Sign in to follow this  
Chimpazilla

OCR03449 - *YES* Doom "Helljam II"

Recommended Posts

Leave it to Redg to make an evil, creepy sounding source seem friendly and tame compared to his remix!  This mix is no exception.  I feel like I'm in the bowels of hell listening to this.

The source starts out with two chords (after the drum intro), and the remix starts out with two chords also, they are in the same key but not the same chords (source chords are minor, Redg's are major which makes the remix even creepier).   I'm honestly not sure if this chord structure counts.  Somebody help me here.  At 1:16, all hell breaks loose rhythmically, it's cool but what the heck is going on here, if I try to keep the beat it looks like I'm having a seizure. 

There's no source melody until 2:35.  I love the sad, resonant, whiny synth playing the lead, it makes me lose all hope.  The melody is there loosely from 2:35 until the end at 3:48.  The melody is playing for 73 seconds out of 228 for the entire mix, or 32%.  Someone tell me what you think about whether the chords can be counted, because otherwise this cool/odd jam is just too source light for me.

 edit 3/15/16:  Thank you Larry for helping to qualify if those chords count.  If it works for Larry, it works for me.  I will just add that it makes for a really tough call when the source is marginalized to this extent.

YES (borderline on source)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to agree with Kris here, I'm not hearing anything identifiable as source until 2:35. It's just too long to have before you get into things and the source usage is too short. It's definitely creepy though and you've got a great mood!

No (resubmit) (changed below)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty damn awesome, I loved the dark feeling and the organized disarray of it all.  The sound design was sick and those amped feedback sounds can cut through flesh.  If this didn't have a beat this would fit right at home in a horror movie scene.  Sadly I do have to agree with Kris and Deia, there's really not that much Doom in this.  What little there is is really awesome and unsettling, but its not enough for a remix.

vote changed below

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I didn't agree with you guys on the lack of source at all.

:01-:37 - static-y line doing slower two-note pattern of source's opening vox line
:37-:52 - melody added
:52-1:09 - low strings doing slower two-note pattern of source's opening vox line
1:28-1:53.5 - lo-fi line doing source's melody, dropping in and out, but present enough for me to count
2:21-3:31 - source melody loud and clear

1:09-1:28 - mostly original material
1:53.5-2:21 lo-fi line doing source's melody, dropping in and out even more, not present enough for me to count

What I'm counting - :01-1:09, 1:28-1:53.5 (quiet), 2:21-3:31 = 164.5 seconds or 76.86% overt source usage

Just the melody - :37-:52, 1:28-1:53.5 (quiet), (1:44-2:21 - too quiet/phasing), 2:21-3:31 - 110.5 seconds or 51.63% invokes the source melody

I didn't feel this was a case like Metroid "Lucre" where parts of the track using the source had the source so marginalized that I couldn't count it as dominant usage. This was a creepy, abstract presentation that transformed the mood of the source a lot, but used it pretty consistently. The two-note pattern is pretty simplistic, but that's how it's explicitly used in the source, so I don't have a problem with it at all. I strongly urge folks to reconsider these NOs, this is just way off the mark.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to add in my vote, I don't think the source is dominant enough, and those notes could be any other number of sources. The mood is great, but I don't think it recognizable enough.

 

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is quite divisive.

I agree that source is sparse, here's what I'm making of it:

0:01-0:52 - Intro chords are quite reminiscent of the source's chord sequence, enough for me to count them in
0:52-2:21 - I honestly cannot say anything in there makes the source material easily recognizable
2:21-3:31 - Source melody

This means 121 seconds of source material out of 214 - 56.5%, source checks out for me.

I have to say, though, that the arrangement is putting me off. This may be going in personal preference grounds here, but trying to stay as objective as possible, I'm feeling like this arrangement just isn't working. I don't think it's cohesive at all. The transitions are abrupt, there's very little flow to the piece. it's very much "Part A then Part B then Part C" with very little correlation between those parts. I also have to say that the super strong kick taking *all* the space every now and then on an irregular basis was very annoying to me.

The mood is good, but even though I think source (barely) checks out, the disjointed arrangement and the space-eating kick are too much of a bother for me to pass this.

