Liontamer Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Remixers: Red Tailed Fox, Bladiator Song: Smooth Tanooki Original: A Dangerous Road Game: Super Mario RPG Good night judges (It’s night over here in Brazil), This is an “old” song, but not in the depreciative sense: it’s old like…Cheese, or wine, or Larry, are old. At least I like to think so. Anyways, it’s a collaboration between me (Red Tailed Fox) and our very own Bladiator, who was kind enough to provide some delicious piano lines (the very core of this song) to the supporting instrumentation I did. The original is “Dangerous Road”, from the Mario RPG (the first one, the one which has a bunch of cool characters we never get to see again): we decided to spin it in a pseudo bossa nova type groove. Karl is worried that Larry’s new obsession of counting seconds of source usage might prevent this from going through, and I am worried that the production rough spots might bleep too much on zircon’s radar. We have a bet on it, and we shall see. Anyways, I love you all. Caio (RTF). --------------------------------------------------- http://ocremix.org/chip/6318 - "The Road is Full of Dangers" (smr-109.spc) Man, you weren't kidding when you said I'd be busting out the stopwatch. The track was 5:06-long, so I needed at least 153 second of overt source usage for the pass. :09-:12. :16-:26, :27.25-:40, :41.75-1:01, 1:03-1:06, 1:09-1:13, 1:31-1:36, 1:37-1:43, 1:52-1:57, 1:58.75-2:12, 2:20-2:23, 2:33-2:36, 2:40-2:43, 2:44.75-2:47, 2:48-2:50, 2:54-3:01, 3:08-3:17, 3:33.5-3:36.5, 3:38.5-3:40.5, 4:59.5-5:01.5 I've got 117.5 seconds or 38.4% by that count, and I counted a lot of already very liberal stuff. Love the track, but unless I get some clarification or other parts I'm missing, I can't sign off on this one. Maybe there's something between 3:41-4:59, but most of that was comping. Will be glad to change my vote if there's source usage I'm not picking up, but the treatment of the source was already very liberal to begin with. Sorry, guys, it's nothing against this piece. It's well performed, but sounds too disconnected from the source material in the second half. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Love that smoove bossa nova sound. I think the source is prevalent enough, and like previous mixes that stylistically rely heavily on the idea of improvisation, this one is solid in that regard. Also stopwatching stuff like this "1:31-1:36, 1:37-1:43" is just plain silly. Really, the 96th second of the mix doesn't count? I roll my eyes at you. I went back and listened to this one again, and I realize I was probably too lenient the first time around. I absolutely love this track, but the melodic/harmonic elements start to deviate from the source far too much. If you plan on a resub I'd like to hear more parts with the original more prominently featured. NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 While I think Larry's dumb when he's not letting a phrase finish and subtracting one second because of it, that still doesn't make this less liberal. I don't know what Shariq is hearing but beyond what Larry pointed out (and that's already very liberal) there's only original stuff. Even IF you counted all the little gaps Larry didn't count you would fall under 50% and that just ain't right. The production is not Caio's best work either. The drums, string and organ (solo) all sound dull and slightly synthetic. It lacks a lot of the finesse usually found in his work. While it's not bad, it's certainly not gonna weigh up the arrangement. I'm sorry man, I love the track in a vacuum but I don't think it's passable just yet. Since you both tackle the source liberally AND using original stuff for a bit over half the track it's more like a VGM-inspired track than an arrangement. It sounds great, Blad's got chops too, but I can't sign off to this. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted January 6, 2010 Author Share Posted January 6, 2010 Also stopwatching stuff like this "1:31-1:36, 1:37-1:43" is just plain silly. Really, the 96th second of the mix doesn't count? I roll my eyes at you. The feeling is mutual! I roll my eyes at YOU as well! I kid, but in as much as we're meant to evaluate source usage, I will always "serious business" it. Anyone passing mixes with roughly 40% or LESS source usage really needs to explain how they can pass mixes for not overtly use the source material yet sounding good & stylistically similar to the source material, but then NO someone else for "not using the source enough". It's very inconsistent and unfair, and it's VERY biased toward musicality and production at the expense of observable interpretation. I'll always use a 50% guideline for "dominant" source usage as I take away from the Submissions Standards. No one can say for sure when something's at 50% usage when it's grey, but at least I actually try, and it makes my calls a lot less subjective than this huge trend I'm seeing toward giving every nice-sounding submission a pass. Again, if this has over 50% source usage, I'm just not making it out and you correct me, then I'm always down to change my vote. Some of you guys know theory; put it to work and explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Karl is worried that Larry’s new obsession of counting seconds of source usage might prevent this from going through, and I am worried that the production rough spots might bleep too much on zircon’s radar. We have a bet on it, and we shall see. I guess you didn't count on zircon stepping down or this might have been a fair bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts