[Liontamer]

Hi dear Judges!

Contact Information

* ReMixer name - OneUp
* Email address - nyren@mail.nu
* Website - http://www.freewebs.com/fboneup/
* Userid - 16275

Submission Information

* Name of game arranged - Lemmings, C64
* Name of individual song arranged - Just Dig(?)
* Original by Jeroen Tel
* Link to the original soundtrack http://djpretzel.web.aplus.net/songs...l/lemmings.sid (Song nr 3)
* Comments -

This is my first try for a serious game remix, it's on a song from Lemmings, I think it's called Just Dig.

The first time I heard this tune, I knew this could be an awesome Happy Hardcore-remix. The chords are just perfect, and it's definitely cheesy enough.
I tried to keep the 90's european Happy Hardcore sound, but with greater synths, and I think I managed pretty well.

It's a bit mechanical, especially the percussions and maybe the arrangement, but that's typical for HHC.

Greetings
OneUp, Sweden

(Btw, you can keep the link to the remix in the Judges Decisions post)

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://old.exotica.org.uk/tunes/arch...n/Lemmings.sid - SIDtune 3/15

Nooooo, generic boom-tiss at :26, then flimsy sounding claps added in at :38. You gotta get the claps sounding good for a track like this, it's a make-or-break thing. It's gotta be top-flight happy hardcore.

Yeah, the flimsiness of the textures and blandness/genericness of the synth design just hurts this the whole way through. Well, we've kind of already been through this discussion with the decision on Fröhn 'Remastered Gabber Mix'. I know you said you were going for an improved sound compared to 90s happy hardcore, and I agree that you've got it, but that still doesn't mean the production was strong here.

Hate to seem like I'm just shitting on the genre, but the arrangement could be kept the same, yet beefed up with better quality sounds and production that creates more sophisticated, cohesive textures. Sorry, OneUp. I think you may have to go more outside the happy hardcore box on this one if you want to get it passed. :'-(

NO (resubmit)

[Palpable]

Good old Pachebel's Canon. The song that keeps on giving.

It's pretty hard to find major fault with this song, but at the same time also hard to get excited about it. The song at its base is generic happy-hardcore, but there are some interesting ideas thrown in, e.g. the whistling section, the Lemmings FX, the breaks section. I also liked that the texture and drum pattern changed every few measures or so, while maintaining the flow. Overall, the song holds my attention because of those details, even though it's not at all innovative melodically. (Happy hardcore is not a genre that lends itself to much melodic interpretation anyway.)

Good use of soundscape. 1:30 was the only section that stuck out to me - a little thin given the build-up preceeding it. But once more instruments came in, no problem. The drums in the breaks section seemed oddly disconnected from the rest of the song, like they were too dry, perhaps. Small issues, nothing damning. No problem with your claps either.

Though I can see why Larry or any other judge would say NO, I'm going YES. I thought this dealt with the theme interestingly enough, and while there's obviously room for improvement, it's still a well-put together song.

YES

[Vig]

NO OVERRIDE

Sorry, this is not music written for a videogame, and is therefore a violation of our guidelines. Pachbel's Canon. sorry.

[zircon]

Chord comparison:

Bmaj - F#maj - G#min - D#min - Emaj - F#maj - Bmaj - F# maj
I - V - vi - iii - IV - V - I - V

Pachabel's Canon (transposed to B):

Bmaj - F#maj - G#min - D#min - Emaj - Bmaj - Emaj - F# maj
I - V - vi - iii - IV - I - VI - V

Of the eight chords, the sixth and seventh are different in the source. The rhythm of the source is also different, and the movement of the bassline in the source goes through passing tones to reach various chords, while Pachabel's Canon doesn't. More importantly, the melody of the source is significantly different. "Canon in D" does not have a unique enough chord progression to state that any source tune using those chords is not valid. Those chords have been used countless times for the last several centuries.

[Palpable]

Originally Posted by zircon

Chord comparison:

Bmaj - F#maj - G#min - D#min - Emaj - F#maj - Bmaj - F# maj
I - V - vi - iii - IV - V - I - V

Pachabel's Canon (transposed to B):

Bmaj - F#maj - G#min - D#min - Emaj - Bmaj - Emaj - F# maj
I - V - vi - iii - IV - I - VI - V

Of the eight chords, the sixth and seventh are different in the source. The rhythm of the source is also different, and the movement of the bassline in the source goes through passing tones to reach various chords, while Pachabel's Canon doesn't. More importantly, the melody of the source is significantly different. "Canon in D" does not have a unique enough chord progression to state that any source tune using those chords is not valid. Those chords have been used countless times for the last several centuries.

I agree. Obviously it's Pachelbel inspired, but the chord progression is too common to discount anything using it on that ground. If the melody was similar too, I think I'd agree with Jesse. I should also note we've managed to collectively spell Pachelbel wrong three different ways so far. Awesome, right?

[Liontamer]

Originally Posted by Palpable

I should also note we've managed to collectively spell Pachelbel wrong three different ways so far. Awesome, right?

I LOLed.

[DarkeSword]

NO OVERRIDE isn't valid here. Chord progression is different enough from Pakkabelz' Cannonn to make it a non-issue.

You know what? I like this. I think it's a lot of fun, and it's got a pretty good arrangement, given the usual trappings of the genre. The sound design and texture is a little simplistic, but I think there's some synergy here, and some pretty creative parts. I like that little march bit with the Lemmings voices and whistling; pretty cool. Could have done with more harmonic support, but it's not a dealbreaker.

YES

[Malcos]

In terms of production, this was pretty good, although claps are a quite dry. The arrangement struck a good balance of variation and required repetition as stipulated by the unwritten genre rules. Perhaps the source melody itself could have been further expanded on - there are original elements here, and the rhythmic variations help a lot, but things were overall very simplistic. I agree with Liontamer that the genre itself contains many elements that are below the OCR bar. I'm passing this, but as a borderline.

YES (borderline)

[zyko]

hahahahha

i can't believe we're reduced to comparing chord progressions and basslines to validate whether it is "pachelbel-free" enough

we have to be very careful with what we validate here. this is canon in freakin D, guys. period. i feel like i'm graduating from space cadet academy... in tokyo! the next thing you know, every "common" chord progression will be used and this will be cited as validation.

sfx and all, this is certainly good. i dig it! haha but i'm really worried about what we do as far as the obvious pachelbel-ness of the track. as long as everybody is willing and ready to deal with any negative repercussions of passing this, then pass away. it is well produced, arranged and fun to listen to.

happy hardcore for the win!

Y
ES

[CHz]

The textures are pretty sparse overall, and I'd like to seem them beefed up a bit, but there are plenty of them in the mix with all the different arrangement ideas between the HH FEVER DO YOU HAVE IT, so it's not like we're hearing the same lame sound throughout. The accompaniment and drums are mixed up throughout, even though the melody isn't really changed up. The original melody fits in well with it as well.

Sounds are obviously pretty cheap, but I think the arrangement just barely outweighs the bad side, because there's nothing really outright terrible (except maybe the claps). I also agree with the folks who don't think the Beethoven similarity is an issue because of the different chords and way different melody.

YES (borderline)