Emunator Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 (edited) Hi, thanks for everything you do! Contact information: ReMixer name: MelodicImmersion Real name: Paul Email: SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/paul-devito-270647719 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5sDfv940zBF6stqk7aCNPQ UserID: 38216 Submission Information: Game arranged: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Arrangement: "Fortress of Thieves" Song arranged: "Gerudo Valley" Original song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hEYvdMoF2g&ab_channel=Halo2playa Download from Google Drive (16-bit WAV): Stream or download on SoundCloud (24-bit WAV): Additional comments: This is a follow-up to my cover of Molgera from Wind Waker ("Giant Flying Sand Worm"). Just like before it's fully-orchestrated-epic-style! Just like before, please let me know all the ways I can improve. Thank you and enjoy! Paul Edited June 25, 2023 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted May 8, 2023 Share Posted May 8, 2023 very epic opening. thematic percussion and a ton of dynamic variation right off the bat, which i love. melody is initially carried by an acoustic plectral instrument - probably classical guitar - which is a tough sell due to the timbral differences between the instrument and the backing parts. but the backing parts and supporting instrumentation are well-fleshed out and sound great. there's a ton of creativity in passing the parts between instrumental parts. there's a tempo change at 1:08, and some more focus to brass and toms here. i can see some hard limiting going on, but it still sounds ok there. there's some neat xylo work behind everything after this, and another big build with the toms and horns through 1:50. i love the repetition at 1:50. after this it drops down to what sounds like the intro's bars for quite a bit. everything after 1:56 is a linear copy from earlier in the piece. this is awesome-sounding, well-realized, and the first 1:56 is great arrangement. everything after it is repeated note for note, though, which means ~56% of the work is repeated. too much copypasta =( honestly, if this ended with just about anything - a major chord, a guitar strum, a blat from a trombone, anything - after the tom fill at 1:56, i'd pass it. as it is, it is way too much repeated stuff. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 proph nails the critical issue here. Far too much repetition for what we're looking for. It's a great orchestration. Production is clearly sampled but also well over our bar. If it just flat-out ended at 1:56 I'd probably still vote in favor of it despite technically being 4 seconds below our minimum. This should be an easy fix. NO (please resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPRTNovice Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 The intro is LIT. I'm not on board with the criqiues about repetetiveness because I think mentally we've all honestly heard this song enough in our lives, and the source seems to repeat interminably. But the interpretation is solid, as is the arrangement, production, instrumentaion and mixing, with a lot of different takes on the melody. It's not exactly theme-and-variation level interpretation, but it's enough that it captures the original and does some fun stuff with it. No, not the most interpretive and innovative arrangement of this tune that I've heard, and could it maybe use a bit of a work-over for tightness? Probably. Stylstically, I think the fade-out is unnecessary, and doesn't jive with the way the rest of the piece was composed. This should end definiteiylve and largely, and you've got the chops. Fading out kind of also psychologically adds to the idea that it's repetitive, as that's what happens when you fade out, you know? So, I'm passing this, but I really do think some tightening up of the arrangement along with a banger of an exit would really help this thing soar. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted May 16, 2023 Share Posted May 16, 2023 I'm liking the instrumentation to start. The steel-string guitar's not mixed properly to be the true foreground lead. The sampled brass at 1:04 was super fake & exposed, but brief. Really awkward transition of the instrumentation at 1:08 and again at 3:01; it then thinned out into more of a combination of the flamenco-style instrumentation along with orchestration at 1:26 and again at 3:19. I'd argue those latter moments should have appeared somewhere BEFORE 1:08 and 3:01 to serve as a transition into the full-on orchestration. Melody redux at 2:13, annnnnd it's a full-on cut-and-paste repeating verbatim, which was disappointing. Writing a new ending section instead of doing cut-and-paste stuff from 3:49 until the end would have been good also, even if you varied things up before then. Yeah, the mixing/balance could use touching up, and the transitions where the flamenco instrumentation drops out don't work, IMO. The level of interpretation/personalization is good, but then you rested on your laurels and didn't develop or vary the arrangement any further. You've gotta NOT just recycle the theme past the 2-minute point. C'mon, Paul, finish the story! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted June 15, 2023 Author Share Posted June 15, 2023 I'm trying to keep my Zelda bias in check here, but I like this a lot. The sequenced guitar is serviceable as a lead and doesn't build tremendously on what the original offered, but all of the percussive and symphonic upgrades you've built around that core melody are what really make this shine. The arrangement feels punctuated with drama and tension - it's a modern day cinematic upgrade that would be right at home in a modern day Zelda game. I get it, the wholesale repetition is a bummer, but I think I tend to be more forgiving on that front than other judges, as long as there's enough dynamics within those repeated sections that it doesn't feel plodding. If my ear isn't picking up on the repetition and I need to layer tracks in my DAW to see if it's actually identical, and it's not a matter of "we've been treading the same ground for 4 minutes without any variations", I'm not going to ding the track if everything else is tightly executed. In this case, I think this falls on the right side of the debate for me. I honestly don't hear what Larry is talking about with the transitions, I thought that was firing on all cylinders ? I realize this boils down to a matter of personal preference, but I'd like to make the case that this one is good enough as is. Best of luck with the vote, however it shakes out! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted June 25, 2023 Share Posted June 25, 2023 There's writing a song with ABA song structure or using codas to reiterate ideas, and then there's straight up just looping your track twice. You can't just loop your sub-2:00 track twice and send that to us. Come on. You clearly have the arrangement and production chops, but this is just not it. You don't even end after the second loop, you go for a third one and do a fade. That's no good. NO. Needs a lot more material here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSim Posted June 25, 2023 Share Posted June 25, 2023 Not much more to say from me that hasn't been said. I love the original, I love what you've done with it here, and for the first 2 minutes I was really into it. I was excited to hear where it went in the second half of the arrangement, after the first run-through of the source melody was presented almost exactly as expected (albeit with an epic sound upgrade). Hearing an exact copy of the first run-through was a real disappointment, and the lack of any differentiation in sequencing or automation between the two parts made it stand out as a very obvious copy-paste at that. The final fade-out would be OK if the rest of the piece wasn't just repeated already. This arrangement is like a YouTube video of the source, that loops twice and then fades out at the start of the third one. Do this piece some justice and add some variation to the arrangement, and it'll be a cracker. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts