Sign in to follow this  
Chimpazilla

*NO* Final Fantasy 7 'Cigar, Spear, and Sky'

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, cannot believe it's been six freaking years since I submitted something to the site. Details...

 

Remixer: CarnCarby

Real name: Ryan Humphrey

email: 

userid: 4794

 

Game: Final Fantasy VII

Arrangement: Cigar, Spear, and Sky

Source Songs: Cid's Theme (if it matters, it also cribs very small pieces from "Steal the Tiny Bronco!" and "Launching a Dream Into Space", but it's intended to be primarily Cid).

 

File link: 

 

Comments: Okay, so this has been kicking around on my hard drive literally for years and I decided it was time to get it finished and sent off. The goal was primarily to try copying Thomas Newman's style. But I couldn't do a whole thing with Cid's theme and not have at least one bold statement of the iconic melody, so there's that; but then I felt like we had to actually earn that payoff, and so there's a longer build that's less Newman and more generic orchestral (plus a bass line out of Vaughan Williams's 5th? I don't even know; like I said, this project is old). At any rate, it got bigger than I'd originally anticipated. I think it still hangs together, but I leave it to you to be the judges of that.

 

Thanks for all your work, folks! Love that this site is still going strong.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

Edited by Liontamer
closed decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the softer sections of this mix are reeeeeeeally quiet for my taste, but the track has amazing dynamics.  Clearly this was put together with a huge amount of skill.  But I'm not really hearing that much source.  I hear Cid's theme from 0:32-0:54 but it's quite a loose interpretation.  There's a ton of gorgeous original writing here and this is a beautiful, emotional mix.  From 1:54-2:10, is that source?  How about 2:10-2:28?  I hear Cid again from 3:21-3:30, loud and clear... but after that, we are into this Newman-esque original territory.  This has to be a NO vote unless someone can point out source to me that I don't hear.  Somebody help meh....

 

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • From 1:54-2:10, is that source?
    • Sounds like the Cid chorus to me
  • How about 2:10-2:28?  
    • Sounds like Cid chorus chopped in half and turned into a longer phrase, filling space

We need Larry's stopwatch, but to me the "glue" holding this together does feel interpretive, making connections to the source, of varying degrees of obviousness.

 

Sounds like Road to Perdition or Angels in America at times, both great Newman scores.

 

It's definitely liberal, but I'm definitely hearing connections. I don't have time to stopwatch atm, so:

 

YES (Assuming source usage checks out!)

 

Kris, you'd change to YES as well if you got a source breakdown that shows the usage, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I promised my leet FF7 OST knowledge, so here it is:

 

Green for definite

Orange for uncertain

Red for no idea (might be wrong, sorry if so Ryan)

 

0:00 to 0:35 mostly soundscaping far as I can tell
00:35 - 1:17 very loosely based on the first 4 notes of cid's theme
1:17-1:57 no idea
1:57-2:15 melody is start of cid's theme
2:15-2:32 is sort of sending a dream (0:22-0:42) in the way the melody rises, only picked up on by extrapolating the next melody backkwards
2:32-2:48 is sending a dream extrapolated (0:42-1:00)
2:48-3:26 is very loosely little bronco takes flight
3:26-3:39 hot damn it's cid's theme
3:39-4:12 no idea
4:12-4:42 mucking about very loosely with cid melody (1:08)
4:42-5:03 no idea
5:03-5:30 cid's theme melody, pretty clear (1:03ish)
5:30-5:55 very loosely based on the first 4 notes of cid's theme
5:55-6:19 I think is actually a cheeky reference to the intro of lifestream, the notes match up (0:22 on), if so this is very clever, it's even thematically correct as it's the first tease of the idea of going into space :P
 
I make that:
3:00 of identifiable
1:11 of sort of but hard to tell
2:09 of not sure at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will come back to this later, but I'm coming up a bit light. I need at least need 188.5 seconds of overt source usage for the source tunes to be dominant in the arrangement:

 

:32-1:05.75, 1:53.75-2:38.5, 2:40.5-2:57 ("Bronco," quiet), 3:21.5-3:29, 3:35.5-3:38.5, 4:11.5-4:30, 4:33.5-4:35.5, 4:59-5:18, 5:19.5-5:41 = 165.5 seconds or 43.89%

 

I get why Cain mentioned the similarity with "Lifestream"/"Opening Theme" from 5:55 until the end, but the 4-note pattern isn't the same or transposed, so I'm not counting it.

 

It's pretty liberal, but it's worth checking with Ryan on what else may not have been obvious source use. I reserve judgement for now, but it's a NO if more explicit connections don't come to light.

EDIT (12/9): Sorry for the holdup. Normally I just go NO, with the caveat that if it did in fact check out, I could revise my vote. But this sounded so great that I wasn't comfortable dropping a NO vote on it at the time, and hoped something more would be uncovered. That said, no one else is hearing the source theme used enough, and IMO, original "glue" writing being seamlessly written alongside an arranged source, isn't a compelling reason to approve something on actual source usage being dominant per the requirements of the Standards.

While an obviously cool listen, this doesn't pass the arrangement standards on source usage. Again, if we're wrong, Ryan, point out the explicit A-to-B connections from source tune to arrangement that we're missing, and we can revisit this. Otherwise, if you're willing to revise it, more source tune usage would nudge this up to flipping all of these votes and getting it passed.

Edited by Liontamer
added NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like it could fit into a movie soundtrack. Really enjoying the instrumentation and the genre approach here. Unfortunately I'm also not hearing the connections we need to give this a pass in regards to source usage. I'd definitely like to hear some revisions to make the usage more overt. Please send this one back!

No (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well what do we have here...

 

gorgeous arrangement penned with an undeniable skill. dynamic transitions move the listener from one emotive progression to the next. well done. the source is liberally interpreted but what ought to be noted is that the original parts feel like natural progressions out of the source so while some stretches are not directly arrangements of source, it is so distinctly inspired by it that it feels natural. that said, that very question is still going to hold this thing at knife's point until it is resolved whether there is enough source material to pass this spatially arousing and engaging trip through Gaia in an airship

as others have said, it is a YES for me if so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this needs to be normalized a bit, but it's really nicely sequenced and has a really good mood. More of an issue to me is the difficult to place source. I think the best way to handle this would be to go throughout and sprinkle some tiny motifs throughout. 

 

It's a fantastic piece of music and it's expertly put together, but it's a little bit too liberal for me to give it a pass, due to dominant source. I hope that you will consider adding a bit more prominent theme use into it, because it'd be great to feature this on the site. :-)

 

No, please resubmit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely production, and an enjoyable arrangement. The sections feel cohesive, and fit together nicely.

 

I can certainly hear parts of the original source in your track, but not in all the areas that have been identified above. On first listen I thought there were good chunks of source littered throughout, however saying that I'm not going to go against the source math above, because it did feel like a lose 50/50 to me.

 

The source usage ratio is always a tough one - this is one of those times where it'd would've been safer for your track to lean on the side of caution and make more clear use of verbatim source here and there to break any doubts on source usage being met.

 

At this point, I agree with the others that source is really the key element holding this back (unless proven otherwise of course), which is a shame as this is a great mix deserving posting.

 

NO

Share this post


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