Gario

OCR03987 - *YES* Seiken Densetsu 3 "For King and Country" *PROJECT*

Recommended Posts

  • ReMixer name: Pavos (artist 9847)
  • Name of game(s) arranged: Seiken Densetsu 3
  • Name of arrangement: For King and Country
  • Name of individual song(s) arranged: Walls and Steels
  • Link to the original soundtrack (if it is not one of the sound archives already available on the site)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW4kOlQC9BA
th?id=OVP.RrliaS25qMRLEPYwxqz4rAEsDh&pid
Original soundtrack from Seiken Densetsu 3. It is known as Secret of Mana 2 in Europe and America. The game was released for Super Nintendo console. Music has been ...
  • Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.:
I've been doubting for a long time if I should submit this, because it really depends on how you guys count source usage for this to be eligible. But heck, why not just try and find out right? This track is for the upcoming Seiken Densetsu 3 album "Songs of Light and Darkness" and my write-up there is: The idea for this mix came from a Chrono Trigger ReMix on OverClocked ReMix from DrumUltimA called 'JESUS CHRIST IT'S A DINOSAUR GET IN THE EPOCH'. The mix itself is a pure percussion track and so was the source. It made me look at sources a little different, with the realization that you can not only make a mix by altering and expanding the melody, but that you can also use the source in a very different way (such as percussion).
 
So for this mix, I used the main melody motif of the original, and used it as a rhythmic background melody. On top of that, I played a mellow piano solo. To make it more recognizable, the later parts of the song are much more traditionally remixed, but I think this experiment was a success and gave it a unique feeling. The whole militaristic vibe of the original is gone in this mix except for the final part, but I feel I have given it a majestic feel befitting of a King and a castle.
 
Of course, the not-so-traditional style of arranging the source material might mean that it isn't eligible for the front page. I can still encourage others to look at a source with a different perspective, and to see which parts of a source can be used in a different way. It's really good for the creative process, and it gave me some much needed variation in how I arrange songs. Anyway, here is my source breakdown:
 
0:00 - 2:07: The A part of the source (0:06 - 0:37 in the YouTube link), only then with the main motif being used (in a slightly altered form) in the left hand piano playing; basically the rhythm of the piece. If these two minutes don't count as source usage, then I'm not going to make the 50% :P
2:07 - 2:22: The (slightly altered) B part of the source (0:38 - 1:08 in the source)
2:23 - 3:27: Improv
3:28 - 4:02: The C part of the source (1:09 - 1:25 in the link)
4:03 - 4:32: Improv
4:33 - 4:53: The A part of the source (slightly modified - this time as main melody)
4:53 - 5:09: Improv
5:10 - 5:15: The A part of the source
 
If the first part is fully counted, that gives us 66% source usage. If it's counted only half, it's only 45%. So I hope you guys count it more than half :P
 
Anyway, good luck with the voting!
 
Cheers,
Pieter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely gorgeous playing, and the original sections are sublime.

The elephant in the room is, of course, source usage.  The timestamping was very helpful.  The source melody is used as backing, of course, and some sections are pretty liberal (2:07-2:22 took me a couple of listens), but it's all there.  I don't have any problems with it on this front.

Great work overall, and I'm looking forward to seeing this posted.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always Pieter, your improvisations are beautiful.  You have a way of making your original writing work well with the source interpretation, and despite the fixed tempo, you kept your performance as tight and human-like as possible.  I can never take anything like that or your trademark piano patch's tone way from you.

I had to think carefully regarding source use, though - particularly in the first 2 minutes.  On the one hand, you have the source's rhythm on the left hand, as highlighted in the timestamps.  On the other hand, the right hand's original motifs de-emphasize the source presence since its introduction at 0:52.  The rest of the timestamp remains on point, and I find it interesting that the melody A section of the source at 4:33 is more faithful to the melody rather than the rhythm.

However, if I cut the BGM presence in the intro down to 52 seconds rather than the stated 127, I see the source content at 40% rather than your estimated 45%.  Seriously, I love your improvisational skills, but it's one of those cases where source use needed more emphasis or playing around via the melody lines.  One way you can fix this in a resub or future tracks is to add more BGM content into your improvs.  Another way is to cut down the length of your improv sections, letting BGM content elsewhere stand out more.  You've nailed that balance before, and I know you can do it again.

That makes my production critique rather minor in comparison.  I honestly thought the track is okay enough as a piano solo, rather than adding subtle strings and hand percussion.  Both instruments appear at 0:26, but the strings disappear at 0:51 and re-surfaces at 3:44 for nearly 30 seconds, meanwhile the hand percussion leaves after the 3-minute mark.  I honestly don't think they add to the larger picture, but I also don't believe they are dealbreakers in comparison to the arrangement.

Again, I am very grateful that you sent a timestamp with your submission, Pieter - it's enlightening to hear your intent.  As it stands though, I don't think you emphasized source use enough - and I'd like to see this track back in the inbox with this issue fixed.  You did the bravest part already with the initial submission, so I do hope revising the arrangement will be a cakewalk for you.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a great performance this is. as others have mentioned, the timestamping is very helpful. i particularly liked the part at 2:07 - moving it from dorian to aeolian was an inspired choice that really emphasizes the melodic movement within the chord structure you gave the track.

regarding rexy's note of the first two minutes - i was personally fine with his development of that opening motif, and feel it's enough to 'count' the entire first section. we've stated before that a chord progression that is defined and recognizable is acceptable, and this is more than that. if you want to be picky, the point where he deviates from the original's chord structure (E dorian - C - D) without focus on the motif exclusively is at 1m 10s. you lose about 8 seconds every time that happens, which between 1:10 and 2:07 is only three times. this is overlooking that the motif is being represented in the left hand the entire time, but either way, you lose 24 seconds there - which comes out to 51%, actually. so i don't see any issue with the amount of source usage presented.

this is a really interesting and dynamic performance that captures a wholly new mood for the track. this is an easy vote in my book.

 

YES

Edited by prophetik music

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see this as too different from something like Rhymes With Elixir, where the source isn't the main focus of the mix but I'd obviously there. No issues to me on source usage. Aside from that the piano playing is gorgeous as usual. Loving the energetic vibe throughout and the improvising feels natural towards the original motif and the piece as a whole.

I'm feeling it.

YES

https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01999

Edited by prophetik music

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, I know this song by heart but I couldn't recognize it at all in your mix at first.  After I checked what the source was, it's pretty clear the source is there in the first half.  It's transformed but it's very clearly the original melody there so no source usage issues for me.  The performance here is pretty lovely, and I have no issues with the production, so this is a short vote from me but I highly recommend this one if anyone wants to hear a very different adaptation of this theme, it will catch you off-guard at first but believe me, it's very clever in how it uses the theme.

A lot of interesting movement here with the melodies too.  Overall, pretty clever piece.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got other ReMixes where the source tune usage is overt, but functionally more of a background/supporting line with original writing in front of it, the most prominent example on OCR being SGX's "Kick Your A". As long as the invoked source material is, to quote the Standards, "identifiable and dominant", then that works for me; in this specific case even when the source tune is in the background, it's clear, audible, and integrally works in concert with the other original writing once that kicked in at :52. We did have a Zelda submission by RebeccaETripp that we rejected for obscuring the source tune too much in the background, even though, by a stopwatch perspective, the source tune had been invoked for more than 50% of the track's duration. In other words: the context always matters.

Production-wise, this has the same issues commonly found in Pieter's pieces, i.e. the humanization of the piano sample itself isn't great, leading to an obvious uncanny valley territory for the overall performance. Pieter frequently overcomes that issue, but it's still a legitimate drawback to the finished product.

Arrangement-wise, I was timestamping this for my notes, but aside from me not being quite as generous due to some brief gaps, the source usage breakdown Pavos gave was fair and accurate, and the interpretation was readily apparent and creative. When in doubt, definitely submit the work, provide as much context and breakdown of the source arrangement as you can, exactly like Pieter did, and let the judges examine things. Nice work, Pieter; count me in! :-)

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.