*NO* Cyber Stadium Series: Base Wars '42 Minutes Precisely'

[The Orichalcon]

ReMixer: The Orichalcon

Game: Cyber Stadium Series: Base Wars

Source: Game Theme MP3 | NSF (track 1)

ReMix: 42 Minutes Precisely

Was my entry into PRC106. I've never played the game and never even heard of it before. But the source was pretty cool. The latter half sounded like junk to me so I just remixed the first 20 seconds or so. The file's not tagged properly for an OC ReMix since it's tagged for the competition, but I can take care of that if it's passed.

I made it in the style of a chillout song with a dance beat. I didn't want it to get too complex, so I focused on making the most of the few sounds and samples that I put in it. Some of my mixes have a habit of getting a muddy when I start playing around with ambient effects, so I kept this one free of Spectrasonics Atmosphere and just used free synths.

The vocal samples are from Doctor Who.

[Liontamer]

http://akumunsf.good-evil.net/B/Base%20Wars%20-%20Cyber%20Stadium%20Series.nsf - Track 1

Hahaha! Cool original intro, extremely loosely based off the style of the intro from :00-:06 of the source. really feeling the distorted-style SID-esque synths. The Doctor Who samples added a weird element to the track. Source melody was brought in at :31. The simple percussion at the heart of the groove, but effective enough to keep it moving, with some good fills at each measure. Great subtle escalation with the added beats at :31, more instrumentation at :48, then moving up the melody really beefing up the role of the pad at 1:03. Drops it back a little at 1:19, before the breakdown at 1:35. Very effective dynamics, IMO.

Ah, at 1:36 I see where you got the mix title with another Doctor Who sample. Breakdown continued with original writing from 1:51-2:07, before moving back into the source with some arpeggiated support and gradually escalating the track yet again at 2:23 & 2:39 before taking it down a notch again at 2:55 to get the track on its way to wrapping up.

So in terms of the melodic usage in a 3:43.5-long mix, it was there from :31-1:33 & 2:07-2:54, or 1:49's worth, about 48.77%. Close, but no cigar at that level. But the intro caught my attention, so I inquired with zircon:

<Larry> I actually got a theory question for you IF you're available

<zircon> Yes

<Larry> this is re: Lee's new mix he subbed

<Larry> I wanted to know how the note patterns of the first 3 seconds compare with Lee's simplified bassline from :00-:01

<Larry> that's an anal request, but he's straddling the 50% mark, so I'm trying to find out if his bassline simplifies the source bassline but uses notes from it; don't think it does offhand

<zircon> one sec

<Larry> sure

<zircon> writing it out now

<Larry> coo!

<Larry> much appreciated!

<zircon> hm

<Larry> the rhythm is similar

<zircon> tough call

<Larry> which is where most of the "feeling" of similarity is coming from

<zircon> well

<zircon> here's the thing

<zircon> The original bassline basically moves around in what we call a "blues scale", which in this key, consist of these notes: F# A B C C# E F#

<zircon> it's the scale that you use if you want to sound 'badass'

<zircon> So for example, the first 4 beats of the original bassline (total of 8 beats), is E F# F# A A B B B C C# E

<zircon> so its really just doing a little ascending pattern up the blues scale

<zircon> in a funky rhythm

<Larry> right

<zircon> TO is simply doing "F# A B C#"

<zircon> in his bassline

<zircon> so.. i mean, yeah, that is in the same scale

<zircon> but i think its a little too simplified to really be considered arrangement

<zircon> personally

<zircon> also, the notes in TO's bassline hit on the offbeats, except for the first one

<zircon> so F# hits on the down beat

<zircon> then A, B, C# all hit on the off beats

<zircon> if you were counting 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and, it would be the 'ands' after beat 2

<zircon> the original's rhythm is not exactly like that

<Larry> Well, the thing is, with that said, his note selection for his intro is based off the intro of the source; and I'm inferring cause and effect, but I don't see how he would have done the intro he made without deriving it from the source intro

<zircon> ok, so here's a breakdown; [link removed]

<zircon> thats uploading

<Larry> cool

<zircon> The first thing you hear, that's the original bassline - then you'll hear a short pause, then you'll hear the simplification of the original bassline, basically reduced to where the important notes hit (the chord changes)

<zircon> Then you'll hear TO's bass

<zircon> Then you'll hear TO's bass overlapped with the original bassline, and the simplification of the original bassline

<zircon> basically, i see TO's bassline as following the chord progression of the original bass, but its not the same rhythm, and its not ornamented the same way

Thanks a lot to zirc for taking time out to help me with my questions. Though I hear the influence, the arrangement's simplified bassline intro of :00-:14 compared to the source tune's :00-:06 intro felt like too tenuous of a connection where I can't give it credit. But the usage of where the source melody wasn't in play (:00-:31, 1:36-1:44, 1:51-2:07, 2:55-3:43) was pretty substantial, enough to nudge the source usage above the 50% line if given a sort of "partial" credit. I leave that to the theory experts. I feel like if I YESed, it would be because I heard what I wanted to hear. I indeed hear a connection, but there's something to be said about it being so liberal that it might as well be original.

I'd much rather see something tweaked in the arrangement to make the connection decisively stronger and bump it above the 50% threshold with a few seconds more overt source arrangement. It's a really cool track, no mistake about it. If there's an aspect of viable arrangement that I'm missing, please let me know. As is though, I'm sticking to what I can directly make out, and that's not enough to place the majority (even a slim majority) of focus on the source material. Even 49.99% overt source usage just isn't enough to me given how I interpret the Standards.

NO (dancing on the borderline)

[zircon]

The log Larry posted still reflects my view on TO's interpretation of the original's bassline. Unfortunately, given the breakdown of the actual source melody usage that Larry provided (which I agree with on my own examination) this does mean that the mix consists of <50% source material. I think some very easy tweaks could be made. By simply using the original bassline as is for a bit every once in awhile, or extending the main melody into some sort of soloing, or even just using parts of it as a riff in the sections that currently don't have melody, TO could bring this over the 50% limit.

Production-wise, and in all other respects, this is solid, as per usual with our Aussie friend. Just tweak up the arrangement a little more.

NO

[CHz]

Cribbing the arrangement analysis from Larry and Andy because they were hella thorough and hit everything I could hear. Not quite enough of the original piece in here for a pass.

The interpretation of the original when it's in the mix is fine, and the production is all fine. Definitely feeling the groove bias with this one as is; nice flow, and the sounds all work. With more source to put this over the 50% mark, I'd YES this.

NO (resubmit)

[Liontamer]

Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase resubmit!

I will hug you for this!