OCR04286 - *YES* Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles "Night Walk"

[Rexy]

Remixer Name - Black Ace
Real Name - Alexey Bakhmetyev
E-Mail - 
Website - https://vk.com/cjblackace
UserID - 34929


Name of Game - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (NES)
Name of arrangement - Night Walk
Name of song - FootClan Base
Game info -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(NES_video_game)
Original track - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6aJjKcoq2U
Release Date - 19 Feb 2020

Download PNG link (Please use it at YT video! It's very important for me!) - 
OR use layered PSD file for resize image - 

Thanks!

И вот - он перед вами! Первый мой серьёзный трек в 2020ом году! Этот трек стал для меня, в некотором смысле, переломным, но обо всём по порядку.

Изначально релиз планировался через пару недель после «TEYANDEE!», однако мой перфекционизм не дал мне выпустить трек в свет, и как оказалось - не зря. Меня совершенно не устраивало звучание, а также жуткие тормоза моей древней (11ой!) версии FL Studio, которые просто не давали мне нормально работать. В конце концов, я решился - я установил свежую, 20ую версию (я пропустил 9 версий, да!) и начал заново изучать интерфейс. Помимо этого, мне пришлось обновить кучу плагинов, и привыкать ещё и к ним...

После того, как трек был практически готов, я начал советоваться с Nick Stradi относительно звучания. Вернее сказать, я просто обратился к нему за некоторыми семплами, но тут мы заговорили про сведение, про мастеринг, и всё заверте... Решено было полностью перемастерить трек. И тут я снова начал учиться совершенно новым для меня вещам в этой области. Труды не были напрасны и трек на выходе получился в разы чище и приятнее, чем был до этого, а я, к тому же, теперь имею в своём скворечнике новые и нужные мне знания (за что Stradi огромная моя благодарность!).

Теперь о самой идее трека. Как обычно, я пытался сделать что-то в том стиле, который никогда не пробовал. В этот раз я выбрал liquid funk. Мне хотелось сделать что-то похожее на трек «Pendulum - Still Grey», при этом добавив в него ретроигровой тематики. Мелодия для ремикса была очень быстро найдена - я взял «ночную» тему из пятого уровня первых Черепашек-Ниндзя для NESденди, так как это вообще одна из моих самых любимых 8мибитных мелодий (хоть и была она внаглую слизана с хита Битлз :-D). ОСТ действительно создаёт таинственное, тревожное и ночное настроение, так что мелодия идеально подошла (хоть и изменил я её до неузнаваемости :-)).

Ну вот, так как-то. Слушайте, оценивайте, комментируйте, РЕПОСТИТЕ, живите, любите, пишите больше каверов и ремиксов, гуляйте по ночам, ищите технодром, но берегитесь вертушек фут-клана!

[Rexy]

This groove and the level of polish is just what I expect from you, Alexey!  It's a clean and engaging soundscape with fun synths and effect placement, and the "heroes in a half-shell" vocal feels so full of cheese but fits so well with the source.  I'm not the biggest fan of your saxophone sample, as it feels so fake with its articulations, but luckily it's so wet you've taken some of that edge right off.

You have a solid framework as well - it's framed well with a slow burn intro, two uses of the source straight, and that saxophone and mellow break in the middle before going back.  I also like how you decided to change up the chord progression entirely for the A section, and yet the simplicity fits so well with the quicker pacing of the source melody.  Both theme run-throughs have minor differences in the pads used, but I believe they could benefit from a pinch more variety to distinguish the two.  Yet, under normal circumstances, that wouldn't be a dealbreaker.

What is a dealbreaker, though, is the alarming lack of source content.  Here's my source breakdown:

• 0:22-0:24 / 0:27-0:29 / 0:33-0:36 / 0:39-0:42 / 0:44-0:47 / 0:50-0:53 / 0:55-0:58 - snippets of melody used during the swelling intro. (19 seconds)
• 1:01-2:02 - Source melody used straight - A section twice, then one run through B. (61 seconds)
• 2:25-2:27 / 2:30-2:32 / 2:36-2:38 / 2:41-2:43 - snippets of melody dipping inbetween saxophone and bell licks. (8 seconds)
• 2:53-2:55 / 2:58-3:00 / 3:04-3:06 / 3:15-3:17 - snippets of melody heard quietly on the SID-sounding synth in the background. (8 seconds)
• 3:32-4:05 - straight run through the source. (33 seconds)

That's 129 seconds of source presence, and with numbers crunched, that placed the quota at 43%.  It's a horrible number to fall short on but falling short it did.  You can approach this fix in one or two ways - either cut some non-source sections down or go through places with barely any or no source at all (like your ending) and find ways to squeeze it in.  On the other hand, the original doesn't have a lot to work with, so you're more than welcome to integrate different sources initially written for the game, or even find ways to put the source's bassline in.

Honestly, in a vacuum, I enjoyed every second of it.  It's one I'd like to have on the site in some shape or form, provided you find a way to increase that BGM quota.  Alexey, I believe in you.

NO (resubmit)

[Jivemaster]

Sparkly twinkly beginnings. The opening is quite nice. We get some theme in the intro portion. Things take a while to build up, with some blipping synths and SFX. 1:07 we hit the drop. The source is played with a bit. 2:04 we get a nice solo, which was quite unexpected, but worked quite well. There are vibes of the main theme throughout. At 3:10 we get a bit of a breakdown, and a repeat of the chorus portion. 3:55 gives us a bit of synth solo which was good for separating this from the earlier section. I felt the TMNT sample was overused. Things close out pretty standard. Production is good. Arrangement had a lot of original elements. I've looked at Rexy's breakdown (thanks for that @Rexy!). This one is a bit tough for me because if I had not seen the numbers I wouldn't have caught it myself. I feel this is awfully close and we do need enough source usage to cross the line. I'm ok to approve if we can perhaps get another judge to weigh in on this, I will sit undecided on this for now.

?

 

[prophetik music]

i'll address the elephant in the room first, which is that i think that the entire intro from 0:22 to 0:58 should be included rather than being so granular about the timings. adding the extra 17 seconds puts us at 49.49% (using 4:55 as the ending), which is close enough that gut feeling should matter. along those lines, i agree that the vox samples are overused, however they are used often in areas that are not directly melodically tied to the original, which lends a bit towards the halfway mark. i absolutely don't think that layering vox samples over top of a track is enough to call it a remix (hello, random parappa no override from 2005, featuring spicy larry!), but this is clearly a remix with significant melodic content from TMNT, and therefore should at least be considered. so no, i don't think that the slightly below 50% source usage is enough for an automatic no. 

the intro is pretty smooth, and features a ton of wet fx and a bell and lead synth that's a touch too loud for me when up higher (sounds like both weren't volumized from where they are later). the build is pretty nice, with a good sweep on the filter and a great sound when the song begins in earnest at around 1:05. i was really digging the synth solo at 1:58 as well. the sax part isn't my favorite thing (i am pretty biased against fake sax), but what a fantastic job handling it within the soundscape to make it sound pretty solid. rexy's right when she talked about how you did a great job handling articulations.

the break at 3:09 was well handled, too. the consistent 16th notes under everything helped keep the energy up despite the languid vocals there. after that is a recap and a good outro. there's still some volumization needed here - vox and bells get suddenly louder, indicating that the compressor's handling them instead of some manual attention to knobs there - but the song ends comfortably and it isn't unexpected.

overall i do like the arrangement, the production values are really pretty high outside of a few nitpicks about volume, and the song flows well from start to finish. i think that the source content is close enough that this makes it over the bar.

 

 

YES

[DragonAvenger]

Yeah, absolutely agreed with Brad that when it's close in terms of source that gut feeling works well. Listening to this I could recognize the source, and the vocals, while overused, do keep the connection going. I think it's completely fine in regards to source. The mix is catchy, while a bit minimal at times, which really helps emphasize the melodies. I personally wasn't feeling the transition at 1:52, but it's pretty minor overall. The sax solo is fun, would be pretty killer if it was live.

The mix is definitely very wet, but it works well for the style you're going, and everything remains clear overall. I'm good with this.

YES

[Liontamer]

It's OK that the soundscape is wet, but I'd argue that this should sound sharper. Otherwise, great power and energy throughout and a fun arrangement.

The track was 4:59-long, so I needed to make out source tune usage for at least 149.5 seconds for the source tune references to dominate the arrangement. A lot of the intervals aren't as precise as I'd like because the soundscape was really muddy and flooded when I cranked up the volume, so I tried to be as fair as possible when shorter references to the source were used. I also don't count any gaps longer than 1 second, and I didn't read any other judges' breakdowns - in this case, Rexy's - before attempting my own:

:22-:25, :27.5-:30.5, :33.5-:37.5, :39-:48.5, :50-:54.25, :55.75-:59.5, 1:01.5-2:02.75, 2:25-2:26, 2:30.5-2:31.5, 2:36-2:37, 2:41.5-2:43.25, 2:52.75-2:54.25, 2:58.5-2:59.75, 3:04-3:05.5, 3:15-3:20.5, 3:26.5-3:27.75, 3:32-4:05.5 = 138 seconds or 46.15% overt source usage

Regardless, the track is an easy pass except for being light on the source usage. It would be easy enough to add in more quiet references to the source tune melody elsewhere in the track, particularly after 4:05 when there's no connection to the source for the rest of the track. Good stuff so far, Alexey, and I hope you'll consider adding in more source usage to make this an undebatable pass when it comes to using the source tune enough.

NO (resubmit)

EDIT (5/2): Given Gario's additonal breakdown, I'm also willing to give a half second of source usage for the piano having that final note from the bassline of the source (2.03.75-2:04.25, 2:06.5-2:07, 2:09.5-2:10, 2:12-2:12.5, 2:14.75-2:15.25, 2:17.5-2:18, 2:20.5-2:21, 2:22.75-2:23.25, 2:34.5-2:35, 2:40-2:40.5, 2:45-2:45.5, 3:10.5-3:11, 3:13-3:13.5, 3:21.5-3:22, 3:24.25-3:24.75, 3:30-3:30.5), which added another 8 seconds, but that's not enough, IMO.

I disagreed with it being three notes from a 4-note pattern; if the three notes are actually there every time, it's so quiet that it might as well not be there. Maybe it was the mixing being crowded that obscured the pattern, but I was only making out the final note (not the partial pattern with the third note missing). I can tell where Gario says he hears the connections, but I feel like Gario was hearing ghost notes.

It would be so easy to just make the tails of the melodic usages not completely fade out so that there are no gaps and/or more audibly use the source tune patterns during some of the quieter/sublter instances.

EDIT (10/23): I'll go ahead and add 6 more seconds of source usage from the stutter-style notes at :28 of the source inspiring the intro from :05.5-:08.5 and :16.5-19.5, which would push this into 152 seconds of source usage or 50.83% source usage. It's also referenced a little more at the very end, albeit extremely quietly. Barely gets by on the source usage, but let's go.

YES (borderline)

[Emunator]

On 12/30/2020 at 12:04 PM, prophetik music said:

i think that the entire intro from 0:22 to 0:58 should be included rather than being so granular about the timings.

I agree with this take 100%. Rests and space between notes are still an integral part of how a source melody can be transformed and presented in a unique way.

Another angle I like to look at source usage from, when we're so close to the 50% mark, is how it is distributed throughout the arrangement. If there was 100% source usage for the first half of the arrangement and absolutely none in the second half, I would judge that more harshly than what I see here, which is a recognizable motif that is used frequently throughout the remix. Although the source is not strictly present at any given moment, you revisit it frequently enough that I never forget that I'm listening to a TMNT remix. 

Not trying to skirt around the standards here, but in my book this is so close to that 50% mark that it really does come down to a gut feel, so this is my attempt to explain what goes on in my head in a scenario like this. In this arrangement's case, I think you come out on the winning side of the debate.

Source usage aside, this is a bangin' track with a rich soundscape, meaty bassline & drums, and a satisfying dynamic curve to keep things from growing stagnant. I dig it!

YES

[Gario]

I agree that this arrangement is pretty wet (not something that takes it below the bar, though definitely a bit too wet), but I'm not hearing the issue at all with the source usage. I agree with Prophetik and Emunator's stance on this by filling in the rest of a measure rather than granularly counting only space with the source literally playing in it (which easily clears this as far as source usage, in my book), but even assuming Rexy and Liontamer's stance they're missing some source usage that could arguably take this much closer to the bar (with details added where others didn't include as source):

0:21-0:24, 0:27-0:30, 0:33-0:36, 0:38-0:48, 0:50-0:54, 0:56-0:59, 1:01-2:02
[2:02-2:04, 2:08-2:10, 2:14-2:16, 2:19-2:22] (Bass and Piano form the source, sans one note, same rhythm & notes)
2:25-2:26, 2:30-2:32, 2:36-2:38, 2:41-2:43, 2:53-2:55, 2:58-3:00, 3:04-3:06, 3:15-3:17, 3:32-4:05
[4:05-4:07, 04:16-4:18] (Bass and Piano form the source, sans one note, same rhythm & notes)

There's about 4 seconds of silence at the end, so we're looking for 148/296 seconds to make the 50%.

This calculates out to 146 seconds.

If we calculate in sections with the same texture but over different chords that would also include 2:05-2:07, 2:11-2:13, 2:17-2:18, and 2:23-2:24, which would easily take this above the bar with those additional six seconds of source. Subtractive arranging with the source and spreading it over two instruments is still source usage, in my book.

It's got da source, and it's well produced. It's an easy front page track, for me.

YES

Edited May 2, 2021 by Gario

[Chimpazilla]

On 4/17/2021 at 10:41 AM, Emunator said:

I agree with this take 100%. Rests and space between notes are still an integral part of how a source melody can be transformed and presented in a unique way.

Another angle I like to look at source usage from, when we're so close to the 50% mark, is how it is distributed throughout the arrangement. If there was 100% source usage for the first half of the arrangement and absolutely none in the second half, I would judge that more harshly than what I see here, which is a recognizable motif that is used frequently throughout the remix. Although the source is not strictly present at any given moment, you revisit it frequently enough that I never forget that I'm listening to a TMNT remix. 

Not trying to skirt around the standards here, but in my book this is so close to that 50% mark that it really does come down to a gut feel, so this is my attempt to explain what goes on in my head in a scenario like this. In this arrangement's case, I think you come out on the winning side of the debate.

Source usage aside, this is a bangin' track with a rich soundscape, meaty bassline & drums, and a satisfying dynamic curve to keep things from growing stagnant. I dig it!

YES

Quote Vote ™.  Wes nailed it, I agree totally.  I do this same thing in my intros and I'd hate for it to be chopped into such small pieces and given a NO for that reason.  As I listen through this remix I never have a moment when I'm not sure what source I'm hearing remixed.  It's a well-produced fun track.  It's LOWD (-7.3db RMS) but I hear no compression issues.  Let's do this.

YES

[MindWanderer]

I too don't think there's any issue with source usage.  I don't think it's reasonable to count rests at the ends of measures against source usage, the 2:02-3:10 bridge clearly uses the source as its bassline, and in general, as Kris said, at no time am I unsure of what the source material is.  If I were to timestamp the sections that are actually original writing, I'd count 0:00-0:22, 3:10-3:32, and 4:28-4:55 and then 2:02-3:10 and 4:05-4:27 (where the bass counts, and there are callbacks in the melody).  That's a mere 71 seconds where it's something definitely other than source material.

Lots of great stuff has already been said about the arrangement and production, but not so much about the creativity: This is a short, repetitive, unmemorable part of an otherwise stellar soundtrack, so for you to take this and make something 5 minutes long that doesn't sound overly repetitive, and more importantly sounds good, is a coup.  Bravo sir.

YES