Liontamer

You click the icon in the upper-left that says 'Source'. That option's never been gone, though I will say, IPS preserving the formatting of what you paste into WYSIWYG can then make plain text formatting very cumbersome.

Concurring DragonAvenger's opinion that it is just an original track with no connection to the stated source tune. NO

The arrangement is definitely very interpretive, BUT once you get to 2:00, you've basically heard it all. The vox articulations starting at 1:03 were very stilted and jumpy from note to note; real singers wouldn't just drop to 0 before starting the next note, so it's jarring and sloppy to hear moments like that in the piece. By 2:00, I agree with Emunator that the sine lead had wore out its welcome; there is the additional guitar work, but it's such a minor touch, and the track does feel dynamically flat. Nice chippy accents in the background at 2:45. 2:58's section probably would have been better served as a dropoff at 2:00; I'm not saying you need to specifically do that as a revision, but it's an example where the piece could go in a different direction sooner to prevent things from getting stale. There needs to be some sort of meaningful dynamic contrast by either getting more interpretive with the source melody later on, altering the instrumentation and textures, or rhythms; it's really up to you. Also, you don't need some sort of crazy change-up, just something that meaningfully alters and develops the piece in some way, whether it's tone, tempo, or energy level. Two solid examples of doing this would be Zeratul & Diggi Dis's EarthBound 'Dialima tu Kafé' and tycho's Marathon 'Neo-Pacificist', i.e. subtle changes in instruments and textures while retaining a constant lead or melody. Cool start so far, but the track hovers in one gear for too long. Even understanding that something a track is just about subtle shifts, this was too subtle and thus felt too static and repetitive. Reading back on Emunator's full vote now, I'm glad we along with NutS heard much of the same issues. Good start so far, Nick; I'd love to hear a revised version of this. You production/mixing is strong, so this sounds great. Now we just need to get the arrangement evolving some more; again, it doesn't need to be drastic changes for the sake of changes, just something that gets things not sounding too static and samey over time. Even if you don't revise this one, I'm confident you could get something posted to OCR in the future with creative ideas like this! NO (resubmit)

I moved that post to a different thread because it had nothing to do with the mascot project.

Poo on Chimpazilla for decrying a perfectly fine fade-in. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Nice change-up at 2:28 for some much-needed dynamic contrast from the metal section. Suddenly, the mixing became much more clear and distinct again; it definitely makes the crowded nature of the power guitars stand out more as a result. I agree with Chimpa all the way that the mixing of the metal guitar work sounds very muffly and lo-fi, which is holding back this incredible arrangement. I could see some YES's, and I would have been one myself had the mixing stayed strong after 2:58, but it went back to the same issues at 3:13. The piano sequencing was definitely a weak point, BUT the sample did have some good airiness that gave adequate body to it; definitely nothing I had a problem with compared to where the quality bar is set here. Also pointing out some small issues that didn't meaningfully affect my vote, but were worth noting: Watch for the quick distortion when the piano sample triggers at :15, 4:25 & 4:40. There's also a soft but audible pop noise at 4:30 that may mean there were others I missed. I'm borderline, and I wouldn't have a problem if the panel ultimately went YES on this version, but some tweaks to the mixing of the metal sections would put this over the top for me. Again, very tough call for me when the arrangement's this great; if it were just less muffled, I could have tipped in favor of it. Good luck with the rest of the vote, Aitor, and DEFINITELY tweak this if this doesn't make it as is. Nice work so far! NO (borderline/resubmit)

The little blips and synth ear candy in the background was a bit buried, but otherwise the energy and performances here were amazing. This should get some love from people who are cool with hearing Ice Cap done in a more intense way, as opposed to the purity police who need the mood/tone/energy to stay super close to the source tune upon penalty of death for not ticking every nostalgia box. I'd say the production issues are similar to those with Shinray's Golden Axe II 'Ravaged Metal' sub, i.e. some production tweaks should have been made, but what's here is strong, creative and well-performed arranging regardless, so it's an easy YES.

Yep. Other than that nitpick, strong work, which I always expect from anything with Ben's name on it. YES

Perhaps it's just my opinion because I judge on headphones rather than monitors, but to me the panning is simply too wide, particularly the electric guitar & strings on the right side) and it makes the whole listen imbalanced. I didn't have any issue with the bass levels at all, and I thought the arrangement was a solid, smoove rock arrangement. Some of the string samples felt exposed (e.g. 1:56-2:03), but moments like that were brief, and I really dug the instrumentation overall. Some might poo on the finish being abrupt, but it wasn't a big deal, IMO. Tweak the panning so it's more stereo, and I'm cool with this and would just change the vote. Awesome piece and strong instrumentation choices, Tim. I also liked this before, and like it still, so I'm also doing a copy/paste of my vote from last time because it all still applies. But the revision didn't meaningfully address the wide panning, which is Tim's choice. That said, he did include a more centered version to potentially address my issues and have an alternate version in case; however, I thought the soundscape was cluttered with that version, so it's not where it would need to be for that version either. It's tough, and I'm not trying to antagonize Tim; he thinks the wide panning works, and I'd argue strongly that on headphones, it doesn't work at all and is a legitimate dealbreaker despite the arrangement itself being all sorts of awesome. NO (refine/resubmit) EDIT (6/2): I'm taking many more listens to version 1 (the one without the ultra-wide panning), and I'm not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I thought the levels were a touch too low and that created a feeling that the various parts didn't stand out enough from one another. Raising the volume in WinAmp from 25% to 35% allowed me to parse more of the detail work, and that's what made me switch my decision. I would have liked more volume and clarity, but the arrangement is too strong. And though it sounds like some highs got completely cut, the lack of clarity isn't a dealbreaker vs. the strength of the rest of the arrangement. Small thing, but one aspect that stands out nicely in version 1 (because the panning isn't wide) is the accent writing of the guitar from 2:10-2:24. This version is definitely enough of an improvement where I'm not going to hold this back. YES (borderline)

The mixing sounded messy around :58 when more parts came in, though the part-writing was sweet. Overall, the levels felt too loud, but would sound fine pulled back a little. 1:32 sounded like a cut-and-paste job from :16... noooooooo. And then a lazy-style fadeout instead of a resolution... nooooooooo. Let's not do that for a 2-minute mix, this needs to be developed further. As much as the arrangement was interpretive via the different instrumentation and weaving together both the N64 and SNES "Rainbow Road" themes, this is still an underdeveloped arrangement. Great start, but flesh this out and realize the potential here with another minute of different interpretive material and don't copy-pasta stuff. Very good stuff so far, Eric, and I truly hope we get more submissions from you. NO (resubmit)

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

Yeah, definitely agreed with DragonAvenger on the issues. The synth sequencing was very stiff, and the electric guitar work sounded too muddy and was also drowning out the supporting elements; it's difficult to appreciate the textures here because it's hard to make out the individual parts. Agreed as well on the drums being weak, and this needing even more interpretation despite moving in the right direction. The move back to the opening synth at 3:05 wasn't a good move; the synth just sounds anemic. It's a decent start, Adam, but you'll definitely need to improve your balance between the parts and get the sequenced instruments sounding less stiff. DA's right that this would be a great mix to get feedback on in the Workshop. If you're not interested in revisiting this one though, definitely still use the Workshop to get feedback and advice to help improve your skills. On the arrangement side, you show good potential! NO (resubmit)

Something about the drums' tone doesn't work here; they're actually too loud & upfront, yet too dry. Also, the background feels somewhat empty despite the volume of everything going on. Another judge would have to explain that better, but you need more padding here, but the chippy synth line at :36, organ at :47, and strings at 1:16 helped when they were in play. On more of a nitpick, nearly anytime the bowed strings were used, they sounded pretty robotic. Chimpazilla would rightly call out the cut-and-paste nature of the verses (:04-:23 vs. :54-1:13) & choruses (:36-:53 vs. 1:26-1:43), which was lazy. It's not inherently bad to repeat things, but not doing the cut-and-paste would allow some subtle dynamic contrast; be sure to vary those brief sections up somehow. As is, it felt very repetitive because the overall energy level stayed so flat for over half the length of the piece. I liked both the changeup at 1:58 and the move back to rock at 2:17, but that was too little too late in the grand scheme of things. The arrangement itself was definitely well in the right direction in terms of the interpretation. The performance and sequencing could do with more energy and dynamic contrast; it's not horrible in any way, but there's a stilted quality to the timing on the sequenced parts that holds this back, most apparent with the organ & piano parts. Get the stiff timing and flat dynamics of the piece addressed and this would be a shoe-in, since the arrangement itself is a pass, IMO. Good first pass, Chris & Mac! NO (resubmit)

ReMixer Names: AngelCityOutlaw, Furilas IRL Names: Chris, Mac Name of Game Arranged: DuckTales NES Song Arranged: Transylvania Arrangement Name: House On Haunted Bill Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UuHesrJROw ReMix: After watching many hours of Scooby Doo and playing DuckTales, I decided to remix the Transyvlania theme from the latter in a goofy, retro style remix inspired by horror punk bands like Misfits, 50s - 60s rock and especially classic, spooky cartoons. Mixing these genres into a cauldron of unspecified bubbling green liquid and reciting incantations from the Necronomicon summoned Furilas, who brought forth the bass. When asked to comment, Furilas had this to say: "This was a new genre for me, and probably will be for many. For extra immersiveness, I paid top dollar - around $13 - for a looping spooky background to scroll behind me while I played, and for a small dog to ruin many perfectly good takes with its awful lines." Oh yeah, I also provided an MP3 of the mix should it be deemed worthy! ------------------------------

Man, I love this track, John, and it would have been a shoe-in back in, say, 2002, but it's just too short and underdeveloped for the current bar. It's well in the right direction, because what's here is interpretive and personalized; it definitely does a great job adopting the FEZ instrumentation style to OoT's title theme. However, at barely 2 minutes with a slow tempo and just one playthrough of the theme with no variations afterward, I'd argue it doesn't develop the concept enough and go to some other places. Even another minute's worth of this with some other variations or ideas presented could be enough to realize more of this idea's potential and get it posted. We'll see how other Js feel, but to me, the arrangement sounds great yet isn't substantive enough. It's not just a matter of song length, but the overall level of development. NO (resubmit)

A cover of the title screen music of OOT, in the style of FEZ OST. - Remixer name: audiosprite - Real name: John Fio - website: soon to be audiosprite.com; currently soundcloud.com/audiosprite - Number on forums: 25609 - Name of game: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - Name of arrangement: Fez of Time - Name of songs arranged: Title Theme - Composer: Koji Kondo - Inspired by Disasterpeace's synth lessons up on youtube, eg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH04VJ8jxvo) Thanks for listening, John -------------------------

The light electric guitar work in the background at :55 after the sax took over as lead felt like aimless noodling and didn't add much, but it's not invasive or anything like that, so I can look past it. The arrangement opened pretty strong otherwise. The extended sax comping was odd (e.g. 2:18-3:39) and aimless, which was more of a problem for me. Also, when is the source tune coming back? It's not enough to just improv stuff over a loose chord progression, but that's what happened from 1:52-on without looking back. While I liked the energy of the guitar work at 3:40, that changeup was a chance to swing back to focusing on the "Dearly Beloved" theme. Finally going back to it at 5:01 for less than 30 seconds was merely paying lip service to it. IMO, even if you timestamped this and counted some of the loose usage of the theme on the keyboard, the source tune isn't used in a way I'd consider dominant when thinking about the standards. Aside from some issues where the improving sounded unfocused for too long, this was a solidly produced and performed piece, Chris. If you performed a version with more focus and explicit usage of the Dearly Beloved theme, and reigned in some of the more aimless comping, this would be on very solid ground. NO (resubmit)

MP3 Link: Name of Remixer: Geeks and Guitars Real Name: Chris Chirico Email Address: Website: http://www.youtube.com/geeksandguitars Userid: 53743 (geeksandguitars) Submission Information Name of Game Arranged: Kingdom Hearts Name of Arrangement: A Song For My Beloved Name of Individual Song Arranged: Dearly Beloved Additional Information (OC Remix Song Link): http://ocremix.org/song/21211 Comments: I previously submitted a track from Breath of Fire 2 (http://ocremix.org/community/topic/40780-no-breath-of-fire-2-the-two-winged-princess/). Many thanks to Emunator, Palpable and Nutritious for taking the time to listen to it and the feedback! I decided to submit this track in my second attempt - a much different feel than the other but hopefully it'll have a better chance of being considered a remix instead of a cover due to the instrumentation, variations on the theme, improvisation and additional chord changes that I added. Really hope you dig it! ---------------------------------- 12:00 of the video

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.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/477lni/we_are_overclocked_remix_releasing_3000_free/ Ask us some questions!

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

Ruh-roh! I certainly hope they get things on point, as all of those issues are very unfortunate. Big game releases can be pretty iterative these days, but the core things like network responsiveness and stable animation need to be rock solid. EDIT: How's the music at least? I loved the music used in this trailer (starts at :39):

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

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