Liontamer Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 * Remixer name: VQ * 'Real' Name: V * Eamil: VMeissner@gmail.com * URL: Workin on it * User ID: 8223 * Game: Tetris Attack (SNES) * Song: Flower Stage (aka, Wigglers Stage) * Additional info: Already on site * LINK: http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console/nintendo/snes/TA-flying_wiggler.mid Well, this has been a while in the making, only my 3rd submission in ... 2 years I think (round that).... (Id' submit more, but in the time I spend tagging the songs and writing this email, Im usually disenchanted to the music itself and loose the confidence that it'l pass)... I kept getting feedback on this but all of it revolved around sound quality and semi-structure, and I think the arrangement is the stronger point here , so wasnt feeling it was well critiqued. Hence the submit! Umm what else.... Oh yeh!! This was originally for the Tetris Attack project (which I have another song for) but the project failed. Enjoy! LINK!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Piano quality is below average. When you play the louder notes it clips something nasty. It'll never pass until that is fixed. The arrangement is pretty simple, but still sounds nice. Be more daring with the arrangement. Add more than just strings, woodwind and piano for the first 2 minutes. The harp was a nice touch. But things remain too simple from there on out. The mix is too long for so little arrangement. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted April 26, 2007 Author Share Posted April 26, 2007 http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=ta - "Flower Stage" (ta-18.spc) Opened with some decent piano. From around :22-:35, the piano was definitely too loud and really mudded things up, like TO mentioned; also some piercing frequencies on headphones during the louder sections (1:24-1:46, 4:05-4:27). The piano tone itself was aight, but the sequencing was too rigid. The flow of the track was half-decent, but that's it; the sequencing being so perfect and robotic really hindered the dynamics and potential emotiveness of the arrangement. Some bowed strings joined in at :51, along with a harp cameo at :57. Volume picked up nicely at 1:02 for some dynamic contrast. Every instrument was still pretty rigidly sequenced, and the overall texture wasn't rich enough; the sounds need more depth via effects. Right now they sound really raw, with seemingly only minor work done to make the atmosphere and acoustics sound realistic. Note sustains on the low bowed strings from 1:57-2:16 sounded a bit too long and fakey, but maybe that's just me; any J, please correct me if needed. Piano note at 4:01-4:02 sounded off. Minor point, but some note decays cut off abruptly at 4:36 & 4:39 which made the final section a bit jarring. Also, the ending cut out before the last notes faded at 4:54. Not sure if TO was referring more to source interpretation or the instrumental textures instead when he crticized the arrangement. I personally thought the interpretation was fine and creative overall. The sequencing really hurt this one, the thin textures to a lesser extent. I thought you had some good dynamic contrast in the piece, and I see what you're going for. But the sparser areas still need to adequately fill up the soundfield, which they don't. Definitely get more feedback from some orchestral arrangers that you respect on creating stronger, more realistic textures with these sounds. I couldn't specifically tell you how to get the sequencing sounding more natural, but the resources and people are out there on the forums if you go to the effort of picking their brains. Perhaps another J could offer some clarification. See what you can do about getting the existing instrument samples sounding a bit richer. More importantly though, the stiff sequencing means that the strengths of the writing don't resonate strongly here. But the arrangement itself, IMO at least, is where it needs to be. Work on refining this one, Witold. I enjoy hearing you improve from sub to sub. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Liontamer always writes the most lol, but I'll still give my own breakdown of this as well. The piano sample isn't too great, but is definitely ok. The audible very distorted part at 0.27 destroys the mood that the piano created. The 1.44-1.46 transition sounded like the volume was turned down rather than the piano being played softer. The quiet section starting at about 2.38 was good for dynamics, however the arrangement in this and other sections were somewhat simplistic and rigid. Note at 4.02 sounded off, because that note needed the chord structure to follow it. Overall this sounds good, but still needs some more work. Just those little touches can make all the difference. Slightly less rigid sequencing, slightly bigger soundscape; perhaps add some brass to strengthen the string section, or octave other parts to make them seem thicker in the louder sections. Perhaps timpani or other percussion to underline particular parts. I don't like making stylistic sugestions cause it sounds like I'm telling you what to do, but just some ideas. - and keep listening and analysing pieces that have the sort of sound you are going for. NO(resub) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts