*NO* Assassin's Creed Valhalla "The Opening of the Valhalla"

[Emunator]

ReMixer Name: Aesaire
User ID: 34323

Game Arranged: Assassin's Creed Valhalla (2020)

Name of Arrangement: The Opening of the Valhalla

Name of Individual Song Arranged: Assassin's Creed Valhalla Main Theme

Original Composers: Jesper Kyd, Sarah Schachner, Einar Selvik

Link to Original Soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgKr2c2ZebM

 

Comments:

This remix was inspired by a similarly titled painting by the British painter J. M. W. Turner (https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/turner-the-opening-of-the-wallhalla-1842-n00533), particularly the soft edges, unsaturated colours and blurry shapes that dominate the background. These elements were translated into the sound design of the instruments and ambient layers using filters, reverbs, delays, and granular effects. With the exception of the piano and the timpanis, all instruments are synthesized. The mix was also intentionally blurred to resemble the painting; akin the foreground, the lead elements were given a reasonable level of definition, while akin the background, accompanying elements were blended and smeared into the ether. The timpanis are barely noticeable, they're meant to add very minor accents or add a small amount of energy to certain beats.

As for the arrangement, the original outro was used as the base for the verses, while the original verse was deconstructed to become part of the accompaniment rather than the lead. The chorus has for the most part remained the same, but is succeeded by a new section each time.

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Liontamer
closed decision

[MindWanderer]

I don't think I've ever heard a remix inspired by a painting before.  It's fascinating to hear your inspiration broken down.

For all the changes, the impact is still pretty similar to the original.  The Celtic and Norse instruments are replaced with synths, but they're all synths of a similar timbre and used in a similar way.  The big exception is the new age arp, which is entirely new, but doesn't stand out because it's also commonly used in the same sort of genre.

There's a muddiness to the entire soundscape that I think might be caused by all the layers of sweeps and white noise.  It all sounds unclear, like it was played through a cheap speaker system.  Some of it sounds outright distorted—the flute-like synth that starts at 1:55 is a notable example, but it's frequently true of your main cello-like lead as well.

Then there's the ending, which is similar to the original but more abrupt and doesn't end on the tonic, so it sounds incomplete.

I love the creativity that went into this, and it's a very cool idea.  But I don't think the execution is there, and I'm not convinced it's interpretive enough for what we look for.  The production definitely needs to be cleaner, and some more deviation from the style and organization of the original would be very welcome.

NO

[DarkSim]

I really like this one! It was a very enjoyable listen, and I can definitely appreciate what you were going for. It's got a beautifully peaceful, ambient quality to it. The softness of the synths and the timbre make it a very easy listen, if a little fuzzy. It does sound as if you've used high-cut filters too much, though, and there's a muted nature to all the sounds. After reading your writeup, it makes a little more sense, however I still think the high-cut is overdone. There need to be more moments of clarity in the composition, to show that the 'fogginess' of the rest is intentional. The piano break at 1:10 is a lovely moment, but the tremolo you've put on it - that wobbly LFO - feels forced, like you're trying too hard to mess up the sound for the sake of it. Have a little detune on it, sure, but I'm not a fan of the implementation of that wobble effect.

I found myself wishing for a clean vocal line over this atmosphere, actually. Something Nordic. It's crying out for one! When I listened to the source after your piece, it clicked into place. That was pretty much exactly what I was hankering after; the way it's done in the source. I think if you did that though, it would sound way too similar.

I hate to reject this piece, as I think it's a fantastic start, but there definitely needs to be some clearer points of reference to hang the arrangement on. Try experimenting more with the piano, or using that synth arp to lead into a more electronic sound.

Hope to hear this one back!

NO (resubmit)

[Chimpazilla]

The mix has an industrial sound right away and that's super cool.  I really like the detuned piano.  I have also never heard of a painting being an inspiration for music, at least in terms of mixing, and I'm not sure that's an approach that works for music, especially when the painting can be described as blurred or smeared or muddy.  The listener will most likely not have seen the painting and cannot make the connection but they do hear the blurry/smeary/muddy effect.  What I'm hearing is that this track is mixed the way you intended it to be and it is very full yet very gritty.  The arrangement doesn't evolve much once it gets going, with only the arp giving it a different energy feeling and only briefly.  The ending does appear rather abruptly but it works well enough.

I have listened to this several times now and it is growing on me.  I think the smeary industrialish soundscape creates a very interesting and dystopian vibe.  A clearer lead instrument here or there would be very nice but a leadless arrangement works just fine.  My main concern is lack of energy evolution throughout the piece; it ends up being very static in terms of soundscape as well as arrangement.  All that said, I'm liking this more and more as I keep listening.  It's weird and interesting and giving me the feels.  I think this mix stands alone well enough to convey what it was intended to convey.  This may not pass, and it surely won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm a sucker for weird, unique remixes full of emotion.

YES

[prophetik music]

the intro is really, really dense. it's hard to find much to grab onto, although i like the LFO'd vibrato on the synth at 0:20 a lot. the intro does a nice job building up the muffled soundscape up to the piano coming in. there's a pulsing synth that comes in at 1:24 that does a great job of giving the track some more feel of time to it. 

there's a kind of surprising shift at 1:57 where the bass just disappears. it gets pretty thin and loses the great feel of the earlier section as a result of that. i like the detuned leads and continued motion, but it sounds tinny here. the bass comes back in at 2:44 and it feels a lot better from then on out.

around the time the melody comes back at 2:44, i'm starting to get tired of the ambience despite it feeling more fleshed out. there are some changes that are going on, but the overall feel could easily be mistaken for the earlier instance of the melodic content. i'd want something big here to differentiate it.

and then it ends? what is that? it didn't even feel like you were done and there's a fadeout. that's a lazy ending. at least go to the root chord first.

i actually was pretty OK with this until the ending, but that put me over the edge. i think the middle section needs some bass to root it. i think the recapitulation needs something to differentiate it from the beginning. the ending needs to exist. but i love the muffled, closed-mouth-humming feel of the track overall, and i think there's some really great synth work in there dressing it up. i don't mind how mid-heavy it is (although i'd love to hear some sparkles of higher stuff occasionally like what chimpa mentions).

this is neat! it needs some more dressing, i think.

 

 

NO

[XPRTNovice]

Man, super cool that you got your inspiration for this one from a painting. Love art informing art.

I feel like maybe I'm biased toward this mix because I've been listening to a lot of more soundscapy stuff lately in my personal life, and I love what one can do with sounds when you depart from the rules of what a piece of music really needs to be. Personally, I don't find the softness of this mix to be jarring at all. 

Arrangement wise, I do think we're sticking a little close to the original here and kind of palatte swapping some of the instruments, with the notable exception being the piano solo at at 1:10 which was absolutely lovely. But it's not SO close to the source that I'm going to flag it as being not the right thing for the site. I think you've tastefully reimagined a lot of what's happening in the source, but really putting it in a different world. 

At 2:00 I was really hoping for some bottom to come back into the mix, and I think it goes too long without it, which is where I started kind of crinkling my forehead at the soundscape. We don't get thebottom back for almost 40 seconds, and when we do get it back it's so subtle that I almost didn't notice it at first. That's a good opportunity for the climax of the piece, and we can have something so nice and full there. 

I am unified, however, with everyone else's assessment of the ending. Regardless of your departure from convention, I still think it's important to tell a complete story within a piece if you're going to have an emotional impact on the audience, and the lack of an ending here really takes all the hard work you put into the first 3:40 of the piece and minimizes its result. 

Ultimately, I love where you're going with this. It's a wonderful idea, and mostly well executed, but it needs some things (most notably an ending) before I think this can stand on its own. 

NO (resubmit)