Sign in to follow this  
DragonAvenger

OCR02391 - *YES* Pokémon Red Version 'Spume'

Recommended Posts

PROJECT TRACK.

"Spume"

source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl6SHEMjing

Okay, Spume...

lol

Spume is probably finished now. Everyone on the Pokémon project says it was finished like years ago. More comments on the project site. :D

plz use the album version when posting to ocr... if it passes. Pass or no pass, this will not be resubbed.

-ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This track is super weird. I appreciate that you're doing something quite creative with an incredibly cheesy source. The first time I listened, I didn't know what to make of it. Now, I actually like the extended introduction more than the rest of the song, which I find to be a bit repetitive and full of sections like 3:30 which just seem to have way too much melodic noodling.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Jesse that this song is weird, and it took a while for me to wrap my head around it. I think what it comes down to in the end for me is that there doesn't seem to be melodic direction for quite a big of this, which is what's making it feel repetitive. Along with that, there just seem to be a lot of strange note choices for the background compared to the melody.

That being said, there is certainly source in there, and there is plenty of interpretation on it. Production is also fine, no qualms there. Not an easy choice.

I think the tracks positives do outweigh the negatives in the end, although I would have liked the track to be a little more directional.

YES (borderline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very strange note choices to me here, and after a lot of listening, I can hear more of the source, but still, there is never any part of it that seems dominant, at least mixing-wise. Whenever the melody is being played in a reasonably recognizable manner, it's being overpowered by the bass or pads.

I think this goes a little too far in re-arranging the track for my comfort. I like the a lot of the sections, and the intro is pretty cool, if not terribly related, but I need to hear more dominant and recognizable source, please.

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love the intro, and the pitch-shifting transition was really cool and flowed pretty well, although the second half kinda meanders a bit imo. it's hard to say. I think this is close, and the production is passable, but I gotta agree with OA that this needs more dominant source usage. I'm not hearing any until the pizz-ish sound from :48-:59. I think the bells at 1:05 are supposed to be the first four notes of the song, but it's loose. even from about 2:00-3:00 when the melody is at the front, it is heavily modified tonally.

cool track, but the source needs to be more overt.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, I can hear the theme easily. It's a strange take on the original. Not everyone's cup of tea. It's simplistic in its production, but it works. It's catchy and a fun little remix. I think it should be passed on the creativity alone.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult for me to articulate on a theory level, but the nature of the arrangement initially wasn't working for me beyond a pretty liberal level as well.

The arrangement needed 141.5 seconds of overt source use to achieve a YES on arrangement.

:36-1:23, 1:27-1:48.5, 2:01-2:13, 2:25-2:36, 2:37-3:19 = 143.5 seconds

Questionable call/pretty liberal: 1:48-2:01, 2:13-2:24

EDIT (8/16): The rhythmic changes to the melody (e.g. :36-1:23, 2:01-2:13) might sound too liberal to some, but it's clearly the source's main melody, only stuttered. Even if someone said the arrangement was a little out there, it wasn't melodically off base. Not sure why someone would argue this is too liberal. It could have been most of the last minute and a half doing its own thing that threw off the scent. Even there, there could be stuff I'm not counting, but once I find 50% source, I'm fine.

I liked the track in a vacuum, and wasn't as put off, as other were, about the structure. Stylistically, I could see why someone wouldn't like the section from :59-1:23, which wasn't very melodious, but I didn't mind it. Dynamically, it's meant to be come off flat before the build at 1:24.

Not sure how 3:20's section is melodic noodling, as Vig put it, for all of 28 seconds, even if someone could be put off by that. I've heard rock songs noodle for a lot longer and in a more pronounced way.

Honestly, I'm not hearing anything either too structurally strange with the track or liberal with the source tune. I'm feeling like Palpable did: production issues aside (and there were no dealbreakers or even anything worth coming down on, IMO), the arrangement is there, the flow is there, and it's creative and interpretive. I just don't see anything but a lot of flimsy reasons to NO it, and some of y'all need to take another look at the arrangement. It checks out, and y'all know I give the least credit out of anyone.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's weird as in interesting and then there's just weird. The intro falls in the latter catagory for me I'm afraid. Harmonically it just wasn't working for me until about 1:30. While there is a lot of creative ideas here and beyond, there's just always a niggle in my ears telling me it just isn't working on enough levels. Yes I can hear the source fairly easily but everything around it makes its harder to enjoy for me. The harmony just isn't complimentary.

People can still get this with the album but imo it's not quite main site in arrangement calibre. It's trying to do too much, and ends up doing nothing quite well enough for it to work as a whole.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Jesse, I found myself liking the introduction most in this song, because of how off-kilter and minimal it was. I won't say the source was super obvious there, but I was hearing it in the places Larry mentioned, plus those liberal areas, some of which used the original's chords. Actually I felt a little disappointed when the song switched into happy bubbly mode, but that's more a subjective preference - it was fine as far as songs go, there was enough to sustain my interest. I don't really see any reason to say NO to this.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting sound design. I like this kind of ambient approach. However some of the sounds are confusingly lo-fi or dry. For example, the up-front bell like sound is totally dry. Why...? Put some verb/delay on that and maybe layer it with some other stuff. The upbeat poppy synths and drums at 1:42 were a total surprise, and this is the first point that I really noticed the source in earnest (after listening to the source at least ten times.) The more I hear the bell lead though the more I think that you should definitely layer it or replace it, as it has too many inharmonic frequencies. Just sounds almost atonal at times.

I want to pass this because it's pretty creative, but it seems very far-removed from the source overall, and there is a big jumble of production ideas. Trance synths, soft organic tones, swung bass and acoustic drums... it's not cohesive. If you're going to do the electronic/ambient thing, don't bring in trance synths and pop drums. Use soft electronic drums, crunchy soft-distorted stuff, quieter leads, more bell-like tones, maybe some EP/piano type instruments.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liked how you set the stage in the opening here, Roz. Cool use of effects and watery effects/instruments to set the stage.

The more I hear the bell lead though the more I think that you should definitely layer it or replace it, as it has too many inharmonic frequencies. Just sounds almost atonal at times.

Glad zirc mentioned this as I got the same impression. It feels more like an atonal allusion to the source, rather than a more concrete element. I can hear what parts you're using in various places, but the source never seems to come enough in focus for me to call it dominant theme in this mix. I'm by no means immune to this either as I had a track from SoS rejected on similar grounds.

I definitely echo the creativity props here. You've got something unique here and I don't want to discourage you in that regard.

Production-wise, balance could've used some work. The bass synth was quite loud compared to other elements. Some of the synths took up more than their fair share of sonic space, causing sections like 2:39 & 3:22 to sound really cluttered. Sonar pings could also come down in volume.

So yeah, cool creativity. But too liberal for me and production needs some polish. Sorry to hear you won't be bringing this one back, man, but I'm looking forward to hearing more of your stuff.

No, resubmit please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if the production "issues" are really that much of a dealbreaker, and a lot of y'all are wrong on the arrangement. I had trouble making it out entirely as well, but after stepping back from it a while ago and coming back fresh on it 2 months later, some of the stuff I felt was liberal was pretty obvious, so perhaps others need to go back to this and give it a fresh listen.

I thought OA had the best NO regarding how he felt the source was treated (it's present, just not dominant enough), but the others NOs on arrangement seem to just say the source simply wasn't there enough. A NO on arrangement is looking like a really bad call, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just mentioned to Dave that he should look at it for a potential tie-break, since it seems like no one else is re-evaluating this.

Again, I also thought it might be too liberal, but stepped away from it; came back weeks later and checked the sections I wasn't sure about, and clearly heard the source in play with fresh ears.

Obviously, we can collectively disagree on source usage/dominance, but I think the several NOs on arrangement for lack of source use were too kneejerk and didn't fully make out the source connections. I also thought the production issues here were complete nitpicks. The track is reasonably well-mixed.

On arrangement, OA's was the only NO vote that at least clarified that while he heard the usage, he didn't feel it was a dominant enough when it was used to pass it. Pretty much everything I heard re: the source was pretty upfront, so I didn't agree with that either; and I've seen him give YESs to arrangements that overall referred to the source material less than this, but at least he's acknowledging the source was in use most of the time.

Like I said, I may not be the ultimate stopwatch, but if I'm giving this a pass on source use and you're not, you're missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Production-wise, I feel like this track definitely stands up to some of Rozo's older songs that have already passed the panel, even if you're not a fan of his admittedly-quirky sound selection. I agree with zirc's crit about the dryness of some of the leads, and additionally, the bassline sounds a little too boomy/loud...

As for the source usage, I'm in agreement with Larry's breakdown. It's definitely there and identifiable, despite the liberal usage and longer ambient sections.

I don't have much to add to the conversation here, I can see how it's a tough call but personally I feel like this is just as good as Rozo's older songs as far as production goes, the arrangement passes, and it's got a lot of unique, clever sound choices that give the song a lot of merit. I think it's the kind of song that has the potential to surprise people with how different it is, without really stepping that far outside of the bounds of conventional electronic music.

Good stuff Rozo.

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