*NO* Final Fantasy 6 "Live for a Who / Oh War of Evil"

[Liontamer]

Your ReMixer name: Lucas Guimaraes
Your real name: Lucas Guimaraes
Your email address: 
Your website: https://twitter.com/Thirdkoopa - knew nothing better to link for this
Your userid (number, not name) on our forums, found by viewing your forum profile: http://ocremix.org/community/profile/33965-thirdkoopa/
Name of game(s) arranged: Final Fantasy VI
Name of arrangement: Live For A Who / Oh War of Evil
Name of individual song(s) arranged: Terra's Theme

Other people that helped: TSori

.wav: 

My comments:

This is a Mirror Duet Arrangement of Terra's Theme from Final Fantasy VI. Mirror, you might ask? Inspired by Mozart's "Der Spiegel" (https://youtu.be/ybiuRzpkaMA) except with a VGM arrangement. This means that my part, when flipped upside down, is the sheet music to TSori's part. Let me tell you: Mirror Arrangements are HARD. When TSori came to me with this arrangement idea, I knew I had to try it out. I was hooked once the puzzle element clicked with me. This took a lot of revisioning to get this sounding like Terra's theme.

I'm attaching the sheet music (One of the few times I see myself doing this) to really help get across why this gimmick is so hard. Every note was essentially writing two notes. Once we got the arrangement down, it was really about practicing. Since it was initially made for the Pixel Mixers contest deadline, we knew one thing: We had to keep it simple. This allowed for plenty of time to rehearse the piece and go over the mix and master a few times. I had a lot of fun making this track, and I really hope you all enjoy it. Certainly a VGM First!

TSori Comments:
One of the things that makes collaborations with Lucas so much fun is that he likes wacky ideas as much as I do.  He also happens to be far better at executing them!  So, when I pitched the idea of a "mirror/table duet" style arrangement to him, I knew he'd find a way to make it work.   The arranging process turned out to be a lot of fun. We traded drafts back and forth a few times, building on each others' ideas until Lucas arrived at this final arrangement.   As Lucas said several times it often felt as much like solving a puzzle as it did arranging.   Ultimately I am very pleased with how this turned out, and I hope it makes for a unique ReMix.

The title also took a bit of thought.  The goal was to find one that would spell different phrases read forward and backward, both of which had to be at least somewhat relevant to Terra.  So we ended up with "Live for a Who" for our amnesiac heroine and "Oh War of Evil" alluding to her former life as a living weapon.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Liontamer]

The track was 2:24-long, so I needed to make out the theme for at least 72 seconds. Since this is a gimmick arrangement, I just wanted to check that the source tune was in play enough. I found what I needed!

:02.5-:10.5, :13-1:09, 1:30.5-1:35.5, 1:49-2:04.75 = 82.75 seconds or 57.46% overt source usage

Also, 1:44-1:47 = Honnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnk

One weird goose honk amidst an otherwise sound concept and performance.

I...

SEY YES

P.S. Honnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnk!

LT Edit (7/11): Sorry, guys, I'm listening again, and the sax control is indeed too unsteady. I was too nice, which I'll never be again!  I'd love for you to try this again, if you're willing to re-record it.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Liontamer
updated vote from YES to NO

[MindWanderer]

Subjectively, this felt really source-light to me. Going through it, a lot of what Larry counted didn't sound like the source tune to me at all.  Some of it is snips of only a few seconds long, spliced together in a weird way with long sustains. (Honestly I don't understand why Larry doesn't count silence that's part of the source material, but does count notes held for entire measures that aren't that way in the source; there's not really any compositional difference.)

It might be correct from a music theory perspective, but to me it sounded weirdly unpleasant throughout in a way Der Spiegel doesn't. Lots of notes that sounded dissonant, lots of patterns that seemed to clash.

And I'm afraid that to me the performances, especially the woodwind, sounded kind of squalky, and I heard some distinct breath control issues. Not surprising, since this is clearly really challenging to perform, so no shade there, and I respect you a lot of even trying something like this. But I don't think the outcome was successful enough to sound good.

I hate to vote against this, because clearly it was extremely difficult both to compose and to perform, but to my ear it just doesn't sound right, plus I just don't hear those source connections that Larry does without using a lot of imagination.

NO

[prophetik music]

the tenor sax performance is unfortunately poor enough that i can't vote yes on this right off the bat. it doesn't sound good at all. there's a few elements that cause that, and i'd be happy to talk through coaching elements on a call, but it boils down to that the tenor is lacking some basic elements that we'd call required from a performance standpoint - namely a consistent and musically appropriate tone. the honky tone is due to puffing your cheeks and not providing enough pressure on the reed with your bottom jaw almost exclusively, and correcting this can also help with the shivering, wavering tone you have on sustains. air support can assist with that as well, as can appropriately applied vibrato to cover it up. this is a deal-breaker - similar to a singer with a grating tone and no vibrato, it doesn't matter how clever or neat or expansive the arrangement is, it's not going to pass. i'll note that i feel the flugel sounds solid despite not using vibrato in stylistically appropriate places since the base tone of the performance is great.

the arrangement concept is neat. i feel that this implementation (edit: the mirror dance concept, not the original this track is based on) loses a lot of the fanciful, dancing quality of most implementations i've heard before. i recognize that they're hard, for sure! this isn't something i'd have been comfortable tackling. i agree that while technically there are notes in this arrangement that go in directions that are similar to what's in the original, it's tough mapping the original to this track by ear. it's certainly not required that every track feature a clear representation of the source end to end, but since results matter as much as intent, it matters that there's little to tie this back to an iconic theme outside a few very clear references.

it would have been difficult at best for the arrangement to carry this past the performance, and i don't feel that it's transcendent enough to warrant that. it is certainly possible i'm biased, but the saxophone sounds objectively poor, far past what i consider minimum quality for posting, and it's one of the only two elements in the entire work.

 

 

NO

Edited July 11, 2023 by prophetik music
clarification

[DarkeSword]

The sax performance is killing this for me. It sounds very inexperienced, like someone new to the instrument. The arrangement is clever but like other J's I'm just not hearing enough source connection.

MW and proph sum up my thoughts perfectly, so I'm not going to retread here. It's a NO from me.

[Liontamer]

On 6/27/2023 at 3:31 PM, MindWanderer said:

Subjectively, this felt really source-light to me. Going through it, a lot of what Larry counted didn't sound like the source tune to me at all.  Some of it is snips of only a few seconds long, spliced together in a weird way with long sustains.

On 7/5/2023 at 8:25 AM, prophetik music said:

i agree that while technically there are notes in this arrangement that go in directions that are similar to what's in the original, it's tough mapping the original to this track by ear. it's certainly not required that every track feature a clear representation of the source end to end, but since results matter as much as intent, it matters that there's little to tie this back to an iconic theme outside a few very clear references.

On 7/5/2023 at 3:10 PM, DarkeSword said:

I'm just not hearing enough source connection.

Criticize the performances, that's fine. The source tune being in play enough isn't in question though. There's only two instruments going on, the tempo's slow, and when the melody's referenced, it's very straightforward segments of the source's intro, verse, or chorus.

(Also, the sustained notes for the melody are about 3 to 4 seconds when they happen, which isn't that long at this tempo, so MW's POV that you wouldn't count sustained notes within a melody doesn't make sense to me.)

I clipped the track (attached) to just the sections invoking Terra's theme. I didn't think it was difficult to make out, but it you hear something that doesn't sound like "Terra", focus on the other instrument.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Liontamer
removed attached example track

[prophetik music]

Quote

it would have been difficult at best for the arrangement to carry this past the performance, and i don't feel that it's transcendent enough to warrant that.

context matters. the rest of my comments around arrangement in the post do not say anything about there not being enough source.

it ultimately doesn't matter. the saxophone performance is a non-starter.

edit: i must make very clear so that it isn't misread - my statement about the 'implementation' losing the 'fanciful, dancing' quality was not directed towards the original's representation in the remix at all. it is referring to the arrangement's inspiration - a mirror sonata, of which most are extremely light, silly, entertaining pieces. this is a surprising interpretation of my words especially given that i regularly beat the hell out of melodic lines to the point that they're academic, as well as championing music that uses those academic interpretations.

Edited July 11, 2023 by prophetik music

[Liontamer]

On 7/5/2023 at 8:25 AM, prophetik music said:

i feel that this implementation loses a lot of the fanciful, dancing quality of most implementations i've heard before. [...] i agree that while technically there are notes in this arrangement that go in directions that are similar to what's in the original, it's tough mapping the original to this track by ear. it's certainly not required that every track feature a clear representation of the source end to end, but since results matter as much as intent, it matters that there's little to tie this back to an iconic theme outside a few very clear references.

An arrangement of "Terra" doesn't need to have any "fanciful, dancing quality" to be accepted, and I know you're not claiming it has to. Saying that this "lost" something the original had without clarifying it's not part of the grounds for rejection creates a great opportunity for you (and the Standards) to be misinterpreted.

At best, I'm taking this above to mean that even though the source usage may be there, it doesn't have enough of the same energy/feeling as the iconic source for you, and it's a smaller part of the reason you're rejecting this. That would be in stark contrast to other transformative arrangements we've posted, including ones by you. So I'm pushing back because I don't believe that's what you're intending to say, yet I think most would interpret it that way.

4 hours ago, prophetik music said:

context matters. the rest of my comments around arrangement in the post do not say anything about there not being enough source.

it ultimately doesn't matter. the saxophone performance is a non-starter.

This is going to sound testy and confrontational when instead I'm curious, because my tone can't be conveyed in text. Do you recognize the source usage as being dominant here or not? Not knowing yet because the performances didn't justify checking it closely is understandable, but it has to be acknowledged if it's the case.

On 7/5/2023 at 8:25 AM, prophetik music said:

it would have been difficult at best for the arrangement to carry this past the performance, and i don't feel that it's transcendent enough to warrant that.

This is sidestepping the source recognition issue because the performance isn't up to par. As said, that would be understandable, but I also don't want to repeat the resub scenario of "The Little Girl and the Star" -- low-hanging production issues in the first vote stopping the more important convo about the arrangement/source dominance. The same dynamic is now happening with this track -- low-hanging performance issues stopping the more important convo about source recognition & transformation.

If this were resubbed, the arrangement likely wouldn't change, only the performance. Even if you're saying you yourself recognize the source, it's a problem two judges appear to be saying they don't recognize the source when it's used plain as day.

It needs to be discussed now so that, if this is rejected, Lucas understands if he's being told this concept -- even redone with impeccable performances -- would be rejected on source recognition grounds.

[DarkeSword]

Well here's the thing. You can stop-watch and splice all you like to indicate that this meets a 50% source usage standard, but I'm not going to sit here and stop-watch this track, because let's be very clear: the 50% guideline was established primarily because we got a Chrono Trigger submission many years ago where the entire latter half was almost entirely original, and a majority of judges (myself included) were just deaf to this because of how good the former half was. Prot pointed it out and we had a pretty lengthy discussion that ended up establishing a 50% guideline for judges to informally follow. And let's also be clear about another thing because over the years I have seen this guideline turned into a hard-and-fast rule that's been applied in a lot of judgements:

50% source usage is not in our Submission Standards.

I really need to stress this. You can't just look at a track and say "well I counted the seconds and exactly 57.46% of the track arranges Terra's Theme so I'm okay on source usage." What kind of vote is that? Point forty-six? Really? And I brought this up many, many years ago but backed off because it didn't really seem like you were going to change your methodology when it came to stop-watching, but I really need to stress this as an artist who has 30+ ReMixes released on this site: silence is a part of music, and it's wrong to only count the fractions of a second when a note is playing and not count the fractions of a second when it isn't.

All of this sounds like I'm actually going to bat for this arrangement, but quite the contrary. Terra's Theme is burned into my brain. I listened to the opening to FF6 constantly in my teens and early-20s. I used to play it on a keyboard in my room, I figured it out on trumpet in HS when goofing off with band friends. I know this piece. And this arrangement, as I said in my vote, is clever. But, I don't think the source usage is dominant and identifiable, which are two words that are in our Submissions Standards. There are passages where we get a modulated references to Terra followed by a long sustains where the other instrument fills in the space with whatever is mirrored from the other side of the arrangement. This is fine and clever in a vaccuum but it sounds like and feels like a lot of meandering fluff that's filling in the spaces. That's what I hear. I don't hear Terra in enough of this. It doesn't feel dominant. That's the site's standard and that's my standard; it's a nebulous and qualitative standard, as opposed to a discrete and quantitative one, but that's why we have a panel of experienced, human judges evaluating the music they hear. I'm going to judge what I hear.

One last thing, Larry: you're calling the performance issues here "low-hanging" as if they are easily fixed by taking things back to the DAW and just doing a little production work. Your initial vote on this track is almost entirely stop-watching for source usage and then calling out "one weird goose honk" on the part of the saxophone performance. This is a miss on your part; there are major issues with this sax performance which Brad very helpfully diagnosed and broke down.

Now I don't know if this discussion is going to be publicized but if I can address Lucas directly, I will right now: Lucas, I don't think that you're proficient enough on saxophone to be sending us tracks where you perform. As I said in my vote, the performance sounds like someone who is relatively new to the instrument, and you need more practice and development as a saxophone player before you can send us more of these. I said privately in our judge chat that I appreciate that you swing for the fences in your arrangements, but I think that these performance and execution issues are doing your arrangements a disservice.

All that said, to address Larry's last point: I think that if the performances were impeccable they would make the vote harder, but ultimately I would still say NO to this track because I, as one judge evaluating this track, don't feel that the source usage hits an acceptable level of dominant and identifiable. And unlike "The Little Girl and the Star," this is not a case where I am categorically against this track going up on the site because of very specific reasons. If I was the sole judge voting NO and every other judge voted YES, I'd say "OK" and move on.

[MindWanderer]

A good chunk of this goes back to our long-standing debate over whether something counts as source if you can sit down and map out how it's derived from the source, even if it's hard to hear on a subjective level. And that "subjective" part means we won't all agree on whether we can hear it or not. That's fine; that's why we have multiple people vote. If Larry can hear where each part comes from, just by listening to it and not analyzing it, then I'm not going to knock him for a YES vote on those grounds. I will knock a YES vote where that's not the case, and more importantly I will knock an effort to strong-arm people into changing their votes on the grounds that they should be able to hear it and if they can't it's their fault.

[Liontamer]

2 hours ago, DarkeSword said:

Well here's the thing. You can stop-watch and splice all you like to indicate that this meets a 50% source usage standard, but I'm not going to sit here and stop-watch this track, because let's be very clear: the 50% guideline was established primarily because we got a Chrono Trigger submission many years ago where the entire latter half was almost entirely original, and a majority of judges (myself included) were just deaf to this because of how good the former half was. Prot pointed it out and we had a pretty lengthy discussion that ended up establishing a 50% guideline for judges to informally follow. And let's also be clear about another thing because over the years I have seen this guideline turned into a hard-and-fast rule that's been applied in a lot of judgements: 50% source usage is not in our Submission Standards.

That was a good discussion that shaped the "identifiable and dominant" wording of the Standards that came later. This is easy enough to address by actually adding something there that says how it's used as a guidepost (so I'll take it to the discussion forum), for example:

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. We strongly recommend referencing the video game music source material for more than 50% of the duration of the track.
     * Anything less may be viewed as the source music not being "dominant" within the arrangement.
     * Sampling original game audio & sound effects, though allowed, is typically not considered arrangement.

