Liontamer

Hahahaha! Sums it up right there.

I certainly can't tell you or anyone else what to think, but if shunning people who talk shit about other people on an album or the site in general were an actual thing here, we'd never have SnappleMan on an album. Ever. And we'd never have several others who (back in the day) would complain that what was posted to OCR was comparative trash to their (rejected) subs. Don't get me wrong, I do agree there's some level of disrespect in the WAY the opinion's expressed, co-signing with someone saying XYZ shouldn't ever sing, but G-Mixer can have that opinion. Not every mixer is going to appreciate every other mixer, that's just not possible. I suppose the takeaway for others is shut the fuck up. Voicing your dislike of other artists won't get you banned from OCR, but it'll piss off some album directors who think you're a hater. EDIT: "Fuck" is used 40 times. Tons of the comments are shitting on something with unconstructive comments. Not a paragon of virtue re: awesome reviews. It's one thing to dislike a piece of music, but it's another to be a douche with the criticism, which kind of goes back to people being mad at G-Mixer. If the panel gave feedback like this in this day and age, we'd (rightly) be criticized.

I would just say don't generalize their community either.

Ooooooooh, cool! DusK noticed this Sonic Retro thread. http://forums.sonicretro.org/index.php?showtopic=32095 Started out sweet: "hey, nice rap track, looking forward to the album", which turned into polarizing opinions due to personal tastes, and then a shitfest on the community and music. I did get a kick out of it though; the usual complaint tropes: * presence of rapping/lyrics = ugh * people can't sing * mostly generic electronica/little genre variation * mostly FL/Garageband presets * don't recognize the originals * too MUCH like the originals * community too insular/circlejerky * judges are biased * nothing but JRPG love I also got a kick out of G-Mixer thinking "lol hope no one sees" with his negative comments like he'd be excommunicated from the church, as if everyone who's ever participated has to love everything the entire community does in lockstep. If you don't like DiGi Valentine or ladyWildfire, fight it out. At least he squashed the whole "they just use presets" hyperbole from some ignorant person. I did learn some new tropes though, i.e. if any OCR project is good or has variety, it's because it has good "outsiders" who aren't "from OCR", so if you're an OCR regular, you're bad at music, everything is homogenized, but if you're an outsider, then you have the chance to rise above the mediocrity. Also, Howard Drossin slapped us down or something. Even though when we met him, he was cool and supportive. Never heard any issue about him re: "Lover Reef", so that was new. But if anything, it just sounds like a case where the mixers showed him the track and he clarified he didn't actually compose "Lava Reef" though people believe he did because of the S3&K composer credits debacle. But hey, maybe they have some transcript of Howard saying "they showed me some stuff, and it was soooooo bad, they stink!" Also, Danny Baranowsky's "Knuckleduster" is both amazing and horrible, depending on the POV. Imagine that, polarizing opinions on a creative arrangement due to personal tastes. Been here 12 years, and it's definitely just the same people around here, no new blood: djp, me, Vig, DarkeSword on staff and I swear the rest of these people are all Dale North, Ailsean, AmIEviL, Mustin and McVaffe.

I bought the physical! Let's get into physical!

At least the vox fades properly before it cut off a little early. I'm really not trying to gloss over this piece, but I can't say I heard any major difference this time around compared to last time. This still had cluttered/swampy mixing, the bassline was still DOA. 3:28's last flourish before the finish sounded cleaner than the rest, but that was it. I wish someone with a great ear could take the source files, EQ 'em and toss it back. Unfortunately, still the same problems, still the same vote. NO (resubmit)

Texture opened up too thin, IMO, but it wasn't a huge deal. Otherwise, I liked the energy here and thought the treatment of the source, when there, was fine. It was very structurally conservative, but the sounds was well personalized, IMO, so I didn't have any reservations there, particularly with how the chorus was handled. What I did have reservations on was the level of clear source usage. I agree with OA, that (even though I see some resemblance) I didn't glean much from the intro or outro being taken directly & overtly from the source, so I'd need further explanation. For a 3:31-long piece, I needed more than 105.5 seconds of overt source use. I had... 1:12.75-1:19.5, 1:24.5-1:26, 1:31.75-2:16.75, 2:18.75-2:23.5, 2:25.75-2:36.5, 2:38.75-2:58.75 = 88.75 seconds or 42.1% overt source usage I thought Jake's breakdown was way too generous in how he credited himself, and that the the extended intro and outro had nothing explicitly tying it to the source, which ended up making the source material non dominant in the arrangement. Putting some more overt references to the source during the intro and/or outro would put this securely over the line. I'm open to being shown how the start and finish work with the source with A-to-B writing comparisons (Jake? Chimpa?), but I'm definitely... doubtful as to if those connections are close enough. Unless I'm shown something else, I'm a NO. NO (resubmit) EDIT (2/15) - Aight, Jake added in lots of stuff to the intro & outro, so we're good. easily heard - :12.75-:16, :19.25-:23, 3:04.5-3:16, 3:18-3:25 quiet - :25.5-:30.5, :32-:37.5, 2:59-3:03 very quiet - :39-:44, :45.5-:50, 1:05-1:10 barely heard - :52.5-:57, :59-1:04 More source = more YES

I needed at least 122 seconds of overt source usage within a 4:04-long arrangement for me to consider the source usage "dominant" per the standards. Going off of the given breakdown and picking out what I thought was valid source usage, I had :36.5-52, :54.5-1:59, 2:00-2:06.25, 2:07-2:09.75, 2:11-2:21, 2:44-3:03, 3:03-3:20 = 135 seconds or 55.3% I actually stopped counting once I hit that mark, so there are other minor things I'm not counting, like the opening and closing sections (which were on the liberal side with both themes). I can hear how the intro progression (:00-:03 of Sheldon) is supposed to be used here, but the way the notes were changed seems to make it more liberal than I'm comfortable with. Not a big deal, as things ultimately checked out. In any case, we've definitely had ReMixes where the source material has been used a lot as supporting material with original writing handling the lead (e.g. SGX's "Kick Your A"). When the source usage takes a supporting role using a more minor part for a significant portion of the track (MMX3's "Volt Catfish" in this case), I could see Js having a problem consider it "dominant" usage. There's a such thing as burying source usage when the mixing's too cluttered, which I don't approve of, but as long as the source usage is clearly audible and integral to the track, I'm OK with it. Also, having made this mistake myself, I think it's wrong to ding an arrangement for not using the melodies or the most catchy parts that we'd expect; there's more than one way to use a source tune. In short, this checks out for me on source usage. Onto the overall track: Pretty fake brass to open things up. Nothing I haven't heard from Nutritious's arrangements before, and the level of realism's not great but serviceable. Still, the samples (arguably) felt more exposed than how he does it. Nothing that put this in any danger, just a recommendation that you work on couching that part into the soundscape better. The lead synth from 1:38-1:48 was pretty generic, and I thought the overall mixing got a bit cramped, but overall, the sound design and dynamics of the piece were OK. I heard what seemed like a slight audio deformation at 2:07 as a part faded out; not sure what that was, but feel free to double check it. The piece could use more production polish to let the parts breathe, but it wasn't close to being a problem with our bar. Yeah, I'm not getting how this didn't have flow and dynamic contrast throughout the piece. This flowed fine to me and creatively used the source material. Let's go. YES

Yeah, there's definitely something about how bland/vanilla/generic most of the synths sound, especially that saw. I wouldn't have been able to pinpoint it precisely like Palp did, but he's on the money. There's a lot of potential to get sophisticated and varied with the sound design, but instead the lead synths are basically the same tone and feel the entire time. It undermines the dynamics of the composition and really drags down an otherwise interesting/solid arrangement. 1:25-1:28 sounded flat for a moment there; small thing, but just noting it. Chimpa's also right about those piercing frequencies; I wasn't dying, but they could stand to be toned down so this isn't as abrasive. Can't offer much besides co-signing, but it can definitely be spruced up and pass if you're willing to tap some people on the shoulder and worked on what Palp mentioned. I'll also say, the bar's gone up since some of your older submissions, but you've definitely shown improvement, so a NO isn't saying you've haven't grown as an artist and there's no reason to be discouraged. The bar's not overly far from where this is at, but the production needs more work. NO (resubmit)

That's an oversimplification of his POV, but divorcing that statement from him, I don't agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01342/ http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01624/ http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01627/ http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02811/ It's a listener's right to discriminate against more transformative arrangements, but this is also a place designed to house them. So we want 'em. People can shit on timestamps, but I go back to Palpable's decision on http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01873/: I'm not going to hold it against a track when I need to actively listen to it more than the usual track. It's more work for me, but that's like complaining that you had to pay attention to the actual words of a good book.

That's not ironic (or against any style guide). How is a logo in one case remarkable? Some aren't. A lot are. "Har har, your company name's 'Southwest Airlines,' but the logo says 'SOUTHWEST AIRLINES' in full caps"???

So SMOOVE!

I told Nathan this at MAGFest, but I loop his For Everlasting Peace track like a boss. I love the album and his piece is easily my favorite, both for the style and his interpretation! Keep an eye out for this foo. BIRFDAY!

Season 2! Valentine's Day! Luckily, my wife loves the show too! GETTING HYPE for the new season to drop. GET HYPE! http://youtu.be/DbWcdaeYrsI

Short and sweet, I thought this was a great track, albeit mixed somewhat abrasively. Inspector Gadget TV theme: :45-:54.5, 56.75-1:03.75, 1:47.5-1:54, 1:56.5-2:03 = 29.5 seconds of a 2:43-long mix or 18%. Word. Too much Gadget. Not that some usage can't be in there, and there's no hard and fast cutoff for cases like this, but we generally lean pretty restrictive on non-VGM usage. I'll have to also co-sign on the Inspector Gadget theme being too prominent and used for significant portions of the mix making it a no-go on too much non-VGM source use. Just a formality, Jake, as the track was otherwise strong stuff. If you're interested in revisiting this and further limiting the Gadget usage, we could roll with this. NO

LIVE LIVE LIVE!

Yay! BIRFDAY!

Like OA, I'm a fan of this one for the same reasons. "Soap and Water" grabbed my attention more, but Disco Dan's more relaxed take here was definitely a classic that helped me get into the site in 2002. Having not played Mega Man as a kid, this was yet another piece that proved to me that I could no longer skip anything OCR had to offer.

Always a big fan of this one. Here's a rough source breakdown for the curious: Super Mario Bros. ("Main Theme") - :00-:03, :49-:51 Super Mario RPG ("Battle with Bowser") - :04-:59 Super Mario RPG ("Main Theme") - 1:06-1:34, background pattern 1:35-1:56 (not the backing pattern of Mario Party 3 "Still Going" which is very similar) Mario Party 3 ("Still Going") - 1:35-2:00 Super Mario World ("Credits") - 2:00-2:28 Mario Party 2 ("Western Land") - 2:28-2:48, 2:49.5-3:18 Yoshi's Story ("Main Theme") - 3:37.5-4:37, 4:39-4:56

Love this piece! Peace!

It's invite only, i.e. beforehand, we approve all of the artists & albums made available. It's non-exclusive in that artists are not required to exclusively sell their albums on OC Records, they can sell them on whatever services & sites they'd like. 80% of the revenue from albums sold on OC Records goes to the artists, which others don't or won't do.

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2014/01/24/has-video-game-music-lost-its-way/71190/ The piece by Alex Carlson mentioned Journey as being a poor representation of modern game music, implying that a failure with it was the soundtrack not having the same character of old-school video game music, e.g. strong hooks. Couldn't disagree more, given that Journey, much like Super Mario World for example, was a soundtrack that used variations of a common motif pretty often. @konec0 on Twitter mentioned that the article had a large nostalgia bias toward older material, which was the initial impression I had as well. They also mentioned that much of today's game music is meant to serve a more immersive role, and felt it was wrong to judge it without taking the purpose it serves into account, which was another good point. Just as classic video games had a lot of unmemorable music, so do modern games. But there are plenty of titles with strong, memorable music in the last 15 years or so, not just Halo, Portal, Skyrim, Shadow of the Colossus and Bastion, but Katamari Damacy, PaRappa the Rapper, Super Meat Boy, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Perfect Dark, Shenmue, Metal Gear Solid, Metroid Prime, Okami, Phantasy Star Online, Ragnarök Online, Viva Piñata, Ecco the Dolphin: Defender of the Future, Guilty Gear, ChuChu Rocket!, Breath of Fire IV, Capcom vs. SNK, SaGa Frontier 2, LocoRoco, Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike, and more stuff I either don't recall or just haven't heard of. It's more difficult for any game music to gain recognition with so many more games out now, as well as other forms of entertainment to pay attention to, but I don't believe that needs to be held against modern game music. Anyway, just sharing some thoughts. What did you think about this article? Debate away!

http://bt.ocremix.org

IT'S LIVE!

It's no big deal. I'll have to add a section in the Submissions Standards about resubmissions that lays things out in some detail so that we can clarify how it works, so thanks for the nudge.