Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

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

@duskvstweak I'll send them a professionally worded message to see about coming onto their Sound of Play podcast to talk OCR & VGM. Wish me luck, and thanks for the heads up! EDIT: Nailed it.

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

RebeccaETripp Rebecca Tripp http://www.crystalechosound.com/ ID: 48262 Game(s): Portal 2 Song Title: Thermal Encouragement Songs Remixed: Triple Laser Phase Here’s a link:

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.

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

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

Everybody has drama. No shit list that I'm aware of though. We'll get back with you!

https://williamjacksn.github.io/ocremoved/

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.

Yep, as long as everyone's credited along with https://ocremix.org, go for it!

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.

The 50% rule is what I go by (i.e. recognizing the source tune being referenced/arranged for at least 50% of the duration of the track). That means for a 4:25-long piece, I needed to make out VGM usage for at least 132.5 seconds for the source material to be both "identifiable and dominant" according to OCR's Submissions Standards. :11.75-:36, :40.5-:47.5, :51-:57.75 ("Outset Island" cameo from flute flourish at :54 of that song), 1:01.5-1:05.5, 2:30.75-2:35.75, 3:08.5-3:16.25, 3:18.5-3:25.75, 3:27.75-3:29.75, 3:36.75-3:43.25, 3:46.5-3:55.75 = 77.75 seconds or 29.33% overt source usage I may be short-changing this some due to some variations I'm not recognizing, as well as not counting any source usage gaps longer than a second, but I tried to be as generous as possible. Even some interpretation and freestyling originally grounded in the source seemed to veer way off, so I wasn't even anywhere near the looser timestamping Gario had. The entire middle not having any VGM references was silly (in the context of the arrangement standards); it couldn't have been hard to integrate some other references to the Kokiri theme or other Zelda themes. So just short and sweet, the track is a vacuum is enjoyable, well-performed, and well-mixed. But I was also coming up very source-light when it came to the source usage. Unless I'm missing a metric ton of other explicit, A-to-B connections that can be pointed out to me, I can't pass this on source usage grounds. Again, cool track by Garrett and Jorik, but going this liberal falls outside of the Standards. NO

This started off very ear-catching, though I thought the rock instruments were muddy, which matches the style of "Not For Want of Trying" to some extent. This could have been sharper/clearer, but the track isn't broken with the mixing as is. Quite the volume drop at :39; not sure what the point of that was, but it did provide some dynamic contrast. Love the arrangement style from 1:04-1:19, then the volume raises back up. At 1:50, the melody came back in, repeats ad nauseum over until 2:38, which was just way too long without something to break up the monotony. There's something else added in at 2:06, but because the mixing was so muddy to begin with, the added part doesn't really register besides adding more clutter to the background. And then it ended fairly abruptly. Damn, well, I could see the case for approving this as is, but without the last minute of a sub-3-minute arrangement having some further ideas or development, I can't justify that myself. In "Not for Want of Trying," you have the ever-present cynical spoken word stuff providing something changing in the foreground; without something functioning in a similar vein here, those repeating bars drag too much. Good luck with the rest of the vote. I love the arrangement style, Arvid, but this just needs some more arrangement substance and/or variation for the final minute to put this over the top. Consider also making the track's mixing clearer if possible. I really want to see this track make it in some form, and you have a great base here. NO (resubmit)

Submission Info. Game Name: Super Mario World Arrangement Name: The Cursed Tower Original song name: Sub Castle BGM Song Link: Comments: Highly influenced by noisy instrumental post rock with a touch of hardware synth. The mix, however, is a bit smoother than for example "Not for want of trying" by Maybeshewill. A song which was a big inspiration for the piece. Contact Info. ReMixer name: AQ64 Real name: Arvid Karlsson email: userid: 35896

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

Right from the get-go, holding fast to the original's tempo and structure is going to be a tough sell. The melody coming in at :25's not much of a stylistic difference from the original, nor is the bassline or the mallet percussion. The steel drums are an additive component, but just accent things. The beats were changed a little at :47, but this still doesn't feel like a substantive enough expansion/arrangement to meaningfully stand apart from the original. Seemed like 1:16's section was going to transition to some sort of radical change-up and there it was at 1:26, albeit briefly until the melody returned on sequenced steel drums at 1:41. The backing here's different, but by 2:25 it winds back into more of the cover territory. The steel drums and bowed string samples sound very fake and exposed throughout and just don't do enough to downplay the lack of realism with the sounds. There's nothing inherently wrong with the track concept, Fabian, but to me, it doesn't employ enough of the aforementioned arrangement/interpretation techniques for me to pass this for OC ReMix. It just feels like most of the additive instrumentation here doesn't really change the fundamental instrumentation or mood of the source tune, so it doesn't stand apart enough from the original song with this level of interpretation. If you feel you need to stay in the same rhythms and tempo of the original song, it may just be a matter of changing up more of the instrumentation. Effort's taken not to be just a cover, but it's essentially a MIDI (including all of the supporting writing being copied verbatim) and then some light dressing/additions around it that don't have much synergy due to the imbalance production/mixing that was pointed out. NO