Liontamer

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

Preview it: http://youtu.be/_fUnmQB2yU4 Download & Knuckles: http://soundcloud.com/ocremix/sets/and-knuckles I'm very proud to announce the release of the newest OCR album: & Knuckles! Knuckles has long been an unsung hero among gamers, and I'm happy to bring him to the forefront for a sonic tour through some of the best songs of the franchise. The original idea for this album was devised only three months ago, but a large number of artists stepped up to the plate to help make this happen even over such a short time. I truly hope you enjoy their outstanding work here. Get ready to not chuckle, and to start flexing your muscles! - Jarel Jones (Arrow) This was my first time doing the cover art for an OC ReMix album and I had a ton of fun! While I'm more into Mega Man these days, Sonic was my first fandom, so it was awesome to revisit and draw it again. Also, c'mon, let's face it, swole Knuckles is awesome. It was an honor to work on this album and I hope you enjoy the art as well as all the crazy awesome music inside. - Tabby Ramsey

The ultimate album. For the ultimate BADASS. OUT NOW! & Knuckles • http://ocremix.org/info/&_Knuckles • http://soundcloud.com/ocremix/sets/and-knuckles Director: Jarel Jones (Arrow) Artwork: Tabby Ramsey - http://digitallyfanged.com

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

From the weird SFX opening to the ambient padding to the synths to the 9-bit stuff, and even Jake's live trumpet, you have a strong, varied arrangement here, Jake. MW's right about the leads from 1:16-1:50 obscruring your backing writing, but it's not a big issue. Good sound design choices overall. I'm not sure why MindWanderer thinks the arrangement here is source-lite, but he's just wrong in this case. References to a source tune are way more involved than just the most memorable & upfront components. Once the music starts at :15, Jake is literally always referencing the source tune somewhere for the rest of the track, even without the source melody. Listen to the original SPC (change the extension to .rar and unpack it, then load track 1-35) and isolate channels 2 (bassline), 6 (sustained note), and 7 (piano). The backing writing in this mix is pretty explicitly derived from all of those lines. For example, let's take the trumpet solo section from 2:08-2:43. Even though the melody's referenced briefly in places, let's pretend that's never there. The entire trumpet solo is on top of the explicit bassline from the source. Because of that direct A-to-B connection with an aspect of the source tune's composition, I count every second of that as valid source usage. In other words, you're focusing too much on using the melody and disregarding other valid areas of source usage. Let's go. YES

Explore the Nullsoft Disk Writer settings some more. In the Covert to Format area, click the button showing the currently selected format, then select MPEG Layer-3 (i.e. MP3) from the Format dropdown. Then select the bitrate and stereo output you need in the Attributes dropdown. The most common stereo setting is 44.100 Hz, so that's recommended no matter what bitrate you choose.

I'll co-sign with Gario that the production was fine for the piece (vis-a-vis the standards). Hate to sound like I'm nitpicking a small detail, but, while I didn't mind the guitar panning, I agreed with the others that the guitar and chiptune merely doubling the same lines for the entire track was disappointing as far wanting to hear more development and variation of ideas in an otherwise-cool concept piece. Could have used warp pipe jingle at 1:15 to transition to the Underground BGM; what's here right now is just an abrupt cut. Total agreement there. There's nothing really there for that section except a slightly faster retread of the 1-1 theme; I get how it's holding just a simple tempo increase like the original song does, but for the arrangement standards here, we're looking for something a little more substantive, so consider what else you could do there so that final section stands more apart creatively from the first one. Great potential here, Mike. The standards here push for a little more variation within such a short arrangement at only 2:31-long, but this is definitely creative and well in the right direction. If you're willing to revisit this one, we'd love to post it in some form, it would just need some sort of continuity or legit transition point between the Overworld and Underworld themes, and some more variation in your treatment of the Overworld theme. If you'd rather leave this piece as is, that's no problem, but I hope you'd be willing to submit more works of yours down the line. Cool stuff so far, but develop the writing/arrangement a bit further! NO (resubmit)

The recording quality's not the best, as you mentioned, but the arrangement's a solid piano cover with good live performance dynamics to help set it apart from the original. It's short, it's bread-and-butter, but it's not repetitive in how it's performed, so it works. Count it. YES

Opened up pretty interesting. The lead sounded like it should have been in the foreground more, and the growling lyrics at 1:15 sounded needlessly distant; IMO, the vocals should have cut through more into the foreground. I would have liked them to be more understandable as well, but that's just a personal preference thing, not something influencing my vote. After the percussion dropoffs at 1:01 & 2:45, the organ sounded OK, albeit distant. The soundscape started feeling cluttered and muddy at 2:58, and moreso at 3:11 with the return of the percussion. The part-writing all sounds good, but the mixing needs to be cleaner so that you can hear the instruments more distinctly. Re-EQing this piece to give it more clarity would take this a long way. I could live with the current volumes for the parts here as long as more clarity was achieved. 3:50-4:41's section was a great rhythmic changeup from the flow of the track before this, so nice job giving this a good shot of variety. I liked the vocals returning at 4:51 for the finish. I see where MindWanderer's coming from in criticizing the lack of dynamic contrast, but I felt the deliberate pacing and shifts within a more limited dynamic curve were perfectly reasonable. I've heard melodic rock tracks with more of a droning style of pacing, where the dynamic contrast is more subtle. For example, I heard noticeable changes in the energy or textures at :22, :35, 1:01, 1:15, 1:40, 2:19, 2:45, 2:58, 3:10, 3:24, 3:50 (extended soloing), 4:29, 4:42 and 4:55. Some of the changes were more understated, some more distinct, but within a narrow overall curve, I felt this piece had lots of development and shifts to keep things varied and fresh. Having made my own mistake with this line of thinking before, I'd argue not to miss the forest for the trees and appreciate how this track works in the big picture. On the arrangement side, Karlyn, I have to give you major, major props. After hearing the source tune, you really fleshed out the instrumentation compared to the original. If you gave me both tracks and I didn't know any better, I would have thought YOUR track was the original song, and the source tune was an attempt at a mellower version (with weaker instrumentation, no hate). You really made this theme a natural fit for doom metal, and it's an awesome approach. The arrangement doesn't need a thing changed with it. This is nothing but a strong, creative rock arrangement that could use one more pass at the production to sharpen it up. We absolutely need this posted on OCR in some form, so definitely please do not drop this one. It deserves a place here. NO (refine/resubmit)

Sounds like 1:33 was a loop of :12's section. Annnnnnd... this arrangement essentially just repeats wholesale three times. Well, it's a Tim Follin track, so I love the source already, but this is just an uninterpretive and repetitive cover, so it falls outside of our arrangement/interpretation standards. Try to do your own thing with it beyond adapting it to synth and adding in some basic orchestration. Here's an example of a Silver Surfer cover of the other stage theme that's more personalized with live performance flourishes, more expansive instrumentation, and some brief original writing ideas integrated with the source tune: http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02492. In other words, it's always possible to have a melodically conservative piece on OCR, but you need to personalize, develop, and vary the the arrangement way more than what's here. NO

I didn't hear the previous version, but I had no major issues with the mixing here. Like MW says, there are some hot spots, but it's certainly nothing problematic. The lead synth at 1:09 is super-generic, which I can live with, but arguably too rigid in the timing. Some more creative processing with and/or variation of the lead would be an meaningful improvement. 2:16's section was more unique in the treatment of the source melody, so that was my highlight of the arrangement. Nice use of the dulcimer with the original writing ideas as well; difficult to go wrong using the dulcimer. No issues on the treatment of the source tune, which was heavily referenced and treated creatively. Onto my main issue, which became a dealbreaker: practically all of the backing percussion writing feels too static, looped, and repetitive; how about some velocity variation somewhere? If you can improve that alongside possibly making the melodic synth lead more sophisticated and varied, I'd be fully on board. It's good stuff so far, Jeff, even if I can't fully support this version, so if this version doesn't make it, it's still very viable. Would love to see an improved version of this posted. NO (resubmit)

Nice job always keeping the source tune in play, even when your original writing ideas took the forefront. Awesome! YES

From a standards perspective, the voice clips are abundant, but the cutoff to me if whether or not the track leans on the voice clip usage as the connection to the source tunes. Here, that's not a problem because the entire instrumental was made by the submitting artist, and that arranged those 2 sources. So even if you eliminated the voice clips, you'd have a Jet Grind Radio arrangement here. So like I said, I don't have an inherent huge problem with this using the voice clips, though to me, it's a bit egregious/overdone in this track. And I say that knowing we have an OC ReMix that already used that approach with HappyBivouac's "Late Night Sneakin'" way back in 2004, just not as over the top. For example, with the sped up voice clip of "Float Like a Butterfly" first used at 1:15, it just sounds like it's sped up and crammed in just to fit the tempo, and that doesn't sound good, IMO. There's a click/pop around :44 that should be fixed. Focusing on just the instrumental, it's noticeably thin, particularly during the sections employing the orch stabs and organ. I like the all of the bassline, guitar noodling, and breakbeat sampling, but the orch stabs and organ sound really thin and low-quality, which left the track sounding sparse for too long. I mean, once you get to :50, the instrumental's texture was as full as the track ever got. And at 2:07, I felt like I was just hearing the same sections of the instrumental recycled from :50 for the rest of the piece, when the track is pretty short. For me, the instrumental's well in the right direction, but needs more fullness, particularly through improved sound quality/depth/realism from the organ and orchestral stabs. The execution of the "Float Like a Butterfly" should fit more comfortably here, whether that's by reducing the clip or using it in more creative ways, and the overall voice clip usage is too busy -- and again, I understand the style you're going for. You could tone some of that back. You should also include more variation/ideas with how you're arranging "Sneakman"; don't get so cut-and-paste happy with the music and see what other creativity can be done there for the final minute. Good start so far, Caleb. See if you can polish and refine this. NO (resubmit)

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

The usage of the Gradius III soundset was awesome. What's this even doing here? The usual DDRFire(OMG). YES

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

This'll happen one day. I've made some good progress. Also, for the next torrent update, I'll be including Release Date, as well as Artist Sort Order for the few artists whose handles begin with A, An, or The.

Melodically, it's too conservative, IMO, but if the arrangement were personalized in other ways beyond the adaptation to the chippy instrument set and new (though repetitive) beats, then it would have a chance; that's just my one opinion, but I think a vote on this as is would be "it's a good listen, but too close to the original without some other changes/additions to help it stand apart more from the original" At 2 1/2 minutes long, i.e. when it's on the shorter side, it's important that the track pretty much always stands apart from the original in some meaningful way; if it were longer, it'd have more time to start conservatively but then branch off into other more creative/interpretive directions. That's just looking at it from the OCR standards perspective. In any situation, it's a fun de-make, and the chippy sound is awesome.

Pretty unique approach to this theme; every time you think you've heard it all with "Aquatic Ambiance," you get something like this. The way the source tune was referenced throughout was very creative, IMO, with lots of subtle plays to the melody and main motifs, but other instruments getting in references to it as well while doing their own thing. The piano's got a blocky quality to it that would be nicer if that wasn't the case, but it was serviceable and the piano sound had enough of a tail to it where it had some body. Gario's not wrong to criticize it, but his votes hinges on the sound being more problematic than I thought it was. The sax programming at 2:36-3:27 also could have been problematic -- the effect on it made a unique sound that was disarming at first -- but, instead, it offers something distinct to the sound. Nice job layering it with the synth at 3:08 as well. Dynamically, there could have been more distinct drops in the energy, but what's here still works within a narrower dynamic curve. Smooth beats and a novel way to personalize the theme. Nice work, Damon! YES

There are some limitations in the realism of the piano resonance, but it's minor in the big picture. Now this strong arrangement is sounding solid. I was one of the Js who heard the previous version, so I'm proud to say you did a great job pulling this one up, Guillaume! Thank you for revisiting it. YES

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

U lazy.

Opened up pretty quiet, so we'll see where this goes dynamically. The arrangement was pretty straightforward for the first 2:45 or so; while it's personalized, it could be moreso. The glassy accents had some odd notes from 1:26-1:39. The gradual transition to "Stickerbush Symphony" at 2:36 was noticed, but it still didn't feel substantive enough to not sound like a big break in the flow of the arrangement. Also, the treatment of "Stickerbush Symphony" will have to be even more interpretive, just because the "Forest Interlude" section felt so straightforward. Not sure what instrument that was at 3:35, but it sounded flimsy. Texturally, this sounded pretty empty from 3:28-4:16. Even when percussion work came in at 4:16, the other string and woodwind instrumentation had a thin, uncanny valley feel to it all; it's serviceable, but pretty exposed, IMO. I don't feel like the textures in the "Stickerbush Symphony" feel cohesive or full, so that hurts the second half. I'm a NO (resubmit) for now, but would really be interested in the musician Js' points of view to help better inform me on why this doesn't gel in the second half. EDIT (3/24): Thanks to Gario for weighing in after I asked. There's a lot of positives in terms of adapting the instrumentation and adding some new writing into the picture. I appreciate his POV, particularly calling the "Stickerbush Symphony" a pointilistic approach and noting how the string swells there obscured other instruments; particularly for the second half, I felt like balance of the instruments took focus away from the melody, something that her Chrono Cross sub was criticized for and I didn't agree with, but would argue is the case in areas here. All that said, I still don't feel the execution of this clicks. The bridge between the two themes (2:36-3:08) was clearly purposeful but still felt superficial and disconnected; maybe if the transition hadn't been an extended wind-down of the first theme, then an extended rebuild of the second, the composition would have felt more unified. I've usually defended Rebecca's medley structures, but for this it felt like two separate arrangements were very simply put one after the other. And I felt the instrumentation was stiff through more of the track, which wasn't a dealbreaker in of itself, but added to the count of smaller issues adding up. So it's not to be obstinate, and I wouldn't have a problem with being outvoted, but I'm still not feeling I'm missing something yet. EDIT (3/27): I'm not schizophrenic, I just had the volume too low. I'm listening more and more, and Gario's swayed me. I'm better appreciating all of the new writing accompanying the source, and, with the volume boosted up some, I hear the fullness of the textures in the second half more and can appreciate the "pointilism" of the instrumentation more. There's still the issue of the uncanny valley of sorts with the string and woodwind timing, but it's not a dealbreaker. I think the switch between the two themes still didn't work all the way, but I listened through the piece a ton more times, and with acclimation it works enough that I'll let it go. The main thing pushing me over is better appreciating the intricacies of Rebecca's well-written additions giving a different character to the piece. YES

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

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