*NO* Mega Man 2 "Dr. Wily Castle - MNSTR"

[Gario]

Note: If passed, this will need another name.

Another note: I'm aware that there's some original audio in this, however it doesn't take too much space in the track, and the source is represented in non-sampled areas. It's a debatable case whether or not it's a NO OVERRIDE scenario, so please judge accordingly.

- Gario

Artist name: MNSTR

My Name: Angel Cedeno

Email: 

Website: https://soundcloud.com/user-306499432

 

Game: Mega Man 2

Name of arrangement: Dr. Wily's Castle - MNSTR

Name of song: Dr. Wily's Castle

Edited July 6, 2019 by Liontamer
closed decision

[MindWanderer]

The source usage is indeed a problem.  A whole lot is directly ripped--I disagree that it doesn't "take up too much space"--and 1:19-3:11 is original content that keeps only the source's (very basic) bass line and chord progression.  When you look at the amount that uses the source at the level we expect, it's only 0:22-1:07 and 3:36-4:20, or 33% of the arrangement.  And the second of those sections is what sounds like an exact repeat of the first.

Any one of those issues--a long original section, a moderate amount of sampling, a lengthy repeated section--would be fine, but when you take all that out there's only about 45 seconds of what we primarily look for.  I really liked the original riffing in the middle, the production is solid, the voice samples are used appropriately (though the use of both English and Japanese was confusing).  Trim the fat and I'd love to see this on the site.  But I have to give this version a

NO (resubmit)

[Gario]

That "original section" ain't original material - the bassline is definitely a connection, and the material on top is subtractively based on the theme of the source - I'm going to disagree that the whole 1:19 - 3:11 is too liberal for OCR purposes, here. It DOES get static and boring after some time, though, to which the near repetition that occurs at 2:28 - 3:11 of the 1:49 - 2:28 section; that part could easily be removed without any significant impact to the arrangement. I do agree with the repetition at 3:36 - 4:20 being a poor choice, and the fact that there's no actual ending to the track doesn't help, either - it just ends on what's traditionally the middle of the source, and is unsettling.

I don't mind the source sampling of the source too much - it's pretty minimal, I understand the arranger is establishing expectations with them, and they do their job well enough. The strange vocal clips in the middle of the track are pretty distracting, though, and benefit the track in no meaningful way (and this is coming from a guy who generally likes sampling in music).

I think this is pretty close, but the repetition, static portion in the middle, poor ending & odd vocal samples take this one out of postability for me. Tighten up that middle section (either by removing part of the middle section or changing it up so it isn't so static), give that last portion some more variety, change out / remove the odd vocal samples and give this a proper ending and I could see this one having a nice spot on the front page. It does have a nice punch to the drums, the production is pretty good, and the synths used are crisp, so there are definitely great things about this one.

Hope that helps, and I hope to hear an update on this one.

NO

[Sir_NutS]

Let's address the source sampling first: I counted around 56 seconds of direct source sampling, which amounts to around 21% of this track.  1/5th of the track being straight up sampled, with nothing on top is pushing it, and I don't think we have a metric for how much is too much, but this certainly feels very close to a direct reject based on too much sampling.  Let's set aside the issue of sampling for a while, assume this is not a problem, and dive into the track:

First let's go over the arrangement.  After the first source quoting, it basically runs through part 2 of the source twice, with really not much of a change arrangement-wise before sampling the source again.  What follows is a very long and static section where the bassline follows the original progression while the leads does some soloing variation on top.  It is very cool in the first few phrases but after that it drags on and becomes less and less interesting.  There's not much going on elsewhere either, no new harmonies or variations on the drums or bass.  No introduction of new instruments, or anything that would make this less static.  After this, we go back to the first section, which is basically a copy-paste of 0:22.  The track ends abruptly and in an unsatisfactory fashion.  I don't think the arrangement here is up to par.

The production is clean otherwise, with bright, chirpy pulse waves, a couple of simple but interesting fills, and a driving bassline.  The drums pack a punch but are also very static and lacking in sequencing detailing and depth.  The main lead has a tremolo that seems to activate on a strict legato timer, which makes what would be a nicely articulated lead pretty boring after a while.  I wish those tremolos were used with purpose and not only seemingly activating after the note is sustained for x amount of time, all the time.  The production overall, is ok but not without faults.

I don't think this is over the bar due to the arrangement, which is way too static and relies too much on quoting the original verbatim, while also copy-pasting sections around.  If that middle section was shortened and more detailed, and the last section was reworked to bring at least a few notable differences from the first, I probably would be onboard.  It's a fun track to listen to nonetheless.

NO

Edited July 5, 2019 by Sir_NutS