OCR02878 - *YES* Sonic the Hedgehog 'Childhood (Act 2)'

[DragonAvenger]

Joojes, he sent two mixes in a single submission, but since they are two separate pieces each with discrete beginnings and ends, we should judge them separately. I've duplicated the thread. -DS

Hello OC ReMix,

I have a submission I've spent a great deal of time on for you. This is the perfect place to submit, as it's none other than a Sonic the Hedgehog Green Hill Zone influenced piece. Now to the requested details!

Contact Information

Your ReMixer Name: Paul John

Your real name: Paul John Frankhouser

Your website: http://pauljohnmusic.com

Your forum userid: 50434 (pauljohn)

Submission Information

Name of game(s) arranged: Sonic the Hedgehog

Name of arrangement: Childhood (Act 1) + Childhood (Act 2)

Name of individual song(s) arranged: Green Hill Zone

Additional information: Originally composed by Masato Nakamura

Own comments: This piece is a big homage to Tiesto's 'Forever Today', which starts with a orchestral version, and goes into a harder hitting 2nd part. The orchestral part one version ('Act 1') is the result of years of being picky and trying to replicate a classical score with my available tools. The same goes for 'Act 2', a result of honing my skills as an EDM producer. 'Childhood' is definitely a derivative work over a cover, and with 'Green Hill Zone' being rather repetitive, I tried to add as much as I could, without straying from the main theme/goal...fun, good times as children.

P.S. - This was originally to be one consecutive song, but was split into 2 tracks for CD and licensing purposes. It is my hope it can be submitted as one.

Links to MP3s (192kbps)

Always my best, and thanks for keeping OC ReMix alive and moving forward.

-Paul John [http://pauljohnmusic.com]

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

Edited April 24, 2014 by djpretzel

[Fishy]

Act 2:

So this is clearly what you're good at, way more solid in every regard. Great synth choices, really tasteful stuff. If you're willing to let us accept act 2 without act 1, I'd be very happy to pass it, although if both pieces were submitted as one file I don't think I could say the same. I'll vote yes on act 2 only so it's up to you.

Act 2: YES

Edited February 13, 2013 by DarkeSword
Removing Act 1 Vote.

[halc]

Like Fishy I gotta agree, this is much, much stronger than the first act in every way, even though its a completely different style. Good variations and change ups, and a really interesting approach to the theme, some unique harmonic changes particularly with the melody.

Really solid stuff here, a definite yes from me if you're willing to let us post it sans-act 1.

YES

[Vig]

The intro's pretty long, and it really doesn't do too much to draw me in. The source doesn't come in till 1:30, nearly halfway through, and there's just nothing interesting enough going on before then to keep me listening.

The first "drop" is hard to figure out. The sidechaining is drastic, but the synths are never really that dense, big, or interesting. Part of the problem is that on the 4th beat of the measure they drop out in favor of the snare hit, which I think hurts the momentum of the track.

This track is definitely not a bad house entry, but I feel like it doesn't have competitive enough sounds or unique enough writing to bring it over the top.

NO

[Palpable]

My vote is somewhere between Jesse's and the two YESes. I wasn't blown away by the sound design or the mixing, but what's here is serviceable. The arrangement is stronger than the production, featuring some great harmonic choices and a good flow. But the beat sounds too boomy, not enough thwack. I wanted to hear more mids in the kick, something you can really hear rather than feel. The synths could have used more bite as well. I think with a little more attention to production, this would be a no-brainer pass, but as it stands, it tiptoes past the line. Good work, but some areas that could be tightened up.

YES (borderline)

[Liontamer]

Pretty lengthy build. 1:26.5-1:55.5 finally brought in the "Green Hill Zone" theme. Something about the phasing bothered me a little, but that could be a lack of clarity with the mixing.

Theme came back with phasing from 2:09-2:36, and the mixing still bothers me. 2:45-3:15 changed up the lead for another nice change of pace. Paul John definitely did a good job with the lead variations, before going back to 2:09's style from 3:41.75-4:10.5.

The arrangement was 4:23-long, so I needed more than 131.5 seconds' worth of overt source usage to qualify the VGM as "dominant" in the arrangement:

:00-:05 (Stage Clear), 1:26.5-1:55.5, 2:07.5-2:36, 2:45.25-3:15, 3:41.75-4:10.5 = 120.5 seconds or 45.82%

Another J can let me know if I'm missing something from "Green Hill Zone" that's being used in a way I don't necessarily recognize, but I didn't think so.

Otherwise, while I was bothered by the mixing for lacking some high-end, but I could have passed it on that level anyway. This was otherwise obviously well-produced with solid arrangement ideas. It needs a bit more Sonic theme usage to put it over the top for me on the arrangement level, which was a standards dealbreaker for me for an otherwise strong piece. Would love to see a tweaked version here that involved "Green Hill" a little more.

NO (resubmit)

EDIT (8/5): djp ID'ed more source usage, enough to put it over the top for me, so my vote is changed to YES below.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Liontamer
changed vote

[DragonAvenger]

I'm pretty much with Vinnie on this one. I think when it's there, the arrangement of the source is a lot of fun and is well thought out. The two detractors from this as a whole for passing are how long it takes to get into things, and taking that one step further on production. I do think this is just over the bar as-is, and while I wouldn't mind seeing Paul John take another pass on it I'm good seeing it up on the site unchanged as well.

YES (borderline)

[Vig]

Guys, I took another listen because no one, not even Larry, seems to agree with me, so I figured I must be crazy.

Turns out I'm not crazy. Guys, this is 100% paint by numbers. The composition is super bland, there's zero rhythmic complexity (the resolution of the bass phrasing is a whole note for god's sake), and the soundfield is just empty. The arrangement ideas show some potential, but this track needs a lot of work in terms of writing and production.

[DarkeSword]

Guys, I took another listen because no one, not even Larry, seems to agree with me, so I figured I must be crazy.

Turns out I'm not crazy. Guys, this is 100% paint by numbers. The composition is super bland, there's zero rhythmic complexity (the resolution of the bass phrasing is a whole note for god's sake), and the soundfield is just empty. The arrangement ideas show some potential, but this track needs a lot of work in terms of writing and production.

In agreement here. For a big ol' dance track, it feels awfully empty. Like Larry said, needs more source usage too. There's a lot of unrelated vamping going on. Not a bad start but it needs work.

NO

[Nutritious]

OK, I admit. I listened to this a while back but didn't put down a vote then cause I knew it would be close. Looks like now I have no choice .

As mentioned, intro does drag on pretty long. Pretty standard for a dance track, I suppose, but if you're trying to gauge source usage to original content, it hurts a bit. I'm concerned that for all the buildups and other sections, a compartively small amount of time is spent on source treatment. I did like the treatment of Sonic Zone once the main melodies do kick in.

Production-wise, I guess I can't quite identify with the big detractors here. Yes, it could've been filled out further in the big sections, frequency-wise. Perhaps the builds and flow are nothing ground-breaking for the genre. But as far as what we're looking for on the site, I think what is here is adequate.

So here's the thing. Source usage is borderline at best, leaning no. Production is arguably borderline, but I would lean yes. Close call for sure, but I've gotta side with the no camp on arrangement concerns. Tweaking that would be enough for me to pass. I could really see this one going either way if/when DJP chimes in.

NO (borderline)

[djpretzel]

Guys, I took another listen because no one, not even Larry, seems to agree with me, so I figured I must be crazy. Turns out I'm not crazy. Guys, this is 100% paint by numbers.

I disagree, if not strongly; it's certainly very STAPLE and resembling certain genre characteristics, but there's a difference between being... archetypal... and being one-dimensional, and I think this has some good stuff going on. In particular, the complementary original part writing that glues it together gels very nicely with the source, and is memorable in and of itself, plus the glue reads a bit more on the source than random unrelated soloing would, imo.

:00-:05 (Stage Clear), 1:26.5-1:55.5, 2:07.5-2:36, 2:45.25-3:15, 3:41.75-4:10.5 = 120.5 seconds or 45.82%

Another J can let me know if I'm missing something from "Green Hill Zone" that's being used in a way I don't necessarily recognize, but I didn't think so.

Well, not sure it would tip things over 50% for you, but after 3:15, I could see calling that portion source usage as well, in a looser sense... it's in the ballpark, at least.

To clarify, I do think the breakdowns and percentages are useful data, but I prefer to make a more qualitative final decision after considering the quantitative input. I ask myself, "At the end of listening to this entire track, do I feel like I've been listening to an arrangement of 'Green Hill Zone'? Would categorizing it as such mentally cause my brain any OCD grief? Would I feel absolutely compelled to add a cognitive footnote in the form of caveat or qualifier?"

When I think of it this way, which is an admittedly subjective framework that is still informed by the hard data, I end up basically saying yeah... this feels like a ReMix, first and foremost. So yeah:

YES

[Liontamer]

Well, not sure it would tip things over 50% for you, but after 3:15, I could see calling that portion source usage as well, in a looser sense... it's in the ballpark, at least.

Hey, I like being shown the light. Not on 50% though. I'm always basing that on the standards as written.

That said, on 3:15, you're right, and I'm glad you caught that. The chorus sounds too simplified on first blush, but the note pattern from 3:14-3:18 is actually derived from the first 4 notes in the source chorus (:40-:42 of "Green Hill"). Though it comes off very liberally handled, it goes on for about half of that 3:15-3:41 section, so that definitely puts it over the top.

I thought the execution was on point, and I don't get the production crits holding it back, so I'm glad djp pointed out some subtle source usage I missed. Let's go!

YES