Liontamer

Moderators
  • Content count

    10,678
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by Liontamer

  1. 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)
  2. WE FINALLY DOIN’ IT! We need your help to add genre, mood, instrumentation and other tags to the OCR database. The full list of terms. The minimum of what we need for every ReMix is: Primary Genre (e.g. funk, metal, rap, EDM, jazz)Secondary Genres (when applicable)1+ Mood (e.g. aggressive, goofy, romantic, sad)2+ Instrumentation (e.g. acoustic-guitar, chiptune, piano, singing)Additional tag types we want to apply whenever possible:Specific Arrangement aspects (e.g. # of instruments, minimalist, extended soloing)Effects (e.g. distortion, glitching, lo-fi, vocoder)Origin (e.g. collaboration, created for a compo)Live production aspects (e.g. live ensemble, live recording, use of live instruments)Regional influence (e.g. Celtic, Japanese, world)Time (e.g. tempo, long or short duration, time signature)Usage (e.g. workout, winter/holiday, Halloween, meditation)This is a serious project, so you need to have a good understanding of what the tags mean and also have a good ear for labeling genres and identifying instruments and moods. We want to build an accurate library of tags for the remixes on the site. If you’re interested and you think you have what it takes, let us know right here in this thread and we’ll assign you a block of ReMixes to work on and PM you our tagging submission form where you can enter the data. THANKS! __ Tagging Assignments [open] - OCR00291 through OCR00320SystemsReady - OCR00321 through OCR00340Olarin - OCR00341 through OCR00360Jean Of mArc - OCR00361 through OCR00380timaeus222 - OCR00401 through OCR00420__ Can we add more tags to the list? No! We don't plan on adding many other tags, but if a good case is made for something we've overlooked, we may add more. Note on genres: We're not trying to add tags for every subgenre under the sun. We're going for pretty broad descriptions. We don't need "tribal Moombahcore chillwave"; EDM works just fine in most of those cases. Note on using "epic" for mood: We're not using "epic" as a synonym for awesome/amazing/yoooooooooooooo. We're using it to describe ReMixes that are grand, heroic, or anthemic in scope/tone, which isn't limited to orchestral and rock pieces. Note on lyrics and duration: Larry has already handled lyric-specific tags (original, existing, explicit) for all lyrical ReMixes, and duration tags for long and short mixes. Problems?! If you’re working on tagging your batch of ReMixes and run into an issue where something isn’t clear, then post here and let us know and we can help you.
  3. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  4. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  5. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  6. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  7. 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)
  8. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  9. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  10. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  11. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  12. It'll be soon.
  13. 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)
  14. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  15. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  16. 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)
  17. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  18. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  19. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  20. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  21. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  22. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  23. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  24. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.