Liontamer

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

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

Nothing wrong with Hemo's crits and it would be beneficial to keep them in mind. My only thing was that the last note should have been a C and how it ends now feels like you didn't get that last resolving note, but the ending itself is better. Definitely a meaningful improvement where there's less cramping and conflict between the parts. IMO, it's ready now, but I'm only one judge.

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: Eternal Champions Name of arrangement: Seraphic Legacy Name of song arranged: Tournament Results Original composer: Joe Delia, John Hart, Jeff Marsh, Adrian van Velssen, Andy Armer Link to the original soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHzy24vjWAQ comments: I recently discovered this game has an amazing soundtrack and thought it was worthy of an orchestral adaptation. VST's used: Metropolis ARK, Albion One, 8dio Jenifer, Lacrimosa, Heavyocity Damage, The New AGE 2, Etherealwinds Harp 2, Rickenbacker Bass, Vengeance Avenger.

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

Opens up feeling like it's going to be a close cover version, just in a different genre, a kind of spacesynth style, so it's not the most promising intro from a Standards perspective, but we'll see where it goes. A countermelody joins in at :43 for a few seconds, and the soundscape seems muddy. Not sure why the mixing's so abrasive starting at 1:05 with this overly loud lead, but it's not pleasent to listen to for sure. There's an unsettling warble to this that's a nice technique in a vacuum, but quickly feels tired and stale by the time we get to the textural change at 1:57. Even though it's melodically note for note with the original, the presentation does stand apart from the original though. 3:05 gets more active with chiptune-style original writing accompanying the source arrangement, so that's notable. More additive writing seems to be here, though the mixing remains abrasive (e.g. the lead at 4:36, 4:46, 5:17, the textures from 4:56-6:09). Going more liberal and "inspired by" for the second half doesn't bother me whatsoever due to the first half invoking the source tune. To me, this is just a rejection on the mixing, George, not the arrangement. If you can rein in this mixing, I'm on board, but right now, it's too abrasive. NO (resubmit)

Opens up with some cool sound design. Melody kicks in at :23 and it's ultra-muddy. There's also a distorted line that comes in around :23 that's also abrasive. At :47, the bassline's handling the source tune's melody, but it's very quiet and just too understated. At 1:12, it's louder and accompanied by the tremolo strings, so it's more audible, which was better. There's some pizz strings at 1:47, but the rumbling of the bass buries it. At 1:59, the lead is playing the part from the bowed strings at 1:13 of the source, but the way it's mixed, it's more of a low rumble, so it's another melodic part where it's more abstract than it should be due to the mixing. Nice bowed strings at 2:24 though, and I hadn't commented before but the vox accents were also solid. Strings at 2:47 were slightly behind the beat, but seemed like a stylistic thing. This arrangement concept sounds awesome, it's just the mixing holding it back, IMO. There's no sharpness here Transition at 3:11 seemed like there was gonna be a big boom or something to mark the change, but then that didn't happen. Sounds like the highs were cut out of this, then something got scooped out briefly around 3:35 for an odd effect. I'm not gonna play-by-play anything else, but I disagree with prophetik's POV that it's too repetitive. The way this is mixed makes the length fatiguing, but it's not on account of the writing, IMO, and the track continued to vary up the textures for the second half. I'm OK with the way things and mixed and matched, it's enough variation and the presentation also stands apart very distinctly from the source tune. Yeah, the arrangement itself is amazingly transformative and high octane, and I completely understand why it was used at MechCon. Yet, at least for me, this mixing is the dealbreaker here, and perhaps that's something where on headphones the issues are easier to isolate than in a booth or over a speaker system. Hopefully another pass at it could get this sounding sharper and clearer, Animattronic, because it's a shame to say no to this when the writing and sound design are strong. What could have happened on the mixing side to undermine this so much? If the source files are gone or there's no way to revisit this, that would be a shame. If this track isn't approved in some form, please submit something else. I appreciate your style and like what I heard, it just needs some TLC on the production side. NO (resubmit)

The source tune isn't much -- it's a minimalistic 35-second loop -- but for OCR standards, you've gotta have something more substantive and varied with the arrangement going on. The "San Jacinto" influence was a genuinely cool idea that worked here; I'd keep in mind that "San Jacinto" has several textural twists and turns even as that pattern remains in play. Beyond the beep-boopy "San Jacinto"-style countermelody, which was a good addition, as well as some organ with a bit of a low rumble that would, this was just as repetitive as the source tune. We need something that develops and evolves as a standalone piece of music. I'm not saying prophetik's wrong about the off-notes he felt he heard (he's right), but they were quiet enough that they didn't bother me. They should still be addressed, but it wasn't a big deal. If you have any other ideas to vary and evolve the presentation, Janet, e.g. more substantive textural changes, additive writing, changing leads or other instrumentation, then take another crack at it. NO

Definitely in MW's camp, i.e. I understand the mixing criticisms, but they're not a dealbreaker by any stretch. A winner! YES

At :27, with the lead notes taking up more space, it helps mitigate the realism issues of the left-hand chords. Literally said "ugh" at the awkward decay/stop at :46, which felt sloppy. The performance sounds emotive enough to get by, and the arrangement's totally solid, so no worries there, but the tone & performance still sound stilted on account of the sampled piano, so the arrangement's potential isn't fully realized. I've not heard a piano piece from Torby yet that sounds like a realistic piano. Are there any technical tweaks that could humanize this beyond a pricier keyboard? The sample's too exposed and, for a stickler like me, it makes the listen more about what's lacking on the production side than what's working on the arrangement side. Make no mistake though, the production squeaks by for me, with the arrangement carrying it. YES

Artist: Jett Swole This was originally intended to be a Dwelling of Duels entry for December 2023, but due to some misunderstandings I had about the theme of "32-bit era", I ended up jumping the gun in making it over the span of a couple days, and it turned out to be ineligible, so I just kind of released it on my own terms. I'd been replaying some of the Mega Man Zero games on the recent Zero/ZX Collection, and while the series had some iffy design choices in places, Z3 still stuck out to me as the peak of the Zero series. And so after that and hearing about the DoD theme, I thought I'd start working on an idea I'd had brewing for a while for a medley of Cannon Ball from MMZ3 and X vs Zero from MMX5. They seemed like a good fit together given the similar vibe, tempo, and overarching plot relevance to each other. The short bits of Neo Arcadia from MMZ1 and the opening of MMX5 (technically derivative of the "Weapon GET" song from Mega Man 3) are mostly just there in a cameo capacity to be honest, but I thought they were fitting all the same. Given the popularity of Zero as a character and how many songs revolving around him are outright bangers, I'd be surprised if a similar idea hadn't been done before. Hell, this is actually the third arrangement I've done that's centered around Zero and his overall character arc. I dunno, he's just kind of iconic like that, I guess. But I wanted to try taking another crack at it regardless, so that's that. This was also my first time attempting a synth-heavy rock arrangement that involved playing every synth part live alongside the usual guitar and bass, right down to the fine details like the orchestra hits. The only thing that was sequenced by mouse was the drums. Whether it turns out to be up to OCR standards or not, I had a lot of fun with this one and got some good practice in at the keyboard, so I thought I'd try my hand at submitting it anyway. Mega Man Zero 3 - Cannon Ball (Composed by Ippo Yamada) Mega Man Zero - Neo Arcadia (Composed by Ippo Yamada) Mega Man X5 - Opening (Composed by Naoto Tanaka, Naoya Kamisaka, Takuya Miyawaki) Mega Man X5 - X vs Zero (Composed by Naoto Tanaka, Naoya Kamisaka, Takuya Miyawaki)

Opens up with good proggy, synthy energy. This synth line was shrill at times, but no huge deal. The style and textures of the arrangement move around a lot, but it flows well from segment to segment and has fun dynamics. The guitars during 1:21-1:33 were mudding things up a lot, and you notice a lot more clarity after 1:33. Ha, very creative rhythmic change at 2:32; definitely haven't heard the theme approached like this before. 2:54-3:17 was mixed too hot, and I felt like the texture got muddy and cluttered again, as well as having some piericing higher frequencies, but we'll live. Two segments of iffy mixing can't stop this tour de force. Wonderful treatment of the theme, boys! YES

Dig the first few seconds, but at :07 the melody came in and the texture was very simplistic and basic; just the lead, the supporting countermelody, and some light kicks. It'll sound like it's meant to be a burn; with a handle like "Synthmage", I was expecting more creativity and risk with the sound design, you know, some wizardry. Wasn't getting anything major in the way of transformation of this theme, as the overall tone of the melody is so similar, just some different (and much emptier) support. 1:13 was a rinse and repeat of :07, so no further development or variations of the arrangement. You'll need to further personalize and develop your arrangements to have a decent chance at meeting the bar set here at OCR. In the second (non-quoted) paragraph of this ReMix's writeup, check out that mix and all of the linked examples of other melodically conservative OC ReMixes that nonetheless stand apart enough from the original songs. NO (resubmit)

Always a fan of instrumentation that reminds me of "Star Light Zone" from Sonic the Hedgehog. Digging the sound design during the intro. At 1:06, things were feeling splashy and disjointed. The bassline seemed to be doing its own thing, and the notes for it aren't right. IMO, the bowed strings should have been more prominent/upfront until the textural change at 1:49. Good stuff at 1:49 though; love the vox line handling the source melody there, and I'm appreciating the uniqueness of this treatment. Still not a fan of the bass at 2:10; feels off-key and aimless, and the texture in this segment was noticeably emptier. Another textural change for the 2:32 section; I felt like this was missing something more to pad it and that the vox wasn't doing a good job of it. OK, the vox filled out more at 2:53; that was the level of fullness I was expecting, and some contrast with the prior section was pulled off. 3:14 shifts to an organ playing the source melody that was filling things out well. The wind instrument writing felt like it was random, and seemed like the placement would make more sense on support rather than in the front; maybe it's the bassline's presense making me feel the wind writing wasn't working. 3:57 was like 1:06 where lots of writing was going on, but felt directionless, so to me it was just twiddling thumbs until 4:40. Seems like the string writing and big bells could be more of the focus with the twinkly bell synth being more of an accenting part. IMO, the sound design and production are cool, and I generally like the transformation of the source theme, but the composition wanders off too much, with the final section tipping me on the other side. This needs the bassline loop's composition corrected and 3:57-4:40 given a more overt and melodious direction. Great potential here, VQ; if this didn't make it as is, no reason to be discouraged, as it's well in the right direction! NO (resubmit) EDIT (12/18): The bassline from 1:07-2:31 has been pulled back and had its notes adjusted; it still sounds wrong, though less clashing, so there's noticeable mitigation of how off it originally sounded. Adding the string part from 3:57-4:18 helped give the final minute some direction. IMO, the overall package still more splashy and aimless than it should have been. More overt melodic focus would make this a more enjoyable listen.

prophetik did some comparisons and said this wasn't very Nujabes-adjacent; not that he was saying it mattered to the vote, but I'm clarifying for Lucas and others that whether the stylistic objective was achieved or faithful is immaterial to the decision. Noting the inspiration for our reference is definitely appreciated. I disagree with Chimpa's assessment that the source tune's more implied than played, since it was clear as day to me; totally was jazz expansion grounded in the theme, and I'm all for encouraging it. Got worried at the transition into soloing at 1:08 not because I didn't like the idea, but because I was hoping things would wind back to the theme, but that finally came back at 1:56, so those source usage worries got erased. I liked the piano vamping using the source theme as the foundation. Chimpazilla called this an "unchanging backing soundscape", which I didn't agree with. The backing has a nice sound but did feel autopilot-y due to the beats; there's nonetheless still a lot going on behind the lead because you hear the bassline move around to accompany the melodic movements and the quieter supporting piano chords. Maybe it felt samey due to the rhythms being similar throughout, even though the notes changed?? While I can see the point about wanting some beat variation, there's lots of overall movement in the track, so I'm not hung up about this beat at all and didn't feel it was a meaningful ding amongst the overall picture. prophetik said the mixing made it sound like it's something that your neighbor's listening to, which is a fair enough point, but I didn't hear anything in this mixing that obscured any of the writing or made it a difficult listen. On a sound design level, there's the faintest tapping from 1:56-2:14 and then a metallic rustling I'm picking up on from 2:20-2:39 that sounds like a chain jingling a little. It's all very quiet, but I appreciate the subtle bits of texture and character they add here; just nice small details that I heard in my headphones. I was like "man, these judges are high for rejecting this", then the track just stopped deader than Kelsey's nuts at 2:42. Bro, what? Huh?!? Is THAT a Nujabes tactic? (Does it even matter if it's a Nujabes tactic? Because it doesn't to me. :-D). Other than an ending, what more is this needing to do? The melody's arranged nicely in an arrangement-solo-arrangement sandwich structure, the mixing's fine to me, and the backing writing does have a beat that can feel repetitive but has meaningfully more than that going on. Bump these others; I love the concept, beats are phat, arrangement is strong. Juuuust needs a resolution for the finish and I'm on board. Wish I could YES it on a conditional level and encourage more votes/POVs, because I feel like the positive qualities here were undersold and encouraging things to be more complicated than they needed to be arrangement-wise, but I can't lay down a vote I don't actually agree with just to extend things. To me, minus the ending, this is solid, transformative stuff and a creative treatment. NO (resubmit)

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

Thanks to Shariq for going back to the original context of when this Standards revision came into place. I'll just say for the record that it's up to the panel to interpret and even potentially revisit or reshape the guidelines; I'm OK with the rough usage limitations we have now and don't want to change them. I want to be clear in my POV that while the Strauss quote is legendary (big Ric Flair/wrestling fan here), and I could potentially let that cameo go on its own (or a BTBAM cameo quote on its own), we shouldn't be making many exceptions saying that any non-VGM is so popular/ubiquitous that we could overlook extensive usage. The Strauss usage being 30 seconds already feels to me like it's more than "extremely limited" usage; even if it were used for a minute, and even if the arrangement is 8 minutes long, I'm choosing not to look the non-VGM cutoff as a proportion, but more of a time limit. It'll sound like I'm saying there's 0 wiggle room/flexibility, and I'm sure you can find ReMixes posted since this added guideline that could run afoul of this (one of which we'll revisit). But "extremely limited" feels to me like cameos only, not dedicated or extended non-VGM sections.

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

That's a YouTube-side issue where embedded videos sometimes don't load properly. You should be able to refresh the page and the video should load.

Mixing's was feeling indistinct until 1:41; nothing hugely dragging it down, but it wasn't ideal. Also didn't like how the source melody on strings got buried by the lead synth at 2:02; at least the bassline's registering the theme as well. Piano sample at 2:40 is thin and mechanical-sounding; yes, at 2:57, please, go away, piano, don't come back. Better guitar stuff after that. Mixing on the strings at 3:34 is too soft and doesn't let that part be audible enough, but the overall treatment of the theme remains strong. 4:14 seems like this may be the section referencing "Between the Buried and Me", at least all the way 5:08, maybe until 5:45. "3. Any incorporation or arrangement of source material not from games (mainstream, classical, etc.) should be extremely limited." Also taking the Strauss into account from :24-:59, I've gotta go NO just based on that guideline, which is unfortunate, but one of the fun things about DoD entries (invoking other rock songs) that's only cool at OCR in smaller doses. The arrangement's a pass otherwise, so maybe like 30 seconds of non-VGM arrangement would be cool with me, but going beyond that's a non-starter. :'-( It's a solid track; if you were open to an OCR edit, would love to have it posted in some form! NO (resubmit)

Opens up with more textural depth than the previous version, lots more oomph, but it's loud and crowded. At :23, when that countermelody comes in, I immediately reacted like "this sounds too loud and too bright". At :31, the bassline does resonate, so I hear it, but it's still being buried. The dropoff section at :46 with the Toad "whoa-whoa-whoa's" is so annoying; I definitely hate you for it. (Seriously, good change in dynamics.) This mixing's definitely too muddy now, I'm afraid. At 1:02, the chip-like countermelody just sounds like it's adding busyness to the texture; maybe there are parts with overlapping frequencies, I dunno. The musician Js can hopefully hone in on what I believe I'm hearing as issues. The kicks at 1:31 are so loud, they sound like they're clipping/popping. Then at 1:48, the melodic line's absolutely steamrolled over until the louder synth at 1:56. Too loud and too busy. If you can pare back the levels appropriately and ensure parts aren't getting obliterated, this would be stronger. Watch the lack of a proper fade-out too; the ending just cuts out (though we can always fix that if need be). Good writing and textural improvements, Cameron, but not yet mixed properly. It feels like if this got YES'ed, it would be with at least one conditional vote. This is moving in the correct direction though. NO (resubmit)

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

Being glib will make it sound like I hated this. The piano sounds too mechanical and thin, which is a non-starter. The arrangement's cool, and this may pass as is if something like https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03527 is any indication of the solo piano bar, but I'm never gonna be in favor of it. If this can be reworked for the sampled piano to have a richer tone/more body and more humanized/fluid timing, I'm game. Though the arrangement easily gets it done, now we just need the sound quality side tightened up! NO (resubmit)

Nice tone with the dual geetars; conservative but inherently transformative via the much more additive writing of the accompaniment. We'll see if it opens up creatively in any other ways. At 1:31, I was waiting for something else to happen with the arrangement to further break it out compared to :08 and wasn't hearing it. Anything with further melodic variation and/or performance dynamics would have made this stronger, IMO. It took until the 3-minute mark for me to hear ideas that ventured into something new with the presentation. Cutting out an iteration of the verse would be a good thing if there's not going to be any tangible differences. It'll sound like I can't get on board with a deliberate tempo, or need some very wild dynamic shifts, or think Justin's performance was below par; IMO, the concept and arrangement approach is valid, but the lack of dynamics over time didn't justify the length and made things drag. :'-( We'll see if it comes off as just being my personal taste rather than the consensus. If this doesn't make it as is, would you be against another take? NO (resubmit)

I disagreed that this isn't a valid arrangement concept, as the source's rhythmic bassline groove right at the start is the foundation of the song and is present for most of the arrangement. Source tunes aren't solely about melodies. It's perfectly valid to invoke that groove and build around it the same way the source tune does. The original kind of coasts and evolves, and this is meant to do the same. However, I do feel like the evolution's too understated and that the core instrumentation doesn't work. Opened up with snare drums that felt very stilted and didn't match the texture of the other instruments, which dragged the piece down. Kicks at 1:52 sounded like they were slightly (though briefly) distorting. Good changeup of the energy at 2:14, and I liked the presense of the electric guitar line. The percussion brought in at 2:24 doesn't sound bad, but still feels like it doesn't really fit the overall texture. After the vox drops out at 3:17, I'm feeling like the tone of the percussion parts again doesn't click with the other instrumentation. Around 4:47, you make things more active around the beat and a new original lead comes in at 4:57, but I feel like I'm hearing the same foundational textures that don't fully click as the base of the track for most of the way; very tepid sounding percussion that doesn't mesh together with the ethereal sounding stuff for about 5 of the 6 1/2 minutes. If you can't refine the sound design with this instrumentation, H36T, it's not going to get off the ground, but the potential is certainly there. NO (resubmit)