Liontamer Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Hello there, As i´m a new remixer i can give you some info: ReMixer name: Patriarch K Email: Patriarch.K@gmail.com Here´s a remix i made from the game Ultima 5 (Stones): Name of Remix: Lord British Lullaby Name of game: Ultima 5 - Warriors of Destiny Name of individual song: Stones Composed by: David R. Watson (http://www.answers.com/topic/david-r-watson) I don´t think it was Kenneth W. Arnold who wrote the song stones. System: Commodore 64 Copyright: Origin Link to original: http://www.vgmusic.com/music/computer/commodore/commodore/stones5.mid I was playing my accordion and suddenly i made a sweet little melody. I decided to make a version on this on the computer in a more "soft" way and so i did. When i had made about a minute on the song i realized that i could use the Ultima song with the chords that i used and so i did. The result of this is the song i have posted here and i hope you enjoy it. I made this song in Reason 3.0 and i used Goldwave afterwards to adjust things. The ID3v2 were changed while getting it on soundclick so i will also attatch the song in this mail with the ID3v2-information... Thank you /Kristofer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Thanks for providing the link to the source. One of the few Ultima V tunes that I can remember. This remix actually reminds me more of the song Fiona sings in Shrek, at least to start off with. I like what I'm hearing so far, even if it never really builds to anything full. You set out to make a gentle, enjoyable piece and that's what you accomplished. The arrangement is astoundingly simple, but never really becomes repetitive, even if it's repeating the same melody over and over, it's always with slight differences. However, I would've appreciated this more if you were a little more daring. Instead of staying with the same basic melody and only making small alterations, you could have easily built this piece up to a short climax while still keeping the same tone. You hear that sort of thing in Disney movies a lot. It allows you to truly show how gentle the majority of the piece is through dynamic contrast. If one part is loud/strong and clear, then the rest is easily recogniseable as gentle. The production was good, you balanced everything so it blended together well. The sparseness of the background makes one feel that you're in a quiet shady part of a meadow or something similar. I think maybe some ambient effects might have spruced up the over-all soundscape in this one. Some gentle bird calls, light wind and rustling-leaves would've given this one a beautiful tone. The rearrangement aspect is my main concern. I don't hear much of the source in this beyond the slightest similarities and adopted melodies. This is most likely a result of trying to adapt the source to the "Sweet little melody" you randomly came upon. I don't think this will pass as a result of the arrangement and sparseness of the overall sound. However I think this is creative and achieves what it set out to. There are no rules as to how full a piece has to sound. I've laid out my issues with the piece, and I'd be happy to have a resubmission. I fully understand if any judges want to reject it, in other words. But I'm going to pass this, if only because I want the ReMixer to know how much I appreciate this style, and how rare it's pulled off this well. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 http://www.vgmusic.com/music/computer/commodore/commodore/stones5.mid - "Stones" Interesting opening. Not sure what was up with the pregnant pause from :16-:21. Nice minimalist atmosphere from :21-:42. Woodwind lead brought in at :42 seemed slightly off-time when brought in, and also too dry compared to the other verby/glassy instrumentation. I think it's possibly to create separation like you've done without it sounding like the parts aren't in the same general area. I see how the arrangement seemed fairly conservative, but the personalization and interpretation in the approach is definitely there. Nice changing of the time signature here, by the way. The way the sub letter reads, it makes it look like the arrangement may have been an afterthought to a predominantly original piece, but that's really not the case here. The more exposed woodwind sequencing from 1:03-1:17 was a bit too rigid in some of the note-to-note movements; a little on the fake side, which didn't sound very good given how dry the sound was. The dryness though was more of a criticism than the realism. Some of the higher frequencies were pretty piercing and needed to be toned way down. Felt the lack of realism was a bigger problem at 2:46 when you layered more than one woodwind together, followed by the woodwinds and strings at 3:03. It's really not that bad, but considering how you really don't have much more going on, it would help this track to have that stuff be more on point. I liked TO's suggestion to beef the track up a little more with some ambient noise SFX. Either that or work on making the lead woodwinds and supporting strings less bland/defaulty. I'm close on this one, but would prefer to see a resubmission that puts this one on solid ground, Kristofer. Very nice work so far. NO (refine/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 I discussed this mix with Larry and TO in the judges chat and listened to it several times. I was torn then on how to approach a mix with such a level of simplicity. Can you really add more without ruining the feel? That was the question posed by all of us, but ultimately, I concluded the same thing that Larry did. You CAN add additional instrumentation without losing the soft, lullaby feel. Things you could try; a music box, a solo double bass or cello for low end, a soft/muted synth pad, a lower ethnic flute, a glockenspiel, or another harp part. All of these things could add to the density of the mix and round it out without making things too full. Ambient sound effects would work also. Otherwise, I agree with some of Larry and TO's concerns. The arrangement is repetitive, and the samples you have are not very realistic. Also, the instruments right at the start are too high/grating. Bring 'em down an octave or tone down the high end big time. When you go that high things just sound... bad. I really need to point that out. It's like GrayLightning said awhile back. We can't make an allowance if the mixer intentionally limits himself or herself. If we say, "well, it's a lullaby - it doesn't have to be judged by the same production and arrangement standards" then someone could submit a Yoga remix where the only instrument is a triangle, and we would have to accept it. Or something to that effect. Anyway, this certainly isn't far from the bar, so keep at it. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 woah that opening is rough on the ears. I'm not hearing the complaints as strongly as the others. The instrumentation is simple, but the arrangement is not sparse. There's plenty of dynamic variation. I think the guy does a good job of making the track evolve within his limited instrumentation. Not sure about it, i think it could afford to be shorter. back later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillian Aversa Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Gahhhhh! That intro sounds like one of those listening tests I had to do every year in elementary school. Why did you choose like, the highest perceptible octave to the human ear? We're not dogs, you know. ^_~ And besides, it doesn't really sound relaxing like the rest of the piece. I think zircon summed things up very well here. There are a lot of things that you could do to beef up this arrangement without losing the overall simplicity of a lullaby, and his suggestions sound very tasteful! A lot of the samples sound too rigid for my taste. If you're really going for the lullaby style, there needs to be a more organic quality to the piece, with dynamic swells and time stretching. Think... rocking the baby. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Has anyone read about the super-high frequency ringtone that kids are downloading to their phone because adults can't hear it, and therefore, the kids won't get in trouble at school? Well, read all about it if you haven't. That's what I was thinking during the first 20 seconds of the track. I hate to sound uppity here, but that's bad form, K-man. Step back and regroup, and you'll agree that that's not going to appeal to very many people. Anyway, aside from that, let's see what else we have here. Man, a midi is the best we could come up with sourcewise, eh? K, so be it. The intro to this reminded me of the theme from Shrek. Very medieval kind of sound going on with those flutes. Fairly pretty arrangement kicks in around 1:18. Interesting for sure, intentionally leaving the full orchestra out for the most part, only to come in and add some volume to the sound at the end of certain phrases. I guess my main concerns are that your cut-offs seem a little mechanical, and therefore unnatural. I'd work more with automating the volume, rather than just relying on reverb alone to add the sustain effect to the notes. The ending seemed kind of abrupt. Not sure what to suggest to you there, but I don't think it fit. You have a pretty decent piece of work. Main gripes are really, to completely shave off the [pixietricks]dog-whistle[/pixietricks] intro, and work on your volume envelopes. Only then, will you know the power of the dark side... Good luck with this one, as I say to most all mixes that are better than good, but not quite up to their max, feel free to bring this one back down the road. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts