*NO* Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past "Sanctuary Me"

[prophetik music ⚖️]

This haunting tune has been on my mind since '92. It appears in exactly one place, a single room you don't need to be in for more than a minute or two - but I'd often linger just to listen. Had to make an arrangement of it for my newest album of video game remixes - it was, in fact, the whole reason I decided to embark on the project.

Hope you enjoy!

---

Games & Sources

Game: Zelda: A Link to the Past

Source: Church (aka Sanctuary)

YT: 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by pixelseph

[prophetik music ⚖️]

opens with some very defined percussive elements and some vox samples. the snare tone is a unique one. there's a lot of space in this opening. 0:16 brings in the hats and some chordal elements. there's a bit of original cribbing and then it's off to what sounds like a tracked guitar or synth right away for a bit of noodling around the melodic minor scale.

1:03 is a filtered section, feels very next-door. we get the main tonal center back at 1:18 and there's continuing to be a lot of exploration of the minor key but not much direct adaptation of the original. the first few bars are used in this section at 1:18, expanded out to fit the time signature, but it's honestly hard to recognize anything else. by 2:15ish everything sounds very much like we've heard it before, as well. for example, 2:22 is a straight copy from 1:18, and 2:37 is a copy of the section that starts at 1:18.

there's a b section that starts at 2:52 and is initially more of a chorale - it's nice to get something new for a bit! this quickly transitions back to the original groove, and there's some crunchy notes as part of this layering doesn't quite line up. the track also just stops at the end of a snippet that was used earlier in the song.

elephant in the room: i don't think this has enough source. the repeated Ab-G pattern in the chords is only present in the opening of the original in a non-counterpoint fashion, and that's honestly the main bit i catch here - and that's a pretty common progression. the high descending line apes the second measure of the original's chorus, and there's some sections that sound like they're straight from the original as-is (0:27 for example). i'd consider the lead at 0:31 to be adapting the first few verses of the original as well. i would consider 0:27-0:42, the backing parts at 0:47-1:00, backing at 1:24-1:46 and 1:50-2:19, and that's probably it. that's less than 90s overall so that's under 50%. i get if someone wants to use the chord progression, but given that so little of it is used and it's not particularly unique, i'm not really there. most of the main melodic concepts you'd hang your hat on in this arrangement are noodles and just exploration of the key, not actually from the original.

separately, like i mentioned, there's a lot of repetition. you've got at almost 30s that's straight cribbed out from an earlier part, and there's not a lot to differentiate the individual sections aside from that. the ideas are cool! i don't think they're developed enough. the track really needs a true B section that then recapitulates back to the original idea to keep it moving, or else it needs like 45s taken from the duration. there's also a lot of opportunity to relate back more source to flesh out the arrangement itself.

 

 

NO

[Chimpazilla ⚖️]

Well I really dig this.  It's sparse as all get-out, with only a few patterns of each element throughout the piece, but they are combined in different ways throughout the track, mostly.  There are two sections of the track that repeat verbatim, and they are the two original sections (no source), from 1:02-1:32 and 2:21-2:51.  It does feel repetitive, but also very cool and hypnotic.  The drum groove is so simple but clearly that was the intent here.  I don't actually feel like it needs anything more added, the sparseness was the plan.

The section leading into the outro, starting at 2:53 has a lot of harmonic dissonance, it's weird but cool.  The actual ending is just a dropoff, but it seems consistent with the rest of the piece.

As for source use, I find it to be enough, but I am counting the bassline as source, whereas Brad does not since it is just two notes.  For me, it is enough.  Perhaps I am being too lenient?  I'm not counting the little transition motifs since I don't recognize them.  I come up with 63% source, counting it this way:

0:00-0:15 bass notes of opening chord
0:15-0:27 opening chords
0:27-0:31 first part of source melody
0:31-0:42 bass notes of opening chords  
0:47-1:02 opening chords
1:34-1:48 opening chords
1:50-2:20 opening chords
2:53-3:08 variation on opening chords, lots of dissonance
3:08-3:22 opening chords

However, I am concerned that this arrangement is using actual audio from the source song.  Those chords from 0:15-0:27 (and the other places they appear) as well as the bit of motif from 0:27-0:30 sound like they may have been ripped right from the game audio.  I would need to have it confirmed that they are not ripped from the source song in order to consider this remix valid.  Ok so I actually ripped the source audio myself and layered it together with the remix in the above-mentioned sections and here's how it sounds layered together (there are two little filler chords in there, but it seems clear the rest is a rip):

 

 

The concern about source audio being used, plus the repetition in the arrangement, and the dissonance in the final section, all adds up to a NO from me, although I actually really enjoy listening to this piece.

NO

[XPRTNovice ⚖️]

Look man, if Billie Eilish can make an entire career on barebones tracks with some muttering female voices in there so can you.

I'm into this interpretation. I think the sources are used plenty, and I think the mix, though maybe a touch repetitive, has a very particular vibe that makes it all make sense to my musical brain. Could you make more variation here? Sure. Could we deviate from the central Ab/G? Yes. But modern music, especially the kind of music pop that this is modeled after, literally has done away with choruses and prechoruses in favor of taking maybe 2 chord changes and repeating them forever with different ornamentation, which is happening here. The Ab/G *is* the vibe here. The fact that I wasn't bored hearing it for almost 4 minutes makes it a feature, not a bug for me. 

Buuuuuuuuut yeah we're pretty clear on our guidelines about sampling the actual track, so that's gotta get cleaned up. Based on what you demonstrated here production wise, I don't think you'll have an issue figuring out how to make that your own while still very clearly calling back to the original. 

 

yes

Edited March 28 by XPRTNovice

[Liontamer ⚖️]

2. Ownership

1. Your submission must be your own, original arrangement.

4. Arrangement

2. Your arrangement must be substantial and original.

• Submissions must be different enough from the source material to clearly illustrate the contributions, modifications, and enhancements you have made. Acceptable arrangement often involves more than one of the following techniques:

• Modifying the genre, chord progression, instrumentation, rhythms, dynamics, tempo, or overall composition of the source material
• Adding original solos, transitions, harmonies, counter-melodies, lyrics, or vocals to the source material

• Taking the original game audio and simply adding drum loops or using an existing MIDI file and assigning new instruments does not qualify as substantial or original arrangement.

---------------------------------

Quoting the relevant parts of the Submission Standards above:

I'll quote myself from one ReMix we posted that was heavy on sampling the original audio:

On 4/5/2013 at 4:52 PM, Liontamer said:

There isn't anything in the standards that explicitly says you can't go a more sampling-heavy route that includes substantial other original contributions, modifications, and/or other enhancements. The standards really just say you can't do overly simplistic and minimal contributions, i.e. MIDI rips and basic drum additions. Most people who directly sample original audio just lean too heavy on using it with little-to-no creative original contributions alongside it. And most people that use a source tune integrated with other elements don't do much work on them, which is why so many old Bubble Bobble OC ReMixes now belong to OC Removed.

In that case, I'd argue the treatment of the sampled music was also different enough via the effects to at least create the impression that it wasn't directly sampled, in other words more substantially transformative from a sound design level. This submission only partially went in that direction.

There is some arrangement of "Church" as well with some rhythmic similarities, but it's much more of a straightforward and traditional remix rather than an arrangement, combined with some original writing sections (e.g. 1:03-1:34) that fit very well with the Zelda sampling. There's nothing inherently wrong with all that, but it's not transformative enough for our Submission Standards, IMO.

Great piece regardless, Goodman; you have great taste in instrumentation and sound design, and the track was nicely mixed! I hope you'd be willing to submit either a full-on arrangement (or much more substantially modified/transformed remix) of some VGM in the future. :-)

NO

[pixelseph ⚖️]

Hi Goodman!

What's here is an excellent mixdown of an immaculate vibe. Nothing I'm about to write in this vote is going to alter that opinion!

I agree with Liontamer that this is a much more straightforward remix of the source, where our standards look for additional rearrangement to pass the bar. Below is my stopwatch timestamps for what I feel is source usage (which the sampled audio won't count toward). With 3m:28s (208s) of runtime, I'm looking for roughly 104s of recognizable material from the source track; ideally, it's using as much meat from the source as possible.

Quote

:00 - :13 (Source Intro section) (+13s)
:15 - :27 (Source Intro section) (+12s, 25s)
:38 - :45 (Source Intro section) (+7s, 32s)
:47 - 1:03 (Source Intro section, a snippet of A line melody) (+16s, 48s)
1:34 - 2:21 (Source Intro section, another snippet of A line melody) (+47s, 95s)
2:51 - 3:08 (Source B section) (+17s, 112s)
3:08 - 3:22 (Source Intro section) (+14s, 136s total)

This one is relying a lot on that Intro 3-note melodic motif while never really adding in the harmony voice from the source, nor diving into the arpeggio of the A or B sections fully. Aside from the transitional tag going from the A section to B section (@ 1:48, @ 2:19, etc), there's not much else that I can directly hear as a strong enough tie. We don't typically count bass note movement or the chord progression as source usage unless they are atypical, which is not the case here.

Again, the execution of this track is undeniably good and I don't doubt that it would see success outside of OCR. It just doesn't have enough juice for me to sign off on it being above the bar.

NO