Liontamer

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

There were some minor areas where the lack of realism in the articulations was heard, but it wasn't anything that would make me hold this back on production grounds. The left-hand stuff for the first 1:12 was pretty simplistic, and the melodic treatment was very straightforward. Cool original stuff from 1:22-1:47, then back to the source tune briefly in a higher octave for less than 20 seconds before the close. It's a cool cover in a vacuum, but I agreed with the others that for its short length, it was too straightforward of an piano arrangement and needs more development and interpretation for the standards here. Still a cool piece, short and sweet, just something that falls outside of our guidelines for being a short, straightforward cover. If you're not interested in revisiting this one to flesh it out further, no worries, Joe, you'll handle it with the next submission. NO (resubmit)

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

Nice take on this. Mastering doesn't need to be touched, IMO. Some of the louder parts got a bit buzzy, but the overall sound and levels were fine. YES

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (Thanks, Shariq.) http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=48504 I closed this thread. We're not doing star ratings on the mixes. It's not a popularity contest, and when you do star ratings, the mixes from popular games are the ones that float to the top, so the ratings don't mean anything. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1hkxo1/we_are_overclocked_remix_creating_free_game/#cavbqqm Closing this thread too. EDIT: As a joke, we probably SHOULD create a Top 100 page, but then just randomly populate it and have it change to a new random 100 every day. Not a bad idea!

Awesome! Care to... elaborate? (Probably those judges.)

I wasn't counting most of the soloing over chords as any source usage, because the chords were oversimplifications of the source rather than taken directly from it, as far as I could tell, so I gave the track less credit than the breakdown. I could be missing something more obvious, but it didn't matter in the end, since my first pass at a breakdown came up with enough overt source usage to have the VGM dominant in the arrangement. The track was 5:34 long, so I needed at least 167 seconds of VGM used during the arrangement for the VGM to be dominant: :12.25-:14.5, :18-:19.5, :48.5-:50, :55.5-1:41.5, 2:08.5-2:27, 2:43.5-2:53.5, 2:55-3:02.75, 3:06.75-3:32.75, 4:05-4:37, 4:39.75-5:01.75, 5:18.75-5:20.25 = 169 seconds or 50.59% overt source usage Getting that out for the way, I also liked the cheesy energy here, and this was indeed a lot of fun! Just had to sanity check the source usage, but otherwise and easy call and a fun take on some obscure Super Famicom hotness. Nice work, guys! YES

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

For me, everything else BUT the beats was excellent, the arrangement of the source itself is awesome, and I love the chippy focus. The backing patterns for the EDM-style sections at 1:14 and again at 2:13 are very bland/vanilla. The beats are super-basic claps with plodding, metronome-style patterns, leaving the background feeling very empty. Not that the beats need to be crazy and hyper, but the writing of those backing patterns is mega-plain, and frankly, boring, which is dragging an otherwise awesomely arranged piece down, IMO. NO (resubmit)

It's long-term, it's not something that'll be done right away. For the purposes of your project, IF you're going to rely on our currently populated tags, you may just wanna use the ones that are tagged so far as the pool of music you're analyzing.

This got pretty liberal at times with the melodic treatment, but it was apparent things came directly from the source. From what I could tell, this was at least over the line as far as having the source tune usage dominant in the arrangement. :24-:48, 1:12.5-1:48, 2:01.5-2:02.25, 2:04.75-2:05.5, 2:18.75-2:41.75, 2:43.5-2:45.25, 2:46.5-2:48.25, 2:49.75-2:51.5, 2:52.5-2:54.25, 2:55.5-2:58 , 3:05-3:17.5, 3:18.5-3:37.5, 3:40-3:44, 3:57.75-4:02 = 132.5 seconds or 52.37% overt source usage The flute sequencing at :24 was stiled, and wasn't as smooth or expressive at it should have been, IMO, especially on the notes that are held longer. It's not horrible, but the entire way, I just thought the timing felt too quantized. It's serviceable though. Man, I'm not feeling that piano first used from :49-1:13 at ALL. It's not completely exposed, but the rigid sequencing is readily apparent for me, and it's just unfortunate to hear that when the other elements are on point. Luckily, the second half feels like it has less of an issue all around, with that piano gone, and the flute after the key change at 3:06 sounding a little less tight. Joe geetar at 2:07 was pretty swanky, BTW. Not my cup of tea, in that all of the instrumentation didn't quite click for me. That said, what's here gels together enough to get by. Whoever's responsible for that piano though, don't ever settle for that level of quality ever again. YES (borderline)

I hate to be glib, but I just didn't have any huge problems with this. There were some areas where I was like "those notes got... weird", like the synth leads from 2:31-2:46 & 3:30-3:59, but those sections resolved well enough and weren't dealbreakers. Still, you've gotta try to make that stuff have more direction; that writing doesn't flow well at all. "Sazh's Theme" was more of a background afterthought, and I didn't think it was particularly well integrated; the usage of it wasn't poor, it just didn't have any synergy with the other source; honestly, on the second listen, I just didn't notice it. That said, I definitely liked the treatment of "Cry in Sorrow" a lot. The groove was strong, and the production was clean and balanced. On the whole, it gets a lot more right than wrong. I gotta run with it. YES

Yeah, I don't get why this is hard panned to the right to start. It ultimately ends up being a terrible idea that kills this track dead. Even if everything else was on point, this extreme panning makes 0 sense on headphones. The piano at 1:58 was super fake, and the drum pattern is on complete vanilla autopilot with no bassline to pad out the background; the pattern quickly plods. Also, the piano pattern droning on with the same melodic treatment until 2:59 was another extended section that lost interest due to the plain pattern and overdone repetition. The synths that quietly joined in at 2:28 were a good touch, followed by the choir padding at 2:38, which sounded pretty fake but at least filled out the soundscape more. Love the crazy synth writing from 2:49 until 3:00; brief, but it showed off a lot more personality in the arrangement and what you're creatively capable of. Fix the panning, make sure the textures are too simplistic/empty, and don't lean on plain, repetitive patterns. Promising start, Tahir, you just need to get more sophisticated with the writing to realize the potential here. NO

When in doubt, don't shoot for perfection. The bar'll never be that high. I'm agreed the vocals are mixed too loudly, and don't sit in the soundscape in the best way possible, but I'll co-sign with others that I didn't hear anything dealbreaking in the mixing. No vote, because I haven't analyzed the arrangement myself, but enjoyable piece!

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

Yoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

String and woodwind timing/articulations sounded fairly unrealistic for the first 20 seconds. As soon as the guitar arrived at :20, the mixing seemed needlessly muddy. Lead synth at :34 lacked expressiveness and just seemed too stiff/quantized. Woodwind at :53-1:00 didn't click with the other instrumentation and just seemed to get buried in mud under the guitar. Drumkit from 1:05-1:20 & 1:36-1:51 also was exposed and stiffly timed. I'm probably grandpa-ing about that flute and may need to get used to it, but it's only a smaller issue. The muddy mixing and overly tight timing were enough to pull this down to NO. It's an interesting arrangement, but the execution's lacking and it feels too stilted. NO

I think the arrangement's a pass, but yes, the string and brass (biggest offender, 2:28-2:57) sequencing being exposed/unrealistic pulled this down. It actually sounds relatively strong/serviceable, so it's not like this is poor, but sections like 4:09-4:25 where the timing was noticeably stiff occurred a few too many times. Like Flexstyle said, it may be a case were some reverb tweaks could mask those issues. The final section at 4:36 was very quiet, but beautifully written and with stronger execution/realism. All the woodwind areas sounded solid, if that's any consolation, it's just that the string articulations underneath strained for realism at times. I did agree the final section sounded too quiet; it kind of came across like a straight up cut of the volume rather than quieter playing. The arrangement itself was relatively conservative, but personalized well, including some nice subtle cameos of the main Zelda theme. It's promising stuff, LindsayAnne, and I think you could pull this off with these current samples, but this needs another level of production polish to pull it over the line. Posting this in the Post Your Game ReMixes! or Music Composition & Production specifically for production advice could be of help. NO (resubmit)

Just a note, not that it changes anything, but there will be no update on this due to the source files being lost. (And Chimpa's now a MAN, BABY!) Could you possibly tweak the volume of the vocals relative to the instrumental? If you send me a link, I'll make sure we vote on a tweaked version. If you don't want to touch it, that's OK too. Larry, Thanks for the update. You might've noticed I haven't sent in any mixes lately. I actually lost my laptop and was too lazy to build another one for music production. With that, I lost all my music files as well (although still recoverable from the HDD but I haven't done that yet). Short story, unfortunately, I can't update this mix anymore. Second thing is, quite honestly, I'm shocked to see a NO on this one. Not meaning to sound like an arrogant jerk but I strongly believe in this mix and made it with a lot of heart. Plus, Mr. Chimpazilla himself says so, loves everything about the mix and yet gives it a NO because the vocal levels are not in line with his liking. The judges I know on OCR would never do that I have huge, huge respect for you Larry. If you also think this is a NO, then I will accept it with no objection. But I really can't do anything about it anymore. I wanted to change the snare myself actually Have a great day

Very mechanical piano sound, and I'm agreed with the others about overcompression. Honestly though, if the piano and drumkit didn't sound so fake and exposed, I could get with this, since the arrangement was otherwise creative and varied. Watch the emptiness in the background in sections like 1:19-1:31; this thin, plastic bucket drumkit doesn't get it done, you need some additional padding or something to fill out the back. Arrangement's a YES, but the production issues definitely pull it down to NO (resubmit). It's not close yet, Ethan, but it's well on its way IF you can substantially refine it.

The instrumentation under the "Want You Gone" chorus from :52-1:10 didn't fit for me on first blush, but I got used to the style by the third iteration. Other than that nitpick, everything else was strong. Great balls-out performance and an easy call. A lot of people will hate it, and that's \m/. YES

I'd say more, but I agree with your breakdown, especially the lead at 2:27 sounding vanilla. Quoted for emphasis; please listen to this advice to add more substance and variety to the picture in both the sound design and the level of arrangement/interpretation. NO (resubmit)

Something about the string articulations/triggering sounds super duper fake, and the lack of realism's taking me out of this pretty quickly. Same with the woodwinds, and then brass during the second half. There's a stiffness to the whole presentation. The two source themes seemed entirely unconnected; besides the drumbeat underneath, there was practically no meaningful transition from "Jib Jib" to "In a Snow-Bound Land" and the changeup at 1:15 was awkward, IMO. There's some notable personalization of the sound given the new instrumentation, but not much interpretation of the source melodies. Lots of relatively muddy mixing that also wasn't helped by the hard panning. It seemed like the panning from 1:44-2:13 (most noticeably) was too drastic, at least in my headphones. 2:13 sounded like a cut-and-paste of :25's section. I hate to have a lot of criticisms, but there a lot of detail-work missing in the execution. NO

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

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