Gario

Oops - I said soundscape... I meant stereo seperation. lol, my bad. Yeah, the stereo spread is weak throughout the song (other than the part I pointed out before). Sorry for the slip up!

Alright! The second official analysis from me (woot)! I'm going to put something up every Monday, so keep an eye out - I'll be sure to make it interesting! Alright, next up is the famed classic, Mega Man 3 (Sorry, folks - it beats the shit out of MM2, although that was still a good game, too). Not to mention it has the best box art out of the whole Mega Man series . The intro theme is going to be my focus, today. Yes, this is one of the most remixed themes on OC, but it's seriously one of the best songs from the entire Mega Man franchise (and that's saying something, there), so who could blame the remixing community? Now, let's get on with the meat of the subject - why is it so badass? Well, related to the Silver Surfer track I looked at earlier, it uses polyphonic lines in order to achieve a full soundscape. However, where the Silver Surfer tried to mask the polyphonic technique by making it faster than the human ear could perceive, Mega Man 3 instead uses more antiquidated techniques in order to imply multiple lines (these polyphonic techniques are actually very common in the Baroque era on), and also incorporated voice exchanges into the music. Looking at this song channel for channel, the first interesting thing I see is in the first phrase of music. What does the melody sound like to you, a leap into a neighboring decoration, perhaps (and looking at all of the OC remixes of it, everyone interprets it in that fashion, except for IntroJazz )? For the longest time, I heard the melody that way too... until I dissected the channels for the purpose of making a remix of the theme (midi remix - not OC stuff ). Take a look at rectangle 1 (and forgive my poor quality) - you'll notice that it's the channel that carries the melodic material, yet the beginning actually leaps down and climbs in a stepwise fashion up to continue the melody we all know and love. If you made the same mistake as I did when first listening to this song then you've just experienced the first case of voice-exchange that occurs in this song. It's strange, but rectangle 2 actually plays half of the melody for a few beats before returning to it's accompanying role - the melodic voice channel 'exchanged' the role with another channel for a few beats. Of course, I think that may have been an unintentional mistake on the part of the composer, as that could have been accomplished without using voice exchange. Regardless, it provides a perfect example of the technique, and the music does this a few more times throughout this short piece, as you'll see. Continuing the analysis of the first channel, after the introduction sequence (that uses some cool slowdown techniques without changing tempo ) the music really gets going at 0:30. Listen to the channel on it's own - it's actually rather plain, but it incorporates some powerful polyphonic lines. Instead of trying to mask the effect by playing the notes quickly, however, the implied lower line plays in time with the rest of the melody. It's obvious that the melody begins with the arpeggio, followed by a leap up, etc. with a lower note playing a bass note (although the triangle holds the actual bass, the implied line doubles the triangle). Even more interesting, though, is how this intro fills the soundscape by having rectangle 2 play the exact same thing a beat later, giving it a manual delay effect. This delay, though, has the unintentional (or at least I think it's unintentional) effect of filling out the implied bassline and implied melody. It's really fascination what happens to the music sonically - I drew a picture in order to help clarify it visually... You see, because of the delay there isn't a moment where the melody isn't playing (the same can be said of the bass for that part, as well - although there are some moments when it isn't playing). Thus, we never actually miss the melody at all. Of course, because we're using two voices now it seems like a moot point, but not only do we have two lines playing, both the lines have a delay effect (which takes two voices on it's own), so it's like having four voices working at the same time in order to fill the soundscape. At 0:41 the melody continues to use polyphony in order to imply two lines, but rectangle 2 does not create the delay effect anymore, so that empty space is not filled. Because of this, though, the rectangle 1 sounds a bit broken. You can easily separate the two voices out of the single line, though - in fact, the theme earlier is a motive for this theme later, being followed by the same implied static note (made more interesting because it's not simply doubling the bass). Because of the leaps between the two lines the mind doesn't connect the two as a single line, so we hear it as two individual lines, even without the other instruments filling the gap. Pretty cool, eh? A final note regarding the triangle and the rectangle 2 channels - they often exchange the voices in order to make a complete phrase. Because the Triangle is often used as the drums, the other channels often complete an idea that was started by the triangle. Listen, for example, to 0:26 - 0:30 when the triangle is with rectangle 2. Notice that the triangle drops out at the end of the phrase while rectangle 2 completes the idea. This is another example of a voice exchange. Also, when the song gets going later from 0:30 on, the leaps to the implied lower voice can be considered another sort of exchange, because it often fills in for the triangle bass that played a drum fill on the last beat of every measure. Really, this song is quite complex in it's uses of voice exchange and polyphonic lines! For those that understand 'voice exchanges' as a very particular idiom of counterpoint, it actually means when one voice completes the idea of another voice (like I was presenting here) as well as the classic technique used in basic counterpoint. I just felt like heading that off before it got out of hand . I've got to admit, AnSo - irregular meters are always the shit, especially when they constantly change around like in that song you presented . I'll be looking forward to your continued series - especially since your using a scoring program to show the notation and such (I'm still using bitmap, lol). By the way, were you working on a publication or a project for college? I actually didn't think about that until a few days ago and was meaning to ask .

Wow, with the proper mixing this piece is really shining, now! A couple of comments (I've always got more ) - at 0:38 - 0:57 (and other parts like it) the soundscape seems a little empty... The sound is way too centered. Spread the sound around using panning or something there (0:57 - 1:35 was perfect when it coms to stereo balance - aim for that sound in the rest of the mix). Another note - 1:16 - 1:35 is really one of those defining moments in this song... It'd be my favorite part if that chiptunage wasn't there . Try to balance the mix according to the sound being evoked at that part (from a soundscape perspective, that is). I've tried holding back, but I can't help it - the choir is moving in parallel 5ths, and it's driving me mad. PLEASE harmonize in 3rds or 10ths there (major or minor, according to what sounds better in the moment), or just using octaves - it will put my mind at ease (and it'll help define your harmonies better, making the harmonic motion cleaner in those sections). What can I say - I'm a brutally honest poster . It's getting much better. It can be better still, though. Good luck!

Well, Rozo, I'd actually hope that OCR would accept more pieces like this; even though I was half-joking in my earlier post, style still seems to be restricted on this site, sadly, although whether it is because people don't sub mixes like that or due to the opinions of the judges I can't say (considering the recent flux of interesting songs on the front page, it's probably the people not subbing enough music like that - but they are quite rare on this site, nonetheless )... although it's certainly too conservative for OCR (OLR doesn't have that restriction, I don't think - it's really the main reason I suggested it, not to mention the style is right up their alley ). Rick Roll vs the Warrior Poet of OCR, ladies and gents. If the snare is really the marching sound, you'd know better than I. Like I said, I was always stuck in concert band (like the nub I was ), so I trust your judgement (although I still say the bass drum is a bit too weak...).

Yup, you got me - I'm pretty much a Schenkerian bastard child. I understand your looking at things from a different perspective, so I can't say I'm attacking you... I'm just offering my differing views on the whole thing . I understand your viewpoint, too - my ears just developed in a very Schenkerian sort of way, so I hear things differently. I'm merely expressing what I hear and why - after all, isn't that what theory is all about? I'm sure you'll understand my next statement, then, if you know of the Schenkerian views I hold... Aurally speaking, Moseph, the strings are holding the functional bass note (I hear the music at in the tonic, not the subdominant, due to the harmonization in the 'higher' strings) - the harp is more decorative, in function. Perhaps the notes themselves are lower for the harp, but in terms of functionality I hear the strings really holding the harmonic basis. The differences in timbre allow this to happen, as the upper partials are more dominant in the harp than in the strings (meaning they sound 'higher' and 'lighter' than the note being played implies, so the bass effect is a bit weaker). If the harp was the functional bass, in reality it would be playing a IV with a dissonant 7, 9 and 11... that don't resolve (The 7th could arguably resolve, but the 9th and 11th don't, or at least not properly). Not to mention the next vertical harmony wouldn't make sense, from a syntactical point of view (V7 -IV? No, that's not good syntax, not to mention the 7th doesn't resolve, anyhow for the dominant 7th chord...). Of course, you could look at that as a series of passing motions, but then you'd be falling back into the view that I'm presenting, so you'd end up coming to the same conclusion as me . I hear it as a very functional piece of tonality when I listen to it, myself - and it all works out quite nicely if you hear the string part as the functional bass, as I do when I listen to it. The strings higher, in reality, but I wrote them lower in order to show the bass functionality I hear (in fact, I heard it so dominantly that I thought the music was in the key of C before because I thought what was written reflected the bass I heard). Sorry if the picture is confusing - bitmap isn't the best way to get these ideas across. Oh, and Willrock, the Journey to Silius bassline is a DPCM track - meaning they really did record a bassline as a compressed digital sound and use it for the soundtrack... In my opinion, that's cheating the NES, but it does sound pretty cool, nonetheless . As for the Mass Effect game, Adamantium Dude, it's actually using a technique called Parsimonious Voice Leading (or Neo-Reimannian theory). The very sublte effect it has is caused by the fact that one voice in the chord moves at a time in the most minimal fashion possible (eg by semitone up or down). In that theory there is no such thing as functional harmony - it truly moves from one note to the next without any ultimate direction, so it isn't really tonal music (even though it uses the same harmonic language - that's actually why conventional harmonic analysis doesn't work when analysing it). That song from Mass Effect, for example, moves from i - VI - i - VI... etc. because the difference between i and VI is a semitone (in Cm: G to Ab). Interestingly enough, using a combination of semitonal movement you can get to any chord in the tonal relm seemlessly without the use of tonality . Try it out - you'll find the effect to be surprisingly soothing and non-directional (which is what your going for, right?).

I'd recommend PMing a Judge or chatting to them on IRC before submitting it, personally. My older comments still hold (You know what I'm talking about ), so it would certainly be nice to know the answer before waiting 3 - 4 months in the submissions inbox to have them say the same thing. If you submit - I wish you luck, it's still great trance that I would download!

I can't seem to get in touch with my opponent... It doesn't look like Elesarana frequents OC often enough to get my PMs. Does anyone know the best way to get in contact?

That's not Marle - that's Lucca casting fire. She lost her glasses in the snow (Frog is looking for them - he knows she's useless without them, I mean seriously; she's casting fire on poor Chrono and he's just making the most out of it). Also, bleached hair was the 'in' fad the time they took the picture, so it makes perfect sense that her hair's different than in the game. Man, that should've been obvious, dude. I don't see any inconsistencies, there .

OLR = OLRemix Unlike OCRemix, they're purpose is gathering the most unconventional remixes on the internet on one site. Your interpretation here is absolutely perfect for that site (The music is often very good on the site, just not... well, normal ). Anyhow, your mix doesn't sound like OCR would accept it (conservative, very odd style - although I don't think that should matter... damn bigots ), I think OLR would be dying for a mix like this one. Alright, that's OLR for ya - now I want to hear an update! RAWR !

Sweeeeeeet. I like the groove of this - and I never expected to hear this interpretation of this song ever. Very well done. I want to hear more from you guys - please post more of your stuff here.

Hellooo~ march! Like I've said before, the idea is very neat (I personally have a difficult time not thinking Robo Roll with that source so kudos for not making another mix like that, lol). I think you made the instrumentation quite a bit thicker than the last mix I heard of it - that really helps the sound a lot . As for the snares and such, I think you've got it going alright, really (I went out and actually figured out what sound you were actually trying to go for - marching band vs concert band - you could probably tell where I fit in, lol). The percussion is quite complex and varied. I still think the snare could use a bit more 'snare', though (the metal set of springs on the bottom of the drum is called the 'snare' - it gives the instrument that distinct sound rather than another tom). The bass sounds a bit stronger than last time, but I feel it needs to be more dominant then that throughout, if you really want to put the march in band, here! I'm sure your not writing this for OCR due to the conservative nature of it (change in style, but nearly note-for-note), but I'd seriously consider an OLR submission of this when you feel satisfied with the mix. This is exactly the kind of stuff they want - unique, interesting interpretations of VG music . Keep it up!

DAMN! I wanted that matchup! Oh well, that's what 'random' will do to ya .

It makes perfect sense... I seem to find myself listening to all sorts of good music in the WIP forums that I know will never get on OCR due to the criteria that the music needs to meet (too little or too much source usage doesn't make the music bad - but it certainly will not get the music on OCR). Another case-in-point is this song... It's got the classic case of medley-itis (of course, he didn't submit this version here, either - don't worry, J's ). However, I love this song to death (frankly, it's one of my favorites around) - just because it's a medley in it's structure doesn't mean it's bad music - it just means you won't find it on OCR.

*goes to send heckling PMs to Hewhoisiam* Like that?

lol, sorry, Blackstar - I actually meant you to be third (although I found your voting a bit unethical )... Oh well, my bad.

Second that... really nice mix, there (although not enough variation from the source ).

In theory, to go down that route MM2.5 would actually need to exist before a C&D (I pretty much believe the CT game existed beforehand, due to the footage up, now)... However, I will continue to dream of the day this game gets a C&D from Capcom, because it would mean the game was in fact in production .

The harmonies in the beginning are quite interesting (meaning I enjoyed them ), but later in the music they get set in a basic up & down motion that carries it through the rest of the music which sounds a little clunky and awkward. The instrument choice was neat - I liked the combination of the electronic and guitar you used (although I'd prefer the guitar to be real ... then again, this is only 8 hours of work, so that isn't too bad ). The mixing was rough, though - I couldn't hear the melody. The texture and rhythm drown the elements that needed to be in the front of the mix. It was pretty fun to listen to, though. Thanks for posting!

Well I'll enjoy the footage, I guess... At least they can prove that there really was something being done, there (although the C&D debate will continue, no doubt).

That basically sums up my reaction, if that is real.

So Rozo, where do you like sfx? lol... I've said it before and I'll say it again - I really like this song. I believe this was said before, but the highs in the mix are too dominant - it creates a shimmer that muddies that range terribly. Knock the high end down on the mastering a few dbs and you should be good to go, there. The soloing & leads are too quiet throughout the entire song... I really like the ripping and lead work you do here, but it's an element of the background, atm. Bring it out to the forefront of the song please. The drums are a little too dry, as they are. Don't overdo it, but a little more reverb could help bring them out better. By the way, the chiptunes at 2:48 - 2:52 are as pure awesome as anyone can get... period. Don't ever take them out . Yeah, it's great arrangementwise, but the mixing will still hold this back from the ever-elusive 'YES'. Some elements that should be in the front are in the back, the background elements are too far forward, etc... and the mastering is hot, at the moment (the EQ has too many highs - it sounds a little like it's coming from a car radio ). Raise the mids and lower the highs - it'll help the overall sound. Keep it up - I have to admit, your the most interesting WIP poster here, for me. I either love your stuff or hate it; I have no inbetween with your work. That basically guarentees that I'll listen to anything you post here, so good job

Alright - I was just trying to help you a bit. In time you may know what I was talking about (contrapuntally, your right, but I wasn't talking about that ).It's my simple opinion, if I restrict it to this remix, so we'll agree to disagree .

lol, I know - I can't help myself... It's funny that I'm relatively indifferent on what Chessmaster010 does with that (it'll sound fine to me either way); I'm just talking so people on this thread can learn about something new, here. NOPE! I'm afraid your making a common error, there... don't feel bad, most people do when they talk about dissonance - it's what a teacher will tell you in order to keep the subject simple. Technically, 'dissonance' is when two sounds do not use a simple ratio when played simultaneously (an octave's wavelength is 2:1, a fifth is 3:2, a fourth is 4:3, etc...). The problem is that in the music today we don't use those ratios anymore - we now tune to something called 'equal temperament' tuning that is in fact only consonant at the octave.Now, we get sounds that are close to being consonant, but technically we never use perfect consonance when sequencing music, so in reality it's perfectly fine to use sonorities (rather than 'chords') to harmonize our music... hell, we've been doing it for over 100 years, now, so there isn't any reason not to use dissonance (Ives' 'The Unanswered Question' was written in 1905 - believe me, the dissonance in that is incredible, but it's still one of my absolute favorite pieces of all time). Point is, no one in this century really has listened to perfectly 'consonant' music because we've adopted to a system where we don't use those ratios, anymore. You'll need to trust me on this - I've spent enough time studying the subject to know what I'm talking about, in this case . Alright, listen to the Aeris' theme in FF7 (particularly when she dies) - the beginning is completely based off of the sonority CGCDE simultaneously. Perhaps that's a better example than the prelude .By the way, Chessmaster010, update it for us soon! We're dying of anticipation .

I'm in - sign me up, baby!

I know what you mean, there - really, that song I posted originally has a lot of that going on (in fact, it merges the technique of implying reverb with one channel and getting reverb with two channels - allowing them to trick the listener into believing the reverb is still there).I'm reading the rest of the Zelda series that's there (I didn't know there was six pages, lol) and it seems quite inspired, pointing out the threads that keep the game together in clever ways. I noticed some of the roman analysis used that I didn't quite agree with... Personally I try not to analyze music using roman numerals for every verticle harmony created as sometimes it doesn't represent how the music flows. Zelda's theme (harmonized on page 2), in particular, would make more sense if it was set in the key of C throughout (thus, allowing the beginning to start on a tonic) and staying on the tonic harmonically through measure 4 (mm 2 & 4 would actually be a set of neighbor tones rather than an actual change in harmony). The next two measures have non-functional passing chords, so a roman numeral analysis would tell us nothing of what happens there. In fact, the only change in the roman numerals would happen on measure 7 and 8 - mm7 would be an applied dominant to mm8's dominant chord in 6 4 position... meaning it isn't even a cadence, in the proper sense of the word. Funny, even that last measure before the repeat could be interpreted as a very long-scale upper neighbor to the first measure. Damnit, I'd love to give you guys a picture to show you what I'm talking about, but I don't have a scoring program (and bitmap just looks ugly)... it's actually a very Schenkerian way to look at that song, which I'm not sure many people are familiar with... Don't get me wrong, Bruno - I'm nitpicking a very interesting analysis. Overall it was very interesting (enough so for me to do a bit of analysis myself), and I thought the motivic analysis was very awesome. Thanks a bunch for making it - I really appreciate people doing VG analysis out there online! EDIT: I just played it out, and I agree that it's in G... everyone's allowed a moment of stupidity . I'd still analyze it a bit different, though - I'm drawing something up on bitmap, at the moment - have no fear EDIT (again): Alright, here's what I was trying to say... The blue is the melody, the red is the bassline (the strings provide that - it isn't in the score) and the green is an interesting tidbit from the harp (and that extra note is a mistake - ignore it ). I made the important notes hollow and the decorations black with a colored outline. Notice that most of the motion is neighboring decoration or prolongation of a passing motion. I don't hear any harmonic change until the 7th and 8th measure, and even then I consider a 6 3 dominant chord to be a lower neighbor of the tonic, so saying that's functional is even questionable. The bass notes are a series of upper and lower neighbors to G, the green notes actually imply a solid G chord in the beginning due to the preceding note (hence the hollow note in green in parantheses), but because the music starts at the second measure above it's hard to hear that... The green notes are also interesting because of the chromatic passing motion that they create to the dominant chord later (which Dan pointed out nicely ) - the arcing lines show the beginning to the end of the motion clearly. The blue notes dance around the 3rd of the scale (lower neighbors decorate it), then leaps up to the second of the scale (due to octave equivilance, I put it next to the preceding note in paranthesis), where it is decorated by a chordal leap. You see, I don't see any real chord changes throughout the motion - it's all just a big statement of the tonic, in the end. I'll add that none of this detracts from Dan Bruno's main point in any way, so I'm really nitpicking the hell out of it