OCR03949 - *YES* Chrono Cross "Yesterday's Dream"

[Gario]

RebeccaETripp
Rebecca Tripp

http://www.crystalechosound.com/
ID: 48262
Game(s): Chrono Cross
Song Title: Yesterday’s Dream

Songs Remixed: Dream of the Shore Near Another World with some shades of Radical Dreamers at the end
Comments: Here’s a link to the track: 

 

[MindWanderer]

Another gorgeous Tripp track.  It helps that the source is gorgeous as well, but the swells, vocals, and dulcimer work here put it on a new level.

Makes heavy use of the source's chord progressions rather than overt use of the source melody.  Only 0:24-1:13 and 1:25-2:14 use the melody, which is 98/257 seconds, or just 38%.  Historically we haven't counted chord progressions as source usage, although in this case it's very identifiable.  I'm on the fence about it myself.  Since there's never another melody playing on top of it I'm inclined to call it "dominant" because it isn't dominated by anything.  So not a standards violation IMO.

However, what makes this harder is that the entire second half of the arrangement is basically a breakdown.  It's well done, but it's very long, and meandering.  At about the 2:38 mark I was thinking, "this section sounds really nice, I'm going to say something positive about it."  By 3 minutes I had shifted to "okay, this has gone on too long, time for some more melody."  And then it went on through the end of the piece.  The use of dissonance starting at 3:11 was interesting and remarkable, though off-putting; again, a short section of it would have been neat but it just kept going.

I love so much of this, the first maybe 60% of it is almost perfect.  But I can't give my thumbs-up to the rest.

NO (resubmit)

Edit 5/20 to respond to Liontamer: I don't agree that a chord progression is sufficient.  If I were to listen to the second half of this without context, I never would have pegged this as a Chrono Cross arrangement.  And even though I don't hear the theme from 2:14-2:46, or 1:13-1:25, it's immaterial; including those would only bring it up to 49%.  Besides, my greater issue is with the structure of the second half moreso than its source usage.

Edited May 20, 2019 by MindWanderer

[Sir_NutS]

Beautiful stuff, the use of the vocal chorus is delicate and on point, I love it.  The arrangement works for me, I can recognise the original pretty well.

On my first listen I thought the second part was a bit meandering and aimless but after a couple listens I got used to the extremely subtle wind down of the arrangement.  It can get a bit noodly at times but in the end I think it works.

YES

[Liontamer]

Beautiful arrangement work per Rebecca's usual. The theme's constantly in play from :01-2:46, and the melody/chorus leads were there until 2:13, so MindWanderer's breakdown doesn't make sense in any context, and I'm not sure where his timestamping came from.

We don't have a rule that the melody must be in play, just that references to the source material need to be identifiable; for me, as long as they're explicit connections, you can reference a melody, a countermelody, a rhythm, a drum pattern, a droning line, whatever. If a chord progression is explicitly used, I'm OK with referencing that. It's when an overly simplified and implicit chord progression is used that I start to not count that stuff. I didn't have any issues with Rebecca's source usage, and a NO on that level is a mistake.

The final section after 2:46 was an extended breakdown and did meander, but it's totally musical and I didn't have any problem with it from a writing perspective. Let's go!

YES

[prophetik music]

this was mastered surprisingly quiet (more than 3db below 0).

this is a very safe arrangement through 1:13. personally i'd say that this is essentially the same as the original, just scored for an orchestra, and i don't consider that to be enough arrangement to satisfy our guidelines. however, it's superbly realized, and there's a lot more body to the rest of the arrangement to justify such a close reorchestration of the original early on. for example, the section at 1:27 through 1:59 does a great job passing the melody around and through some additional harmonies, and represents exactly what rebecca's capable of.

1:16's violin has some pretty bad attacks on the synth there - it's clearly not real and dragged me out of the great soundscape.

the section at 2:15 is clearly hearkening to...well, the entire CC soundtrack's recurring guitar part, but it shows up in Radical Dreamers the most. the voices also are a great callback to that track. i also applaud your willingness to get outside the box and really throw a wrench in at 3:10. it was awkwardly done (a I chord sustained next to a V7/vi is always going to sound funky!) but well-intentioned, and it does a nice job adding a hook to a pretty and calm (albeit drawn-out) ending section.

to mindwanderer's point - while i realize i'm someone who's pretty familiar with this soundtrack, i instantly recognized elements from other songs on the OST in the second half, including the harp's (it sounds more like a lautenwerk to me, actually?) signature strum at the last chord, and the recurring guitar part i mentioned. i do feel that the track's last minute, from 3:16 to the second-to-last chord, is completely unrecognizable as CC material. that doesn't bother me though as the rest was fine from a source recognition standpoint.

the arrangement is solid, the production is quiet but well-done, and the orchestration is at your usual par. nice work.

 

YES

[Rexy]

First of all, here's my take on the elephant in the room - source use.  Chord sequence aside, Dream Shore alone (via melody and acoustic guitar backing) has a definite presence to me from 0:12-2:50 - a comfortable 60% coverage.  This issue was never going to be a problem for me in the first place.

Production-wise, Rebecca still has the magic.  The instruments are beautifully humanized, appropriately mixed within a beautiful organic space, and are importantly clear and identifiable.  It's a quiet mix that I was in debate as to whether it needed normalizing or not, but ultimately doing so would disrupt the gorgeous dynamics in place - hence, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The arrangement feels safe in comparison, but there's enough addition of new backing instrumentation and counter melodies to make them feel like more than just a re-interpretation of the source.  Even the flourishes/grace notes on the woodwinds (0:39, 0:44, 1:55 to give clear examples) felt like touches that also played around with the melody while also adding to the aforementioned organic space.

I also wasn't too sure of what to make of the wind-down from 3:16 onward.  Mood-wise, it does its job at closing out with calming the previously established pace, but the plucked cello writing doesn't feel all that harmonically pleasing with the rest of the instruments.  It's not a dealbreaker for me, but when its job up to that point was identifying the chords for the other parts to sit on, it does feel counter-productive.

Nevertheless, it's a gorgeous Rebecca production as always - and while the writing isn't at her best, it's serviceable to let it stand tall with the rest of her work.  Good stuff.

YES