*NO* Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 'Valley of Lights'

[djpretzel]

I was on the verge of DRing this tbh, based on the first two minutes being cookie-cutter and repetitive... but the last minute & a half actually some stuff going on where SOME panel feedback is worthwhile. -djp

---

Hello ! I am Sieudiver and this is my first submission for OC ReMix. Thank you for listenning 

Contact information :

- ReMixer name : Sieudiver
- userid : 33337

Submission information :

- Name of game : The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
- Name of arrangement : Valley of Lights
- Name of the song arranged : Gerudo Valley
- Comments : I always loved this song, when I heard it again recently, it made me want to make an arrange, and I really felt like it would suit the Eurobeat genre.
Apart from the original track, I was greatly inspired by the song "Light Travel Distance" Remixed by RAYTO (yes it's a Touhou arrange ^^)
I also made a quick search, and I think there are no Eurobeat ReMixes that had been submitted yet, so it'd be cool to have one !

I hope I filled everything correctly, 
waiting for your answer !

[Gario]

Well, this arrangement goes pretty balls-to-the-walls all the way through, here. Four-to-the-floor, and proud of it, this really takes you for a ride, and it's a ride I actually enjoyed. As far as source usage, it stays pretty true to the source for the first half of the track (with little background flairs, to mix things up), and then it really opens up into some awesome material for the second half. Great use of subtractive arranging - dropping instruments can be just as effective as adding them, and you do a good job showing just how effective that can be.

Arrangement aside, though, the production really drags this track down. From the get-go, the master is very likely too loud, and the limiter that you use to compensate for the clipping that would come out of it causes distortion because of it. A mix that's too loud doesn't give you any room to mix it properly, so there are many moments where just too much is trying to be the lead at once, which makes for a messy mix. Listen to 2:47, for example - listen to how no instrument can really be pulled out of that, and it ends up just sounding like a sound wash. Moments like 0:17 are better (though not perfect); the lead stands out enough, but the other elements are easier to pick apart, and nothing really clashes with the other instruments to the point where a listener cannot distinguish the instruments.

The synths are very appropriate for the style, and you switch them up enough before any particular one gets boring. The drums sound repetitive, with the simple boom-tis throughout, but I suspect I'm actually missing something with them. The snare is virtually nonexistant, for example - I only caught it after a few listens. There could be a lot of cool things you're doing with the drums to keep things interesting, but other than the bass and a few snare fills and toms from time to time I simply don't hear the drums. You need to balance the other drum elements in the mix better.

The end of the track isn't very conclusive, as it just plays the source a few times then ends. An ending should close the arrangement off more convincingly than that.

The arrangement has a lot of good ideas, and the material is there for something really fun, but the production and mixing really prevent this from being everything that it could be. Remove the limiter and fix the levels so the mix doesn't redline, then push for volume with a limiter afterward. Also, mix your elements so the focal instruments are front and center, while the more supportive elements don't fight for space as much. Also, give this a more defined ending than it does. It's a lot of work, but I can see this being a decent resubmission, if the work to improve the production and mixing is put into it.

NO

[Chimpazilla]

LOUD.  Visually, this waveform resembles a sausage in the most profound way I've ever seen.  Listening, the bass and drums really get melted into the background under the lead saw and backing saws.  I don't hear any overcompression artifacts, but the track has zero dynamics and is exhausting as a result.  I have to agree with Gario that for the most part this is a wall of sound and a lot of your cool details are being lost in the din.

The arrangement is conservative in the first half, and varied more in the second half.  The arrangement is good and interesting.  Lots of fun details and ear candy.

I think I have to throw it back for one more pass at the mixing and mastering so it isn't so overwhelming.  I'm looking forward to hearing this again, though!

NO (resubmit please)

[Sir_NutS]

Yikes... ok man, you have to REALLY tone this down.  Just on those grounds we will have to reject it.  But to go a bit further on details on the production, it's very highs-focused and needs better eq'ing.  The transients on your synths feel too strong and get piercing, coupled with the slightly resonant mid-highs.  I think the mixing could be tighter, the synths feel slightly separate and dry at times, I think you can achieve a warmer mix while keeping the powerful energy by toning down the overall levels, and working from the ground up on balancing your mix, then adding your compressors but not to attain the maximum loudness possible but to give your track the proper contour, then you can proceed to maximize everything to loud, but not over-the-top loud levels.

I'll agree with Gario, good ideas on the arrangement front.  It's a bit conservative at first but it gets to play around with the original in different ways and there's some cool interplay between the different instruments.  At this point the production issues need to be reigned in before we can consider a pass.

NO

[Liontamer]

Pretty loud, but good energy. The synths here sound so generic, but otherwise this had a fun DDR feel to the arrangement approach. If only the soundscape wasn't squashed, like the others mentioned. The beats are fairly thick, but the bass kick pattern being so droning and plain was boring. Criticisms aside, I thought the original grace notes (e.g. :16-29 and more later on) were good. Melodically, it's not very interpretive, but the genre adaptation here works fine. The piano accents first used at :43 should have been more upfront, but were a good writing touch. With the verse again at 1:19, the writing was being recycled, but I thought the genre adaptation was good, so it wasn't a NO on arrangement yet, but something to watch for, so I see what djp was saying about this being repetitive.

The synths were more exposed at 1:45, so the attacks sounded awkward until 1:58, but overall it was a good dropoff section, particularly clearing out the beats from 1:57 and going for a gradual rebuild until 2:24. I thought this was all well-done. Everything past 1:45 made a stronger case for the arrangement being above the bar.

Good new original writing at 2:24. Though the electric guitar sample at 2:36 sounded pretty fake, it was produced and presented in a way where that didn't matter. I thought the track shouldn't have gone back to the bass thump being so droning and constant, but it didn't undermine the dynamics enough to affect my vote. At 3:02, the verse was a copy-pasta of the opening verse at :16, but it was only until 3:15 and more countermelodic writing had been added, so there was at least some difference. Really liked the interplay of the synth lead with the original writing underneath from 3:14-3:27; I see the ending being sudden, but that section at least provided contrast to what came before, so to me it felt like the track was winding down, and I didn't have a problem with that ending -- that felt like a personal taste criticism.

We've had other submissions where I felt I couldn't make out the part-writing well enough due to overcompression or overcrowding, and I just wasn't having enough of a problem with that despite observing similar issues to the NO voters, though it was on the borderline. I think the production could be improved, but the arrangement's creative enough and the individual elements distinct enough (despite some squashing) that I could live with this as is, and think it's OK. I definitely have no problem with the NO votes, and think they make a perfectly reasonable case, but I think comparing what works (arrangement creativity, energy, overall dynamics) vs. what doesn't (generic synths, observable crowding/squashing) tilts toward a YES despite the meaningful issues. I would have liked for the piano and guitar samples to not sound so fake, but the overall flow and style of the track was fine, and most importantly, the arrangement was creatively developed and reasonably executed.

Not the strongest YES, and I'd love for this to get some tweaks and improvements, but I didn't think the volume or compression were dealbreakers and I'm not making the perfect the enemy of the good with the arrangement turning out to be solid due to the second half. I'd go NO if I couldn't live with this version as is, but I can.

YES (borderline)

[MindWanderer]

I don't have much to add that the NO's haven't gone over already in detail.  Beyond the fact that this is painfully loud, there are instruments that deserve to be heard, and can't be.  The copy-paste of 0:16 - 0:41 to 1:20-1:45, while not a large portion of the mix, was unfortunate especially because the arrangement was promising to build up to something new and exciting there, and then didn't--and it's especially striking given that the second half of the remix has so much creativity in it, clearly you don't need to resort to copying to fill in space.  And I feel it's worth reiterating that this could really benefit from more of an ending; right now, it ends with what sounds like a brief riser, which leaves the listener hanging.

There's definitely a lot of creative stuff here, though, especially in the second half, and I'm hoping to hear more of it!

NO (resubmit)