Liontamer

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

The "Metropolis Zone" arrangement once it picked up at :28 was conservative and somewhat personalized, but was ultimately pretty by-the-numbers. The core beatwork at :28 was bland; combined with the conservative level of interpretation, the arrangement wasn't creative enough, though it was moving in the right direction. The usage of "Hot Crater: Act 1" wasn't bad, but the arrangement of it was straightforward and the introduction of it at 1:51 didn't connect well or have much of a transition from the "Metropolis Zone" arrangement before it. I agreed with Chimpa on the second iteration of "Metropolis Zone" feeling like a copy-pasta beyond the part additions. If the interpretation had been more substantial, maybe that could have been OK, but really it just feels like there needs to be more interpretation and that the concept isn't fully developed yet. Feel free to take another stab at this one, Matt, if you're interested. NO

The arrangement was relatively straightforward, but expanded nicely with the new supporting writing and personalized well with the vocals. The vocals were crowded out in places (e.g. :31), so there were some areas where I would have tweaked the balance. That said, that was mainly an issue for the first verse, and the overall production was solid. Glad to hear some touches of vocal chorusing at :59, which I felt this needed from the start. There were also spots with the vocals where some de-essing would have helped, and some awkward Auto-Tuning at 3:02 that sounded like a glitchy flub, but nothing that was a dealbreaker on any level. The vocals with the scream fade at 3:40 was money. In any case, good emotion with the vocals and lyrics, strong rock performances, and a simple but effective A-B-A layout of the two Wily sources. Easy call, with Connor doing a nice job per his usual. YES

I also wanted to check this out because anything Mads makes will sound awesome, but I also agreed that there was too much of the arrangement that merely had stylistic similarities to the source but weren't overt connections. Besides 1:00.75-1:33.5 & 2:28.25-3:02.5, this sounded very scant on using the "Fruit Analysis" theme, not just looking for the melody. Even the mix's intro, which had a similar mood, didn't have those chords explicitly used in the original. With some more upfront usage of the source tune during some of the other sections, this would have been a shoo-in. If we're wrong on the explicit usage or another theme is being referenced that wasn't stated/counted, we can definitely re-assess this. Still a great track, but it needs to have the "Fruit Analysis" theme dominant in the arrangement to be approved. NO

If we're pitched for Talkback topics, we'll be on it, no problem, but we're not behind on responding to the $100 level peeps. Dave's been working on IPB migration for a while, but they're not things where a light switch is flipped at XYZ level, it just helps us get there. djp's definitely in progress on the forum move, then Workshop expansion will be the next big thing. I'm also made some big progress on album retagging, so that should be this year.

Doing a Talkback show isn't a Patreon perk and has nothing to do with it. Not sure how the show is "self satisfying", but it would be nice to have more ReMixers on; they just usually aren't around on Friday night. We'll be talking to Nutritious and zircon about putting the Twitch channel to some use though.

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

All you need to do is select all the tracks from the album, put "OverClocked ReMix" as the Album Artist, and it'll group everything. I hope we'll eventually re-release an updated set.

I want you to ReMix XYZ song! = Requests http://ocremix.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10 I want you to ReMix XYZ song! AND... I'll pay you to do it! = Recruit & Collaborate! http://ocremix.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=39

Please don't speculate that. You ain't the panel.

Opens up nice, with a clean soundscape. Let's see if this holds up. ... It didn't hold up. Keep in mind, the overall mixing/balancing job IS an improvement, but it's definitely not separated well enough, IMO. As soon as 1:01-1:12 happened, the track was distorted and clipping. Moving on, IMO the layers of guitars & drums at 1:27 are still pretty muddy and the melody on piano doesn't cut through. Even the guitar from 1:59-2:04, which was supposed to sound intense, just sounded quiet and swallowed up. Not sure why 2:21-2:52 sounds so distant. Even if it's intentional, the volume jump at 2:52 when that part ends was awkward, so it doesn't sound purposeful & smooth, even though I'd assume this was done on purpose. 3:02-3:13 was pretty cluttered. I still point to 4:09-4:25 as the one section where the parts really can breathe, and the mixing sounds strong. This is still a great arrangement, but you HAVE to fully eliminate these clutter & distortion issues before we can post this. If this doesn't pass, take it to the Workshop for targeted production help and don't resubmit this again until you're able to really focus on tweaking some very specific things with the EQ. I'm not saying that our of any anger or frustration, Anthony; this is a strong piece, but production-wise, it's gonna need some advanced back-and-forth critique, and possibly some direct assistance from another musician, to clear this soundscape up enough while preserving the power you intended here. NO (resubmit)

Didn't judge the first version, but this started out pretty nicely. The lil' hand percussion touches added at :23 and gradually building were mixed too loud IMO, but it wasn't a huge deal. Great job retaining the mood of the original while changing the rhythms a bit. What happened at 1:21? The synth at 1:21 clashed in places with the piano until 1:40; another J can better explain what sounded off there. Not feeling the percussion additions at 1:50; those thuds sounded out of place with the rest of the instrumentation, moreso when exposed from 3:01-3:13. That could stand to be pulled back a bit along with the volume of the hand percussion. Maybe it's a just a personal taste thing, so we'll see where the other Js fall, but IMO the thick beats for all of the second half didn't quite click here. Along with agreeing with Chimpa's crit that the arrangement ideas in the second half were stagnant/repetitive, that and the beats in the second half are enough to ask for a resub after another pass at this. TL;DR: The arrangement's pointing in the right direction and this maybe could make it as is, but, for me, the second half needs more interesting/unique variations of the source, whether it be more melodic changes, instrumentation changes or rhythmic variations. The textures in the second half also aren't cohesive at all, IMO, so I can't quite sign off on this yet. Like I mentioned, I didn't hear the first version, but whether or not this version passes, you're well on your way to getting posted with work like this Cody. Now it's about getting the detail work sounding great. NO (resubmit)

I didn't judge the original version, but this one's solid. I think the balance still isn't great and that the lead and backing guitars kind of occupy the same space; this is still somewhat busy/cluttered, but the parts are separated well enough, so ultimately there's no dealbreaker. Unlike Nutritious, I would have counted :13-:33 as source, and the context of those two note pieces matters when comparing it to the source. I think he justified his opinion on it, I just felt otherwise re: counting it when I checked it. Source usage checks out markedly above 50% overt usage for me, and this was a really sweet take on a very somber, pensive source. Great energy and definitely not a take I would have ever expected. Nice work from Eino and Calum! YES