*NO* Legend of Zelda, ALttP, LA, MM & WW "Dream with me, will you?"

Recommended Posts

ReMixer name: FallenDreamer
Real name: Jérôme Duford
Userid: 35736

Link to the WAV file


Arrangement Name: Dream with me, will you?

Games and Songs:
The Legend of Zelda

  • Title

The Legend of Zelda : A Link to the Past

  • Hyrule Castle

The Legend of Zelda : Link's Awakening

  • Ballad of the Windfish

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

  • Song of Time
  • Song of Storms
  • Gerudo Valley
  • Zelda Lullaby

The Legend of Zelda : Majora's Mask

  • Deku Nut's Palace
  • Clock Town - Day 1

The Legend of Zelda : Wind Waker  

  • Dragon Roost Island
  • Title

I woke up one morning playing piano, and decided that instead of working on original compositions, I should try to make a remix to see how it goes, as I've never done it before. So I arranged a medley with a few of my favorite songs in the Zelda series.

Edited by prophetik music

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bold move packing 11 different sources in the space of 4 and a half minutes.  For the most part, they link together seamlessly, got played around when entering the big picture, and follows the dreamy soundscape that you put together.  Of all of these sources, I only sensed Ballad of the Windfish getting a reprisal, which makes the most sense given the track's direction.  That doesn't necessarily mean hearing more of the others, as long as VGM is dominant.

Two things stick out for me, though.  Firstly, I sensed two transitions that sounded off.  The switch to "Gerudo Palace" at 2:25 sounds jarring and sudden, so it would be nice to soften the change from "Deku Palace" before it.  I can say the same for the move to "Dragon Roost Island" at 2:50 - it's a sudden change from not only your moods but the key as well.

Secondly, I also like how you decided to overlap "Song of Storms" on top of "Song of Time" at 1:40.  It's a reliable technique that reduces the impact of medley-itis, and it's something I would've liked to have heard in other places throughout the track.

Going towards the production, I'm impressed with the shaping of dynamics and articulations on your instrumentation, so you've made a positive start there.  Yet, I find it interesting that it remains pleasantly minimalist for most of the track, and there's clarity going on between parts, but there's an emphasis on sub-bass frequencies for its duration.  They're meant to act as a companion to bass instrumentation, so this is something I feel a high-pass on 50Hz in the master chain can soften.

Also, the panning here sounds harsh, with most of the leads placed far to the right.  Narrowing down the stereo field can help with this, as is the possibility of moving some of the more important sounds like the piano closer to the center.

It's a pleasant direction for a multi-source track, but I don't feel it's quite there yet.  I'd like to hear a revision with fixes on the sub-bass and panning, with the transition tweaks also being desirable.  It still isn't bad for your first remix, Jérôme.  Whatever you decide to do next, I hope to see you submit to the inbox again in the future.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, the arrangement, though ambitious, works.  There's also a lot of creative interpretation, riffs on the original sources that sound really nice.  It's an impressive foundation.  However....

Rexy's absolutely right about the panning.  It's severe enough that I'd send this back for that alone.  It's not a problem throughout--there are many sections where you made some elegant choices that involved hard panning but were still balanced.  But there are even more where there's a lead on the right and nothing to balance it on the left.  2:09 hits really hard, and is the point where I knew this would have to be a NO.

She's also right about the sub-bass being too much in odd places, but I'll go a step further.  I found the arrangement as a whole to be rather thin rather than "pleasantly minimalist."  There are parts where this works (solo strings, piano, and flute), but there are also many parts that are meant to be bombastic, with kettle drums, brass, and ensemble strings, where it doesn't.  Those sections need a lot more presence in the low ranges in particular.

I have mixed feelings about the transitions.  They could stand to be smoothed out, and avoiding key changes would certainly help.  3:25 is another point I'd call out; in fact, to me (though I'm not an expert in music theory) it sounds like the two parts are playing in two different keys at the same time.

Speaking of which, I heard a lot of dissonance.  Again, someone with a stronger theory foundation could probably elaborate, but to my ears there were many times where you either wrote your own harmonies or blended two sources together and ended up with conflicts.

There are a lot of things that need some tweaks, but the hardest part is done and is pretty strong.  I hope we see a revision!

NO (resubmit)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

what an elegant arrangement, jerome. i fully expected to go into this complaining about too much source and not enough arrangement with that murderer's row of soundtracks, but this was delightful! there's a ton of really beautiful arrangement here, with some really pleasant nuance in how you've applied it to an intentionally sparse soundscape. i hear elements of klaus badelt (first pirates movie soundtrack) and some of zimmer's earlier stuff like atlantis in how you've applied instrumentation. 1:15 is stellar from a scoring standpoint and pleasing from an application standpoint.

going from that, i do feel that there's a few parts that are too sparse and are calling for both more scoring background and better samples. 2:09 is screaming for a meaty full-orchestra background to a better brass sample, and so is 2:42. the consistent shift in ensemble is great, though, and it continues to showcase an eye for ear-catching timbres. great work through and through.

i'm gonna call out MW and say that there's zero dissonance that isn't intentional and well-placed. the section at 3:25 is clumsy in the melody, but the bassline walking up is an intentional decision to add some stress to an active melody that otherwise is going nowhere. i also didn't feel that there were any awkward key changes - i found the shift at 2:25 to be a refreshing break from a style that would quickly get tiresome if repeated (also, it's the same key!), and 2:47 was strong but actually pretty well executed i thought. that said, i can see why that one would be polarizing since it's a dramatic shift in style that maybe needed a measure or two more of breathing room to make more sense.

the mastering on this is poor at best, unfortunately. the panning issue and EQ issues are notable even on a soundbar. i'm guessing your headphones don't have much bass response - or, more likely, that you're using studio monitors without a sub - and it shows. imo this really holds the track back to the point that i don't consider it passable, but i do also consider it to be by far the easiest thing to fix! you've got the hard parts down. if this comes back with less aggressive panning and more sane EQing it's an instapass in my book.




Edited by prophetik music

Share this post

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