Leaderboard

Two sources that don't have a lot of melodic content - can definitely see why this is presenting source problems with my fellow judges. The piece isn't doing itself any favors by saving the most straightforward quotes of the source until the very end of the piece (the bassline rhythmic structure from Howling Gears being used only on the outro, for example). In times where a source has too simplistic a melody, or its defining features are in other facets of the piece (rhythmic structure, sound design, etc), it becomes much harder to nail down the tie between the remix and the source. And the spirit of Rule 3, as jnWake outlined above, is to make that distinction as clear as possible for the audience. On the panel, we're then tasked to ask, "when I listen to this section, am I making a connection to the source somehow?" Anyway, that's my preamble, onto the vote. It's a rare (and welcome!) vote on a VQ track where I don't have qualms with the production. There is some mud in the low-mids when all the layers start to coalesce (1:51 - 2:30, 3:50 - 4:25, 5:11 - 6:00), but it's not pulling me out of enjoying the track, so I'll live. I also agree with jnWake that the arrangement flows nicely - it certainly takes its time with basically a 2-minute slow burn intro, but the transitions between sections are excellent and the writing straddles the line between enough variance to feel developed and enough repetition to feel cohesive. The biggest problem the track has is source usage, as my fellow Js have noted. Both source tracks have a similar challenge to overcome from a remixing perspective, in that their actual melodic content is sparse to my ear. Howling Gears A has a single actual melodic phrase that I can pinpoint - the diminished leap in the synth. VQ's changed the interval to be something more palatable in the soundscape, but in doing so, I think it changes the character of the phrase enough that it's no longer easy to connect it back to Howling Gears. The arpeggiated runs in Howling Gears B are more clearly delineable, and they're woven in better. That leaves basically the rhythmic structure (the groove), not the notes, of the bassline, guitars, and drums to draw from in Howling Gears. Nidavellir's Shout has the portamento synth line as a melodic figure, as well as the even more melodic melody @ :26 in the source and B section melody @ :48. To my ear, the first 2:30 minutes of the piece is Howling Gears B (the modified arpeggio is the biggest tie, and even that feels tenuous to me), with the guitar coming in with the altered Howling Gears A melody around 1:12. If I am really listening for it, I can hear the Latin groove of the source's bassline at 1:50, but again, it's tenuous. 2:50 - 3:09 is much easier to identify as Nidavellir's Shout from the melody; I can't count the ostinato as the chord it outlines is not unique enough to Nidavellir's Shout. 3:10 - 4:27 comes back to Howling Gears B with the melody front and center in the guitar, and 4:32 - 5:11 returns us back to that modified Howling Gears A. 5:12 - 5:50 has no connective tissue that I can identify, and then we get the groove of the source bassline in the bass from 5:50 - 6:10. Timestamping gives me 233 seconds out of 376, or ~62% source if I include the tenuous spots, ~51% source if I don't (194 seconds out of 376). What it's coming down to, for me, is that I have to strain to hear the sources in this piece when our standards ask for very clear and identifiable - dominant, even! - source use. I think this is arranged and produced well, but all of the connective tissue just doesn't come through enough for me to pass this one. I would need to hear more clearly defined ties to the source, preferably early on in the track (within the first minute or so). NO (resubmit)

This is a wild romp through the Virulent source indeed, very creative and avante-garde. I like it, there's plenty of source and it's a fun listen. This version is not my master, and this master is as jnWake pointed out quite overhyped in the high mids and highs. The premaster was already quite heavy in those regions, as my master still indicates, but this master is screaming in the high mids and highs to the point of pain. The limiter has been cranked so high here, and also oddly it is limited at -1.2db which seems odd to me. I agree another shot at the master would be appropriate here. I'm happy to provide my master but that is absolutely not a requirement. NO (resubmit)

Some of the Star Fox 64 themes have such weird melodies, Venom being a standout in that sense... In any case, we begin with some pads and voice clips. Backing is doing material from N64 Venom. Source quotes at 0:27 become quite evident. There's some fun toms (I guess?) here, with tons of effects applied that make them sound quite interesting. As usual in your tracks, there's A LOT going on in terms of sounds. Things build-up for a bit and it starts becoming very very LOUD, the waveform shows the limiting very clearly and the LUFS stabilizes around -7dB with occasional peaks of -5 and such. Around 0:55 the Venom 64 usage becomes even more evident with the additional synths. We get a transition with a voice clip around a minute in and then focus on a quick synth bass. Really love the dark electronic sound of that sample. At 1:22 the source returns and we get some nice moments of heavy electronica until a more syncopated section at 1:48. After that we get more heavy electronica with additional synths and tons of loudness. While the mix is clear sounding it also feels very heavy on the high frequencies (easy to check with plugins like SPAN). Section with violins at 2:16 is fun, nice change-up. We then return to more quotes of Venum with a lot of percussion and such. Around 2:51 there's a break and we move to SNES Venom for a few seconds before a cool variation of Venom N64 with Venom SNES as backing. Track then continues with quick changes and all sorts of Venom quotes. This is kinda like prog EDM at this point! At 4 minutes we get another voice clip transition and then we return to the mood of 1:22 and it's loud and busy as hell. There's another voice clip transition and the melody from 2:16 returns before the track closes off with some stabs. On arrangement this is super cool, I have no idea how one would label this but I'd describe it as dark prog EDM. Source usage is clear and there's a lot of fun and creative usages of the original themes. Some transitions are a tad abrupt but I don't really mind them, I feel this generally flows well and is quite interesting to listen to. Well done! On production I'm mixed but mostly because of one particular thing. Let me start with the positives though. Sound design is great, there's a lot of cool effects and fun treatment of the samples (like those toms in the first minute). Percussion is punchy and the bass, when it matters, stands out great. I also generally feel that the mixing is well done, with most individual things being easy to hear. There's 2 things that bother me about the production though. First, the mix is very very heavy on high frequencies and that makes listening to the entire track a little tiring on the ears. You use a lot of synths and it's easy for all those bright sounds to layer together and create a huge mass of shrill sounds that can get rough, I'd recommend trying to balance it out by ducking high frequencies on many of the samples. My main gripe, however, is that the master is ridiculously loud. A look at the waveform will clearly show that the limiter is being quite aggressive and checking with a LUFS meter indicates very high levels for most of the track. As a reminder, submission standards claim "Volume levels should be normal compared to the average recording". Overall, while I think the arrangement is very very cool and the production is 90% there, I feel this needs (at least) a second pass on the mastering (although looking at balancing the higher frequencies would be great too). I understand that electronic genres want to be very loud sometimes but IMO this is way too much, especially for the length of the track. NO

It's in a good way :-) Redg is also known as Brent Wollman on OC ReMix and he does very eclectic music.

Helloooo I recently moved back to my beloved tropical hometown and decided to celebrate by making an EP of quirky, sunny tracks. The work is vaguely inspired by the Mario Kart DS OST, so expect some soundfonts and retro-sounding synths. Enjoy! LINK: https://banana-trash.bandcamp.com/album/go-go-kart-ganbareeeee Cover art was done by Tex! www.youtube.com/@oOTxaiOo soundcloud.com/textunages

Remembering Masashi Kageyama. 🫡

Chimpazilla said they thought it had TSO-vibes, which I totally get, but I hear a lot of late 80s/early 90s Danny Elfman on my end. Besides being a behemoth of collaboration, this is just a great remix! Love how it grows and becomes a real monster of a track. Also, starting it with Aerith's theme getting distorted into OWA is just mean : ) Off topic, I find it very interesting that this site isn't growing in OWA remixes. It took 4 years for Trenthian's strange "Sector 7 Hath Wrought the Angel" to arrive on the scene and 3 years after that for the slightly (only slightly!) more traditional "Black Wing Metamorphosis" to hit OCR, and that was with an album drop. (Side note, I also hear Elfman influences in "Black Wing Metamorphosis" so maybe there's something inherent to the original?) Not that I'm complaining about OWA representation, I just find it interesting that one of the most recognizable video game tracks ever has 5 standalone remixes, 7 if you include the the ones with other sources in them. I'm not the most musically-technical person around, so I assume that the original is a lot more intimidating to tackle than something like Terra or Aquatic Ambience? Considering how many contributors are on this one remix and "Black Wing Metamorphosis", I'm not really surprised that it only gets remixed every 3 years or so. What a beast!

loads of sound design and sfx clips to start. a beat starts to surface at 0:27, and the rhythmic foundation for the original N64 track can be heard in the patterns being played here - an interesting idea. there are steadily more melodic elements added in until we get to the break at ~1:02, and then 1:21 is where we start hearing more of the melodic material again. there's some alternations in here, and notably the choice of notes at 1:40 and 1:47.5 are a half-step off of the key (should prob be Eb-F instead of D-E to avoid the D-Ab tritone)). this is real intense for the most part and a toe-tapper of a section. i really like the super-heavy electro bass through all this. a mid-range element is added around 2:04 that feels a little too much and makes it a touch too dense, but overall this is a neat section. the melody coming in as a break near the end of it is a good glue section. between that initial part and the deconstruction that happens after, around 2:30. we get a wildly unexpected stylistic transition at 2:58 into...i guess hindi trap? the bassline here is really fun. this noodles quite a bit but is recognizable. there's another unexpected break before a short exploration of the opening few bars of the venom stabs, which morphs into a more brickwalled intense section of venom's stab section. there's way too much going on here and it's hard to hear any one thing, but i guess that's fitting for the style. the ending's a bit of a letdown after that level of intensity, but it's a fine ending and wraps the track. this is a surprisingly straightforward arrangement of the venom theme, for the most part. there's some really wild exploratory sections that probably could have been integrated better with more patience applied to the transitions, but what's here is interesting and approachable. YES edit 9/15: listening again with some of the context from subsequent votes. wake and chimpa are right - this is so very hot when compared to other edm. i didn't notice how much the high mids especially were pushing on my ears until i came in fresh. cosigning their votes. NO

Thank you! ♡ :D Yeah, it's a bit nutty and chaotic, (as the Judge eval hinted at,) but I did my best to put a unique spin on such an iconic track. ^_^ Hopefully, in a positive way! Very much was a learning experience, and very much could have done better mixing / curtailed some overwhelming parts of the piece, but I do hope the ride was enjoyable and thought-provoking. Also, curious as to who or what 'Redg' is. x'D

Hell yeah Fire Emblem Heroes! I haven't played in years but I still remember some of the music. Ok, so this begins with a calm pad and some arpeggios. The arp is somewhat reminiscent of the ones in Howling Gears but not that much. I like the vibe during the first minute, the "Shout" inspiration is clear in the percussion (love that track by the way). Bass enters around 0:52, I can feel its presence but hearing the actual notes is fairly challenging. From what I can tell, the chord progression doesn't seem to be any of the sources' (at least, not directly). Guitar enters with a simple pattern a bit later, I love its tone and what it adds to the track's sound. Rhytm guitar joins at 1:50, sounds cool but I feel the soundscape is a tad cluttered by now, maybe some automation to drop the percussion in volume a tad wouldn't hurt. There's some nice effects and a break at 2:30 with synth strings and a synth bass. At 3:10 we finally get an easily identifiable source quote on guitar. Really cool soundscape here, I particularly enjoyed the jump at 3:50 to a higher octave. Around 4:30 we return to the riffs and melodies from earlier in the track. Still a nice vibe. At 5:10 we switch into a slightly different vibe for the final riff. There's more of a bass focus at the end and I can now tell it's playing the bass line from Howling Gears. With how hard to hear the bass is I'm not sure if this has been going on for the entire time or just now... Anyway, I'll first talk about production. Generally I think this sounds great, most samples sound nice and there's a lot of small details on percussion and transitions that are neat. There's some times where it gets cluttered, not a dealbreaker but some automation to help the listener focus on the more relevant parts would be a nice idea. My main issue is the bass, I can tell it's there but it's VERY hard to hear what it's playing, which is especially relevant since it seems to be the main bringer of source material. On arrangement, I think it flows great. First couple of minutes create a nice mood, then we have a break followed by a new section and then a reprise to close. It's a long track but it manages to keep my attention and interest. The main question with this one will be source usage. Section from 3:10 to 4:30 is, without a doubt, playing the source, but the rest is much harder to notice IMO. As I mentioned on my write-up, I only really noticed the bass was quoting the main Howling Gears riff on the ending where it's playing isolated. Counting bassline as source usage would bring us closer to this being eligible for OCR but, being honest, I have such a hard time actually hearing the bass that I can't reliable count where the source bassline is present. I'll make my best effort here (based on your source usage description): Bass from 0:52 to 2:30 is doing a similar (at times equal) pattern than the main Howling Gears riff. To note, the chord progression here is completely original and the bass riff is clearly not the focus of this entire section (unlike the source where the bass pattern is very clearly highlighted). Bass from 2:30 to 3:10 is doing the same notes than in Howling Gears B section. 3:10 to 4:30 is clearly using the Howling Gears main melody (slight variation at least). There's some elements that you pointed out in your description I couldn't really hear like: Super saw/synth string (doing a diminished interval in the original) being present from 0:33. Same for the guitar chugs. Main arpeggios from the intro being taken from the sources. The descending arpeggios that play at times seems relatively similar to the ones that play on Howling Gears B but curiously you didn't listen them as source usage in your expanded description (but did list them on the first description). Counting the elements that seem taken from the source, we basically have source material present in some form from 0:52 to 4:30, basically 3:30 mins of a 6 minute track. While this is technically more than 50%, the standards state: I don't really feel the bass section from 0:52 to 2:30 is identifiable and dominant so, to me, it feels wrong to count it just to clear the technical 50% barrier (which isn't even an actual rule, more of a guide). I can only truly consider 2:30 to 4:30 as identifiable and dominant source usage. Overall, while I enjoy hearing this quite a bit and think it's generally well produced, I don't really think it has enough dominant (emphasis here) source usage for it to be posted. Others may disagree but that's my take for now. NO

opens with some filtered arps and wide synth elements - i really like this opening feel. the sfx panned to the sides might be a little loud on headphones. i don't hear any of Howling Gears in this opening section, although the arp is reminiscent of the B section as you stated. same issue at 0:36, i don't hear that pattern either, but i do catch the bassline when it comes in at 0:52. the guitar part is playing something that's reminiscent of the piano in the original after this, but to my ears the piano's playing an octave, and the guitar is playing a maj 6th. 2:35's a big shift, and shout's b melody is indeed present although i don't understand at all how it fits into the setting that's already present when it does come in. it sounds like it's in an entirely different key (the backing elements really look like Bb to me and shout's b melody is being played in Fm). the following guitar-led section is easier to understand and more obviously maps to gears. there's a big dropoff here before it gets back into gears again as interpreted earlier. there's a big filter that hits at 5:11 and doesn't sound like it goes away for a long time here - the bottom end feels like it's missing until almost 6:00 for a few seconds. this goes some pretty wide-ranging places, which is neat. my main concern is the source usage, because i don't hear it in extended stretches of the track. i am gonna need to do some timestamping on this because as-is there's not enough source. ? edit 9/4: thanks to jnwake for more in-depth analysis. even with the expanded source notes above, i just can't grok most of the connections that are called out. i would need more explicit, present instances of source material before i'd be able to consider this one. i also think the track would benefit from some more intentionality in the sections, but overall do agree that the track is generally well-produced and quite listenable. NO