Liontamer

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

It's definitely not on OC ReMix, but it's a fun piece!

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix here.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Contact Information: Your ReMixer name: Bryan EL Your real name: Bryan EL Your email address: Your website(s): www.bryanel.com Your userid: 34748 Submission Information: Link to remix: Name of game arranged: Jurassic Park Name of arrangement: Apex Predator Name of song arranged: Level 1 Original composer: Jonathan Dunn (Game Boy / NES) Link to the original soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywRGNGRmRws Comments: Thought this one deserved a little remix after 30 years since release. Just needed a little extra punch...

We maaaaaay need further help with this.

Always loved this theme as a kid, so let's go. Melody on keyboard at :15 feels very rigid. Oooh, at :29 with the shift, the percussion feels too metronome-like and locked to grid, and the melody's not standing out enough. The bassline writing's OK in principle, but almost sounded quitely off-key. At 1:21, the blocky keyboard backing and percussion is still holding this back, and the textures feel barren despite some decent padding going on. Keyboard at 2:13's also very rigid-sounding (with an awkward/sudden decay of that last note in the measure at 2:26). Track cut out with no fade or ending at 3:20. There's no fluidity to the timing of these parts, Adrián, and once you get to 2:27, we've basically heard all of the ideas; there's no real dynamic/energy contrast going on, just occasional times where the textures get fuller or emptier while the overall tone and pacing remained the same, which undermined the potential dynamics. I appreciate the mellower feel here; it would be very difficult to raise this up to a place where it would pass, because the timing isn't smoother and the textures lack synnergy. NO

I'll just go on record as disagreeing. The melodic treatment is conservative in places, but there's enough differences for me in the genre, mood, and some additive original part-writing that interacts with the source (e.g. 1:46-2:37). There's room for melodically conservative arrangements being transformational enough in other respects, but MW's reservations are also something to keep in mind, Mel.

So the first time around (for direct post/flood consideration), Chimpazilla and I were fine with this, but djp pointed out loads of performance issues, mainly with the sax, that DarkeSword, prophetik, and others co-signed, and I definitely heard where they were coming from. Loads of hiss right from the jump; really unsure how that wound up here, because even as an aesthetic, it doesn't sound good at all; the hiss here is much louder than than album version. Starts off sounding so lossy here with the sax at :18; where's the sharpness??? I had to throw on a control track to ensure my listening setup wasn't compromised. Still hearing loads of shakiness/honkiness/flatness in the sax at :30-:31, :50-:52, 1:15-1:25, 1:48-1:51, 1:56-1:57, 2:03, 2:18-2:20 - TOO MANY PLACES. Now the mixing's not strong either, which is a shame, because the album version was fine with me there. The sax still needs more strength and control, and now the mixing's not sharp enough either. If this is to be revisited, let it be with more time to have some distance and clarity on what needs work; this may even need a new sax take from Lucas or someone else. Great arrangement, Mel, but the performances and mixing are hurting this. NO (resubmit)

Immediately digging the interpretive approach here. Even the nighttime/cricket SFX underneath is a very subtle touch. Beats brought in at :14 feel scant, but the bassline bumps and has a nice presense to it. Good instrumentation and textural tradeoffs throughout. I could see someone arguing that the development's too basic, as the textures aren't complex and the tempo's slow; to me, there's original writing involved and the genre change is cohesive. Dunno why I heard a bird crowing in the background at 1:41, but OK; it fits the opening SFX premise of this track somehow taking place outside. Oooh, no, that woodwind line from 1:59-2:02 was wildly off-key. This is well along the way, Alexis, but does need some sort of real resolution (as well as that off-key part fixed). Any further development, maybe another 30 seconds and with a real ending, would make this feel more complete, more solid. This is very far along the way and could use some extra spices and/or room to grow. NO (resubmit)

Wow, these levels are fuckin' SLAMMED, what in the living hell??? My brother in Christ, pull this back. Sounds like a big density change, but otherwise 0 compositional differences in this version compared to the original. Starts with a fade, ends with a fade, loops the same, structure's the same, no differences from section to section, and no effort given to personalize the arrangement approach beyond a simple MIDI rip/instrument swap, so this would be a clear Standards violation here. I'm sad to say that we don't have any "Fire Field" arrangements on OCR yet, so for reference on what we're looking for with more transformative and interpretive arrangement techniques, listen through the F-Zero arrangements we've posted and compare those to the original songs. NO

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix here.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix here.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix here.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix here.

Really cool to be introduced to this theme. For me, it has a lot of PlayStation-era Mega Man X vibes; awesome choice, Nathan, and I'm interested to hear how you approached this. Opens up very conservatively, so we'll see how this breaks off into its own thing. Whoa, the lead at :22 is so piercing and abrasive, so much louder than anything else. The beats behind it sound thin, and there's a chippy-style backing part (not the countermelody) that seems to be filling a kind of bass part, but just sounds like distortion and white noise. The countermelody also sounds slightly off-key from :37-1:06. The fadeout ending after repeating stuff at 2:41 was also anticlimactic. Beyond eliminating the clipping, distortion, and piercing high-end freqs, the textures still feel empty despite the busyness; something's missing here. For contrast, the original has parts that are constantly padding this, whether it's warm backing synth lines in the intro & chorus or the delays on the lead during the verses; see if you can come up with your own ideas to help properly fill in the soundscape. Structurally, this is super conservative. The instrumentation's changed, though it's not texturally cohesive. Even if the mixing of these parts was ideal, this is too conservative of a cover for us to approve. Per what we're looking for from our Submissions Standards, more needs to be done for this version to distinctly stand apart from the original song. We do have plenty of melodically conservative arrangements on OCR that still are more interpretive (see: https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR04414 and all of the tracks linked in that writeup), so also consider listening to those for other ideas on how you can sufficiently personalize your style in this arrangement even more. NO

Was getting a lot of piercing frequencies with the beats here starting at :36, so I'd love to hear that addressed with another render, if possible. Not sure what was layered into to the beats at :36 compared to before, but it's tough to take. From 1:29-1:47, the themes were unpleasantly mudding together without a clear lead or direction, which needs to be fixed up. AFAIK, it was that woodwind-esque line (not the delayed "Mute City" chorus) that seemed to cause the interference and clutter; happy to be corrected by another J. In terms of the clutter, the theme interplay could probably be reduced some by selectively lowering the volume on some of the lines, pulling back on Top Gear sometimes and F-Zero at others. The return of the beats with the piercing high frequencies at 2:05 as well; my ears were getting battered here. 2:59 until the end referenced :49-:55 of "Mute City", but the transition into it was abrupt, and the section sounded off-key, especially that final trailing chord. I probably wouldn't have changed that chord at 3:09. What a weird way to finish it, and done in a way that undercut the rest of the arrangement. (The fadeout also didn't fully go to 0, but stuff like that can always be fixed.) I like the theme interplay in principle, and you've shown you're talented at it with your two previously approved submissions. The themes are creatively arranged, and it was cool hearing the interpretive treatment of both themes combined in a way that generally worked, especially with F-Zero in play the entire time. That said, the mixing on this one isn't clicking during the busiest sections, the piercing frequencies that were baked into the beats also made things needlessly difficult to listen to, and the awkward switch into the janky ending killed the finish. I'm hoping a musician J can identify some straightforward ways to tweak the mixing. This is a solid base, Richard, but it does need another mixing pass and a retooled ending. NO (resubmit)

He meant 11494, and in that's case, that's his ID # in the database (rather than the forums); regardless, I know who CJ is. Opens up with a cool rhythmic change, though whatever came in at :06 seemed like a goofy sound. The soundscape got darker at :20 but felt like an abrupt change despite the transition sound; some padding in the opening section would have helped the change at :20 not feel awkward. The textures at :20 feel relatively empty, so at :28 & then :34 as things were building up more, I was waiting for a fuller soundcape, and that was capped off at :49; it was good to hear things gradually more filled out. Back to the opening pattern at 1:10, albeit more filled in. Things repeated, though with more additive writing supporting things the second time around; while the differences aren't negligible, it does sound. Some sort of briefly grating SFX thrown in there at 1:45 that didn't add anything positive. :49's section was repeated wholesale at 1:52 until the finish, then some SFX ended it 2:13 without properly fading to 0. The production/mixing wasn't ideal in some spots, as prophetik noted, but it's also just fine for our bar, and a fully fleshed out arrangement with mixing like this shouldn't have any problem passing, IMO. The instrumentation and beats did have thinner sections, but the overall energy was strong and the instruments had a great deal of power. I don't inherently mind repetition, and the treatment of the theme was interpretive, but I understand where prophetik was coming from with the amount of repetition making this short track (only 2:17-long) feel underdeveloped. It was a disappointing conclusion, not just because of the abrupt cutoff (which can easily be fixed) but the final section at 1:52 being a total retread after prior sections where repeating ideas had been supplemented with new additional writing, only to have the last section not have any variations. Provided you still have the source files, let's see what other ideas and/or variation might be able to be added, Chris. Because your arrangement was very interpretive to begin with, I would just need more meaningful variations (writing or instrumental) from 1:10 until the end, and particularly from 1:52-2:13, and/or adding in more ideas to extend the track. Other judges may need even more development added here, so keep that in mind; no matter what, this is well in the right direction and I really hope we have this posted in some form. Please consider a resubmission on this; I really enjoy where you've taken it so far, and would love to hear some of the unrealized potential actually realized. NO (resubmit)