Liontamer

Very exposed, mechanical-sounding piano to start, but that was quickly dropped after the intro for the rock verse. No problem with the warping effect there, just the rigid sequencing. The drums seem slightly awkward; they're definitely too loud over the top of the guitar lead. In principle, I like the idea of the organ usage from :41-1:00, but 1) it was barely audible, and 2) what could be heard seemed like it was clashing in places with the melody (so perhaps it was better not being heard). You'll have to fix the organ writing. 1:07-1:43 had another "Big Blue" verse but it was just a cut-and-paste of :21-:57, so something different should have been done there to develop the arrangement further. Consider some melodic or rhythmic variations, or changing the instrumentation, just something to provide some meaningful variation to keep the piece from being too repetitive. Cool original soloing from 1:53-2:18; great energy and pretty expressive, though the transition back to the theme could have been smoother. Pull back the drum work some so that it's not barrelling over the lead guitar, I'm not against the fadeout ending. Sure, I'd like something more conclusive, but what's there wasn't inherently wrong, and I never get harping about fadeouts. Also, props for adding melodic doubling and other part-writing under the last verse of "Big Blue" at 2:18 for some variation on the source. Develop the source tune some more for the 1:07-1:43 verse, fix that organ writing so it's not clashing, and adjust the loudness of the drumwork (in that order) to tighten this up. Consider an actual resolution for the ending, but IMO as long as the rest of the piece is fully clicking, that shouldn't matter. Promising stuff so far. Even if you've moved on from this piece, definitely keep submitting arrangements and improving your skills, you have good potential based on the energy of this piece! NO (resubmit)

Not much else I can say that Palpable hasn't covered. I see what DarkeSword's coming from being into the robotic feel, and we have plenty of OC ReMixes with a mechanical tilt, but I'm with the others that the leads were bland and the the overall execution of this felt too stilted and lifeless as a result. NO

I want to be very clear regarding my timestamp notes: I always count stuff like held notes from phrases that taper off (e.g. 2:10-2:18, 2:46-2:51, 6:39-6:49.75) and quiet yet audible source references (e.g. 5:26-6:02.5). IMO, the case could be made that the connections aren't loud enough in some places and thus not dominant, even though they're there, but that's not my POV. I take loudness into account for the overall presentation of any piece, but for the most part, I count what I can hear. The music portion of the track was 7:44-long, so I needed at least 232 seconds of source usage for the source tune to be dominant in the arrangement: :00-:54.75, 1:33.25-2:51, 2:58-3:09, 4:27-5:03, 5:26-6:49.75 = 263.25 seconds or 56.7% Some subtle references included 2:58-3:09 & 4:27-5:03 referencing 1:42-1:55 of "Death Volcano" and then the light female vox at 5:26-6:02.5 alternating between the main melody and either 2 or 3 notes from a 3-note pattern from 1:06-1:24 of "Death Volcano." The way the source was deconstructed and subtly referenced in a lot of places was very tricky to pick up on, but I was impressed when I discovered the connections. My mistake if it turns out that was a direct connection as well, but :57-1:33 came off like more of a soundalike version where the source countermelody's rhythm was copied (:38-1:15 of "Death Volcano"), but the notes didn't sound the same or transposed. In any case, that was a stylistic connection, but not something I counted. As far as the arrangement's structure and pacing, I'm way in the Chimpa/zykO camp that this was an engaging listen. I'm totally down with the ebb and flow approach here, felt the dynamics were subtle but meaningful, and didn't feel that the track lacked the substance to justify the 8 minutes. A smart arrangement that asked for careful attention to the arrangement details, but good times nonetheless. Nice work, Trent! Also, I'm not going to speculate on how that big bong rip at 1:08 was acquired, but given what I read about David Icke's conspiracy theories (reptoids!), it makes sense. Good choice of SFX & voice sampling. YES

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

The source usage timestamps checked out fine, well beyond 144 seconds, and I didn't need to calculate it. :14.75-1:29.5, 2:13.5-2:37.5, 2:38-2:59.75, 3:03.25-3:28, 3:56-4:21 Just responding publicly to Chimpa's question, sometimes a source tune that's more obscure requires judges to check it and co-sign on a call rather than go as a direct post. That's always fine to do, and we try to be clear that direct posts aren't only "ZOMG amazeballs" vs. panel votes being "decent." 2:13.5-2:37.5 referenced a countermelody from :57-1:10 of the source that was quietly handled by the male vox in the source, so at first I wasn't sure of any connection there beyond a stylistic similarity. There was more stuff I could potentially have credited, but I just needed at least half of the track to directly reference the source, so this wasn't a meticulous timing out of things. String sequencing tends to sound too tight for Alex's pieces, but it's not a meaningful issue here. Other than sanity checking the source tune being referenced, this was a solid call. Whereas the original goes for a more epic, grandiose sound, this version IMO gives off more tension. Nice, energetic orchestration, Alex! YES

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

Busy as always.

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

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

Needed at least 139.5 seconds of source tune usage in this piece for the VGM to be dominant in the arrangement. Didn't sound close, but like I do when original writing fits like a glove with source usage, I timestamped what I recognized directly from the track just to be sure. :01.75-1:00.75, 1:48.5-2:18, 3:04.5-3:18, 3:29.5-4:38 = 170 seconds or 60.9% overt source usage The adaptation to EDM was awesome, and the original writing sections that weren't from the actual source tune were seamless, sounding more like rhythmic changes or tweaks rather than Mike doing his own thing. Everything locked together perfectly there. Love the energy here as well. If you didn't know any better that this was from a C64 title, this could fit in well in Streets of Rage Remake. Props to Mike for a great tribute to Thomas Detert and his music! YES

That wasn't a project to create sheet music, it was a project to gather already available links to sheet music for OC ReMixes in one place. Definitely keep doing what you're planning to do for ReMixes.

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

I've tidied up the first post. Anything with dead links is now at the bottom.

Yeah, where's the smoothness? Almost everything's VERY mechanical, and I agreed with the Chimpa that the theme integration wasn't solid. There were subtle usages of Auron's theme on the piano during the Gogo section and vice versa from the piano, but it wasn't a comfortable fit at all. The sax performance was decent, but needed more body & richness to the tone. Very rough execution so far; this would need some meaningful work, Alex. Decent arrangement, but the themes don't yet have any synergy or flow as a pair; you'll need to rethink some of how they combine together. And the sequenced elements badly need humanization. Challenge yourself to get more serious and thorough with the detail work. NO

I agreed with DragonAvenger on the fadeout being lame, because the track roughly felt like two loops, and then a fade into the start of a third loop. It's important to note, however, that if everything were executed fine on the arrangement & production, the fadeout finish wouldn't pull it down to NO. Will keep it short and sweet, but the sample timings/articulations were very rigid (the biggest problem), and the textures didn't click at all, with 1) the soundscape sounding hollow most of the time despite the busyness, and 2) the lack of realism in the samples sounding very exposed. At its busiest, the drumwork just feels like it's splashing over the top of the instrumentation and not integrating with it. Repeating the slowdown effect verbatim around 1:48 was a retread, but the instrumentation does vary in the second half, so it's not as much of a negative to me as it was to DarkeSword. We have some odd-sounding tracks that can feel disjointed (e.g. http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01436), so we're not weirded out by that. But what's in place now doesn't sound cohesive at all. Co-signed with the others on NO.

The track was barely under 4:00-long, so I needed at least 120 seconds of overt source usage for the source to be dominant in the arrangement: :25.5-57.5, 1:38.5-2:11, 2:23.5-2:28.5, 2:43.5-3:14.25, 3:16.25-3:30.5, 3:32.5-3:39.75 = 121.75 seconds or 50.73% overt source usage Close shave, at least in terms of what I could make out, but it gets a toe over the line. I agree with the criticisms about the drumwork sounding somewhat rigid/robotic/underwhelming in places, but to me it wasn't a big deal in the big picture and the tone was solid enough where it meaningfully filled out the track and drove it forward. The guitar work was fine, and I see where that tone/meat criticism comes from, but that's more of a personal taste thing for me. Great job arranging these themes, and I loved the ethnic sections in particular. Everything pieced together smoothly and the original writing & grace notes clicked nicely with all 3 themes. Nice work from Jeremy & Haroon again, with excellent organic additions from Chris (welcome aboard!). YES

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

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

Vanilla lead synths, but a decent groove. Something sounds lossier than it should, like some higher frequencies or clarity are gone, but the soundscape was otherwise OK. The kick/clap pattern at the core of this (first used at :20) was getting too repetitive at 1:52, but all of the other elements around it were evolving adequately. By 3:01, I was really tired of the kick/clap groove at the base of this; it needs more variation, like you have with the other writing; it doesn't need to be crazy, but vary that clap so it doesn't drag the energy of the piece down. What's here otherwise was creative, but getting so repetitive with such a plain, thin groove needlessly holds the composition in one gear despite other substantive writing changes going on. It's a somewhat close vote, and a cool piece that's IMO 85% of the way there, but just needs that attention to detail with the perc pattern to not undermine the dynamics of the piece and keep it fresh throughout. Maybe I'm the bad guy, and no one else will agree the beat was as much of a factor. Some added clarity in the mixing and a higher encoding would help as well. I wasn't bothered by anything being a cut-and-paste rehash because the overall arrangement was definitely interpretive enough. Good luck with the rest of the vote, Francisco, and definitely don't be discouraged if this doesn't make it as is. You show great potential, and I enjoyed your style. NO (resubmit)

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

Why are you asking for permission and then adding an unnecessary step? Just post or link some art here. Show, don't tell.

I didn't think this was well-produced, in terms of the mixing. I thought the soundscape was pretty quickly cluttered, starting at :34, and especially by 1:06 as more and more parts gradually added in and the soundscape became muddier and more indistinct. If you turn down the volume, it's less of a problem, but I'm listening to it at the same full volume I listen to other tracks at. The writing and atmosphere were good though. Lead synth at 2:10 had overly tight timing, IMO, but it wasn't a huge deal. That said, it had a tough time cutting through as the lead, which was more of a problem. IMO, the melodic interpretation wasn't much, sure, but the soundscape and instrumentation were personalized well, and I thought the gradual build of this song showed enough development to where I disagreed with the criticisms of calling this too repetitive. The core groove does go on, absolutely, but the elements in front of the groove subtly changed and evolved throughout most of the piece. If you're still interested in revising this piece, feel free to also include some other types of variations on the source theme, including instrumentation, rhythmic or melodic (or groove in this case) changes. IMO, it wouldn't need to be drastic stuff, just some more elements of interpretation to push it over the top for other Js concerned about that. I see where the NOs on arrangement are coming from, but I think the subtlety of the build here's ultimately lost on them or just wasn't compelling enough. For me, the arrangement was perfectly fine and a pass, but the cluttered mixing was what pushed it down to NO for me. Sorry to be such an outlier, Curt. I'm sure you and Dead Robot worked hard on the production, but IMO there are a lot of parts mudding together in the same frequency range, and it undermines an otherwise strong track. Maybe the folks judging on monitors missed it, I don't know, but when comparing it with my control track -- djp's "Consent (Make Me Dance)" -- the difference is night and day in terms of the clarity. I'm sure there are some more electronic/dance-oriented pieces on the site or elsewhere that would also make good comparisons. If you haven't done so already, consider another pass at the mixing. It doesn't need to be squeaky clean pristine, just adequately de-cluttered. NO (resubmit)

Got it. Should be fixed the next time the site is synced with the database.

This is definitely not mixed well. From the beginning, it sounds like a lot of higher frequencies just got chopped off. I was waiting for a transition to have the piece go clean and sharp to provide some contrast and explain the intro, and that didn't happen. I was actually put off a bit by the e-violin, because the way it's produced almost makes it sound like a fakey-sounding electric guitar synth instead (weird articulations, in particular). The drumwork underneath was busy and creatively written, but sounded thin, and the background felt too empty. I agreed with Chimpa that the kit didn't sound like it clicked in combination with the guitar, but it could probably work if just produced in a different way. Right now though, this track desperately needs some sort of padding to fill out the soundfield. 1:45's section was an interesting changeup, but the percussion still doesn't work, and when the tracks starts building back up at 1:58, none of the percussion drives the track forward. I'd love to hear another J better explain what the core problem is there. Creative, albeit odd violin-turned-SFX section from 2:37-3:28; doesn't really work all the way, but it's mostly OK, and it's definitely creative and ambitious. Back to the spirited but lo-fi lead work at 3:29 with good perc writing but an empty background. The textures just never, ever click here. This really needs some sort of ambient padding and more cohesive percussion sounds to fill that background space, and the highs can't be eliminated like this. The arrangement has potential, Trev, and the live video was cool, but there's a lot of detail work that's not tight despite the very cool premise behind this. NO

Ain't nothing inherently wrong with a medley as long as the individual components are 1) sufficiently interpreted and 2) piece together cohesively. If you didn't know better, you could think there were 5 sources, but Brandon really was just hitting distinct sections from each of the main 3. The result's no doubt cohesive as the themes flow from one to another, and Brandon also got a nice amount of mileage out of extending the shorter motifs from these sources. Thanks, Brandon, for putting the Beyond OST on my radar; this is truly amazing work by Lorne Balfe. I agreed with Brandon that the vocal articulations did almost sound like a Vocaloid when held, and I enjoyed the sound. Even though it's obviously not a real vocal performance in spots, it was produced in a stylized way that made it OK, and it sounded very expressive. On the minus side, good piece, but very cluttered mixing that sounded problematic on headphones. It's not enough to reject it, because of the strength of the arrangement and quality of the instrumentation, but it's close on that level. 2:20-3:26 in particular was swamped and a lot of the detail work was lost (e.g. brass, bells, beat pattern, 2:53's vocal line). IMO, this was a lot like Brandon's first pass at the mixing for his Chrono Trigger mix, "The Masamune," mix where he needed to take a second pass at the mixing. That said, I was fine with that one, and I think this can get away with the clutter due to other sections being more distinct and the lead work sounding strong. Though I'd like another pass at the mixing, what's here gets a lot more right than wrong, and is another example of Brandon's killer arrangement chops. YES