Liontamer Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4152 I hope I understood correctly from the new standards page that ID3 tags aren't necessary, here goes: - Icarus Evolution Contact Information * James George * maestrodeclure@aol.com * www.soundclick.com/jamesgeorge * user id=3557 Submission Information * Kid Icarus * Title theme, Underworld, Overworld, Fortress, Boss Theme, Ending Theme * Composer: Hirokazu "Hip" Tanaka, system: NES * http://www.flyingomelette.com/kidicarus/kidicarusmidis.html Comments: I think this is what...the third time submitting this? maybe the fourth... I felt the title "Icarus Evolution" was appropriate because listening back on each version shows how far this mix has come. I just returned from a trip learning from Chris Bacon and James Newton Howard, so I wanted to take a stab at trying some sequencing tricks I learned. Thus, I beat this ol' dead horse some more. I think last time the comments were mainly: the transitions stink, and something about "medleyitis". May God bless the creator of that word with seven years bad luck, and gas, lots of gas. This piece was originally 10 minutes long, then truncated to fit time and size, so yes the transitions are admittedly not as I would have them. As for medleyitis, I deliberately approached this as a medley, not an overture. While I do recognize that creating a true medley would go against the actual purpose and criteria of OCR, I do also feel that the shear amount of work I've put into this also speaks for itself. I really felt there was a genius to the Kid Icarus soundtrack, and I wanted to showcase that while still doing my best to make it my own. Here's hoping I fall on the other side of the fence this last time; I can promise I won't touch this f@#$ing music ever again, ha ha. Bonus if you accept this: finally you can tell every whining complaining SOB that ever had their "perfect mix" rejected that there's good reason and point to this work. j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 My main criticism of this is the sample usage and production. Everything sounds rather indistinct, and most of the orchestral instruments just sound cheap and thin. Excessive reverb is a contributing factor. The section starting at 1:45 is a good example of how the samples are not clear enough. The marcatos are incredibly weak - you can barely hear their rhythm. Darkesword pointed this out last time but I guess nothing was done about it. The brass sequencing has a real machine gun effect giving away their sampled nature. This is particularly evident at points like 3:22, the trumpet staccatos. It doesn't sound like you did any velocity tweaking whatsoever. The acoustic drums in the background, especially at 2:11, are so soft that they don't add anything, though the timpani are a little better. At times, brass notes overlap and cause audible phasing (eg. 1:55.) The sequence at 2:40 is as mechanical as I could imagine. Likewise, 4:23 is pretty bad in the realism department. The ending is supposed to be powerful but sounds really fake, thin, and brittle instead, as a result of the various issues I've mentioned. In general, you need to find some fast-attack samples and try to use and layer those where possible to give definition to your sounds. I can't tell what sampleset you're using but I'm pretty sure you could find better things for free.. remember that MIDI orchestration is NOT just about writing, but about technical ability and finesse. Normal orchestration techniques applied to low-quality samples will sound bad, so extra care must be taken. Your style reminds me of Jeremy Robson, who also doesn't usually have the best of samples, so don't get discouraged. Just keep working at it. The overall volume of the track is too low; it's not normalized, but even that aside, the dynamic range could be reduced and gain applied. The quiet sections are made nearly ineffective right now as you can barely hear what's being played on all the parts. The writing itself, throughout, is pretty good. Again, sort of reminds me of Robson. Unfortunately, I think the medley criticism still stands. The transition at 1:44 is weak (non-existent.) 2:33 has an abrupt key change, and then a shift in rhythm and mood at 2:39. Again, no meaningful transition to tie these parts together. A single exposed brass part at 3:51 through 3:55 doesn't really cut it either, as 3:56 picks up into something completely different. I could go on but I think you get the idea. While the individual arrangement ideas and concepts are solid, the overarching issue is that this doesn't feel like a single connected piece. At this point, it seems like you're tired and don't want to go back to this one. You're probably better off taking some of this advice and applying it to your next sub, but in case you do decide to resubmit this, improve the execution first then tighten up the writing between sections. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 As for medleyitis, I deliberately approached this as a medley, not an overture. While I do recognize that creating a true medley would go against the actual purpose and criteria of OCR, I do also feel that the shear amount of work I've put into this also speaks for itself. Just wanna address this, as I have no time for vote at the moment. We don't judge your effort, or the "shear [sic] amount of work" you put into the song. All we judge is the end product, and if we collectively feel the end product suffers from medlyitis and doesn't jive with our standards and criteria, then we'll reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 25, 2007 Author Share Posted November 25, 2007 Ha! Just BARELY over the size limit (6,295,424 bytes), I think this is the closest I've seen someone get over exactly 6MB (6,291,456 bytes). http://www.zophar.net/nsf/kidicar.zip - Tracks 1, 2, 3 & 10 Yeah, I remember this arrangement from last time around. To me, this was a marked improvement, but not on solid enough ground yet. It's definitely too quiet to start. Even with an orchestral dynamic in mind, the intensity of the performance during the intro make this volume level sound unnatural. Nothing a volume raise on my site couldn't fix, but this should still be looked into. The full-stop transition at 1:43 wasn't a big deal as a 1-time thing. I've eased off of coming down as hard on medley-itis since the last time around on this, in that, if the arrangement is substantive enough, I'm not bothered by abrupt-level changes as long as the overall presentation feels like a cohesive-enough unit. Generally, I got the sense of that here, though even 2:39's transition was too abrupt. The soundfield definitely felt cluttered from 2:11-2:27. Definitely agreed with zircon re: the drums at 2:57 not contributing much due to their volume. All the drumwork still felt out of place to me, though less so than last time. As to many of the technical aspects zircon cited, I wouldn't be able to ID most of those things if I tried. Those didn't affect my vote, but it sounded like good insight and production advice at a deeper level that could be useful. The sample quality sticks out, mainly the brass. The string work and woodwinds were handled better, though I heard some mechanical sequencing with the woodwinds in particular. Though I wasn't as bothered by the lack of realism as zircon, it's nonetheless still a significant issue that affects the listen. For something where brass is so integral, the quality there in both sequencing and tone needs to be stepped up. But really, much of the instrumentation sounded thin and inhuman, undermining the strengths of the composition. Those are unfortunately still the dealbeakers on this one. Wish this could be refurbished with more realistic sequencing and some stronger sounds, but even if not, James, I'm looking forward to your next works, no matter what they are. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I dunno, I'm still having the same issues with the articulations, particularly in the bass instruments. The definition is just not at the level it needs to be to really establish the kind of pulse you're looking for. The percussion is also kind of quiet throughout the piece. I'm also not too hot on your brass samples; trumpets sound blaring and start blurring together in the end. I do like the writing overall; the interpretation and movement throughout the piece is really nice. The transitions aren't the best, but they're serviceable. Andy's right about the ending though; it sounds really weak. You need stronger low end there; it sounds thin with just high strings and woodwinds. Something powerful and deep would serve you better. Anyway, still a lot of production issues. Keep at it, I guess, and if you decide not to resub, good luck with future subs. NO resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts