Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

FF12 - :00-:42, 1:57-2:22, 3:03.75-3:27, 5:06-6:31.5 FF6 - :36-1:57, 5:47-5:55 FF9 - 2:21-3:03 FF5 - 3:27.5-3:57 FF7 - 4:09-4:50 I'm sure I didn't ID all of the connections, but I recognized enough that the source usage being dominant in the arrangement isn't in question. Other Js with better ears may have some production advice or minor criticisms of the samples; I thought the sample quality was solid and Rebecca used them well. The piece essentially has one relaxed gear, but there were a lot of subtle dynamic changes throughout, with regular theme switches and interplays, as well as never-ending instrument additions and subtractions that kept the texture constantly evolving. The structure can definitely sound meandering or aimless, even if you're actively listening. Having done my best to break down the usage of the source tunes, I understand there's actually more direction than might be apparent from the first listen. The constant subtle shifting of what was in play was pulled off in a surprisingly effective way. We just need: 1) a higher-quality encoding, either 192kbps or VBR1; and 2) a version that doesn't cut off abruptly. Nice work, Rebecca, and welcome aboard! YES

I corrected the source tune link in the original post. The submitting said in his subject line that the track was "Thunder Cloud," but that track name from the arcade soundtrack wasn't right. This fan-named track from the SNES score ("Thunderstorm Stealth Bomber & Wolfpack") is actually the right source. Moving onto the arrangement, really weird phasing here throughout the intro that quickly wore out its welcome; way too long at 57 seconds. The phasing made the track feel like it had no direction until the main verse theme finally arrived at :57. All of the sequencing is very stiff. Moved into a super-straightforward DnB adaptation of the source with little melodic interpretation and an overcompressed soundscape. Rinse and repeat at 1:54 with another supporting line under it to add a little bit more, though it was difficult to actually hear that given how cramped the soundscape was. There's really not much beyond an intensity upgrade here. 2:52 repeated the intro again, this time changing up the beat pattern some, but leaving the same shrill, overcompressed synths. No variations on the leads though. It's a decent cover, but there's not enough interpretation and expansion on the writing of the original VGM. The production was also super-cramped and crowded. There's likely too much to address here to get this to a passable state, but if you're interested in producing more interpretive arrangements, you'll have to employ more variation and personality into the arrangement, and the parts need room to breathe. NO

For a 5:35-long arrangement, I needed at least 167.5 seconds of overt source usage for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement. :11.5-1:24, 1:39-1:53, 1:53-2:23 (subtle), 3:39-3:50.75, 4:05.75-5:31.75 = 214.25 seconds or 60.69% overt source usage There were actually more liberal nods to the source that I didn't explicitly count, but it wasn't really a question of the original song being referenced enough. The middle didn't reference the source overtly, but the core pattern opening the source was used in spades for the first and last few minutes, and other sections of the theme were referenced. Cool opening synths; didn't quite click with the source line brought in at :11 at first blush, but we'll see where it goes. Pretty long intro until 1:09. Interesting line added at 1:09, though the new beat added sounded kind of thin and the texture was empty until 1:25. Yet another interesting bit with the SFX from 1:42-1:57. Got my attention with the near-fadeout around 2:30 and the gradual re-raising of the volume; cool idea there. Chimpa said, "The middle part of the arrangement is nebulous and sparse for my taste." I acknowledge both things and wished it didn't get so thin from 2:23-2:44. That said, I did like the dynamic shift there, even if the soundscape got too thin with generic synths for a segment of it. Agreed with Chimpazilla on the lameness of reusing the SFX from 3:02-3:14 & 3:53-4:05. Not sure why you needed those re-used, or at least didn't produce those sounds in a different way. There's no hard limit on repetition, but you do have to be careful about the wholesale reuse of ideas without variation. Overall, the synth design was generic for some extended sections, and portions like 3:14-4:05 were more vanilla-sounding. However, 4:05-4:49 helped move against that synth design blandness by doing more energetic, varied things with the leads and employing lots of great ear candy for supporting instrumentation. Overall, the soundscape is generally filled out enough where I think it's OK, but I believe this needs one more pass with some of the thinnest, most dry synth sections tweaked to add some meat to the bones, e.g. 1:57-2:44 & 3:14-4:05. In my opinion, the arrangement itself doesn't need to be touched, but some synth changes or some additional, subtle part-writing for the thinnest most generic-sounding sections could pull this over the line. Either way, Austin, this is an excellent piece that's well in the right direction; it just needs some further tightening up with the synth design. NO (resubmit)

Mixing's certainly muddy and imbalanced; the leads definitely don't stand out as much as they should, and the backing material's taking up most of the space. 1:31-1:49 shifts into some different material before hitting the chorus again, then an abrupt, but interesting segue at 2:15 into an original section that then referenced the very beginning of the source from 2:32-2:45. 2:54 repeated the intro without the drums, then hit a more intense version of the first main verse at 3:03. Again on a Futebol Arte track, I don't agree with Chimpa saying there's no direction and that the track repeats itself the whole time; the final section at 2:54 did repeat wholesale (with textural additions), but there was enough dynamics and variation in the verses, IMO. I felt the arrangement was a solid pass. Unfortunately, the mixing kills this dead. I agreed with Chimpa that this is just way overcompressed and nothing has room to breathe. The overall levels are too loud and much of the part-writing is indistinct. If you can rein in the volume, EQ certain parts to reduce muddiness, and better balance the leads vs. the supporting writing, this would be an easy pass in my book. I hope another judge can give some targeted production advice on this. No matter what, Max, definitely get some production advice from the Workshop forums and resubmit this. To me, the arrangement & performance doesn't need to be redone in any way, but you do need to clean up the mixing. Once that's addressed, you'd be much more likely to get this posted. It's a very good, expansive arrangement, IMO. NO (resubmit)

Once things picked up into the more electronic style around 1:00, I thought the synth design was generic, but the production was decent. 1:37 moved over into a generic dance adaptation until 2:34; the groove was too simplistic and basic-sounding; it quickly plodded and things weren't very interesting so the dropoff was welcome. From 2:34-on, it shifted to a more epic, cinematic style on "Suicide Mission" until 5:05. There's legitimate interpretion there for sure, though I would have enjoyed some melodic variations or other arrangement methods along with the genre adaptation. The beats added in from 5:09-5:37 were super generic again, and I didn't feel they clicked with the cinematic strings. Really didn't need those kicks coming back from 5:52-6:20 with a key change, though the transition before it was pretty creative. Overall, the mixing was cluttered, but nothing that was a dealbreaker. I like the idea of the dance groove adding and subtracting in theory, Oscar, but the way it's applied lacks sophistication; the pattern's so bland and sounds like its shoehorned in, when I know that's not your intention. I may be the outlier here, but the creativity of the electronic/EDM components was lacking, IMO, and that was enough to drag this down. It's a solid arrangement though, and the orchestration's OK, so we'll see how the others feel about the overall cohesiveness and flow. Reservations aside, this is promising stuff and well in the right direction. NO (resubmit)

Pretty sweet. Arrangement easily checks out, and I appreciate being told where the first usage of the source starts after the difficulty of my last vote on another track. The soundscape was a bit on the murky side, but a strong listen nonetheless. Nice job, Brad! Also, DEFINITELY don't take this the wrong way, but I'm OK with Kate not being able to be on this track, but only because it put Merrigan's great vocals on my radar now. Props to Kate for making the connection! Great, emotive performance and a beautiful end result! Quite the introduction to the music of The Witcher series for anyone unfamiliar. YES

I have no idea if the arrangement uses the source tunes enough, because I didn't recognize much of the FF8 piece beyond some of the opening, I couldn't make out the FF9 source at 2:48, because everything was mixed poorly, and the FF7 source is 8 minutes and he didn't say what part of it was used, so I'm not commenting on that level. Jesus, help a brother out and break down where you used each source tune within the arrangement. Opens up with some pretty stiffly-timed woodwind and string work until :13. Once the eletric guitar came in at :17, I'll just be honest, I wasn't looking forward to what was coming aftwerward. I say that because the combination of sequenced and live instruments clearly didn't combine well together, so I'm not confident it's going to work for the rest of the track. At :27, both the brass and string articulations again sound really stiff & unrealistic. The strings also sounded dry. Then you add in the woodwind at :49, and the other brass at 1:00, and it's just more of the same in terms of the timing sounding robotic. Meanwhile, the live electric guitar and string work just added clutter to the soundscape. I agreed with DragonAvenger on the balance/mixing issues. There was a lot of clutter throughout the piece, and nothing sounds focused at all. 4:04-4:46 sounds like a mess, when it should be an energetic closing section. That said, I think the timing issues of the sequenced parts also hurt this a lot. The piece is in that difficult middle ground where the sample quality sounds reasonable, but the timing sounds so fake. Anyway, besides the question of the arrangement, this track is clearly a very far way away from being passable on the production quality alone. The mixing is the primary problem, since there are too many parts that are either dry or muddy & extremely indistinct. As a result, the piece sounds like it has 0 focus. It shouldn't be resubmitted again without a drastic overhaul of the production. NO

Agreed with Palpable and Chimpazilla's overall criticisms. The arrangement's creative and the theme interplay definitely works well, Victor. A super bland saw was used for the Guile theme at and Metal Man at 1:31, and this just had overall bland synth design and thin, plodding beats. Even if you somehow changed the weak leads, you also have to make sure the overall texture isn't too empty. The copy-pasta layout of 2:30-3:37 was a huge knock against it as well. Good ending though, but don't get lazy on the main substance. Hit the Workshop forums so you can learn FL Studio more. You'll need to improve your sound design and allow it to compliment (rather than hurt) your arrangement. NO

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.