Liontamer

Opened up with pretty empty beats until :18. The leads at :18 with robotic timing and sounded very lifeless; the warbling effects were there to try and personalize the sound a touch, but it didn't really add anything to the presentation. Everything's pretty dry. Some xylo/chromatic perc action at :37, which was interesting, but the sound of that didn't really mesh with the rest of the instrumentation. I'm about 1 minute in, and there's nothing substantially interpretive about this; structure pretty much the same as the original. While the instrumentation is different, this doesn't stand apart enough from the mood, tempo and structure of the source tune most of the way. 2:09's original writing ideas were a welcome change, but that was less than a minute of the track and only after 2 very straightforward playthroughs of the source tune with little variation. I also agreed on the production issues that Chimpa and Emu pointed out, so there's not much more to add. Really need more humanized timing, better balance between the different parts, less drastic panning, and (most importantly) more interpretation and/or personalization of the source theme. Keep at it, Ace. Based on the writing from 2:09-onward, you have the ability to add your own spin to things, you just need to better integrate those ideas with the source material. See what other ideas you get for a greater level of interpretation on future arrangements. NO

Still need DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDES, and LADIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEESSSSSSS! Need 4 people to step up!

Just wait for the new forums. On second thought, we'll just ban anything new anyway.

Updated it.

Very fitting for relaxation, and a true classic.

I'm used to the faster HD Remix version by now, but I definitely still love this version. One of my old-school favorites!

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

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

In the earliest days of OCR, djp contacted the artists and asked if he could include specific songs on the site, so Sinergia, Chris Abbott, Instant Remedy, and IIRC, Rayza's first mix (among others) were ones where djp reached out to those artists in his efforts to get music in the very beginning of the site.

OCREMIXupdater.

There's no such thing as "OCRemix" http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=44454

Yeah, I can't see how this made it as is, not because the arrangement is problematic (it's strong, in fact), but the production isn't on point. I agreed with DarkeSword with the lack of clarity, but not enough to reject it just on those grounds. Also, the oboe at :33 was a minor flub as far as a lack of realism, but most people won't care. However, I definitely have to go NO on this based on the panning alone, and I'm really surprised Flexstyle was the only one to even notice something was off. Maybe the other YES's didn't listen on headphones, maybe they did -- but when I listened, there are just too many extended sections where entire parts are too widely panned to one ear, usually the right ear. The worst offenders IMO were :59-1:25 & 2:21-3:38. This needs to be tweaked to have more appropriate volume/balance in both channels, but otherwise is a very strong, creative arrangement. NO (refine/resubmit) EDIT (4/3): Having now heard the second revision addressing the extreme panning and the grace note at :33 (which was minor), I still felt the panning was too wide IMO (e.g. 2:47-3:20), so it's needlessly disorienting when listening on headphones. That said, it has been adjusted to a point where the arrangement now sounds strong enough in spite of the wide panning. Hopefully some reviewers can offer some advice on how Thomas could have better realized those kind of panning choices, but this is nonetheless now good-to-go for our bar. YES (borderline)

The FLAC & MP3s are made from the same WAVs. Also, Audacity's "Show Clipping" isn't a good indicator of anything. Clipping isn't the same as distortion, so you can distort something (whether accidentally, or purposefully as a production technique), and as long it doesn't peak over 0db, Audacity wouldn't treat it as clipping. No matter what frequency goes above 0db, even if it's in a super high frequency range & super brief, it'll register as "clipping" in Audacity. That's why you didn't notice anything "by ear"; nothing is actually messed up.

The world will never know. I mean that, because we have no idea what the pic even was.

Smoove Rhodes and funky beats to open things up. Nothing explicitly pertaining to the source until 1:01, since it was just the simplified chord progression in a few brief places within :17-:54. Didn't love 1:01's lead on the first listen; it was grating, IMO, but it's not bad, and you get quickly used to it. Whether I thought it fully worked or not, it arguably should have been a little louder/more upfront in the soundscape, but was OK in how it was placed. From what I could identify, this was fairly liberal in the treatment of the source tune, mostly because the intro was 1 minute long without explicitly using the source. That said, this at least squeaked by with the source tune usage being dominant. For a 3:40-long piece, I needed to hear the source tune referred to for at least 110 seconds for the source usage to be dominant in the arrangement. 1:01-2:11.5, 2:48-2:54.25, 2:56.25-3:01.75, 3:04-3:32 = 110.25 seconds or 50.1% overt source usage. Chimpa said it was clearly dominant, but there could be some sections I'm not recognizing. In any case, Roberto employed excellent subtle dynamic shifts, strong comping sections and came up with a very creative, funky spin on the Robot Museum theme. Nice work, and welcome aboard! YES

Thanks to zykO for the guest vote. Count it!

It would be FLACs, since those support metadata. You can always re-create a WAv from a FLAC. We're gonna try for Saturdays and see how that goes, so be prepared for the 28th, possibly earlier then 9PM Eastern U.S. time. Maybe an hour earlier, though it's up to DarkeSword.

Definitely agreed with wanting anything from Phantom Brave. For example, "The End of This Passionate Feeling" is a great piece:

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

Thanks for pointing out this issue. Fixed.

The woodwind from :59-1:14 on its own just exposes the timing not sounding like a human being played it, so I wouldn't have had it exposed the sample like that. Have to agree with the other Js that all of the sequencing sounds pretty mechanical/quantized, with the woodwind and higher bowed strings being the most exposed. On a small detail, good integration of the bird sound FX. As far as the arrangement, the source tune's adapted to this instrument set and the attempt is clearly made to personalize this approach with a gradual escalation of the intensity. However, I also agreed with Jivemaster that for a mere 2-minute arrangement, there needs to be less melodic repetition and more variation & development of the source tune. Again, this is well in the right direction, it just could use more melodic variation. The production/sequencing is the biggest problem, with the lack of melodic variation also being something that has to be addressed. But if you're willing to revisit both and can make this sound more realistically sequenced and melodically varied, this would be a short-and-sweet addition to the site. Even if you've moved on from this one, you're certainly showing promise, Karl. NO

You did personalize the sounds well and make it your own with the DnB adaptation, Alex, but more melodic interpretation and variation was needed to put the level of interpretation over the top. Right now, you're repeating too many things. For example, the sidechaining was a cool idea to start, but it's a one-trick pony in terms of what you're doing with it, so it got pretty gimmicky and repetitive pretty fast. I thought the balance of the parts was off. I'm all for intense beats, but they're too loud and it just makes the repetition of the pattern stand out more. The lead should have been a bit more prominent and the sidechaining effects shouldn't have been as loud. Interesting purposeful lowering of the audio quality for the 8-bit style close. Beyond that, I agreed with everything Chimpa said, though I wasn't as bothered by the clashing notes. She's right that the arrangement is underdeveloped and repetitive, and the beats drone on, so that's ultimately why this doesn't make it. NO

Took the words out of my mouth, and I agreed with literally every point (including how greaaaaaat the "Lunarians" section was), so I'm quoting the entire post. Re: the arrangement, I'm a little less critical than Nutritious on the medley structure, BUT I still agree with him that it's enough of a run-through of themes with quick transitions that it falls outside of the standards. The presentation's personalized very well and the musicianship is apparent, but we do explicitly look for medleys that are more cohesive and feel like a single concept rather than a string of quick shots of songs. That's not to say you can never do an arrangement with ANY short usage of themes and quick transitions, but it can't mostly be that structure -- there's got to be a balance there, and the transitions have to be more substantial. LuIzA's Final Fantasy medley "Fire Cross" remains a great example of that. The production criticisms in particular are dead on re: the crowding and sizzle. Nothing that was a dealbreaker for the production, but definitely things that significantly undermined the quality of the listen. This doesn't make it on more of a technicality as far as what we look for in arrangements with multiple themes. Hopefully, we can get you posted on the site with something else awesome, Greg, as you're an excellent musician. NO

Opens up like a MIDI rip, it sounds so similar to the first source, with some drumwork coming in at :09. The drumwork and later synth at :21 do add some personalization, though not much yet. The dropoff at :33 was a nice textural change. It was firstly at :33 when I noticed the bassline should have had more body to it; it's very thin right now and doesn't add enough depth to the soundscape. From :47-:57, the textures also sounded very thin; honestly, I'm not too impressed with the sequenced instrumentation; it lacks richness. :57 switches to the electric guitar lead. It's not a bad cover, and there are some minor variations to the melody, but I was still waiting for the approach to feel personalized when 1:30's changeup finally gave me something more substantial in terms of combining new writing with a different mood to the instrumentation. After that, there weren't any issues with the level of interpretation/personalization, so I put my NO back in the holster. The transition to the second source at 1:54 came out of nowhere; where's the transition? Pretty mechanical-sounding sequenced piano from 1:54-2:23 & 4:03-4:24; that really needed humanization badly. Much better, more cohesive personalization of the arrangement with the wah'ed up guitar from 2:58-3:27 though. The second half ended up doing more substantive, creative things compared to the first half, which sounded solid but just lacked more substantive interpretation until 1:30. There are criticisms I'd love to see addressed, and I'm sure Sam would hear some of the flaws since the time he's submitted this. All that said, it's a spirited rock arrangement with great energy, strong live instrument aspects, and overall solid execution that brings the overall package over the line. It's not without issues, so it's not my strongest YES, but I'm not borderline and I think this has enough things in place that are working compared to what doesn't. Good luck with the rest of the vote, and if this doesn't make it as is, you absolutely could get this to a passable state by just tightening up a few things. YES

"Nails on a chalkboard" SUPAsaws aside, I think Chimpa otherwise made a perfectly reasonable case for why this doesn't pass yet. I'm not dying on hearing the detuned saws, BUT they still sound super generic. Same with whatever the lead was at 4:16; it's all pretty cheesy stuff, and the tones of those leads don't even click with the dance groove here. Melodically, the only real difference with the originals was the leads sounding detuned; I'd argue it just made the themes sound less melodious, plus the themes just kind of proceed one after the other without meaningful transitions. It doesn't sound horrible, but it also gives the piece less direction & flow. I also agreed with Chimpa on the beats being super-repetitive over the long haul; the arrangement's nearly 7 minutes, so more subtle alterations in the rhythms & textures of the beats would help keep this fresh. There are definitely some changeups, but the same core patterns are just swapped in and out the whole time, so the overall energy, tone, and density of the piece doesn't evolve during the 6:40. Dynamically, it plods. This isn't terribly produced, but it needs further beat variations, more direction & dynamic contrast, more melodious leads, and real transitions between the themes. NO