• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Liontamer

  • Rank
    Community Manager, Judge, Sonic Augmentation Director
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Atlanta, GA


  • Biography
    Larry "Liontamer" Oji has been a judge at OverClocked ReMix since July 2004, having evaluated more than 4,500 submissions. Reporting to site founder David "djpretzel" Lloyd, Larry is responsible for primary submissions evaluations, informational database maintenance and other otherwise sundry & unsexy tasks at OCR, becoming head submissions evaluator in June 2006.
  • Real Name
    Larry Oji
  • Occupation
    Community Manager & Judge, OC ReMix
  • Facebook ID
  • Twitter Username
  • Username

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances

Contact Methods

  • Skype
  • AIM

Recent Profile Visitors

7,966 profile views
  1. Man, tell me about it. Russell Cox is such a legend. My highlights were the delicate harp brought in at :37 & 3:23 -- which sounded incredible -- as well as the original brass flourishes at 2:03 and orchestral swell at 3:02 (which was garbled by the low encoding). Everything holds up pretty well today, and this one a perfect example of a melodically conservative arrangement that's creatively expanded and given a substantial, personalized interpretation into a new genre. Amazing stuff!
  2. The harpsichord at :11 was way too loud and upfront. Oh shit, at :22, the lead synth was shrill and even louder than the harpsichord. What's going on here? The levels here really made no sense, and the track's way too compressed. Around 1:17, the plain writing of the core beats was already getting stale; you really need to get more creative with that part, otherwise the whole track feels static like it does now. Also, 1:17 and 2:01 were opportunities to get creative and varied with other aspects of the writing. Instead, the lead synth just has the same vanilla tone throughout, and the same deliberate pacing. At 2:23, we already heard that stuff at :43, and there's essentially no variation there where going to it for the finish. The whole execution feels like an early work-in-progress and -- completely divorcing this from the Standards here -- not up to your own usual standard of quality. I do like you venturing outside the wheelhouse that I'm at least familiar with for your work, Sebastian, but there's a lot of detail work and variation lacking in this piece. With such a brief piece, you've gotta vary up the sounds and arrangement ideas for the source tune, and the balance among the various instruments can't be so off. Rein in the volume, get more varied with the leads and melodic interpretation, and vary up the drumwork. NO
  3. Just putting it out there again, Jan, that this was really cool, and we do want to post this in some form. Definitely re-submit this; it'll skip the wait time in our inbox, and we'll come back to it more quickly. Nice work so far, and I don't believe it would take much to turn some of us into additional YES'es.
  4. It didn't bother me at much, but it wasn't just you. Some of those grace notes aren't working. I'd timestamp this too for my own edification, but the production quality is an automatic dealbreaker. It's basically in mono, and sounds distant. There's not much in the way of production choices, or clarity for that matter. djp elaborated on what makes for acceptable chiptune production in the judging decision for RushJet1's "Dark Depths of Wily's Castle", so I strongly recommend listening to that and reading that discussion. Right now, this needs to make more use of stereo and add in some high-end clarity. NO
  5. Sounds harsh on the high-end to start, but nothing dealbreaking, at least initially. Around :40 in, and the groove is sounding cool, but basic, so I'm hoping it goes somewhere more sophisticated with the sound design. Whoa, the textural change at 1:08 definitely wasn't expected; curveball in a good way. Goes back to the beat-driven material at 1:36, and the lead synth for the melody is feeling very plodding and vanilla; are we ever going anywhere interesting with that lead? (Answer: nope) 2:30 recycles 1:08's writing, which was still good, but copy-pasta'ed. OK, so there's some added effects for this section, but it's basically 1:08's section looped longer. Kind of eh, creatively. That said, the very gradual build of the stuttering synth line in the background from 3:00-3:30 as a transition was smartly done. 3:52's section brings back the source verse again with some additions to the textures, before the beat dropped out at 4:20 for the finish. The synth lead first used at :13 really needs to do something else creatively over the course of the 5 minutes, especially with the tempo purposefully being slow like this. I agreed with Chimpa on how the copy-pasta of some of this hurt, as it dragged on due to the tempo. And there should be further variation on the writing or textures when core sections are being repeated. There's so much going right with this that I wouldn't die if if was posted as is, but I felt the number of smaller issues added up to needing some more development. It's maybe 80% of the way, IMO, Jan, but I see why folks are digging it; it's a creative approach, for sure. Definitely tweak this to fully realize the potential here if this version doesn't make it. NO (resubmit)
  6. He's got you there, John. Nice work so far, but the copy-pasta/rehashing is indeed too extensive. As far as being a sonically souped-up cover, it otherwise works very well. Add in some further variations through the writing and/or instrumentation and you've got yourself your first mixpost. Let's make it happen! NO (resubmit)
  7. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  8. It's not meant to be glib or disrespectful, but the lead timing was so rigid, that it was basically a dealbreaker right there. The sound design was otherwise creative and an interesting sound upgrade, Patrick, with strong SFX. I like the Dune: Spice Opera album a lot, so I respect much of what I'm hearing in the sound palette for 2:50's section. But at such a slow tempo, it's problematic to have such robotic timing on everything. The ending also cut out rather abruptly because you had hiss in the background that didn't fade even when the instrumentation did; in any case, the ending was sudden and felt like you merely ran out of ideas. Cool approach so far, but if you can humanize the timing on this so that it sounds less mechanical, this could sound pretty grand. NO (resubmit)
  9. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  10. The piece isn't poor, but the piano sample lacks realism and body, which made the higher notes in particular sound very flat with blocky timing. The arrangement -- while having performance flourishes that personalized it and moved in the right direction -- didn't sound like it had much interpretation beyond adapting it to piano, IMO. That doesn't necessarily mean doing dramatically different things with the themes, but this could use more melodic interpretation and/or more changes with the tempo, rhythms, and use of grace notes, since this was so melodically straightforward. The transition at 3:12 was sudden, but it was a purposeful shift and it's over before you can linger on it; not a big deal for me, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't at least worth pointing out. This was well in the right direction, the production in particular needs an additional level of polish. When you have a one-instrument piece, the sound quality should be on point. The arrangement needs further personalization to help it stand apart more distinctly from the source tunes, at least to me, but just focusing on making this performance sound more like a real piano could be enough to put it over the top. NO (resubmit)
  11. It'll be soon.
  12. The connection to the source tune was pretty straightforward, so I'm not what the problem would be there, but overall I'm agreed with the others, particularly on Gario with regards to the solemn church imagery. I liked the instrumentation, but MW's right that the strings were majorly exposed and unrealistic-sounding, and the overall static nature of the arrangement means it doesn't sustain interest this long as a standalone piece. As BGM though, it's phenomenal. I didn't mind the volume jump as much, but I see how it could be viewed by others as off-putting. More clarity in the soundscape, better execution of the strings, and more variation/dynamic contrast are needed to seal the deal here, but this was a solid start. I hope you're willing to go back to this and provide more variation, Connor, but no matter what, you showed promise here, and I hope we hear from you again with more subs! NO (resubmit)
  13. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  14. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  15. I remember listening to the original version back when you first submitted it, so it's good to hear you back with a more fleshed-out version. I like the harpsichord opening transitioning into the familar theme. Not sure why the soundscape is so lossy-sounding though; when the lead comes in at :40, it sounds like there's no high end to it. The exposed voice cameo at 1:00 was odd, and seemingly had no purpose to it, but better to be bold with ideas, since I'm hearing a lot of fun sounds sprinkled throughout (including the voices later on). Really odd then having the soundscape suddenly become very sharp at upfront at 1:36; didn't make any sense compared with the previous section. The beats from 1:36-2:45 & 2:53-3:28 were too flimsy and barebones, especially during the more fast-paced areas (1:56 & 2:13), so it's unfortunate the backing writing didn't fill out the soundscape enough. That's a shame, because while the synths and sounds used upfront were fairly generic, they were used in creative ways. It's not enough to constantly be morphing and changing the textures (which was a strong positive here), you just need more sophisticated and/or fuller-sounding textures. The clicking from 3:28-4:30 was too loud & upfront, which distracted and detracted from the otherwise-creative orchestral & synth combinations you were using. Not trying to be insulting in any way, but I'm really not sure why you would think that clicking wasn't just crowding out more important elements; see whatever works better with either pulling this back or removing it entirely. Nice slowdown at 4:30 going to the close, including the droning sound that you combined with the organ. There's a lot of positives in terms of evolving these textures, so props on the creative approach to arranging this theme. If you can improve the beat-writing, and then re-balance 3:28-4:40 section, the execution would be more consistant and cohesive. Making the section at :40 not sound so lossy, or at least creating a legit transition from lossy to sharp around 1:36 would also be a nice touch. Very promising so far though, Forest. Even if you don't get passed with this arrangement, the potential is there for either another revision of this one, or a different piece. Definitely don't be discouraged, you're moving well in the right direction. NO (resubmit)