Liontamer Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Could be too much 8-bit sound usage, but there are other elements involved - LT Hello, Contact Information * Your ReMixer name : Nurykabe * Your real name : Yann van der Cruyssen * Your email address : Nurykabe@hotmail.com * Your website : http://www.nurykabe.com Submission Information * Name of game(s) arranged : Faxanadu * Name of individual song(s) arranged : "Evil place" or "Dartmoor" or "land of dwarf", I don't know what's the actual name * Additional information about game including composer, system, etc. : composer : Jun Chikuma * Link to the original soundtrack : Yep, I put it. * Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc. : 8bit channels are rebuilt but not samples from the original Thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.zophar.net/nsf/faxanadu.zip - Track 10 Immediately, you notice the melody is positioned too far back in the mix, IMO. While I'm glad the 8-bit sounds are apparently not direct-sampled, it still doesn't help in this context to be using them to provide the core of the arrangement. IMO, the overall feel of the melody isn't different enough at all; it just has some layered harmonies with the verbatim structure. All of the embellishments here with the other instrumentation were cool and added some nice personalization to the track, though I would have preferred usage of those sounds beyond mostly a supplementary role to the 8-bit leads. 2:17-2:43 moved over into some somewhat awkwardly performed woodwind harmonies, I believe, before moving back into the 8-bit sounds. 3:59's section dropped the NES sounds and closed it mostly with original material, referring to the theme (and the arrangement intro) briefly at the very end. As is though, most of the usage of the source material is in the 8-bit sounds, which we discourage if relied on too heavily, as we're also about upgrading music created by limited hardware. If you had creatively interpreted the 8-bit melody AND also built the track more substantially with the higher-grade instrumentation and effects, I could have been more persuaded to pass this. Don't be discouraged though. You always submit really interesting material that just happens not to fit our standards. I'm not criticizing any of your material as poor pieces of music. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Quite an interesting style you've got going on. I've never heard this combination of instruments and sounds before, and I think it works fairly well, conceptually. The guitar is wonderful through-and-through, the drums through 1:50 and a lot of other points in the song, not as much. They seem just a little too harsh for me considering the way the rest of the song moves; they're aggressive and dance-ish. I think maybe some kind of processed acoustic kit might work better. The percussive stuff at 1:50 to 2:16 on the other hand was very creative and worked well in the soundfield. Other instrumentation was a mixed bag. I would have liked to hear more 'modern' synths, not just chiptune style stuff, like Larry. But there were a lot of small details that I could really appreciate, and I generally really like your approach here. The production otherwise seemed fairly quiet. If we do pass this, it needs to be normalized and preferably compressed a bit to bring up the overall volume. Should be easy enough. So the arrangement issue boils down to whether its acceptable to have the main melody being played nearly exactly like it is in the source, with a very similar instrumentation for most of the mix. Does the original writing and expanded harmonies make up for it? I thought there was a lot of creative writing that was added to build on the original. This is a tough call for me. The production is rough in spots, and in particular I'm not fond of the main beats, but I think ultimately this is a creative interpretation that does pass our bar. The melody is not as creatively interpreted as I would have liked but the supporting writing and new counter-melodies, riffs, and harmonies makes up for it IMO. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I think this is great. I like how you mixed NES style sounds with acoustic elements. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with that, because the soundscape isn't completely dependent on the NES sounds, and they are processed, to a certain extent. As for the arrangement, it's not the most liberal thing I've heard, but there's some nice embellishments with the guitar, and I dig the woodwind stuff. This piece has a really folksy, intimate kind of quality to it. I think the percussion is appropriately subdued as well. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 oh what the hell. you should know, i absolutely love the original. i had so much insane fun remixing this very theme years ago and i can hear how much fun you were having with this. this is one odd mix of tones you have here... what the hell are those drums and chip leads doing with an organic acoustic guitar? my brain wants to not like it but haha i love it! i mean, you don't even really do much with the melody line... it stays static almost throughout. you don't exactly lift it out of the original but at times, with the chip instruments, it sounds like you might as well have. that's funny; i'd normally have a conniption about that but this is just too cool. at 2.17, your track takes on a whole new meaning of BADASS, though... the vibe is what floors me. very rarely does a piece of music that i get to hear at the site truly transcend the physical musical elements to the point that it warrants this kind of consideration purely based on how it makes me feel. i