Sign in to follow this  
DragonAvenger

OCR02201 - *YES* Animal Crossing 'Mr. Soccerball'

Recommended Posts

Remixer name - Theory of Nonexistence

Real name - Dustin Lagaly

userID - 19501

Game remixed: Animal Crossing

Song remixed: Sports Fair - Ball Toss

Source

My remix

Hello there judges. It's been a while. I don't really remember exactly how this mix got started anymore. It was a track on the Aborted Animal Crossing project and I somehow managed to turn the insane Sports Fair - Ball Toss song into something much more laid back. Hope you like it!

ToN

You can leave the links in.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFdJ2aCDO10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my french, but what le fucking hell.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the new worst source song I have ever heard. This source track is now going to be my personal VGM rickroll, so if I send you a youtube link, beware! ;-)

Thankfully, the remix sounds nothing like the source, though when I say that, I mean, the melodic connection is clear, but it's actually listenable. The soundscape is cool, and the samples are workin for me, though I do think the drums need some spicing up. There is some very minor hand percussion layering that gives some personality, but it seems like the rhythm section in general is on rails. Not exactly a dealbreaker, but it seems like there is a lot of wasted potential for some solid rhythmic excitement. Another nitpick is some of the piano playing sounds pretty unhumanized, at least as far as velocities go. I don't think it's much of an issue since it gives the song a fun honky tonk vibe, but it would definitely be something to consider in the future. The string sample is also not really suited for the light stabs they are trying to do, but they are in there for about 10 seconds and in the background, so for a little bit of additional texture and color, they are fine by me.

The interpretation and expansion of such a wretched theme is astounding, as I find the remix to be very enjoyable and listenable. The solos were creative and interesting, and the arrangement work brought this up to the next level.

Overall I think it's a little borderline of a call, since the piano humanization might grate on other judges, and you know that if Larry votes on this one he'll mention the strings. Definitely room to grow, but i'm ok passing this one.

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I'd call the source terrible as much as wtf. It sounds like it's being played on the wrong RPM or something. And there are some really questionable notes buried in there too.

Strangely, though I can tell the piano is stiff, it wasn't much of a issue to me. I thought the whole song worked and I liked the atmosphere and style. Upbeat but relaxed, the kind of stuff you hear in lobbies or on hold. Loved when the drums picked up after the first break.

Source usage was a concern to me, there seemed to be a lot of liberties taken. I was hearing the melody from 0:00-0:02 in the source used on the piano at three places, and then some liberal variations on the source 0:09-0:10 melody. Counting the entire sections of liberal variations (0:39-1:09, 2:10-2:40) and those three piano sections puts this over 50% (105/185 seconds), but those 8-beat variations are pretty much your own thing after the first 2 or 4 beats. Half counting those sections (which is generous) put this pretty low. I'll hold off my vote until someone can double-check the source usage, but it's looking like a NO.

EDIT: Deia's breakdown looks like mine except that I wouldn't count the last 8 seconds and there's a few more seconds I shifted here and there, putting it at 84/185, or 45.4%. Because of the loose connection of the variations, I'm going NO. Also, I don't think there's any chord progressions in common with the original, they sounded entirely new.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0:22-0:37

0:38-0:47

0:54-0:56

1:01-1:03

1:09-1:25

2:10-2:14

2:18-2:20

2:26-2:28

2:37-3:05

That's what I'm hearing as a bare minimum of source usage. I'll agree that it's a little low, but there aren't many times when you are going for a long stretch without hearing something recognizable as the source. Add to that the fact that the structure is somewhat similar to the original, and there were a couple of places that used familiar chords that I didn't count, and I think there is enough to make it easily recognizable.

Aside from that, I can agree with Andrew for most of this vote. The piano is a bit stiff, but like Vinnie it doesn't really bother me that much. The strings are a different matter as they really don't seem to fit in time-wise or attack-wise into the mix.

Negative stuff aside, I really enjoyed how the original was transformed into a super-laid back track, and the style really worked for the source melody. The overall soundscape worked pretty well, and the soloing was nicely done.

I'll agree the source usage is low, and it will throw my vote to a borderline, but I'm comfortable giving this a YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty amazing take on such a wonky source. I'm sure the original is good if you slow it down but ho-lee-crap that's a crazy fast song.

I like the piano soloing, very cool, and the overall vibe of this piece is pretty awesome.

Despite the breakdown, this is clearly an arrangement of the piece and never really tries to be anything else, so I'm gonna say YES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This needed 92 seconds of source usage for 50% source usage and my pass on arrangement.

The initial breakdown I had was :23-:44, 46-:59, 1:01-1:06, 1:09-1:24, 2:10-2:14, 2:17-2:20, 2:25-2:28, 2:32-2:56 for 88 seconds.

Then I heard the opening pad again (:00-:22) and realized it's a stylistic take on the random whistling in the background that's heard from :00-:10 & 1:03-1:14 of the source. That was actually a pretty smart, creative usage of a concept from the source, not even counting the rest of the arrangement. It's also brought back during the breakdown from 1:24-1:54. The most direct connection there was 1:32-1:39's similarity to the whistling of 1:07-1:10 of the source. Having that was enough for me to weigh that with the 88 seconds of more overt source usage and consider the arrangement a pass.

I agree with the piano stiffness being an issue, but it wasn't problematic enough to derail this. The arrangement was sexy, smoove and very creative. Total win and another great track from Joe Cam's project that he should have officially released since the complete material was album length. :lol:

YES

Share this post


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