*NO* Seiken Densetsu 3 'Amazon's Afterwork'

[Liontamer]

Sounds nice, but enough source usage? Gonna need a breakdown...again! - LT

* ReMixer name : AeroZ

* Real name : Sebastian Freij

* E-mail address : sebastian_freij@hotmail.com

* Your website : www.myspace.com/freijman

* Name of game : Seiken Densetsu 3

* Name of individual : Female Turbulence

Comments: Hey guys. I've been trying out some new things this times.

Added some cello on it with automatised effects. Tried to blend the cello with the lo-fi sound.

It's quite a long track, so I had to encode it quite hard. Well, this is the result.

If you want a high bitrate of the track, just let me know.

Cheers! /Seb

LT Edit (2/21): Just got the breakdown from Sebastian on this one:

Hey Larry.

Ok, here we go.

00.00-0.48 is just pure intro trying to explain the groove.

Some march drums in noise that is similiar in style to the original.

00.48-1.09 Here a variation of the theme goes on.

1.36-02.03 is the chimes in the background playing the counter tunes from the theme. (poorly heard though)

02.03-02.29 is taken from at 00.42 in the original.

2.29-3.01 is the chimes again counter melody.

3.01-3.17 Main theme variation.

3.44-4.00 Chimes

4.21-4.59 Main Theme Enters, following variation

5.10-5.31 (2.05 from the original)

5.31-5.52 Chimes again.

5.52-6.13 Theme reappears

That is what I use.

Maybe I went over the line this time. I don't know.

I'll not do a re-sub though cause Im happy with it as it is.

/Best Wishes Sebastian

[Palpable]

OK. Heeeeeeere we go:

0:00-0:50 original

0:51-1:10 uses modified main riff, slowed down

1:11-1:53 original

1:54-2:05 uses modified marimba part

2:06-2:31 original

2:32-2:53 uses modified marimba part

2:54-3:02 uses half of main riff, slowed down

3:03-4:02 original

4:03-5:51 uses modified marimba part, and modified main riff a couple times

5:52-6:13 uses modified main riff and modified marimba part

6:14-6:42 original

The original sections comprise just over half of the arrangement, not to mention, the marimba part in the long 4:03-5:51 section is not very prominent once the other instruments come back. It still feels like an arrangement of Female Turbulence though, which kind of makes me second-guess myself. I'd love for someone to double-check these numbers. For now, I'm going NO on arrangement.

Production was pretty snazzy. Lots of neat little effects and I loved the sound of those strings. Panning seemed a little overdone (might want to center things more), and the prominence of certain instruments was a little weird (that shaker was loud!). Still, I think this was pretty much there.

If you could work more of the original riffs into this, I would say YES. There are a lot in the source that you didn't use. Even more of the main riff might be enough. Hope you resubmit, Sebastian!

NO (resubmit)

(EDIT: 3/28)

Yeah, looks like Sebastian's breakdown is pretty close to my own. The source is still marginalized. Keeping my NO vote.

[CHz]

Brilliant track. Always love your style, and the cello is an awesome touch. That pitch bend at 2:00 in particular is what love is made of.

Arrangement, this is where the problem is. The chime usage, which by your own admission is hard to hear at times, forms a huge chunk of the actual source usage. 2:02-2:29 and 3:01-3:17 are REALLY liberal on those sections of the source, too liberal, in my opinion. Just not enough source.

Sad that you won't consider a resub. Better luck on the next one.

NO

[Liontamer]

http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=sd3 - "Female Turbulence" (sd3-2-05.spc)

I'm actually going to go against the grain on this.

Sebastian mentioned was the usage of the drums derived from the source tune drums. Isolate voice #5 of the SPC to check them out, though they're audible in the tune as-is. That's subtle but valid source usage from :00-:20 that's in direct homage to the original.

I love going stopwatch just to annoy Vigilante.

Source usage (needs 201 seconds to pass):

:00-:20, 2:13-2:14 - drum pattern usage (SPC Voice #5)

:48-1:08, 1:20-1:28, 2:50-3:36, 4:21-4:32, 5:51-6:11, 6:23-6:31 - main melody variation

1:52-1:56, 2:29-2:31.5, 2:40-2:44.5, 4:00-4:21, 4:32-4:59, 5:09-5:40 (quietly), 5:40-5:43, 5:46-5:48 - chimes from countermelody (SPC Voice #1)

2:03-2:12, 2:15-2:26 - two very liberal variations on :41-:52 of source

5:10-5:31 - variations on 2:05 from the original - couldn't make anything out on that level, did not count

[00:36] <@CHz> That one [chime] pattern is a big chunk of the source usage, and it's really just chucked in the background most of the time.

Aside from those areas where it's essentially inaudible (e.g. 1:36-2:03), when it was in play, the chime pattern was overtly audible and still very valid source usage to me. So I disagreed with it being "chucked in the background most of the time." IMO, that biases an arrangement toward arranging the source melody at the expense of using or interpreting other portions of the source material. For me, I can't hinge my view of acceptable source usage on whether the portions of the source being used are the melody or not. Otherwise an artist would get little-to-no credit for creatively using other parts besides the most obvious one.

Just to clarify how I reach my source usage timestamping, all I care about is that at one point during the mix, 1 element from the source is overtly and audibly being used, no matter how much other non-related writing is going on at the same time. For example, those drums in the intro based off the source tune were used and audible in there from :00-:20, so that's 20 seconds worth of usage. Same line of reasoning applies to most of the background chime countermelody usage. It's a pretty lenient system.

With that said, even if you disregarded 2:03-2:12 & 2:15-2:26 as too liberal, my timestamps still add up to more than 201 seconds, so this passes the arrangement bar in my book. The devil's in the details, and I like these details!

Palp and CHz, y'all should take another look and see if my breakdown and reasoning seems kosher. If not, no big deal, but I think it's worth the look.

As for the overall composition and quality, it's Sebastian, and he's an ass-kicker. I loved the energy throughout, and he's always bringing his A-game. Arrangement-wise I'd prefer something more reigned in and less unorthodox, but to me usage is usage is usage. As a track, the composition is brilliant. Keep 'em coming, and good luck with the rest of the vote!

YES

[CHz]

Aside from those areas where it's essentially inaudible (e.g. 1:36-2:03), when it was in play, the chime pattern was overtly audible and still very valid source usage to me. So I disagreed with it being "chucked in the background most of the time." IMO, that biases an arrangement toward arranging the source melody at the expense of using or interpreting other portions of the source material. For me, I can't hinge my view of acceptable source usage on whether the portions of the source being used are the melody or not. Otherwise an artist would get little-to-no credit for creatively using other parts besides the most obvious one.

I can't give the mix another listen at the moment, but I just wanted to clarify that remark of mine: by "chucked in the background," I wasn't talking about how that pattern isn't the main melody in the source, but that in the mix it's chilling in the back most of the time. I agree fully with your point.

[Liontamer]

I can't give the mix another listen at the moment, but I just wanted to clarify that remark of mine: by "chucked in the background," I wasn't talking about how that pattern isn't the main melody in the source, but that in the mix it's chilling in the back most of the time. I agree fully with your point.

Nah, no problem. I know you're talking about that chime part as being used in the background of the sub. I took "chucked in the background" as a implication that, by being in the background, you felt the usage was just too marginalized or otherwise not the focus, and thus the arrangement ties didn't feel strong enough. And you're certainly allowed to feel that way; I'd just disagree.

[Palpable]

When the song is that close to 50%, I like to use my gut feeling rather than the stopwatch, just because the stopwatch isn't exactly precise. Like I said already, I really wasn't digging the way the chime was used as the connection from 4:03-5:51, particularly at 4:59-5:35. It's barely audible amidst all the other stuff going, and my gut says that this section is too weak a tie - the source is marginalized. It's not a very prominent part of the original, nor this song.

I did take a relisten though, Larry, and I definitely missed the drum connection. I didn't hear how 2:03-2:12 and 2:15-2:26 were liberal takes, but the rest of your breakdown looks right. I'm still going with NO because the extra 0:20 of drums don't push this enough to a YES.

[zircon]

The general level of musicality here is amazing, as is the production, the creative sound design, the structure, etc. The SOLE issue, in terms of our standards, is the interpretation of the source, as other judges have noted. This is an incredibly hard vote for me - I am making all the connections Larry pointed out, and the source is certainly in there, but the stuff that pushes the mix over the 50% bar (like the chimes/snare pattern usage) is, as CHz said, in the way back of the mix.

All things considered, I cannot pass this as-is. It does technically qualify as having dominant source usage, but I've rejected things less liberal. It's not JUST about % source tune usage - how the source tune is used in relation to the other parts is equally important. Sorry man. I love this one but you gotta just inject some more audible source tune in there.

NO, resubmit

[DarkeSword]

Gotta agree with the detractors. Stopwatching passes this on a technicality, but honestly Andy correctly points out that we have to look at how the source is used in relation to the other parts of the song. While we certainly have to break things down to understand the source usage, I think it's also important to look at the piece holistically. It's just too liberal this time around.

NO

[anosou]

Zircon really did put his finger on the issue here. I also did a source breakdown and got almost exactly the same results as the other judges. And since you ARE (and I can't stress this enough) a musical genius you should be able to put some more focus on the connections to the source with relative ease.

The production is great although a tiny bit cluttered at times, the creative effects are mindblowing (you really do know how to use Scream 4 just right) and the Cello is beautiful. The musical skill shown in this song is just amazing. This is really one of my favorite remixes ever.

It's too bad you say won't resubmit this, and I will nag you everytime we talk, but right now it's just too liberal in terms of our standards. Sorry mate, I'm looking forward to your next masterpiece! ;*

NO (JUST RESUBMIT ANYWAY!!!) (PLEASE!?)

[Fishy]

(Massively simplified cause most of it was repeats of other votes)

Looking at the source use breakdown, and after doing my own, I came out at just under half of the total time has any source use. Its very possible that I'm just not recognising some of the chord progressions cause theres so much going on in this mix, but on the other hand counting some of the jam bits in the source use could be deemed generous. Considering the production is nothing short of incredible, the liberal arrangement is the only thing holding me back here, but then again its not like the original additions aren't stunning, and stuff like the cello break could easily be based around the chord progression and I might just be missing that. I think this is comparable to Another Soundscapes Fanfare remix in terms of liberal-ness, but without any sections reflecting the obvious Jenova section and similar motifs, its far more difficult to place in terms of the bar.

When I look at this part the standards:

* The source material must be identifiable and dominant.

* While interpretation and original additions are encouraged, arrangement must not modify the source material beyond recognition.

* The amount of arranged source material must be substantial enough to be recognized.

Even if the use was over 50%, its gotten to the point where I find it hard to use the term identifiable, and near impossible to use the word dominant. I think its awesome, but every time I look at the standards, I just can't give this a yes. I'm keeping this for sure, but sorry.

NO (For the love of god resub or I will fly to Sweden and kick you in the groin)