Liontamer

OC ReMix* http://ocremix.org* Yeah, that would fulfill the credit we need, as mentioned in the FAQ. Go for it, and thanks for thinking of the community's music for your videos!

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

Gimme something postable on this. Love "Grandma"

This initially felt somewhat texturally empty, but once I paid closer attention, things are adequately filled out. I wish the lead guitar work were more upfront, and wanted the bass to sound sharper as well, but it's all more of a personal taste thing. Nice work changing the time signature (don't ask me what that is :-D), and the excellence of the drum writing was an understated plus here. It definitely is a meat-and-potatoes arrangement as far as retaining the structure of the source tune, but it personalized the adaptation enough IMO, with a solid rock adaptation that later brought in the chip leads for a nice change of pace, and featured lots of strong original writing addition like the energetic percussion and bass writing. Nice work, Eino! YES

Apologies for the lack of QA that apparently transpires in OCR staff in general. We'll get that fixed soon!

That's a rather crude way to describe a track. :-\

Nice work, Dustin! GET IT!

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

To my knowledge, you don't. We currently don't have anything like that. But if you mean artist profiles (e.g. http://ocremix.org/artist/4803/the-oneups), that would entail getting a mix by the group posted to OCR.

Had it. Loved it. Nice rhythmic changes, and like Emu mentioned, keeping the chord progression from the original was mission critical to keeping the piece grounded in the source as you ventured off into liberal territory with the melody. Purty. Let's go. YES

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

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

PM me the information, and I can look for it.

I hate them already!

DaMonz, Sir_NutS, and Gario! We also have a NEW Workshop evaluator, Amphibious, giving WIP feedback & advice! As I like to say, welcome them aboard, and/or express your anger and skepticism!

Without being prompted, I actually received a PM on March 12th from Air3s that he has a forthcoming update to this track. He's dealing with some frequency issues, so he told me on the 18th to hold up on dealing with the revised version, BUT it had some updates to leads and textures that I think might put it over the top. Also, the cutoff ending was a rendering error that he corrected. Rather than reject, I'll keep this open as he says he plans to have that update by Sunday. -------------------- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzZ-TkKWy5oLZXBkc094V0tsVkE/view?usp=sharing ------------------------------------------------ EDIT (4/19): Sorry to Air3s for slacking on providing this update to the panel. New dad/baybeh times let this get away from me. That said, it was nice to get an update on this without any prompting, so I like that Adeseye had an open mind to go back to this one long after he subbed it. The structure is mostly the same, but there's: * compression reduced * some minor instrumentation changes * a little more dynamic contrast with the textural dropoffs * a little more ear candy (e.g. 1:45, 3:07) * pair of click/pops removed (1:43 & 3:20) * proper ending included (4:22; cutoff was a rendering error last time) There's some ducking at 1:29 during the fullest section of beats that Air3s was aware of and tried to mitigate, where it sounds like other parts drop in volume as the beats hit, but it didn't bother me enough. Everything I liked about the arrangement and subtle morphing of the track is intact, so I retain my (currently sole) YES and hope others reconsider their vote.

Good stuff per Brandon's usual. The piano sample needed more body and humanization to it, but it wasn't a huge deal. Love the textures here, and the electric guitar soloing, while performed with some perceived stiffness at times, filled a nice role here. Sweet resolution at 3:51 as well. Relaxing adaptation, cleanly mixed with every part able to be appreciated, and nicely executed! YES

The answer is likely no on takedowns OR having an explicit policy, but that said, don't monetize them. You can find plenty of YouTube arrangements of Atlus game soundtracks, so I'm not sure what you're worried about. Just do it.

Well, it's a tough break that the melody's obscured as the notes transition at 1:40 and 1:48 due to fading that lead in and out. That wouldn't change anything for me, but you have a point that it may just be the chords. I'll just say that not counting the transposed chords in the mix is, in effect, punishing the arrangement for the source tune's opening being simple, which doesn't make sense for me. OK, so instead of B-C, it's E-F, plus there's no credit given to the timing of it also matching the source, which is pretty important. He's still explicitly referencing it, and that's what counts.

Your ReMixer name: SlimyEmail:Website: https://soundcloud.com/slimy-4User ID: 30104Submission Information:Game: Double DragonName of Arrangement: Game Like It's 1988Name of Songs Arranged: Title Theme, Mission ScreenLinks to Originals:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M77093Txe-c&list=PL918478793D2E4C44&index=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XAvPSS9nTQ&list=PL918478793D2E4C44&index=2Comments: "Make a Double Dragon remix and avoid the horrendous waiting period for judging? I'll make one in five minutes." Thus motivated by greed, I scoured YouTube for the perfect track for remixing. After many hours of searching, I found the one - the first one I had come across, to be precise."Maybe the intro of the song would sound good on vibes or something," and suddenly, 37 seconds of the remix were finished. So far, so good. Then I was faced with the prospect of writing more than 37 seconds of music.Out of sheer desperation, I decided to just copy the chord progression from Raiden II and butcher the source melody so that it could fit over the new chords. An 80's vibe loomed threateningly overhead.After a whole 30 seconds I arbitrarily decided to shoehorn in the mission select theme as a completely different style because "it would sound cool." The song sort of wrote itself after that.____The pulse wave at 1:09 is meant to sound similar to the 8-bit pulse wave in the original, like it was ripped straight out of the original, albeit in a different key and with some reverb and vibrato. I like the contrast it brings.I'm not really familiar with arranging for this kind of genre, so I owe a huge thanks to everyone who critiqued this in the workshop, ridding it of my ineptitude.One last comment, does the title of this remix sound dumb? I asked in the workshop, but no one told me if it's acceptable to use "game" as a verb. --------

I passed on the panel's votes onto Robert, who actually sent 2 new versions on February 12th, but liked his second revision more after mulling it over. The compression's pulled back some, there's more EQ work, AND there's more dynamic contrast with the synth choices & textures. All in all, this makes a good thing even better!

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

Quick vote. Good source. Checked out. Mixing was smoove. Let's go. YES

The "Hey, Listen!" voice clip at :09 was a pretty lame transition, and made the mixing of the overall track sound off because the clip sounded so clean, unlike the actual music. WAY too much delay on this, with the delay flooding the soundfield; super muddy. At least the other voice clips (2:02, 2:31, 2:46, 3:00, 3:26) had more delay effects and sounded comparably distant like the music, but they're cheesy and corny. The percussion writing was pretty low-key, but fit the track well, particularly the cymbal work; however, the one downside there is that the percussion writing didn't evolve for the most part, which caused the track to drag over time. I didn't have as much of the problem with the other theme cameos here feeling tacked on, as they were reasonably integrated, IMO; I felt the muddy mixing and the lack of dynamic contrast in the arrangement ultimately were enough to drag this down to a NO. I'd suggest 1) reduce the mud while preserving the dreamy soundscape, 2) either ice the tacky voice clips or better integrate them into the soundscape, and 3) vary the percussion textures & energy to create more dynamic contrast. You show potential, Joo; keep at it! NO

I liked that opening for changing the rhythm of the source. At :29 with the beats coming in, the bass is too loud yet the claps were flimsy, which was an odd texture, but nothing horrible. If anything the bass thumping so loudly was causing what appeared to sound like a slight volume ducking effect, at least for me; hopefully a musician/producer J can clarify what may be happening there. Nice lil' bubbly original countermelody filled in at :45; it's not too noticeable unless you're outright looking for it, but it's present and showed nice attention to detail work in the writing. Whoa, the melody at 1:30 sounds super jacked up. First, why is it, as the lead melody, placed behind the beats in the soundfield? Second, why is the timing staggered in a way that sounds so sloppy? At 2:00, the briefly added line in the left channel that doubled the melody was panned too widely. The dropoff at 3:00 wasn't bad at all; the original writing there continued to have a good rhythm, and the melody coming back at 3:30 had much better timing that clicked much more strongly with the altered rhythm. Good, subtle escalation of the energy level at 4:00 with the source tune's countermelody gradually rising in volume. The bass frequencies at 4:30-4:51 and again at 5:00 were creating mud again. At 5:00 also, there should have been something else going on with the arrangement, as the ideas, energy level, and textures were all feeling too repetitive. 6:00 did add one more plucked string line which had a good sound to it and focused on that for the winddown finish. For what substance is there, this piece overstayed its welcome by at least a minute or two; this is a great start in terms of the arrangement, and is definitely transformative and creative, but some of the repetition of the fullest sections dragged on. Other than that, cleaning up the mixing (particularly the bass/low end) on this would be the most important aspect to address, followed by (less importantly) adjusting that melody at 1:30 so its a more comfortable (yet not repetitive) fit. Really cool stuff so far, Deronde, this was a solid start, and I hope you consider revising it. Even if you don't, you clearly have potential as an arranger based on the creativity here, and hope this isn't your last OCR submission. NO (resubmit)