OCR04556 - *YES* Silent Hill "There's Something in the Church..."

[Liontamer]

Contact Information
Username: H36T
UserID:37144
Website: https://www.youtube.com/@H36TRemasters

Submission Information
Arrangement Game: Silent Hill
Name of Arrangement: There's Something in the Church...
Song Being Arranged: Claw Finger

Comments:

Hello there again! I made this song awhile back for a PRC or MnP remix compo...I'm not sure which one, but regardless I really liked what came out my mind for this haha. Full disclosure, I've never played Silent Hill or really any horror game and I don't really watch too many horror movies. I just kind of thought to myself, "How do I....be spooky?" First thing that came to mind was Albion IV. As such, I've employed a few patches from that library but I knew (or at least I thought) adding these effects alone would make anything substantial. Still, after adding some layers here and there (as well as some solo vocal patches which I use too often!), I started to get the hang of things. A few choirs later and we have this!

 

The whole first section utilizes the first few notes of the main theme—Bb, down p4 to F, and then up an octave to F and back down to Bb—as a motif and plays with it. It's very subtle and without much or anything in terms of harmony . I think it could be quite difficult to pick up on without knowing that's what it's doing explicitly. Whether it works or not...well, I'll leave that up to the judges. However, that is my usage of the source in the beginning.

A slow walk through a church at night...and as you move forward you begin to feel you are not alone. You hear things...dark things. No matter how much you try to shake it, you know there is only one conclusion to all this. There's something in the church...and as you go further and further, a cold chill stops your feet....and your heart. The voices in your head get louder and louder and louder still. And you see it. You see the end.

 

[MindWanderer]

I'm not picking up a lot of source usage here. It might be more subtle than I can make out, but I hear nothing until 1:41, which is nearly halfway into the track, and then no more after 3:19.

The composition and production are very pretty. It sounds great on its own. But with only the middle 1:38 of a 4:03 piece being a remix, as far as I can hear, I can't give it an affirmative vote. A shorter intro or more overt connections to this (or any other) source and I'll happily vote in its favor, but as things stand I have to vote

NO

Edit 8/11: OK, so now I know the 4-note sequence I'm supposed to be listening for. It's slowed way down in the remix, so it was hard to make the connection. I hear it played by the cello at 0:07-0:20, by the piano (in the background) at 0:49-0:57, then the cello again at 1:00-1:10 and 1:22-1:30. Technically that's another 39 seconds, which would be 56%. There are other times in there where the cello, and sometimes piano, are riffing on that 4-note theme, but when it's only 4 notes, you can't really change much before it's just not "source" anymore.

Eh, I'll give it credit. It's not totally unrecognizable, and it didn't need much to get it over the bar. It's borderline, but I'd rather encourage creative interpretation than stifle it.

YES

Edited August 11, 2023 by MindWanderer

[Liontamer]

The track was 4:03-long, so I needed to hear the source tune invoked for at least 121.5 seconds.

1:40.75-3:18.75 = 98 seconds or 40.32% overt source usage

There's not much to the original theme, so I could see approaching it this way, similar to the melodically conservatively yet instrumentally expansive approach of your FF8 arrangement. I don't inherently mind the track being an original/arrangement/original structure either. But MW's right that we need more VGM used throughout the arrangement to ensure the source usage dominates the arrangement. Good concept here. There's got to be some subtle ways to reference it in the beginning and/or ending sections, so see what you can do.  As MW also said, if there's another Silent Hill theme involved that wasn't cited or something we're overlooking, let us know, and we can revisit this for sure.

NO (resubmit)

EDIT (8/13): Alright, I listened again with H36T's additional comments in mind re: the beginning connection. It's liberal, but I hear that 3-note rhythm from :07-:10 of the source in several places via the strings, then a last usage with the choir vox in the transition to the more straightforward rendition of the theme.

:14.5-:20.5 (3-note pattern plays twice), :56.75-1:12 (plays several times, slower at the end), 1:25.5-1:28, 1:38.5-1:40.75 (choir vox actually lasted until 1:50, same rhythm, just slowed down; overlapped the start of the straightfoward arrangement)

That added another 26 seconds for me, which pushes it to 124 seconds or 51.02% overt source use. This was an instance where, IMO, the invoking of the source in this way isn't obvious at all, so it feels disconnected, but it's there. I'm on board.

YES

[prophetik music]

the cello in the beginning is referencing source material - rather, that's what the remixer calls the source material. note, down a perfect (or augmented) fourth, up an octave, back to roughly the original note. the remixer is right in saying that there is little to the source, but reducing it down to just that specific riff is probably too reductive - there's other elements in the original that can be used, and i can't say that i hear them a ton in the first part. those first 48s or so are just the cello noodling around that pattern. some more actual instruments come in at 0:48, and they continue to reinforce that pattern on top of more sfx.

1:40 gets the pulsing bass line and more rhythmic representation of the original's chord structures and changes. so that's pretty clear. this is ultimately not really arranged - it's essentially the same as the original in the background instrumentation with some pre-recorded choir patches layered on top. at 3:19 there's a big shift to lean into those prerecorded choir samples, and then it ends.

i actually don't have a problem with source usage in this track, and i'm surprised that the other j's said this was their dealbreaker. the first 48s of the cello wandering around the four-note motif is what motivic arrangement sounds like. there is more than enough source in the first 3:19 of the piece, it just isn't all a very clearly delineated and honestly pretty conservative arrangement of the original like the middle third of the piece is. given the extremely simple nature of the original, the motivic approach for the first part of the track was a great idea. i found your more overt source usage in the middle of the track actually kind of lacking in comparison - it's essentially the same as the original with a bunch of pitched sfx over it.

the third act of the piece is kind of just a neat soundscape and isn't super tied to the rest of the track until you look at the usage of rubato and a rigid tempo structure vs. a nonrigid structure. from that perspective, this is an ABA structure - rubato-heavy opening section, super rigid middle section with a strong beat, rubato-heavy closing section.

that said, i don't have a problem relating that initial four-note motif to source, which gives you more than enough there. the first part is great in how flexible and exploratory it is, the second part is contrastingly kind of a disappointment but serviceable, and the end is a bookend tempo-wise but doesn't really relate to the rest of the piece.

looking at this track from the top down rather than by piecing it out, i think that this track is less than the sum of its parts, but it's still over the bar. it sounds good and is mastered cleanly, it features some really interesting exploration of a manufactured motif from the original piece, and it has some fun stuff to listen to. i'll admit this is pretty close to the bar overall in terms of arrangement - i'm stretching to accommodate not the motivic section but the more conservative middle section.

 

 

YES

[Chimpazilla]

I do trust that Brad knows what he's talking about.  However, I guess I don't know music theory well enough to feel the source connections or to wrap my brain around that entire first 1:40 referencing source in the slightest.  If it is there, it is too nebulous for mere mortals.  The outro seems to be source-free.  The middle section is clearly identifiable, and I agree with Larry's timestamp totally.

I love this track!  So spooky.  It's a great arrangement, well produced and instrumented; the choirs, cello and piano are a perfect match, with the spooky violin tremolos and scrapes and atmo really cementing the vibe.  It is mixed well, could be mastered slightly better for more impact but this works. 

I really want to pass this; easy pass for me if there are just a few more easily-identifiable references to source in the intro and outro.  Edit:  nah, nothing needed in the outro, unless desired.  Outro is fine, works well to conclude the arrangement.

NO (soooo borderline; please add more identifiable source and resubmit stat)

Edit 8/14:  I hear what you guys are saying about the three-note pattern in the source.  In the remix, there is a three-note pattern, but not THE three-note pattern:  not the same notes nor played in the same way.  Are we counting numbers of notes as source now?  I am becoming intimately familiar with this source because I am obsessed with it now and I actually started working with it in Cubase yesterday.  Those cello notes in NO WAY are source to my ears.  That said, I do still really like this mix and casual listeners will too.  Our listeners aren't going to be checking for percentage of source use, so while they may wonder what they are listening to for the first 1:30 of this piece, the middle more than justifies it.  In my opinion Larry's timestamp still stands, 40% source.  But it's a great piece and if it passes I'm completely fine with that.

YESish (not enough source for me but ok)

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Chimpazilla

[Liontamer]

Since this is an unusual case, I'm not really comfortable with Chimpa being OK with an arrangement that she's perceiving as roughly 40% source passing. By that token, there'd be a ton of submitters rejected for not using the source tune long enough or clearly enough that should be bringing out the pitchforks.  Even though I'm comfortable with how I heard the source referenced in the beginning section, I'm asking for more Js to weigh in, to see if they co-sign with the source usage rationale of the intro or not. If this gets another unreserved YES while remaining unanimous, let's consider it resolved.

[DarkeSword]

I'm not really impressed with this one TBH. I hear what Brad is pointing out with the shape of the 3-note motif being used in the cello in the intro, but I think that this deviates too much from its expression in the source. The contour is there but some of these intervals are changed up. This is not as much of a dealbreaker for me as the rest of the piece, however. What I'm finding is that once the actual pulsing line from the source is showcased here, it's largely just used as an ostinato underneath some original vocal writing on top. This feels more like "here is my very fancy choir sample library." It doesn't feel like the choir is actually arranging or engaging with the source. Just layering a lot of premade phrases. The end result is a haunting soundscape for sure, but it feels like the source is the seasoning instead of the meat.

I understand the YES votes from other Js and I'm not here to change anyone's mind, but it's a NO from me.

[Emunator]

I've been bouncing back and forth on this one but I definitely hear the cello following the contour of the source. I think there's a level of subjectivity when we get into territory like this, but I am okay with counting that toward the overall source usage tally because the rest of the source is more overtly connected to the original, so it feels more like a supplemental connection on top of something overt rather than the only connection. If the entire arrangement hinged on such a loose connection throughout its full duration, it would possibly be a different story, but in this specific context, I'm okay with it. This is definitely just my personal subjective feelings but instead of relying purely on stopwatching, I feel like it's important to take into consideration the context in which the source is used.

H36T, I think these passes would be a lot cleaner if your source usage was integrated a little more evenly throughout the arrangement, rather than large chunks of source bookended by completely original writing, but at the end of the day that can still be a valid arrangement technique and I think it works effectively here.

YES