NO

EDIT: I feel like the new version is a very slight improvement regarding my crits on the previous revision, but I still think this lacks a great deal of cohesion, and the irregular space-eating kick is still a huge problem for me. My vote stays unchanged, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost always defer to Larry on source usage, but I don't count what he does here. The two-note melody is the same as the Doom track, but I don't think it's enough to count when the chords are so different. I never would have put it together because of how different it sounds. The melody is actually just those same two notes plus a few to connect them, but that's enough that I count those sections. I didn't hear the melody at 1:28-1:53.5 - it sounded like just the two notes, but played on the instrument that handles the melody later. Overall, what I would count is 0:37-0:52 and 2:21-3:31, which is not enough to be dominant.

I also agree with DaMonz that the arrangement didn't do much for me, unlike some of Redg's previous tracks. The sounds were a little irritating and the track was more disjointed than usual. Sorry, bud. I'll leave this open in case anyone wants to reconsider their vote.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's a tough break that the melody's obscured as the notes transition at 1:40 and 1:48 due to fading that lead in and out. That wouldn't change anything for me, but you have a point that it may just be the chords.

I'll just say that not counting the transposed chords in the mix is, in effect, punishing the arrangement for the source tune's opening being simple, which doesn't make sense for me. OK, so instead of B-C, it's E-F, plus there's no credit given to the timing of it also matching the source, which is pretty important. He's still explicitly referencing it, and that's what counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just to put in my 2c: i figured the jaggedness would be off-putting to some, but i didnt expect this to get held up for source. i felt that the chord progression, which is dominant thruout, was connected to the source. even tho the original is a simple two chord deal, it has a clear musical identity which i establish in the intro.

 

anyway, it is what it is, no hard feelings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2016 at 7:01 PM, Clem said:

just to put in my 2c: i figured the jaggedness would be off-putting to some, but i didnt expect this to get held up for source. i felt that the chord progression, which is dominant thruout, was connected to the source. even tho the original is a simple two chord deal, it has a clear musical identity which i establish in the intro.

 

anyway, it is what it is, no hard feelings

@Clem: Any chance you'd be willing to revisit this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On it's own, I think it has a unique soundscape, which really drives a haunting tone that the original couldn't achieve. So much of it comes from both the use of the changed key and chords (which are ambiguous, interestingly enough - only two notes define the primary "chord"), that I can't justify making the artist change them directly. I agree with Larry that changing the chords themselves doesn't necessarily change the rest of the patterns that those two chords have that link it to the source.

Those chords do move in a very different way than the source does, though, which does make it trickier to link it to the source. Whereas the contour of the source steps down, this arrangement has the chord step up. I know what you're going for, but it's still pretty tenuous particularly because of this point.

That being said, if that chordal motion is considered source the arrangement is saturated with source.

0:00 - 0:51    - Chord motion from the source
0:52 - 1:09    - Same chord motion, but reduced to individual notes
1:10 - 1:26    - Arpeggiated chords, but it's the same chords, same motion, same source
1:27 - 2:20    - Melody placed on top of arpeggiation, albiet a bit broken up
2:21 - 3:34    - Theme on top of the prior chords

That's prior to the update - you've added plenty of melodic riffs in the pure chordal sections that refer directly to the melody of the source (like at 0:35-0:51, for example). That helps this track considerably, as far as source usage goes.

The mixing and production is impeccable, by the way - great work on that front.

I'm a bit skeptical on the chord motions, but I feel that there is enough melody on top to consider it enough, for source usage. We'll see if the other judges feel it's enough, but I think it's acceptable. If it gets tossed back again, I would consider simply changing the direction the chord moves - that would make the connection far more obvious than it is, now.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely feel like the source is more dominant here now, I'm good to give this a go. Still iffy on the opening up to 1:27 being considered source, but I think there's enough in the rest to make up for it! Thanks for the revision!

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need @Palpable, @OA, and/or @Sir_NutS to weigh in on the updated version to see if the added melodic usage puts them over the top. Will gladly take some other Js voting as well, but it would be good to have at least one more J who voted NO be OK with the changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's more source in the new version, and now It sounds more like a Doom remix.  I think Emery had some valid points on the disjointed feeling of the track... but given the source material there's really not much to work with here.  I think this will be a divisive track regarding the sound design (which I'm sure will be very annoying to some people) and arrangement (which is a bit iffy) when/if it gets posted, but for me the new version complies with our standards now.

YES

Share this post


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