Emunator Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 (edited) Original Decision Artist: SweetNES Hi there, OCRemix. Below is my resubmission for yet another ChronoTrigger Remix which, by my math, should now be suitable for your criteria for a high enough percentage of original source material. Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks as always for what you do for the VGM community! Edited July 20, 2023 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 A resub from 2009?! Well, we'll see where this went. Very minimalistic take. The "lead" instrument is a bass triangle wave, along with some simple beats. Piano and square wave are used for flavor. Occasionally the square plays the Corridors of Time melody, but otherwise it's in a supporting role. Source usage is still a little hard to pin down. There's a lot of usage of the chord progression and the pads, but those are subtle and I wouldn't count them as source usage. What I do count is 0:57-1:15, 1:42-1:48, 1:59-2:14, 2:44-3:57, and 4:09-4:14, a total of 117 seconds out of 286, which is 41%. On top of that, while I find this minimalist approach interesting it is, well, minimal. It's very repetitive and very quiet. The soundscape is very thin, which of course it would be when only percussion and a triangle wave are playing most of the time, accompanied only occasionally by a square wave and a very quiet, monophonic piano. If I didn't know this was from 2009, I'd consider it a bold concept in minimalism. This might have been considered pleasantly atmospheric back then, but by today's standards it just feels empty. I can see arguing the source usage (though the way Larry stopwatches, I'd expect him to come up with even less), but the repetitive minimalism isn't doing much for me. I like some of the arrangement decisions, blending your original hooks with the source material, but I think we need something a little less skeletal. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted July 19, 2023 Share Posted July 19, 2023 2009 is way before my time! Let's see what we've got here. Ok listening, I really love this vibe! Sounds like a great concept but it isn't fully fleshed out. The beats are simple and repetitive, although there are drum-writing variations so that is good. Piano sounds good, but the sequencing is stiff and robotic. I really like the sounds used, but it is mixed so quietly, and possibly not mastered at all as the peak max is -7db. I don't really hear enough source connection although I'm not timestamping it. This is a long arrangement, especially considering that the sounds used remain the same all throughout the piece. That said, it could serve as the skeleton for much more to be added; perhaps some fun sounds, sfx or effects, or more and varied writing, additional instruments, surprising solos or cameos, etc. The arrangement has no outro, as the ideas simply stop very abruptly with no resolution. Overall this arrangement sounds like a wonderful initial sketch but isn't well enough filled out to stand alone as an OC ReMix. Since this mix is as old as it is, I would suggest beginning something new. Often it is hard to modernize something that was started so long ago, as the old existing ideas are cemented into your mind, at least it is that way for me. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 I'm the only judge from the original vote still here, so it's very cool to hear this again. Really great to hear from you again, Natalie! If I didn't know any better, this seemed like the same track, just with a time cut rather than any new ideas introduced. I didn't have any qualms at all with this style, and didn't feel that it was too repetitive or samey last time around or this time, so I disagreed with the others. It's produced well and has a clean yet full sound even within this minimalist style, and I appreciate the development and flow of the piece. When the Zeal theme's in play, it's arranged in a creative and transformative way that clearly stands apart from the original, and that helps it bear criticisms of repetition and dynamics without pulling it below our bar, IMO. Still love this in a vacuum, divorced from our Submission Standards. The track was 4:24-long (not 4:48, there was a bunch of silence that could be trimmed), so I needed to identify the source tune being used for at least 132 seconds to consider the source tune usage dominant in the arrangement. :56.5-1:00.5, 1:02-1:06, 1:07.5-1:11.75, 1:13.5-1:15, 1:16.5-1:21 (sounded like a piece of CT's main theme), 1:42.25-1:46.25, 1:59-2:03, 2:04.75-2:08.75, 2:10.5-2:14.5, 2:44.5-2:48.5, 2:50-2:54, 2:55.5-3:05.5, 3:06.75-3:11, 3:12.5-3:16.5, 3:18.25-3:28.5, 3:29.5-3:40.25, 3:41.5-3:50.75, 3:52.75-3:57, 4:09-4:17.25 = 103.25 seconds or 39.10% overt source usage Part 4.3 of the Submission Standards says "The source material must be identifiable and dominant", so to lock in my vote this only needs more overt connection to the source theme, so that the source tune is referenced for at least 50% of the duration of the track, which would have the source tune references dominate the arrangement. even MindWanderer's timestamping didn't identify, but if we're shortchanging you and making a mistake by dismissing some other writing here that does explicity reference the original song, please let us know. Otherwise, if there's a way you can integrate some other aspect of the source tune theme during the intro or elsewhere without compromising your vision, then let's go for it! C'mon! I like your style... THIS CAN"T BE THE END! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts