Arrangement is pretty good. It doesn’t take many liberties with the original, so it’s instantly recognizable. However, my complaint is that the arrangement isn’t interesting enough to warrant the length. At nearly 6 minutes long, you could have done away with some of the vamping (like near the 3:25 mark) by using shorter transitions. There's notably a moment right after that at 3:35 where I thought the song was over, but then it repeated again. At the same time, I didn't think it needed to. Kinda like the extra endings at the end of Return of the King.

2.) There’s a lack of dynamic contrast. The whole song is pretty much just LOUD GO GO GO WALL OF SOUND, and it gets tiring very quickly. I think a huge part of the problem here is that a lot of the timbres are nearly identical, whether it’s because of the mastering or just the synth textures used. For example, during the main theme of the song, I can hear there’s guitar in there somewhere, but it’s nearly impossible to make it out clearly.

3.) On the subject of mastering and production quality, it’s mostly good, but as alluded to in the above point, it’s noisy. Again, I’m not sure if that’s because it’s just really sharp in the high range or because a lot of the sounds blend together and/or mask each other, but…

Honestly, this is pretty damn good as it is. But I feel like there's just some really quick edits/tweaks that could be made to make it even better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...