DragonAvenger Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Contact Information Username: timaeus222 Name: Truong-Son Nguyen http://soundcloud.com/timaeus222 http://tproductions.comeze.com/ ID: 39971 Submission Information Game: Mega Man X, Mega Man X4 ReMix Title: Flight of the Peacock Consoles/Platforms: SNES (X), [PlayStation, PSN, Saturn, Windows, Mobile] (X4) OST Composers: Toshihiko Horiyama (X4), [Setsuo Yamamoto, Makoto Tomozawa, Yuki Iwai, Yuko Takehara, Toshihiko Horiyama] (X) Sources: Cyber Peacock (X4), {Sigma Fortress 2, or Observatory Hall} (X) [attached] ReMix: (VBR1) (WAV) Comments: "As it turns out, in the beginning of the SFRG 2015 compo, I wasn't that happy with using Cyber Peacock's theme. Over the course of the compo though, the track really grew on me. Like a good fungus! By the time Round 7 began, I wanted to do something that people probably wouldn't expect me to do (mostly because stuff I've done that is even remotely cinematic or orchestral has not been released at the time of this writing :P). I tend to lean towards doing something energetic, sometimes with elaborate sound design. This time, I set out for an orchestral arrangement with a rhythmic core, using a lot of harp, percussive work, and careful partwriting that keeps the melody at the forefront using instruments that you normally don't hear at the front. The prominent percussion is mostly Rhapsody Orchestral Percussion (definitely would recommend), which I especially loved using for the drum breakdown in the middle; the breakdown was inspired by Brad Jerkins, one of the guys whom I think writes some really good audio demos for Impact Soundworks libraries. I finished the core arrangement in roughly three days, and spent the rest of the week adding variation and polishing it up!" Extra Info: Rough Source Breakdown: 0:11 - 0:33 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27) 0:34 - 0:55 = Sigma Fortress 2 (0:15 - 0:29) 0:58 - 1:01, 1:04 - 1:07 = Sigma Fortress 2 (0:46 - 0:48) 1:08 - 1:20 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27) layered with Sigma Fortress 2 (0:46 - 0:48) [darker mood] 1:27 - 1:34 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27) [darker mood] 1:45 - 2:08 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27) 2:08 - 2:31 = Sigma Fortress 2 (0:15 - 0:29) 2:31 - 2:50 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27) [darker mood] 11 + 21 + 3 + 3 + 12 + 7 + 23 + 23 + 19 = 122/172 secs = ~71% 22 + 12 + 7 + 23 + 19 = 83/172 secs = ~48% Cyber Peacock 21 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 23 = 58/172 = ~34% Sigma Fortress 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted April 13, 2016 Author Share Posted April 13, 2016 Had to listen to this one a few times to really hear the source connections. I'm a bit on the fence here, because the connections ARE there, but they are not the most recognizable without some careful listening. That being said, I found this to be pretty creative in regards to really changing up the style and soundscape of both the original tracks. Production-wise everything sounded clear, and the soundscape was fun, but I felt some sections seemed a bit mechanical, especially the string stabs. Not a deal-breaker, just a note. YES timaeus222 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Well, that's certainly different. Giving it a careful listen, the source is certainly there - but only just. You hide the melody and themes of the source behind quite a bit of orchestration, and you change up the harmonies completely. The sources are recognizable, though, and just where you timestamp it, too (thanks for that, btw). A suggestion for future arrangements, though, if you go a similar route: don't mix the theme carrying portions into the background too much. It's not only the judges that have to recognize the source, but also whomever is listening to it if/when it gets posted on the site. The production is acceptable, and most of your instruments are humanized well enough. Not too much that I can add to what Deia said on that front. Clever use of the source overall. Nice work on transforming the sources in this manner, it keeps us on our toes, over here. YES timaeus222 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 16 hours ago, Gario said: Well, that's certainly different. Giving it a careful listen, the source is certainly there - but only just. You hide the melody and themes of the source behind quite a bit of orchestration, and you change up the harmonies completely. The sources are recognizable, though, and just where you timestamp it, too (thanks for that, btw). A suggestion for future arrangements, though, if you go a similar route: don't mix the theme carrying portions into the background too much. It's not only the judges that have to recognize the source, but also whomever is listening to it if/when it gets posted on the site. The production is acceptable, and most of your instruments are humanized well enough. Not too much that I can add to what Deia said on that front. Clever use of the source overall. Nice work on transforming the sources in this manner, it keeps us on our toes, over here. YES ^Quote Vote^ (tm) Gario nailed it. It's really nice to hear this style from timaeus, the track itself is really nice. I'm not having any issues with humanization, the harp sequencing is a tad stiff but I think it's fine. The production is up to your usual awesome standards and this sounds great. I have to agree with Gario that you're almost too good at disguising the source(s). You're super good at self-policing in terms of source use, and you have the most detailed timestamping of anyone ever, and that is appreciated! I'm not familiar with these sources at all, so checking your source use is particularly difficult for me. I'm listening very carefully to both sources and your mix now, and it seems accurate, it's just a bit of a mind exercise to confirm. Very nice track. YES timaeus222 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I wanted to quote-vote Gario but Kris beat me to it. Nothing much else to say, I remember this from the competition, and I thought it was pretty good back then. Solid production, but I have to agree with the others on the tenuous relation to the source, I'm familiar with most mmx songs and even I have difficulties making the connection. I'm very sure that this song will have some people scratching their heads in confusion, but we can't argue the source is there however disguised. YES timaeus222 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 I was actually surprised to learn that the other judges had a hard time hearing the sources here. The timing is slightly altered and the harmonies changed completely, but the progression of the notes in the melody is basically identical and up-front. I'll echo Deia's criticism of the strings, and I wasn't the biggest fan of the humanization of the brass, either, but they're certainly good enough. If I had one major criticism, it's that the section from 0:58-1:22 is really disparate with the rest of the piece. I get that in this "flight," that's supposed to represent flying through a storm or something, but the transition into that section was a little too abrupt to really sell it. I kind of get the transition out of it, though; I can imagine this peacock getting driven underwater or something, and emerging into the light at 1:34, but again that could have been a little clearer, if that was indeed the intent. Anyway, great stuff, wonderful integration of the two completely disparate themes, and an easy YES timaeus222 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts