*NO* Splatoon 'New Squid in Town'

[Chimpazilla]

Contact Information

ReMixer name: AceMan
Real name: Jakub Szeląg
Website: http://www.JuicyCube.net

Submission Information

Link: 
Name of game(s) arranged: Splatoon
Name of arrangement: New Squid In Town
Name of individual song(s) arranged: "Plaza"
Additional information: Original composer is Toru Minegishi
 

 

Edited September 12, 2016 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Gario]

The source is pretty sparse, so it's interesting to see someone get a 5+ minute arrangement out of it. The overall production quality is solid on it, with some real meaty choices as far as synths and drums go. Most of the mixing is clear (though I'd argue some of the sound effects from the game get too loud, from time to time).

This is a very interesting approach to arranging remix, and honestly on the surface it works wonders. Taking the texture of a source and adding your own themes and motifs on top of it works great, as far as making a cohesive piece of music, and I enjoyed it quite a lot. However, this entire arrangement gets dangerously close to using the literal source as the sole reference to the source in many places of this arrangement, and it simultaneously hits a bit of a grey area, as far as source usage.

Quote

• Taking the original game audio and simply adding drum loops or using an existing MIDI file and assigning new instruments does not qualify as substantial or original arrangement.
  ...
• While interpretation and original additions are encouraged, arrangement must not modify the source material beyond recognition.

It's an unusual case where both of these could apply, even though logically one would contradict the other. The literal source is sampled throughout the track (utilizing pitch adjustment in order to fit with the arrangement, as needed), and the arrangement takes that source material and explores a great deal of original material. I legitimately could swing either way on this - there IS obvious reference to the source, but the method of referring to the source could be problematic. The track, while cohesive, DOES cover a great deal of new territory, almost at no point is that original texture lost (though it's used as just that - texture). If I followed the letter of the law it's arguably in conflict with that first rule, and if I follow the spirit of the law there's a decent argument that it breaks the second rule. I would appreciate a few more opinions on this before I give it a final vote, as if either one or the other of these are in conflict my advice to address it will be completely different.

Aside from these potential conflicts I'd probably give this a pass - the production is pretty slick, and the arrangement (again, if it doesn't actually break any rules) is solid.

---

[Gario]

Alright, I took another look at this (seeing that it hasn't gotten any attention since my initial request), so instead of gathering a consensus I'm instead going to give a vote, justify the reasoning and see if anyone agrees or disagrees.

First and foremost, as far as production goes, this track is quite solid. I'n not 100% sold on the beginning and ending bookends of the track. I understand what he's going for (kind of like listening to the source on the radio, then having this version pop out on the listener), but... eh. It didn't sound well enough defined in any particular direction to really sell me on it. If you're going to sound like a radio, really make it sound like a radio (like Mustin did for 'Needles'), or if you're just going for a more lo-fi sound, don't muddy it with other anonymous sounds. It just didn't seem to go enough in any direction. It's a small point to hammer on, but I wanted to be clear on that.

Now, as far as the arrangement goes, it's really something else - it takes the source and builds on it, really making it into something new. The form of the arrangement does divert itself away from the source in order to develop its own themes more, but on its own I don't think that's a problem, as long as there's enough source in the track to carry it.

There's one thing that can present an issue, and that's the use of the source itself as a sample quite often in the track. It's not prominent for most of the time it's present, and often suppliments the track's own version of the source, but there are times where this is the only connection to the source, as well. I'm going to do two breakdowns of source usage for this: one that includes the sample, and one that does not include said sample.

With sample:

0:05 - 0:31 (Sample)
0:31 - 0:48 (Sample)
0:48 - 1:17
1:17 - 1:19 (Sample)
1:19 - 2:23
2:23 - 2:52 (Sample)
2:55 - 3:58 (Sample)
4:03 - 4:34 (Sample)
4:34 - 5:06
5:06 - 5:38 (Sample)

327 / 347 seconds

~94.2%

Needless to say, with the sample included there's more than enough source to cover this track. However, if we make the call to remove the sample, this is how it would stand.

0:48 - 1:17
1:19 - 1:51
1:51 - 2:23
2:23 - 2:54
4:34 - 5:06

187 / 347 seconds

~45%

A hint under, but push come to shove I think many of the parts could be rewritten using whatever synths you already have available, if necessary.

It's a very tough call, and I've been sitting on this for a while now thinking about it. On the first point it's still debatable. The second point is an easy pass if the first point is okay, and if not the track is designed to have the source included in many places, so it wouldn't be hard for the arranger to include it as he has elsewhere when the source isn't playing in the background.

Personally, I think the sample alone doesn't break the track, and I still stand on the side of the fence where if it's utilized in a clever manner it should be alright, as long as it doesn't include any Square Enix material. For that reason I'm going to call it a pass.

That being said, IF this does get rejected due to using the source as much as this track does, I will give the recommendation that the intro and outro be removed, as well, unless the arranger decides to recompose said parts (0:00 - 0:30 & 5:24 - 5:47). These two parts will not make much sense without the sample, so I'm throwing that out there. The rest of the song would work alright without the source, though a few parts would have less connection to the source than they do now (such as 2:55 - 3:58), so some special attention will need to be made in order to connect the source utilizing instruments that you are already using to play the source when it's not sampled.

Regardless, if others agree with my vote then that's a moot point, but I want to make sure this gets resub'd if it's rejected, because this is a really, really cool arrangement, with some very clever part writing throughout. I love it, so nice work on that.

YES

[Liontamer]

Direct audio sampling is a matter of context. There are almost no context where the audio itself can be extensively sampled yet transformed enough to be considered arrangement, but it has happened. As I've said there, it's a difficult formula to pull off, particularly to use sampled audio in a way that reflects arrangement. I don't feel this Splatoon mix does that, so that option's off the table.

The other option is simply having a piece that would pass on dominant source usage with the arranged material even when all of the direct audio sampling were removed. A good example of this outside of OCR that I've referenced before is Juha Kaunisto's "Zoids Revisited" at Remix.Kwed.Org, which samples the original audio heavily for the intro and particularly for the extended outro. Meanwhile, in the middle is a completely developed rock/synth arrangement. In that case, the original audio sampling is extensive but isn't leaned on as a crutch to provide the connections to the original music, and there's already a large piece of the track that's interpretive arrangement.

This doesn't meet that kind of criteria, already shown by Gario's breakdown. I timed it out a little differently. The track was 5:35-long (discounting some of the intro/outro without music), so I needed at least 167.5 seconds of source tune usage from the arranged material for the source tune to be dominant.

0:47.5-1:17, 1:19-2:23.5, 4:35.25-5:07.25 = 126 seconds or 37.61% overt arranged source usage

I disagreed that 2:23.5-2:53.5 section was directly referencing the source. All I heard were rhythmic similarities, but not the same note patterns as the source. With such a simple source tune, it's easier to veer into soundalike territory when attempting to arrange it.

I thought 2:55-4:03's section felt totally disconnected from everything that came before and after it; it broke the flow of the piece and just sounded awkwardly shoe-horned in. The sampled source audio behind it was so quiet that it was practically inaudible, so I don't know why it was even counted in Gario's timestamps.

Production-wise and in a vacuum, this is a perfectly fine track (aside from the middle original section feelingly stylistically disconnected from the rest of the piece), but there's too much reliance on the direct audio sampling of the source tune to provide the connections to it. We may need to run this by djp and/or update the Standards language to better clarify what's specifically discouraged, but in order for me to pass this, a decent chunk of the direct audio sampling would need to traded out for more arranged usage of the source tune.

What's here is a strong start. Jakub, if you have no interest in updating this to better fit OCR's arrangement standards, that's no problem; first and foremost, you should always be making the music you yourself want to make. That said, if this was something you were open to and you felt like potential updates could also improve the piece overall, then come back to this one.

NO

[Chimpazilla]

Sources like this one are great to remix, since it is pretty much just bgm, and one can build an entire new track right over the top of it.  I can tell that is what you tried to do here.  Unfortunately most of it comes off as really repetitive, even with little snippets of other motifs/melodies included.  The glitching and drum fills are quite good.

I agree with Larry 100% on these two points:

-------------------------------

"I disagreed that 2:23.5-2:53.5 section was directly referencing the source. All I heard were rhythmic similarities, but not the same note patterns as the source. With such a simple source tune, it's easier to veer into soundalike territory when attempting to arrange it."

"I thought 2:55-4:03's section felt totally disconnected from everything that came before and after it; it broke the flow of the piece and just sounded awkwardly shoe-horned in. The sampled source audio behind it was so quiet that it was practically inaudible, so I don't know why it was even counted in Gario's timestamps."

-------------------------------

I love radio intros, but I'm not sure how well it is working here, the first 30 seconds just sounds like quiet, crackly mush, then the track just whomps in cold.  

The production is pretty good here.  I think the arrangement just isn't cutting it.  It is too repetitive overall to maintain my interest, and the arrangement wanders away from the source too much to maintain a good connection to it throughout the track.  For a source tune such as this one, I'd suggest doing a shorter and more varied remix unless you can come up with multiple unique ways to write original and/or complimentary material over the backing track.

NO

[Nutritious]

I'm gonna end up echoing some statements above, but Larry and Kris hit a lot of the point I was planning on making.

The intro idea works in theory, but execution here felt a bit lacking.  The actual music feels too marginalized and washed-out by the noise and sfx.  It's so distant, it sounds like the track isn't properly mastered until the beat kicks in around :31.

Brief watery breakdown at 1:51 felt a bit out of place, but was gone pretty quick.  Transition at 2:55 though felt totally non-sequitur to the part preceding it.  If you could smooth out the transition to link the two sections better, it would help the listener make the mental leap along with you.

Based on OCR arrangement standards, the amount of direct audio sampling is problematic here as it makes up a lot of the source connection present.  Standards aside, this is a solidly produced track and a cool tribute to the original.

NO

[Jivemaster]

I can appreciate the remixes' use of sampling to facilitate the breaking through the original track concept. From a pure music level, it sounds good and fits well together. However I don't feel the sampling across the track is really required or achieving something that couldn't be built from scratch. Personally I would've preferred you sample to get yourself through the intro, then let it go on it's own from there into your original territory. There is a lot to like about the extra stuff you've thrown in, and honestly I don't know why your mix couldn't be completely driven by this. I thought the progression of the arrangement was otherwise ok, and the sounds were punchy and crisp.

I personally would love to hear some additional work done on this to tie this back to the source in your own way. There are some nice ideas here and a great foundation to build something a little more creative.

NO