Gario Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Contact Information Your ReMixer name: mikestamper (Mike Stamper) Your real name: Aitor G. Your website: http://www.mikestamper.es Your userid: 32612 Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged The Legend Of Zelda: A Link To The Past / The Legend Of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds Name of arrangement Sanctum Name of individual song(s) arranged Church / Safety In The Sanctuary "The Legend Of Zelda: A Link To The Past" was one of the first games I played during my childhood. It's songs got stuck on my head for all my life, especially this one. This dark and creepy piece of music inspired me to make something stronger but keeping that creepy feeling and awesome melodies. And so, this is the result. Mainly influenced by viking metal and melodic death metal genres, this is my second attempt of getting a song here at Ocremix, and I hope to win this time! I'm putting all the passion to finally get it! :D Thank you for your time and, of course, enjoy it! At least, it will make your beard grow faster, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted May 15, 2017 Author Share Posted May 15, 2017 Oh, I like this interpretation. It's appropriately chuggy, the source is well represented even while taking some divergent turns with the bridging material. I didn't expect it to work this well as far as a metal arrangement goes, but now that I hear it the song makes so much sense to do like this. From what I gather in the past you've had some issue with a cluttered low end, and I can hear it a little in this track as well. I will say that it's not inconsistent within melodic death metal norms, though, so I won't ding this track too much for it. While in general the parts are well mixed in this, there are two sizeable exceptions: the theme at 0:55 (and similar parts) in the lead guitar and the synth at 1:14 (and at similar sections throughout). The mixing of the guitar at 0:55 isn't the end of the world, as it's still pretty easy to hear what's going down there; it's just not popping through very well as a central element. The synth at 1:14 is nearly impossible to hear, though - them synth mixing levels really need to be pushed higher above that guitar part, or another synth that can be heard needs to be used in it's place. Giving this one some thought, everything else is done very well, and that part with the drowned synth doesn't take up a majority of the track. I was leaning toward not passing it, but listening to the overall quality otherwise has swung my vote. Be careful with your mixing in the future, though - make sure your important elements pop through better! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Seemed source-light to me, so here's my timestamps: 0:00-0:16 (source intro, heavily transformed but recognizable) 0:36-0:54 (chord progression only, I'm not counting this) 0:55-1:52 (straightforward) 2:18-2:43 (reminiscent of the source, but both meter and notes are changed substantially, so I'm not counting this either) 2:44-3:02 (chord progression only, again not counting this) 3:03-3:46 (straightforward, but nearly identical to the first 2/3 of 0:55-1:52 until the end) Total: 116/231 seconds = 50.2% Cutting it awfully close there, and it's worth noting that nearly half of that source usage (1:33-1:52 and 3:03-3:38) is repetition. And on top of that, these sections are exactly the ones that Gario, correctly, had concerns about regarding the production. I'll add that I wasn't a fan of the production in 2:18-2:31 (machine-gun drums burying the melody) or 2:31-2:41 (generally just mushy) either. There's a lot here that works, and I like the approach much more than I thought I would. But I personally feel that the production and arrangement are each borderline at best, and combined, that's enough to send this back. I'd be okay with the arrangement if there was more usage of the source that wasn't just a repetition of other sections, and the instrumentation really does need to be separated more. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Just going off the melody and most obvious parts, the source tune was in play just over half of the track: :00.75-16.5, :54.75-1:52.5, 3:02.75-3:44.5 = 115.25 seconds or 50.1% overt source usage I'm not as familiar with the building blocks of the "Sanctuary" theme as I should be, but the rest of the track at least used the chord progression, so it felt tangentially connected at the very least. As long as more than 50% of the track overtly referenced the source, I was cool with it. Noticeable muddy/lossy to start off with. It doesn't sound horrible, just cluttered and obviously lacking high-end clarity. The thumping of the drum sounded more upfront than the guitar work, which didn't quite make sense, but I'm not dying over it; that said, the drumkit -- while it had a lot of power -- sounded kind of hollow despite the busyness. 2:31's brief peak just sounded like a ball of (well-performed) mud. I'd say this needs one more pass at the mixing to restore some clarity and sharpness, at least to some degree. It wouldn't need to sound squeaky clean or anything like that, but I'd like to hear this improved on that level before we can post it. Right now, the arrangement and performance were strong, but the listening experience was pretty muffled overall. Nice work so far though, Aitor, just touch this up. NO (refine/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Going to agree with the latter gentlemen here. I think this is really close, and a pretty great genre adaption, but it's got a bit too much mud going on. A little more clarity will help out a lot. Hope you fix this up and get it back to us! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Yeah, I think this fine on the arrangement side, it's certainly powerful and I think that even if the source usage is pretty liberal, the song is represented well and recognizable, but production needs tightening. The low/mids lack much needed definition and the mix could use some brightness and air. If you get the production up a notch regarding mix clarity, this can surely become your first ocremix. For now though, NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts