Sign in to follow this  
Chimpazilla

*NO* Final Fantasy 2 'Variations de Chocobo'

Recommended Posts

 

  • Re mixer Name: Wiesty (Arrangement) XPRTNovice (Saxophones)
  • Real Name: Dylan Wiest, Joe Zieja
  • Email Address: 
  • User ID: 11643, 12064
  • Name of game(s) arranged: Final Fantasy II
  • Name of arrangement: Variations de Chocobo
  • Name of individual song(s) arranged: Chocobo Theme

Hello! This is an arrangement of the Chocobo theme I originally arranged as bonus content for the FFVII web series that was in development. It was originally written as a string quartet, but seeing as how I had no connections to string players I arranged it for saxophone quartet and asked Joe to record the quartet. The concept for this piece goes way back when I was faced with whether or not to do a chocobo remix for the a project. My dilemma was remixing a song that had already been remixed dozens of times already, by the original composer. Therefore I decided to write in a sort of theme and variations pieces, hence "Variations de Chocobo". The piece touches on many different musical eras. It starts with the original theme followed by a rag time variation, a jazz variation, and finally a dance-pop variation. Enjoy!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an amazing concept to do a quartet, and Joe sounds great as his very own saxophone quartet.  Odd that the track is mastered so quietly, it never gets louder than -8db.  The big issue here though is that this is not one track, but several.  They are basically all the same track too, same instrumentation concept but in different styles.  This is cute and probably works in context of a bonus for an album or web series, but not for a standalone OCR track.

 

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cute! Feels like there are some tuning/intonation issues, most noticeably in the first song. I really love the concept, but the execution needs some work for OCR status. This is basically 4 separate arrangements pasted together into one track, quite literally. There is no transition between them. It just starts and ends. Personally, I'd take one of these concepts, flesh it out a little and submit it. Hell, you could do it with all 4 if you wanted. As it stands, very cool, its just not right for OCR. 

 

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I have to cosign with the above two judges - no disrespect intended to your concept or the quality of the execution, and thankfully I know that neither of you will be discouraged from contributing in the future because of this, but the arrangement structure just isn't what we're looking for. Looking forward to more collabs from you guys in the future, though!

 

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just quoting the Standards to drive the point home for anyone reading:

 

3. Acceptable Source Material

 

2. Submissions incorporating more than one source are allowed, but are not given special consideration or leniency with regard to the submission standards.

  • Your submission must have a strong focus and direction. Medleys must sound like a single song, not multiple songs pasted together.

Even when it's not an actual medley in terms of source usage, I feel this holds true as far as a (purposefully) disjointed structure. Interesting, but a very straightforward NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kris looped me in on Dylan's request to revisit this. Does anyone have a different opinion on their vote based on this?

 

 

Weisty (11/9) said:

Hey Chimpzilla,

I just wanted to send a quick message in regards to mine and XPRTNovice's recently rejected tune Variations De Chocobo.

If the tune was rejected in terms of mastering as pointed out, that can be fixed. However, I have to contest the notion that the tune is simple 4 tunes pasted together. I followed a theme and variations form very prominent in classical music as this was the feel I was going for. I feel that rejecting this as a form would be simply closing off the remix community to a very distinct style/history of music. Multi movement pieces are pretty essential and common in classical/contemporary music routed in western classical art.

Also, I would have to point out other remixes in a similar style such as Team Gato by Mustin/Dale North http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00313

I will respect your decision should it remain the same, but I will ask for reconsideration on the basis of style/genre. I was once told that jazz was not the best genre for Remixes because its main feature was improvising and not the arrangement itself. I'm currently running the OC Jazz collective and so far we've had a pretty good reception. Our first tune featured 2:30 of improvisation, nearly 50% of the song. While this would normally be considered a stretch on developing source material, it cannot be ignored that it is the main and distinguishing feature in Jazz. Likewise, using forms and typically found in classical music such as Theme and Variations should be permitted when arranging in the respective style. (See link below).

 

Thank you for your consideration.

