Jump to content

Jillian Aversa

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jillian Aversa

  1. Hey there. I recently downloaded a cool looking Flash water effect, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to use it. There is decent documentation provided, but I got stuck after the first few steps, so I'm wondering if it's just my unfamiliarity with Flash that's making this so hard. (I'm a complete noob.) Here's the link: http://activeden.net/item/advanced-water-effect/81396 Basically, I'm trying to put that water effect over the entirety of a static image - not even a fancy partial area thing like in the demo. If you think you might be able to help, shoot me a PM and I'll send you the download! Thanks.
  2. Thanks, guys! We arrived safely to Japan yesterday, and finally got a good night's sleep. The weather is beautiful here in Tokyo (sunny and in the 40s), and the Hanzomon neighborhood where we're staying is quite charming. Still getting our bearings, but we'll be going out tonight for some fun. Right now, I'm just practicing music.
  3. Asian bias! Asian bias! Oh well, you got really far, lots of exposure, and there's always next year, like you said. A winnar is Doug!
  4. I protest. zircon is much manlier than Justin Timberlake. XD
  5. Yeah, maybe at some point they'll implement a copyright approval process or watermarking system so that approved content displays a special tag... I dunno. The music industry always seems to be one step behind when it comes to this stuff.
  6. To answer your question, Enetirnel, Jimmy's response there is part of the equation: composers/arrangers are often not the copyright owners, but rather the companies who developed or produced the games. If they are the copyright owners, though, and you've asked for their permission... no, I don't think it's wrong. However, you have to keep in mind that there will always be the risk of someone flagging the videos regardless - or YouTube taking them down by their own accord. Even if you write in the description or video itself that you received permission to upload it, anyone could claim to have done the same, so it would become nearly impossible to determine which claims are real and which aren't. Such is life. :/
  7. ^ What Bleck said. Jimmy, you didn't have to start off your conversation by quoting him and then stating: "This made me lol." I think we can understand why someone would respond defensively to that. Moving on... This news doesn't surprise me. It's kind of a bummer for judging purposes here since it'll make finding source tunes (as reference) more difficult, but we'll survive. ^_~ I agree with the decision. He should have known better, and so should others.
  8. This is a lovely arrangement! The way you altered the rhythm of the arpeggios at the beginning felt very tasteful and appropriate, the selection of instruments gels nicely, and your new ideas flow well with a good sense of shape. The mixing is pretty well balanced overall, too. My biggest concern, however, is that there seem to be quite a few cases of sour or clashing notes. Here's what I have down: - 1:06-1:07 - 1:19 - 1:28 - 1:50 - 2:54 - 3:16 Most of those seem to be occurring on the same f-minor chord in the guitar progression, so I'm wondering if there is something else going on in the background that is creating a dissonance. In the original source tune, the progression always starts with: c-minor, Bb-Major, F-Major, and f-minor. However, it sounds like you are skipping the F-Major chord and going for f-minor twice in a row instead. Maybe that's what is throwing it off? Aside from that, I have just a few other notes to make: The string sample isn't terrific, as Deia pointed out. If this submission doesn't pass initially and you feel like replacing it, great, but it's not really a big deal. You might also try pushing the dynamic contrast a bit. From about 1:26-1:45, I'm noticing the rhythmic strumming mixed quietly in the background seems to be a little out of sync with everything else. The way things cut out at 2:45 felt a bit awkward to me. Maybe it was the way the strings hung over a little longer? Similarly, the cellos hang over longer at the end, and that felt a little odd to me. The percussion could be stronger (both the sample and the actual sequencing, which could use some more variation). Anyway, I really hope I haven't overwhelmed you here. It looks like a lot, but the reality is that these are all pretty easy fixes. You've done a great job with the song! I'm primarily concerned with the clashing notes, and even those should be pretty easily touched up. NO (Please resubmit!)
  9. You're on the right track, but this feels like a rough draft to me. The sounds used are rather generic - and while that's not a crime, when they are also used generically you start to lose my attention. The blocked chords in the piano are played as quarter notes through the entire song; maybe you could try varying up the rhythm and progression there. Your percussion is very basic as well - variation and a more driving beat, as OA pointed out, would help. I think the lead saw is a bit too loud and grating as well. Both the soundscape and arrangement itself need a good deal of filling in... There just isn't much going on at this point. Gotta think of ways to put your own take on things! NO
  10. Oof, my ears! Less volume/compression, please. Especially since the first few seconds are quiet, you don't want to assault the listeners! You're off to a good start with this mix. The arrangement is pretty solid, but I agree with basically everything OA pointed out: drum pattern needs more variation, the ending is a little weak, and aside from the volume/compression issues the high end is too screechy on its own. Fix those things up, and then we'll be talking! NO (resubmit)
  11. Hmmm... Well, my vote still stands for now. Hope to hear a full resub at some point.
  12. I am also making this bet. I'll see your twenty, and raise you a ten. ^_~
  13. Er, Pokemon the Movie 2000? We don't generally allow remixes of non-game material on OCR. A brief quote wouldn't be out of the question, but 45% of this track is based on the film score. (I tallied up a total of ~70 seconds... 0:00-0:34, 1:28-1:53, 2:11-2:22. As far as I can tell, none of that is pure original material.) That aside, this arrangement is too brief right now to substantiate any significant development or interpretation of the themes you chose. It's pretty much a straight medley. The production needs a lot of work as well; samples are pretty lackluster, drenched in reverb, and mechanically sequenced. If you'd like any more detailed feedback and pointers, feel free to check out our Workshop forum: http://ocremix.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16 NO OVERRIDE
  14. Much better - although I miss the baby giggles! ;_; Changed my conditional to a YES.
  15. Holy crap, are you serious? I can understand mixing source tunes from the same series - but SIX, all from different games? I'm not sure what to think. The production is excellent, and listening to it as a song without paying attention to sources it does seem to flow well. I just don't know how to approach judging this...
  16. Man, this is tough. It's definitely a liberal arrangement, but I hate to do the literal percentage breakdown of source vs. original material. To a certain extent, I think you have to go with your gut... and my gut is telling me that the connection is apparent enough. I also think the polished production and particularly creative and well-executed interpretation should count for something - bonus points, if you will. If those aspects were just "okay", I might lean the other way, but they are far above the bar. YES
  17. Happy birthday, guys! And OMG it was Wingless' birthday, too! I feel so bad!
  18. Ooh, ethnic. Everyone knows I love zee ethnics! XD Like Deia pointed out, the pan flute is pretty mechanical - and that particular ascending scale gets rather repetitive after a while. The production is a little rough in that "live performance" sense, but not to the point that it would affect my vote. Otherwise, I think it's great! Nice work taking on a challenging (read: minimal) source. YES
  19. Aw, what's with all the baby hate? I love those little giggles. You all are obviously lacking the female parts. (Except Deia. Deia, how could you hate babies?! You have female parts.) I really like this arrangement. The guitar playing is very relaxed and pleasant, and the song just gives off nice vibes. My one complaint is that the track sounds overcompressed throughout - it's especially noticeable starting at 2:08 when the additional percussion comes in. My ears are popping in these headphones. :3 Fix the compression, and you'll have my vote! Conditional YES Edit: YES
  20. Grandpa Vig? Haha. Okay, I'm puzzled as to why you would start with the chiptune in one key for the intro and then suddenly change to a different key when when the new instruments come in. ...Buh? The pitches sound sour at 0:24, and there are definitely some clashing notes from 0:30 to 0:40. The sounds, although better than before, are still pretty dated and generic - and it seems like they're used in a predictable way as well. This is definitely an upgrade from the first mix, but I still don't feel it's quite up to today's site standards. (Had you submitted it back in 2005 when you first reworked it, that would be a different story!) I'm really sorry to hear that this will be your last submission. I hope you'll reconsider and continue to working on this one, or start something fresh! :> NO
  21. Hehe, that opening synth totally sounds like the one from Chariots of Fire. Just sayin'. Anyway, yeah... This is definitely cool and chill, but I'm afraid the arrangement is a little too close to the original as is. What you've done with it so far is definitely good, it just needs to be expanded. I think the Soundscape (har) is rather sparse at times, and if you're going to stick to the original key and tempo you may at least want to change up the chords here and there. I'd really like to hear a clearer bass sample, too. NO (resubmit)
  • Create New...