Liontamer

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.

You mean they're actually called "Duck Hunt," not Duck and Hound? You might wanna slow down a bit, Larry. No, that's right. http://youtu.be/OjIBCYcZuyk?t=1m43s In Smash 4 (where I got the image from), this teamup is called "Duck Hunt," so that's their name. In Europe, they're called Duck Hunt Duo. The team consists of a duck and a hound. http://www.ssbwiki.com/Duck_Hunt_(SSB4) http://supersmashbros.wikia.com/wiki/Duck_Hunt_(SSBWU/3DS) Can inquire with djp, but AFAIK, no. Will check, but unsure there's a quick way to change that setting. The limit of articles in a category before pagination is 200.

I've changed my vote so Duck Hunt squeaks in. Voting closes in a few minutes (midnight Eastern time), and we'll have the winners added sooooooooooooooooooooooooon! EDIT: 108 votes later (HOORAY!) and we now have our top 15! 1. Knuckles the Echidna (Sonic) 2. Banjo & Kazooie 3. Eevee (Pokémon) 4. Boo (Mario) 5. Rosalina (Mario) 6. Chell (Portal) 7. Midna (Legend of Zelda) 8. Shulk (Xenoblade Chronicles) 9. Spyro 10. The King of All Cosmos (Katamari Damacy) 11. Curly Brace (Cave Story) 12. Quote (Cave Story) 13. Roll (Mega Man) 14. Ristar 15. Duck and Hound (Duck Hunt) Thanks to everyone who voted! These 15 great new mascots definitely help us celebrate 15 years of honoring video game music here at OCR!

1:02-1:15's pretty distorted. Then again after 1:20, the drums just sound they're just a distorted mess and crowding out the other elements, especially the lead. The guitar in the background just adds a lot of mud alongside the drums. The piano doubling the lead at 1:28 sounds too rigid; I get that the rigid piano's a part of the source's style, but it didn't sound great there either. Yipes, the most crowded sections are just... I feel like my ears are getting battered with these drums while everything else is pushed behind them; it doesn't make much sense. Dropoff at 2:21, but everything here's pretty murky as well. Can barely hear the chromatic stuff brought in at 2:31, everything in the soundscape's so indistinct. OK, 2:52 was a sudden wake-up call. So many overlapping frequencies here, it's a shame these parts don't have room to breathe. If this sounded more like 3:41-4:04's section EXCEPT for the drum flourishes that crowded this up, this piece would be great. Sweet ideas from 4:09-4:25 with the transition to piano. And the parts can breathe, hooray! Thought the snare rim shots should have been pulled back, but I'll live. Man, if you can declutter this production, you'd be golden, because the arrangement's strong. It's not that aggressive arrangements can't pass, but even if you're going balls out with the intensity, the parts can't be spilling over each other like this. Needs way less distortion with the percussion, and WAY more EQ love to clean this up. I wish I could give more accurate & targeted production feedback, but any other Js that can really drill down on how to address what's wrong with the mixing would be great. NO (resubmit)

A little light noise/hiss to start, but no big deal. OK, pretty grungy to start; diggin' it. Panning seems a bit wide, IMO, but not a big deal. I'm about a minute in and not hearing too much interpretation besides the genre & time sig adaptations, though those sound good. Then there's a drop of the lead into a rebuilding section from 1:03-1:23, followed by a minimalist dropoff at 1:23. Then at 1:33... there's nothing going on melodically... Where's the lead? I liked the backing parts, but without any melodic to focus on from 1:03 all the way until 2:31 for the finish, you could reasonably argue that the second half just feels like a backing track with the lead's channel accidentally turned off. OK, score one for something I've never heard before in my 10 years on the panel; a track where half of it sounds like you literally turned off the lead for half the piece. Anyway, the interpretation is creative enough, even if the second half's relative simplicity sans lead melody left it feeling empty. It's pretty unorthodox, but IMO you did fill out the track JUST ENOUGH with what was there, and nothing repeats, so I can just barely get behind it. The production was fine as well; nothing in here was a dealbreaker, so there's no meaningful issue on that level. I could flip my vote if someone makes a compelling enough case on the second half lacking, but unorthodox isn't the same as dealbreaker. The interpretation was there in a subtractive sense for the second half, something that djpretzel will also point out can be a valid form of arrangement and interpretation. It squeaks by. Let's go. YES (borderline)

Can't say I'm making many connection with this arrangement to the original music for the first half, but I did recognize the theme from :44-1:04 (the source's intro) and 1:19.75-2:32, so the source usage was dominant. I don't mind the structure being unfocused and frantic at all; we need to remain open-minded to unorthodox approaches like this, and I didn't hear anything in the structure that made this a no-go. That said, I agreed with Emu that I don't think the production's where it needs to be yet: Co-signed here with Emu; I agreed with his POV here. Pretty messy mixing starting at :17. I felt several of the synths sounded generic and also used very vanilla effects. Unlike Emu, I don't feel the synth changes were haphazard, but because the timing was so mechanical and silted with synths like the ones at :11, :17, 1:20, 1:55 & 2:07, the sum total of those issues dragged the production down to NO territory. Watch the ending at 2:32 as well; the songs cuts off before the last notes start fading out. I'm not borderline on this, but I think this is a lot closer creatively than Emu's giving it credit for, re: the arrangement. I think over repeated listens, you get more used to the structure and pacing here, and it sounds less scattershot. With more TLC given the personalizing the leads and making them sound less generic & mechanical, this could be something we could pass. This is a solid first version, Jack. I personally wouldn't change the arrangement at all, but I hope you'd be willing to revisit this and see how you could improve the sound quality. NO (resubmit)

It's entirely possible I don't hear & process Auto-Tune in the same way Will does. I can't say I had any problem with it, and it wasn't anything that stuck out as a huge negative for me.

I thought the introduction of the string leads at :54 brought mud into the mix; arguably not enough to drop it to NO, but enough to pull the quality down. Gotta clean up the production here. The percussion pattern didn't vary from :01-1:41; you have to stop coasting on your core percussion patterns and employ more variation there; your not doing so legitimately undermines the dynamics and interest of your pieces. 1:40 moved over into piano. Back to the repetitive percussion pattern all the way from 2:17-3:37. Acoustic guitar at 2:16 didn't sound real but had a good tone. However, the mixing was muddy again there, so the melody kind of bled into the background. Besides the percussion repeating too much, the arrangement of "Majula" was definitely developed and was interpretive enough. This has fewer issues than Dark Souls 'E.S. Gwyn,' and if this passed, I wouldn't be mad. That said, I thought the perc pattern's repetition for 75% of the piece was just far too long without variation/development, and the mixing could use another pass for better clarity and balance. In combination, those were dealbreakers for me. It's a great first pass, Alex, but it needs tightening up to be on totally solid ground. NO (resubmit)

I basically had the same timing as Justin's breakdown, but counted less of the ending flourishes for the last Aquatic section. Pretty much all the purportedly liberal use of Rusty Ruin Act 2 didn't count in my opinion either. Besides, Pete's explicitly referring to Act 1 in his notes, so I think that other Act 2 connection is a stretch. :00-:48, 1:16.75-1:24, 1:26-1:42, 2:32.5-2:53.5 92.25 seconds or 50.13% overt source usage With the source usage checking out as dominant, this was just a formality. Awesome sounds, including the Mega Man X-style orch stabs first used at 2:22. Great energy and dynamic changes, and smooth interplay between the two source themes. Really enjoyed this collab, great work guys! YES

I like the track in a vacuum, but that's not what the standards are. The DnB beatwork plodded after a while and never did ANYTHING different once it started at :32. Melodically, there's not much going on with the familiar countermelodic synth pattern from the source; it's just the same thing from :00 to 1:45 with no variation, then a brief drop and the same repeating lines from 2:09 to the end. It's not that there's 0 interpretation, but this just doesn't have ENOUGH variation and development of the interpretation beyond the genre adaptation. It's produced well, sounds clean, definitely a good listen, but neither the substance nor variation was enough compared to what we normally pass. This is an easy call for a resubmission; it's not developed enough. NO (resubmit)

Seems to open up OK. If you listen to the initial backing pattern under the guitar, it's actually not the same as the source tune; rather, it's more of a soundalike rhythm instead of the actual pattern from the source tune itself. So that means none of the first minute counts as source usage IMO. That said, :59-2:30 used the source enough where it was clear it was dominant in the arrangement; just pointing out the opening didn't sound like the source, IMO. :59 finally brings in the theme. It's weird, there was a lot of volume, but the soundscape felt empty anyway. The vox(-like?) line in the background sounded dry and fake, and didn't pad the background enough. The bowed string accents then added at 1:11 sound supper muddy and just get swallowed up in the background. Grungy electric guitar lead sounds decent, but again, it feels really dry and it doesn't sound like it matches the production of the other elements. Then some brass padding joins in at 1:23 and the mixing sounds very VERY muddy and indistinct, with the original guitar work at 1:39 just drowing in a sea of mud. It's dry to start, then it just gets cluttered for the rest. 1:11-2:16 was just a mixing nightmare; you can't really make anything out, there's a lot of stuff sharing the same frequencies and blurring together. That's a shame, because the arrangement itself is fine and passable, IMO; it does more than enough to expand upon the original well, so I didn't agree that it was underdeveloped. I think it took a fairly minimalist source and was expansive and varied enough in the arrangement to be a pass. It's just the really, really sloppy mixing that's making this a no-go, David. It needs a massive clean up so that the parts are balanced and aren't muddying together. You've got a strong concept here though, hopefully you can take it to the Workshop and get some feedback to raise your production game. NO (resubmit)

Definitely co-signed with Nutritious and Emunator. When the percussion joined in at :24, the mixing was very muddy and indistinct, the string timing was very rigid, and the drum pattern was plodding and repetitive. I also didn't feel the tone of the drums clicked with the rest of the instrumentation. You have a workable concept here, but the this needs a lot of fine tuning to humanize the timing, vary the perc patterns, and declutter & re-balance this mixing. I disagreed with Emu about the rigid timing going away after a while; I felt it came back in full force at the key change at 3:31 (and never really went away). I agree with Emu on not digging the ending. It DID sound trite. The second-to-last note at 4:47 was just super exposed, and didn't sound smooth. Thought there'd be a nice bowed string or just the piano (with a lot of airyness), just something that transitioned from forceful to delicate for the finish. At least, that's what seemed to be telegraphed but then didn't arrive, at least for me. So yeah, it sounds like it's a ton of criticism on this track when the core arrangement idea is promising, so don't take all this the wrong way. These bros gave some actionable advice on the production. I'll be honest: to take what's here and make it passable would definitely take some work, and I'm not sure it can be done. But if you can rise above it, Alex, your all-around game will go up considerably. Hopefully you give it a shot! NO (resubmit)

No need, I got it! If you want any sort of Sega rally, mobilize yo' troops! It would have said Roll.EXE, since that's a different character. Will go with the other options then. Thanks for the vote!

When Joel's vocals kick off at :14, I felt they sounded too clean/dry and also crowded out the instrumental part with the "Lost Colony" theme. Not really feeling the way that was mixed; seems too treble-heavy. It's not a problem vis-a-vis the standards, because I can hear the VGM loudly enough, but another pass at the mixing could be good. One reason for that is because from :59-1:30 it was even harder to hear "Lost Colony" due to how far it was pushed into the back; it was so quiet until 1:30, you could argue it didn't factor into the arrangement. At 2:05, I see where Redg was coming from, because I was waiting for something more creative and varied to happen with the sound design of the instrumental portions and that never really happened. That said, the overall presentation is solid, and the themes combined well with Scrap Brain from the Master System incorporated into the lyrics. YES

Email admin@ocremix.org, that's always good!

When the guitar came in at :17, it sounded SUUUUUUUUUUUPER lo-fi/distant and the production didn't make much sense compared to the clean (too clean) bowed strings where the sample's lack of realism was exposed. Dustin with the melt-up vocals for the ladies at :36, sounding great here (with the Auto-Tune touches of course). I loved the accents of the bowed string writing around the 1:00 mark; arguably too subtle for that part as well as the volume of the piano accents, but it clicks enough. Nice quick touch of melodic personalization around 3:07 with the guitar. The mixing/production nag on me a little, but certainly nowhere near enough to prevent us from passing this. Smart lyrics along with talented, heartfelt vocal delivery. I'd argue the ending was too quick and offered an opportunity for a longer, MORE TENDER instrumental close, but I'm just picking nits at that point. Nice job, man! YES

This is my first time hearing this as well. The core pattern at the foundation of this does sound super close, but there was enough personalization in the other writing to put this above the line arrangement-wise. Also a fan of the swung rhythms at 1:32, nice touch! The second half's intensity really kept the arrangement interesting throughout. Infectious stuff here! YES

They've done that. http://streetfighterxtekken.wikia.com/wiki/Bad_Box_Art_Mega_Man

Friday, March 6 to Sunday, March 8 Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, Boston, MA http://east.paxsite.com Throw the tea in the sea, it's time for PAX EAST! OCR ventures back to BAHSTIN to attend the 6th annual PAX East! It's our 15th anniversary this year, so join the festivities with us! 1st PANEL! OC ReMix: 15th Anniversary Video Game Music Celebration! Bumblebee Theatre Friday, March 6th, 10:30AM Panelists: djpretzel Arrow DarkeSword DragonAvenger José the Bronx Rican Liontamer OA rnn 2nd PANEL! The Universality of Video Game Music Arachnid Theatre Saturday, March 7th, 2PM Panelists: Patrick Kulikowski Alyssa Menes Amanda Lepre Brett Elston Larry Oji (Liontamer) Shota Nakama Upon request, hugs.

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

DragoniteSpam was kind enough to record the main panel Q&A session and the "How to be a Pro Composer" panel. You can virtually be there! - OC ReMix Q&A - How to be a Pro Composer (presented by OC ReMix) [audio a bit difficult to hear at times, but generally OK]

That was actually organized by k-wix, but it wasn't an OCR project. But we do list it in the database because we some ReMixes from the album were submitted and posted.

We're actually in the middle of working on this. For now, it's incomplete, not integrated into the site's formal search options, and no longer being updated on the forums, but we have partial tags used on the forums covering all those things you mentioned. http://ocremix.org/forums/tags.php