*NO* Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow & Curse of Darkness 'Vampire'

[Chimpazilla]

Contact Information:
ReMixer name: ladyWildfire
real name: Elizabeth Carter
email address: 
website: https://soundcloud.com/ladywildfire, https://www.facebook.com/ladyWildfire/, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9uzIBogkhkGxjFBzMMNfwg
userid: 11659

Submission Information:
Name of games arranged: Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, Castlevania: Curse of Darkness
Name of arrangement: Vampire
Name of individual songs arranged: Abandoned Castle (AC), Forbidden Area (FA)

 

Source usage:
0:00 Intro guitar (FA) 

0:17 Intro vocals (FA)

0:22 choral vocals (FA) 

0:34 arpeggio synths (FA)

1:00 rhythmic synths (FA)

1:16 verse 1 (FA)

1:33 vocal segue (AC)

2:23 choral vocals (FA) (very abstracted)

2:56 chorus 2 (AC)

3:30 arpeggio synths (FA)

 

Notes: 

This remix is from Round 1 of the Castlevania: Cacophony of Incarnation remix competition. It was my first time experimenting with vocoded vocals and I plan to do more work with them in the future.

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2016 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Sir_NutS]

It's no secret that I'm a huge fan of the AoS and DoS soundtracks, so I may be a little biased here.  I think your arrangement is pretty good, great textures and ambience, but the vocoded vocals are a very big issue in this mix.  First, they have some very resonant peaks, and sound very nasal.  Also I can't tell what they're saying most of the time.  This is not too hard to fix though, I recommend you run a compressor on them to tame those peaks, or run an analyzer in solo mode and check which peaks have too much resonance (I'm seeing them around 5.5k and 6k, a big one specifically at 5.5k in many places).   I also think they could be a little less loud.

To increase clarity you can try using a vocoder setting with higher resolution or layering your own clean vocals on them, this works well if you spread the vocoded vocals in the stereo spectrum and leave the clean ones in the center.  You can run a pitch-correction device onthe clean vocals to keep them robotic if you wish, if they create too much contrast with the vocoded ones.  

I've said this before but, I think that if one's going to use vocoded vocals this heavily they need to be recognizable.  Using vocoded vocals that can't be recognized is totally ok but they fit better as a detail or flair, or in small doses.  I like to give "Talkbox Intended" as an example of using vocoders throughout a track the right way.

I could also advice to try to play with harmonies with your vocoded vocals in some sections, it could spice things up and keep it from feeling static.  

Another issue I have is with the structure, I don't feel like the mix ever reaches a peak or that there's a resolution, it feels like a large buildup that remains static.  I would've liked the track to reach climax around 1:50, which was a good opportunity to bring an energetic beat to drive things through.  There was another opportunity at 02:20 but I think it would've been better earlier.  

Other than that I liked your arrangement, and I think this are easy fixes.  Fixing structure may prove a bit problematic or may change the direction of the track too much, but I feel it's a bit too static atm, though other judges may feel otherwise.  For now though I would like to hear a revision, you're on the right track.

NO (resubmit)

[Gario]

Solid choice of sources (well, source - you had no say in the other one), and you pull them apart and put them back together again in a way that transforms it into something completely different. Full props for that - your handling of the source is great.

Your singing is solid, but the vocoded effects make it quite piercing. You should give the vocoding synth a nice lowpass and cut some of those extreme highs out of it. As was also mentioned by Sir_nutS, the lyrics are also rather difficult to understand. Upon a few listens, I actually really liked them - they have a sort of romance novel-like charm to them - but it's certainly difficult to understand.

I notice the lack of drums throughout a solid portion of the song (save for some light hats), and the use of only a bass drum later. I found that to be an odd choice, especially considering the complicated two-against-three rhythms that are playing against one another. I wonder why you chose not to introduce drums, as on its own the listener sometimes gets lost as to where the the beat is, or what the meter should be. It was a bit disorienting, for me.

While you don't have to include drums (that's a compositional choice), I'd suggest you consider it, as it was easy to get lost as to what you were doing in half of the track. A decent drum line would help make it easier for the listener to follow. The vocoded part hurts my ears with those highs, though, so be sure to fix that with a low pass. Sir_nutS seems to have some solid ideas for making the lyrics easier to understand so I'd defer to his advice on that part. I like it, and I hope to hear it again on the panel with those improvements.

NO

[Jivemaster]

Straight up, the vocoded vox - while cool, is very ear-piercing at the frequency range it occupies here. This is odd because the other elements sit fairly nicely. As the others I would've liked the vocals to be clearer, there are a number of techniques to achieve this including adding more vocoder bands or bleeding some of the original vocal in amongst the vocoded signal. The vocals are also mixed a little too loud compared to the other elements. Some harmonies would been nice to hear too in some sections.

Arrangement wise, the backing to the vocals is quite repetitive and a little loopy. The song keeps a fairly constant pace after it builds up from its starting point, and I felt it was a bit abrupt on its conclusion. I would've liked to hear the arrangement evolve a little more over time, perhaps with a more chorusy section featuring clean vocals or something.

A think there is a bit of work to be done to this - the mixing and vocal issues alone keep this from passing, but some more exploration of the source in your arrangement would be greatly welcomed.

NO