DragonAvenger Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) Jakesnke17 Jacob Diaz http://djjd.bandcamp.com 28914 Sonic The Hedgehog 2 "Biohazard" "Chemical Plant Zone" For as long as I can remember, I've loved this tune. After hearing a wide range of remixers remix this particular source, I guess I was convinced I had to make my own reinterpretation of it. So, thanks to bLiNd, A_Rival, and PrototypeRaptor...this song was born. I started it almost two years ago, and I guess I just never really knew how to finish it. So thanks to the advice from everybody, really appreciate it. Also, this was released on Bandcamp, as part of a 4 track EP. As you might have guessed, the name of the EP is..."Biohazard EP". Here's the link: http://djjd.bandcamp.com/album/biohazard-ep Thanks. ---------------- Edited February 14, 2014 by DragonAvenger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Brief source breakdown from Jake: 0:00 - 0:53 - arranged intro 0:53 - 1:12 - more arrangement 1:12 - 1:32 - arrangement into source 1:32 - 1:59 - buildup around the source 1:59 - 3:00 - source is displayed primarily, here 3:00 - 3:32 - more arrangement to an outro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 This is the coolest song... I love it (purchased Jake's EP a few months back). Track is a win for me, but I wasn't sure about the amount of source so I asked Jake for a breakdown. I think his timestamps are accurate, and it works out to 51% source. Cutting it a little close! I would have preferred a little more source in the intro and outro instead of sandwiched in the middle (but I'm guilty of something similar myself, and it passed haha!)... also I feel like the intro phase of the song goes on a little too long for how short this track is... but it's certainly cohesive enough, and man, what a track. Jake you sure are talented. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 That first 1:12 is a nice build but has no real connection to the source, nor did the ending, which was well written and had a few rhythmic similarities, but the meat of the song itself has very little expansion from the original source besides a fresh coat of paint. I was expecting a bit more melodic and harmonic expansion, and some additional Production was pretty solid in some spots, but the low mids sound really cramped to me when some synths were in use. Between all the reverb and those synths, the headroom got eaten up really fast. 1:32ish and on is a good example of an indistinct low mid section. I think you are off to a good start, but there needs to be more melodic references in that first minute; you do a good job of teasing the source starting at 1:12, so more of that would help, and also give you more places to take the source itself once it comes in full. No, please resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Texture opened up too thin, IMO, but it wasn't a huge deal. Otherwise, I liked the energy here and thought the treatment of the source, when there, was fine. It was very structurally conservative, but the sounds was well personalized, IMO, so I didn't have any reservations there, particularly with how the chorus was handled. What I did have reservations on was the level of clear source usage. I agree with OA, that (even though I see some resemblance) I didn't glean much from the intro or outro being taken directly & overtly from the source, so I'd need further explanation. For a 3:31-long piece, I needed more than 105.5 seconds of overt source use. I had... 1:12.75-1:19.5, 1:24.5-1:26, 1:31.75-2:16.75, 2:18.75-2:23.5, 2:25.75-2:36.5, 2:38.75-2:58.75 = 88.75 seconds or 42.1% overt source usage I thought Jake's breakdown was way too generous in how he credited himself, and that the the extended intro and outro had nothing explicitly tying it to the source, which ended up making the source material non dominant in the arrangement. Putting some more overt references to the source during the intro and/or outro would put this securely over the line. I'm open to being shown how the start and finish work with the source with A-to-B writing comparisons (Jake? Chimpa?), but I'm definitely... doubtful as to if those connections are close enough. Unless I'm shown something else, I'm a NO. NO (resubmit) EDIT (2/15) - Aight, Jake added in lots of stuff to the intro & outro, so we're good. easily heard - :12.75-:16, :19.25-:23, 3:04.5-3:16, 3:18-3:25 quiet - :25.5-:30.5, :32-:37.5, 2:59-3:03 very quiet - :39-:44, :45.5-:50, 1:05-1:10 barely heard - :52.5-:57, :59-1:04 More source = more YES Edited February 16, 2014 by Liontamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Ok... so I've spoken with Jake, and he wants to add source motifs to the intro and outro. He's traveling home from helping Xarnax42 move from Alaska to Indiana, so it may be a few days or so before he gets to it. Let's put this on hold for him. edit: Jake updated the track super fast. He has added quite a bit of source motif work into the intro and outro. I'll leave it to Larry to do his stopwatch thing. My YES stands, so good luck Jake. Edited February 14, 2014 by Chimpazilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 New version, also in first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Liking the style here. I'm listening to both versions for the first time now and v2 definitely is more clear in the intro connections to the source. Good use of source parts and a good amount of personalization as well. I felt like the intro itself went on for quite a long time, encompassing 1:30 of a 3:30 song (really only hitting full melodic stride at 2:15). Hot beatz at 2:00. Love the energy from the percussion. Production on the whole is nice. Aforementioned drums are a little overpowering to other elements, but by no means a dealbreaker. Overall, the piece essentially is slowly evolving around the same motif until we get our first meaningful changeup/breakdown at 2:40. Given the fact that this section immediately precedes the outro makes the track come off as underdeveloped to me. If the track were longer and reprised the themes, I think this extended build could be justified. It felt like things should have come right back into it at 2:25, but instead the song just ends there. It's a close call for me. It hits the needed points on arrangement and production, I just think musicially it could've gone further. YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 This takes a little time to get where it's going, but there are lots of interesting detours along the way. I appreciate how the source is handled (especially the halftime sections) but the intro is a tad long, especially for a 3:32 song. Apart from the gripe, I really liked what Jake gave us here. Great arpeggios coloring in the soundscape, smooth groove. Yea, I say. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts