[Liontamer]

Dear OCRemix team,

Thanks for a great resource. I have recorded two remakes of Nintendo music which I thought you might like.
They do not meet your criteria when it comes to filesizes, pardon me. If you feel I have wasted your time, sorry for that. In case you think of publishing the music, please let me know.
Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

Johan Krafft, Sweden

The theme from stage "Dire Dire Docks" in Super Mario 64 recorded today, the 11th of December 2007, without manipulation (ie. it is a live recording from my electric piano).

[Jillian Aversa]

Source:

---------

Haha, this version of Dire, Dire Docks totally belongs on a Windham Hill collection. So relaxing! It's not the most daring arrangement I've ever heard, mainly because you chose to stick close to the structure and arpeggiated style of the source tune. But you've embellished both melody and harmony in a very tasteful manner, and with wonderfully expressive playing!

Other than the occasional punchy note, I think production is top notch for a piano solo arrangement: great balance of octave ranges and subtle reverb. I do wish you held the final chord a little longer; the song ends a little abruptly because of the short decay and lack of silence at the end. A more original title might have been nice as well. Small gripes, though - very nice work.

YES

EDIT:
Johan misspoke when he said the file size doesn't meet our criteria. It's at 200 kbps VBR, though, so we'll have to ask him to re-encode if this is passed.

[Vig]

This is a great performance, and the production is pristine, but I can't pass this. There's just not enough arrangement. It's pretty much a cover with some performance embellishments. There are no compositional liberties taken. It's really just an instrumental adaptation. You clearly have talent, but we're looking for more arrangement.

Look forward to hearing more from you.

NO

[zyko]

this one is problematic because it is wonderful. i'd pass it for every reason in the book... great performance, great sound, great vision, beautiful source, everything.... except for one and unfortunately it is one of the most critical cornerstones of the guidelines.

there simply isn't enough arrangement outside of being orchestrated for solo piano. that does constitute arrangement but is too similar to the original which is popular and which has been arranged in far more bold manners.

just so you know, the bit around 2.14 wet my pants.

NO

[zircon]

This is a tough call. Having just re-listened to the source, there's no question that this remix is on the conservative side. But it DOES have embellishments, no question about it, such as the little run on :47 which makes the source melody a bit more interesting. Then we have :56 through 1:39, which uses the source chord progression and intro riff, but definitely adds original material and variation, especially towards the end of that passage. The last repetition of the main melody is also varied very well.

The issue is the lack of variation in the harmony.. it's very close to the original in that respect. No new chords, no significant rhythmic changes. There's also no substantially new writing.. eg. the intro is basically the intro from the source, and there is no outtro to speak of. So can we still pass this, all things considered? I look to Sukotto42's Mega Man 3 "Blue Balls" mix, which had a similar situation, with perhaps even less melodic embellishment than this one. Then there's the recent Select Start mix "Theme of Frog's" - <2 mins, keeps the harmonic structure of the original almost exactly, does not add any massively new writing. We passed these two mixes, and going off that and my own gut feeling, my vote is a close..

YES

[Malcos]

The quality of the recording and the playing is excellent. The issue here is the level of re-arrangement and whether it is different enough from the source. The section from 1 minute to 1.40 does feel different from the source, however the rest is made up of slight changes, and I had to listen to the source and the remix a few times to be able to specifically highlight the differences in the remixed version, aside from the section I already mentioned.

I like this performance a lot, but for OCR we need more originality. It would be great to see a resub of this.

NO (Good candidate for resubmission)

[Liontamer]

http://www.zophar.net/usf/sm64usf.rar - 09 "Dire, Dire Docks"

zircon mentioned Mega Man 3 "Blue Balls" as being an accepted cover-style ReMix in the same vein, but IMO this was more conservative. This is a great solo piano cover with some excellent embellishments and an impeccable performance. I can't wait to hear more material from Johan, I was impressed.

But I've gotta agree with the other Js that no matter how solid this performance is, this is not interpretive enough for the arrangement bar here. The structure is just too similar to the original to stand out as a unique enough arrangement. If more creative liberties were taken, I'd pass this in a heartbeat.

Don't be discouraged, Johan, I'd love to hear you submit something in the future with a bit more liberty and interpretation applied to the source tune. You're were going in the right direction, but not far enough in that direction. That doesn't say anything negative about your performance skills.

NO

[big giant circles]

Heh, well, I was the only person to NO "Icy Peaks" (which is a WONDERFUL track) because it stuck too close to the original, upon which I was told that the emotions and feeling that accompany a well-done live performance are as important as an actual re-arrangement, and qualify as substantial interpretation of a track, and thus, I decided that that made sense, and I could stand to give a little leeway to live mixes as long as 1) there WAS substantial emotional energy in the mix and 2) the production was not being disregarded for the sake of an emotive live performance.

Both those conditions have been met. Poo on those of you who YES'd Icy Peaks and NO'd this. This vote goes out to you chumps :D

YES

[Liontamer]

Originally Posted by big giant circles

Poo on those of you who YES'd Icy Peaks and NO'd this. This vote goes out to you chumps :D

In terms of tempo, structure, and mood, "Icy Peaks" was a lot different compared to its source. I didn't get that from this piece at all, which is why I NOed.

[Palpable]

This is the toughest decision I've had to make so far as a judge. This arrangement is beautiful. It's played and recorded excellently, and it's just a joy to listen to. I think that's what made this so hard to say NO to. I looked for reasons to pass it because I think people ought to hear it, and that in itself makes me think I knew from the start this one was too conservative. Ultimately, the changes are quite minor. It's far more expressive than the original and it has some slight variations on the left-hand part (some of which are simplifications), along with some new runs in the melody here and there. While these embellishments are nice, they are largely downplayed, and I don't feel that they add that much. Meanwhile, the structure, the tempo, the mood - all basically unchanged.

Breaks my heart, seriously. I would love to see you touch this one up, maybe adding more significant changes in the left-hand part. Wouldn't blame you if you don't - this is a superb cover, as is. Either way, hope to see more from you, Johan.

NO (resubmit)