Liontamer

Not to be dismissive, but I just didn't hear any major production or balance issues in this that would make me think we need to hold this back at all. Chimpa had some detailed criticisms, but I really couldn't co-sign. I was worried about the sampled beats from :19-:43, in that they could have been leaned on too much (but they were just in there briefly), and the transition at :45 feeling awkward (but the rest of the track flowed together nicely). Source tune was used in spades, but for anyone curious for a cursory breakdown: :00-:49, 1:07.5-1:16, 1:22.5-1:32, 1:35.5-1:38.5, 1:58-4:30.25, 4:32.5-5:07. The arrangement was super creative and energetic, and I felt the instrumentation was more than adequately balanced and clear. Though the track's dense, the elements were very distinguishable. Nothing but love for this one, Kenneth. Nice work! YES

Normally I don't copy-pasta a vote to just crib it, but I unfortunately didn't have anything to add. The instrument combinations don't click, and the mixing was extraordinarily cluttered, e.g. 1:50-2:15. There are so many parts that mud together in the same frequency range. Minor issue, as it's very soft, but from 1:38-1:43, there's some sort of super-quiet dissonant buzzy line that's almost functions like counteremelody, but sounds like a production error. I'll disagree on :00 & 3:40's sections; though the sequencing was tight, it made sense there and I didn't feel there was an issue there. I enjoy symphonic metal, but this isn't balanced in that manner. Like last time, the arrangement creativity is there, but the production/mixing is very unfocused. NO

Source tune was used in spades, but in case anyone was wondering: :03.5-:41.5, 1:03.75-1:15.75, 1:18.75-1:30, 1:32-1:34.75, 1:42.75-1:51.75, 1:53.5-1:58.75, 2:00.5-2:28 Never heard the original version, but this was pretty strong. Some of the instrumentation would never pass as real (e.g. pizz strings, koto articulations), but the samples were used very well and came off very expressive. Some could say the soundscape was thin, but I thought it was more delicate than thin and the background was filled out nicely. Nice work, Adrian! Welcome aboard! YES

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

Careful! We'll take all the loopholes we can.

Heard the source in play from 1:17-4:25, 5:42-6:08, 6:33-6:56, and 6:59-9:51, i.e. used in spades. The source theme was used pretty consistently, and there were some more subtle but explicit chord progression usages that seemed valid but I chose not to count (e.g. 6:08-6:33), since the source usage was clearly dominant and I didn't need to get that into the weeds. It felt a bit overlong for me, so I see how Palpable was put off in that way. However, I didn't feel I was hearing much retreading, so I couldn't co-sign on that. I'm more in line with Nutritious's POV. The first overt usage of the melody around 1:27 already sounded promising as far as going for a different sound, but the arrangement/interpretation call could been dicey had this just been 10 minutes of the piano lead and carrying a similar tone as the original song. That said, the arrangement evolved well enough over the near-10 minutes, and Zack did well with constantly varying the instrumentation and making sure the textures were different from the original. Let's go. YES

Really glad to hear Random Encounter members is the submissions box. Briefly from :27-:28, the timing was noticeably loose in a bad way, since the beats hold steady, but the rest of what was here lined up well. Definitely agreed that the piece has great energy, and IMO works for a melodically conservative piece. The mixing's definitely pretty messy, and I felt like the drums were too dry, or at least the background wasn't fully filled out. I'm in Nutritious's camp that I would let this arrangement go, because the presentation is personalized enough, but at only 2:11-long with a little melodic interpretation, I'm left wanting more substance regardless. In any case, the mixing criticisms are the main thing holding this back, I agreed with Chimpa and Nutri there. Very good stuff, it just needs to be de-cluttered. Oh, AND a new song title [redux] NO

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.

September 11-13, 2015 Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, Arlington, VA http://classic.magfest.org Let's talk video game music! OC ReMix: Honoring (and Boom-Tss'ing) Video Game Music Since 1999! PANEL TIME TBD Panelists: djpretzel Arrow DarkeSword José the Bronx Rican

It's funny that my impartiality would be called into question for not being biased like you are against arrangements with lyrics, but sure, I'll take that bet. Like djpretzel mentioned, we're underway with a large project to add descriptors to all of the mixes which (on the negative side) should help picky people avoid stuff that spooks them, but (on the much more positive side) help folks find more of what they like and learn more about the artists in the process. If you had suggested a metadata approach in your previous comments -- which you didn't -- I would have said we're already working on this. I wasn't trying to "rudely pacify" you like you'd be some wilting flower. The original post doesn't say "Post your unassailable opinion." I was only flatly and forcefully rejecting the worst and -- by your own admission -- most hyperbolic of what you suggested, i.e. "I wish OCR would split off vocal remixes to another site or something," "lately it feels like lyrical new releases outnumber the instrumentals," and that vocals mixes are "tainted." Those things were said under the claim of somehow being good to the fans as a whole if we moved the vocal tracks, but would just stifle artistic creativity due to not getting equal exposure. I'll defend that for Dynamite Pleasure Chair or any other artist doing creative things with their music. My opinion, this track is not "tainted" and neither are any of the other vocal mixes just for having vocals.

Always have enjoyed this one. aluminum's one of the best arrangers we've had in terms of the creativity of his interpretations, and this first mix certainly set the table. All 4 of his tracks are worth grabbing, and I hope he keeps making music.

2:30-2:31. You sneaky bros.

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

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

Opened up relatively sparse, but quickly filled out. I feel bad because Chimpa's so positive, but I've never been a fan of that FL Slayer guitar synth, first used at :20 here. It's almost always a poor, droning lead sound; the few times it works are when it (or the instruments around it) are produced so that it's very clear the Slayer lead isn't meant to imitate an electric guitar in any way. The timing & articulations on it sound very stiff. I also thought the core kick pattern sounded vanilla; even though there were good subtle/quieter aspects to the percussion writing, the kick is by far the loudest part of it, so when that pattern sounds plain, bland & plodding, it drags the track down. Those criticisms aside, the arrangement otherwise develops and evolves enough, so I didn't have a problem with that, even though I thought the FL Slayer stuff was a significant weak point. Listening to this at a softer volume, I see how someone could think this is allowable & passable. One thing that's important for me when checking out louder or cluttered tracks is using a control track that I'm very familiar with that mixed pretty well and is at a normal volume. For years, I've used djp's Revenge of Shinobi 'Consent (Make Me Dance)'. After listening to that, it feels obvious to me that the loudest parts of this are too loud. On the volume, I agree with the NOs about this being ridiculously loud. Even in a smaller aspect, for example, the sizzle at 1:03's percussion is too much. The overall levels are oppressively loud when you hear the densest stuff (:20-:50, 1:10-1:29, 1:42-2:10, 2:24-2:49). This was the kind of loud that causes ear damage, it's just absurd. During the thickest sections, all of the detail work in the supporting part-writing can't be distinguished, while the FL Slayer lead is buried, so the compression is over the top. You can pull this back without losing the overall power here, Twisteryn, but the current levels are unintentionally a joke; all the more obvious when doing a side-by-side comparison it to other music. The arrangement is solid, and I would change my vote if the levels were reined in. NO (resubmit)

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

Coolio. It should be fixed on the live site after the next mix is posted.

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

Will come back to this later, but I'm coming up a bit light. I need at least need 188.5 seconds of overt source usage for the source tunes to be dominant in the arrangement: :32-1:05.75, 1:53.75-2:38.5, 2:40.5-2:57 ("Bronco," quiet), 3:21.5-3:29, 3:35.5-3:38.5, 4:11.5-4:30, 4:33.5-4:35.5, 4:59-5:18, 5:19.5-5:41 = 165.5 seconds or 43.89% I get why Cain mentioned the similarity with "Lifestream"/"Opening Theme" from 5:55 until the end, but the 4-note pattern isn't the same or transposed, so I'm not counting it. It's pretty liberal, but it's worth checking with Ryan on what else may not have been obvious source use. I reserve judgement for now, but it's a NO if more explicit connections don't come to light. EDIT (12/9): Sorry for the holdup. Normally I just go NO, with the caveat that if it did in fact check out, I could revise my vote. But this sounded so great that I wasn't comfortable dropping a NO vote on it at the time, and hoped something more would be uncovered. That said, no one else is hearing the source theme used enough, and IMO, original "glue" writing being seamlessly written alongside an arranged source, isn't a compelling reason to approve something on actual source usage being dominant per the requirements of the Standards. While an obviously cool listen, this doesn't pass the arrangement standards on source usage. Again, if we're wrong, Ryan, point out the explicit A-to-B connections from source tune to arrangement that we're missing, and we can revisit this. Otherwise, if you're willing to revise it, more source tune usage would nudge this up to flipping all of these votes and getting it passed.

The string and woodwind samples were good, but they each had their brief moments where they strained for realism. Wasn't a big enough deal to timestamp, because it wasn't a big issue. Really wasn't feeling the mixing of the woodwind interplay from :49-1:05; the two parts were stepping on one another in the same frequency range. The string and light vox stuff at 1:05 was mixed much better. Other than those more minor criticisms, this was a straightforward but solid take on the Twilight Princess Light Spirit source, with the SoS and RoS cameos smoothly and tastefully woven in. Good job, Kyle! YES

The track was 2:57-long, so I needed at least 88.5 seconds' worth overt usage of the source for it to be dominant here: :19-:32, :39.5-:58.5, 1:00.5-1:23.5, 1:41.5-1:49, 1:51.5-2:00.5, 2:27-2:47.5 = 92 seconds or 51.97% There could be other minor things I'm overlooking, but I just needed to confirm the source use checked out given some of the longer stretches where things seemed wholly original. I think DarkeSword's right with his criticisms, but I didn't think they added up to a dealbreaker. Smallest thing first, the wind SFX does sound fake, so I understand why it was pointed out, but it's literally meant to sound similar to the wind SFX in the source, so I don't see the big deal there due to that connection. The timing being so stilted and exposing the piano sample was personally my biggest issue. The production and piano tone could be improved, but what's here is solid enough, with the arrangement carrying things. If this had a dryer sound, this would have been a NO based on DarkeSword's other crits, because those issues would have stood out much more. What's here gets it done enough. YES

We literally do not "consider the fans" at any stage of the judging process, because this isn't a popularity contest, this is a creativity contest. This site also is cool with diversity. We're not actively catering to anyone's personal taste. To actually hold DPC's track (or any vocal track) back or put it in a corner because "most people prefer instrumentals"/"think of meeeee, I may not like it" is really closed-minded. Of course, you can dislike whatever you want, but we don't care anyway vis-a-vis track selection or presentation. Separate but equal? Segregation of minorities? Really? Tracks aren't people, but to me your proposal is also silly. Let's not go there. Also, so far, we've only got 266 tracks with any type of lyrics out of 3,056 ReMixes, so 91% of the site is instrumental. But are the vocals TAKING OVER? 0001-1000: 28/885: 3.16% 1001-2000: 83/992: 8.37% 2001-3000: 128/999: 12.81% 3001-3180: 27/180: 15% Hey cool, the trend IS growing. 3 out of every 20 ReMixes lately have had lyrics. 17 out of every 20 tracks being instrumental means instrumentals aren't even close to outnumbered, and that you're needlessly fixating on lyrics. Maybe by the time we reach OCR04000, lyrics will (dangerously) bump up to 16% or 17%. Try not to get too hung up on it. VGM is mostly instrumental, OCR will tip towards instrumental for as long as we're doing this, that's just the numbers. Anyway, TL;DR, you can certainly dislike anything you want, but to tell us to consider some sort of change in how any style or genre of mixes are presented... it ain't happening.

"The intruder, a man named Lan Di" is much better than "the male intruder, Lan Di" How clunky are you trying to make this in the effort to consolidate it? LOL at "male intruder"