OCR02507 - *YES* Mega Man 2 & 10 'Bubbling Adrenaline'

[OceansAndrew]

Remixer Name: TheGuitahHeroe

Songs arranged: "Bubble Man Stage" (Mega Man II)

(

) and "Pump Man Stage"

(Mega Man 10) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iejDSxOMBE)

Remix Name: "Bubbling Adrenaline"

This was my second round entry for the GRMRB 2011, for which I had to

mix Bubble Man (my robot master) and Pump Man (Starphoenix's robot

master). Unfortunately, Starphoenix was unable to finish his mix due

to time restraints, so I won the round by default.

But yeah, this was probably what I consider to be my most creative mix

out of the four I made for the competition. I wanted something really

different for this one, and the first thing that popped into my head

was '7/4 time sig.' I was surprised by how well it worked with the

trance atmosphere I had going.

This is definitely my most liberal mix ever, so I'll provide a source

breakdown for this one

___________

Source 1 = Bubble Man; Source 2 = Pump Man for reference

[source 1 --*:00 - :04*] = [Remix --*:45 - :49*; *:52 - :58*; *3:02 - 3:08*]

________

[source 1 --*:11 - :21*] = [Remix --*1:09 - 1:21*]

________

[source 1 --*:22 - :32*] = [Remix --*1:26 - 1:33*; *1:39 - 1:49*;

*2:20 - 2:27*; *2:33 - 2:44*]

________

[source 1 --*:33 - :37*] = [Remix -- *3:19 - 3:22*; *3:56 - 3:58*;

*4:03 - 4:08*]

[source 2 -- *:00 - :13*] = [Remix -- *1:26 - 1:52* (sorta with the

arpeggios, lol, probably not actual source usage)]

________

[source 2 -- *:14 - :26*] = [Remix -- *1:53 - 1:59*; *2:07 - 2:12*;

*3:10 - 3:18*; *3:39 - 3:54*; *4:09 - 4:11*]

________

[source 2 -- *:27 - :39*] = [Remix -- *2:00 - 2:06*; *2:13 - 2:17*;

*3:23 - 3:25*]

________

[source 2 -- *:40 - :53*] = [Remix -- *2:27 - 2:39* (overlaps BM usage

from 2:33 to 2:39); *4:27 - 4:33*]

TOTAL USAGE: [:46 - :49] (4), [:52 - :58] (7), [1:09 - 1:21] (13),

[1:26 - 1:33] (, [1:39 - 1:49] (11), [1:53 - 2:17] (25), [2:20 -

2:44] (25), [3:02 - 3:08] (7), 3:10 - 3:25] (16), [3:39 - 3:54] (16),

[3:56-3:58] (3), [4:03 - 4:11] (9), [4:27 - 4:33] (7).

4+7+13+8+11+25+25+7+16+16+3+9+7

= 151 seconds out of total 297 seconds = 50.8% source usage

BOO-YAH!!

Feel free to do a more exact breakdown, with decimals to the seconds

and whatnot. I'll tell you, however, that I erred to the side of

giving myself less usage time while making this breakdown.

Hope you guys dig the mix

[OceansAndrew]

Definitely a creative choice to change the time signature, and for the most part it works. The changes to the melody make it feel constantly familiar but definitely altered, almost to the point that i'm not exactly sure how to evaluate this. I enjoy the track even though the melody is more subdued and not terribly catchy, though I think it's more like a backing track than a more actively listening track.

The Pump Man source seemed more marginalized and obscured than Bubbleman, though that may just seem that way to me due to source familiarity. But I could hear sections where it was woven in, and throughout, there seems to be a lot of source use, but it's very, very altered.

Overall I think the source use is consistently there enough to be dominant, though it may be my brain filling in the gaps from hinted phrases, and the production is balanced and on-point. It's a strange call, but I am feeling that this one leans toward a yes.

Yes

[DragonAvenger]

I think if our hater fans had a track they'd want to call out on 'not recognizing the source', this might be the one to really fit the bill. It's there, but it's used in such a way that it's altered and subdued. I like it, although I do think it's a little quirky. I will say that with the altering of the sources and the lower amount of usage, I could see why this might end up a NO, but I'm gonna nod.

YES

[Emunator]

I had no problem hearing the source usage in here, but the problem I had (and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet) is that the leads are so wet and pushed back that they don't stand out in the mix nearly as much as they need to. I respect the creative decision of having a more obscured sound to your lead instruments, and in this case it sounds nice, but when the source connection is already super-liberal, the parts where the original melodies ARE being used need to be more audible. Fixing this up would probably be good anyway, just from a musical standpoint.

Aside from that, I'm definitely good with this. It's by far one of your most unique soundscapes and chord progressions, and it's really sticking out in my mind and making me want to listen to it more Since this already has 2 YES votes, I'll spare the trouble of a split vote and just see if we can get that lead issue touched up a bit. If that's fixed, I'm good to go.

YES (conditional on reverb/levels of lead synths)

[halc]

hrm, gotta agree with Wes, I'm not really agreeing with how the leads were treated here; might not even necessarily be too loud, subtle is okay, but they are too wet. that awesome melody at 2:30 is just bleeding completely into that big washy pad. none of the leads really cut through the arrangement.

as far as the rest of the track, I'm digging it; great soundscape, creative modulations, and like the others I think I'm alright with this breakdown of the sources. pretty liberal in nature, but the arrangement ideas were very intelligent and creative. however, the mixing on the leads is problematic for me, I feel this song needs a sharper melodic focus.

YES(cond. on leads; less wet, more prominent)

[Palpable]

I'll co-sign the last two votes and contact him to see if we can get a fixed version of this sub, because that's gonna be what swings my vote too.

[Liontamer]

Hey man, this is heading towards a YES (cond) so I wanted to see if you make the change for us. I'll paste you the votes, but the main thing we're looking for is the leads to stand out more. Please let us know if you can make the fix; if not, we'll continue voting as is.

Thanks,

Vinnie (Palpable)

Hey Vinnie,

Well...I'm sorry to say that I'm kinda unwilling to make that change It was a purposeful artistic decision of mine to have the leads blend in and be part of the soundscape behind them rather than stick out. You see, at the time I made this I was really really really influenced by deep house music (most of which had no melody at all)...and as such, it had a great impact on the way I mixed the leads in Bubbling Adrenaline.

So...I'm passing up the offer to make a change here, I'm really sorry Please continue judging the track as is.

-Jamison

Gotta vote as is then. Conditionals, re-evaluate where you stand.

I disagreed with making this a conditional YES because of the positioning of the leads. The soundscape's murky, but I didn't feel it was over the top or a dealbreaker. Jamison's stance on this did not affect my vote, as I only read it after I'd laid out my vote. I don't agree with the stronger production crits at all. None of the mixing bothered me personally, and (much more importantly) I made out the themes just fine. That's the case, because they sit far enough upfront to be made out. If the soundscape were so washed out that the themes were being obscured, then there would have been a problem. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater on this, when the production's perfectly fine in the big picture.

You count your seconds strangely, Jamison. Every part of your breakdown added 1 second to the measurement for some reason. Basically, you treated :00-:02 as meaning :00.00-:02.99, and thus 3 seconds. That kind of fuzzy math isn't how I'd count anything.

That said, I appreciated your breakdown and did my own. Everything Jamison said was right, except 2 things:

1) The Plug Man, Section A arpeggios, which he (thankfully) didn't give himself any credit for, as they were too liberal.

2) Plug Man, Section B didn't come in at 3:39 as you stated, it came in at 3:49, so you inadvertently gave yourself 10 seconds.

The piece was 4:57.25-long, so I needed more than 148.625 seconds of overt source usage for the pass on arrangement, with the source tunes truly being dominant in the piece. Normally, I don't count this closely, but you were cutting it close and I took your breakdown as a fun challenge. "Trust, yet verify." While you lost the phantom 10 seconds you credited yourself with (the result of a typo?), you didn't give yourself quite enough credit for some things, such as notes trailing off, and the way several of the theme transitions blended. Let's take a closer look:

Bubble Man, Section A [:00-:04] - :46-:51.25, :52.75-:58.75, 3:02.25-3:09

Bubble Man, Section B [:11-:21] - 1:09-1:14.5, 1:15.5-1:22.5

Bubble Man, Section C [:22-:32] - 1:26.5-1:36, 1:39.75-1:49.5, 2:20-2:28, 2:33-2:48

Bubble Man, Section D [:33-:37] - 3:19-3:23, 3:56-4:07

Plug Man, Section B [:14-:26] - 1:53-2:00, 2:06-2:13, 3:09-3:18, 3:49.5-3:56, 4:07-4:12

Plug Man, Section C [:27-:39] - 2:00-2:06, 2:13-2:20, 3:18-3:25.75

Plug Man, Section D [:40-:53] - 2:27-2:39, 4:26.75-4:33.75

When you stitch everything back together and time out when either Bubble Man or Plug Man was in play:

:46-:51.25, :52.5-:58.75, 1:09-1:14.5, 1:15.5-1:22.5, 1:26.5-1:36, 1:39.75-1:49.5, 1:53-2:48, 3:02.25-3:25.75, 3:49.5-4:12, 4:26.75-4:33.75 = 151 seconds or 50.799% source usage

The source usage just barely came up as dominant, but it's over the line, so count it! The arrangement was definitely very creative and well-handled overall. It could have went either way on the arrangement, which I would have had no problem unmercifully rejecting if there was 1 second less of source use, but I enjoyed the piece in a vacuum nonetheless.

The arrangement won't be something people who can't stand liberal arrangement can wrap there heads around, as the 7/4 time signature, murky soundscape, Plug Man's theme being more obscure, and the two themes constantly weaving in and out is a lot to make sense of. Those with a smart ear and an open mind, however, should love it. This, I love.

Nice work here, Jamison, this is good to go!

YES

[Palpable]

None of the mixing bothered me personally, and (much more importantly) I made out the themes just fine. That's the case, because they sit far enough upfront to be made out.

Right, and my concern was not that the source is obscured - it's more than that there's not enough presence to hold my interest. If the leads were brought up, it gives the mix more of a focus. I don't want Jamison to totally alter his vision but would have preferred him to split the difference and bump the leads up just a tad. Nonetheless, after relistening I agree that it's not enough of a deal to reject this. The arrangement is very cool and that goes a long way. On a personal note, Bubble Man was one of the first video game songs I remember loving, and the way that Bubble Man sporadically punctures through the dreamlike soundscape here really conjures those childhood memories for me, moreso than most Bubble Man arrangements I've heard.

YES