*NO* Final Fantasy 6 "Monument to Non-Existence"

[Gario]

 

Your ReMixer name - Knight of the Round
Your real name - Justin Taylor
Your email address -
Your website - www.knightoftheround.com
UserID – 25213

Name of game(s) arranged - Final Fantasy VI
Name of arrangement – “Monument to Non-Existence”
Name of individual song(s) arranged - Dancing Mad
Additional information about game including composer, system, etc. (if it has not yet been added to the site) - n/a
Link to the original soundtrack (if it is not one of the sound archives already available on the site) - n/a

Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.

This is the closing track to our latest full length album, War of the Triad.  I’ve always been “afraid” to tackle this song for many reasons, but mainly because of the original track length.  I felt that the only way this song would be do-able in our style is if we completely broke down the song and built it back up in a way that was fresh while kept the feel intact.  I think we did a pretty good job of that, as I was able to keep most of the source intact (there is only one movement absent from this version).   This one is heavy as hell, and probably ended up as one of my favorite VGM arrangements I’ve ever worked on.

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Rexy

[Liontamer]

The mixing's not ideal in places, so I'll go over a few things I heard: the lo-fi mixing from :26-:38 didn't sound good and had some needless distortion, the cymbals at :50 created a kind of quiet & indistinct sizzling sound which never sounded good throughout the entire track while some countermelodic writing was also barely audible, 2:24-2:37 was indistinct and muddy, vox at 2:40 (among other places) was quiet and fought to be heard over the guitars, the bell at 2:38/2:46 might as well have not even been there, and all I could hear from 2:39-3:15 was the guitars and cymbals. I'm sure rock musician Js could speak better to this, and I wouldn't be against anyone saying they could live with it, but it seemed like the mixing could use another pass.

I did like the use of the stereo field, particularly from 1:43-1:55, to have the dueling guitars. Seemed like that wasn't employed much of anywhere else, at least in a noticeable way.

Not sure what was up with the key change transition at 3:15 and guitar chugs from 3:19-3:24. I mean, I hear how it's referencing another section of "Dancing Mad", but it still seemed really disconnected. Man, this mixing was just taxing though. 3:24 has another super-aggressive section where choir vox was there, but was just getting steamrolled and sharing the same frequencies as the guitars and machine gun drums. Then 3:42 just gets even louder and more crowded until 3:54 and it's not clear what the focus is, before going back to more of the choir stuff from 3:24 but with different backing until 4:14. So, yeah, some parts seem clean and upfront, then you switch to something muddy and distant (e.g. shifting at 3:19, then 3:24 sounds even more cramped, then 3:45 sounded even MORE cramped), and IMO it doesn't make much sense.

4:14 went into the organ section, which sounded muddy/distant, but more purposefully so, even though I think it should have sounded a bit clearer. 4:58's section sounded more clear than almost anything else before in the track, and then 5:17's guitar work sounded nice. Then things got more crowded, but I thought the mixing was a lot clearer and more cohesive than before, which is a shame because the song's almost over.

6:11 shifted to the final section, with a distant-sounding (but purposefully so) organ for the finish. Good ending there.

Arrangement-wise, there were some disjointed transitions, which you'd think wouldn't be a big deal given than this is arranging "Dancing Mad", but I thought there were several times the sound quality changed from distant/muddy to clean/sharp or vice versa but didn't seem like a part of the song's narrative (e.g. 2:26, 3:19, 4:31), or sections that were simply too crowded (2:25-2:53, 3:24-4:17). Again, I'm not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good; if others are comfortable with the mixing as is, more power to them, as this is well on the way there, but I felt this needed one more pass at it. The arrangement's fine, Justin, but there's just too much of the track that merits mixing tweaks for clarity and consistency. Definitely please tweak this and send it on back; I'd love this up in some form, no doubt.

NO (resubmit)

[MindWanderer]

That's a great writeup from LT, covers almost everything I was going to say.  The cymbals are hot, the mixing was inconsistent, and the switches in and out of lo-fi style were jarring and seemed random.

There was also a weird key change at 2:25.  And I did appreciate the return of the dueling guitars at 4:37 (and some nice driving percussion there as well; this whole section was a highlight for me).  I also didn't have a problem with the vox mixing, but did have a problem with the organ, and whatever that is at 3:43-3:53.

There's a lot here that I like, including the arrangement as a whole (other than the key changes and some of those transitions).  Dialed down to just the rock stuff, this is stellar.  There are just some sections that don't work so well.  I feel like this is very close; there's just enough that I feel really ought to be cleaned up a bit.  I wouldn't mind this passing, and I look forward to what other judges say, but for now I'm going to come down on the side of

NO (please resubmit)

[Rexy]

Ouch - I see Larry asking for "rock musician" judges to help out and we don't have any.  How do we rectify that?

Anyway, Larry also nailed the track progression.  I do also find it interesting that you took motifs from all four movements of the source and turned them into a compact rock sound in the space of 7 minutes.  By that merit alone, it's one of the more interesting "Dancing Mad" arrangements I've heard in a long while.

What I like about the arrangement is that it doesn't go from point A to point D straight away.  The first minute alone has lush choirs citing the first movement, leading into a heavy metal rendition of the third.  Only then does it decide to explore the sequence in order before calming down with a choir-driven reference to the source's finale.  You thought wisely using the third form for bookends - it's a balls-to-the-wall opener that sets the mood, and it offers familiarity for the finish.

I don't mind the transitions as it's an expected component of the source material.  But if there's any way to make them segue further, transposing the first movement sections up a semitone can mask it.  It's not something that'll keep me up at night, though.

Alas, with so many rock flavors, the mixing needs a lot more care. On the broader picture alone:

• The cymbals have too much sibilance/sizzle overall so consider cutting out some of those higher frequencies.
• Whenever the choir and rhythm guitars appear at the same time, the former gets brutally drowned out.  If you're unable to cut EQ from the guitar without sacrificing the texture quality, think about carefully bringing the choir's volume up.
• And even more jarring, there were several points in the track with unintentional distortion.  A revision on the master chain is a suggested idea to remove them if a revised mixdown doesn't solve it.

Additionally, the blast beats at 3:24 is an excellent idea for the second form in theory, but the mixing here feels careless.  On top of the previous cymbal and choir issues, you'd also have to accommodate for the snare drum barrage as well, and I can barely hear that either.  Again, this can be a case of trying to make cuts in the guitar to get the snare to pop through, or bringing the snare volume up if it screws over the guitar texture.  Or another idea is to change the snare's tone so that it doesn't fit the track's key, giving it more of a chance to push through the soundscape with less effort.

In a vacuum, this track is enjoyable, and I'd love to hear it on the front page in some shape or form.  Unfortunately, the mixdown is so cluttered I can't see it as this incarnation.  You got plenty of production crits from all 3 of us, so keep them in mind if you decide to give the presentation another pass.  Hearing a cleaner version of this track will be amazing.

NO (resubmit)

Edited August 30, 2019 by Rexy