2 hours ago, DarkeSword said:

One last thing, Larry: you're calling the performance issues here "low-hanging" as if they are easily fixed by taking things back to the DAW and just doing a little production work.

That's not the context I used that for; when I said "low-hanging fruit", I didn't mean ease of addressing the issue by the artist. I meant we judges would be drawn to the performance problems as the biggest & brightest issue, and thus overlook or ignore the arrangement discussion. In this case, even if the performance is lacking, we do have to make it clear to the artist whether or not the concept itself can pass or whether you're saying they shouldn't bother with a resubmission.

2 hours ago, MindWanderer said:

A good chunk of this goes back to our long-standing debate over whether something counts as source if you can sit down and map out how it's derived from the source, even if it's hard to hear on a subjective level. And that "subjective" part means we won't all agree on whether we can hear it or not. That's fine; that's why we have multiple people vote. If Larry can hear where each part comes from, just by listening to it and not analyzing it, then I'm not going to knock him for a YES vote on those grounds. I will knock a YES vote where that's not the case, and more importantly I will knock an effort to strong-arm people into changing their votes on the grounds that they should be able to hear it and if they can't it's their fault.

I've got a reputation for being the least charitable, or at least most granular, with the timestamping. I don't mind not agreeing with others on how they count rests/silence (for me, any gap larger than a second, I don't count, and anything less than a second, I count). Especially not knowing any music theory, I'm the last person who could badger people to vote against their will, which is dumb in the first place and not how we operate. But sometimes we miss things or see things differently, so it's useful to point it out and discuss.

Again, these note sustains weren't a wildly abstract transformation, and the theme's not altered rhythmically or with its time sig, it's just slowed down some, so I'm not out of bounds with counting what I timestamped. What I'm bringing up and working to avoid is just saying "Well, the performance is no good, and the concept's weird... [/throws hands up] I don't hear the source tune enough." I'm saying you'll have to work at it then; there's only 2 instruments to listen to. And if anyone doesn't want to because of the performance being such a larger issue, then the source ID is a potential problem that would come up a second time on a resub.

This weirdo concept should -- with a tight, expressive performance -- have a place here, and the source tune being used in the majority of the arrangement isn't a question for me. If we imply that a strong performance of this has no place here due to lack of observable source usage, then that's a mistake.

There's always subjectivity with "identifiable and dominant" because different lines are mixed a certain way or are competing to be heard, so I don't mind Shariq making his case that those factors influence it, but I had to push for that clarification. I do wish we weren't sending conflicting messages to Lucas and TSori because we can't agree on that aspect. All I can do is explain where I heard the theme and stand by that.

Re: the performance, I didn't mind being the outlier there, but you guys are right, especially on headphones. I fired it up again and just paid attention to the sax. TSori's half is carrying it, and I clearly have a lower, more permissive performance bar. When Lucas and Logan double their lines from :48-1:33, the sax is less of an issue and the parts blend alright (again, I do have a lower bar for it). But much of the time, you definitely hear loads of unsteadiness and wavering in the sax from a lack of control, so I'll bite the bullet and go HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONK for NO.

[prophetik music]

we're locked, but i want to state again what i edited into my earlier comment, because i really don't want it to get lost. my comment about the 'implementation' losing some aspect of the norm is not referring to Terra at all, but rather the arrangement inspiration method - the mirror dance. it is very important that my words aren't read as saying that there isn't enough source - there is! notes go in the direction of the terra theme often. but a phase track where it's just the first five notes of Terra over and over again isn't a remix. just the notes in the right order aren't enough.

[Liontamer]

THANK YOU! I just needed another J to say "Yeah, the theme's there enough." HOW it's executed is of course another thing entirely, and we can do this rodeo again if it comes back. I just didn't wanna be alone in the room saying "Yeah, there's the theme!" and seemingly being told "Nah, it's not" when it IS!