OCR04552 - *YES* Sonic the Hedgehog 2 "Sonic the Chemist"

[Emunator]

ReMixer name: Neon X
EMail: 
Website: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV8NwzoUa9I9HD1YXRIXp3g
UserID: 37046

Name of game: Sonic The Hedgehog 2
Name of arrangement: Sonic the Chemist
Name of song: Chemical Plant Zone
Original composer: Masato Nakamura
Link to original song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LYB7iLZNWE

For clarification:
Name of remix: Sonic the Chemist
Name of original song: Chemical Plant Zone

[MindWanderer]

A simple expansion of the original theme.  Not terribly transformation in terms of style or even of instrumentation, but it is re-arranged and there are a lot of riffs on the theme.  And there is an original bridge in the middle, which I actually enjoyed a lot.

That said, the riffs are... odd.  There are some really strange, off-putting chord progressions.  They don't sound so much like creative riffs as errors.  Some of them sound like half-measure key changes.  There are a few novel harmonies that don't sound right, as well.

It's a little repetitive, though there are those little changes throughout.  There's no change in instrumentation at all, and the instruments are pretty bland.  It feels most repetitive at the end, which is sudden and anticlimactic.  The percussion is also on rails pretty much the whole time.

I'd love to see feedback from a judge who can comment on why those transformations sound weird, and it is the biggest issue to my ear.  But the other issues add up to be just enough cause to send this back anyway.  I appreciated the creative writing; it just needs more creative instrumentation and percussion to go along with it, as well as less creative key structure.

NO (resubmit)

[DarkSim]

Love this source. You've got some strong competition remixing this one - PrototypeRaptor's Chemixtrixx is still imo one of the best remixes on the site (damn, it's 12 years old now too!).

Instrumentation and sound design is very similar to the source. Plenty of original material in here though to differentiate it from the other Chemical Plant mixes out there. The section from 1:10-1:44 was really cool, and I loved that it went exactly where I expected it to at 1:45. A trademark Neon X solo from 2:05-2:18 again ends as I was hoping it would, circling back to the source nicely. 1:45 and 2:18 are two great payoffs, when you transition back to the source from your original material.

There are a lot of interesting harmonies and changes in chord progression at play here. Right out of the gate, there's the descending bass and reharmonisation of the synth layered on top. It's perhaps because it's such a familiar source that it might sound jarring, but to my ear it doesn't sound bad at all. The dodgiest harmonies for me were at 1:18, with the synth leads, but as it's during a solo you can get away with it.

Ending was a little weak, but no real issue there.

Overall I'd say this is a fine remix, taking the familiar instrumentation of the source and getting creative with the harmonies to create something wholly recognisable yet fresh in its approach.

YES

[prophetik music]

i like the space in the opening groove between the beat and synths - feels great right away. initial presentation of the melodic material is in the right ear a bit heavy, but sounds good. i agree with MW that the instrumentation and drums feel pretty bland. the half-time bridge at 1:22 sounds great, great timing. there's a circle-back with melodic content around 1:50, a fun solo at 2:05 with a ton of great pitch bend, and a quick recap and ending. quick package, a lot going on.

elephant in the room - i didn't hear anything that was problematic harmony-wise. i think the main reason the highlighted section (1:15 or 1:18) is spicy-sounding is because neon x is using extended chords - probably at least adding in the 9 if not the 11 on those chords - to provide more of a framework to noodle on. that kind of chord usage is common in jazz but not at all in most edm, so it does come across a bit different. that said, the remixer does a great job navigating them, and they provide a lot of what i found interesting about this mix.

fun arrangement, at least in the synths. the drums are a loop and pretty boring throughout, but there is a lot of fun ramen going on here within a limited scope. nice work.

 

 

YES

[Liontamer]

Some odd changing of the notes, but we'll see where it goes; sometimes you hear changes that sound like changes for changes sake but don't feel entirely melodious, and that's where I'm falling here.

The high end sounds like it's cutting through too much, so it should be pulled back.

The percussion patterns were also feeling too basic, at least the core beat, which would sound better with some round robin action so it wasn't the same velocity and intensity practically every time.

Agreed on the ending being very flat; the last note could be doubled or effected to hit stronger for the finish.

At only 2 and 1/2 minutes-long, if the structure's going to be melodically conservative, there should be more creativity with the writing and/or sound design in other places, and I don't believe it's gotten all the way there (though the break from 1:09-1:43 was a fun touch.)

More instrumental variation with the leads or percussion may be all that's needed. This is developed some, and it could pass as is; to me, it feels like it's still missing some further polish and/or interpretation to help this better stand apart from the original track. It's in the right direction though, no doubt, Martin!

NO (resubmit)

EDIT (6/5): I'm revisting this off the strength of Gario's vote, but my vote remains the same. The core beat is so bland & repetitive over essentially the entire duration that I'm still in favor of sprucing up that writing to not allow the track to repeat & plod so much, which is undermining the energy of the rest of the writing.

[XPRTNovice]

Haha, this is such a funky source. It was nice to listen to it before listening to the remix and get refreshed to this great tune.

However, when I flipped off the source, and flipped on the remix, my brain immediately went to "cover" and not to "remix" or interpretation. The instrumentation was really close, the tempo was almost exact, the key was the same, and I'm not hearing a whole lot of variation throughout the piece. 

The production on this one is great, although that hi-hat could maybe be toned down a touch, but I have to NO this one based on the lack of interpretation and variation from the source. I really enjoyed the 80s style drums you've got in there, and I think they were mixed well. The piece has body, you clearly know what you're doing! Keep it up and I'd love to hear more from you in the future. 

NO 

[Chimpazilla]

This is a loud master.  The 0db limiter ceiling is allowing the master to clip and register a true-peak of 3.3db.  Very few dynamics in this mix (waveform sausage).  Although the arrangement is quite conservative to the source in terms of writing and instrumentation, there are good harmonic and melodic personalizations.  I am not hearing anything too harmonically strange, it all works for me. 

The drums are disappointing.  The kick is weak and there isn't strong enough sidechaining for it to punch through well enough.  The drum groove never changes once established, other than the occasional fill.  The hat groove is simple and repetitive.  The overall arrangement feels very repetitive because there is no break in the drum action and because the instrumentation never changes throughout the piece. 

I'm borderline on this decision.  It's a good and fun mix but several things are adding up to a resub vote from me:  similarity to the source in style and instrumentation, repetitive energy level, lack of instrumental variation, lack of drum groove variation, weak drum mixing and minimal sidechaining, and a hot/clipping master.  I hope to hear it again though, a few changes can easily get this track on the front page!

NO (please resubmit)

[DarkeSword]

In love with the harmonic changes here. At first glace it feels like a close cover but ooooooh that bit at 1:30? Are we for real here?

I'm bummed this is so short but it does what it set out to do. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to hear this. Fantastic work.

YES!

[Gario]

Repetitive? Samey? Conservative? I don't know what mix my colleagues were listening to, this one really went places with the source using clever harmonization and neat lead work in the second half of the arrangement. If this were a minute longer the instrumentation could've gotten static, but this is a very short track so it doesn't have the time to wear out it's welcome - a perk to writing a sub-3 minute track. The criticisms on the production values hold, for sure - this one hits the limiter a lot, especially at the beginning with those instrument hits against the percussion - but it mellows out when the instruments aren't slamming at the same time as the percussion. When you have a kick and snare that loud you gotta use some side chaining, and you definitely shouldn't have them hit all at once like at the beginning of the track, that's a production nightmare to deal with.

Production could use work, but I don't think it cripples an otherwise fantastic arrangement.

YES

Edited June 5, 2023 by Gario

[Emunator]

This sounds sonically (pun intended) similar to the source material in terms of writing and sound design, but the reharmonizations and additional melodic licks give it enough spice to slide over the bar for me! Fun, groovy stuff, and the production is serviceable. Definitely not too conservative in my book. I'm good signing off on this!

YES

[Rexy]

I don't understand some of those NO votes either.  I heard a transformation of the source done with the extended jazz chords as Brad eluded to, careful playing around of the melody, and some neat harmonization throughout.  There were also so many minor tweaks that the entire C section (0:48-1:02) wasn't just A-B-A-C like in the original, and there was enough going in the writing to maintain attention.  Drum writing feels like a non-issue, as aside from the hi-hats, every individual section has its own unique kick/snare placement.

We can indeed argue that the recap at 1:43 has the same backing at 0:13, but the changed melody line still gave it a reason to exist.  Similarly, the return of the C section at 2:18 also was direct copy-pasta before going into closure, but that's still 12 seconds of a 3-minute piece, meaning its placement is still reasonable.

I also heard some great textures going into the sound design - classic NeonX staple synths all over.  That lead has some smooth glides that make it work with the overall aesthetic, and I felt that the parts were clear enough for me to hear on their own.  But I did sense the master compression popping off, with crucial points where percussion and synths hitting simultaneously start to squish the mix.  Either this is something that a slacking of that master compressor could minimize, or as Greg pointed out, could spur an idea to load up some side-chaining to cut all this.

I feel that the pros outweigh the cons.  It's a fun arrangement with some mixing flaws, but it felt tastefully twisted within the sub-3-minute running time.  I'm all for seeing it on the site in its current form.

YES