Liontamer

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

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

Justin was cool enough to carve a little time out tonight to tweak this with the judge feedback in mind. And just like that, winner, winner, chicken dinner. The physical album's already pressed, but we've got this good to go for the digital release and having it posted here.

As far as the source usage, it dominated the arrangement, with the WW1 material in particular being pretty straightforward. There was an extended period of time where I didn't recognize anything (3:40-5:38), but the track basically went: WW2 (:01), WW1 ending (2:20), original writing (3:40), WW1 title (5:38). Pretty default-y synth opening, along with a very rigid piano. Immediately, I felt the texture is too thin/empty, despite all the creative writing going on. That added synth line at :55 is WAY too loud. The lead at 1:36-1:53 is just too rigid. I'd argue the source melody from 1:53-2:11 should have been in the foreground and not behind the chiptune countermelody; the balance there doesn't make sense. Yeesh, what an awkward non-transition at 2:20 to the WW1 ending music. Really thought the lead there sounded lame; the timing of everything was too stiff & stilted. I did like the shriller synth first used from 2:38-2:42. When some more countermelodic synth writing was added from 3:04-3:22, everything just mudded together, with nothing distinctly taking the foreground or background; again the balance between the parts doesn't make sense, and your writing clutters together. You definitely need to work on your transitions; another awkward shift at 3:40 that didn't flow, followed by another sudden change in the beats at 3:50 AND 3:58. Why doesn't any of this flow from one style to the next? Pretty generic electrosynth from 4:16-4:33. WW1 main theme at 5:38 was super-rigid with the timing. The beat pattern from 6:10-7:11 & 7:28-8:16 needed less repetition, as it's very plain and dragged on; you need more variation there, not just building more instrumentation around it. The big issues I heard were 1) transitions with 0 flow, 2) alternating between thin textures and cluttered ones, 3) instrumentation that's not produced in a sophisticated way, 4) sequencing that's too robotically timed. The arrangement ideas are creative, and I like that you're unafraid to play around with a lot of different sounds and styles, but there's just no polish behind it. Your instrumentation needs to sound less generic, be less rigid, and better balanced. As long as you ask tons of questions in the Workshop area (Music Composition & Production + Post Your Game ReMixes!) and other music forums, and stay with this, Zack, I think you can have some great results just based on the level of interpretation you're trying to add. Hopefully you've already learned a good deal more since submitting this, but even so, this was very far from the OCR bar in terms of overall execution. That said, your concepts show promise, so I hope you continue learning and improving. NO

We're shooting for 2027.

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

The wind lead for the melody at :55 sounds decent, but has mechanical timing nonetheless. Everything does, but with an organic-sounding instrument, that shouldn't be the case. 1:14's and 3:03's sections sound like a cut-and-paste as well, though that was brief. Yeah, that beat from :48-2:07 & 3:03-3:39 just plods and doesn't add much to the song; it's bland, repetitive, and the snare tone doesn't quite fit. Dynamically, the arrangement feels very flat/samey due to the beats never changing. You need more dynamic contrast in this arrangement, Alan, even if it's subtle; getting more sophisticated and varied with the percussion writing will help. Chimpa really summed up the pros and cons well in good detail, and I agreed with everything she said on the arrangement and production. The arrangement's cool, but the mixing could use some work. The main issues though are that beat is lifeless & repetitive, and the timing of everything is too rigid. 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.

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

Word. Too dry. That's my main problem with it, but it's significant because the stiffness in the timing is much more apparent when the samples are this dry and exposed. For the most part, these are solid samples, but like Chimpa said, once you use reverb to thicken up the sound, you could mask a lot of the obvious lack of realism. As far as the arrangement, it's generally good stuff. While it's structurally conservative, there's care put into varying up the verses & textures through constantly changing instrument combinations. Nice job briefly escalating the energy and tension at 1:54. I thought the transition to the second source at 2:48 was just awkward and had absolutely no flow to it, despite the genuine attempt to bridge from one theme to the other. The instrument quality also sounded worse, even more exposed, particularly the lead at 2:56, the bassoon or whatever it was meant to be. Watch out for quality disparities, especially when everything else sounds serviceably realistic. In any case, if you can't connect smoothly to the second theme, then arrange it to mesh with the mood of the first source or scrap it altogether; it's not clicking right now, and it's an underwhelming finish. Cool source tune choices, Kyle, with Gauntlet giving Dragon Quest a run for its money in terms of the style. You've got to 1) add another level of polish onto the production, even just some better room reverb to mitigate the lack of realism in the sequencing, 2) try to smooth out the theme change at 2:48, and 3) watch the woodwind lead for the final section. There could be other issues pointed out, but that's what grabbed my attention. Hopefully you're able to improve on the production quality here, because I'd love to see this posted in some form. Definitely keep submitting more material to OCR, and don't be discouraged by a NO here; the potential on this track is great, and your ideas and creativity are well in the right direction here. NO (resubmit)

Noticeably stiff timing, I'll agree there. I don't think it's purely excused by the instrument set, but what's here was fine. Pretty much agreed with Chimpa's critique; a little repetitive with the main "Cosmo Canyon" backing pattern, but the overall concept was creative and also varied enough. The combination and intergration of Cid's theme clicked well, and though the dynamic curve could have been wider, what's here works very well. Nice job with the solo shot, Callum; you've arrived. YES

The opening had a lot of generic sounds, but they were put together reasonably OK. That said, until :45, the way this was mixed made it so that there was nothing to focus on, and all of the parts were just smooshed together; something needed to take the foreground during this build (e.g. the synth line brought in at :24), and it never happened. Make sure the balance between the different parts makes sense, and that something cuts through and takes the lead. The backing piano brought in at 1:40 was mechanical-sounding and exposed. It could work for this genre, but shouldn't sound too dry like it does now. Pretty bad when it's called upon for accents from 2:30-2:42. I agreed with Chimpazilla on the second half feeling too repetitive. Indeed, there are touches here and there (like the sweeps and saws) that add more to the texture, but it's not enough to truly set the second iteration apart from the first when the structure and overall energy are still the same. Good start, Jordan. You have good energy here, but see what more you can do with this concept; the second half's too much of a retread without enough differences or dynamic contrast to keep the show fresh. See what you can also do to let the various parts occupy their own space more, and definitely add some realism or depth to the piano so it doesn't stand out so much as sequenced. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, I'm not hearing the source tune used much at all, particularly during the verses. Palpable pointed out the only meaningful connections I could make out (1:02-1:41 & 2:24-3:06). Even in the intro where it's clearly the original song, it just sounds like it's sampling the "Disco Ball" audio with effects. "Can't catch me" vocals were flat, particularly around 2:49-2:53; fix that. Otherwise, I enjoyed the track, but, yeah, where's the source tune in all of this? This is a traditional remix that heavily samples the original audio, but the name of the game here is arrangement. Rob/Drew, if we're overlooking something that makes it clear the source tune melody or parts are explicitly referenced, let us know. As far as I can tell, this is a perfectly fine original track that's inspired by Ridge Racer, and references the source tune some, but not nearly enough to be dominant, so it falls outside what we're looking for. NO

The overcompression also hurts this. I'm not dying on that level, so I'm somewhere between Emu/Jive and Palpable on that, where I don't think that's a dealbreaker on its own, but I agree the clutter & overlap the compression adds isn't ideal. If everything else was on point though, this wouldn't be enough to go NO. Now, I need to clarify that I'm not in a bad mood or anything, but, man, just... eww on that synth line from :05-:10. Why would you be OK with that? Could we get even more generic with the tone and stiff with the timing? Is that possible? C'mon, add some uniqueness and life to it. Yep. It honestly is lacking the whole time it's there, and you've already shown you're better and more creative than that. Not everyone will agree with me on how poor it is, but I think it screams beginner-ish, and you're not a greenhorn anymore. I don't think the guitar performance sounds bad, but as soon as it kicked in at :11, I'd argue the performance felt stiff compared to some of your other work; it just doesn't give off emotion and energy like some of your other tracks, and it's something I've pointed out and criticized in the past. That synth came BACK at :34? You're killin' me. At least in "Loadout," the synth wasn't AS integral, because it hurt that piece too. Here, it's brutal without being br00tal. Anyway, the arrangement is on point, and I agree with Palpable with the sentiment of not making the perfect the enemy of the good. HOWEVER, on top of the loudness/compression issue, that anemic, dry, rigid, lame default-y synth kills this dead in a complete dealbreaker way, and it's not even close. It sounds like no effort was put into using it well, and that definitely registers in a meaningful way for me. Dustin, take the production advice of the actual musician Js to heart, but give ole' man Listener Larry some credence and FIX DEM SYNTHS. They need character and flow. No more vanilla robot synths, plz. NO (resubmit)

Was about to be on board with this, because the arrangement's creative and fun, but I see why there was a NO on this. Lots of clutter due to compression, from :31-:43 & 2:02-2:17 in particular. The heavy beats/kicks (e.g. :51-59) are probably the weakest part of this in terms of the writing; they're so upfront yet pretty bland, and you end up repeating those patterns too much. Also, the main problem, this suffers from essentially cut-and-paste repetition once the ideas were established, so the track just repeats itself after the 2-minute mark. Compare: 1:06-1:22 vs. 2:05-2:21 1:22-1:34 vs. 2:21-2:33 1:34-1:50 vs. 2:33-2:49 :51-1:06 vs. 1:50-2:05 vs. 2:49-3:04 All of :51-2:05 is basically repeated wholesale from 2:05-3:04. You should employ more variations here instead of coasting in order to keep the track fresh. Having read Emunator's vote just now, we're saying exactly the same thing. You had good ideas, but then stopped developing the track, so it quickly felt too samey for the second half. Use things like different instrumentation, beat patterns or gating, rhythmic alterations, or similar effects done at different times; anything like that could add subtle differences that prevent the track from being too repetitive without evolving. Really cool stuff. If you can declutter/decompress this a bit per Emu's suggestions, and most importantly vary and develop the arrangement further, this would be good to go and better realize the potential here. You have a great first 2 minutes, but let's not just end the ideas there if you're going to let the track go another minute and a half. Awesome start though; we definitely need this piece on the site on some form, Tobias, this is close. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, I'll agree with the YES's that the production/mixing isn't optimal. Some of the textures felt dry, IMO, so I see where Palp's coming from on wanting more power here; to me, I think the piece having more spaciousness would help. Also from 1:18-1:51, the original electric guitar writing was just burying the source tune, so I thought the balance should have been tweaked. That said, nothing was actually dragging the production down to a NO level at all, and the arrangement was nothing but excellence. Effective switch to the woodwind lead at 2:49. I liked the rock section at 3:18 and the dubby synths following the source melody was fun; though they sounded pretty lossy, cool cameo of the female vocals at 3:57. Dunno why people felt that section didn't work; I thought it was great, followed by a skillful transition into the folky section at 5:16 and another electric guitar at 6:06. Minor point, but the final drum shot at 6:52 wasn't necessary; sometimes you just need to leave a good winddown alone. There were a lot of substantially different sections in this piece, but like many progressive pieces, the transitions and overall flow were smartly written and effectively presented. Definitely no reason to hold this back. Really varied yet cohesive medley; props for pulling this off! YES

Maybe YOU'RE not.

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

Quoted for agreement. The drum groove at :24 was well-written, but it became overused and plodding on extended auto-pilot, lasting from :24-:45 & :56-2:21. A second pattern coasts from 2:31-3:36, but at least there was a change from the first half. A few of the theme change-ups (e.g. :45) weren't smooth, IMO, though that wasn't a huge deal. Ultimately, there was too much recycling of the source melodies without changes, only with different drum/backing patterns underneath, e.g.: * :02-:45 vs. 4:29-4:56 * :56-1:38 vs. 2:32-2:52 * 1:38-2:21 vs. 2:52-3:38 vs. 3:38-4:18 I feel like this is a solid work-in-progress going well in the right direction, but it lacks the finishing touches & detail work needed to fully develop the arrangement. It's a cool piece in vacuum, and certainly has some good sounds. I wasn't even bothered by the production, unlike Vig. But I'm really surprised this has so many YES's when the arrangement's on auto-pilot and cut-and-paste repetitive in such big ways. NO (resubmit)

The opening sounds like an anemic MIDI rip, it feels like all the high-end got cut, and there's the orch stabs for maximum cheese. A minute in, and I'm not sure why this is still so quiet; wondering if this will built to anything... OK, here's some synths getting louder at 1:23... well, not much louder. Yeah, the overall volume seems too low. The track's also pretty spartan in terms of the instrumentation. Basic synths, claps, and orch stabs without any polish in how they're used. The whole track is basically like this where everything's too quiet, the instrumentation's thin and the textures aren't filled out or cohesive. Unfortunately not much potential here for an arrangement like this, Patrick, when the production is so lacking. Keep at it though. NO

Opens up with some pretty liberal interpretation on the source that goes off into mostly original territory. At :29, it shifts into an original line over the foundation of the source before going into the source melody at :44. The string articulations are pretty exposed as unrealistic, so it was much better at :58 when the lead was tweaked and mitigated the realism issue. The snare/hi-hat "THUMP-THUMP TSS" pattern from :44-1:54 was repetitive and plodding; you need some quick/simple variations in the core pattern so it doesn't just function on auto-pilot and undermine the dynamics & interest of the piece. Good dropoff of the beats at 1:54; I liked the string writing behind the lead, then you had more good stuff at 2:12 with the bowed & plucked strings. Repetitive beats back from 2:26-3:48 for the rest of the track. You had a creative original synth section from 2:40-3:28, but it was undermined both by the beat pattern droning on, as well as the lead timing sounding too stiff/quantized. Super-extended fadeout ending at 3:27 was a disappointment; fadeouts aren't bad in and of themselves, but when you just repeat those beats and pads from the previous minute and a half, it's just another instance of plodding repetition. Literally 2/3rds of the track is just the same beat over and over and over. It's not THAT good. You don't need to go wild in terms of diversifying up the beats, you need need to employ subtle variations -- simple stuff like occasional off-beats or rhythmic changes -- to keep the show fresh. Right now, the arrangement is melodically conservative, but you did do a good job of changing the other instrumentation around it to personalize your arrangement. Some further melodic interpretation would be welcome as well to keep the melody from getting too repetitive, so consider doing that as well; same as the issue with the beats, it's nothing to go wild over with changes, but do something to create more variation. That said, the main issue for me is taking your beats off autopilot. Promising material so far though, Joshua; now it's just a matter of further detail work to fully realize the potential here. NO (resubmit)

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

She's right on the money; the arp serves as a base, not a crutch. Always a big fan of anything that uses "Sealed Door," by the way, one of Uematsu's underrated classics. Excellent piece, and nothing more to add other than "Nice work, Jake & everyone," and "Let's go." YES