Gario Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Your ReMixer name : dannyshock Your real name; Manu Gerber Your email address: Your website: manugerber.com Your userid: 33504 Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged: Super Metroid Name of arrangement: Save the Animals Name of individual song(s) arranged: Super Metroid Theme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vYsVk23oxA) Comment: The original score of this game is absolutely fantastic! The source is very dark, and since there are alreay a ton of orchestral arrangements out there, I went for something more 70s funk / jazz - inspired. Cheers! Manu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted March 3, 2018 Author Share Posted March 3, 2018 There is so much cheeze in this arrangement, taking something so important and somber and funkify'ing it hardcore. The active bass, supporting organ and wonky synth really creates a fun atmosphere. It really takes some interesting detours from the source material, to boot, almost foregoing it entirely from to time. This... might be an issue. Since it's so short there's technically not THAT much that you need (65s), but this sounds like it's having a time crossing that bar. 0:17 - 0:46 (29s) 1:13 - 1:40 (27s) 56s/130s (~43% source usage) I will acknowledge that some of the original material is loosely based on the source (0:49, for example has the lead playing with the rhythmic motif from the song), but that's a pretty hard sell to the common listener, and this is already a pretty generous analysis, to boot. Otherwise I think this is a really awesome arrangement, but it's pretty clearly too liberal, here. Fortnately, as this is so short it's not like you need too much more source reference material in this to get it past (you can find eight seconds of texture that you can slip some other source elements into, certainly). I really hope you do, since this is a really slick arrangement from the source otherwise. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 I'm personally of two minds when it comes to source usage. On one hand, Gario's timestamps seem accurate for overt source usage. On the other hand, there's a lot of material that is clearly derived from the source--the riffing on the motif Gario mentioned for one, but more importantly the funky bass that forms the foundation for the whole thing uses the same chord progression as the bass motif of the source and sounds like it's just a radical transformation thereof. The timestamp is only 9 seconds short, which is a large percentage of a 2:10 arrangement, but for me it's close enough given the subtle connections elsewhere. What I'm not ambivalent about is the sound palette. The guitar and drums are great, even the piano is fine (although it could be mixed more clearly) but most of the lead synths are so bland and thin that I have a hard time listening to them for any period of time. I feel the same way about some of the accompanying synths (like the organ Gario liked), but since they're not center stage, they're passable. Fortunately, I think both are fairly easy fixes. Choose some different synths to carry your leads, with more flavor and resonance, and either add 9 seconds of overt source usage to an existing section, or extend a section to add 18 seconds of overt source to the overall length, and I think this will be good to go. For now, though, NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 I gave a little more credit that Gario based on some of the brief 4-note variations clearly taken from the source that were sprinkled in beyond the two main arrangement sections. For me, they were enough to put the source usage over 50% of the track and make the VGM the dominant part of the arrangement. The track was 2:09-long, so I needed at least 64.5 seconds of overt source usage for the VGM usage to be dominant: :16.75-:45, 48.75-49.75, 52.75-53.75, 56.75-57.75, 1:00.5-1:02.5, 1:12.75-1:41, 1:44.75-1:45.75, 148.75-1:49.75, 1:52.5-1:53.5, 1:56-1:58 = 66.5 seconds or 51.55% overt source usage The arrangement is repetitive in terms of the sections, but the interpretation and integration with original writing were strong enough to mitigate that issue, so I'm OK with this as is. I didn't agree with MindWanderer at all on his production criticisms and felt it missed the forest for the trees in terms of the arrangement strength. There wasn't anything problematic in terms of any of the instrumentation, IMO, but we'll see what others think. Count me in on all levels, including the source usage squeaking by in terms of being enough. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Nice opening. Bass is pretty hot. I can hear what MW meant with his crits on the synths as the first lead has a bit of a mid-heavy + buzz tone, but you can tell care was put into sequencing to give it interest and they both jive well with the style IMO. Balancing is on point with everything coming through clearly thoughout. I overlooked it initially, but the drums have a very cool core pattern. If I'm getting nitpicky, but I think there could be some more variation on it beyond the handful of fills thrown in. Perhaps something that distinguishes the A section from the B section following it. I was also concerned about source on first listen, so thanks to the other J's for the timestamp breakdown to make it easier. Really like the adaptation to the jazzy feel. I can't say I would have ever come up with this approach this this particular source (nor how I would go about doing it), but you've managed to pull off something really creative here, while maintaining connection to the original. I think the bassline possibly was intended to be an interpretation of the backing bass from the original, but it's too much of a stretch to really count it. Still, with Larry's breakdown, I'm comfortable with source usage with the other elements. As mentioned, this track is pretty short, but what's there is solid. Ending is abrupt, but doesn't feel outside the bounds of what you might hear in this genre. Wish it was longer! YES Edit: Is it safe to assume this is a GDQ reference? If so, I respectfully rebut your title: Save the frames, kill the animals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Whoa, was not expecting this sort of sound to fit the main theme, but it’s a super fun take that hits a lot of unique areas. I can see the source usage issue, but I feel the track makes a lot of turns back to the source and I would have no issue identifying it. I thought the ending was rather abrupt and anticlimactic. I wouldn’t mind it being as short as it is but even a small build to the ending would have been a nice touch. Regardless I think this gets the job done and has plenty of style to boot. YES Edit: also save the animals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 I agree with every crit listed here, but I still think this track is good to go. Without timestamping, I feel like the source usage is dominant enough, there's no doubt about what is being remixed. I love the hybrid genre here, jazz, electro and some chippies. The mixing could surely be cleaner, and the leads could be less vanilla, but what's here gets it done. The drums and bass pattern feels a bit loopy, and the abrupt ending feels sloppy, but the overall effect is very unique and fun. Let's do this. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 Solid underlying groove. I felt the guitar during the intro was a bit stiff. The offbeat drums put me off initially but once the listener fit into the groove things felt right. In contrast, the 0:36 vibrato synth didn’t fit IMO - its spooky nature felt out of place with the rest of the soundscape, and clashed with the piano coming in around 0:50. Speaking of which, the underlying chords through the arrangement get quite dissonant at times but aren't overly jarring and do fit the partial jazz focus. The 1:43 chip tune synth was off centre panning wise which made the mix feel off balance in that section, despite this its melody fit in well. I would've liked to have heard some more of this riffing/soloing earlier in the arrangement, especially given its short length and partially repeated bars mid-arrangement. Mix ends quite abruptly and felt rushed, I feel you could've taken a few extra bars to lead us out. Great ideas in this mix, solid production effort, but overall this comes off as needing more polish in the arrangement and instrumentation. I'd like to see you revisit this and rethink some of your choices as mentioned above, you're close with this one, with more refinement you'll have a solid mix on your hands. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 I think there's some in-fighting between the different parts' grooves in this song. Some are shuffled and funky, while others like the main synth lead and guitars seem fairly straight and robotic. As for the source material, which I see some of the other J's having an issue with, I found it to be fairly noticeable even in such a genre-switch. The ending is just not good, makes it sound like it's an unfinished track. I also found that there's not much difference between the first and second half except for some flairs thrown here and there. I liked the mix of chiptune elements with the funky arrangements too. I didn't find too many production issues of note. Seems solid to me. Overall I'm pretty borderline on this one but I'll lean towards a pass. There are some issues to be found for sure but I think as a whole, the track delivers. YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts