Liontamer

Moderators
  • Content count

    10,880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

1 Follower

About Liontamer

  • Rank
    Community Manager, Judge, Sonic Augmentation Director

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Atlanta, GA

Converted

  • 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
    607933576
  • Twitter Username
    LarryOji
  • Last.fm Username
    LiontamerVGF

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    LiontamerVGF
  • AIM
    Liontamer87

Recent Profile Visitors

9,430 profile views
  1. It's a music production workshop, that's why it's not there.
  2. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  3. Sorry for holding this up. Like I explained to Weston directly, typically, it would take maybe a few months to go through the judges panel, depending on when judges got to it vs. everything else, and then some time to wait before posting, but stuff with unique issues can get held up. It's part of the issues of doing this in downtime and not as a job, you tend to make time as needed, and anything that's not super easy to deal with can get put into a corner, which I'm guilty of here and in a lot of other cases. Thanks a lot to EAR for his extreme patience and understanding. Thanks also to djp for chatting with me about the potential for the extensive sampled lyrics being a Standards violation on incorporating non-VGM music. Basically, he's been OK with vocal sampling of this nature, because it's raps and spoken word stuff that isn't pulling in any sort of non-VGM melodies or composition to be arranged. That many of the lines were from sample packs rather than mainstream music releases was noted thanks to Weston's info, but djp ultimately wasn't concerned about the source of the lyrical sampling, if you check his comments above. Just restating my POV on the potential direct audio sampling of the source tunes, I wasn't hearing that here at all and it wasn't a concern. The other Js say the source tune was "all over this," but no one bothered to break it down, so I think they conflated a lot of the house/rave style of the writing with the parts arranging/referencing the various "Metallic Madness" segments. The music part of the track was 4:27-long, so I needed to identify the source tunes being used for at least 133.5 seconds of the arrangement. :20.5-:22.25 (Past - 1:01-1:03), :38.5-1:43.5 (mostly Past, some Present), 2:22.25-2:47 (Bad Future), 2:47-3:01.25 (Present), 3:27-3:54.25 (Bad Future), 4:19-4:25 (Past - 1:01-1:03) = 139 seconds or 52.05% overt source usage There were a lot of things that had a soundalike feel to "Metallic Madness" but sounded more stylistically influenced by 2 Unlimited's "Twilight Zone" (e.g. that similar sampled shout at :23) or even the Mortal Kombat movie theme, The Immortals' "Techno Syndrome," due to the numerous orch stabs, like 1:56's little jingle. There were also plenty of extended sections with no direct connection to Sonic CD that I could ID, so I came up just barely over half as far as the source usage being dominant in the arrangement, which made it closer to me than the other judges believed, provided I'm not overlooking something major. I'm sure Weston can clarify after the fact. Anyway, Gario and Sir_NutS had fair production points about crowding and piercing highs that I agreed with, but on the whole, this was produced reasonably well and felt very authentic as a long-lost 90s club hit, and I didn't hear any dealbreaking issues for the production. All of the SFX & sampled lyric usage added up to a lot, but sounded reasonable in the big picture, as far as not feeling invasive and integrating well into the track. Good to go! YES
  4. Here's my discussion with djpretzel last week (5/17/2017) on the possible Standards issue of the heavy vocal sampling in this mix (edited for clarity, with removal of some non sequitur talk)
  5. Weird opening, more out of a Metroid arrangement or something. That's not a criticism, and I thought it was a cool way to illustrate how different the mood of this would be compared to the original. OK, so :30 brings in the theme, but the approach sounds pretty plodding to start. The bass writing also sounded repetitive until 1:25. 1:25-1:53 hit the source tune's chorus, and the lead felt scrawny with stiff timing. 1:53 seemed to basically retread :30's writing, aside from different bassline writing, and the guitar chugs hitting at 2:20 with exactly the same stuff. 2:47-3:15 went into a different direction with some soloing, before going back to the source tune's chorus; again, I felt the lead guitar tone was scrawny and the timing felt stilted, even though the performance here was more expressive than before. I THINK there was machine gun bass kick stuff going from 4:09-4:37... yep, you could only really make out the drums at the end around 4:35 when other parts dropped out and allowed that part to breathe for a second; otherwise, they were so buried, they barely registered nearly the whole time. This could use another pass on the mixing to clarify some things, and a lot of the lead electric guitar work sounded stiff, so I dunno if you're up for fresh takes on all of that. There was also the issue of needing some more substance/development with the arrangement. Not sure why the arrangement approach was underdeveloped for the first half like this, but MindWanderer was right on his repetition criticisms. I'm actually not against more deliberate pacing, as long as there's sufficient development within the dynamic range you've staked out; this was well in the right direction, just to be clear, but more could be done here, so keep in mind the sections MW mentioned. Good base, Daniel, and I'm liking how you're given this source a completely different character. If you're up for giving this some more expressiveness in the performance, providing more development in the first half, and/or re-EQing this, this still has a lot of potential. This definitely would have been posted back in the olden days of the site, and I think it has a place here, so I urge you not to drop this one. NO (resubmit)
  6. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  7. All set.
  8. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  9. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  10. The production criticisms aren't wrong, but I fully agreed with Gario and was OK with this version as is. The wrong note should be fixed, the mixing wasn't clean enough with some parts getting lost, and the final dense section was cluttered. That said, I could distinguish the part-writing well enough, so these weren't dealbreakers, just issues that would be nice to have improvements on. No issue with rejecting it, as AJ's been effective with production revisions in the past, but to me, the arrangement's a solid rock approach, and the production was serviceable. Let's go. YES (borderline) EDIT (5/17): In order to expedite a revision, I will flip my vote to NO (resubmit) so that AJ can see the feedback and (hopefully) proceed with a revision. Let's go, bro!
  11. Either click your profile name above your avatar or scroll to the very top of the page, click your name, then click profile. The # next to your username in the URL is your user id #, i.e. 34545.
  12. The source tune was referenced pretty clearly throughout this, even just with the guitar chugs, so there was no need to timestamp it. I thought the opening synths at :08 sounded generic, BUT were produced in a way to give them depth and fullness, so nice work there. The soundscape felt a little lo-fi (no big deal) and the beat pattern first used at :50 being so plain and plodding was a negative. No big issue here either, as I liked the energy of the electric guitar, but felt it was too loud vs. the other elements; luckily, the synth writing cut through to the foreground enough to be heard, though the mixing could have been tweaked. Aside from the drum writing being underwhelming, the rest of the track was creatively developed and the part-writing was full and distinct enough to be appreciated. Fun energy! Lemmings is now the first game on OCR to be repped on 4 different platforms. YES
  13. The source tune was all over this. I had it at least from :10-1:25, 1:42.5-1:50.75 & 2:33.25-4:03.5, and I'm sure there were other sections I didn't immediately recognize, so there were no concerns on that level. The arrangement aspect was a pass, and the collaborators all stepped up and delivered. Also gotta co-sign that the drumwork was definitely solid, and a strong foundation here. However, I'm definitely on the NO side of this with the current execution. I wouldn't be angry if this passed, BUT I also strongly don't believe there's a legitimate case that this should pass as is. As others pointed out, those sequenced bowed strings were definitely pretty lacking, with some of the longest sustained notes really exposed (e.g. :32-37). I don't think saying "they're stated as string synths" makes them sound serviceable; I've heard better usage of synth strings before, these are too exposed, and for all intents and purposes they're serving the function of real orchestral strings. The background synth brought in at :31 was arguably too quiet, but it at least registered; no issue there, I just thought it could have been more prominent, including at 2:07's section as well. Onto some other production issues: The timing of the flute at :47 was also extremely blocky and mechanical-sounding. I'm not sure if it was just the 160kbps encoding here, but the mixing wasn't strong either. For example, I felt like the rhythm guitar work introduced at 1:03 did a decent job filling in the soundscape, but the performance of it tended to mud into the background and not sound clear; that said, the backing guitar at 1:25 did noticeably sound clearer and did a better job filling in the textures. It was only at 2:47 that I even noticed a bassline even existed in this piece; it barely registered for me, so let's not make sure THG's work there isn't lost in the shuffle so badly. The overall mixing wasn't awful, and it's decent enough to get by with some Js, but do what you can to clear the overall piece up so that some of your team's part-writing isn't getting buried. Very good base here, Kevin, and if this doesn't make it as is, the potential is there. The arrangement doesn't need to be touched, so it would then be about fine-tuning the production, i.e. the sample realism issues and the mixing. Good luck, and definitely keep at it with this one. NO (resubmit)
  14. Whatever that lead was at :17 sounded really rigid with its attacks. At :33, I'm not sure why the warbling synths were louder than the pad-style lead. This kind of imbalance pervaids the whole track, because the beats were the loudest instrument except during the verses with the guitar in play. Yeah, I can already tell I'm not feeling the execution on this. The guitar performance sounded expressive, and the bassline had presence, but most of the other sounds were anemic, e.g. the pad-like synth handling the melody, the boom-tss percussion, and the synth quietly doubling the melody. And beats/kicks at 1:03 had volume but a flimsy tone, even though the beats were at the foundation of the track and too often pushed as the loudest element. I dunno what was up with the panning choices here either, but it's seems too wide overall as I'm listening on headphones, with an imbalance to the right side; had to listen to some control tracks on my comp just to be sure my headphone connection wasn't jacked. EQ-wise, you sometimes have a lot of instruments fighting for the same space in the soundscape (e.g. 2:03-2:18). The source is one of PC gaming's catchiest, and I liked the additive writing of the guitar, which was easily the track's highlight. The rest of this sounded sloppy with the mixing/balance issues. MindWanderer pointed out the repetition as well as the lack of a developed ending/resolution, so don't overlook that. Keep developing/varying the arrangement further and re-examine the mixing, Zak; post this in the Workshop area if you haven't already done so, and badger for production advice to rehab this. Right now you have a decent cover with some expansive guitar work added in, but the production lacks polish. NO (resubmit)
  15. It's not that I disliked this, but I was less enthused than the other Js. The synthwave concept is intriguing, but the result here was a plodding, straightforward one-trick pony of a genre adaptation that didn't develop the arrangement ideas much beyond that. Melodically, this played it pretty conservatively, so I was expecting other unique ideas here to offset that beyond the genre adaptation, and they never really arrived. As pointed out, the percussion was plodding and insignificant, which hurt the second half. There was a transition section bridging the Sanctuary theme to the Hyrule Castle theme (2:11-2:35), sure, but no effort was made to have this all flow together; it definitely came off like a lazy, uninspired way to change from one theme to the next with no real connection between the two. Gario made note of a lot of production issues to focus on, so don't lose sight of that. I would just say this piece needs to develop and evolve more (even within a narrow dynamic curve), whether that means more melodic interpretation/variations, altering rhythm or tempo, or employing other sounds to break up the uniformity of each of the two sections. Also, if you're going to have both themes separated, the transition between the two should nonetheless be more cohesive. Keep at it on this one, Moritz, and see where else you can take it. NO