OCR03548 - *YES* Super Castlevania 4 "Reflections" *PROJECT*

[Gario]

DOH! forgot to sub that remix!!  

 

Remixers: HoboKa & Chernabogue ; original concept me ; Chernabogue touched up stuff and remastered things with his superior sound library and skillz. 

 

LINK: 

 

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgit8zlIupo

 

Description:

Well, it's an orchestral semi re-interpretative remix.  Has some original elements to it, and was also inspired by the more recent Castlevania on the PS3 as well.  Hoping you guys think its worth putting this bad boy in the OCR rosters.  

 

 

[MindWanderer]

Note: This is on Vampire Variations III, and got YES'es in the project eval way back when.

The instruments are indeed somewhat mechanical, but my main concern is how conservative this arrangement is.  The general layout is identical until almost exactly the halfway mark, and the instrumentation consists mostly of (vast) sound upgrades to the original instruments--the only difference I hear in the first half is the addition of a bass and some SFX.  Otherwise every instrument in the source is used in the remix, in place.  The second half does branch off into original territory, though, and in fact is quite liberal at that point.  Production is solid.

I'm a little torn here.  The first half (almost to the second) is very little more than just a sound upgrade.  The second half takes mostly those same instruments, plus a flute, and expands on the source creatively.  There's little in the way of sonic variation; the bass in particular is pretty much all the same, just varying whether it's there or not; the pizzicato strings are there pretty much throughout.  On the other hand, it's not totally static, and the instruments are humanized adequately, which helps a lot.  It's a gorgeous soundscape.

Ultimately, this does have both the source and some original composition, though I wish they weren't all clumped into their own halves.  It's just dynamic enough not to induce fatigue, and the production is there.  I'll see what other judges have to say but for now I'll go with a

YES (borderline)

[Liontamer]

I'm not sure why MindWanderer went YES, when his vote seemed to make a pretty concrete case as to why the lack of interpretation made it a NO, nearly all of the part-writing of the first half being straight from the original song. That said, I understand there's further context.

After 1:32, original additive writing was introduced that worked together well with the source tune; IMO, that kind of writing should have been present throughout the first half in some form as well if the arrangement was going to maintain the tone and structure of the source so closely.

It's a nice sound upgrade that doesn't sound completely unlike something RoeTaKa could have attempted. The additive approach of the second half was working, but this needs more arrangement substance in the first half, especially due to the track being so brief at just under 3 minutes. Good stuff so far, Alex, but develop this further, whether that's through more original additive part-writing in the first half, introducing melodic interpretation, or providing more length and/or dynamic contrast. It's a solid sound, but you've played this too safe.

NO (resubmit)

[DragonAvenger]

Yeah, going to agree with Larry here. The first half is pretty much a direct cover, and the second half gets more interpretive, but that first half definitely needs more in regards to arrangement.

I will nitpick a little on the instruments that adding a little more humanization (velocities on attacks, some vibrato on the longer held notes) will add more life to the playing as well. Wouldn't be a dealbreaker on its own, but something to consider. 

Definitely on the right track here!

NO (resubmit)

[Sir_NutS]

I have to disagree on the lack of interpretation on the first half.   There's quite a bit of it, although it is very subtle.  The pizzicato sequence is not the same as in the original, it changes to harmonize with the progression instead of being static, and the changes from measure to measure are different as well.  The background strings also do not follow the progression verbatim, although they do start on the same notes.  The piano as well has some subtle changes and addition of extra notes in the higher registers that are all new.  The main melodies remain very closely tied to the source but there is work done in the first half and calling it a straight up cover is really not fair.

The second part expands on the source in more evident and creative ways.  I did enjoy some of the chord resolutions which fell into more pleasant harmonies than the more somber tones expressed in the source, 1:32~ is a good example of this.  In my opinion this track is totally fine arrangement-wise.

Production-wise more could have been done in regards of humanization and the performances.  Some envelopes in the string seem identical to one another giving them quite the mechanical feel.  I hope @Gario takes a look at this one because he's much better than me at expressing how orchestral instruments could be humanized better.

Overall, even with the not-so convicing handling of the performances I think this is a few inches over the bar for me.

YES (borderline)

[Gario]

To be honest, if an arrangement is pretty close to the source for ~1:00, then adds some creative interpretation for the rest of the 3 minutes I think that's well within the bounds of OCR's standards. It's conservative, but there's enough life in this to have it stand out. It would be nice if the beginning were more interpretive, but as long as a significant portion of the track is interpretive I think that's enough.

Humanization is probably the largest setback that this track has, but it's not as significant as I initially thought (back during project evals). The most problematic instruments are the backing strings - very often they have a long attack for every note change, even when swelling doesn't make sense for it to do so (look at 0:33 - 0:43 for a clear example of this - the second note of each phrase really shouldn't swell like that). The articulations for the other instruments are not optimally humanized either, but rather than swelling they just all sound like they have the same stiff, sharp attack. The dynamics are carefully handled, though, and 90% of the time the stiff articulations are actually appropriate, so it's not something that sinks the piece for me.

To be honest, I think Deia pretty much summed up the humanization concerns in fewer words, so if I'm too wordy just refer to her review. 

Overall I believe it could be better, but I don't think there's anything in this that drags this below OCR's bar, either. For music in the future, though, pay attention to your articulations and make sure that's how it would be performed live - it'll take your orchestration to the next level.

YES

[Chimpazilla]

I see all the crits here and I don't disagree about the first half being conservative, but I love where you went with it and the arrangement flows really well.  The humanization works well enough and it is a good, emotive track.  Going with it.

YES

[Jivemaster]

Appreciate the concerns brought up so far. The arrangement is indeed very safe in the first half of the track - for me I felt the song took a while to really get started and once things hit interesting territory it was almost over. That said things didn't drag on, with parts changing at the other end when they needed to in order to retain interest. I found the sounds used here ok. As always I'm far from an orchestral expert, so I'm not as sensitive about things being mechanical, provided parts aren't overly stiff and sound real enough. Accompanying parts here certainly felt a bit rigid, but the leads kind of masked this for me. I didn't have any major problems with production, parts seem to be mixed ok. I wish there was a bit more creativity here, especially in the first half, it would have made this an easier decision in that regard. Still for the duration, we do eventually get some originality, I just wish there was more.

YES