Emunator Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 (edited) This is a set of orchestral variations on the original theme, written and mixed in 2015. I use the term "orchestral variations" as opposed to regular variations to denote a piece where the orchestration, rather than the themes, is what suffers drastic changes throughout, as such: 00:00 Theme A on piano 00:15 Theme B on piano & strings 00:26 Variation I A: woodwinds, triangle, piano, & strings 00:42 Variation I B: woodwinds, triangle, harp, & strings 00:52 Variation II A: small percussion & strings 01:07 Variation II B: woodwinds, small percussion, & strings 01:17 Variation III A: bassoon, xylophone, harpsichord, & strings 01:33 Variation III B: harp & strings 01:43 Variation IV A: full orchestra 01:59 Variation IV B: pipe organ & orchestra 02:12 Variation V A: pipe organ & percussion 02:42 Coda Final mixing and mastering by Miguel Jesus Edited April 24 by Emunator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Definitely started with samples that were too exposed, e.g. blocky piano and then the bowed strings, so I was thinking this wouldn't be solid enough and mentally had my NO vote on standby. At :25 though, things took a more energetic turn and continued to shift from there, sometimes going more diminuitive like with the pizz strings, then a goofy feel with the organ and mallet percussion. Good textural changes to maintain the freshness of the presentation. Sonically, it could be refined, so while I'm not quite borderline, I can understand coming out of it. For me, the solid instrumentation coupled with the dynamic variations carries it! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 agree that the initial piano really not realized in a particularly realistic manner. there's no adjustments for velocity that i can hear. strings at 0:25 aren't particularly realistic either. in fact, the more that it goes, the more i believe that this doesn't actually have any arrangement here - it sounds almost entirely like the midi was dropped into different instruments and that was that, at least through 1:17. instrumentation at 1:17 is dry to the extreme and doesn't appear to have any room tone. it's hard to hear if my earlier critique around arrangement is accurate here since i can't really hear half the instruments. then we get to 1:43's full orchestra realization, and it's still the the same direct representation of the original midi in different instruments. there's still no velocitization or volumization done. there's finally some real arrangement at 2:10 - the oom-pah is great! what a fun idea. very good realization of the tone of a calliope, and a lot of character. the percussive hits are a little over the top. but it's nice and ives-y for a bit then hits a huge final chord in the organ that also sounds great. i love everything after 2:10! there's so much character and attention paid to what's going on that it's surprising that the first two minutes are so rote. i could have lived with maybe two of the variations total, but two solid minutes of just pasting the midi into different channels of an orchestral sampleset is too much. there isn't the normal care we'd expect to ensure that the instruments are used in an idiomatic fashion and there's no velocitization - every note is exactly the same attack and volume as the previous one. that's straightforward work to ensure that the instruments are playing a line and not just tooting out what's in the midi, and we expect at least that much here. beyond that, the significant shift in styles throughout (which is neat, it's nice to hear a variety of timbres instead of the same six synths for an entire track) needs more work to make it all sound as if it's coming from the same place. the xylo and harpsichord idea is fun, but it sounds like it's from a totally different recording spliced in due to lacking the same room tone/reverb as the initial strings, and the strings at 1:43 again sound like they're in a different world. more care is needed to craft a convincing soundstage. there's fun ideas here! this isn't there yet. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 I have a similar feeling to proph's. I think there's a little more arrangement than he's giving credit for in the first two thirds, but he's right on the money about a lack of humanization in terms of timing and velocity. I'm not normally too picky about piano humanization, but even to my ears there doesn't seem to have been any effort made in this respect. The arrangement in the last third is indeed more creative, but the humanization issues persist. The changes to tempo and timing in the score help to disguise the on-the-beat timing, and pipe organ only has so much potential variation in velocity, but the same issues exist. Great ideas, lots of fun, but the execution still needs to not sound so mechanical. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Welp, at least we don't have any issues with source use here! Unfortunately I agree with my fellow NOs. Everything after 2:10 is so unique and weird and cool, but up until that point it is just the original source midi, played in the stiffest and driest way possible, no humanization. It's a player piano basically until the strings come in, and the pizzicato and staccato strings can play the fast lines but the legato strings drag, making it feel very awkward when all the strings are playing together. Then we get the harpsicord and xylophone which both sound extremely stiff, followed by more mushy legato strings (attacks are way too long) and it just sounds weird to me. Even if the rest of the sequencing were perfect, I would be sending this back just for the legato line starting at 1:34. The full section starting at 1:46 sounds a little better, but again, every single element sounds so stiff and uncanny. I love this idea! But it absolutely needs more attention to humanization in the first two minutes, and possibly some variations in writing so it isn't just the same midi from the source tune repeated that many times. I'd love to hear it again with improvements made though! NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 I'm going to quickly close this one out because I think the above three judges did a fantastic job expressing what works and doesn't work about this track. I love the studious approach to iterating a theme in as many different styles as possible, and keeping it cohesive along the way. But the orchestral programming needs a ton of polish to make it sound more like it was performed by an actual orchestra, rather than just a series of instruments being played off of a MIDI file. I will also add that there's some very massive dynamic jumps in terms of volume. Obviously, some degree of that is warranted, given the shifts in styles, but your quiet parts get REALLY quiet, and it doesn't sound intentional. You can still achieve this effect without requiring the listener to actively engage with the volume slider throughout the song in order to maintain a comfortable listening experience. This can start with normalizing the volume levels and automating them in certain parts, and can be further balanced out with some subtle compression on the master channel. There's so many great ideas here, but this feels like a draft rather than a polished production - I do hope we see this back someday! NO (resubmit!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts