Liontamer Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Yo, Dave. Got annother track for you. Songs: The Girl who Stole the Stars (Radical Dreamers), Timescars (Chrono Cross) Games: Radical Dreamers, Chrono Cross Composer: Yasunori Mitsuda Remixers: Geoffrey Taucer, Ross Kmet This is my track with Ross Kmet (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say his track with me) for the Radical Dreamers project (please hold it until project release). It should be pretty apparent from listening what I did and what Ross did; I did the piano, organ, music box, and of course, the guitars, and Ross did everything else. The piano is live -- my first submission with a live piano, recorded on my S03. I really enjoyed working with Ross. This mix really lead me to explore styles I hadn't before, and expand my own abilities. I definitely look forward to future collabs with him. -Taucer ------------------------------------------------ Geoffrey Taucer ------------------------------------------------------------- Ha! If you wanted to make me cringe at a mix title, mission accomplished. Eww. http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=rd - "The Girl Who Stole the Star" (rd-07.spc) Chrono Cross Original Soundtrack - 101 "Chrono Cross ~ Time's Scar" Loved the lead mingled in with Ross's beats and bassline to start off with; cluttered/lossy sound (thanks in part to the strings), but an otherwise solid texture. The production needs to be cleaned up though; separate those sounds more and get things sounding cleaner. Nice transition into Jeremy on the piano at 1:52; good personalized performance on the keys followed by the addition of the electric guitar at 2:46. Transition into the more electronic stuff at 3:22 didn't work as well as the previous changeups, but it wasn't a huge deal. Still, the electronic stuff seemed a bit lossy-sounding. The writing was alright for 3:48's section, but the soundfield was way too sparse; if it were just for a few bars immediately moving into something where more parts really fleshed things out, I felt it would have worked better. 4:00 had the right idea, but it probably would have been more effective to transition into something much more full like 4:19's section with a nice cymbal swell or something. Perhaps merely more of a personal taste thing from my POV. But, as is, 3:48-4:18 felt really empty for too long, which was the crux of that issue. At 4:18, the percussion supplementing the melody and rhythm guitar felt too flimsy and didn't really fill things out enough; the textures there aren't that strong. Meanwhile the soundfield still felt pretty cluttered. Continued on like that until 5:16 transitioned into the final section; nothing wrong with that music box style ending. Pretty cool close with it, and a very appropriate use of a fadeout ending. Well, IMO this started YES and ended up NO. The arrangement was pretty fine overall, which somewhat explains me not saying much about it; it was never a big issue here. The main culprit was that beyond 3:48 the textures were pretty lackluster. The empty area of 3:48-4:18 shouldn't be that empty, the percussion choices from 4:18-on need to lock together better with the other instrumentation, and the mixing needs to be reexamined for a cleaner sound. Solid base, but it needs some TLC for the win. Keep working on it, bros. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 the 1/4 note line in the beginning bugged me, but it sounds okay in the context of the rest of the song. Great texture overall. I like the transition to the guitar section. Could be a little more full at this point, but it's no big deal. The whole way through I hear all kinds of references to other songs...let it be, everlong, the empire carpet commercial. This is a pretty easy YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillian Aversa Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Ahhhhhh, the cumshots! Jeremy, you're one crazy mofo. Honestly, what's not to like here? A living, breathing, evolving, 6-minute plus arrangement from two very compatible sources... with two very compatible remixers. Beautiful! Your creativity shines very brightly in this mix, guys. I love the relaxed undertones, and the different forms they take throughout the piece. The only section I felt could have been reworked (or just removed all together) was from 3:50-4:12; as Mr. Tamer pointed out, things felt pretty sparse and awkward right there. Assuming the mix passes, I wouldn't mind seeing you patch that part up before Dave makes his post, but I'd YES it regardless. Nice work. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Taucer sent me an earlier version of this and I gave a bunch of comments on it. I was digging it back then but I felt there were some pacing problems and some awkwardly sparse spots. Let's see if those issues have been addressed. The "big picture" here is reminiscent of the electronic artist "BT", who regularly combines heavily processed synthetic sounds with acoustic sounds (among other things). Right off the bat you can hear that hybridization, and it is executed well. The groove is a little too slow for me though and by 1:28 I'm expecting it to move around more. Perhaps it's because the chords are hardly moving and so the whole thing feels too centered. Once the transition at 1:49 happens, things really start to get interesting. The soundscape feels less like it's on auto-pilot, the theme comes into play, we have some nice variations, and a very pleasant-sounding piano part. Great job there. At 2:45 Taucer gets the spotlight; the guitar is a little too distorted for this style I think, as it pushes the other elements away a little too much. However, it's not a big deal. 3:13 opens up a very cool synth part and a distorted electronic drum pattern which I was definitely feeling. The rhythmic chopping is an awesome homage to BT (though he's not the only artist who does this). I feel like there could be more in the background though. The section is too minimal, with only the gated synth and percussion. Need more - pads, harmony arpeggios or strums, just something to help fill up space. The next section marks another stylistic change. I liked all the melodic & harmonic elements, but the drums were no good. Not interesting at all, and in terms of mixing, too dull and muddy. This sounds like it should be the hook or climax of the song, but the drums contribute absolutely NO energy. The synth + guitar interplay is great, why give up on the drums when they were so good earlier on? The only other thing I would suggest here, again, is more harmony stuff (strings, pads, w/e) to densify things even more. The ending of the track is on the long side but OK. I don't feel quite comfortable passing this yet. To summarize my concerns: * Intro is a little too long considering how little motion it has. * Taucer's guitar when it comes in earlier sounds a bit too distorted and takes away from the soft atmosphere. * 3:13 needs more material besides just percussion & gated synth. * 4:19 is good so far, but the drums need to be seriously spiced up, and more harmony material would be nice. Perhaps sharper processing on the existing elements would be enough. The interpretation is all here, and the production is for the most part strong. This is very close to a pass, so I hope you two polish it up a little more. Refine + resub. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Out of context theatre presents... Ahhhhhh, the cumshots! Anyway, can't say I'm liking that sharp synth. It's just a bit too high on the treble end that it hurts the old ears. The intro was maybe a little sloppy, could have a more refined and professional sound. The piano section is very nice. No complaints there, beautiful. The guitar comes in at 2:46 and it sounds smooth and fitting. Coming into the drums I can't say that transition was too smooth or fitting though. That synth just sounds ugly, especially after the beautiful piano/guitar part. Not sure what you were going for there. The synth lead that comes in sounds all right, but it's just a bit too whiney for the context of the mix. This seems all right to me, it just lacks that polish that could make it sound A+. I dunno what the mixers were going for here, since the mix is constantly switching from scrappy sounding synths/drums to beautiful ambient and melodic piano/guitar/music box combinations. Ignoring some of the worse sections, the parts that are good are very good. Enough to pass? Yes, but I wouldn't be complaining if I saw this tidied up before it's posted. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I thought this was a very good submission. The arrangement is excellent imo, albeit with a few exceptions. The transition from the acoustics back to the synthy stuff at 3.25 was good, and I expected a swell of textures at 3.47, but instead it ended up sounding quite sparse. The synthesised sounds like the 'wheow' sounding synth at 4.19 sounded less interesting than they could have, but that is a subjective point. This is definitely a pass - well produced and beautifully executed. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 This is a fairly easy call. And I must give props for the choice of sources. I'm unfamiliar with both, and it was a delight to become acquainted with them. It did set up high expectations for the mix, and I think those expectations were met. Beautiful textures throughout, I liked the movement in the bassline. Intro was a hair too long, but the track compensated for that with the thoughtful vibe. Piano at 2:00 was really pretty. That was live, eh? Nice work! Guitar was spot on, IMO, from effects to performance, to mixing. I can list a handful of things that could benefit the piece from minor tweaking, but this is already really solid, so I'm not in the mood to bother YES Oh, yes. and Ahhhhhh, the cumshots! Jeremy, you're one crazy mofo. ok, so I had no idea what that was referring to until I asked Jill. And just in case there are others like me who had no idea what she was referring to, it's a lick progression - 3,4,5,1,8 I was told. Do what you will with this information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I can hear a lot of room for growth...you guys sure took your sweet time getting this track to move anywhere. Once it does, we're golden, though. The keyboard and guitar work is respectable, and the textures all work. How you string these textures together is the part of songcraft that you guys could stand to work on a little more. Anyway. The interpretation is all here, and the production is for the most part strong. As far as i'm concerned, this means YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts