djpretzel Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 Your ReMixer name: Gecko Yamori Name of game(s) ReMixed: Sonic CD Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.: Had stuff both rejected and removed this year because they're too much like the originals. I took this to heart and tried something different with this mix. About 30% of the original is there, but without deviating from the style of the original too much. If you do that with Sonic CD (IMO), you take away the very essence that makes it stand out from other game music. Backup link (Without proper id3 tags): -- Gecko Yamori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Gecko seems to imply that the of the Present version of the theme is what's being arranged here. Listening to all of the "Wacky Workbench" variations from Sonic CD (Japan) however, the pacing and arrangement sound the most similar to the Past version to me, which basically features the same melodic content of the Present version. The arrangement has some good ideas in that the source melody is placed more in the background from :30-1:01, while Gecko places other arranged ideas in the forefront. 1:02 onward features some pretty straight arrangement until 1:32 gets simpler with the bass thump pattern, but I felt this would have been a good time to get away from that thumping pattern as the foundation of the track, at least until bringing it back later on, like at 2:19. I did like the percussion/cymbal activity that came in at 1:40. 2:18 changes the sounds of the melody a little bit, but overall I felt like it wasn't enough going to make it feel as is the track progressed at all the whole time. The patterns and sound choice vary up a little bit, but even with these variations I don't feel like the overall groove is changing or developing significantly during the whole 3 minutes. Maybe that's an inadvertently inherent bias against the house genre; I wouldn't know. Things certainly change up from 1:32-2:18, but the whole groove is anchored to this quarter note thumping beat that never changes and it fails to really hold my interest for the whole time. The rearrangement could incorporate some more original ideas, but my vote isn't based on that. I just need to see this track exhibit more noticeable structural variation over the 3 minutes. If the lack of more overt variation and development here is a byproduct of the genre, then I'll be informed by others I'm sure, but overall I just didn't find this mix that engaging so my vote's solid. The groove felt plain, sedate & unchanging, and that prevented it from getting out of the gate to me. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Hey, I love this old house style! I do hear a blend of elements from both versions of Wacky Workbench being used here, and I like the original touches in this. Production/mastering is just right, it's very in your face, with the compression adding that little bit of punch to it - what we've come to expect from Gecko. The groove didn't change, but I think that the variations here were enough to keep the mix going, and it is true to the genre, very dancy. One could say that this is perhaps too typical of the genre to be on the site, with the breakdown at 1.33 and the subsequent buildup. This might be the one factor that may work against this mix, but not in my mind. YES I was trying very hard not to think of streets of rage as I was judging this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 so...the first two minutes of this song are pretty damn good. i think it's a strong remix until the changeup at 1:50. it's a big downer. especially the key change. 2/3rds thru the song it should be getting bigger and more intense, not dwindling. I'd actually like to see this get on, if only to assuage allegations of teknobias, but you really gotta fix that segment. if it were me i'd maybe add another minute on top of that. it's good that you were taking it in a different direction, you did a good job of keeping it fresh, but i thihnk that idea really fell on its face. make it a climax instead and it gets a yes. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 i'm gonna disagree with vig on this one. the first couple minutes are great, i was really impressed by the way you put all your parts together - both in terms of orchestration and in terms of structure. this sounds very powerful, indeed and the synths are thick but there just seems to be one dynamic throughout the entire track and i'm afraid that the lack of a climax really does detract a bit from the piece but is generic even for an electronic work and still is functional and impressive. however, i don't think the track can lose credibility as a viable arrangement based solely on its faithfulness to its style/genre YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Well...all the techno that i listen to has a climax, the songs just arrive at the climax much more gradually. I dont think we should excuse a mix from being dynamic because it's techno. especially because good techno IS dynamic. at any rate, the lack of a climax didnt bother me nearly as much as the inclusion of an anticlimax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 in that respect i cannot disagree with you. my initial vote was a NO based solely on what i felt was an arrangement compromise. but this does, in the end, sound very nice and it does entertain and the quality is something difficult to scoff at. i think this vote should go past 5 because it seems like it will be a tight one and maybe that's what we need to really know if this should pass. all in all, its solid but the lack of a climax (and apparently that anti-climax that i somehow overlooked but now recognize) is a definite issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I guess you can take Gecko Yamori out of Streets of Rage, but you can't take Streets of Rage out of Gecko Yamori. The progression, style of this bleeds with SOR. I loved the music of Sonic CD and I think GY did a good job with the arrangement aspect. The blending of his SoR style with the Sonic CD source material works well for me. My main gripe is the horribly bland and downer of an ending. I can see what the others are saying, and I do agree to a degree, but I don't think it's enough of an issue for me to personally request resubmit. Fun listen, nice arrangement, a YES from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analoq Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Well...all the techno that i listen to has a climax, the songs just arrive at the climax much more gradually. I dont think we should excuse a mix from being dynamic because it's techno. especially because good techno IS dynamic. this is not techno. the 'good techno' you're thinking of probably isn't techno either. i know this is just semantics, but i'm just trying be fair: i didn't let prot get away with using 'notation' incorrectly, and i didn't let larry get away with using 'atonal' incorrectly. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 care to give the correct blanket term, then? While telling me i'm wrong might be satisfying, it's not exactly helpful unless you have a suggestion for how i could communicate more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analoq Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 well, i didn't want to provide an alternative because i'd rather you figure it out yourself than just take my word for it (that course of action is still reccommended). but since you asked, i generally go by: 'electronic' if it has synths 'dance' if it has a beat if i didn't know this remix was house, i'd probably call it dance. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Why would i bother "figuring it out for myself" if you're the only one it bothers? I hardly consider myself an electeknico expert, so I dont mind if you correct my terminology if are trying to be helpful. But in this case you clearly werent. at any rate, i put very little value on the classification of music. I think it's very limiting and does a disservice to the music itself. I certainly dont care to spend hours learning differences between the the dozens of varieties of Electeknico that Xelebes could rattle off for me. I don't see the point. My comment remains valid regardless of what you want to call it. Good techno, house, trance, dance, electronica, speedcore, ambient, acid dance, monkeys smashing eachother in the head with rocks, all have climaxes in one form or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Play nice, kids. Watch the atonal techno notation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analoq Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 okay, perhaps i've pushed too hard? let me try and elaborate. don't think i'm anal about this stuff. i'm not. outside of the panel, i don't really care what you say. but when you misuse words here, it makes the panel look bad, like we don't know what we're talking about. maybe that shouldn't bother me, but it does a little. genres are iffy. there's not a 100% definitive replacement i could give you for what you think 'techno' means and in addition i'm not even clear on what you think 'techno' means. so i opted not to give a replacement. but then you asked for one, so i gave you my best guess. it's great that you think genres and classifications do a disservice to music, but if you're going to judge this stuff, you should at least know what it's called. you rejected this house mix and misued 'techno' in the same thread. despite this error, i will still trust your judgement. but gecko will not. am i still not helping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I used the term "techno" because that seems to be the word most commonly used to describe the broad category of music the judges are (allegedly) biased against. seeing as how my comment regarding escalation and climax is a common one when judging said broad category of music, i used this example, along with the word "techno" to respond to zyko's comment about genre limitations not only with singular regard to this mix, but in response to the broad and frequent cop out (that some genres dont lend themselves to escalation, climax, whatever)wherever they may be. Doing so was an explaination of why our percieved "bias" may not be that. This comment and my stance is not limited to "house" music, (which IS in fact, right in the title of the mix) so I used the frequently used broader term "techno." Perhaps the preceeding explaination of my usage will redeem my credibility in "gecko's" eyes. Maybe, just maybe, the word "Techno" got my point across with regard to a wider variety of musical styles than "house" would have. Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analoq Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 if that isnt clear, or satisfactory, please by all means, out with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analoq Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 no really, it's "okay" your last post was enough of a consensus for me. sorry if i've pushed your buttons. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Short but sweet. This song has a nice vibe, cool texture, and great beat. Very groovy stuff. I don't think the arrangement is bad at all; it changes enough so that it doesn't get boring, and it doesn't drag itself out. Solid stuff. YES On a side note, I noticed that you mentioned that you took ideas about being too close to the original to heart. Good to see that you can do that without being a primadonna about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 no really, it's "okay"your last post was enough of a consensus for me. sorry if i've pushed your buttons. cheers. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 6Y, if y'all don't mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 6Y, if y'all don't mind. I don't mind. However, is everyone going to contest votes they don't like? I don't really feel this is one of those special circumstances. This one isn't that questionable imo. But if you guys want to continue to the vote, that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 6Y, if y'all don't mind. I don't mind. However, is everyone going to contest votes they don't like? I don't really feel this is one of those special circumstances. This one isn't that questionable imo. But if you guys want to continue to the vote, that's fine. I felt the lack of dynamics was enough of an issue, in spite of the genre. Would prefer to have some more input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny B Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Alright, this one is pretty borderline for me. It's definately got a mid-90's loop-fabricated house sound to it. Authenticity is not a problem with the rhythm and piano. The sound processing fits with the style and the time period. The filter-sweep analog synths are radical. However, I must confess that the entire track, to me, can be described as one thing - "ho-hum". It's hard to explain exactly why, but i'll give it a shot. The sound quality is exactly where it needs to be for a house track. No problem there. However, most of the house I have been exposed to, even in the time frame of mid-90's does have an appreciable amount of dynamic contrast. My colleagues are correct in that this mix lacks just that. Even though that in itself doesn't immediatly disqualify it, the other issues contribute to problems that need attention before I let this one through. The arrangement itself is pretty much what would happen if you put the chord progression from the original into a "house-machine" and pressed a button. It's the original in its most simplified form, nearly straight-converted into a house format. This is not a bad thing for authenticity, but definately for enjoyability. It's commendable that the artist is attempting to be more original in his offerings, but I don't think this one really nails it. There is a lot of information in the original that is nowhere to be heard here, such as the interesting touches like key change and solo passages. The whole thing screams "homogenous". Simple house tracks are not necessarily bad, it's just not something that fits the guidelines here, I think. It's definately a good effort, but i'd need more development either in a musical sense or a timbre-centric sense to give a thumbs-up. Right now this tune is confused over whether it wants to be a melodic/harmonic electronica jam or a down n' dirty house thump-fest. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 6Y, if y'all don't mind. I don't mind. However, is everyone going to contest votes they don't like? I don't really feel this is one of those special circumstances. This one isn't that questionable imo. But if you guys want to continue to the vote, that's fine. I believe the policy is if a mix is not unanimous, first to six wins. i dont think a specific request is required. And of course it's questionable, otherwise the vote would be unanimous [/obvious] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts