Liontamer

Thursday, September 28 to Sunday, October 1 Renaissance Waverly Hotel & Cobb Galleria, Atlanta, GA http://awa-con.com OCR returns to Atlanta for our second panel at Anime Weekend Atlanta! Held at the Cobb Galleria (right by the Cobb Energy Center where VGM concerts perform in ATL), AWA is the the southeast's largest anime convention! Spend time with several of OCR's Atlanta community members as we talk about the greatness of video game music! OC ReMix: Celebrating Video Game Music! Panel Date/Time: Sun, Oct. 1, 2PM Location: CGC 106 Panelists: Liontamer! nelward!

I never heard the first version, so I'm coming into this fresh. Production's definitely not an issue now; sometimes the supporting guitar was comparatively too loud behind the lead, but it was nothing dealbreaking or worth timestamping because everything sounded reasonably well-mixed and above bar there, IMO. Strange how I've never heard this source before. Can't say I enjoyed the source tune OR this version of it initially, but that's because it followed the structure of the original which already has some pretty odd writing that never clicked for me. It was a moot point by the 5th time I listened to this and got used to the flow of this arrangement, but I'm just getting my stream of consciousness out there on how I reacted to the source. Dynamically, I was disappointed by this one. Again, I'm always fine with pieces that have a narrower dynamic curve, as long as enough is going on within that curve. I don't mind this going for a laid-back, surf vibe, but it just came off as plodding as well as texturally empty in places, despite the obvious musicianship demonstrated in putting it all together. I'm not saying this needed more grandiose energy anywhere, but the organ line definitely dragged out over time, and the overall energy level felt pretty static. I think one cause for this compared to the original was that -- unlike the source -- your chorus sections (first at :47) kept the same instrumentation and energy level as the verses, so nothing in the composition introduced a real shift in the writing or sound. Not saying you have to slavishly follow the source tune's structure and change the instrumentation for that section, but that was just a way the original song was more dynamic. On the flip side, props for varying up the drumwork so nicely to not let that aspect get stale. That stuff was subtle enough though that it didn't create more overt dynamic contrast within the arrangement, but it was what it was. Boy, those dropoffs at 2:47-3:11 just didn't feel right either, even though that went in the right direction as far as varying the textures. Ultimately, it's seemingly more of the same writing, instrumentation and energy level only minus some parts. By the time the song picked back up at 3:11, the whole piece was dragging, IMO. To me, the instrumentation never changing combined with the flat dynamics ended up killing it for me. I'm unfortunately but initially a NO (resubmit), but I will certainly be listening more to this one, and am open to the possibility that I'm "old-manning" this and not getting it. I'll need to see more feedback from the other Js here, but I will be watching this discussion for anyone to make a compelling enough case for me to flip my vote. It's really difficult to be calling this a NO when the production was so solid, but the arrangement being so samey throughout is nagging me.

Production-wise, the low-end felt like it added some clutter, but it wasn't a huge deal, and the listen was relatively clean/clear overall. If the lead sound had been changed or varied at 2:05, I think that would have made things more interesting in that final minute. I also thought the core beat writing should have varied more as well, since I agree with all of the other Js that the writing of it definitely plodded after a while despite the subtle changes to the beat's tone every few measures. That said, the rhythmic variations to the source tune right from the get-go and the textural variations with the instrumentation over time were both crucial in providing substantial enough interpretation. Regardless of the name attached to it, this could have been more -- and all of us including MkVaff agree -- but IMO it does get it done. Keep 'em coming, Mike! YES (borderline)

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

If the KS is small enough like what you've alluded to, it may fly under the legal radar, which we definitely don't advocate or recommend, but that's just the reality of how some of those efforts go. We can't talk about the specific talks with Squenix, but we never planned to do the FF6 Kickstarter in an unlicensed way, so there was never any intention to NOT obtain licensing. Now, it's one thing to get the contact information for SE's legal department, but I think the most difficult part would be gaining the attention/headspace of anyone there who'd subsequently be willing to work with you. For us, we had a large enough pot and demonstrated display of interest with the Kickstarter support, the project was a music project rather than a game (I've never seen an SE takedown of a game ever come back), and djp was thoughtful/patient/articulate enough to handle the difficult back-and-forth discussions involved, where it was worth SE's time to actually dialogue with OCR rather than just shut down the Kickstarter without entertaining a follow-up discussion. That said, if you did a KH-based arrangement album Kickstarter and it gained some traction, the licensing costs would chew up a significant part of the funding and may get scrutiny from SE's legal department if you haven't dealt directly with them. Licensing's required for any derivative work that doesn't fall under fair use, so yeah, you'd need to pay for those licenses. Loudr's job is supposed to be to get you a proper license for all of the derivative works, if licensing for the source tunes is in fact available. So as long as you used them, and they say the music can be licensed (and you wait another month for them to actually verify that after the fact, in case any of the source songs are in fact NOT licensable), you're OK there. I'm not sure if that kind of indirect licensing agreement would need to be in place before the KS launched if you go that route rather than deal directly with SE, but there's the possibility that you may need to pay the projected costs upfront for that once you project the full scope of the album (i.e. # of songs arranged, and [if any] # of physical copies).

The guitar performance of the "Tragic Prince" line from :02-:21 was off-key in spots (i.e. :09-:12, :19-:22) AND was buried under the vox and strings; can't say any of that mixing made sense, nor did the abrupt transition at :28 (which I can live with). Pretty rough synth string articulations starting at :35, though the part's under the guitar chugs and more like a synth sound than organic strings, so it's not awful, just not ideal. Gario's right about the off-key stuff at :56, though it was in and out quickly, so not a big deal. Pretty structurally conservative take on this theme as you hear it transition to the next section of the theme at 1:05, though it's certainly personalized some with this more intense instrumentation that includes some new additive writing (mostly from the drums). It nonetheless felt paint-by-numbers in how straightforward and similar the melody, tempo, and structure were. Vox stuff brought in at 1:36 added some good depth, although they were pretty muddy up until around 1:59; the vox placement, while still muddy, sounded more appropriately placed when it was quieter during the 2:22-2:36 section going to the finish. When the other Js mention overcompression, the vox suffered as a part of that, and you ended up having some extended sections within such a brief track where the soundscape's too cluttered. Small detail, but at 2:38 for the close, it's weird having the soundscape sound full and spacious, then all of a sudden all of the parts drop out, and you're left with just the guitar for a second sounding super duper dry and upfront; make sure your soundscape is consistent. Whereas just addressing the crowding/overcompression would swing the other NOs, I'd personally like to hear more melodic interpretation somewhere, because the melodic treatment was very straightforward; any variations or personalizations there besides the genre adaptation would help this stand apart more from the original, though the other aspects of arrangement did put this well in the right direction. Good stuff so far, Michael; if this doesn't make it as is, definitely don't be discouraged, as this has great potential. I'd love this on OCR in some form. NO (resubmit)

Pretty dry opening here. I like the instrumentation, and there's clearly effects on the synths, but something about this still feels empty. Later on, there was some crowding in terms of the production, yet emptiness as far as the textures/writing. By 1:10, I was already feeling like the backing writing was pretty static and plodding, but the dropoff at 1:28 helped out the dynamics there. At 1:43, the lead just felt pretty bare. At 2:13, the textures remained relatively thin; the track did get busier at 2:27 with some variations on the "Strike the Earth" melody. Onto "Of Devious Machinations" at 2:49, but the core kick pattern just plodded, IMO. I could see this passing, as the arrangement uses the themes well with some good tradeoffs, but something's obviously lacking with the dynamics. The beats plodded and the writing & textures felt skeletal despite the effects used to thicken the sound up. Very good base here, Jorrith, but I'm strongly with Gario that this needs another pass to get more sophisticated with the writing. NO (resubmit)

I like that pizz string opening; nice work. The whole intro was pretty cool, including the brass work and chiptune accents. The beat at :54 immediately struck me as tame and basic but fine for a build, so I was waiting for it to beef up at 1:16 and that didn't happen. It just feels simplistic, flimsy and repetitive as a backing, and at no point did it have any more power, so I was glad it was replaced by some breakbeats at 2:00 with a similar sound, but a more creative tone. Nice little "Hopes and Dreams" cameo from 2:11-2:22. Back to the weak beats at 2:22, though I liked the higher-pitched synth lead, which had nice contrast with the previous section. 2:52-2:55 & 3:04-3:06 had some brief rhythmic alterations to the beats; where was that creativity and variation before? That kind of stuff in heavier doses would have been great to keep the track interesting and dynamic. Nice dropoff at 4:12 then moving onto the piano with subtle but lushly chorused backing strings, making good use of those samples. I'm seeing complaints about the arp; though I wouldn't mind variation there with that sound, I didn't have any criticism of that part and it didn't cross my mind in my own evaluation. The core of the arrangement doesn't need to change at all, but the beats are what's sinking this, IMO. Right now, the dynamic curve is so flat due to coasting with this vanilla beat pattern. Beef up the tone of the beats for that pattern, and vary up the pattern as well. It doesn't need to go super crazy and complex, just not so plain and metronome-ish like it is now. IMO, this needs one more pass to make the beats more powerful and/or sophisticated in the writing. Good work so far, Erick. It certainly wouldn't take a lot more work to get it posted, so don't be discouraged if this doesn't make it as is. NO (resubmit)

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

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

Sounded pretty lovely and engaging to start. Once the arrangement started at :20, the brass had a decent tone but wasn't fooling anyone, and I felt the drums were static during the verses (though there were some good changes as you continued on). The bassline should have sounded clearer, but was OK and adequately did its job filling the back out. Like I said, the instrumentation isn't realistic enough, so I'm with MindWanderer there, but this was otherwise produced solidly for a sequenced piece. Chris did a good job faithfully conveying the jazzy energy of the writing while not being held back by the samples. Would love to hear this one performed by a live band. Very fun and creative arrangement, Chris, welcome aboard! YES

I'm close to where MindWanderer is, i.e. a borderline pass, but definitely wanting this to be more cohesive. The string and vox releases definitely hurt this one by exposing the samples, and the timing of the woodwind at 2:11 in particular was too blocky as well, but the overall arrangement was strong. I could live with this as is, but if this was rejected for now, no issues here. To me, the arrangement was substantially developed to where that slightly/barely carries it, but this one's dancing on the line and could use some improvements so that that wasn't the case. Also, nice sneak of the Schala theme cameo at 3:06; we see you. YES (very borderline)

The other Js pointed out some of the various parts sounding odd at first glance, and there was arguably some of that, but nothing sounded sour to me or put me off. Yeah, it's not my cup of tea, but I admire the creativity of this arrangement approach. I did like how the horn layers would almost pulse and shimmer with how they were produced; very cool effect, even though around 2:24 you have something that sounds more like turkey gobbles than anything else. On the flip side, everything sounded needlessly distant and panned a bit too wide, so I have to wonder why it was done that way, and it does admitted weaken my YES due to those aspects of the production. I'd enjoy this even more if this sounded sharper and more upfront in the soundscape, so maybe we can get some tweaks. That said, the arrangement was solid, so let's get 'er going. I mean it in the funnest way possible, but when you think about, say, Parks & Recreation making fun of music on NPR, I can't help but compare how specific and singular this concept was here, except this music's good. Ambitious stuff! Keep 'em coming, John! YES (borderline)

The guitar sequencing didn't sound totally awful, but the timing was nonetheless very robotic and should have been better humanized. Right now, the stiff, overly-quantized timing undermines the energy of the track, and IMO it was dead on arrival from the production side of things already. Jebus, this was an extremely muddy soundscape throughout. What was the point of the other part-writing behind the guitar starting at :21 if it was barely audible? None of this was mixed/separated properly. There were different/original guitar chugs in the background at 2:03 , but they didn't harmonize well with the source tune, so it was a mixed bag despite adding something different to the arrangement. Then there was soloing over the top of the source from 2:23-2:46 that was energetic, but again unrealistic-sounding and hampered by the timing being so rigid. That said, the treatment of the source there was basically conservative and looped, so the track hit a wall in terms of development. There's not much varied in the way of dynamics either. Well, we all have tracks where we're too lenient, so for DA it's definitely this one. Beyond the adaptation to rock, and some additional notes to the countermelodic writing first used at :21, the arrangement's too limited and repetitive, with the "Last Battle" part of the arrangement looping at 2:03. I hate to sound like I hated the track, Karol. I didn't, and IMO, it's a decent cover of a great source tune, but for the Standards here, this was underdeveloped and lacks polish, variety, and humanization. Without more development/variation in the arrangement and more realism in the sound, we can't roll with this. NO

Opened up very similar to the source tune, so I was waiting to hear how this would begin to stand apart from it. The chorus hitting at 1:05 but retaining a lot of the same instrumentation from the start was that first change and set the interpretation factor off in the right direction going forward. The "DK Island Swing" stuff in the middle of the track was odd, but worked in reasonably well, and you get used to the transition after multiple listens. Enjoyed Johnathan's treatment of the themes overall. I definitely hear the other Js on the mixing here not being ideal with the kick sounding puny as hell like Sir_NutS pointed out, instruments mudding together and fighting for the same space (3:04's section), and then some pretty badly noticeable and extended crowding at 5:11's section, but the arrangement arguably making up for it. I'd nonetheless like to hear 5:11-6:49 tweaked before approval, if possible. The track sounded better than MindWanderer's crit that it sounded like it was "played through a stereo on the other side of a wall," but I did laugh at that and he's definitely not wrong even if it's hyperbolic to make a point. Definitely take all of the production criticisms into account to clean up your future works. We can post what's here, so I wouldn't be upset at all if this passed, but there's definitely that element of disappointment that the production ultimately undermines the arrangement. In a few years, I think Jonathan will look back at this one and wish he knew then what he knows now. We can all agree this is a sweet arrangement, but there's just too much of the track where the mixing is cluttered and messy. Looks like it could still make it, but if it didn't, definitely just address some of the mixing concerns, and this would be an easy pass. NO (resubmit)

On a small note, I have to admit I went "eww" on the flat, plunky piano that was briefly there at 2:19; it was in and out briefly, so it wasn't a big deal, but it did come back a few times in that second half. Try to better humanize that sound; while you may get by on sound quality with the higher piano notes, the lack of realism's very exposed for the lower notes. I didn't like MindWanderer saying that the 2:25-3:28 section was too simple in terms of the arrangement treatment; it did build off of a short, core idea, but I thought there was clear effort given to evolve the textures around the source reference with the original writing and changing instrumentation. If that second half had been part of an arrangement that was more interpretive overall, I don't think this section would/should have been viewed as problematic relative to the Standards here, so I don't want the artist to take away the wrong conclusion from that point. That said, I agreed with MW and Gario that while this was a great listen in a vacuum, nearly the whole the first half being so structurally and instrumentally close to the source tune was a dealbreaker as far as the level of interpretation. It's just not a fit for OCR on that level, but that doesn't mean it isn't still an enjoyable cover. If you were ever interested in revisiting this one, Rebecca, I know you could reinstrument this or otherwise add in more of your own personal flair and ideas into the first half to more substantially differentiate it from the original piece. I look forward to your submissions as always; keep 'em coming! NO

The panning's too wide to start; you really don't need to have parts in just one channel. Once the left channel picked up at :13 and the track wasn't essentially JUST in the right ear, the wide panning was no longer flat out disorienting. Sir_NutS had a very good point about the mixing being dry that I wouldn't have noticed without his critique. IMO, the track was filled out and mixed well enough where the dryness didn't kill it, but I definitely believe if this had a little more wetness to the sound, the end result would be a lot stronger. Not going to make the imperfection of the lesser production issues the enemy of the good, but something to note for future works. Wow, LOVED the changeup at 2:18 to the more resonant strums, and then changing up the rhythm of the source melody at 2:42; I was smiling and nodding my head in time with the music and really enjoying the proggy turn with the soloing from 3:07-3:30. The ending did cut out too fast and could have used just a little more time for that last note to quickly fade, but the song went to silence maybe a half-second or second too early. So yeah, this shouldn't have been so dry, but the creativity of the arrangement and the fullness & energy of the performance were all very strong. Really impressive musicianship, Rus; let's work on improving your production there, but you're already putting together great work! Welcome! YES

DA's right that the panning's too wide. I'm also a headphone-based judge, and the panning's a dealbreaker, particularly with the lead brass. We'll see if Leandro can center things a little more. Otherwise, in full agreement with Deia that this was a solid arrangement. I just voted on Abreu Project's "Chrome Gadget" mix and it ticks all the boxes of their style, i.e. a more cover-ish start, followed by nice comping and original part-writing integrated with the source tune that explores the theme's potential some more. Always love their style! YES (conditional)

The first 10 seconds of the opening definitely wasn't promising, as the plucked string "performance" sounded clunky, but the rest of the track was fine. Samey vibrato and string humanization issues were definitely noteworthy to call out, and those criticized aspects should be improved, but it wasn't below the bar for me. I didn't have the issue the others were having about parts fighting to be heard in the same space, and the interplay between the parts from 1:50-3:08 was fine to me; there wasn't any point where I felt the song got directionless or that I didn't immediately or quickly latch onto what the dominant instrumental line was. I would have liked to have heard more melodic interpretation, but the genre adaptation and additive part-writing were enough to carry the overall interpretation factor. It's solid to me, and while I wouldn't mind some touch-ups after the fact, the track's executed well enough to me. YES

Pretty flat ending without a thought out resolution, which was a letdown, but this was an otherwise strong, smooth jazzy cover with great original part-writing integrated into the picture, which is par for the course with Abreu Project for sure. Fun energy and a spirited, personalized performance as always! YES

My time's limited today, so just wanted to say I thought the rhythmic change to the theme was really smart, and the piece developed and evolved nicely. Strong production on Stephen's spoken parts as well to give them force. Cool! YES

All of the files had original album data changed and release date metadata added as well, so no matter what, you wouldn't be able to just reuse the old files. We'll eventually hit a point where there aren't improvements that affect all files, but now ain't the time.

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

Not feeling the way the main LoZ theme combined with the Gerudo theme specifically at 1:21; the notes are clashing there briefly; same at 1:57, though not as egregious there. I'm not against changing the melody there just because it's different, I just thought that tweak didn't quite work. Otherwise, things were solid, and it wasn't far off the mark the first time around. Welcome aboard, William! YES

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