OCR01958 - *YES* Sonic & Knuckles 'Hidden Within' *RESUB*

[Liontamer]

I'm trying to break it down too vs. Bobby's info, but I'll need more info from him, since I'm not hearing some of the connections he's listing. - LT

Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19076

So....

-Xenon Odyssey

-Bobby Keller

-xenonodyssey@hotmail.com

-http://xenonodyssey.googlepages.com/

-http://www.ocremix.org/forums/member.php?u=6142

-Sonic & Knuckles

-Lava Reef Zone Act 2/Hidden Palace Zone

Alright, here's the deal. I re-recorded it, but...

:14.5-:31.5 = 17

:41-:47 = 6

1:06-1:07 = 1

1:24-1:34 = 10

1:37-1:43 = 6

2:05-2:28 = 23

2:31.5-2:34.5 (CT) = 3

2:40-2:42 = 2

2:50-3:42 = 52

3:56-4:03 = 7

4:21-4:22 = 1

128

274 = 46.7 %

:/ I honestly feel that if I try and mess with the piece any longer, it will loose the feel I had in mind when I first wrote it.

So take it as you will. If you guys still don't feel that it belongs here, that's fine. I'm going to submit it to DoD this month, so at least people will hear it.

I'll just have to try for what, the 10th time?

-B. Kel.

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

http://project2612.org/download.php?id=61 - "Lava Reef Zone (Act 2)"

As with the last one, the performance it pretty solid with a couple minor thing, but definitely above bar.

Bobby's times - :14.5-:31.5, :41-:47, 1:06-1:07, 1:24-1:34, 1:37-1:43, 2:05-2:28, 2:31.5-2:34.5 (CT), 2:40-2:42, 2:50-3:42, 3:56-4:03, 4:21-4:22

Larry's times - :14.5-:19.5, :27-31.5, 41.5-:47, 1:06-1:07, 1.10.75-1:15, 1:17-1:22, 1:24-1:28, 1:30-1:34, 1:37-1:44, 2:05-2:29, 2:55-3:44, 3:59-4:04, 4:21-4:24.75

I'll come back to this later, but I need the 50+% action going on, so that the source usage is dominant.

[Palpable]

Larry, I agree with your timings. I tried looking at every spot where Bobby gave himself credit and you didn't, and I agreed with you on all of them. Rounding those numbers all in Bobby's favor, it adds up to 49.6% by my count. When it's that close, I just go by feel. It felt like a Lava Reef arrangement to me (and a good one).

YES

[anosou]

I, like Vinnie, compared Larry's and Bobby's times and agree with Larry. If Vinnie's calculations are correct and this is as close as 49.6% I consider this a pass. It sounds like an arrangement of the source too which is obviously the actual criteria. The harmonies, playing and pacing are all excellent. There was a minor hiccup somewhere but not enough to require a re-record.

I say go. Awesome job.

YES

[Palpable]

Wouldn't mind someone double-checking my math. I should note I add this way: 0:14.5 - 0:19.5 = 6 seconds, giving them the benefit of the rounding. I've also mentioned I don't like going by a strict 50% rule with subs this close, so to me, the math is just a ballpark estimate.

[DarkeSword]

Personally I think a lot of it really pushes the boundary between original and arrangement (to its detriment), but in the end it does sound like a Lava Reef arrangement, and it is well performed, so YES.

I would have preferred if you'd stuck a little closer to the chords of the original though, but I'm not really one to complain as far as this source is concerned.

[OceansAndrew]

Damn, this one is cutting it super close. I've been listening to this track on and off with the source just to make sure it's all in order, and for me, this is about as liberal as I feel comfortable passing. It definitely is well performed, so that's a plus, but this despite this vote being short and to the point, I thought on this one for several hours.

Some of the subtle parts of this are actually my favorite moments, like the two chords at 1:55 and 1:59; it strikes me as all that needed to be said at that moment, and with the resolution at 2:06, really digs into the essence of the original.. and then NO ONE considers it source, including Bobby?

The track is beautiful and meets the arrangement standards, but coming to a decision certainly was a lengthy process.

yes