Rexy Posted April 28, 2020 Share Posted April 28, 2020 ReMixer name: Michael Hudak Real name: Same! Name of game arranged: Conker's Bad Fur Day Name of song arranged: Rock Solid (mostly the 2nd half of the song), by Robin Beanland Name of my ReMix: Xerrox Salad/Memories of Memories Original source song (I didn't use anything before 2:38): (The source usage in my song starts at 0:56 and goes throughout, minus a few interruptions. Much more than 50% usage, though, I'd say) Hello! It's me again. This is a weird one, and if it gets posted, some people are going to just hate what I did with the source. Ah well. I'm very proud of this, but explanation is needed. I've been obsessed with the work of Alva Noto (Carsten Nicolai) for years now, and this is another piece that was heavily influenced by both his "Transspray" series, such as this, and his piano cut-and-pasting work with Ryuichi Sakamoto, such as this and this. In fact, he has an incredible series of several album called "Xerrox", which has a lot of office machine sounds as part of the pieces, which I obviously drew from heavily, here. I don't want to give you a huge rundown of his discography, but to let you know where I was coming from with my own "Xerrox Salad" (an homage to Noto and a pun on Robin Beanland's "Rock Solid"...hopefully that extra r will keep the hounds at bay), it's a combination of the machine sound stuff, the piano stuff, and the source tune. "Rock Solid" is essentially a 90s club song with a simple repeating chord progression, so I added some heavy sidechained bass...but it's mostly sub, not in the right key, and eventually disappears. It's just as much noise as anything. There are tons of cut-up piano snips here, and much of them have the gain cranked and compressed, which is another EDM trope, but that kind of signal boosting also brings out the strange background noises in some of the sampled piano notes (often it's little noises from the sampling room). Piano is a percussive instrument, and bringing that kind of hidden clamor to the surface and then using snips and stabs of it really creates almost a new kind of instrument that amplifies both the percussive and melodic qualities of it. Not rolling back transients so you get that tasty "pop" when a new clip starts is a big part of that, too. This is also a kind of an "art-damaged" way of composing, but the source is a dance track, so I also tried to keep the pretense down and keep the song interesting and somewhat with a beat. That said, I did add words by Longfellow recited by my great-grandfather in front of his fireplace (from a tape from 1979 - I never met the guy but he has a great voice) taken from the song "The Legend of the Crossbill". The final section has that sprinkling of nostalgic fairy dust, I think. Whew! I think this track is ugly and beautiful at once. I'm sorry for such a long write-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 I LOVE the approach to this remix. The heavy well-produced glitching, sampling and sub bass gives a wonderfully calming and yet unsettling atmosphere. The piano artifacts fit in perfectly. This sounds amazing on my setup and the soundscape is huge and varied, that perfect combo of full and empty at the same time. The short vocal section is a very interesting, thought-provoking and intimate interlude (wow, your great-grandfather!). This is the kind of track that I really dig but it won't be everyone's cup of tea. I find the mixing and balancing of every element ideal. I love the reverses too. I hear how much effort went into the production of this. I'm not a huge fan of the abrupt ending with no resolution, but it goes with the disjointed theme of this track. I'm concerned about source use and this is going to require a timestamp check. I'm going to give this a yes on creativity and production, pending the timestamp analysis. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rexy Posted September 2, 2020 Author Share Posted September 2, 2020 The source use was obvious for me on first listen, and remains so as I vote. The notation here relied on chord progressions of the pads and synth chords in the source, at the following timestamps: 0:56-1:28 (arr.) - 2:38-2:53 in source (pads) 1:28-2:00 (arr.) - 3:07-3:49 (polysynths) 2:06-3:11 (arr.) - 3:07-3:49 (polysynths) 3:30-4:48 (arr.) - 3:07-3:49 (polysynths) As Michael outlined, nothing got used from the first two and a half minutes, and everything beyond 3:49 was the polysynth pattern with other instruments over the top. Nevertheless, these findings bring the quota up over 65% source use handily - therefore making this a non-issue. With source use identified, I find it interesting that Michael stripped so much of the rhythms away, but kept the chords in place while he let the glitched piano move through it. I'm aware of the idea of subtractive arranging (i.e., keeping the source in place but adding different textures over the top), but to keep the BGM in place and remove things puts an enlightening spin on an otherwise energetic composition. Just like with "Bright Moon" before it, the instrument palette is primarily piano and glitch effects, but now with the addition of an old voice recording (and a very enchanting one at that). The mixdown is also very clean, and neither the piano nor SFX dominates each other when the glitching is prominent. And then there are the moments with the more extended piano notes (0:56, 2:38), allowing for an underlying use of white noise and the vintage recording to compliment the sparser landscape. The only thing that I would've liked to have seen changed, based on the chord voicings, is the piano tone for something slightly brighter - but that's no major rough patch in this case. Overall, this is another textbook example of Michael pushing through boundaries and creating some more unique experiences for the site. Cap it with a more stripped-down source interpretation, and I can see it being a significant discussion point upon posting. Let's go! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 Your write-up had a lot of heart. This track has an interesting approach, I enjoyed the reversed notes and glitching... at least initially. I’m absolutely one for glitching, but I think the glitchiness was overused here. I understand what you were going for, and it is very musical in many ways, but the arrangement was at times difficult to follow and didn’t really go anywhere as a consequence of this. The glitching would’ve had for more artistic impact if it built up to unglitched musical portions more frequently (or vice versa). That’s really I all I feel the mix is lacking, a progression, a journey of sorts. It’s very possible I missed this, but I didn’t feel it really took things anywhere until the final portion and by then it was over. Production here was fine, but on arrangement I couldn’t pass this. Given the other votes, I’m quite sure this will pass, but I wanted to provide that feedback for next time. Good luck! NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 wow - this is another really fascinating aural journey. i really enjoyed the treatment. another excellent example of pushing the boundaries of what a track on this site can be. i love the piano tone throughout - it's so very intimate and delicate, which really carries the effecting by being so contrasting. i also appreciate the variety of effects used - i heard at least five distinct and unique effecting techniques used, and they all were used in a thoughtful manner (especially the consistent reversed piano, it adds so much depth to each line). the addition of your ancestor reading was such an interesting idea as well - very creative, and reminds me a lot of a lot of post-rock stuff i've heard recently, notably We Lost The Sea's Challenger part 2 - A Swan Song off of their Departure Songs album. if i'm complaining about anything, it's that your ancestor's voice is too quiet. overall you do a great job balancing a track that naturally is going to be hard to balance due to the way that your glitchy stuff shows on an RMS monitor, but i'd say that section is quieter than i'd expect. this is a remarkable track. i can't wait to see what you do next. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted September 12, 2020 Share Posted September 12, 2020 Michael, I'm awestruck by your approach to remixing, in the very best way. I have no clue how you hear a source like this one and end up with this result. It's a testament to your one-of-a-kind approach to remixing and your fearlessness as an artist. This track is challenging to grasp, but equally rewarding for those who give it a chance, especially on repeat listens. One aspect that particularly stood out to me was the contrast created during moments where you briefly let up on the glitching, such as from :56-1:28 or during the excellent spoken word section at 2:42, where you simply let the notes decay naturally. It gives context to the sonic madness that surrounds it, and also helps craft a more structured, dynamic arrangement. This stylistic choice makes the track all that much stronger as a complete musical statement to me. One of your strongest efforts yet, Michael! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts