Rexy Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) Contact Information Your ReMixer name: aluminum Your real name: Zac Changnon Your email address: Your website: blurringline.net Your user ID (number, not name) on our forums: 2776 Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged: Equinox Name of arrangement: Meridian Name of individual song(s) arranged: Tori Additional information about game including composer, system, etc. (if it has not yet been added to the site): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox_(1993_video_game) SNES, 1993; composers: Tim Follin and Geoff Follin Link to the original soundtrack (if it is not one of the sound archives already available on the site): https://youtu.be/RW3bsU_9rwY Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.: Hello again OCR, I’m back with another track for you. I actually started this piece quite a few years ago now but recently dusted off the project to finish it up because it seemed like an arrangement worth completing. The sound design is perhaps slightly uneven because of that time gap in production, but I polished it all up and I think it turned out well. Because I took some liberties with the arrangement, I wanted to take a moment to go through the source usage in this track. I didn’t use the entirety of the original because it’s quite lengthy/atmospheric. The plucked melody in the original that starts around 0:44 shows up prominently in my arrangement at 1:02. The lead melody at 0:53 in the original is the basis for my “verse” melody that plays at 0:25 and 2:55 in my arrangement. The melody at 1:05 in the original is the basis for my “chorus” melody that plays at 0:43 and 3:14 in my arrangement. The section of the original that starts at 4:25 (Rexy's note: technically 0:00 as that's when the track loops) is the basis for my bridge section that starts around 1:31. Thanks! -- aluminum Edited July 16, 2020 by prophetik music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rexy Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 Production-wise, this track is nicely polished. I know it's weird for you to say that as it took years to get into this form, but trust me. The frequency spread is slick, the instrument balance is spot on, and the effects - whether it be vinyl crackling, bit crushing, or temporary EQ filters - added their parts to add not only air but also sonic interest. Even the synths themselves have great uses of LFO to varying degrees to maintain engagement in the soundscape. It's as if the lengthy creation time was well masked. The reason why I paneled it was wondering whether there was enough source to make the whole thing work. I appreciate the breakdown, but the verse and melody sections brought up are too far detached from their respective segments to be recognizable. Yet, the call-backs to the plucked melody and the bridge focusing on the original's chords are true to form. With this in mind, I can't count the verse and chorus in the source breakdown, leaving it with less than 40% of recognizable VGM. It's a simple fix to get the dominance quota up, really - you could change the pitches in those two sections, so they're more in line with the original writing. Nothing else needs to change otherwise. Honestly, I was holding back on this one for so long, based on this source dilemma. Don't get me wrong - the production values are a commendable effort, and I enjoyed them every step of the way. But if I still can't hear half of your intended uses several months after paneling, then I feel it's not ready for primetime just yet. If you can alter the verse and chorus sections, so their melodies are more recognizable, I'll be more than happy to listen to it again. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 I think the verse and chorus sections are recognizable but that bridge section is too different. It's a tough call because the production and sound design in this track are impeccable, but there's just a little bit missing in terms of the source being prevalent. Really like this one, but I gotta say NO (resub). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 this track was a pleasure to listen to. you've nailed the aesthetic so well with this - synth work, percussion, the grit on everything, the mastering, it's all fantastic. there's room for the track to breathe in the arrangement, there's a clear and over-arching journey we're travelling, and there's a ton of creativity in getting from point a to point b. this would be an instant classic. i spent quite a bit of time thinking about the arrangement aspect of this one. having been told where the verse/chorus concepts come from, i can definitely hear the influence the original track has on the arrangement. i kept coming back to this in the standards, emphasis mine: Quote 3. The source material must be identifiable and dominant. While interpretation and original additions are encouraged, arrangement must not modify the source material beyond recognition. The amount of arranged source material must be substantial enough to be recognized. so i believe the source material is dominant but not identifiable in this track. the verse section is a great example of using augmentation (a musical term used to indicate the increase of note values, and by extension as its use as the opposite of diminution, the removal of flourishes) to fit into the style. i found the verse correlation to be present but not immediately identifiable since it's so augmented. the chorus section as well uses parts of the correlating section from the original, but only part, and because it's essentially just four or five notes of that section, it isn't even as correlative as the verse section was (which was already pretty loose). counting the verse into rexy's calculations above gets it over 50%, but only just, and only with a very charitable interpretation of the timings. i think ultimately, although i initially didn't want to NO this, i'm going to have to. it's just not close enough. it'd be fine for a project mix but it isn't enough for a mixpost. adding even a little more correlation between your verse/chorus sections and the original's verse/chorus sections without losing the originality and great arrangement you're displaying will be enough for me. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts