Palpable Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Definitely a nice tune, solid drumming, but a lot of this didn't sound sourcey to me. Someone want to do the dirty work and find the connections? - P Hi, Submissions! Long time... chumble spuzz Marcellis Wentz This is my latest VGM arrangemt, from SMB3 and Mario 64, of the Underwater Theme from SMB3 (with quotes from the Underground Theme, Toad's House, and Warp Zone from SMB3, and Dire Dire Docks from Mario 64). All by Koji Kondo, if I'm not forgetting anyone. Unfortunately, I'm mysteriously unable to upload this to my personal website (frustrating), so I've attached the .mp3 to this email. I came up with the idea for this mix after listening to The Bad Plus's magnificent cover of Chariots of Fire (mostly the incredible drumming). Also, I've always liked the bass work in the Newsboys song Reality, so that was another inspiration, though much less obvious. This was definitely the most challenging arrangement I've done to date, but I know I'm happy with a song when I accidentally loop it 30 times before I know it. Hope you dig it. -marcellis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Here is what I am hearing in this for source, it may or may not be dominant enough, but this is just what's in there: 0:16-1:20 Toad house arpeggio - possibly original melody, might be modulated from dire dire docks, as the rhythm is very similar. Either way, it's not recognizable easily. 1:23-1:41 sounds similar to the B section to dire dire docks, but it's kind of a stretch, especially since the connection wasn't obviously made earlier. 1:42-2:22 Toad house arpeggio again, with some piano cameos of other themes. There was a bit of dire dire docks at 1:53 2:23-2:55 SMB3 underwater- very clear and dominant 2:56-3:16 main groove again 3:17-end toad house arpeggios again I think we should email and ask for a source breakdown, some of the linked pieces that supposedly have cameos i don't hear at all, so it's gotta be buried deeper. As is, I think it's really good but too liberal by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Break it down! 0:00-0:14 is kinda 0:22-0:32 from underwater chords in minor 0:39-55 is 0:05-0:10 from underwater melody massively stretched out, each note lasts about 4x longer, it is there 0:58-1:20 is the same again 1:20-1:41 is from 2:10-2:23 chords in DireDireDocks 1:51-2:03 has a very loose version of the melody 0:22-0:32 from before as well as 0:22-0:32 from dirediredocks melody in the piano part 2:13-2:24 is the extended 0:22-0:32 from underwater melody again 2:24-2:46 is same as above at normal speed, which sounds epic 2:46-2:57 is the section at 0:32 from underwater 2:57-3:17 is the part from 0:22 spaced out again 3:27-3:39 is copypasta same as 1:20 3:49-4:00 is the part from 0:22 spaced out again 4:08-4:09 is the underworld Someone please check/confirm! The toad theme that i heard was so ridiculously brief/hidden it wasn't worth mentioning. Didn't hear much star theme. He might have used the chords as a basis for modulating the riff is my best guess. I count a total of 3:03 out of 4:10, but some of that is a bit tenuous. Imo its liberal but fine overall. Production was pretty sweet in general. Nice drum sequencing, kept the groove fairly interesting throughout. gg next map. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Dang. Sorry boys, I'm gonna go with my gut here, and say this is a no-go for me. I certainly know this OST pretty darn well, and honestly, without throwing it under the microscope and dissection knife, the only part that stands out as "identifiable and dominant" is the underwater theme at 2:23, which strangely enough, y'all didn't cite as a remixed theme, though I'm sure you meant to. [edit]Yes you did, I forgot how to read at some point last night[/edit] Make no mistake, this song is badass, and highly listenable, and I could easily see as a song in some actual game OST nowadays. It's just, man, remixes of source tunes of games that everybody knows shouldn't be this difficult to say "Oh hey, that's that theme from that Mario game!" Although I will say, the Underwater theme part really is awesome. Fantastic stylization there, for sure. Bummer. Really guys, no hate, it's an awesome track. Just not an obvious remix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 i have to agree with BGC- this track is completely rockin, but the only part that really feels even close to the original ones that I can hear is the 2:20 part. No hate on the mix at all, I think it is excellent, but it's just not identifiable enough for me. no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 :16 was the backing pattern to the SMB3 underwater music, not Toad's House. :37-:55 was indeed the first 7 notes of that source melody of that same theme stretched out. SMB3's my favorite game, and I know the music like the back of my hand, so I'm actually going to co-sign on Cain's detailed breakdown. He knows what he's talking about. That said, even though I heard the connections, I can also understand BGC concluding the arrangement isn't recognizable enough. I've passed some VERY liberal track where I've made the A-to-B connections, but given very scant melodies & patterns being worked with, I thought the transformation was too drastic. The usage of the backing pattern of the SMB3 Underwater BGM, which was the arrangement's foundation, was incredibly devoid of energy. If it wasn't for the rhythm being similar, I wouldn't even recognized it as source usage, and even now I'm on the fence, because it manages to strip the character of the original to where it now just sounds like a generic beat pattern. Side note, the light usage of the Toad's House music from 3:40-3:50 was totally pointless. The production was also too cluttered & imbalanced. I also thought the arrangement, as far as the overall writing just was not that interesting to merit 4 minutes. On that level, I don't feel like we heard the same track at all. I'd lop off the first 1:16 or give it more direction. If the arrangement were less drawn out and reworked to pay more overt homage to the sources, and the sounds balance was tweaked, this could hang. Sorry, Marcellis, I hate to be a downer on your material; there's potential with the idea, I like the Mario 64 arrangement stuff and when the SMB3 Underwater theme was more overtly recognizable later on, I liked the ideas. But everything lacking here makes this a non-starter. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I can totally understand these NO's, but I'm stickin' to ma guns here. Its probably just because I found so many slight references consistently present to me it now feels like lots of source. Just wanted to say that the 2:24 part was so epic. If you do end up resubing this, use that part as the main recurring theme! It would make it loads more identifiable and it is easily the most fun bit of the track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Y'all must have super ears or something, because I mean, I'm just not hearing it. I wonder if they'd be down with letting us leave a link in the thread for a couple reasons: 1) The song really is awesome, and I know people would enjoy it regardless of how "identifiable" it is. And 2) I'm genuinely curious to see if other people can pick out the references. Maybe I'm just an idiot I mean, I'm not going to deny that I've completely overlooked stuff before, I'm sure we all have. I remember I really botched up that vote on that one Mario RPG track by Skryp. (In my own defense though, again, this is a soundtrack I already know really well, so I would think I would have been able to spot the connections much more easily). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 Fishy's breakdown is awesome - you're the dudest dude on the panel. That said, I feel uncomfortable counting most of what you listed there and I don't think I'd count anything more than what I heard the first time, which is definitely a minority of the sub. A super-slowed down melody is something that is really hard to judge - do we give the remixer credit for 18 seconds of source? What if this is the only tie to the source? That's why a strict breakdown never makes sense, it's only a guideline. In this case, it's stretched past the point of recognizibility to me. It's funny that Larry was ok with the breakdown but thought the arrangement was too meandering. I really liked this whole thing and though it was simple, it sounded very detailed. I wouldn't change a thing about it from a song perspective! But it just doesn't meet the dominant source usage criteria for me. I'll leave this open for a week or so in case someone else wants to chime in or change their vote, but it sounds like we have enough separate issues with this to make it a NO go. Sorry, Marcellis. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Fishy's breakdown is awesome - you're the dudest dude on the panel. Thank you kindly, quite proud of it. Still saying yes btw, screw y'all. (<3 u really) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts