Liontamer Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10202 Remixer name: Gorgonian username: gorgonian14 Name of game remixed: Final Fantasy 6, Celes Theme Resubmission. Previously rejected with a resubmit suggestion. I changed every single sample used and did my best on production. I am relatively new to the production aspect, but I did try very hard and take a lot of suggestions. Thanks for the opportunity. Link below. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=ff6 - "Celes" (ff6-122.spc) Not that I'd ever regret it, but I'm certainly glad I went NO last time, given the end result here. And that's really what some NO votes are about; not trying to be discouraging, but pushing artists to push themselves. Nice upgrade of the sounds. I don't recall the arrangement seeming nearly this grandiose or dynamic at all. Great use of the Works forum to solicit feedback and achieve some great results via the help of other forumgoers critiquing away. You really stepped it up on this one and made the call an easy one. Nice work. For the chilluns! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 I YES'd this even when the brass was terrible. The horns have now been upgraded to "not embarassingly bad," so I'm not gonna dwell on this vote anymore. Nice work. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 EQ was touched up a little on this one. First thing I noticed when comparing it to your last, there's a lot more treble on the track, which gives your strings a nice, airy feel. Also, (and maybe this is just because they're not quite as muddy) it sounds like there's more stereo separation here. Nice. Around :40 or so, the brass was pushed back so as to disguise some of the fakeyness mentioned last go-around. Yeah, I'm gonna agree with Jon that the brass isn't just spit-in-your-face-obnoxiously-poor like they kind of were last time around. And you've substantially improved your dynamics. Rather than simply relying on a reverse cymbal swell, you've actually automated the actual dynamics. So props. The overall master EQ is actually dangerously close to my little red-flag-button, but in lieu of all the attention you've paid to our previous concerns, I'll let it slide. Main gripe is that there's almost a lack of good low-end throughout the track. But granted the style, it's really not that big a deal. This is passable. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I don't think I can be as lenient as some of the other Js on the EQ here. There's basically no bass whatsoever, no low-mid, TONS of treble. It's really thin. This is an easy fix, as is it seems like the whole mix is being sent through a rezzy highpass filter, especially on some of those trumpet notes. The stereo is nice, and the overall sample implementation is passable. The arrangement is nice, though I think it relies on sustained chords too much, without creating much rhythmic interest. If the arrangement were stronger I would say it could cover for the EQ problems and average samples, but that is not the case here. With rebalanced EQ I would most likely pass this. NO, RESUBMIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 i thought this was wonderful throughout until the flat crescendo at 2:15. where is the power? why did you pull the plug on it at THATn particular moment when you're building up? you've got the right idea with all that bright brass afterwards but the piece is pretty flat behind it the arrangement is great and most effective when it is subtle and soft. it is emotive and moving. the later part when it is epic, the brass carries it because of its liveliness but its dissappointing how soft everything behind ti sounds at that point. haha who would have thought i'd be the only one agreeing with zircon on EQ but this thing has no bass at all and just because it's orchestral doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the BUMP. i must say though, technical things aside, this is a very effective piece. it sounds to me like a score to a mafia film. something serious like a godfather but not quite as epic. something more akin to raging bull. the point is that it sounds great as a work of art even if i'm irked by the timidness of the crescendo WHAPs that you fumbled a couple times at the end. i think this is a yes for sure but i am forced to call for a resub because i think the strings in the end should definetly have more presence and power to be consistent with what you're writing. this thing is ridiculously close. it is truly gorgeous. just fix the freakin EQ. nO (resub) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I don't mind that the first 2 minutes has no low end. The parts just arent there, and i think it works okay for the track. The mids do fill out at the point of crescendo, but it still could use some thickening in the low end. I'm with Zirc and Zyk on this one. Close, just beef out the bottom. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 My beefs with the production are mostly addressed from my last vote. I still really like the arrangement. I think Zircon's right about the EQ issues; it does sound like it's put through a high-pass filter. Maybe we can fast track this? I'd like to give this a conditional YES, the condition being tweaked EQ. I don't claim to be an expert on that kind of thing (kind of sad, isn't it?), but perhaps some other judges can help this fellow out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Oh yeah, nice arrangement. Thought the transitions at 2:16-2:18 and 2:53-2:58 were a bit weak; the movement of the piece to the climax is perfectly fine, and the sections of the track do fit together, but the crescendos just seem a little bit too rough in what's otherwise a smooth, emotional piece. First one especially. Otherwise, totally feeling your take on Celes. Good amplification of the feelings of the original. I don't mind that there's no bottom end in the first half because I don't think it detracts at all from your nice nice nice writing. Percussion is pretty weak when it's actually there; definitely fatten that up, because it has no kick at all. More lows in general in the second half in particular would make the build in that direction nicer. Production could definitely be better, but it's not bad enough to pass this one up. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I didn't hear this one the first time around, but the arrangement is nice. Sticks pretty closely to the source with new melodies and some added sections tying it together. Gentle but moving. I felt the transition at 2:18 was a little awkward and dissonant, the way everything overlaps for a short bit, but not a big deal. Don't have much to add about the EQ - I echo the concerns about the low-end. The first half sounds ok without it, but the second half needs that power. I'd want to see that fixed before passing this. The cymbals starting at 2:59 sounded way too short for how slow the song is at this point. It seemed out of place and I'd really like it to sustain more. Some added body would help it too. It's a small part of the overall picture so it's not a dealbreaker, but the lack of lows is. Fix that, and this is a pass. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 This is massively improved from the last time. I do agree with the point about the lack of low end - however in this instance it is not so out of place with the piece that it warrants a no, so YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillian Aversa Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Andy is right about the EQ in this resub. I still have the originally submitted mp3, and it was much better in that regard. This version sounds quieter, and is lacking the lower frequencies. Your trumpet sample is soooooo better now, but I noticed that the cello line right after sounds more mechanically sequenced than it did in the original submission. Ah well, that's okay. ^_~ I still think the arrangement is really terrific. Although I YES'ed this before, the EQ is definitely bugging me a bit since it's actually a downgrade from before. Conditional YES On the grounds of EQ. Could somebody talk to Gregonian behind the scenes, and help him out if he's not sure what to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts