Liontamer Posted December 27, 2023 Share Posted December 27, 2023 (edited) This was originally written about 10 years ago. I wrote a few remixes all at once and only got around to submitting Firewalker, which is my only other submission. In that time, I've had a lot of time to fidget around with this mix and arrangement to land on where it's at now. That has mostly resulted in making it more compressed and louder as time has gone on haha. I was quite apologetic in my first submission because I didn't feel like I used the original material enough but I feel more confident this time around. That is to say I think this track rules but I'm prepared to be humbled by the judges. Games & Sources: The song I'm remixing is the Lost Woods theme from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time composed by my man Koji Kondo. I don't know if I need to give a lot of description for this haha. Ocarina of Time has to be one of the most remixed games on OCRemix. Ocarina of Time is about a young lad trying to be a horse farmer but he is easily distracted and accidentally saves a kingdom. Here's a Youtube link for the exact track Edited January 25 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) "That is to say I think this track rules but I'm prepared to be humbled by the judges." TIME TO OIL UP! aside: i went to listen to the original while downloading the track, and it started autoplaying over Youtube. Let's just say that it started right after the initial percussion lick in the original, and the stylistic difference was a surprise =) initial hit is ZOMG YES RAWK, so much so i actually missed the melodic content! it's mixed quietly. there's a half-time section at 0:32 that felt like new material, but then the more aggressive section at 0:48 does some subtractive stuff to the lead which is a fun idea and works great. this goes back to the half-time stuff that i think is new, which is a bit concerning since we're at 50/50 new and remix material right now. 1:42 is, surprise, an aggressive section with the melodic material being represented again by a cutdown version of the melody. in an effort to subvert expectations, though, you go to the original section again, but this time it's louder! it again transitions between the melodic riff and the descending line a few more times (quicker transitions) and then it's done. i posted an ask around where the descending line that first shows up at 0:33 comes from. as it is, i think that part's original, and so that means this is >50% original material, and that means that it can't be posted in this current state. that stinks because i think the track is super fun to listen to and i like the subtractive method of arranging the iconic melodic line of this track. NO DEPENDING ON RESPONSE edit 1/10: the remixer confirmed it's original. i think there's too much original in the work as a result. whether or not it's over 50%, it feels like all the important parts in the mix are based on that original section. so this is a NO from me, dawg. it'd need to have some of that original stuff trimmed back so it's not so close to 50%, or else emphasizing the remixed content more. Edited January 10 by prophetik music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 I know this source like the back of my hand, so the fact that I didn't pick up on the melody until 20 seconds in means that the mixing really could be improved. The bass, drums, and chugs just stomp all over it. I understand that the melody line is often not the loudest part in heavy metal, but it still shouldn't be quite this hard to pick out. The subtractive stuff really is quite neat. Too hard to hear, but it's riffing on the melody in a creative way that I don't hear often enough. It just skirts that line between "uses the source" and "is inspired by the source." It's tough to judge vis-a-vis our standards. Here are my timestamps: 0:03-0:32 (direct) 0:48-1:13 (subtractive) 1:42-2:03 (half direct, half subtractive) 2:03-2:08 (direct) 2:35-2:38 (direct) Total: 81/180 seconds = 45% Ugh. Even giving generous credit, I can't come up with 50%, and I think some of our stricter timestamper judges would come up with even less. It's a real shame, because other than the mixing, I like what I'm hearing a lot. I absolutely want to see some of those ideas on the panel again, whether it's a revision of this or something new, but this submission has to be a NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 This mix sounds great to me! Super energetic and well performed. Arrangement is good. Sadly though I agree with the other Js that the lead melody when it appears is just way too quiet in the mix. If those leads were louder and more prominent, that would help a lot. Sometimes the lead melody is played very wide-panned which is fine, but for me it buries the lead even further into the busy soundscape. There is a ton of original writing here, and the original sections sound great but together with the de-emphasized melody sections it buries the source material just a bit too much. I don't like to be a timestamp stickler if I don't have to, and really if it is 45% that may be enough. I'm sort of torn here because I really like this track. I think it would be so much better though if the leads were brought up in volume when they play the source melody. Another suggestion would be to add some other element (perhaps a synth or another guitar line) playing or even just hinting at the source melody during the original sections, just plucking those few notes to indicate Lost Woods during those sections. These simple fixes would tie it together for me. I'm more borderline than the other two Js and I even considered going YES. Honestly if we were to be told that the files were gone and no changes could be made, I may even flip to a YES vote. I am interested in @Liontamer's thoughts on this one, I wonder if Larry thinks this is passable as is? NO (borderline) (resubmit please) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 The track was 3:00-long, so I needed to hear the source tune invoked in the arrangement for at least 90 seconds for the source material to be considered dominant in the arrangement. :03.5-:32.25, :48-:55.75, :57.75-:59.25, 1:00.75-1:08.25, 1:10.5-1:11.75, 1:41.75-1:45.5, 1:48.5-1:50.75, 1:54.75-1:57.75, 2:00.75-2:08.5, 2:35-2:38.25 = 66.75 seconds or 37.08% overt source usage Otherwise, it's definitely enjoyable in a vacuum, mixed reasonably well, also well-performed. If you can add other references to the source tune as backing elements to make the majority of the track a VGM arrangement, Mike, then it's golden. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts