Sign in to follow this  
Liontamer

OCR01864 - *YES* Final Fantasy 6 'The Hot Pink of Blues'

Recommended Posts

How about OnlyCountingseconds Remix?

to be honest, I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that there isn't enough source usage here, but I think it's important to establish....again....that we shouldn't feel obligated to vote with stopwatches.

Does someone want to write a page and a half about that kickass bass tone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Audio glitches are clearly there and while I'd like them fixed the only one that struck me as truly bad was the clipping during the last solo. Nothing else of note except for the bass which could be more prominent, but honestly who isn't a sucker for some sick bass.

Arrangement rocks the fucking house. There's a difference between a mix being 100% soloing over chords from the source and being like this, where there's explicit source melody flowing in and out throughout with solos grounded with source chords in between. zyko mentioned something about cohesion, which is pretty key because the soloing over the chords never makes this sound like it's anything other than Cyan, so I'm more than comfortable with dropping those sections into the source use column. I went with a YES on Shinesparks, and I'm dropping another one here.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Andy's post in the rejection of "Amazon's Afterwork" made a good point in that, assuming the % source usage is cool, it's not just about the source usage, but how it's used in relation to other wholly original parts.

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.

My reasoning on this one ends up being the same as zircon's on that one. In this case, we all heard the usage of the chords, but they imply rather than show and that's just not good enough for me to satisfy both "identifiable and dominant" usage of the source. People talk about context, which is fine. The issue with that is the potentially slippery slope of "context" where one can now use a lot less of the overt pieces of the source tune and then merely use chords to allude to it and "make up the difference." Will wait to hear what Malcos and zircon end up saying.

Though song quality is not what this debate represents, I'm sure once the thread goes out that some people will be ignorant (read: stupid) and believe the entire debate was an argument on whether OC ReMix thought this mix was good or bad. :lol: I'm looking forward to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry this one took so long to judge. I had a quick skim over the pages. I'm just gonna judge the mix by ear as I usually do.

I could definitely hear the source and there is a nice amount of soloing plus original elements as well. Production and groove were great, sound level got a bit too hot over the 4 minute mark and there was quite a bit of clipping there. However, this for me is a definite yes, all the elements I'm looking for in a mix are present here.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an extremely tough call for me, possibly one of the most borderline votes I've ever had to do. It's hard to not be biased especially considering I know "Cyan" so well - if this were from some no-name NES game with a bizzarre chord progression and sparse melody, I'm sure the "NO" votes would definitely outweight the YESes by now. Unfortunately that isn't the case... Cyan is a very strong melody and the B-section chords are readily identifiable.

Before I get to the hard part, I'll say the easy stuff up front. This is a really enjoyable mix with great performances, strong production, thoughtful structure, and excellent overall musicality. Aside from the pops/clicks (which have already been cited) there's absolutely nothing to talk about here except the arrangement. Let me be clear... the arrangement is really good, OCR standards notwithstanding. The solos are all intelligently placed, dynamics are very present, and everything has a logical flow.

All these things are what will make the following vote so hard for me. I absolutely understand every YES vote here. I want to pass this one myself. But in my opinion, even if there are several explicit sections where Cyan in audible, and even if the B-section chord progression shines through during the solo sections, the source usage is simply not "dominant". I consider the first portion of the guitar solo (3:39-4:03) to be valid interpretation despite the fact that any analysis of the notes played would show that very little of it is really "Cyan". I just can't in good faith consider chords ALONE to be interpretation.

Some of you may read this as a vote against jazz mixes or against soloing. That would be very inaccurate. There is a vast multitude of ReMixes with solos, and the fact is, many of them incorporate elements of the source tune into the solos. For example, starting a riff with notes from the source, then deviating into original material (like this mix did at 3:39.) But while many of these posted ReMixes do this multiple times, the mix in question here only did so once. There were certainly other creative options to integrate the source without compromising the song structure or even the flow of individual solos, and that is all that really would have been needed, in my book, to push this over the edge.

I would be happy to clarify my vote more if anyone needs me to. In the end, this is not so different than trance mixes we have rejected because of intros/endings that simply use chords without source melody. The artists may say "but that's what trance is!" just like many will undoubtedly say "but that's the whole point of soloing!" here, but we have passed many trance mixes, and we have passed many mixes with solos. We should not make an exception when none is warranted, hard as that may be.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, don't get me wrong by what I'm about to say - I absolutely love the analysis we do, and I think our taking standards seriously is a good thing. I've heard a few folks criticize us for taking vgm/arrangement/"life"/etc. too seriously, but frankly, people put a lot of work into mixes, we put a lot of work into the site, and it should MEAN something when a mix gets accepted, AND when it gets rejected.

So, don't misinterpret this, but... we may be overthinking this one a bit. Ultimately, there are some things we really just CAN'T put in writing and be 100% objective about. Having a 50% arrangement material requirement SOUNDS reasonable, and sounds objective... but really, it isn't, because you can haggle about what is or isn't arrangement, as we've been doing here, and you're right back to square one: subjective analysis.

You might glean from the above where this comment is headed, and you'd be right, but hear me out a bit... I'm not trying to set a precedent that says Larry's 50/50 thing is WRONG - I think it can be very helpful, and doing a source breakdown is almost always a good idea. In this instance, we deal with the issue of whether soloing on top of a fairly conspicuous (though certainly not unique in the world of music) chord progression counts as arrangement. Here's the thing: this is a fusion piece. Without soloing over base progressions, jazz and fusion would be almost impossible as musical genres to begin with. In other words, the idea of soloing over top the source progression is inherent to the very genre/style the mixer chose. Am I saying that I wouldn't allow the same thing if it were a trance mix? Maybe... I'd have to hear it. But I suppose my (very subjective) litmus test here is: does it flow? Do the solo passages sound pasted on, or do they flow from the source material, and how it's being adapted? Does it sound like wankery plopped carelessly on top of patches of VGM arrangement, or something that's been integrated?

You can't use a calculator to answer that question, and yet for me it's very important on mixes like these.

So, I'm not saying Larry's wrong to look for 50% arrangement, but I'm not saying Jesse's wrong to go "by ear" either... I think you need to do a bit of both qualitative AND quantitative analysis to do this job right. For me, personally, when I do so... I come up with a yes.

But damn... can we get the snaps, crackles, and pops out? Rice Krispies called and they want their sound back... my approval is conditional on at least SOME work being done, by someone (doesn't have to be submitting artist, if he's cool with getting help), to help address the production issues - it's too good a track not to at least attempt fixing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what's the OFFICIAL production hold on this on? Most people have mentioned the "pops", I've specifically requested the awful clipping on the toms. I think it would be beneficial to clarify amongst ourselves what specifically our votes are conditional hinged on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth noting, since we didn't mention it here before, that we later on sent Tony a copy of the judgments so he could read the production crits brought up and make some tweaks, which he addressed nicely. He also recruited Shnabubula to add some cool original comping wankery on top of some of the mellower sections. Tony mentioned that Sam cooked up his stuff in a matter of hours after offering to do it, so definitely props to Sam for some nice additions that further fleshed out the arrangement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this