• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About Liontamer

  • Rank
    Community Manager, Judge, Sonic Augmentation Director

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Atlanta, GA


  • 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
  • Twitter Username

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances

Recent Profile Visitors

28,024 profile views
  1. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  2. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  3. Interesting arrangement approach here; doesn't sound particularly focused, but let's see where it goes. Flute from :18-:26 was pretty shrill, and had other moments like that (1:08). The beats from 1:08-on felt so tame, but I suppose they shouldn't overpower the rest of the instrumentation; but listen to 1:31-1:38, for example, and you hear how muted they are. An odd fit, but I'll live. Not sure what that snap/pop sound at 1:19 was, but it didn't seem intentional. I just ended up sitting back to go on the ride the track took me on. The track's pretty wild, but it's audacious stuff and I love how unorthodox this whole concept is. Any lack of realism in the instrumentation's offset by the strength of the writing, IMO, and the sounds were pretty capably used here regardless. We come to the sticking point though. The track was 4:38-long, so I needed to hear "Slow Moon" referenced for at least 139 seconds for the source tune usage to be dominant in the arrangement. :03-:20, :41.75-:47, :49.5-:55, :56.75-1:22, 1:31-1:35.75, 1:38.75-1:44, 2:00.5-2:07, 2:38-2:45, 2:47.5-2:51.5, 3:06.5-3:12, 3:14-3:20, 3:21.75-3:29.5, 3:33.5-3:40.5, 4:10.75-4:13 = 109 seconds or 39.20% overt source usage As far as I could tell, this arrangement doesn't reference "Slow Moon" enough for the theme to qualify as "dominant" per the Submissions Standards. Unless I'm missing big swathes of references to the source tune, I think this is too liberal of an arrangement. I know the submission letter also mentions being inspired by the source's bassline, but I muted channels in the "Slow Moon" .VGM to listen to just that, and I didn't hear it explicitly referenced anywhere; I only heard bass work that was stylistically similar (and very quiet and subdued, it was worth noting). For those that want to isolate that part in the source, play it with a player supporting in_vgm, mute all of the SN76496 channels, and all but Channel 4 and DAC channel of the YM2612 side. Nice work here, Mathieu, but as far as I can tell, it falls outside of what we can accept, even though this is a very enjoyable, spirited piece regardless. If you could somehow fit in more references to the theme, e.g. sticking more closely to the source tune's bassline, I could get behind this. NO (resubmit)
  4. Production-wise, it was a bit lo-fi and lacked high-end but was otherwise reasonably produced; beats were laying it on thick and had strong bass presence. Agreed with MW and Rexy on the whole. Not a bad instrumental, but it's very very tough to get a piece on OCR that relies so heavily on sampling the original game audio like this does AND stays so repetitive and underdeveloped; it would have to be extremely transformative. Adding on sampled vocal lines could help break up the repetition of the instrumental and create more dynamic contrast. Read over the Arrangement aspect of the Standards again, David, but if you arranged the theme into a hip hop beat and had more variation to it, that would have a fighting chance. Best example relative to yours would be NO
  5. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  6. Really good potential here. The main thing holding this back was stuff like the bowed strings and brass having silted timing. It immediately stood out, and so I have to also piggyback on what Sir_NutS said, especially because the issue immediately stood without without having read the other votes first. The second verse at 1:44 sounded at about the same energy level as :31; even though there was more going on, the levels, textures, and writing felt so relatively similar that the contrast doesn't register as much as it should. I think you could probably reduce the impact and bombasticness of the first section to give more oomph to the second iteration, but it's more of an example of a way to create more dynamic contrast, not a recommendation that you employ that specific idea. Otherwise, the arrangement was generally on point and shows off a lot of potential, Alex! Tweak it further and send it on back, it's well in the right direction. NO (resubmit)
  7. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  8. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  9. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  10. Besides the mixing losing some of the high-end and muddying the textures up, this was well performed. However, like the others have said, it's structured like a medley with no meaningful transitions or cohesiveness in the writing/arrangement between the themes. Some good OCR rock medley examples are here: Great energy here, Alex and Deep, we just only accept medleys structured to flow like one overall composition. NO
  11. What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
  12. Really dug the original intro; great fade in and a nice, rich sound. Beats at :31 felt underwhelming though, so I'm hoping it goes somewhere else. OK, cool layering and countermelodic stuff from the source tune at :46. This is playing things by the numbers in terms of being a straightforward genre adaptation, but we'll see where it goes. Back to the cool original writing at 1:25, followed by another new original section from 1:41-2:24. The way the beat here had almost a semi-stuttering type cadence seemed to interrupt the flow of the track, IMO. By this time, the track was also starting to feel sluggish. Played a little with some different ideas via a dropoff before renewing the theme at 2:46, which essentially sounded like a cut-and-paste of :46's section. This track needed to develop or vary more significantly, otherwise it doesn't really justify the length. Then 4:03 was basically and cut-and-paste of 1:25's section before winding it down for the finish. The tempo dragged on after the halfway point; more instrumental textural variation would help this not get too stale, especially if you don't intend to vary the writing itself, though I'd recommend that too. MindWanderer's correct in that it's ultimately a very static presentation. Good start here, Glenn, with tons of potential, but please vary this up further. Production-wise, this was nicely mixed and balanced, so props for a great job there. NO (resubmit)
  13. Keeping it brief in following up Gario's vote. The arrangement concept, compositional dynamics, and the level of interpretation were solid, Danilo. Gotta agree with Gario though; the sequencing was very mechanical/unrealistic-sounding, and you had crowded moments. For an organ, not as big of a deal; for strings & winds, much bigger deal. Organ was very clearly off-key from :43-49, and again from 2:21-2:23. Flute from 2:34-2:37 was off-key as well. Not much of a resolution to the ending, which felt very abrupt. Humanize the instrumentation and watch for the brief off-key moments. You can also clean up the textures and fashion a genuine ending, but those are more in the nice-to-have category. NO (resubmit)