Emunator Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 Even with the provided breakdown, the source usage is escaping me here. Someone who's more familiar with Mega Man should have an easier time verifying the breakdown. Guitar is noticeably fake but pretty well sequenced regardless - I like what I'm hearing ~ Emu Remixer name: Nostalvania Name of Game: Mega Man 3 Name of arrangement : Don't Look Back Name of individual song: Dr. Wily stage 3-4 Source: https://youtu.be/iNM7ydpIysE ReMix: https://app.box.com/s/2sd0o2gvvc3unts3q7n6nmoegnu5wxrq Hey OCR! Here is a Jazz ReMix of the Dr. Wily stages 3 and 4 from Mega Man 3. This is an improved version of an arrangement which i made for the Dwelling of Duels competition in July 2015. The theme was Mega Man 2 vs. Mega Man 3 (MM 3 won btw). The arrangement is in 5/4 and 3/4 alternating. It also changes back and forth between even eights and swing feeling. Source breakdown 00:00 - 00:12 Intro, melody of B (sort of, fragmented) 00:12 - 00:39 Melody of A 00:40 - 00:46 Interlude, short piano solo 00:47 - 01:14 A 01:14 - 01:25 Interlude, short guitar solo 01:25 - 01:42 Melody B (I had to change some of the notes in order to match the new chord progressions) 01:42 - 02:57 Guitar solo 02:20 - 02:28 Melody (A) in piano comping 02:33 - 02:42 Melody (A) in piano comping 02:58 - 03:14 B 03:15 - 03:21 Interlude (Groove) 03:21 - 03:38 A 03:21 - 03:25 Melody 03:27 - 03:31 Melody 03:34 - 03:38 Melody 03:38 - 03:47 Ending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 This is some real classic playing from Nostalvania, jazzy and full of rich sounding chords. The piano work is great, and the guitar part was very well done. The shifting meters are especially effective - never an easy thing to do, for sure. As far as jazz goes, this is a top notch performance. The arrangement is neat, and I give you full credit for doing a lot of neat things with the source (expanding the ascent with an extra beat using 5/4 sounds really cool, for example). However, the part of the source that you arrange most heavily is the second half of the source, which is basically ascending steps for a solid portion of it. For an arrangement that takes as many liberties with the source as this one does (when it's there), that presents the problem that the source isn't uniquely "Wily" anymore. A lot of songs use a rising step pattern, with only harmonies, tempo, rhythm and meter to distinguish it from everything else, so when you take away the harmonies, tempo, rhythm and meter, it leaves us with little to identify it as uniquely "Wily" anymore. Mind you, this wouldn't be a big deal if there was more of the source in there to distinctly make this Wily (changing the source around this much is actually pretty clever), but a breakdown shows this isn't the case. 0:00 - 0:12 - Piano plays a variation of the first two strikes of the first section of the source (difficult to make this connection, though - again, stepping down is a common motion) 0:13 - 0:37 - Guitar plays the second half of the source (the ascent is difficult to hear as Wily, the latter half is less ambiguous) 0:38 - 0:47 - Filler/no source 0:48 - 1:12 - Similar to guitar part earlier, same concerns 1:13 - 1:25 - Filler/no source 1:26 - 1:42 - Piano playing a variation of main theme 1:43 - 2:57 - Solos playing over harmonies established throughout the song, little to no reference to the source (NOTE: I hear the raising source where you mentioned in the piano, here, but there is virtually no way to tell that's specifically what you're referring to without being told so - contour without notes/chords/rhythm/meter simply distorts it beyond recognition) 2:58 - 3:14 - Piano playing a variation of main theme 3:15 - 3:20 - Filler/no source 3:21 - 3:40 - Guitar playing a truncated form of the climax (just playing the rising notes, could be mistaken as texture) 3:41 - 4:01 - Ending filler (no reference to source) Total source: 1:52 (out of 4:01 - ~46%) Again, this is the best case scenario, source-wise - almost half of that could be mistaken for a myriad of other tunes that use the same stepping-up motion. I love this song, but as it stands I'm going to have to say NO, for now. There is plenty of opportunity to expand source usage throughout, though - the soloing could have more references to the more distinct first half of the source in the piano or solo, and the fills could actually imply portions of the source, as well, instead of relying on the original harmonies and beats you've established. It's a great song, and I hear what you were doing, but there isn't quite enough source as it stands now. I hope to hear a resub of this, though.NO (RESUB) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I love this arrangement, but I have to agree with Gario, it's very hard to justify sections like 01:42 - 02:57 as source. I'm very familiar with this song as I've remixed it before, and I really would have to stretch it quite a lot to say that the backings sound like Melody A there. As Gario pointed out it's vague enough that it could really be anything. It's really a pity because I enjoyed this a lot, the performances have soul and the mixing is clear enough. The signature changes are flawless and really keep the interest going. I would love a resubmit with more recognizable source in there. Even if we could somehow justify the faint hints of source pointed out in our votes, most of the track just doesn't feel like it's referencing the original material. Really lovely remix but please include clearer hints to the source or work out your interpretation to represent it better, and I will most assuredly give it a pass. Until then, NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaMonz Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 This is very, very nice! Everything in the execution is definitely awesome. There's a lot of great detail work in there throughout, and I particularly like the piano and drums. The synth guitar was also well done, although I have to say a live performance would probably make this even better. There's really nothing else to say on the actual execution, though, in my opinion. Solid work. I have to agree about the source usage, though. The direct references to the theme were good, but, as pointed out by Gario's source breakdown, are not enough to make this acceptable for the submission standards. Please consider reworking the arrangement to make the source more recognizable in your track, as this is definitely very good. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts