Liontamer

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

It'll fix itself after the next mix is posted, Señor Eagle Eye.

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

No need for replacements. If something gets picked for an album flood, that's the directors'/staff's call, but it doesn't mean there's replacement submissions; that just means what you sent was a direct post. Currently the site pulls all of a game's composers from the database no matter who composed the source tune of a mix, and we tag the mix the same way (all of a game's composers). If we can populate the database to handle all of the individual song credits, we may be able to get more specific, but that would definitely be a long-term project, i.e. it would take a lot of time to do. We haven't had new submissions since '13, but we have plenty of avatars. That said, the current avatar set won't SURVIVE the move to Invision, so make your peace with these lil' guys not being there anymore.

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

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

Hey yoself!

Will take a look this week.

Here's your 15th anniversary CLASS OF 2015: Thanks to everyone who voted! Especially for Duck Hunt. ("But don't they all look like Mega Man X?" [CTRL + F5! CLEAR YOUR CACHE!])

Agreed with the other Js that all of the sequenced instrumentation needs humanization. Immediately, you notice the really mechanical timing on the lead and piano doubling it underneath. The arrangement is interpretive, but the attack on the melody sounds so unrealistic that it kills this piece dead; writing-wise, everything also sounds chaotic because these melodic variations don't even work well due to the sequencing. The changeup to tango at 1:30 was a cool concept, but had nothing to do with the source tune and didn't flow from the previous section; it was just an awkward transition. The electric guitar sample during the tango section was dry and lacked body/depth, but was otherwise a good sound with great tone. After abruptly transitioning back to the source around 2:26, I have to ask what the point of that rock section was; it didn't transition or connect with the other part of the arrangement in any meaningful way. This is pretty rough so far, and I don't think it can necessarily can be improved enough to pass, so the criticisms may be things to keep in mind for future music. But if you can smooth out the velocities and timing, and ditch some of the cheesy voice clips, this could have a shot. The transitions in and out of the tango section also need to be more substantial; even a slowdown or weaving some of the instrumentation from the other sections into the start and finish of the tango sections could help the ideas flow together more. NO

A little bubblier, a little clubbier. I really enjoyed the sound design and how various SFX and nods to Metroid Prime's atmosphere were used here. Nice combination of these themes as well. The brief Super Metroid 'Brinstar' usage was a nice touch. Nice close by Ergosonic at 4:35 also. This was an interesting arrangement that constantly evolves and never stays in one place. It hits a nice middle ground of significantly personalizing the arrangement through the instrumentation and genre changes, yet remaining melodically conservative enough so that folks who go "ZOMG I can't handle drastic changes" at our more liberal ReMixes should still observe the connections to the source tunes. (They need to broaden their tastes more. ) Smart stuff throughout. YES

Nice air of mystery here in the beginning. The chromatic percussion's timing was a bit rigid IMO, but the overall texture and mood of the piece is on point. Very smooth beat-driven take on this. The synth at 2:28 for the final flourish was an unexpected direction as well that I enjoyed. Loving the creativity of this approach, Wes! YES

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)