Liontamer

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

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

The arrangement's creative, and I can see the argument that it carries this, but the production quality here's just below the bar, IMO. The chippy synths were thin and could have used more creative processing for a richer sound, as well as more variation in the sounds. Sir_NutS called the production dry and I agreed there; very basic beat writing as well. I thought the beats/kicks added in at 1:21-2:13 overlapped with some of the other lead instrumentation in the same frequency range. I wouldn't be mad if this passed as is, but I think Schtiffles would look back at this down the line and hear how it could have been improved. None of the criticisms by themselves were dealbreakers, but they added up for me, particularly the lack of sophistication in the synth production. Add some flavor & variety to this vanilla production with Sir_NutS' and Gario's criticisms in mind. NO (resubmit)

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.

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

Just noting that I've only heard the "v2" version. Arrangement-wise, the RR4 source was adapted nicely for more of a disco approach, and the usage was straightforward enough through the vocals and synth lines where I didn't need to timestamp. The OutRun reference felt a little tacked on, but was integrated reasonably well enough, and pushed the source usage to a point where I could quit stopwatching. I thought the vocal mixing wasn't great. Not sure Jesse's vocals/tone are the right fit here; giving it an even more arier/ethereal sound to mask some of the pitch issues would have been best. That said, I also don't want to put him in a corner based on his tremendous FF6 crooning. In this mix, his vocals aren't entirely dry, and I hear the effects on them, but I felt like they were relatively too dry & upfront and didn't blend into the instrumental enough. They could be produced/processed in a way that sits better in the music. Right now, when there are (minor) pitch issues, it's way too exposed and obvious; it's nothing where you're like "Oh my God, oof", but there's some correction/smoothing out needed. The choruses sound the best in terms of smooth delivery from Jesse, so now it's just a matter of having those vocal sitting correctly in the overall soundscape. I also agreed strongly with Gario that the vocoded vocals should have been more understandable. Perhaps it's an "I know it when I hear it" subjective criticism, but I didn't think they had enough of an aesthetic where it was unimportant that they be intelligible. On a more important note, the mechanical string articulations first used from 1:23-1:37 & 3:46-4:05 strained credibility. And I know it's a disco track, but didn't think they sounded good in spite of that stylistic choice because the strings sounded too dry and weren't masked by anything else. Anyway, I've gone through the litany of issues I had with it. I'm not mega-enthusiastic about a YES because of the production, but we don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. I've given this 9 or 10 listens. What you have here is a reasonably good -- but not great -- execution of a very creative arrangement concept. While I wish the track had more clarity/sharpness and better vocal mixing, the arrangement carries it with good enough production execution. Ideally, I'd love for Jorrith to take another pass at the production if this version passed. YES (borderline)

For a 3:31-long track, I needed to identify at least 105.5 seconds of source usage for me to consider the VGM usage "dominant" in the arrangement, per our Submission Standards :01.5-1:14.75, 2:48.5-3:31 = 115.75 seconds or 54.85% overt source usage I'm not too familiar with 'Adventure Awry", so there could have been sections I overlooked, but it seemed like it was a sandwich approach with the source opening it, moving to an original section, then a shorter close re-referencing the source tune. Pretty grungy, and lo-fi in a way that nonetheless allows the lead guitar work to sound upfront and effected rather than just lossy. It's not ideal, but it works overall. At about 1:06 with another iteration of the verse, I was waiting for something more, but then the changeup happened at 1:15, so that was welcome. Going back into the theme at 2:48, the presentation was repetitive there, but the overall arrangement and performance of the theme was well-personalized and adapted to rock, so I wasn't bothered by the final 40 seconds feeling too repetitive or uncreative. Everything flowed together nicely, IMO. The fadeout ending could have been something more substantial instead, but I didn't mind it. Nice work, Björn, and good luck with the rest of the vote! Let's go! YES

We host project albums at no cost to the creators or users. OCR pays for the hosting of all the content.

This is too quick and impulsive of a RESUB, because IMO just taking out the drums makes the song feel too empty and didn't feel like a substantive way to address the criticisms on dynamics. That said, I'm considering this like more of an in-game piece where it's very possible that you wouldn't need/want drums in the picture, in order to give this the benefit of the doubt, but I still don't think it feels quite full enough. But it certainly could work with that approach. I think with one or two more elements in here, e.g. some sort of further padding/airyness, more transitions similar to :49's sweep, and/or more variation in the instrumentation, the piece would sound more complete. In any case, the arrangement's still good, but there's still something missing here dynamically. Still hoping this can fully click so we can post it in some form; it's not as if it's far from the mark. NO (resubmit)

I'm between Palpable and DA/Gario in that I didn't think the transition between X6 and X2 was horrible. That said, it still didn't flow, and I agreed with the NOs that the two themes didn't feel connected/integrated in any way. At the changeup, it's just a drastic sound change between the different leads at 1:36 after a brief transition at 1:28. I also thought the timing of the lead synth work for the X2 source from 2:06-2:21 was stilted and should have flowed more naturally. You definitely have the elements for a strong arrangement in here, Daniel, but there does need to be more glue between the two themes through a more meaningful transition or some sort of combination of the themes at the same time somewhere; it really did feel like two separate, unrelated sections merely joined together. I also agreed with the criticisms that the X6 arrangement -- while moving in the right direction of personalizing the sound -- was ultimately too straightforward and could have used a higher level of interpretation. Good stuff so far, there just needs to be another pass at smoothing out some of the rigid synth work, as well as more interpretation for the X6 portion. There's also needs to be an integration/combination of the two themes somewhere and/or a smoother, more logical and less abrupt transition from X6 to X2. This sounds like a WIP that's 75% of the way there in terms of mapping out the arrangement, but really needs that last bit of thoughtfulness to really have the two themes flow together. NO (resubmit)

I'm on the other side of the fence on this. I'm OK with some arrangements that have repetitive melodies as long as the surrounding elements are sufficiently varied and developed. This went in the right direction, but I thought not far enough. There were different styles of backing instrumentation & textures during the source verses, but because the melody was performed so similarly & repetitively and the overall dynamic curve was relatively flat/consistent, I thought the arrangement dragged on. Noticeable quality disparity with the string synths first used at 2:09, particularly the articulations/note changes, which were very mechanical. Other than that glaring negative, the sound design for the 2:09-2:53 section was creative and well-executed. 2:53's section returning back to the source melody was a chance to do something different; it wasn't until 3:28 that the drum rhythms changed, which would have been welcome earlier. There's definitely some arrangement substance here when examining the changes in the original backing instrumentation, so I won't have a problem if this passed as is; I just think the arrangement needs some additional variation with the melody, as well as improving the string sequencing of the 2:09-2:53 dropoff section. Good luck with the rest of the vote, Nick; if this doesn't make it in this form, definitely polish it up a bit more and resubmit it; this definitely has a place here in some form! NO (resubmit)

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.