Sign in to follow this  
OceansAndrew

OCR03815 - *YES* Seiken Densetsu 3 "March to High" *PROJECT*

Recommended Posts

ReMixer name - Mak Eightman
real name- Max V. Kravchenko
email address- 
userid: 32137

Submission Information:

Title - "March to High"
link to remix - attached
Name of game arranged - Seiken Densetsu 3
System: SNES
Name of individual song arranged - Lvl-up music
Link to the original soundtrack - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LchvGa6gY_8

Seiken Densetsu 3 Project. OCR thread: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14083
Project's Director: Rozovian

Umm.. I have no idea what to say. Well.. mm... its... long..

Buy! \m/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely worked to spread this out from the very short original. I like some of the ideas you've worked in here, and overall the style change is pretty cool. The problem I'm having with the mix and source as a whole is that it's so largely chord-based that it's difficult to call some of the connections solid in my book. It's treading the fine line between just being chords with original melody on top vs. rearranging the source, if that makes sense. That being said, I feel like a lot of the problem stems from how the source is layed out rather than your actual mixing of it.

All THAT being said, I do think you clear the line here, if barely, in terms of pulling the source in and having it be present. I think it's a little repetitive, but again that's due to she source being so short that it's the nature of the beast.

Production-wise, I think things are mostly solid. Things are a touch mechanical in the marchier sections, and some instruments, like the flute, are suffering from some realism issues. Most of it is minor, so it's more nitpicks than anything. Your guitar also feels like it's a little muffled, and I'd have like it to be clearer.

Overall I think this does clear the bar, but barely. I can definitely see this going either way, and I might change my vote if it comes down to it to get this back to you sooner if it's not looking good, so good luck!

YES (borderline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a bit of stiffness, but the source feels person for a good deal of this. The question is whether or not the source really should have been remixed in the first place, as all the stuff you've added to this always takes the attention, though a lot of the groove sections stay true to the source and remain interesting. THere's a good use of dynamics, and overall I think the arrangement works, with a lot of cool effects and varied parts. I think the solo is somewhat aimless and while there are a few parts, I think It could have been better done.

Production is decent, and despite some spots where the sequencing could be improved, I was feeling this.

Somewhat close, but Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting expansion on a short tune, I like it. the piece is very dynamic which really plays to it's benefit a lot. definitely the most solid sub I've heard from you yet. incorporation of the guitar was really tightly executed. personal preference, wasn't loving the synth sound as much, would've went for a less.. typical techno-styled sound there for lack of better words, but it was well done none-the-less. really nice job here.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't feeling this one for a few reasons. The mixing was a little off-kilter and the drums were lacking power. It felt like there were gaps in the soundscape during some of the rock sections, which made it sound thin. The sequencing was also a bit rigid in the orchestral sections, most prominent on repeated notes. The 1:32 section was a lot more quiet and when it led into the heavier section again, the flute was almost inaudible. The part that worked best was when the guitar lead took over, but even there, the mixing was a bit off.

But equally important to consider is the arrangement. A short source lends itself to expansion, but this takes it too far off the rails. You're using a similar chord pattern in a minor key, and most of the time the bell arpeggio pattern from the original is changed a lot or isn't used. That's way too far off in my book. I also think the song lacked focus for a long time (before the flute lead started) and could have used a more traditional structure. The genre shifts were also a bit awkward and didn't add much for me.

I don't say this a lot but I think it would be a mistake to pass this. Don't get me wrong: it sounds well put-together at times, and clearly Max demonstrates talent as a producer, arranger, and performer here. The arrangement is more problematic than the production but I think especially when you take the two together, it's not up to the level of what we pass. I think it's fixable for sure and I hope Max takes another crack at it should it get rejected.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overt source use (quick check): :08-:40, :56-1:28, 1:40-1:48, 2:12-2:20, 2:28-3:00 = 112 seconds (i.e. plenty)

Not feeling the woodwind sample, which was kind of a weak link. Also not a fan of the generic FL default style warbles at :48, but was glad other stuff joined in at :56.

Short and sweet, solid variation of the instruments and expansive writing to get a lot of mileage out of this one. It was put together cohesively enough to get by, IMO.

I didn't agree with Vinnie's assessment of the arrangement. It's a very limited source, and Max used it well, not just variations of the instruments playing the core 4-note pattern, but also stuff like the strings that used the same progression but not with quarter notes, to provide a kind of rhythmic variation. I thought it checked out just fine and wasn't put off by the approach.

But since he's such a strong NO, we definitely should leave this open for either one more YES before closing it or see if there's more NOs.

Max continues to have mixes that pass despite being rough around the edges, so I'm looking forward to his continued improvement so everything can sound polished. It's not the strongest YES, but it gets by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a very limited source, and Max used it well, not just variations of the instruments playing the core 4-note pattern, but also stuff like the strings that used the same progression but not with quarter notes, to provide a kind of rhythmic variation. I thought it checked out just fine and wasn't put off by the approach.

Not expecting to convince anyone to switch their vote, but the 4-note pattern is the only connection, I believe. The chords are different, the arpeggio is modified. You timestamped it correctly, Larry, but I feel like with such a simple source, changing that much of it alters the essence. Similarly to how I feel like a complex chord progression can be counted as source usage while a simple one shouldn't, a song that is only keeping the top note of what is essentially the chord, is not really using the source. Food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm going to agree with Vinnie here. There is just barely any real connection to the source aside from the four notes at the top of the arpeggio. When you have -that little- of a source tune to work with, you need to use as much of it as possible.

Nice tune, but NO, absolutely not. As Vinnie said, I think it would be a mistake to post this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taken into consideration what Vinnie and Shariq are saying here, but honestly when I listen to this I hear the connection right away. It's definitely adapted into a totally off-the-wall style that I didn't see coming, but I'm hearing it in abundance, albeit a little bit modified from time to time. It's a pretty abstract approach but it works for me.

Production-wise, everything that the other judges have said rings true (I really don't like that acid arp, it feels really out of place, and the flute is a bit of a weak link) but I'm honestly enjoying this one. I'm co-signing with the YES's on this one, in spite of the creative liberties that had to be taken with the melody, I still hear the connection to the original.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Vinnie/Shariq.

You have to do something fairly special in terms of arrangement to get away with a remix of such a short tune and it just hasn't been done. This could be anything with that chord progression, and it comes across as mostly original parts.

This is not what OCR is about, and I agree it would be a mistake to pass this.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I admit it, I've been avoiding voting on this. It's one of those tunes that brings into question each of the panel member's subjective interpretation of the remix criteria in what qualifies as source connections.

On first blush, I feel like I can hear what Mak is drawing from the OST here and pretty much agree with Larry's breakdown.

Vinnie & Larry put down some great crits on the production side, which I can sign off on.

Here's the thing, I CAN hear what he's trying to arrange and how he's doing it, but I ALSO don't feel entirely comfortable that it fits the definition of what we're trying to promote here. I think this would be harder if the production was pristine (though it's not bad), but the combination of production issues and arrangement questions bring this down to no territory for me.

I'd really like to hear Dave's take on this.

No, resubmit please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting remix. Like the other judges have said, some mechanical issues with a few instruments but nothing major. The issue is the source usage.

I haven't read all the other votes here yet. I don't want my opinion to be compromised before I vote, because this remix asks a curious question.

Where does what is perceived as variation on a track become an original work and compromise the source? This remix treads a very very fine line because while the source is noticeable, on the first few listens, it doesn't appear that the remixer has kept any of the details from the original music other than the chord sequence. There are original parts upon original parts all over this remix, but if you asked someone if this was a remix of the Level Up theme from SD3 after listening to it, some may argue it is because the chord sequence is the same. However, if that was the case, Johnny B Good could be a remix of Roll Over Beethoven.

Now, in relation to OCR standards, usually this would be a NO, but the source is incredibly sparse as it is. Its a single instrument arppegio repeated over a two bar chord seqeunce. In this case, I'd say that arp is very important as thats the only thing that makes this track unique in its own merit.

Therefore, I looked for moments when the arp was noticeably in the remix. It is at the following timestamped moments, altho heavily variated upon:

0:08-0:40

0:48-1:05

1:13-1:28

2:28-3:00

111 seconds overall

Thats enough source usage, even if the variation was a little sharply done. It could have helped to be little more conservative at points. And of course there is the 4 notes at the top of the arpeggio, even if he used the tonic note of chord in question rather than using the 3rds as well, like in the source. Using the 3rds to keep the connection to the source stronger and for some variation might have been a safer bet.

Still, based on this, I'm ok with it. The source IS there, the source usuage is over the bar, and it expands and variates on the source tune in a massive way. I'm cool with this.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really close vote that split the panel pretty well here - I think in the end, it's very close, but in the end, none of the Yes votes were really strongly in favor, and everyone had some manner of crits. I think a little bit of additional polish on this will make it a stronger contender, and I personally am looking forward to hearing it even better. :-)

Closing this one out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
really close vote that split the panel pretty well here - I think in the end, it's very close, but in the end, none of the Yes votes were really strongly in favor, and everyone had some manner of crits. I think a little bit of additional polish on this will make it a stronger contender, and I personally am looking forward to hearing it even better. :-)

Closing this one out.

That's not how it works. Perceived strength of vote doesn't factor into how we treat the end result of the vote count. You can't argue that because 2 out of the six YESs aren't strong, and 3 of the four NOs were hell NOs, that that somehow equals an overall NO vote. The vote ended up 6Y/4N so far, which isn't a NO. We don't even have Vig's vote yet.

The standards issues to look at are 1) if the source is too simplistic to be acceptable source material and/or 2) if the arrangement is beyond recognition compared to a simplistic source.

So it's time for djp to chime in, but this isn't closed yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[12:16] <djpretzel> what about those jingle all the way mixes we posted?

[12:19] <Liontamer> what about 'em

[12:20] <Liontamer> I think the argument here, at least my perception, is that this SD3 source isn't as substantive

[12:21] <djpretzel> well, that's what I want judges to explicitly address

[12:21] <Liontamer> I didn't hear anything with it that made it seem like it wasn't a valid jingle; short, but there's something identifiable there that's carried over into the arrangement

[12:21] <djpretzel> ideally

[12:21] <djpretzel> as in, let's look at those sources

[12:21] <djpretzel> and let's look at this source

[12:21] <djpretzel> and let's make a conscious decision that we either effed up on those

[12:21] <djpretzel> or that they were more substantive than this

[12:21] <Liontamer> ok

[12:21] <Liontamer> one sec, lemme find 'em

[12:30] <Liontamer>

[12:30] <Liontamer>

[12:31] <Liontamer> vs.

[12:35] <djpretzel> right

[12:35] <djpretzel> maybe the judges can vote separately on JUST that question?

[12:36] <djpretzel> it sets a precedent for acceptable source

[12:36] <djpretzel> so it's worth the deliberation

[12:36] <Liontamer> Not inherently against that, but would you mind this coming up for basically any jingle-length* source?

[12:36] <djpretzel> we need a rubric for evaluation when this comes up

[12:36] <djpretzel> it already IS coming up

[12:36] <djpretzel> so your question doesn't make sense to me

[12:37] <Liontamer> Well, I mean, are you talking about somehow forming some sort of rule we can add to the standards about source eligibility of very short songs?

[12:38] <Liontamer> Or just case-by-case as we encounter an issue; I assume you mean case-by-case, since this almost never comes up; it's hard to draw a line in the sand

[12:39] <Liontamer> so I'm just not sure how we can set any sort of precedent vs. just decide on this instance

[12:51] <djpretzel> deciding on this instance sets a precedent

[12:51] <djpretzel> or can, if it's looked at thoroughly

[12:51] <djpretzel> and in relation to previous similar mixes of short sources

Emphasis added, of course.

So what we're looking to do is decide whether the

used for this submission is substantive enough to be used as a source tune. Though the vote is currently at 6Y/4N, implying that at least the YES's think it IS substantial enough to be a source tune, that might not necessarily be the case upon some further reflection.

We have mixes of other jingle themes on the site, including one from

and
. I'll try to find some others later.

If I'm not misrepresenting Dave, Dave wants to know if the panel feels the Seiken Densetsu 3 piece is much less substantive than other source tunes we've allowed, or if we've just made mistakes allowing mixes of more or all of these short jingles.

I feel I explained my POV in my vote on the sub, but there seemed to be enough to work with musically, despite being basic, to form a viable arrangement out of it. Palpable basically agreed with my breakdown on how the source was used, but also felt the arrangement itself was nonetheless off the rails, but I disagreed there.

EDIT: And yes, I shouldn't have forgotten what Shariq alluded to below: if you have 0 problem with the eligibility of the SD3 source, and only had a problem with the arrangement, definitely point that out. It seems from the submission voting (correct me if I'm wrong) that no one thinks it's not an ineligible theme to arrange as far as the substance, but that the arrangement is too liberal and "modified the source material beyond recognition" according to the current standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the SD3 source in terms of eligibility. There's a distinct sound to it; it's short and repetitive but it's recognizably unique.

My issue is not with the source tune but with the extremely liberal take on that source tune. For shorter "jingles" like these, there's less material to work with, so straying from that material is way easier to do.

I think we should continue to handle these things on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the source tune is fine; the remix is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I agree that there's no problem with the source being used. There are inherent challenges involved in fleshing out a complete tune from something so short, in fact it would almost need to be extremely liberal in its interpretation. I'll say more in my vote, but in general I've got no problem with this type of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES.

The source is as follows.

E/B, B+7, B-7, B+7. This ultimately can be boiled down to I - V repeating where the dominant is embellished for an extra bar.

The remix focuses on

E-, B+7, B-7, B7.

For those counting, that's exactly two notes changed between the original and the remix. Harmonically speaking.

The trick here is that there's no melody in the original, so how do we decide if this is actually based off the original, or just uses similar rhythmic and melodic motives. In my opinion there is no doubt that this track is of the source.

The half-step motive which more or less defines the source is present throughout. The only real melodic difference is that the remixer discarded the top voice from the original (G#, G, F#, G) and has instead focused on the inner voice (E, D#, D, D#) which WAS present in the source, verbatim. The source is there. It's there throughout. He just altered two chords ever so slightly, and didn't use the same voicings as the source.

We generally agree that this particular source should be eligible for OCRemix, but if that is so, how else would we expect someone to remix it within our guidelines? If you think about it, in spite of excessive instrumentation, he really doesn't even introduce very much new melodic or harmonic content. It's all just extrapolation. There's no new B section or anything that he tacked on, there's maybe a countermelody and a solo. It's all just the source.

Well done making something out of nothing without turning it into an original composition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was the biggest holdout on this one and while my opinion hasn't changed, I'm not sure djp really needs to chime in. This should just be a panel decision. I think we've had some good discussion here and everyone that voted YES is ok with the usage of the source. Moving to Approved.

Share this post


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