Liontamer

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

Reinstall Winamp, then try the directions in the first post I had.

You'd possibly have to go to Preferences > Output or General Purpose (wherever the extension would be), find the Format Converter plug-in and click the "Uninstall plug-in" button.

The Winamp version doesn't matter, and I have no idea about the Converter in your context menu, because it's not something that comes up on mine; maybe you added some sort of extension/plug-in to Winamp that's not part of the default configuration.

He keeps telling you though, don't use the Format Converter interface at all. It's unintuitive, but that's not what you use. Do the instructions from my post. If you also need to do some sort of step to disable the Format Converter, then do that.

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

I didn't have any problem with the source being derived somewhat from "Rock-a-bye Baby." I hear the connection, but that theme here has a different character to it and wasn't melodically similar enough. The track was 2:41-long, so I needed at least 80.5 seconds' worth of source usage for the VGM to dominate the arrangement. 30.25-37.75, 38.75-48, 50.25-57.75, 59.25-1:08.5, 1:10.25-1:28, 1:30.75-1:37.75, 1:39.5-1:50, 2:04.5-2:17, 2:18.75-2:21.75, 2:23.75-2:32 = 92 seconds or 57.14% overt source usage The Celtic harp lead at :30 & 1:30 felt mechanical, but sat reasonably enough in the soundscape due to the padding behind it. The string accompaniment added at :50 was well-done and added some good original writing to fill things out. The light percussion at 1:10 was also a nice, subtle touch. I didn't have any other issues with the instrumentation, jyst following up on MindWanderer's reaction. On the arrangement side, props for not repeating anything too much in such a short piece, and adding in good original writing ideas to compliment the source tune. You avoided some common pitfalls for a lot of submissions under 3 minutes, and really added a lot of depth to a very short and sparse original theme. Nice work! YES

The way this was mixed, I thought the percussion got completely lost during 1:14-1:28 & 1:53-2:26. Some of the highs also sounded sizzly, and I also would have liked one more pass at this mixing, but the rest of the presentation sounded solid. Nice take on this theme, adding some good intensity to it! YES

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

Rather than a direct post, I'm moving this to the panel to give my feedback and criticisms. The mixing lacks highs, so there's a lossy, distant sound to this. I would have liked something more to the melodic treatment, but what's here is OK due to an effective genre adaptation with some new part-writing thrown into the mix. The original breakdown from 1:06-1:27 was OK, but the texture felt thin despite everything going on. 1:45-2:15 sounded like a cut-and-paste of :00's lead guitar with different drumming underneath. This gets by, but should have been developed further. Would love to see you explore the possibilities of longer arrangements some more with future subs, Mike, and also brighten up the soundscape a little just so all of the strong performances sound cleaner and more upfront. YES

Nope. Should be fixed the next time the site syncs with the DB.

Preferences > Output > select Nullsoft Disk Writer > Choose the directory location for the geenrated file > For "Conversion", check the Covert to Format box, then select the desired format (I'd use PCM with attributes 44.100 kHz, 16 Bit, Stereo (172kb/sec) Then play the file as you would, and Winamp will convert it to a WAV instead of playing the audio. Watch for not having the file itself play on an infinite loop or having the playlist loop.

Yeah, I fell basically in this camp. The arrangement here uses the theme through most of the piece, so source usage wasn't in question. MindWanderer's wrong to ding this on not being more melodic; as long as there's arrangement of identifiable writing or patterns, the approach is valid even if not melodious, and that's definitely done here by Mellow Sonic, without question. ------------------------- EDIT (3/23): Thanks to MindWander for clarifying his POV. When MW noted this wasn't melodic, that caught my eye more than his explicit point that it was neither melodic nor progressive, which is absolutely spot on. So that's my mistake, and we're totally on the same page along with the other NOs. It doesn't have to be melodic, but if it's not going to be, it still have to evolve and develop more. -------------------------- I'm also OK with a piece that's more of an overall groove with only subtle dynamic changes as long as the changes are apparent within that narrower dynamic curve -- and that also happens here. However, in reading Jivemaster's vote in particular, he nailed down what was nagging me about this piece. The part-writing combinations do change, but the different core patterns of the song feel repetitive and overlong as they mix and match, e.g. the synth lead at :36, 4:43 the heavy bassline at :45, 2:27, 5:40 the breakbeats at :45, 3:11, 3:46 the ambient strings at :45, 3:12, 5:06 the warbling synths at 1:30, 2:16, 4:08 the drones at 2:04, 4:08 Even though you're hearing the textures change throughout, the components feel like just the same loops cycling in and out without meaningful variation, which made the atmosphere seem repetitive and underdeveloped for such a long piece. If the individual part-writing varied a bit more, this wouldn't feel like it was dragging on and not justifying the length. To me, this was a really cool approach that's got a good overall groove, but this needs more variation in the writing and/or instrumentation of the patterns being cycled in and out, which could be subtly addressed. I wouldn't mind an additional vote or two on this just to make sure there may not be other YES's for this as is, so I'd like to continue voting with either a 5th NO or another YES to keeping things going. NO (resubmit)

I can see why any judge should look at a medley carefully, but I didn't believe it was a tough call. On the level of interpretation, the key changes, different instrumental textures, live performance dynamics, as well as the addition of original part-writing all together added up to a substantive arrangement. Nice move from the woodwind lead to the piano (with original string accents) at 1:30. The swell at 2:23 was nicely done also. As far as the arrangement's structure with multiple themes, I don't see how the medley was problematic; the pacing and flow didn't feel disconnected or "pasted together" from theme to theme, IMO. The transitions at :37, 2:39 (with the bowed strings as the common thread), and the move into original writing at 3:14, then the shift back into CT at 3:34 were all fine. Same at 3:46 (with the bowed strings fading down as the next section built); all of the transitions here are clearly given legitimate thought. Everything sounds kosher to me. Nice job by Andrew, Kristy, and Fernando! YES

The opening strings sounded very mechanical; it wasn't as much the sample quality as it was the articulations repeating so perfectly due to the string writing being looped. At :23, the woodwinds attacks were also very stilted, followed by the brass at :38. None of the performances sounded humanized, and the textures were surprisingly sparse for an orchestrated piece, which undermined a lot of the forcefulness intended in the writing. Totally agreed with MindWanderer on the writing for the melody being too repetitive; the arrangement was extremely samey throughout despite it not being very long. I thought the droning instrument from 2:34-2:49 resolved fine, for what it's worth; I did hear some dissonance in places, but nothing that stood out in a huge way. Beyond that, Alex, I'm co-signed on MW's main criticisms; vary the melodic treatment more substantially and humanize the instrumentation. I don't think it's an easy fix, per se, but it's worth the attempt. NO (resubmit)

I'll go in the minority. I wouldn't be mad if this got posted, but I thought Gario's criticisms of the drums being plodding was actually sold short. The tone & production of the beats was good, but they basically droned on with little development. To me, you could skip around to different parts of the track after :42, you basically heard the same groove throughout. The textures did change up, so I'm not saying there's no substance or dynamic contrast ever, but I felt the beats droning on, the melodic lead sticking by the same synth the whole time, and the overall similar energy level throughout made the track feel more static, plodding, and flat than it needed to be. It didn't knock any points off here, at least for me, but MindWanderer had a valid point on the track not even needing the restart at 4:10. It's a enjoyable arrangement, but it also feels underdeveloped. Would love another pass at this to spice it up further, Martin. No disrespect intended of course, but it felt like this wasn't quite as developed as your R-Type arrangement. NO (resubmit)

I'm not sure why MindWanderer went YES, when his vote seemed to make a pretty concrete case as to why the lack of interpretation made it a NO, nearly all of the part-writing of the first half being straight from the original song. That said, I understand there's further context. After 1:32, original additive writing was introduced that worked together well with the source tune; IMO, that kind of writing should have been present throughout the first half in some form as well if the arrangement was going to maintain the tone and structure of the source so closely. It's a nice sound upgrade that doesn't sound completely unlike something RoeTaKa could have attempted. The additive approach of the second half was working, but this needs more arrangement substance in the first half, especially due to the track being so brief at just under 3 minutes. Good stuff so far, Alex, but develop this further, whether that's through more original additive part-writing in the first half, introducing melodic interpretation, or providing more length and/or dynamic contrast. It's a solid sound, but you've played this too safe. NO (resubmit)

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

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

Just chiming in after the fact that I agree the arrangement is a pass, but I more of a conditional YES on toning down the highs. The "tss" sound first brought in at :37 was pretty sizzly and piercing on headphones. And from :53-1:11 & 1:46-2:04, the "tss" is too loud over the melodic stuff, IMO. I'll reach out to Andy and see if it's something that can be tweaked. Poo on the piano being mechanical, though it's not a huge deal once other elements came in the fill out the soundscape.

SoundCloud The streaming may be 128kbps, but you can make your music downloadable in 320kbps or whatever MP3 encoding level you want, or you can just upload in lossless format instead. Bandcamp You upload lossless, and people can DL the format they want. MP3s from there are downloadable as either 320kbps or VBR0. If you're concerned strictly about higher bitrate streaming (as opposed to downloading), I'll join the popular sentiment: the demand isn't there, and the difference to the ear isn't practically discernible. As bandwidth capabilities rise over time, it'll eventually happen in the same way FLAC has grown as an increasingly offered downloadable option, but the baseline standard of quality is currently phone earbuds, so it'll require a sea change of sorts in maybe 5-10 years.

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.