Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /storage/content/49/145849/famitracker.com/public_html/forum/classes/dbHandler.php on line 29
FamiTracker
You just love making the 2A03 pulses inaccurate, don't you?
You just plain got the DuckTales song wrong in the 2A03 pulses, and the bass wasn't done more accurately. I realise that this is supposed to be a remake, but your redone versions make it sound nothing like the song it's supposed to be, and also aren't the most melodically-pleasing.
In cave story, the inaccuracy was actually hilarious, so I'm not going to listen to it again, sparing my gut, as I'm sick.
10/10 would advertise in video from extremely popular person
[quote=SoltIW]You just love making the 2A03 pulses inaccurate, don't you?
You just plain got the DuckTales song wrong in the 2A03 pulses, and the bass wasn't done more accurately. I realise that this is supposed to be a remake, but your redone versions make it sound nothing like the song it's supposed to be, and also aren't the most melodically-pleasing.
In cave story, the inaccuracy was actually hilarious, so I'm not going to listen to it again, sparing my gut, as I'm sick.
10/10 would advertise in video from extremely popular person[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I had to agree. The Ducktales song didn't sound anything like it until the in-accurate lead kicked in, and the Cave Story theme raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly in frame 02.
[quote=]You just plain got the DuckTales song wrong in the 2A03 pulses, and the bass wasn't done more accurately. I realise that this is supposed to be a remake, but your redone versions make it sound nothing like the song it's supposed to be, and also aren't the most melodically-pleasing.[/quote]
The thing is though I didn't want to ''remake'' the song. I wanted to do my own version, one that stands out different from other versions, so I guess I would call it a remix rather then a remake?
''Melodically pleasing''? What exactly do you mean by that? (I'm not trying to come off as rude, I want to learn from my mistakes and fix this in later songs.)
[quote=]the Cave Story theme raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly in frame 02.[/quote]
You should have heard the first time I made the cover. Hahaha- It was terrible.
However, when I decide to do a full version of the song, I will make sure that everything that seems off is fixed. I think the problem was I wasn't listening to the original version, so a lot of it came from half assed memory.
[quote=JKLOL][quote=]You just plain got the DuckTales song wrong in the 2A03 pulses, and the bass wasn't done more accurately. I realise that this is supposed to be a remake, but your redone versions make it sound nothing like the song it's supposed to be, and also aren't the most melodically-pleasing.[/quote]
The thing is though I didn't want to ''remake'' the song. I wanted to do my own version, one that stands out different from other versions, so I guess I would call it a remix rather then a remake?
''Melodically pleasing''? What exactly do you mean by that? (I'm not trying to come off as rude, I want to learn from my mistakes and fix this in later songs.) [/quote]
The incomplete and incorrect sections sounded poor to the ear. Listen to the real theme and your version, and you'll find that the real theme sounds a lot more pleasant and it isn't too demanding on the ear.
Melodically-pleasing: arbitrary and subjective term favourably measuring how melodic intervals affect one's state of mind.
Remixing is where you change the mixing. Remaking is starting from the bottom and re-doing it. Rearranging is what you're doing, but remaking is actually used more often in generality than in specificity.
So would you be suggesting making the lead softer, so it can still be heard above the other instruments, but still be loud enough so i can be still considered the ''lead part''?
In music theory, melody is where an instrument changes from one note to another. It is NOT the lead. It is not TIMBRE, or DYNAMICS.
Making things softer won't make it sound better, in this case, because you're avoiding the thing that's displeasing.
[color=#292929]EDIT: after reading a tiny bit of wikipedia, either wikipedia is outright wrong, or my teacher dumbed things down so much that he told us a different thing
[quote=SoltIW]Okay, you're not quite grasping what I'm saying.
In music theory, melody is where an instrument changes from one note to another. It is NOT the lead. It is not TIMBRE, or DYNAMICS.
Making things softer won't make it sound better, in this case, because you're avoiding the thing that's displeasing.
[color=#292929]EDIT: after reading a tiny bit of wikipedia, either wikipedia is outright wrong, or my teacher dumbed things down so much that he told us a different thing[/quote]
I'd agree with your music teacher. No matter how much you change the effects of a melody, it can't affect whether the melody is good or not.
You do realize that you're covering one of the most well-known songs in video game history? Changing the main melody intentionally is incredibly risky.
_______________________
Ponies, Mega Man, Meshuggah, Rotten Sound and ice-cream! <3
[url=http://www.youtube.com/user/seppowarheart]YOUTUBE
It's hard to comment usefully on work like this without diving into pure bias territory on what's good or bad. You wanted to make your own versions of these pieces, which is commendable, so specific constructive criticism on the effectiveness of your changes is difficult to make.
However, I can do my best to give sensible reasons for my opinions. Read at your own risk; I'm a bit long winded and scatterbrained when I have free time and am sleep-deprived. :-)
I don't have much to say about the Cave Story one. Some sound balancing things, but most everything else is heavily aesthetic in nature so I can't really say why I feel differently from what you did, especially considering these aren't straight covers.
One major thing, though, is why did you lift the tonic third and fourth up a whole step in much of the main melody? It warps the tonality of the passage quite a bit, doesn't sound "bad" per se because it's still relatively consonant... but nothing like the original and I don't know why you did it.
The Ducktales:
Some sound balancing things I won't talk about because it's been mentioned at least in part before. Trivial changes.
You chose to change the notes of the repeating arpeggio-style pattern that permeates the piece, as well as bring it down an octave. Because the pattern still contains the same notes in roughly the same place, it seems kind of like a case of "why fix what's not broken," especially if it's basically the same riff packaged differently. Also, by bringing it down an octave you put it in the same pitch region as the main melody when you shift the melody up in the second half of the first section (frames 06, 07); it's not as transparent and the counterpoint gets lost a bit under everything else at times. The original riff's twinkling about in the higher regions where other voices rarely tread ensures that it's always audible as a separate line and it can still colour the harmony here and there; it's an efficient choice for the hardware constraints.
In addition, there are a few very compelling things about the original pattern that didn't quite carry over when you altered it. With each loop of the original it feels like the emergent line of the riff has a dynamic shape: It starts by ascending/changing rapidly, then slowing down and climaxing at the high B in the middle, then gathering speed and descending for the drop into the next iteration; there's a distinct feeling of the notes rarifying in the middle of the pattern for the arrival at the high note, then compressing in time as the notes descend into the next bar and flutter wildy upwards once more to the next expansion. This particular oscillating arsis-thesis structure at the measure level helps keep the music sounding active and provides an effective backdrop for whatever larger shapes the lead lines take and such.
Your version of the pattern is sort of stagnant, changing very little in odd places and always tethered to that C#, and it doesn't hit the middle of the measure with the top B (dulls the peak of the shape). It just kinda sits there and it interacts in less interesting ways with the other voices (for instance, your design robs power from moments like line x30 of frame 05 in your version, where in the original it shifts to pure dominant key goodness one beat earlier and then BAM there's that tantalizing taste of dominant 7th when that high B hits the arsis dead on. That's really slick suggestion of harmony with the counterpoint, appropriate in context to help strengthen the impression of the bigger shape of frames 04, 05 coming to a close).
There's just a few other scattered things. You change the rhythms of the leading voice here and there, and I feel like it's another "why fix what's not broken" thing; it's doesn't create a consistently different listening experience and just sounds a bit like "whoa, that note's early/late for some reason..."
There are some new parts that sound superfluous to my ears (which are biased towards the original, but hear me out): The second halves of frames 00, 03, 0A are not present in the source material. Generally, repeating/adding patterns like this is used to acclimate the listener to a new section or mood, but because the pattern you're repeating/adding is so long (half a frame) I find myself almost twiddling my thumbs as I wait for the repeated thing to end and the next frame to start. The reason the original doesn't do this repeating (00, 03) is because it's not needed; the listener understands the loop and what's going on pretty readily, so there's no reason to make him listen to it again.
You could make a case for what you did in frame 0A because it eases the transition back to the tonic key when it loops back, and it's a good approach. The original does it quicker by moving the bassline up to the tonic at the last minute, but it's not jarring because it also reintroduces the twinkling riff to prepare the listener for the loopback (something you don't do). I'd argue the original is more parsimonious, but you could certainly argue back.
The whole "pleasing to the ear" thing or whatever is hard to explain and it is different across people. But as an example of something that "most" people would consider a bit stomach-churning musically:
In frame 07 you remove the original modulation in x18 and throw an E into the melody, creating a weirdly dissonant little chord that doesn't fit into the modality of the tonic and dominant colors that pervade the area (and a good portion of the whole piece, really; the oddity you introduce is a bit inconsistent with the overall feel).
Some other minor aesthetic things as well, but those are harder to argue because my personal taste comes into it more. Oh well.
Also: If you read all that, I'm sorry. I need sleep.
Real quick: On the subject of pleasing to the ear and frame 07, I was compelled to made a quick edit preserving the gesture of your changes to the main line while restoring the original bass progression and tonality. I think it's more "pleasing" and truer to the original, as the bassline is a bit more natural; it eases the transition into D using the intermediary at line x18, relieves the tension of the unresolved chord prior with that nice dominant key before the finishing climb. Also tweaked the climbing chords because I couldn't resist.
Have a gander if interested.
I often tend to do things in songs that sound good to me, yet sounds odd to others. So I am very sorry about the differences between the original and my version XD
However, I applaud you for pointing out the things that seemed off, rather than giving me a half assed two sentence speech why you didn't like it.
