Liontamer

For a 4:21-long track, I needed 130.5 seconds of overt source usage for me to consider the VGM dominant in the arrangement according to the Submissions Standards. :16.5-:17, :20.25-:20.75, :22.25-:24.75, :27.75-:28.75, :29.75-:31.5, :34.75-:35.25, :37.5-:39.75, :42.5-:46.5, :49.75-:50.25, :52-:54.25, :57.25-:57.75, :59.5-1:01.5, 1:04.5-1:05.25, 1:06.75-1:08.75, 1:11.75-1:12.5, 1:15.5-1:17, 1:19.5-1:21.5, 1:22.75-1:25, 1:26.5-1:28, 1:30.5-2:01.75, 2:03.5-2:05.25, 2:07.5-2:09, 2:10.75-2:12.25, 2:44.25-2:44.75, 2:47.75-2:48.5, 2:50.5-2:52.25, 2:55.5-2:56, 2:57.75-2:59.5, 3:02.75-3:03.5, 3:04.75-3:06.5, 3:10-3:10.75, 3:12-3:12.25, 3:19.25-3:20.25, 3:21.25-3:26.25, 3:28.5-3:29, 3:32.25-3:32.75, 3:34.5-3:37, 3:39.75-3:41, 3:43.5-3:43.75, 3:46.75-3:47.25, 3:49-3:51.5, 3:54.25-3:54.75, 3:56.5-3:58.5, 4:01.75-4:02.25, 4:04-4:06.5, 4:09.25-4:10.25 = 98.75 seconds or 37.8% overt source usage Well, I definitely enjoy the piece in a vacuum, and the original writing additions were seamless, but I can't pass this on source usage grounds. I would love to be overlooking some element of the song to revise my vote. I didn't count the bars of beeps after the melodic phrases, because they're not the "Pipe Land" melody, even though it all pieces together nicely. As I've said many times in the past, I don't count rests longer than a second, because those are long, IMO. There are so many places in this specific track where the source tune's not used for gaps longer than 2-3 seconds. To me, there are other aspects of the source tune that easily could be referenced during longer rests, rather than just relying on saying the melody -- which is only one component of the source -- is "taking a break" or is unbroken somehow. In particular, the "Pipe Land" theme is so simple, one more creative way to tie it back to the arrangement when the melody wasn't going on would have been to arrange the 3-note perc pattern (CLACK... thump-thump, CLACK... thump-thump) from the source and just change the rhythm/timing of it, using that as a foundation of the backing instrumentation. A cool place for integrating that 3-note beat pattern could have been the intro or the extended original section of 2:14-2:44, since that had no connection with the source. Cool stuff, and I meant to post my issues earlier. To me, counting longer rests as continuation of the source material doesn't make sense, especially when there are ways to concretely use any source tune more throughout an arrangement. IMO, most of this piece doesn't directly reference the source. NO

That sentence is a very simplified way to say that if you're going to directly sample the original audio as the foundation of your track, it better be very transformative. Unless I'm grossly mistaken -- and djp as the founder can clarify this -- the intent behind OC ReMix has been to do arrangements where the artist creates the music from the ground up, in direct contrast to sampling the in-game original audio as the base. We do in fact have at least one mix that directly sampled the original audio yet sounded like an arrangement as well (IMO), which was Dj CUTMAN's MiG-29 mix. That said, this is a very difficult approach to pull off. That said, while this clearly has some original instrumentation involved, this relies so heavily on the original audio -- both voice work and sections of instrumental writing -- and many of the effects and added instrumentation ideas are relatively simplistic -- a beat here (:06-:39), a bassline there (3:35-3:49). This is cool as a traditional remix, when the original source audio is sampled, but, for Standards encouraging transformative arrangement, this is lacking. To me, it's a Standards Violation, and I don't think the changes here -- while cool and enjoyable to listen to -- represent an overall substantial or original enough alteration of what's sampled from the original song to pass. We're geared toward arrangements vs. traditional remixes, and, IMO, it would take something that did a better job of standing apart from the original song to pass. NO

djp's not been in favor of pure chiptune pieces in the past with limited production choices, so this would have to clear where he sees the bar as far as songs solely employing chiptune tones. As Tadd noted, the extra VRC6-based channels were panned, but that may not be enough. I've personally been fine with straight chiptunes, even in light of the "limited production choices" argument, but djp can clarify his stance on all that. Arrangement-wise, the integration of the original notes combined with the Wily theme were a seamless fit, and the way Tadd gradually built things and introduced more complex supporting writing was well done! There were a few extended sections that didn't reference the source, so I did a source usage breakdown just to be sure I wasn't just wow'ed by how impressive the combination of VGM + original writing seemed; it's gotta lean toward using the VGM. For a 3:59-long piece, this needed at least 149.5 seconds of overt source usage for me to consider the VGM dominant in the arrangement according to the Submissions Standards. :09.5-:12.25, :15.5-:18.75, :22-:38.25, :41.5-:44.75, :48-1:03.5, 1:07-1:10, 1:13-1:16.5, 1:19.5-1:42.25, 1:45.5-1:48.5, 1:51.75-2:01.5, 2:04.5-2:33, 2:36.5-2:39.5, 2:48.5-3:09.75, 3:25.5-3:46.75, 4:03-4:24 = 165 seconds or 55.18% overt source usage Production-wise, it sounds like the highest frequencies got muted, because there's a distinct lack of brightness and clarity. I thought there was noticable clutter, with the fullest section of 2:49-4:24 being a big example; for example, there the hat-like percussion pattern was and the drum kicks within the overall texture were just muddy and smothered. Nonetheless, the main focus was going to be on the leading elements, and on that level they're clear and upfront, and the supporting elements lacking clarity didn't kill this dead, they just were something to improve so that the writing would be better appreciated. Initially, I would have went NO based on that lack of clarity in the back, as I have reservations on the production; chiptunes usually sound sharper/clearer than this. That said, the sound quality's not bad, and the arrangement creativity carries it. YES

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

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

Should be fixed!

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.

Got a reply back from Kevin on 7/16 after asking about potential revisions: Continue voting as is.

IRC is there, but no longer supported. Discord is life.

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

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

That's definitely unfortunate. Niantic should be willing to opt private property locations out.

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

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

There's some high-end clarity missing here for that sharp, crystal-clear sound, but it's not a big deal here. Pretty transformative treatment of the Izzy Glow theme just from the rhythmic changes. Pretty sweet groove. I didn't hear anything questionable with notes besides the underlying synth from 2:48-2:55; no big deal there. Easily one of the coolest, funkiest mixes in OCR history; I love the approach, guys! YES

The pace was pretty deliberate -- I'd argue plodding -- to start, but we'll see where it goes, as the level of interpretation of the source theme sounds fine. But at nearly 3:30-long at this tempo, it may be a long haul. About 1:30-in, we're a third of the way through, and I'm wondering where this is going, if anywhere. Despite the occasional texture changes, the dynamic curve feels very flat. From 1:58-2:26, some of the higher sustained string articulations strained credibility, IMO; the strings aren't horrible by any means, but there's a flatness in their delivery. 2:32 essentially sounded like a cut-and-paste of :06, just with some (good) string accents underneath. I understand this is meant to fall within a limited dynamic range to begin with, but something's missing here in terms of the energy and dynamics. I'll withhold a vote for some other opinions and see if a musician J is either better able to articulate the potential issues I'm hearing or poised to call me an out-of-touch old man. EDIT (7/8): I'm old. But not that old. I'm not worried about Andrew being able to work something out, but I'm agreed with Chimpa and Gario on their calls. NO

Melody at :35 briefly sounded atonal at first, but after a second listen it didn't sound jarring. Wow, I'm sorry but I hated the drums at :49; they sounded so exposed as hollow and flimsy when the soundscape wasn't at its fullest. Fun changeup at 1:34 to the brief chippy cameo. Why was the panning so wide from 2:03-2:29? It makes no sense especially because those same leads had been more centered when used earlier at :35. Another good lead change at 2:38 for a cameo to keep things fun. The piano at 2:55 was pretty blocky-sounding, but didn't need to sound very humanized... UNTIL it was paired with the electric guitar work from 3:21-3:44; in combination a fuller live electric guitar and thin, fake-sounding piano don't work well. Arrangement-wise, this was creative, Zeo, but the number of smaller issues above added up to a lack of TLC that dragged the piece down below the bar, IMO. It's a great first pass that merits some tightening up so that more of the potential of the writing & arrangement are better realized. Beef up the drums, don't make the panning so wide for that one section, and try to create a richer, more realistic piano sound. NO (resubmit)

About :45 in, I felt this piece was missing something, IMO. Texturally, it felt light, mainly because the beats/kicks were too simple and sparse. The lead instrumentation and textures change up a decent amount, so I see the positives in it, but at 1:43 for the final verse, it felt like the arrangement was stagnant. This shouldn't feel so repetitive when there were actually some small changes going on. 2:07 was a pure cut-and-paste of :34's section for about 30 seconds (of a mere 2:36-long track) before the quick finish without much of a resolution. This felt like a work-in-progress that was maybe 65-70% of the way there and was still looking for more ideas and energy. It's got stuff going for it, but it's short and there's a lack of sophistication in the writing that other Js would be better than me at articulating. This needs more polish and creativity with the beat-writing first, and even more dynamic contrast second. NO (resubmit)

The Cammy voice samples sounded clean, but should have had some effects to better integrate/transition them into and out of the music itself. Right now, they feel tacked on and thus tack-y. There a lack of high-end clarity here that lets all of the instrumentation somewhat mud together, but it's nothing too off-putting. I thought the marching-style drums worked well in terms of the writing, but were too quietly mixed in the background; again, the instrumentation all tended to mud together in the same frequency range, which is putting me at a borderline YES when it should have been stronger. Whether this passes or not, I'd appreciate another pass at the mixing before this was posted, ideally, because the end result was disappointing even if it squeaks by due to the overall arrangement strength. There's still a bit of a vanilla feel to this, and more risks could have been taking melodically to create even more dynamic contrast, but the changes in the beat patterns were solid enough, and the overall creativity of the approach was improved enough that I can get behind it. If the mixing were clearer to better appreciate the part-writing, this would be on strong ground.

3. Acceptable Source Material 2. Submissions incorporating more than one source are allowed, but are not given special consideration or leniency with regard to the submission standards. Your submission must have a strong focus and direction. Medleys must sound like a single song, not multiple songs pasted together. I was expecting this to sound a lot more disjointed and a lot less cohesive based on the votes. I purposefully ignored the sources just to listen to this track as a standalone entity and get a sense of the structure and flow first. The transition at :58 was abrupt, but even then didn't bother me much, and the rest seemed fine in terms of flow, so that wasn't enough to reject this, IMO. Many of these apparent transitions (:33, 2:00 followed by tempo changes, 2:18, 2:50, 3:38) were reasonable to me and made some attempt to bridge from one section or one texture to another. Anyway, the issue with medley-itis to me isn't just a matter of laying out a medley to go source A+B+C+D+E, it's a corresponding lack of flow along with that structure. Clearly the other Js think this is the case here as well, but I didn't agree. Boy, the strings and brass though. I wouldn't be able to articulate the issues I heard, but Gario seems to have caught the "swell" issue that matched up for me, particularly from 3:54-4:15, and I actually felt the "performance" sound of those instruments fell flat. I also felt the brass articulations from 4:15-4:45 sounded inhuman and flat. Nonetheless, the orchestration is decent enough to get by. Listening to all of these Chrono Cross sources, I felt they pieced together with enough of an overall flow that I wasn't put off by the medley structure here. If I didn't know the sources, this felt enough like a relatively singular piece that simply had a number of compositional twists and turns. I will vote in the minority with a YES that's more borderline re: the production and keep this open for at least one more additional vote to close it out.

Quick breakdown, since I didn't quite agree on some of the timestamping, but just had it over 50% overt source usage as well 5:30-long, needs 165 seconds of overt source usage for arranged VGM usage to be dominant in the arrangement. :24.5-27.5, :36.5-1:22.5, 1:30.5-1:33.5, 1:50-2:42.75, 3:43.75-4:22.5, 4:57.5-5:23 = 168.75 seconds or 51.13% overt source usage Arrangement-wise this was fine. Production-wise, it wasn't ideal, and I get the criticisms on volume disparities (which are legitimate) but wasn't personally put off by that. There were also some very soft click/pops and slight distortion spots, but nothing that stood out as strongly negative. That said, the orchestration was handled pretty well, and I agreed with the YESes that argued that he used his tools well and mitigated the realism issues. Pretty strong stuff to me. YES

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

We forgot to locate the original writeups for that one; it's likely it's out into the ether and djp will add some new comments. But we'll get that up there. Good catch. That drama was squashed sucha long time ago.