Palpable Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Can you guys judge "Temporal Duality" from the Sonic CD album please? The title track, I guess. Source: 0:04 - 0:39 in the remix with the voice is supposed to be the voice from the source at 0:00, but not in the weird hard-to-figure-out pitchiness. You also hear that melody on the piano. 0:39 - 1:05 is based on 0:16 in the source. Part of the "melody" is turned into the staccato strings panned leftish, the other part of the melody is still on the piano, listen for the high notes at 0:42 and you will hear it. 1:14 - 1:58 is the same melody from 0:16 with a different treatment.. first on ePiano thing, then on piano. 1:58 - 2:32 is basically the same as the first section, with the voice, but vibes now instead of piano playing the source behind the voice 2:41 - 2:55 the same melody played on lead violin, over original piano, followed by an original solo after 2:55 3:11 - 4:07 or so... the melody from 0:16 in the source, played on various leads, plus you've got the voice in there from the first part again There was also the part in the source at 1:11 that is similar to a lot of the strings (disharmonic) and the undampened kick drum (not timpani) used in the remix. "For the Sonic CD album, instead of making the symphonic metal that was expected, I chose to follow a road less traveled artistically (at least in my repertoire), which was more ambient and disharmonic. I made a lot of mistakes, and structurally went less avant-garde than I had in mind, but still consider this one of my most creative arrangements. With live drums (including an undampened kick drum for the massive BWOMPS) and some tambourine and other stuff, I think the song has great subtlety but also a massive strength to it for some of the crescendos." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 This song is close to the borderline on multiple fronts. Let's take a look at source usage first. The voice which Brandon claims in used in the original was modified too much to be counted. It's only a three-note phrase and now the intervals are different. Definitely stretched too far IMO. The main melody can be heard from 0:39-1:05, 1:14-1:58, 2:41-2:55, and 3:11-4:07 for a total of 140/273 seconds, so that barely puts it above 50%. Next, the production. This kind of moody, cinematic style is a little outside of Brandon's wheelhouse but I think he did a pretty good job here with the exception of the violin lead used at 2:41. That instrument was a little too cheap sounding compared to the rest but it thankfully only gets used for a few measures. There's also some uneven sequencing here and there (staccato strings at 0:40, some of the percussion in the outro) but nothing terrible. Lastly, we have the writing itself. The harmonic changes don't always work, but for the most part it maintains a good, unsettling dissonance rather than a cover your ears kind of dissonance. It's close vote overall but I'm putting it in Brandon's favor. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I can sign off on Palp's source breakdown. The three note pattern is too much of a stretch to call it a connection to the source vocals. Actually, I feel like I can sign off on pretty much his entire vote. Overall, the orchestral elements are well sequenced and produced. I'll add that I felt like the piano at 2:32 sounded a little out of place - both in how it sits in the mix and how it's rigidly sequenced. It sounds like it should be pushed back with some reverb to sit better with the other "wetter" elements. Paired with the violin lead, this is probably the weakest part of the mix. Still, as a whole package, far more production elements worked than didn't work. The arrangement does pass muster for source usage (if barely). I think it's good to go. YES man I'd love to have access to samples like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Moody tracks can be incredibly tricky - you can easily fall into the trap of the original source tune being lost, or things can become too dissonant to be enjoyable. As far as your track goes, I feel you have walked that fine line and hit the mark on multiple counts. I was initially worried when I couldn't hear any source tune for the first half minute or so, but once various source elements entered, my worries were lifted for the most part. While some of the sounds could be better (some parts such as the piano don't sound as realistic velocity/quantisation wise compared to the other instruments), the sum of all elements creates an interesting soundscape, and you have placed your mark on the source in a different way to your previous work, which is always a great thing IMO. To me this mix is a great example of a remixer taking the unsafe route to a remix and managing to pull it off. It would have been very tempting/easy to go for a more predictable heavy rock style mix for this source, so it's refreshing to hear a more creative slant on the original here. Production wise everything feels pretty solid to me. When the different elements come in and out I found the panning to be sometimes a little off for my taste (too far out or too close to centre), but nothing I would mark the track down on. Overall I find this mix to be a very interesting experiment. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Wow yeah, that vocal bit in the source is way too nebulous to count for anything! Still I like the way it is represented here. I hear the source in the mix, it's very highly interpreted but I think Palpable's calculations are accurate. That out of the way, I really am enjoying this moody mix. I have no issues with the production, each instrument feels purposeful and has it's own impact. I love the growly piano. The dissonance is ace. I like it. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts