Rexy Posted February 22, 2021 Share Posted February 22, 2021 Good Morning everyone! I have a ReMix for you that I did for the now cancelled project "Paths Less Travelled 2", with mastering by your own Chimpazilla! Remixer: Brink-of-Time (Mastering by Chimpazilla) Real name: David Jacobson Jr. Email: Website: https://brink-of-time.bandcamp.com/ Forum ID: 3661 Game: Secret of Evermore Name of arrangement: Everstreams Through Evermore Song arranged: Ivor Tower Town Example of Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh-LszTLUaU Link to Arrangement: I did a synthwave spin on this normally (to me) more somber/relaxing song. It has probably been the most fun I've had arranging something. I hope you all enjoy! -Brink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) Oh shit, I really like this soundscape - I'm actually kind of jealous as to how well these instruments blend. The reverb on the backing arp texture bleeds a lot into itself which creates a bit of dissonant soup if you listen for it, so drying up that reverb would probably make a marked improvement to an already delicious soundscape. The arrangement does a lot with the opening melodic portions of the track (0:00 - 0:11 in the source video that we have), and rather than following the source clean throughout this arrangement instead builds off of the motifs established in those first eleven seconds and expands on it, sprinkling flourishes of those leaps and steps throughout so that it sounds connected, yet different. Aside from the sour note in the melody at 0:54, this is really well composed and sounds cohesive overall, but I can't in good conscious consider sections like 1:39 - 2:17 as connected to the source in a way that an average listener would catch. It's well done and is connected to the source in theory, but in practice the connections are just leaps and steps that are common to virtually all music. This is what I come to with a stop watch, when counting all obvious source connections: Cutting 2 seconds of silence off of the end of the track we have 254 seconds of source, so we should be looking for at least 127 seconds of unambiguous source before we need to do a deep dive into how the motifs connect to the source: 0:00 - 0:24 (pretty straight source usage), 0:38 - 1:14 (pretty straight source usage), 2:17 - 2:36 (Texture is from the source), 2:36 - 2:52 (Melody is from the source, reharmonized), 3:34 - 3:53 (Melody is from the source, reharmonized) 114 seconds of source out of 254 seconds, or about 45% of the track is recognizably connected to the source. 1:39 - 2:17, 2:54 - 3:34, and 3:53 - 4:12 connect to the source very loosely with some callbacks to motifs from the original material (which is another 97 seconds of debatably loosely connected material), and I'd be open to an argument from folk that maybe we can pull about 20% of that material using a more finely tuned stopwatch to consider this enough source for OCR, but I think it's better to consider the sections of music more broadly than that; most people aren't going to listen to a leap and think to themselves "Aha! That's a reference to 0:07 of the source!", after all. I guess I talk a lot when I have to reject music that I personally really enjoy. Love the soundscape, and I really enjoy the composition elements of this track, but as it stands now I don't think we can take it. If you were willing to make some of the sections that make allusions to the source material more clearly reference the source I think we could easily post this, but right now it's a little too much your own composition in this and not enough source from Secret of Evermore. NO Edited March 9, 2021 by Gario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 32-bit float?! they called him a madman... the intro is really nice. the filter on it is enough to catch it but not enough to stomp out the character. the bass swell is also well-handled and comes from absolutely nothing. the presentation of everything at 0:39 is really great - i particularly like your unfiltered bass synth. gario's right that there's a backing pitch that's not fitting everything else (seems like a minor sixth right at 0:54). the melody when it comes in is quite loud as well, at least when it's higher in the register. once it drops lower it's more balanced. the drum entrance is great, the soundscape is just very idiomatic. 2:56-3:06 (arguably 3:12) feel like 1:44-1:53ish of the original, and while they don't follow the chord structure they do follow the shape of the line (in arguably a more listenable fashion). the earlier section is also similar in its exploration of a line's shape vs. its specific melodic content. i feel this is relevant because the original's melody noodles so much that it's almost unsingable - it just keeps wandering, and the artist here did a nice job making something that is more cohesive without losing the songlike feel that made the original interesting. this is also separate from how the artist continues to use the adapted arpeggio from the original throughout the entire track as another tool to relate back to the original. the addition of even just the initial descending parts of the three passages that gario calls out make it to 50%, so i'm good there. looking at it as a whole, there's a clear and consistent relation to the original, and the soundscape like i said is great. even with that one note at 0:54 (which isn't really wrong as much as it is a dissonance that wasn't set up) this is definitely good enough to post. YES djpretzel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 I remember mastering this one, I hadn't heard it since then so clicking on it now was a nice surprise. I adored this remix as I was working with it and it still sounds amazing to me. I admit when I master, I'm focused almost entirely on production so I don't consider the source too closely. Now that I'm really comparing, it's tricky because the source is in 3/4 and in another key, and the connections are quite a bit looser than I'd like. I want to pass this track, but I'm hoping that someone who's stronger in source comparison than I am will perhaps kindly do a breakdown. (*cough cough Rexy*) Gosh I still love this track. NOT SURE YET DUE TO SOURCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 I don't feel like there's a source disconnect here at all. The connections from 1:38 and 2:56 of the remix to 1:09 of the source leaped right out at me. More importantly, the whole thing feels like a cohesive whole that's clearly derived from the source material. It's not like there are huge chunks of original writing here. This is indeed some nice, mellow, rich synthwave. No glaring production issues that I can pick out, and the arrangement is solid. I have no concerns putting this on the front page. YES djpretzel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 Source melody meanders in a way that kinda had to be addressed for a synthwave structure, and I think the artist has done a good job with that - it's liberal, but not too liberal, and even that varies, as some parts connect more. Essentially I'm just echoing @prophetik music & @MindWanderer's votes - read 'em both, agree with 'em both. Lovely warmth and grit to the lead synth, I might add. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted October 3, 2021 Share Posted October 3, 2021 Yeah, not too much to add here. I agree that this wanders too and from the source, and while it might not pass Larry's standards I'm good for it. I will say that this is a really nice take on the source that I wouldn't have expected. Lovely use of synths and great adaptions of chords throughout. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 It helped for me to listen to the source at 1.5x speed. Thanks to Gario for his timestamping, but he actually undersold the source connections in this case, since it's almost all over the arrangement. No hate, as I've sold stuff short plenty of times in timestamping; sometimes one person missing the connections at the start ends up influencing the rest of the panel, who assuming it's source-light or on the bubble. MindWanderer caught what Gario initially missed out on. :01-:19 (:00-:11 of the source), :19-:38 (1:21-1:32 of the source, but maybe just :22-:38 from 1:23-1:32 of source), :38-1:19.75 (:00-:11 of the source); 1:39-1:57; 1:57-2:16.25 (1:09-1:20, then 1:21-1:32 of the source); 2:16.25-2:36 (very liberal take on :00-:11 countermelody of source) 2:36-2:55 (liberal take on :00-:11 melody of source); 2:55-3:13.75, 3:15.5-3:33.5 (1:09-1:32 of source); 3:34-3:53 (:00-:11 of source), 4:02-4:14 (1:14-1:20 of source) From :38-1:20, the backing patterns were also inspired by the bass countermelody parts of :00-:11 of the source, with the second half of the 5-note patterns staggering the rhythm of the 5th note (like a soft accent). This shit's clever. The track was 4:15-long, so I needed to hear the source in play for at least 127.5 seconds for the source tune to be dominant in the arrangement. Just sticking with the overt connections I heard: :01-:19, :22-1:19.75, 1:39-2:16.25, 2:55-3:13.75, 3:15.5-3:53, 4:02-4:14 = 181.25 seconds or 70.80% source usage Smart arranging, David, and nice sounds! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts