*NO* Super Mario RPG 'Broken Beyond Repair'

Skrypnyk here again, with a Super Mario RPG submission this time.

This originally started out as a tribute/experiment to Kid Koala and his style, and then I started getting inspiration from DJ Shadow and Boards of Canada inspiration (with a dash whatever the hell I do.) Originally started working on it last year (or early this year), then forgot about it, then finished it.

Oh, and I tagged the file :3

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

Let's make it clear that I think this track is badass. It's really well-made and it sounds like nothing I've heard in this community. I've looped this probably over a hundred times since I first downloaded it, and it's a great track to veg out to.

It's not often that I end up asking submitting artists what source tune they're arranging. Sometimes, you end up with a something deceivingly interpretive, e.g. Mythril Nazgul's Final Fantasy X-2 'Chauffage au Gaz'. But honestly that's rare. The fact that I needed to ask for a source tune from a soundtrack I'm reasonably familiar with didn't bode well. The fact that you thought in the WIP thread for this that it could get shot down for being too liberal means you won't be surprised though.

http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=smr - "Sad Song" (smr-125.spc)

I remember talking about this mix with zircon, who's also really familiar with the original, and he was just as surprised as I was when he heard this was the source. I've actually played this game, and you had me thrown for a loop.

Interesting opening, though why was it so quiet? Cool sound choice at :10 for the lead. Definitely some cool voice sampling and scratching. Beats joined in at :38. Arranged melody arrived at :53, but the interpretation is arguably too liberal. 1:21-1:35 handles the chorus of the original, but again it's all IMO liberal enough of an interpretation where it simply doesn't sound similar enough to the source tune.

Nice voice sampling and lo-fi effects to drop the energy down from 2:17-2:45. A little over the top with the "breasts, breasts, big breasts" sampling from 2:55-3:05 provided I heard that right, but I'll admit I only figured it out after hearing the track a billion and one times (having not paid enough attention the previous billion times .

In any case, as far as the arrangement goes, I hear most of the connections you have (and I'm feeling 'em), but this is still too liberal. The arranged melody here doesn't have enough resemblance to the melodic structure of the source, and most of the other ideas interacting with the belltone-ish melody seem wholly original and unrelated to Super Mario RPG. Breaks my cold, cold heart...

NO

I don't have a lot to add to what Larry said... I suspected the original might be "Sad Song" but couldn't really make any concrete connections until Skryp himself filled us in. Sound design is nice, structure is fine, but the arrangement is simply too far-out from SMRPG to really be considered an OC ReMix. With minimal effort this could be made to pass the bar. Just work in more elements from the original in a more prominent fashion.

NO

Yeah, I'm hearing nothing but breasts here. This track is no doubt very liberal, but i'd say it's no moreso than some of Wingless' stuff, i.e. "All the Guys in One Girl." I think the biggest thing that throws off the listener is the time signature change. The feel ls entirely different in 4, but in spite of that, I'm hearing the orignal all over this thing. Aside from the melodic fragments that remain, what ties the remix to the original is the melancholy mood, which is quite reminiscent of the original.

It's interpretive, it's liberal, but it's a great track with undeniable ties to the original, and I think we should allow it.

YES

Wingless' stuff, i.e. "All the Guys in One Girl."

Haaaaa!

Moving on. I'm definitely hearing the DJ Shadow influences in here. At first I think the time signature threw me off, but the connections to the source are pretty clear to me upon second listen. Background pattern doesn't change as often as the progression in the original, but the solo e-piano helps tie things in on another level. Not too liberal, IMO, but getting there. If the production and musicality weren't of such high caliber, I would probably lean towards a NO. But this is such a refreshing interpretation, and as Vig said the mood is right in sync with the source. Nice work!

As a side note, the intro FX are a little tricky due to the low volume. Kind of reminds me of TV-channel stuff on Pink Floyd's "The Wall." I'm sure it was a stylistic choice - I just hope nobody is fooled and turns up the volume way loud only to be blasted by muzaks. ^_~

YES

Arg. It's tracks like this that make me hate what we do.

Let me echo Larry's sentiments that the track is undoubtedly badass. However, BT himself could submit any of his original tracks, and they'd be just as badass, but unfortunately, that's not the only prerequisite OC ReMixes have.

I'm totally cool with a track taking a more liberal form, Wingless's mix is an excellent example, my own FFA Wendel mix is another. However, there are at least points in mixes such as those where there are obvious, undeniable references to the source material at some point(s) at least. Not to sound argumentative, but I've got to wholeheartedly disagree with Vig that such references are present between this source and ReMix.

The source and ReMix are both in A flat minor, and for the entire duration of the track, the bassline and chord progression follows the pattern E, Eb, db, Eb, E, Eb, ab (where "b" = flat of course). My music theory is a little rough, but in a minor key, I believe that translates into 6, 5, 4, 5, 6, 5, 1.

Now then. The original source chord progression is ab, Eb, ab, Eb, Ab, db, Gb, B, E, bb dim, Eb, which translates to 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 4, 7, 3, 6, 2, 5. So compare them one over the other:

Orig. - 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 4, 7, 3, 6, 2, 5

remix - 6, 5, 4, 5, 6, 5, 1

Now then. That being broken down, let's talk about the melody. I'm not going to spell out the melody from either one here, obviously. I'll just flat out say that I had a difficult time at best recognizing the melody in the remix as the melody from the source. And I've played the game through about 3 times. So I'd like to think myself fairly familiar with it before I had to sit and listen to it 50 more times to see if there was something I was just missing as I read the YES votes. Also, in the remix, the actual melody chimes in from :54 until about 1:48 and then again from 3:21 until 4:04. So for a track that is 261 seconds long, the melody (which I've mentioned is not blatantly recognizeable) appears in approximately 97 seconds, or in other words, roughly 37% of the track. This, coupled with the completely different bassline and chord progression = a bit TOO liberal as far as I'm concerned.

OK. So now that I've sat and deconstructed the track, let me make it completely clear that there is no particular mathematic formula I use to determine the validity of a track as an OC ReMix. I don't normally do this (break down tracks in such a manner) for a couple reasons (right now mainly because this vote at this point has taken up over an hour and a half of my morning) but because I still want to say that I'm fine with a mix taking a more freeform or liberal turn in terms of interpretation. Your Skala mix is a wonderful example of that in which it follows the general theme and progression of the mix but still finds it's own way to go nuts and emit some really cool and unique vibes while clearly remaining associated with Schala's theme.

I'm confident that if you released this track and sold it for profit, and claimed it entirely as your own, and then sent free copies over to the good folks at Nintendo without anyone ever knowing it was a ReMix of Mario RPG's Sad Song, you'd be completely free from any legal trouble. I'm not entirely certain that Koji Kondo, Nobuo Uematsu, or Yoko Shimomura would recognize the theme. I'd wager that 98% of the people who will or would listen to this would hear what I hear, which is a really chill and enjoyable IDM track on it's own. At best, I'd say you could say this is a song "inspired by" Sad Song, but I just cannot responsibly vote in favor of this as an OC ReMix.

Always a pleasure to listen to your stuff, Skryp. I don't mean to sound harsh in my vote, but I do feel the need to strongly clarify the reasoning behind my vote. If you don't care to tweak it, and at the very least more heavily implement the original melody to a more significant degree then I'd be more than thrilled to throw a YES your way.

Otherwise, at this point, all I can say is good luck with the rest of the vote, Bro.

NO

Factoring in both the arrangement and production, I'm just barely inclined to give this a YES.

What this means is that the production and execution are incredible enough to carry the liberal interpretation of the source.

Much like I YES'd Figaro Chiptune for its amazing arrangement and strong connection to the source, I'm YESing this for its production and execution, despite a weaker connection to the original (but a connection nonetheless).

This was not an easy vote.

YES

This is awesome lo-fi stuff. My biggest gripe is that the scratch samples are too hi-fi for the soundscape you have set up. The lead is just.. beautiful. I really hope to hear more remixes in this style from you.

The bassline stuff around 2:30 really raped my ears with the panning though, it was fucking from left to right. Was glad when that ended, but at least it keeps up with the lo-fi sound.

Anyway, this fits well with the electro-industrial style. Sounds like a mix between BoC and Skinny Puppy. It is a very liberal arrangement. But the track is just too hot sounding to let slide by, and the source is there, so I'm giving the track the benefit of the doubt.

More please in this style.

YES

If I may get on my pedestal and rant for just a second:

It is a very liberal arrangement. But the track is just too hot sounding to let slide by, and the source is there, so I'm giving the track the benefit of the doubt.

What this means is that the production and execution are incredible enough to carry the liberal interpretation of the source. ... I'm YESing this for its production and execution, despite a weaker connection to the original (but a connection nonetheless).

At first I think the time signature threw me off, but the connections to the source are pretty clear to me upon second listen.

what ties the remix to the original is the melancholy mood, which is quite reminiscent of the original. ... it's liberal, but it's a great track with undeniable ties to the original

I don't mean to be a doom-sayer here (as I'm definitely in agreement that this is an awesome track) but would any of you YES'ers mind spelling out specifically WHERE and WHAT the ties are?

A moment to explain why I seem so adamant about this vote. I'm not trying to sound like I'm the only person who puts forth effort, as I know we all do what we can to carry our weight on the panel, but seriously. I feel like what the hell is the point in having submission standards and guidelines to begin with if we're just going to throw out YES votes because a track "sounds hot" or is the same "mood" or solely based on "production and execution." An OC ReMix strikes a balance between creatively reworking the original composition and paying attention to mixing and sound quality, and is thus judged accordingly in both of these two areas.

Any incorporation of non-game music (mainstream, classical, etc.) should be very limited and should never carry significant portions of the mix.

So there we have it. As of this exact moment, I don't feel like there are liberal ties... I feel like there are NO ties. The bassline is different; the melody is different. The only thing that remains constant between source and ReMix is the key. I've done my homework (on the mix). I'm also human, and prone to err. If someone will do me the honor of pointing out how I'm missing such "obvious" connections, I will be more than happy to reconsider my vote.

I mean, seriously. How many of you would have known EXACTLY what this is a remix of had it not been stated in the thread?

*EDIT*

Upon numerous additional listens, I will go back and correct myself when I stated above that there are NO connections and say that I DO in fact believe there are tentative connections, but I reiterate that it's too much of a stretch when I can't even recognize without dissecting and listening and re-listening a thousand times to justify the arrangement and level of interpretation. And once more for the record let me remind everyone that this is otherwise a really awesome track.

Though I'm more in the middle of the two sides (i.e. there are liberal connections, not 0 connections), I'll back BGC up on these complaints. You guys voted honestly and with no bad intent, but the present collective explanations are weak in terms of specifically explaining how strongly connected the arrangement's writing is to the source tune. The way these read, most of them gloss over understanding/identifying the arrangement substance in favor of approving a great-sounding track. That was clearly not intentional (because who knew the vote would end up split or contentious), but now that Circles has even more serious reservations, I'd like to see more thorough justification given in respect to his concerns.

I gave this a relisten just to make sure I gave it a fair shake, and I'd like to think that I generally give liberal tracks a fair chance. Basically, I can understand the YES votes in terms of hearing the similarities, but don't agree on the extent that the connections are faithful enough to the original. I hear them too, especially in the rhythmic changes, so I'm more in the middle where I don't have a huge enough issue if this ended up passing.

I'm not saying the following timestamps are strong, consistent connections, I'm just making it clear what associations I heard. The initial pattern from :10-:37, and later consistently used in the background, arranges the backing piano from the source tune (constantly in play in "Sad Song", so no timestamp). Although it's a bit strange to note that it's also similar to the backing part from the clip at :02-05 of the arrangement's intro. The melody from :53-1:21 arranges :00-:05 of the source. 1:21-1:35 arranges the source chorus (:06-:20). 1:50-2:51 is too original to be attributed to the source. The arrangement ideas repeat afterward, for all intents and purposes.

This is arguably not a far cry from the arrangement approach of AeroZ lately, with the way Sonic the Hedgehog "Green Lane Avenue" really straddles the line of recognizability with its melodic changes. But I can side-to-side compare that arrangement to its source and take away more of a direct connection where "X" arrangement phrasing is closely derived from "Y" original phrasing.

That all being said, I thought this arrangement was slightly too liberal of an approach in terms of overhauling the melodies and bassline of the original, where the first few notes in a phrase are similar, then goes off more into original territory. The dour mood helps keep a feel similar to the original, but I don't think it thus explains away the liberalness of the arrangement. I'd also appreciate more specifics on how this is directly connected to address these concerns. In any case, 2 votes left and potentially a tiebreaker, so good luck.

Whew, much has been said here, and I don't really have anything new to add to the debate, other than to state my vote. As you know, if I can't hear the source first time then I'm inclined to think that it is somewhat too liberal. I'm not too familiar with this particular soundtrack, and it seems that even those who are very familiar with it, still can't hear the ties to the source. This is a great piece of music, but I do believe that it is somewhat outside of some of OCR's guidelines.

NO

oh yum. and oh yuck.

this is wicked cool. this is hot as shit. it deserves every bit of love i gush over it because it is smooth, funky and creative. i can smell dj shadow all over this. at the same time, i smell skrypnyk, too. this is wicked cool. i've been playing around with turntables a lot lately and i've been made a believer in their interpretative, creative quality - this is, simply, sex to my ears.

yuck because this is a mess to judge. the notorious "ties" in question here are debatable... i can sorta hear it too but this is an awful distinction to have to make. it sucks to judge it, too because the original stuff here is off the charts. but unfortunately so is the arrangement. site fundamentals are at play in this thread's discussion and while i am in love with this piece of music, i cannot pass it.

it is what it is. and isn't.

NO

this is, however, permanently in my playlist

It would kill me (kill!) if you didn't resub, Andy. But like pretty much everyone has said no matter the vote, this was an awesome track from a listening standpoint. I hope you give this one another go, but it's already one to be proud of.