Phoenix Wright - "Objection!" Suitable for OCR?

[Dynamite Pleasure Chair]

http://tindeck.com/listen/dhms

Source track: Phoenix Wright - Cornered

This track is from my band Dynamite Pleasure Chair's debut album "Sudden Impact". We're hoping it would be suitable for OCR but are concerned the arrangement may be too liberal. (Another track we submitted was recently judged and had this issue, though we're trying to correct it on that one.)

If it doesn't fit the guidelines, it's far too late for us to fix anything since we recorded this in a studio over a year ago, and so we don't have the stems, etc (not to mention no protools...) and even if we paid for the studio time to edit it, we'd need to re-record to integrate more of the source and that's not really an option for reasons I won't get into here.

We would appreciate any input you can provide - thanks so much for your time!

EDIT: A big part of why we're concerned is that we changed the chord progression from i / bIII / bVI / bVII to i / bIII / IV / bV which is functionally similar (T-S-S-D) but much more tense - but then we vamp on the altered progression for a good portion of the song without the main riff always being present.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Dynamite Pleasure Chair
more info

[timaeus222]

Well, considering it's only 2 minutes long, it would need a good amount of development quickly, which it has. I wouldn't say it sounds close enough to Cornered with just half the chord progression intact. Also, where's the melody? It would have been easy to include it in the lead guitar (I just hear noodling in the guitar). You don't have to, necessarily, but it makes it easier to include enough source usage without worrying about keeping the chord progression close enough.

And just to clarify, you CAN change the chord progression, but it should be accompanied with a recognizable non-chordal component such as arpeggios or melodies from the source tune so that at least SOME connection is there. You really only have four ways (that I can think of) to reference a source tune: sound design (similar sounds, or maybe drums in a drum-heavy source), chords/harmonies, melodic components (lead or arpeggios), or the bass (in

, the bass is a recognizable part of a source tune). Additionally, what happened was you took the bass line in the original and made it into chords. The bass line is already single notes, so it may suggest to stick to having the root of each chord match the bass note, which happens to be in the first two chords in the progression here). It kinda depends. Try reading this topic for some perspective. This ReMix *might* make it, borderline, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's a funny listen though. Maybe just think about it and write something new later. Edited August 8, 2014 by timaeus222

[Rozovian]

Can't listen right now, but I wanted to comment on something. "A big part of why we're concerned is that we changed the chord progression". OCR is a place where we make new arrangements. New chord progressions aren't just tolerated - they're appreciated.

The submission standards essentially state that a remix is too liberal, too unlike the original, when the source material is no longer "dominant", usually understood as a remix with less than 50% of its length being identifiable as source is too liberal (not strictly true, but a useful guideline). A remix can also be too conservative, which is when it's not enough of a new arrangement.

As I said, I can't listen to it now, I'm just clarifying this aspect of what ocr's idea of a remix ("ReMix") is.