Sign in to follow this  
Chimpazilla

*NO* Final Fantasy 6 'All Your Espers Are Belong to Us'

Recommended Posts

Contact info

Remixer name: AntLion

Real name: Sean Simons

Email address:

User ID: 53342

Submission info

Name of game arranged: Final Fantasy VI

Name of arrangement: All Your Espers Are Belong To Us

Name of individual song arranged: All Your Espers Are Belong To Us (The original song name is "Another World of Beasts")

Comments: I'm really not sure if this is worthy of being on OCRemix given the crazy amount of talent on your site. I made this 3 years ago as a way of learning how to use Logic. It's pretty muddy sounding, and a little more metal / buttrock than I'd prefer. If it's not good enough to be hosted on OCRemix, no hard feelings. I'm a bit more skilled with recording and mixing these days, so hopefully I'll be able to submit better quality arrangements in the future.

Thanks

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

Edited by Liontamer
closed decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pretty conservative arrangement of this 7/8 source but I like the slow burn metal interpretation. Is it too conservative?

It could definitely be mixed better, the drums are really distant. The guitar work sounds good though. I'm going to withhold my vote until I see what others say on this. If this doesn't pass, I'm hopeful to hear his newer stuff as he has indicated that his mixing has improved. This is very promising!

edit 2/18/15: Listening again, I still really like this. It does have some issues that have been pointed out, the mixing could definitely be better and Larry has a point about half the song lacking a lead. Even so, this sounds really good. If this is a taste of things to come from you, color me interested, I can't wait to hear more from you. But please take the criticisms mentioned in this thread to heart! I gotta go with

YES

Edited by Chimpazilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pretty concerned during the first half of this track that it would be too conservative, given it follows the melody lines and backing parts almost verbatim. However, after that things branch out quite a bit in arranging the B section of the original with a simplified take on the melody and backing part, some original transitioning, and later riffing on the source chords.

Guitars sound super strong here and well performed. Drums are distant in the soundfield relative to the guitars as Kris mentioned, but it's not enough of a detriment to be a deal-breaker for me.

Ending was a bit of a letdown, TBH. Would've liked a little more work into resolving it.

Overall, solid work. Based on your submission letter, it sounds like you've only improved from here, so I'm really looking forward to hearing more from you.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehhh, I am not feeling this as much as Nutritious. The production shows its age here, with everything feeling just a bit muddy. Not a huge deal itself, but truthfully I'm just not finding much to latch onto with this arrangement for the first 1:30, which sits pretty comfortably in "cover" territory. The guitar tones are nice and the performances are adequate, but underwhelming in the sense that there's just not much interesting going on. I also felt like the drums were pretty much on autopilot for that first portion of the song - the hi-hats particularly start to sound annoying from 1:04-1:24.

From there, things get a bit more interesting. The rhythm work is more interpretive and the arrangement finally feels like it's building up to something cool and going somewhere. It wasn't until 2:14 that the song finally found a groove, and then it was over about 20 seconds later. The ending left things feeling unresolved, as Nutritious pointed out.

To me, there's just not enough interesting content going on here - given the short length of your remix, it's disappointing to see that the majority of it retreads the same steps as the source and it only really starts to get interpretive toward the very end.

I'd love to hear more work from you, as you indicate that your skills have improved since this was made, but to me, this submission isn't cutting it. Good luck with the rest of the vote!

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little light noise/hiss to start, but no big deal. OK, pretty grungy to start; diggin' it. Panning seems a bit wide, IMO, but not a big deal.

I'm about a minute in and not hearing too much interpretation besides the genre & time sig adaptations, though those sound good. Then there's a drop of the lead into a rebuilding section from 1:03-1:23, followed by a minimalist dropoff at 1:23. Then at 1:33... there's nothing going on melodically...

Where's the lead? :lol:

I liked the backing parts, but without any melodic to focus on from 1:03 all the way until 2:31 for the finish, you could reasonably argue that the second half just feels like a backing track with the lead's channel accidentally turned off. OK, score one for something I've never heard before in my 10 years on the panel; a track where half of it sounds like you literally turned off the lead for half the piece.

Anyway, the interpretation is creative enough, even if the second half's relative simplicity sans lead melody left it feeling empty. It's pretty unorthodox, but IMO you did fill out the track JUST ENOUGH with what was there, and nothing repeats, so I can just barely get behind it. The production was fine as well; nothing in here was a dealbreaker, so there's no meaningful issue on that level.

I could flip my vote if someone makes a compelling enough case on the second half lacking, but unorthodox isn't the same as dealbreaker. The interpretation was there in a subtractive sense for the second half, something that djpretzel will also point out can be a valid form of arrangement and interpretation. It squeaks by. Let's go.

YES (borderline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really torn on this track. Everyone so far has made compelling arguments for and against posting this, and I agree with all of it.

The drums are very distant and could use some emphasis. But like Nutritious said, I don't think they're far off enough to be a deal-breaker. If they were a bit more pronounced, it would be BETTER, but it's not like you can't hear them.

The guitar parts are mixed well and performed well.

There's no question of source usage--it's definitely all there, and what interpretation there is of it is done well. I particularly enjoyed the latter half.

Overall, this is pretty good. The problem is that, having worked on an arrangement of a very short track quite recently, I know that it's possible to generate some originality and variation from the source without deviating so far that it's unrecognizable, so as to add a bit more to this and give it a proper ending. As I was writing this critique, I found myself leaning more and more towards giving it a YES vote up until I started trying to justify the ending. But honestly, it just dies off at the end, and you could have done something more with it. It seems like the ideas ran out, and that's where the remix stopped. Furthermore, the source isn't particularly short, it's just simplistic. And the more simplistic something is, the more it lends itself to interpretation.

All of that aside, like I said, this is pretty good. If the ending came more gradually, like the build-up at the start of the track, I could give this a YES for sure, but for now...

NO (resubmit for sure)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm with Dain here as well. There's a lot of little things that aren't quite dealbreakers on their own here, but it's adding up to just under the bar for me. The distant drums and the pretty coverish beginnings, plus the very cut-off ending are what do it for me overall, but I also agree that there's a lot of mud going on in the mixing overall that could be cleaned up.

On an unrelated note, I feel like this source (and your mix in particular) could go really well with parts of the

. Just feel like it was worth a mention. :)

I'd love to hear this fixed up, and hear how you've improved over the past 3 years. Send this back and more!

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this source. So moody. I can see a defiant sneer unchanging

Your arrangement is badass. “slow burn” true dat. It is a little coverish at first, but I am enjoying the simmer. This breakdown down section ‘round 1:35 is so fkn sick! I definitely dig the track. Production quality is not pristine. Percussion is pretty buried/far away and the guitar tone is on the muddy side. Even tho there are these issues I have to pass because of sheer \m/

YES (borderline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have to agree with the NOs here in that the ending is just too abrupt for me to sign off on. Basically, all I want to hear is a finished song, and then I'm ready to YES it. Production improvements could happen, to be sure, but the song isn't bad as-is in that area.

NO (please resub!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think my vote is closest to Deia's. There isn't any one big problem here, but lots of smaller problems that add up to a NO. Percussion is distant, song is a little overcompressed, ending is anticlimactic, intro is a little too long, 1:34-2:04 could have more going on in it. Please keep in mind that there is a LOT going right here. The arrangement concept is great, performance is great, production is solid. You have a good knack for zigging when I expected you to zag. It would be a shame not to make another version of this with our comments in mind.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm not feeling this. Performance is good but the arrangement is not doing it for me. More than half the song feels like an extended intro. The piece builds to something and then once we finally get something meaty, it ends very soon after. Needs more.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great guitar tones, nice playing. Mixing is ok, but could be clearer for sure - particularly the snare which sometimes gets lost in the mix almost in its entirety at times (especially at 1:39 onwards). I understand big overpowering guitars go hand in hand with the genre, but this doesn't mean other elements have to suffer. Giving your drums more clarity would really strengthen the mix.

I was a little disappointed in the lack of variation in the arrangement. I think some lead guitar every now and then would help build more interest as the track progresses. I'm not saying this is an absolute must, but if I had heard this as a WIP that would've been my first suggestion.

I'm not against the abrupt ending as much as some the others - these kinds of tracks lend themselves to a cut off ending, but building up more at the end before your cut off would be more impactful. Just another suggestion.

Overall I'm going to lean towards the NO camp for this one. The arrangement to me is somewhat lacking in interest, but the main thing is the mixing. I think your mixing needs some tweaks to bring clarity to the mix before we can let it through. You might be able to achieve this by running a slight high-pass filter across tthe guitars, and make a dip in the guitar mids to let the snare through. I'm more inclined to be on board if things are more audible.

NO (please resub)

Edited by Jivemaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this