*NO* Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, Curse of Darkness & CV3 'Up All Night'

[Gario]

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: Aria of Sorrow, Castlevania 3
Name of arrangement: Up All Night
Name of individual songs arranged: Abandoned Castle (AC), Inner Quarters (AS), Inner Halls (C3)

 

Source usage:

0:30 - Inner Quarters

0:45 - Abandoned Castle

1:00 - Inner Quarters (with small amounts from Inner Halls)

1:28 - Abandoned Castle

2:15 - Abandoned Castle

2:30 - Inner Quarters 

2:45 - Inner Quarters

3:00 - Abandoned Castle

3:30 - Abandoned Castle

 

 

Notes: 

This remix is from Round 2 of the Castlevania: Cacophony of Incarnation remix competition.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Gario]

Very interesting approach for you, Beth - I'm certainly used to your more vocal music, but this goes the entire time without. Very interesting indeed, but your vocal influences show with that lead that sounds like it's singing the lead. Nice solid electronic track to back the whole thing, and the production seems to be well done, to boot. I'm liking this.

The sources are a bit tricky to pull from it from time to time. I hear that arpeggio from the Inner Halls pretty consistently tie things together (nice arrangement idea) and the theme from CV3 was pretty easy to recognize at 2:30, but the changes to the Abandoned castle make the connection a little more tenuous. Calling out the leaps at 2:15 as part of the source (linking up presumably to the similar leaps in the beginning of that source) is hard to justify, as you change the intervals of those leaps drastically. When you have the abandoned castle as the theme in the arrangement, though (like at 1:30), it's still reasonable to pull the source out of your arrangement, even though you hold certain notes longer and repeat notes for length.

It's a bit tricky on source from time to time, but I think there's still enough here to count it as alright. I think it's good to go - nice work!

YES

[MindWanderer]

This one really took me by surprise because of the key transposition.  Curse of Darkness's titular track is an amazing and overlooked source I was looking forward to seeing remixed more-or-less conservatively, so taking that and transforming it so dramatically was an unusual choice.  And I thought it was pretty amazing that the arpeggio from AoS's "Inner Quarters" basically turns into Castlevania 1's "Out Of Time" when you change the key like that (and it has other similarities as well--I expect many comments to this effect from fans of the series).  I agree with Gario that using that as the binding feature was a neat choice that worked really well.

The connection to CV3's "Riddle" is barely noticeable to me, which IIRC is why I didn't vote for this entry in the compo, myself.  (I'm not sure what Gario's hearing at 2:30, but it's not listed in the breakdown.)  However, the bulk of the arrangement is very clearly from the other two sources, though it takes a second to think about it first.  The leaps at 2:15 worked perfectly for me--the intervals are changed to fit the key change, but it's done in a consistent way that preserves the original meter and general pattern.

The balance at 3:30-4:00 is a little wonky to me, where there's a new harmony line that's pretty loud and muddies up the melody.  And the ending is a little anticlimactic--you have that complex harmony that sounds like it's going into a big finish, and then it's just one note.  The trailing delay helps--I actually tried switching to my cheap headphones, which generally have a slightly tinny sound to them, which accentuated that tail and made the ending a little more dramatic.

However, these are really minor crits.  Overall this is not only a fresh and creative take on the two sources that I could actually hear, it's a really enjoyable piece of music.

YES

[DragonAvenger]

This is definitely a pretty chill, yet danceable track! Love the overall feel, though I do think the soundscape sounds a tad bit empty at times. I think a little more on the low end would have rounded this out and made it feel more full. Greg mentions the lead sounding like it's singing, and I definitely want to second that, which is a pretty neat touch. Also really like all the background arpeggios and blips, they really add a lot of character here. 

My nitpick is that the track overall feels a bit blocky in the backing parts, and in the lead at times. When the lead is playing smoothly it makes for a nice contrast, but when they're both blocky it really emphasizes that texture. Not sure if that fully makes sense, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say . Regardless, it's a small detail that I don't find to be a dealbreaker here.

Nice work!

YES

[Chimpazilla]

Cool arrangement of the sources.  I feel like the synths used are very simple, like presets with not much change to them, other than the occasional glitch.  Presets usually have too much reverb and delay on them, and it sounds here like you left that all in, and they all overlap each other to create a mushy soundscape.  A better idea is to turn all presets' reverb/delays way down or off, and then turn them back up slowly (or add your own as an insert) and adjust them separately, so the elements fit into the soundscape where they should sit.  The drums are very repetitive and mixed too quietly.  The talk lead is too loud, and seems to get louder and also wider over time until it is overwhelming the soundscape starting at 1:30 and again at 3:14.  Much of the track sounds too far stereo-spread, leaving very little in the middle or middle-ish.  Leads in particular don't need to be so wide, other than the top end.  The bass is either too quiet or too stereo-spread or both.  The writing throughout the track feels very blocky and forced.  I'm sorry to come down so hard on this.  I think you have good potential Elizabeth, but I strongly suggest you look into ways to learn to improve your mixing, if nothing else that will make a huge difference to how your tracks sound.

NO

[Sir_NutS]

I'm gonna have to go against the current here.  The mix gets very wonky at some points (1:31, 3:15) with the lead being overpowering, but also the other harmonies trying to compete with it for space too hard.  I didn't like the sound design on this one, I think that in other mixes from Beth, her sound design has been fairly simple but mostly subtle, and enjoyable.  In this mix I can't help but picture a collection of presets thrown together without quite complementing themselves or the mix.  I don't like the lead, it has a very ugly, yet dull and blocky tone to it, I would change that right away first.  I would try to modify or change the rest of the sounds so they mesh together more cohesively in the mix.

Regarding the arrangement I have no issues there, except maybe for the somewhat abrupt transition at 3:00.  I know you tried to build up to it with the riser, but I think more could've been done in terms of filtering, or regarding the arpeggio going on, to make the transition better.

I think with a revision of the sounds used and some tweaks to the mix balance this should be good for the front page, but right now I can see several aspects where it's very rough.

NO (resubmit)

[Liontamer]

Odd opening, but the groove starts cool, so we'll see where it goes. Levels sound too loud, and the textures are pretty thin once the "Inner Quarters" melody starts at :30. Synth at :44 bringing in the "Abandoned Castle" was pretty vanilla.

The melodic line brought in from 1:00-2:00 sounds so really rigidly timed and flat; it's sapping the track of energy; same with the synth at 2:14. When Chimpazilla says this just sounds blocky, that's on point; it just sounds stilted without sounding purposeful. I mean, you can have something with pretty deliberate/robotic-sounding pacing that nonetheless sounds expressive, with Makke's Cauldron II mix being a great example of that.

I agreed with Sir_NutS on the synth design being a negative; these sounds don't really have much synergy together. That said, I thought your dropoff at 2:00 was beautiful. Though I felt the gliding synth at 2:14 was rigid, this rebuild section all the way up to 2:59 was very nicely written.

Odd notes at :58-1:00, 1:28-1:30, 2:28-2:30 and other spots tied to the "Inner Quarters" melody; it's not a huge deal, but whatever's going on doesn't sound melodious there.

I liked the bass kicks, but when the track is at its busiest, the core beat pattern was relatively plain & repetitive and didn't give energy to the piece.

The mixing was way too bright, IMO, but any issues there felt very secondary to how these sounds were used. There's no life to this despite the inherent energy of the writing. So if you'd consider revisiting this, Beth, the focus needs to be on how to get this sounding expressive somehow. Arrangement-wise, the track's well in the right direction, but the energy implied in the writing doesn't come through and the track just ends up sounding flat.

NO (resubmit)

[Jivemaster]

Smooth filtered opening sequence. Things start off fairly minimum. The plucky synth was a little distracting initially as it was panned off centre and occupied most of the higher frequency space making things feel a little off balance, but thankfully additional accompanying parts drop in soon after to fill the space. You have a nice selection of sounds here, with some plucks to electronic bells, a bunch of different leads, and even piano like synth sounds.

This great variety also carries one the tracks biggest issues however, which is a lack of cohesion between the sounds. In isolation the sounds work well, but together they feel mismatched and out of place at times - this is most noticeable in the second half of the track where more sounds are introduced. This is confusing in contrast to the arrangement, which I feel is cohesive, well implemented and didn't sound like a bunch of unrelated songs glued together like some do. Production wise things are quite clear, you have a fairly rumble free low end. There are some mixing issues worth noting, mostly with your leads, which seem to be much louder than the rest of the parts. It would be great if these were dialled back a bit so they sit in the track better.

I can understand the split vote here - I think your track is decent, solid arrangement with good sounds that don't quite fit together, along with some mixing issues. We'll be in a better place if you give this another pass to correct some of these problems.

NO

 

[Nutritious]

I'm really digging how this opens up with nice groove established and bass.  Sounds used in general are a bit of a mixed bag.  I like the kit, bass is a bit uninteresting but works, like the plucky synth.  However, in contrast the leads sound bland and flat, tone-wise.

Man 1:30 the lead comes up so loud out of nowhere.  It's really overpowering everything else to the point where it sounds like a sequencing mistake (duplicated layers or something). 2:30 plucks are pretty loud in relation to the rest of the track as well, though only briefly.  3:00 has some more over-loud elements that sound like they're causing overcompression or distortion artifacts.  Personally, I'd probably hold the mix up for these balancing issues alone due to how prominent they are.

Arrangement is varied enough to keep me interested, though I'd like to hear some more variety in the backing parts like the bass.

Overall, the mixing & balance needs to be addressed.  I'd also like to hear lead synths that are more nuanced and interesting. 

Good stuff here, though, keep at it

NO resubmit, please