ReMix:Sonic the Hedgehog "Spring Junkie" 3:45

I had no problems hearing the source tune.

Seconded. Anyway, for me, THIS is a classic halc tune. Chippy, mellow and very sexy 3 Gotta say that the bass here is terrific. And EP is also very tasty. The SFXs are nicely used as well. The whole thing sounds quite suitable for a casino. Speaking about source usage, I had really big problem recognizing Labyrinth Zone, but to my mind it's a good thing, so well it's incorporated here.

Different standards need to be taken for different genres

Pud makes some really good points

Also I take full responsibility for the last "chorus" bit being recognizable.

I flat out loved this ReMix and enjoyed that the sound effects were put to good uses over the course of the song. I really got a casino/sexy lane feeling from this ReMix before it faded with the nice chill out ending filling with gulping. It's just a very sexy and well done ReMix and I had no problems hearing the source tune.

when I listen to this mix, I'd have ZERO problems identifying it as Spring Yard/Sonic.

Yeah, I mean the spring noises in the very beginning of the song don't give it away or anything...

I really like this mix, even if it is more "liberal". I actually prefer a more 50/50 or 60 source/40 original composition anyway. If we're keeping 90-100% source but just changing instrumentation or structure, what is the fun in that? Improvisation feeds an artist's creativity.

Not just me who loved this but also my 6 year old bro XD he noticed by himself that its a sonic remix:shock: well its now in his blood he'll never forget this wonderful sonic remix collaboration

appreciate the comments everyone. glad y'all like the mix regardless!

For me the source content lies from 1:05-1:33 (source melody usuage with some minor variations) then 1:40 to 1:57 is the Chorus Melody. 2:24-3:03 is the source slowed down with melody usuage,

Chords at the end are different to the source - the second chord in the 4 chord sequence is changed from the 3rd to 1st, but its recognisable enough to me.

My feeling is that its the intro thats the problem source wise, and while its liberal, you can tell its suppose to be spring yard imo. I could.

Overall, I'd count at the very least 1:30 of source material... I have a feeling it would probably have passed the panel but this probably should have been judged, rather than DP in my personal opinion, due to the liberal nature of the remix. That being said, I do enjoy this remix. I can see both sides of the argument but I think there is enough connection to the source for those to hear that are looking for it.

Considering you didn't follow your own POV when looking at "Spring Junkie," I don't see why you'd say that. The standards also don't exclude what you're claiming they exclude.

But I did. I guess this where we're just going to have to agree to disagree on what really defines a song. In my opinion, if you take a song and mute the melody, you'll have more of that song than muting everything except the melody, especially in an arrangement. Of course I understand the logic behind wanting to have the majority of the song have melody, but I'm just saying that that shouldn't necessarily apply to every genre of music. If THPOB was a completely different song, totally unrelated to the chord progression and feel of the source, I would probably agree with it having lack of source.

Anyway, I think what strikes me the most about this song is the main drum/bass/keys theme from 0:00-1:30 and again from 1:56-2:43 basically being the main theme of the song. I can't find anything remotely sounding like it in the source. If you want to go all stopwatchy, those sections total 137 seconds, which is more than half of the song.

wuv u larry

how much a remix "reflects the tone" of the source tune has nothing to do with how much of a remix includes recognizable pieces of the source tune

awesome remix, great job!

Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly? I'm not saying like how upbeat or grungy or UNTZ it is when I say "tone". I'm saying that if i were to play an original piece of music, and then dub just the melody of a video game song on top of it, the original song I've created doesn't then become an arrangement of the vg song just because they have the same key and tempo. Let me reiterate here that I think spring junkie is very enjoyable, I just think the second half is more demonstrative of it being an "arrangement" than the first half is, regardless of the existence of the places where source melody pops up in the first half.

btw, this remix is cool. just sayin'...

It begs to be said.

btw, this remix is cool. just sayin'...

No worries about Shizz/OCR drama. There is none. I've read Cetera's posts in that thread, and I disagree, but the discussion there has been good. It's obvious it's not just one-sided hate and I don't see how there's any drama there.

Any given song isn't just defined by its melody, so I don't understand why the source standard excludes everything except melody and secondary almost-melodies.

Considering you didn't follow your own POV when looking at "Spring Junkie," I don't see why you'd say that. The standards also don't exclude what you're claiming they exclude.

Larry NO'd Sonic Gargles in the beginning even though the chord progression and bassline is there throughout the whole damn song. But that isn't fair, and I think more needs to be taken into account than presence of melody.

For the Sonic 3 mix, I definitely gave you credit for your bass. I don't only take into account the presence of melody/countermelody, but I don't count rests or soloing over stripped down chord progressions. Context is important and I definitely differ with several judges on it. It's along a similar line to what Nick was talking about, only swinging it completely in the other direction. For most sections of "Hot Pink" being along the lines of soloing over a simplified chord progression (e.g. 3:15-4:23), it was not dominant enough, recognizable enough usage of the source even with the context of the original song to compare it to, IMO.

Besides, the only justification Larry gave for this song WAS the stopwatching itself. It just seems really lazy to me. Stopwatching can be a nice tool but should not be the final word.

No one said it was the final word, including myself. "I could be missing something else, but halc can speak for himself." Whenever I timestamp stuff, I always state there could be other areas I've missed and encourage judges to clarify additional usage and contest things. If "Spring Junkie" were a judging decision, I'd go more in depth than that quick summary (at 2:14 AM). It's not lazy to actually look at how a source tune is used rather than just going with your gut. What I've seen you and Nick imply so far is the notion that soloing over simplified chords most of the time should count but melodic usage shouldn't necessarily count. Can't agree with that.

Taking Nick's issue and flipping it, IMO, you can't take a video game song's stripped down chord progression and plop on a few original melodies, make it sound pretty nice, and have it be up to OCR standards. That really makes no sense either. The discussion is fun though, and you don't sound bitter, Tony, it's fine.

If Tony's point is that the judges can be somewhat inconsistent, well, of course they can... nature of the process, not saying anything new or scandalous or particularly worth saying. But since he's saying they've been particularly inconsistent, and using these two specific mixes as proof, I'm sorry, I just don't hear it at all.

At all.

Actually it's more the case that they're being very consistent, but for the wrong reasons. If you're going to only consider melody as being part of a source song and not include other elements (which may be just as important as a song's melody, if not more), then there's a whole lot of awesome music that will fit well and everyone will love that will never see the light of day on OCR. If you're talking strictly melody, yes, Spring Junkie is very much so a Spring Yard remix, but if you include elements beyond melody, it's an original song with Spring Yard melodies floating over the top. I mean that's fine and I'll respect halc's choice in arrangement, but to me it's not enough to call it a full-blown Spring Yard remix.

Therefore, styles of music that use less melody by nature are more subject to being rejected. If I did a funk piece of all melody with no solos then it would probably turnout immensely boring. Different standards need to be taken for different genres, but the 50% rule prevents that.

In fact I've wanted to basically submit everything I've done to OCR, because I love you guys, and there's plenty of brilliants musicians here, but I've held back because I know exactly what will be said about some of them.

I know you guys probably think I'm just a bitter douche about something that happened over 2 years ago, and rightly so. I LOVE OCR like I love DoD and TheShizz, and it just frustrates me that because of rules I basically can't be nearly as integrated in this community as I can the others. It sucks that THPOB is the only example I can pull out, because it just makes me look more and more like a bitter douche. I'm trying not to be. Let this be an apology to everyone. I just feel strongly about this and can not think of any other way to approach it.

how much a remix "reflects the tone" of the source tune has nothing to do with how much of the remix includes recognizable pieces of the source tune

what you are describing is unfortunately not included in OCR's public (and many times re-stated) standards

awesome remix, great job!

Yes, clearly if you used a piece of the source for the whole song, you have a song that explicitly references the source throughout. Not sure what you're getting at by stating that.

There are 2 main synths in the original on melody and he simply separated them instead of playing them simultaneously. I suppose your argument is that the sections I mentioned reference what you'd call a harmony and not a main lead, but I'd disagree that the secondary synth is somehow less important the the main. The usage is blatantly obvious to me and immediately recognizable. Granted I love the source and have remixed it before, but the statements "hardly any source" or that it's "hardly recognizable" are highly overstated and in the case of the former, demonstrably false.

Obviously I was being a bit hyperbolic, but the point I was trying to make is that "source material" cannot be defined as simply the melody or the harmony from the original song. Having that melody/harmony floating over a piece of original music, regardless of if its musically "correct", doesn't necessarily reflect the tone of the original song. If anything, I feel it's a little backwards in that the focus when bringing in the source material should be the bassline/chord progression, and you should then add in your new original material to accompany that. That description is not unlike a solo, no?

All that being said, I enjoy the song. The beats are catchy, the production is smooth, and, upon further listening, the second half really does come together in capturing the feel original. Tony's griping in the shizz thread (THANKS FOR BRINGING IT UP, LARRY ) and his post above was to demonstrate confusion about the 50/50 rule because what may be considered "source" is possibly up for debate, as I've pointed out in the first paragraph of this post. The first half of the song, if that debate is to be considered, is a tough call in how true to the original it is, but this thread is not the place for that kind of debate. The beats are fresh, and that's all that matters for now.