prophetik music Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 (edited) Artist Name: Moebius (Submitted as part of the TimeShift Album) Credits Saxophone - Lucas Guimaraes Clarinet - Luisa Böhmer "Night Market" from Stardew Valley holds a special place in the hearts of my wife and me. We both immersed ourselves in the game—both solo and in co-op—and fell in love with its enchanting soundtrack. Among all the tracks, "Night Market" stood out as a serene and beautiful piece, so much so that we chose it for our wedding waltz. The first version of this arrangement was born from a challenge on the 8-Bit Music Theory Server at the beginning of 2022. The task was to create a day version of a night track, or vice versa. From the start, I envisioned a jazzy, saxophone-heavy interpretation of "Night Market," with the A section set in 4/4 time. Initially, I struggled to adapt the B section to 4/4 as well. In hindsight, this was a blessing in disguise, as it inspired me to retain the original 6/8 time signature for the B section and introduce metric modulation—a choice that added depth and character to the arrangement. I want to give a big shoutout to Lucas Guimaraes for his invaluable help in adapting the saxophone parts for alto and tenor, and for his beautiful rendition of them. I’m also grateful to Hemophiliac for providing crucial early feedback on the song when I started to adapt my initial version for OCR. Special thanks to my close friend Luisa Böhmer for her wonderful work on the clarinet. Games & Sources Stardew Valley - Night Market Edited December 2 by Emunator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 starts off way bigger than i expected given the original. tenor is way louder than the alto, so it's hard to hear the melodic line initially. tenor's particularly honky in this one - gotta keep that embouchure tighter and don't overbite on the mouthpiece, lucas! backing elements are kind of on autopilot through this first section - notably the hats pretty much are doing the same thing the whole time, and i can't hear the snare or kick at all - but the organ blurbs are nice. i wouldn't mind hearing more movement there! bass is fairly static - again, i would love to hear more movement there to help keep it moving. the metric modulation you mentioned hits at 0:32. the keys have a bit of an uncanny valley transition there - i wouldn't mind hearing a bit more velocitization in that transition. i love the idea! switching between the two vibes is a really fun concept. there's a few pitchy sections in here in the saxes. this circles back to the original time signature and does a bit of noodling before coming back together. we're back to the triple section for a bit before switching again back to 4/4 for a bit of a break. this was needed so it's a good choice to have a break here. the keys again are uncanny valley feeling - they're cutting themselves, which isn't very realistic. i'd recommend allowing them to tail naturally. the vocal lines are nice as a change of pace through this section. drums are again kind of on autopilot through here - finding some ways to allow them to do something new would be a great idea. 2:44 brings back some tenor initially and then the alto as a recap. this is similar to what we've heard before, and there's a note that's crunchy at 3:18. there's a final resolution and it's done. first off - the tenor part throughout is way too loud, and has way too much boost in the fundamental range. it's much louder than anything else in the mix, alto included. turning the tenor down a lot and boosting the tenor saxophone's formant (a little boost around 2k and 4.5k specifically, fairly narrow, should allow it to pop out of the mix more without having it be Northern Idaho levels of fundamental volume). separately the performance is not where it needs to be for posting - it's just too honky right now. regarding the arrangement - i love the concept of switching between time signatures! i think it's a really fun way to highlight the different aspects of the two pieces of the melodic material. i got the impression that each transition used similar or the same things in the drums, bass, and keys every time you switched - which is a no-no in a jazz-inspired track that's defined by creativity and flexible arrangement. finding new ways to switch between time sigs is critical, and in my opinion you should really lean into this - everything the drums play doesn't have to be constant ride cymbal, everything the bass plays doesn't have to be with no breaks (something more angular for some of these sections would help a lot, actually, i think), and every fill doesn't have to actually prep the next section (a very open, loose fill with little going on around it might actually be a great way to change time sigs). what i'm saying is that there's a lot of sameyness throughout the arrangement - the melody feels the same when it's in the alto each time, the backing elements under it feel the same, the drums feel the same mostly throughout, the same instruments play almost continuously the entire track. finding ways to strip that back and be more intentional with what everything says and when it plays will help a ton. this is a good idea! i think the workshop can make a lot happen here. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 9 Share Posted November 9 Well, ain't this a relaxing theme! I appreciate you introducing me to it. :-) Alright, going for jazz, then. Saxes are extra honky. At :34, the saxes are even more exposed when they're not in unison. Yeah, the tone's not steady enough or strong enough. Piano at 1:45 sounds so blocky and the programmed drumming's OK but has an uncanny valley feeling to it in some spots that I can't better articulate. Vox at 1:53's an odd fit as well; probably just shouldn't be so robotic-sounding. The mixing of this doesn't make sense for me. I really like the organ-style part-writing, but the (well-written) bassline's more indistinct than it should be. Seems to lack some Lucas will think I hate him; the sax performances are a non-starter and only really serviceable in a sketch capacity. Sax is back at 2:43 and it's just honk-honk-honk... honkhonk honk-honk-honk. Need a sax assassin to critique you and get you refining your playing techniques. Conceptually, this is solid. This would have crushed it 20+ years ago around here, and I like what i hear in principle. However the sax performance is gonna need another pass. Another stab at the mixing would be worth it too, but if the live performances and articulations were on point with mixing like this, I would have passed this in a heartbeat. A fun arrangement, but if the saxes can't rise to the occasion as the leads, then this is hobbled, as much as I like the arrangement in a vacuum. NO (resubmit) EDIT (11/8): [/reads proph's notes now...] - YEP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted December 2 Share Posted December 2 Yep, exactly what the two gentlemen above me said. I'm not going to muddy the waters by trying to restate it, but this has a SUPER high amount of potential and reflects a really clever arrangement and some enthusiastic performances, but the level of polish makes it feel like a sketch in most regards. There's a lack of separation between the instruments in terms of stereo separation and EQ/frequency masking, the sax performance and volume is inconsistent, and some of the supporting instrumentation has moments where it's exposed and highlights the lack of realism in the programming (see: the low piano notes.) Lots of actionable advice above, hope you're able to bring this up to the bar because there's a killer arrangement in here! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts