Liontamer

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

The arrangement's totally fine, and there's no concerns about it being too conservative; the end-goal is was it transformative in a meaningful way, and this arrangement in chiptune and rock together was completely substantive, even going so far as to seamlessly weaving together the 3 source tunes with each of their more unique writing beyond that main melody we all know. The guitar at 1:07 sounded distant, and I waited to see if that decision made sense given what came after. To me, it's not ideal, but at 1:45 looks like the the melody is the big focus, so the guitar's OK as a supporting part then. But as the track went on, it felt like the chip elements were struggling to be heard over the guitar. I'm obviously no production expert, but it just sounds as if there's needless frequency overlap that blurs a lot of the textures. Also, there's something sounding like the very high-end got cut from the track though, so there's no sharpness/clarity to it. Dynamically, I think the mixing undermined the changes in energy and textures here. From 2:03-2:58, it felt like the density and distance of the track hovered at basically the same level. From 2:40-2:58, with more lines of writing gradually joining in, the soundscape was just getting cluttered. Even after 3:02's excellent changeup to focus on more chip stuff, the change in texture again at 3:33-4:02 back to the guitar being prominent but mixed in the background brought back more instances of clutter, which made the track feel samey. I'll just say, I didn't really read the notes about the Namco 163, because that it and of itself wasn't a problem in anything I heard; I simply felt there was an overall lack of clarity throughout much of the piece. Like Gario mentioned, the drums were extremely dull in sound quality (NOT writing), and combined with my issues on the guitars generally mudding together with the chip elements, I didn't feel this version of the mixing worked, and the parts weren't clear/distinct enough. Sorry to also be a NO on this, but with another pass at just the production side to clean this up some, this would better realize the energy of the arrangement. NO

Having talked with Rebecca in the past about tweaks to previous files, many of her project files were lost in a hard drive crash, if I have it correct. I'm assuming that improvements can't be made, but noting that the inability to make a resubmission doesn't change my POV, it's just something worth noting. I listened before reading the other votes just to see what I thought about it first. The criticisms on balance really didn't sound like dealbreaker issues, just nice-to-have tweaks. The only thing I could have gone for was toning down some of the woodwind highs, which got piercing/shrill, but it's not enough to NO this as is. I've also noted sample realism as an issue for some of Rebecca's past pieces, but I didn't hear anything problematic enough to note here. With the oboe for example, the way it sits in the soundscape doesn't feel like the attacks -- while noticeable -- greatly exposed the sample. Her sound palette's generally well above the bar, and there aren't any parts that dramatically strain credibility or illustrate a quality disparity. To me, the arrangement is another great folk adaptation, with genteel instrument choices that weave together a beautiful, delicate texture. The source melody is pretty apparent here, so there was no need to timestamp things to verify dominant usage. IMO, nothing about the balance of the parts made it difficult to focus on the melody or the individual part-writing at all, so I just don't think that criticism holds any water in comparison to the strength of the arrangement. While I have my own votes where I've NOed a strong arrangement on production grounds, this isn't one of them. I don't like invoking djp a lot, and I know he argues that the panel has a higher and more discerning cutoff than he does (somewhat by design), but I just can't imagine he'd say this version couldn't be posted as is, despite acknowledging some meaningful points of improvement. Arrangement typically carries the day at OCR, and that's the guidance of my vote here, but there's not even a question for me of the production quality being reasonable here. I don't understand why this would NEED to be sent back. YES

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.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone break down the source usage, so I'll leave a note here. Anyone who picks out more than this should add their insight: MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries "Dawn Watch" - 1:08-2:12 (sounded like direct usage of the original audio) MechWarrior 2 "Silent Thunder / Rust Heart" - 1:51-2:35, 3:02-3:24, 3:30-3:53, 3:58-4:07 MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries "Dragon's Teeth" - 2:36-3:51.5

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

Not sure why the opening cymbal was simply muted at :02; even in a real life setting, that was an odd choice, but it's a small thing. As soon as the mix hit the first verse at :22, the mixing seemed too bright and piercing, so I'm not sure what happened there. The synth lead first at :05 and the gliding synth lead at :22 were too generic, IMO. The electric guitar chugs mixed in the back felt somewhat stiff and exposed, but were solid and added some good depth. Though the boomy kicks/thumps felt a bit indistinct, the beats also filled things in nicely. Something's just off with the frequencies here; I wish I could articulate what's going on. I also wish the core beat wasn't so plain; there's so much detail work going on with the beat-writing that's a lot quieter, but the pattern of the main beat during the verses felt bland, despite a lot of creative fills clearly being used to break things up. At 2:32, when those plain beats returned, it just felt like track could have gone in a more creative direction. When things cleared up after the dropoff at 1:52, the texture had more breathing room, but I'm still not sure why this was all so piercing. The delayed notes from 2:20-2:25 were oddly written; would be nice to smooth that out. The arrangement's a straightforward pass, but a lot of smaller issues for me with the mixing, sound design, and writing were adding up to a NO (resubmit). I think some more personality/uniqueness to the leads and some re-working of that main would help this, plus smoothing out whatever's making the leads seem so shrill. It feels like it needs one more pass on the production to iron out several kinks. I may simply be old man-ing this, Mike, so good luck with the rest of the vote. EDIT (3/13): Looking at Chimpa's additional comments below, she definitely nailed the assessment of the revision, i.e. it's improved, but still sounds much heavier with the higher frequencies. The kicks aren't that much more distinct, but they cut through more. I would have liked some writing & synth tweaks, but the mixing updates are enough to nudge this over. It should be have been a more solid pass, and I hold Mike to a high standard personally, but this version is solid enough. I'll change over to (borderline) YES, but this didn't fully realize the potential & energy of the composition.

Just skimming through the votes, it seemed like people were cool with the arrangement, but not the production. OK, let's see what's up. Wanted to first say that the guitar & bass work were awesome throughout. The pitched up vocals from :15-:29 don't stand out too much, but seemed too high and slightly chipmunky. Not a big deal as a subtle element here. Callum's chorused vocals at :29 were such a cool way to arrange the MMX Sigma Stage 1 theme, and not at all what I expected. I couldn't fully understand them due to the way they were produced, but that happens in music all the time, and the tone of everything sounded great. If Callum hasn't heard of him, he should check out Joey Barnes, who does some great original music and whose vocals Callum's reminded me of in some respects with Barnes' track "The Wire (Act 1)." The vocal gating at 1:24 was an interesting technique, but the way the vocals' volume seemed to drop/duck when the gating happened was odd. I disagreed on the vocals or their treatment feeling too repetitive; they weren't in there that long, and I thought they well creatively handled. As far as the words repeating, it's called a hook; it's fine. The transition at 2:19 didn't work, IMO. The lead synth seemed so bright compared to the more melancholy vocals before it; same with the whistling at 2:44; maybe it's more of a personal taste thing, but to me the contrast in tones really didn't click there. Anyway, 3:00 moved onto a section strictly focused on MMX, and the organ and guitar seemed to work better with the whistling-style part. The vocals from 3:27-3:40 got smothered by the guitar work; both of those parts sounded good, but weren't mixed properly to occupy their own space. If anything, the jarring contrast with the instrumentation & tone of the 2:19 section was the biggest issue for me, but it's also something you get more used to on repeated listens. The other production issues brought up like clutter and clarity were valid and should be addressed, and whether this passed as is or not, it should be improved. That said, the arrangement was very smart and creative, and the mixing didn't bother me enough where I felt parts weren't discernible. There's no way I'd reject this when the arrangement is so strong and the production, while not ideal, was solid enough. I'd love a version with another pass at the mixing, but I'm a strong YES if we only had this version. EDIT (3/28): Forgot to mention, but once I paid more attention, read the sub letter, and recognized the "Never Gonna Give You Up" influence on the lyrics, I was dying. Y'all are some clever bastards.

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.

Nice work!

With both the dynamic contrast and melodic interpretation, this could have went more places, but I agreed with Gario that there's 0 issue here with the arrangement possibly being too conservative. It's melodically close, sure, but the adaptation to rock is expansive and personalized, and that's all we need. You also have some brief but effectively written original sections there in between the uses of the source tune to glue it all together. Great energy in your arrangement and performances, Daniel! YES

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

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

So Rebecca actually pulled this and replaced it with her FF7 submission, but IMO she wrongly believed it would be rejected. It is a medley of 3 songs, but I thought the flow was fine, so I believe it deserves a vote. I'm being a bit of a badmen here, but since the Content Policy allows us to post whatever's submitted and not necessarily give into a removal request, I chose not to accept the withdrawal and to panel it anyway. Note to musicians: DO NOT SELF-REJECT YOUR WORK. DO NOT SELF-REJECT YOUR WORK. DO NOT SELF-REJECT YOUR WORK. We'd much rather you gave it a shot and submitted it, even if it risks a rejection. I know for a fact that there are talented musicians in the community who -- despite making really strong stuff -- have chosen not to submit particular songs because they assume they would get rejected. The evaluation process is here to lift you up, not beat you down. We'd love to have the ability to check out your work, offer constructive criticism where we can, and praise and encouragement even if it doesn't make it. Onto the mix, the layout is: :00-:38 - "Unicorn" :38-2:00 - "Mystic Forest" 2:00-4:20 - "The Treant's Forest" Rebecca often submits medleys, and some judges have taken issue with the structures not flowing enough like one overarching composition. At :38, she uses the background bowed string line to connect the themes, while the harp is common instrument connecting the transition at 2:00. To me, the changes in themes were apparent, but I felt the changes from each theme to the next, while quick, were smooth enough in the big picture. The overall piece felt like one with movements rather than just a slapdash combination of themes with 0 flow. Arrangement-wise, I was impressed with how expansive her takes on these themes were in the adaptation to new age. Dynamically, there could have been more contrast overall, but the deliberate pacing that has worked for her in past tracks like her "Final Fantasy Forest Medley" works in exactly the same way here. YES

So Rebecca actually pulled this and replaced it with her FF7 submission, but IMO she wrongly believed it would be rejected. It is a medley of 3 songs, but I thought the flow was fine, so I believe it deserves a vote. - LT ----------------------------------------------- RebeccaETripp Rebecca Tripp http://www.crystalechosound.com/ ID: 48262Game: Tales of Phantasia Song's Remixed: Unicorn, Mystic Forest, The Treant's Forest Song Title: Magical Forest Medley Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CmsF_XXM-A Dropbox link:

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

I was just commenting on Russell Cox's Castlevania III "Prelude to Darkness" as a good example of a structurally conservative OC ReMix that expanded upon its source tune, and this was another solid example here. Agreed with the others that this effectively takes "The Landing" and gives it a nice epic cinematic sound upgrade with good additive touches. I heard the overcompression MW mentioned as well, and while it wasn't enough to pull this down to NO, it would be nice to get another pass at that, just to clean this up and get things sounding their best. Nice work, Alex, and welcome aboard! YES

Man, tell me about it. Russell Cox is such a legend. My highlights were the delicate harp brought in at :37 & 3:23 -- which sounded incredible -- as well as the original brass flourishes at 2:03 and orchestral swell at 3:02 (which was garbled by the low encoding). Everything holds up pretty well today, and this one's a perfect example of a melodically conservative arrangement that's creatively expanded and given a substantial, personalized interpretation into a new genre. Amazing stuff!

The harpsichord at :11 was way too loud and upfront. Oh shit, at :22, the lead synth was shrill and even louder than the harpsichord. What's going on here? The levels here really made no sense, and the track's way too compressed. Around 1:17, the plain writing of the core beats was already getting stale; you really need to get more creative with that part, otherwise the whole track feels static like it does now. Also, 1:17 and 2:01 were opportunities to get creative and varied with other aspects of the writing. Instead, the lead synth just has the same vanilla tone throughout, and the same deliberate pacing. At 2:23, we already heard that stuff at :43, and there's essentially no variation there where going to it for the finish. The whole execution feels like an early work-in-progress and -- completely divorcing this from the Standards here -- not up to your own usual standard of quality. I do like you venturing outside the wheelhouse that I'm at least familiar with for your work, Sebastian, but there's a lot of detail work and variation lacking in this piece. With such a brief piece, you've gotta vary up the sounds and arrangement ideas for the source tune, and the balance among the various instruments can't be so off. Rein in the volume, get more varied with the leads and melodic interpretation, and vary up the drumwork. NO

Opened up sparsely, which didn't seem promising, but the raw overall energy was actually fine once the track really started at :15. The guitars lacked some high-end, but sounded fine in the big picture. I'm actually surprised by how well the drumwork/breakbeats clicked as well, but it did a great job giving your own interpretation of the source tune's drum writing. The track could have had more clarity, but the writing was very energetic and expressive with a lot of attention to detail, both the percussion and bass work. Timing it out, it felt a little source light. The track was 2:17-long, so I needed at least 68.5 seconds of identifiable source for the VGM usage to dominate the arrangement per the Standards here: :15-:49, 1:45.5-2:16 = 34+30.5 = 64.5 seconds or 47.08% overt source usage Just noting, :15's section was more like the mix1 arranged version of the source (used in the home versions of the game, which I played a ton), while 1:45's section was structured more like the original arcade version of the theme. Little bits of the bassline within :55-1:13 were similar enough to the opening 8-note riff of the mix1 arranged version of the source where I could count those added bits as helping this squeak by with the source usage being dominant. As far as I could tell, the SF5 version of the theme (which only references the main SF3:3S source for a smaller part) wasn't used here, but maybe another J will make out something I didn't. Onto the one main negative, the SFX usage of Urien voice clips from 1:24-1:39 felt so gimmicky and forced. The track could have done without it, although you get more used to the SFX after several listens and it's not a huge enough deal to hold this back. That said, for such a short track, you wove in a lot of original writing ideas and didn't get repetitive with the arrangement at all, plus the production was solid. I thought this packed a lot into a small amount of time and rocked this theme out. Solid job, Andrés! Good luck with the rest of the vote! YES

Wouldn't disagree with that at all. I'll drop him a line.