Edited by Liontamer
updated link for YouTube video (previous once since removed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that Twinkle Twinkle track is gorgeous.  While I see the similarities in structure between this track and yours, I find that the Twinkle Twinkle track tends to build and ebb, the dynamics are all over the place yet it sounds cohesive overall.  The playing style isn't so different from movement to movement that it feels choppy, which I feel is the case in your track.  In your track, there are definite stops and starts, and each start brings a brand new style although the instrumentation is the same.  Each section of your track has a very definite OUTRO so I feel like it really doesn't flow.  In Twinkle Twinkle, there is somewhat of a finality to each section, but nothing I would consider an OUTRO, more of a purposeful pause for the listener to be ready for something slightly different.  By comparison, your track still sounds like four really separate ideas pasted together.

 

I do see your argument for getting your track posted based on this stylistic similarity.  While Joe's playing is super good and competent, I personally don't find this stop/start style enjoyable, to be honest.

 

Perhaps djp should weigh in on this one.  If we do decide to accept this track, it will be setting a precedent for the site.

 

sorry still NO for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took another listen and Kris' justification is pretty spot-on. I don't have much else to offer but to co-sign with her opinions. Sorry guys :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2015 at 2:17 PM, Liontamer said:

If the tune was rejected in terms of mastering as pointed out, that can be fixed. However, I have to contest the notion that the tune is simple 4 tunes pasted together. I followed a theme and variations form very prominent in classical music as this was the feel I was going for. I feel that rejecting this as a form would be simply closing off the remix community to a very distinct style/history of music. Multi movement pieces are pretty essential and common in classical/contemporary music routed in western classical art.

I have to agree in some level with the artist here,  Multi-movement pieces, such as a concerto, don't necessarily need to segue into each other.  The coda CAN have finality to it.  A very well known example would be Moonlight Sonata.


The remix in question does follow the rules of multi-movement pieces (as far as I'm aware, would like someone with better classical knowledge to chime in on this).  Movements don't have to coincide in key, or even marking.  Some may be played in Allegro while the next in Grave (although this is quite a dichotomy).  Movements though, are considered self-contained pieces of music, in modern terms it could be said that each is a separate song.  I'm not sure if we allow multi-movement compositions and I think it's there where the question lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! I finally have access to the track, so I can share my thoughts on it (Hello, 2017!).

Kris is spot on, as far as the difference between this track and the classical form of variations: variations as a form sounds like one cohesive piece which transforms over time as it repeats. A very clever... er, variation of the variation form can be set so that it's nearly imperceptible that it's actually a variations form at all - Brahms did this, for example, for his Symphony no. 4, 4th movement. If there is perceptible space between the tracks then this is NOT variations as a form, but rather it's a series of songs that are variations of one source. This is not the same thing, and it's where the argument that we're discriminating against a genre or form goes flat. If they want to create multiple well produced tracks that are indeed variations of the same source they should be posted individually.

If Wiesty and XPRTNovice wanted to correct this and transform it into one track, they could do so easily: don't lose the beat, keep playing through each variation without pause. The overall composition of the setup would sew the tracks together, and the fact that the source is very recognizable would mitigate the lack of transition for the most part. That's how variations as a form works, after all. It's not a difficult fix, though posting these as multiple tracks would work alright, as well.

As for Mike's concern over how multi-movement concertos and symphonies work, we already have a precedent on the site as to how we handle it in the Cantata for Dancing series of tracks: we post each movement as a stand alone track. People perform individual movements all the time without performing the entirety of the song (Moonlight Sonata is famous for this - the first movement is performed all of the time without the other two movements), so I see absolutely no issue with handling tracks like this in a similar manner.

Those are my thoughts on it, based on my knowledge of the form. For what it's worth, due to prior observations from the judges...

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I discussed this with DjP, he agrees with the overall consensus of the judges here - the track sounds like multiple tracks on the same sound file, so either the arrangement should be handled more like a single song, like Kris observed (without distinct pauses), or separated into four submissions and handled as four different tracks. I'm sure this can be discussed further in the future if a more cohesive variations form track comes into play, but in this case it's a closed deal.

Share this post


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