*NO* Chuck Rock "The Unga Bunga Blues"

[Emunator]

Hi there!

Remixer name: evilsonic

userid: 38614

 

Game: Chuck Rock

Name of Arrangement: The Unga Bunga Blues

Individual Song Arranged: Title Theme

Additional Information: Composer is Matthew Simmonds, game was originally released on Atari ST and Amiga Computers, later released for Sgea Genesis, Super Nintendo, Commodore 64, and GameBoy (my arrangement is based on the Genesis soundtrack)

 

Link to Dwelling of Duels entry: 

 

Comments: This track was submitted for the June 2022 Dwelling of Duels competition "Fresh Month" where all entries had to be from games never before submitted to DoD. I saw that there weren't any Chuck Rock remixes on OCR and thought this might be a fresh track here. The main inspiration came for this when I was mindlessly playing La Grange on my guitar around the time I first heard this OST and something clicked.

 

Thanks!

Mike "evilsonic"

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Liontamer
closed decision

[DarkSim]

Oh yes, Chuck Rock! One of my all-time favourite VGM sources, 4mat is a genius for creating it, and the Amiga version was my jam back in the day (and imo vastly superior to the Genesis version - just listen to the difference! Interestingly, the arrangement and soloing is different between the versions). When I first discovered OCR in the 2000s, this was one of the first things I searched for. I'm so thrilled you've submitted a remix from the game!

Definitely hear the La Grange influence with the opening rhythm guitar. Drums and bass sound great, and the lead guitar has the right tone to it. You've got the ZZ Top sound down, although some of the timing could be tighter. The ending ritardando in particular sounds like the drums and guitar are out of sync. I think it works overall though, as a 'blues jam' vibe.

Arrangement-wise, it's very similar to the original, and that's where I'm torn on my vote. On the one hand, it's a fantastic cover of one of my favourite sources, however is it too much of a cover? I'm struggling to hear where the original material is here. I'm not sure slowing down the tempo is transformative enough. The drums are perhaps the most rearranged element on show here. Bass patterns are very similar to the point I didn't notice any difference. There are flourishes of originality at the end of the melodic phrases, however the bulk of it is presented verbatim - right down to the layered leads. On first listen I thought maybe the final solo from 1:57 was original, but it's subtractive from the source (1:13-1:24, and repeated 1:36-1:46 in source). Although subtraction is a valid arrangement technique, I feel in this case, and taking the piece as a whole, it's too much like a cover.

I'm so gutted to be saying no to this one, but I sincerely hope you decide to rework it a bit and send it back on over. All it would need would be some original soloing, possibly a creative bridge or two (couple of great examples in the source), even a different break, (or all of the above!) and I'd be more than happy to see this one on the front page.

NO (please resub!)

[MindWanderer]

Whoa, wasn't expecting hard rock from a remix with "blues" in the title.

Opens with some nice clean rhythm guitar, but then the lead guitar comes in very muddy. It's a weird transformation from studio to garage.

It's not quite a cover. It stays close to the source until 1:29, where it loops into the hook an extra time instead of doing the next section of the source. Then they line back up again, and the remix does cover the omitted section (which repeats in the original).  So they're nearly identical in structure, except that the remix gets one more loop of the hook in, in place of a loop of a different section. It also loops the hook in a straightfoward way in the ending, instead of what the original does, which is a significant riff on that.  The result is that the remix feels much more repetitive than the source, fitting in two more loops of the hook in place of other content in the same amount of time.

Generally speaking, a change in genre is usually considered sufficiently transformative, as long as it's not a 1:1 instrument swap. This is just more than that. The drum writing is actually quite good. But DarkSim is right: other than the drums, I can't pick out any novel writing at all, and the only arrangement changes actually remove content from the original rather than putting content in. And even that's done in a very minimal way.

I'm afraid I'm coming to the same conclusion, and am just as unhappy about it. This is a great approach, and the tone is mostly good, just a little (inconsistently) dirty, but try as I might I'm coming up short when it comes to transformation. It's clearly not a "MIDI rip" since it's played live, but it's still an instrument swap. It's a very, very good instrument swap, but that's not what we're looking for. As DarkSim said, just a short section or two of original writing, or even just substantially transformative riffing, perhaps in place of the 1:29-1:43 loop, and this would be in a much safer spot. As it stand though, regretfully, I have to add my vote of

NO (please resubmit)

[Liontamer]

Love the style of the source tune; pure Road Rash vibes.

Nice performance. I liked how the 13-second intro had a similar feel to both Chuck Rock and "La Grange" but was original writing that then integrated behind the source melody starting at :14 and stayed pretty much the whole way through. I'm more permissive on the performance side, but this sounded fluid and capable enough, no issues there. I think mixing the bassline to not sit so, so far back would have helped the writing of that part overtly contribute to having this presentation feel more interpretive; right now, it's way too quiet and might as well not even be there, so I'd love to hear that dialed up. Small thing, but I loved hearing the cymbal work from 1:42-1:57, where it stood out just a bit more than other sections. The slowdown into the ending at 2:10 was a nice finish.

It's melodically conservative, sure, but I thought the presentation was transformative enough, so I'm kind of surprised to see the differences in the tone, tempo, genre, instrumentation, and structure noted by the other Js, but then saying it's not quite transformative enough... but I'm not entirely surprised. At only 2:25-long, I can understand wanting to hear more melodic interpretation or less falling back to main melody presented in a similar way each time. (That's not helped by the bassline getting invisibilized by how it was mixed even though it's different under the melody every time.)

In any case, I'd say the differences noted along with the original introduction's line serving as a foundational background part of the arrangement are enough to put this over the top. The concept could have been extended & developed more, so if it doesn't make it, then it's an easy candidate for adding some more substance and resubmitted. But it's sufficiently personalized for me when you acknowledge all the smaller aspects of arrangement (some of them easier to overlook than others) adding up on the whole. There's lots of low-key redeeming traits; wouldn't it be more fun to be on the YES side?

I dig it, Mike. On a dinosaur, we ride.

YES

[prophetik music]

i am going to echo MW and DarkSim here - this is very much what i'd consider to be a cover. the important bits that define the original are replicated throughout, with little to originality in how it's represented. you definitely nailed the style you were going for, it's just too close overall.

from a mastering perspective, i think the guitars sound great, but do wish that the bass had a clearer tone and was more present in the mix. drums sound fine, nothing stood out there.

sorry to vote no on a fun mix, but unfortunately there's just not enough arrangement elements being used that aren't directly from the original.

 

 

NO

[Chimpazilla]

Wow, I am torn on this one.  This arrangement is really well performed and sounds great!  Although I agree the bass could have more presence and could sound more distinct, as it is now it seems like it is almost loud enough but the low end feels nebulous and unfocused.  But man, this arrangement follows the source tune almost note for note on every instrument.  As DS said, the drums are the most rearranged element in the mix, the rest is verbatim other than a couple of minor flourishes at the end of phrases.  That is REALLY conservative. 

This is essentially a well-performed cover of the source song.  The genre has been modified, but that seems to be the only change from the original source tune.  The key is the same, the tempo is slowed down ever so slightly.  So, genre change plus very minor tempo slow-down.  Our standards say:

"MORE THAN ONE" of the techniques is the key phrase here.  Does this count as "more than one?"  Is the complete genre re-imagining of the source tune enough?  I think sadly I have to agree with my fellow Js who feel that a cover is not enough to be a ReMix.  I'd love to hear it again with something in the arrangement changed, added, a breakdown in the middle, a unique guitar solo etc., that would be absolutely amazing!  I would request also that the mixing be addressed to bring out the low end a little more clearly.

NO (resub with a little more originality)