DarkeSword

Mega Man X: The Sigma Fortress Remix Gauntlet 2015

Recommended Posts

Listening party in 15 minutes, #ocrcompo channel on irc.esper.net

Any logs for us poor sleeping stragglers? :)

On a related note: I think these listening parties are good fun to keep the spirit of the compo up, to enjoy some nice bantering and, as a participant, get some cool feedback on your track :) Entertaining and I learn stuff from it every time, if even only through the logs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit behind on my track.  So far I've managed to complete my tracks with a whole day to spare, but seems like this one will come down to the wire.  I think I will end on a strong note though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[17:17] <Garpocalypse> live sax or vst?

[17:18] <Garpocalypse> is it 8dio? i want it

It's vst; unfortunately Joe (XPRTNovice) was too busy to help out on such short notice. The sax is from NI Session Horns Pro, the solo alto sax.

 

[17:19] <WillRock> did you hear the rickroll

[17:19] <WillRock> I didn’t hear the rickroll

Guess I was too subtle :P For completeness sake, here's 4 sneaky references:

  • the intro (0:00-0:03) lead
  • the chorus (e.g. 1:03-1:32) has a 'never gonna give' backing vocal; also heard in the break starting from 2:17
  • the last verse (3:01) has 'never gonna give you up' backing vocals; probably too subtle to hear :P
  • the last verse also has this sub lead that plays the 'Never Gonna Give You Up' chorus lead

 

I'll get it cleaned up after-compo (there's some timing issues and the mix needs some more TLC) and submit it to the judges to find out what they think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<timaeus222> hm, maybe Supercoolmike got Damage?

 

 

I did recently get Damage, but it wasn't used on my mix.

 

<WillRock> lol I think I was a bit harsh on that last song, sorry supercoolmike

 

Nonsense! Like I tell my teammates. Feedback (whether it be good or bad) be my nutrients to live. XD

 

 

Looks like I still had some kinks I needed to work on but I'm glad it was still enjoyable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad people enjoyed my vocals this round. 
I had to make sure that I reprised my vocal role again. ;) And what Tuberz song would it be without a blatant ripoff of another fantastic song. 
10 points for anyone who gets the reference. 

Submitting now cause timezones be fucked yo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a busy week for me, both with work and social stuff, so I've only really had a couple afternoons to sit down and think about this track. I'll be submitting later tonight, and it's not going to be a properly finished song, but it's at least got some cool concepts in there for me. Good to compete against you all! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there will be a song from me this week. It's been a very tough and long week and I've had a handful of things go wrong, so I've had no time at all to work on anything. Sorry guys :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads-up; part of my track will contain a dark interpretation of a light melody. Hopefully you guys don't discredit source usage for not being note-for-note. If it reminds you of the source, give it a chance. :P Both sources are in a different key than my track, and faster than my track, so also keep that in mind.

 

As for source usage, almost all of the track contains the sources. The repeated motifs that I put upfront in the soundscape are either the Cyber Peacock or Gauntlet melodies (except for 1:20 - 1:27 in the track). Usually I have the harp/piano or a lead instrument playing the source.

 

Rough Source Breakdown:

0:11 - 0:33 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27)

0:34 - 0:55 = Sigma Fortress 2 (0:15 - 0:29)

0:58 - 1:01, 1:04 - 1:07 = Sigma Fortress 2 (0:46 - 0:48)

1:08 - 1:20 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27) layered with Sigma Fortress 2 (0:46 - 0:48) [darker mood]

1:27 - 1:34 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27) [darker mood]

1:45 - 2:08 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27)

2:08 - 2:31 = Sigma Fortress 2 (0:15 - 0:29)

2:31 - 2:50 = Cyber Peacock (0:16 - 0:27) [darker mood]

 

11 + 21 + 3 + 3 + 12 + 7 + 23 + 23 + 19

= 122/172 secs = ~71%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I've asked this before, but why do people post source usage like its a metric?

 

Perhaps this is just because I'm coming from an outside perspective and I'm around musicians a lot in my profession and go to magfest, but the concept seems confusing to me. Do you guys come up with your source usage while you are writing or is it kind of an after-the-fact thing?

 

If its the former, writing to source usage like that seems like it would make creative expression rather difficult and rigid on a liberal side, and would distort the ability for a bystander to recognize the source from a conservative side.  If it's the latter, why do so many of you guys compile this metric? It seems like songwriting, flow, arrangement, mixing quality, novelty factor, mastering, etc. would be the more important components of a mix than its source usage %, yet I see more people post that than I do the former.

 

Kind of curious to learn the thinking behind it and why some of ya'll do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure it out after I finish writing the track, but I do it to show people what my intentions were with using each source. If I'm not even substantially arranging VGM in a VGM remixing competition, then would I really have written a VGM remix? Or would I have written an original track with VGM influences? (rhetorical)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many ways to arrange a piece, and in my experience as a listener it's not always all that obvious. For example, changing keys/modes or chopping up the source to elements and reshuffling them, or something like that is not always easy to pick up. Then a source usage breakdown can really help to spot what was done. Often times I go "a-ha!" and it clicks for me, and I hear the connection. Sometimes even afterwards I go "nah, I still don't recognize the original here".

 

Either way, because the main thing to base your voting in this competition is how both sources were arranged together, source breakdowns from the arranger can really help. Of course, this doesn't necessarily have much to do with how enjoyable the music is (to me personally) or how technically competent it is, though I'll admit those things do influence my voting. I'll basically figure out the contenders for my top 3 based on do they arrange the themes together well enough (including how well they "flow" together and if they're free of "harmonic mistakes" resulting from combining the sources), then if it's particularly clever from the arrangement perspective, they're likely to place higher, but from there on I'll just pick the tunes I liked the best. Even if the track didn't really arrange both (or either) of the tunes together prominently, I might still enjoy it musically but I wouldn't vote for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I basically do it for 2 reasons: show you guys where I used which parts of which source (which is helpful for voting if you're not fully familiar with the sources) and I'm considering submitting (some of) them to OCR. For the latter a source breakdown + an idea of the amount of source reference (like timaeus did in percentages) helps out the judges and it also gives you an idea if you have enough source usage in there (if you don't have a lot of source usage, chances are the judges won't accept it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I've asked this before, but why do people post source usage like its a metric?

 

Perhaps this is just because I'm coming from an outside perspective and I'm around musicians a lot in my profession and go to magfest, but the concept seems confusing to me. Do you guys come up with your source usage while you are writing or is it kind of an after-the-fact thing?

 

If its the former, writing to source usage like that seems like it would make creative expression rather difficult and rigid on a liberal side, and would distort the ability for a bystander to recognize the source from a conservative side.  If it's the latter, why do so many of you guys compile this metric? It seems like songwriting, flow, arrangement, mixing quality, novelty factor, mastering, etc. would be the more important components of a mix than its source usage %, yet I see more people post that than I do the former.

 

Kind of curious to learn the thinking behind it and why some of ya'll do it.

To be quite honest, I find this practice pretty silly.  I never write this kind of second-by-second metric because music isn't meant to be treated like that, measured by a ruler.  I want people to listen to the music and never think of how much I used the source between mark 1:02 and mark 1:05.  Music should speak for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be quite honest, I find this practice pretty silly.  I never write this kind of second-by-second metric because music isn't meant to be treated like that, measured by a ruler.  I want people to listen to the music and never think of how much I used the source between mark 1:02 and mark 1:05.  Music should speak for itself.

It's how Shariq feels too, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Sure, music isn't meant to be analyzed for source usage, but it is really helpful if it happens to be convoluted usage. Not everyone writes straightforward remixes, and the more interpretive tracks shouldn't be discredited if they're valid interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's how Shariq feels too, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Sure, music isn't meant to be analyzed for source usage, but it is really helpful if it happens to be convoluted usage. Not everyone writes straightforward remixes, and the more interpretive tracks shouldn't be discredited if they're valid interpretations.

 

As I said, music should speak for itself, in my opinion.  If the listener can't hear the source, it's my fault, not the listener's.  I should've done a better job at representing the original in a more recognizable manner.  I find silly that someone should need to read a second-by-second metric to be able to tell where the source is being used.  Specially since people voting here are for the most part musicians who should recognize key changes and complex arrangements more than the general public.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.