mean, there's no way that the mixture of uber-processed and subdued drums, a distant, warm and muddy acoustic guitar, some NES-y chip leads, weird percussive breaks, other aural oddities and what sounds like it was filtered through a water bong... could work this well. but it does. very creative, very bold, very smart. very good in my book YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Definitley unique. I'm going to echo the sentiment that while creative and reasonably effective, the chiptune recreation overstayed it's time in the front seat. That being said, like Andy, the flutters and stutters and gating and swirling and what not that you threw in were fantastic. Had it not been for those minor-yet-not-so-minor details, I might have been less favorable of this one. I'll definitely let it pass, CONDITIONALLY after some proper normalization, but I would have loved to hear a more progressive version of this where the 8-bit evolved into something a little more modern as well. Eh, what can ya do though. It's still a cool track. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 This is really great stuff, the mix of guitars, subtle glitchy beats and FX, and NES synths, with the occasional woodwind thrown in. I think you really nailed that folktronica sound (sadly, that's actually the genre name). The fact that the original NES synths are so upfront does make this borderline, but the amount of processing on them means it's acceptable. I don't think anyone can accuse you of "taking the original game audio and simply adding drum loops". There's a lot of creativity shown in expanded the original material, and there are parts without the NES synths, besides. Each segment sounds very unique, yet the progression is not random either. Definitely needs a bump volume-wise, but that's a piece of cake. Also sounds like there's a pop at the very end that should be easy to take out, while you're at it. Otherwise, I loved the production. I thought the instruments interlocked well, and the processing was very fun. Besides the issue of using the original synths, I think this is an easy pass. YES (conditional on volume) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I think the acoustic guitar is a really nice element when coupled with more electronic sounds. As Larry said I think you could've used something else for the lead or at least switch it up occassionally since it is very much like the original both in terms of sound and melody and you're relying quite heavily on it throughout the whole song. It's actually really hard to tell if it's a rip or not, regardless of what you say. The drumwriting is pretty cool and I for one do not think they sound out of place. Though both the drums and main lead could be more in front in the mix, especially the lead that's REALLY buried. The drums could also use some panning to keep them from being buried in the middle of the mix. What you've added to the original melody is interesting though, both arrangement and production wise. The guitar has a lo-fi quality to it but I believe that is a stylistic choice and it does actually work well with the rather large stereo image and warmth of the sound. The song is mixed rather quietly and could use some compression and/or normalizing but the creative effects (stutter gating, vinyl effects and glitchy elements) are all nice touches and very well done too. The instrument entering at 1:23 is almost a bit too detuned in my opinion but it's not something that's going to affect my vote. I'm not a fan of the woodwinds either, they sound a bit too fake and wobbly, it's a bit too much when the guitar and.. well most sounds does sound lo-fi. The problem as it is now though is that the arrangement, even though very creative in style and mood, relies to heavily at the original melody with a pretty much identical sound as the original. The production is full of interesting quirks and effects but the volume needs to be fixed and I'd personally prefer if you gave the drums some more space. I just don't think the rest of the arrangement/production makes up for the lead and I'm hoping for a more expanded version for resubmission. I really do like your style and I'd love to hear this song with an original lead. NO (Resubmit please) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 Just quoting some convo from #j today to clarify some of the arguments of YES vs. NO related to the chiptune-sounding melody, its closeness to the original NSF, and the weight of original additions based on the chord progression. Some of the lines are rearranged a bit for readability. [14:02] <zircon> Virtually all of my remixes have original writing almost entirely, by that definition[14:02] <zircon> I hardly ever simply take a channel of the source and put it in my remix, I listen to the chords and write my own notes [14:02] <zircon> and my own rhythms [14:02] <Liontamer> but you also interpret your source tune as well [14:02] <Anso> I have to agree with Andy here [14:02] <zircon> Yeah, but setting aside melody for a minute [14:02] <Anso> but then again, it's the melody [14:03] <Anso> (lol I'm just repeating what you're saying) [14:03] <zircon> Just about every remix we get doesn't directly source the harmony parts, it's new writing that is based on the chords of the original [14:03] <Liontamer> I'm not saying original additions are bad or unwelcome [14:03] <Fishy> zirc, you don't recreate several minutes of almost identical sounds from the original [14:03] <Liontamer> but there'd be 0 issue if he didn't use the NSF sounds near verbatim; now it just looks like building mostly original/non-source ideas AROUND the verbatim source [14:03] <zircon> Yeah, but again, setting aside the melody for a minute - which I grant you, without contention, is the primary issue [14:04] <zircon> They're not mostly original/non-source ideas [14:04] <zircon> It's like this, Larry, the source harmony might play the notes.... A E C E [14:04] <zircon> and so he writes a chord that uses those same notes, in a different order, in a different rhythm [14:04] <zircon> thats straight up textbook OCR interpretation 101 [14:04] <zircon> completely fine [14:04] <Liontamer> but the thing is, let's mentally remove the NSF-sounding stuff for a second [14:05] <Liontamer> could that composition pass just because it's based on the chord progression of the source? [14:05] <Liontamer> I'd say no [14:05] <Liontamer> it has no melodic connections [14:05] <zircon> well... right, because there's no melody [14:05] <zircon> if we're taking the melody out [14:05] <zircon> and the same goes for almost any remix [14:05] <Liontamer> it relies on the verbatim-sounding NSF to provide the only melodic connections to the source tune [14:05] <Liontamer> and that's the killer [14:05] <zircon> could give you a list of dozens where thats true [14:05] <Fishy> but there is no melodic arrangement to be seen, just copies [14:05] <zircon> you take out the melody and you're left with chords [14:05] <zircon> that could be chords to anything [14:06] <Fishy> there's harmonic arrangement, but absolutely no melodic arrangement [14:06] <Liontamer> yeah [14:06] <zircon> right.... we're going in circles here [14:06] <Fishy> lol [14:06] <Fishy> a bit [14:06] <zircon> Larry, if you took out the melody from Perpetual Motion [14:06] <zircon> there would be no connection to the source [14:06] <zircon> since the source was essentially just a melody outlining a chord progression [14:06] <zircon> and i made up all my own writing [14:06] <Anso> ofc if you take out the melody [14:06] <Anso> but even WITH the melody we have an issue [14:06] <Liontamer> but you interpreted the melody [14:06] <zircon> right, but using your logic [14:07] <Liontamer> and this one didn't do so enough to distinguish itself from the original [14:07] <zircon> I should be able to remove the melody and still have a connection to the source [14:07] <Anso> if the melody is sub-par or in this case almost verbatim [14:07] <Anso> I think is the point [14:07] <zircon> but in perpetual motion, there isn't any, because it's all original writing based on the chords of the original [14:07] <Liontamer> but Andy, if you did Perpetual Motion exactly the same... [14:08] <Liontamer> but used a VGM or GYM-sounding deal as the lead, it would be a NO [14:08] <Liontamer> that's what's different to me for this case [14:08] <zircon> Well, that would be the argument here I suppose [14:08] <zircon> I don't think it would be an easy NO [14:08] <zircon> We'd probably be in the same situation as here, with a split vote [14:08] <Liontamer> s'cool; I think we're at least understanding each other more on where the point of contention is [14:09] <zircon> Because for some people, if you're sufficiently doing other stuff w/ the harmony, even an unarranged lead can be made up for [14:09] <zircon> And for some of y'all, that's not enough [14:09] <zircon> I wish he had done a new lead too though don't get me wrong [14:09] <zircon> haha [14:09] <zircon> That was just a weak choice imo [14:09] <Fishy> lol [14:09] <zircon> he could have just changed the osc to a saw wave [14:09] <Anso> then I'm satisfied [14:09] <Anso> thanks [14:09] <zircon> and added vibrato [14:09] <Liontamer> Well, I think it was a cool choice; just might not be fit for OCR as such [14:09] <zircon> and probably have passed no questions [14:09] <zircon> lol [14:10] <Liontamer> yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 After a big round of Handbags with anso, andy and larry in irc, I'm sticking to my guns on this one. The melody is entirely re-constructed to sound like the original, from the notes down to the sounds used, therefore the melodic arrangement is practically zero, even if the harmonic arrangement is all kinds of awesome. It wasn't just the main melody either, it was all 3 channels from the original, which is taking the concept of reproducing to the extreme. I think we agreed that this was just too much verbatim (in both pitch and timbre) source use. The main issue of the irc chat was the difference between covering the source, and a total copy of it being acceptable or not. Andy thought the rest of the track made up for it, me and Larry didn't, so thats a NO. I don't really have anything new to add other then my distaste for the guitar sound (I had to stop eating my dinner because it was making me feel ill, it was like eating on a warbly plane). I won't dispute that this is groovy as hell, and the additions are funky as, especially the 1:23 parts and the glitch stuff later on. PS, CHz will likely have me fired for this splitting this vote, so its been a fun three days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Yeah, so there's an absolute ton of stuff from the original that for the most part might as well have just been sampled directly from the original instead of recreated. There are some effects in a few places, but it's practically identical. But we've got original material playing off of the source left and right, and there's more interpretive stuff in several places (1:23, 2:17, synth change in the accompaniment at 3:21). The fact that this mix sounds as different as it does from the original while having so much of the original in it is pretty fantastic. Close one. Arrangement's good enough here to outweigh the direct usage of the original. FISHY'S FIRED I mean YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts