Liontamer

Remixer name: Jimmy & Bimmy Email address: Website: http://jimmybimmy.bandcamp.com/ Name of game arranged: Plok Name of arrangement: Beach Noise (Beat 'em good!) Name of arranged song: Beach Original soundtrack: About this remix: Second song off our first EP "The Leprosy Effect". Our last submission was a clear no-go, which came as a bit of surprise for us. We did however initially upload the wrong mixdown (and resubmitted), but the Judges found the overall performance too flat, which is a fair enough statement really (can't argue with taste). Perhaps the performance for this take on Plok's "Beach" will manage to tickle your senses a bit more . Cheers! --------------------------------------------------------

The most clear usage of the source would be 41.5-1:18 & 2:57-3:27 with the melody in play. But :00-:41 and much of 1:24-2:22 ended up referring to the note patterns of the pads in the original, for example focusing on the note patterns of the pad from :45-:58 of the source. So while I would have preferred the source usage to be less cerebral and more about the melody, the overall usage was there enough for me. The arrangement certainly had a murky, dark quality, all in a successful way, so props for the unorthodox approach. Why so buzzy? That was probably the main issue I had with this, since there were grating/buzzing qualities to this that didn't need to be as abrasive. It might put some Js off entirely, I dunno, but I can look past it. It's obviously stylistic as opposed to poor production, and one can generally tell the difference. I'm on board. YES

The mix title doesn't influence the vote, but did you mean "Jib Jigish"? What the hell's a "jigush"? I like the accordion performance, but the percussion and bass writing sounded really stiff and didn't quite gel with that or fill out the soundfield enough. Areas like 1:53 where the drumkit's more exposed, it just sounds pretty thin and mechanical. The drumkit needed a richer sound and more sophisticated writing. Dynamically, you have some mild dropoffs and rebuilds, but the pace and energy were too plodding and the melodic treatment felt repetitive and lacking in dynamic contrast. The dropoff into the drum pattern at 1:40 sounded like a cut-and-paste of the intro with different water & wind SFX, and while the second half did introduce some different leads and textures around 2:15, the energy level basically topped out way before that. I'm not saying the tempo needs to be sped up, but this needs something else in the writing and backing instrumentation to really make the piece flow in a less plodding way. Hopefully the other Js can speak in more depth and specifics as far as suggestions to polish this up. The accordion performance could have been a little smoother, but was a very cool feature here; now you need to tighten the bolts on the surrounding instrumentation. It needs work, Nicholas, but is definitely moving in the right direction. NO (resubmit)

Hello, My name is Nicholas Mazzilli. When I was first acquainted with the OC Remix community in 2004, I felt highly inspired. I have had a slight obsession with video game music since a fairly young age, so I easily became a fan of your organization. The remix I am submitting for consideration is hosted and can be heard as well as downloaded here: If the judges like what they hear, they can expect more video game remixes from me in the future. If the song is not approved, please share with me what improvements could be made made to make it eligible for consideration or if any other information needs to be provided. I have provided the rest of the requested information below. Contact Information Your ReMixer name - MazzMan Your real name - Nicholas Mazzilli Your email address - Your website - MazzilliSound.com Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged - Donkey Kong Country 2 Name of arrangement - Jib Jigush Name of individual song(s) arranged - Jib Jig Link to the original soundtrack - www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGHQ5iBJkzA I perform on accordion for this track. This one is for Diddy! I am excited at the possibility to be a part of this VGM community. I look forward to your response. Thank you for your consideration! ------------------------------

They were already over. Also, that's an extremely cute baby (I know it's not the OP pic, I can read). All credit to Anna, none to Dave!

Short and sweet, I loved this track in a vacuum, but I also agreed the overall treatment ended up focusing too much on original writing and thus was too liberal for here. This was 4:59-long, so it needed at least 149.5 seconds of overt source usage for me to pass it on arrangement. :00-:17, :20.25-:23.5, :27.75-:29.5, :34-:37.5, :43.75-1:14.25, 1:18-1:31, 2:24.25-2:36.5, 2:41-2:52, 3:04.5-3:07.5, 3:28.5-3:37, 3:46.5-3:58, 4:10-4:13, 4:22-4:25 = 121.25 seconds or 40.5% I gave this a little more credit on source usage than the others, mostly based on the guitar having enough rhythmic similarities to the piano's left hand in the source. Perhaps I've giving too much credit, but I thought it was fairly on point. That said, as awesome as this piece is -- with excellent instrumentation, dynamics and performances -- it definitely needed more substantial integration of the Heavy Rain theme to be post-able on OCR. It would probably take a lot of re-working to get this there, so if you feel like calling it a done deal, Callum, that's OK. But I know you'll be on the front page someday with skills like this. NO (resubmit)

I wish the mixing were cleaner. The original synth line brought in at :30 really mudded together with the melodic lead and competed for space from :45-1:01. Sections like 1:09-1:47 felt pretty cluttered and could use more separation between the parts. 1:40-1:47 in particular made this stand out when some of the cool backing Rhodes writing felt swallowed up. If this could be addressed some before we post it, that would be great, but I'll live. Just reading over the other votes now, and we're on the same page here. In any case, the overall product was sweet and the arrangement had great style and interpretation. Streets of Rage was an amazing soundtrack, and I really REALLY hope this isn't the last time Jordan tackles this score, because this was very enjoyable and really lent a completely different, amped up energy. Cool stuff. YES

The first listen was definitely something else. Some of the sounds in the opening were particularly grating, and it's not my style, but after more than a few spins, this just doesn't sound uncohesive at all. It's certainly a cool study in sound design, and I didn't feel like this was too disjointed, too gimmicky, or had no middle ground with the energy. I thought 1:12, while still having lots of scattered sounds around it, took the energy down a notch, and then led to the more chilled out lead at 1:59, followed by the slow down and breakdown at 2:34, which lasted until 3:27 worked back up into the tense finish. It felt to me like reasonable dynamic contrast was in place. There's definitely a case to be made that the surrounding effects distract from the dynamics of the source usage and create the "two extremes" feel that OA had. When he said "The source feels a bit shoehorned into some awesome effects, rather than the source being the foundation for an expanded, effect-heavy version of the song," I did agree on some level. Nonetheless, to me, the source is still mission critical to this arrangement, so while I see his POV, I'm not quite on board; the implication was that the Kraid theme was too marginalized, and that just didn't happen for me. No hate on OA for the NO, but it feels kind of like a "too weird for me"/grandpa kind of call. Obviously, he's not unfamiliar with strange music, so that doesn't mean he's just scared of new muzaks. This IS weird, and this may not win my award for most plays, but the arrangement substance WAS there for me, and it felt developed and cohesive enough. Let it establish itself with a few listens to see if you feel the same way. YES

Like I said, it wasn't the strongest YES in the world, and given the other votes, I'm definitely in favor of adding melodic variations here to give more substance and dynamic contrast to it. That said, I still thought the personalization in the live performance and new, varied surrounding writing had merit, but yeah, with further development and interpretation of the main melody itself and some further length, this could be on solid ground. So I'll change my vote, but also encourage Morgan to flesh this out some more and resubmit, since it's going in the right direction. NO (resubmit)

There were some weird clicks from 1:36-1:38 that weren't a huge deal, but were worth pointing out. I didn't feel the mixing was solid here. Nothing really stood out as a lead, it all just bled into the murky soundscape. I get that the sound is purposeful, but a little more clarity wouldn't hurt this. Overall, I agree with Palpable that the groove behind this is way too repetitive to merit 6 minutes; some creative dropoffs and pattern variation would go well alongside the good lead instrumentation variations presented here. It's an arrangement with some good ideas and promise but it ends up droning too long in spite of the instrument variations in your leads. It's not bad, but it needs better dynamic contrast and more sophisticated (even if subtle) development to justify the length. NO

The opening piano sounded pretty meh, though it wasn't exposed beyond the intro. Cool voice sample at :03 too; would have enjoyed hearing more stuff like that employed. Anyway, one thing that hit me was that the balance felt off at times, causing some pretty indistinct textures. For example, the lead at :39 was getting buried, while the stuff around it was pretty muddy and caused a lot of clutter. The lead at 1:10 was also cool, but sounded pretty distant, and the bass at 1:37 was indistinct (moreso at 1:49 when things filled out further). The composition/arrangement were excellent to me, and I didn't have any problem with the dynamics here. Obviously Mazedude gets a lot of benefit of the doubt with me creatively, so I'm assuming to some extent this kind of lo-fi mixing approach is purposeful, but it's done to the extent that I think it sounds too lossy. Some of the sections sounding sharper and cleaner would have made the lo-fi wash more effective by making it a point of contrast. Anyway, I'm not influenced by this being by Mazedude, but I thought the arrangement was creative enough to push past this weaker mixing job. If it's rejected on those grounds, I don't have a problem with that, but after comparing it with some cleaner stuff and seeing how this compared, I think the mixing quality squeaks by and shouldn't hold back this excellent arrangement. YES

Who's Nobuo Umetsai? Just chiming in since the Js enjoyed this one. Super basic textures, though some good basic effects to fill out the soundfield. That said, dat sax sample is LONELY and sounded super exposed. Much better stuff at :57 with the sitar and a lead that had a flowing, more natural sound. The parts together were almost off-key at 1:18; not quite, but it was very weird how those instruments sound together. The stiff timing on that sax never sounds good. It the tone didn't sound so fake and the timing didn't sound so robotic, this concept could work better. Interesting cover concept where you do a good job trying to personalize the sound. Like Chimpa said, this needs sample/effects improvements and some production TLC to make the overall sound richer and more natural. It's not borderline to making it, but this has potential. NO

Man, that takes me WAY, way back. The opening piano was cool. The strings entering in were definitely an improvement from before. The arrangement was still good and I'd pass it if it were about that alone, but the mixing and balance here unfortunately weren't on point. At 1:18, the bass and strings seemed to add mostly mud to the piece and needed to be sharper. Something about the layered strings sounded almost out of tune with the guitar lead until 1:41. The tempo was still plodding, but even though the pacing was slow and deliberate, the dynamics in the writing were still good, even if the execution with the instrumentation was lacking on account of the mixing. My main dealbreaker issue: in the effort to thicken the textures up, things often were too crowded and imbalanced. During the fullest parts (e.g. 1:18-1:41, 2:06-2:27, 3:22-3:34, 3:57-4:42), the bassline might as well not be there because it's too indistinct and get swallowed up. Also during those fuller sections, the balance between the parts was way off; the lead writing is certainly more of a plucked style, so it's not very in-your-face, but it sounds like it should be louder and in the forefront compared to the supporting instrumentation. There's too much competition between your parts for space, rather than them working in tandem. For example, the piano at 3:38 sounded great until the bowed strings and brass came in at 3:45, then it could barely be heard. It's not awful, since the focus is on other things, but it's strange to have that part get so completely swallowed up. The crescendo from 4:20-4:41 is supposed to sound powerful, but it sounded more cramped than anything else. The drums at 4:41-4:42 sounded like they distorted briefly. Not quite sure that kit fit with the orchestration around it, but I'll live with the sound choice. I wish I could offer specific advice on how to declutter and re-balance this, Alex, but the other Js and the Workshop forum may be able to help there. The arrangement is still sweeeeeet, but the mixing's a problem with these richer samples now in place. You've gotta tame 'em. NO (resubmit)

Original Decision: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2700 Hi Larry! I forgot what the normal way was to resubmit a track so I thought I'd message. I asked on the IRC channel if there is a policy on how old a remix was and if there was a time period in which it could be resubmitted and Zircon told me the period was indefinite. So yeah I'd like to resubmit a veeeery old remix (must be nearly 9 years now) and since I remember you judged it, I know you'll know it's a resubmit! The remix is 'Run Away With Me' from GoldenEye 007. Here is a link to the original remix that was rejected (currently no mp3 uploaded, I can provide one if requested): And this is the updated version which is now titled "Run Away With Me (2013)": If the link does not work, alternatively it can be grabbed from my soundcloud: If I remember correctly the problems were with samples, some robotic and odd dynamics and some repetitiveness in arrangement. I believe those are fixed and it has a different end section now. Not sure if I need to provide anything else, let me know and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Cheers Larry! ----------------------------------------------------------- - "Runway" (2:54-on can be ignored)

Well, there's definitely some personalization here in the approach with instrument variations of the leads, and original string/pad writing. Melodically, however, there's obviously not much interpretation. The final section at 2:21 has a lead that sounds more reminiscent of EarthBound's sound than anything before it, just noting. The arrangement approach was subtle and developed to some extent, and I'm not inherently against relatively simple textures. But given the minimalism in the writing and textures, and how this is basically in the same tempo as the original, I felt there needed to be additional development through other means such as some melodic variations, or employing and varying the source tune's countermelodies. So it's not like this is way too conservative of an arrangement, but this arrangement wasn't quite developed ENOUGH to put the level of interpretation over the top. Good stuff so far, Justin, but see what other substantial arrangement ideas you can incorporate. NO (resubmit)

A decade ago, we had 44 fewer albums and 1,711 fewer ReMixes. (Catch up!) Well in what you excluded, you mentioned the 2 Diablo series mixes on the site, as well as the two that were removed. Dunno what "Rogue" is, but anything that's not in our Changelog, and not on the OC ReMoved page likely never was on the site. Sounds like what you're thinking of may never have been hosted on OCR as an OC ReMix. Maybe someone posted it just on the forums or to VGMix1.

Flex, he's talking about swapping a song in the inbox. I'll allow a one-time instance, sure. Submit it, Brandon, make note of the issue and I'll check it out.

Thanks for the more thorough breakdown, Brent, I appreciate it. I held this for my vote (sorry for the wait) because I wanted to understand what you did beyond "this is too liberal" and see just how close it was, or if it was WAY off the rails. Well, the Menu Theme sounds really abstract at first blush, but it's really just 12 slow notes in pretty distinct 3-note patterns (if I have it correct, D-C-D#, D-C-E; E-B-G, E-B-G). Anything that sound like those note patterns should be pretty obvious. Instead, the "usage" of the menu theme if you can call it that, was more about the ambiance, like Brent said. That's unfortunate, because most of the stated usage of Daniel's Theme and Back Hall were there, so using the menu theme in a more straightforward and overt way would have put the source usage over the top. Based on your breakdown, I was able to time out what I was willing to give credit for: 0:18-0:25 high melody = Daniel's Theme 3:11 0:38-0:48 melody = Daniel's Theme 2:01 1:55.5-2:17.5 = Back Hall 2:31-2:39 - slight but overt variation of D-C-E portion of Menu Theme melody was only recognizable usage 3:26-4:25 = Daniel's Theme 2:01 4:25-4:46 = Daniel's Theme 3:11 5:25-6:15 = Back Hall 6:19.5-6:25.5, 6:31.25-6:37.25 = Daniel's Theme chords - 2 notes of 4-note pattern are from Daniel's Theme 4:04-4:10 [did not count - 2:51 whistle synth = Daniel's Theme 2:01 (disagree, too liberal; notes are too different from source, unlike :38 in the mix)] Of this 6:52-long track, I could make out source material from: :18-:25, :38-:48, 1:55.5-2:17.5, 2:31-2:39, 3:26-4:46, 5:25-6:15, 6:19.5-6:25.5, 6:31.25-6:37.25 = 189 seconds or 45.87% overt source usage) Brent knows the arrangement went a bit too liberal, but the track itself and its overall mood were great. You certainly don't HAVE to revise this any further if you're happy with it, Brent, but if you wanted it posted here, it wouldn't take TOO much more effort to get it passed, IMO. Adding more identifiable source usage of the menu theme (or any other source) during the original sections or wherever could seal the deal. Do your best to bump the source usage above and beyond 50% so that the VGM usage is dominant in the arrangement (per the standards), and you'd be good to go. NO (resubmit)

Thanks for the more detailed breakdown, Mike. I gotta say, I held this vote up just to sanity check it, but WOW that is one liberal arrangement. I barely made out anything. Thanks to the comments, I was able to at least distill the claims of source usage and work from there: OK, I stripped down Mike's breakdown and then tried to A-to-B all the connections and I came up with: Sooo... yeah. I didn't think much matched up with the source tunes, and this pretty quickly went off the rails as far as any meaningful recognizability. Cool track though. I was hoping I'd ID something that made it a pass, but thems the breaks! But yeah, on the panel, you never give ANYONE the benefit of the doubt when it comes to source usage. NO

I should clarify, I don't think the level of dissonance fully clicks in this piece. I should have said the word "fully," but it's definitely not a case of "not at all." Like I said more towards the end of my comments, I completely get where that idea's coming from, I just think it's a bit much given the way the dissonance sustains so prominently, as opposed to the original where it's much more subdued. There's (arguably) a happy medium as far as how loudly to mix that part, or at least introduce the line more softly and then gradually raise the levels on it and make it more foreboding that way. I'll disagree with OA in that I think 2 1/2 was an OK length. I see how one could want some more time to it, but I thought it was developed reasonably enough, at least enough to not hold it back from posting it on that level. Jake, if you can tighten up the mixing on this, and/or consider some of the arrangement critiques that you end up agreeing with, I think this could get posted in some form. Don't drop this!

Don't get too busy and make the rest of us look bad(der).

There's a lot to like about this track, but the production job isn't getting it done, IMO. Some of the cymbal work (e.g. 1:04-1:08, 1:13, 2:19-2:21) sounded very fake when exposed, and the machine gun drumming starting at 1:20 was too loud. The vox added in at 1:07 ended up sounding like indistinct mud for the most part, and didn't contribute much during the verses at 1:28. Really not feeling the glassy lead combined with the guitar 1:15. The glassy lead and electric guitar combination at 1:38 didn't click for me, and just seemed to make the glassy lead sound goofy and out of context, unlike when it was used in the relaxed intro. Same issue with the organ-type lead cameo at 3:02, it just sounded too high-pitched to fit well in this kind of rock piece, at least for me. Also, once the lead guitar arrived for the lead doubling at 1:38, the rhythm guitar basically melted into the vox and both were indistinct. The piano sequencing at 4:09 also sounded robotic, though serviceable; if the articulations could be humanized, that would be helpful, though not a huge deal if it was left alone. The mixing from 2:57-3:34 was too cluttered with the vox, synths, drums and guitar just muddying together; that could be said for basically most of the verses and every chorus here, and that's what's ultimately pulled this below the bar for me. There's just too much clarity missing for me to get behind this, even though the arrangement is so promising. NO (resubmit)

Nice lo-fi start, though when things peaked at :21 and the track officially kicked off, it should have had more high-end clarity to it. All throughout, the lack of clarity dinged this track, even though I enjoyed it. Man, I've heard some crazy chiptune tracks, but the way everything in the arrangement was played around was overloaded with ear candy and manic energy. Short and sweet, an awesome arrangement! YES

Before you know it, it'll be 15 years.

I don't know what was specifically done to improve the realism here, but this was a significant improvement. Maybe Fishy can give us some more information, since the submission letter was the same at before and didn't detail any of the changes. Obviously, it's not performed live, but the samples sounded much more credible overall, and the result was a performance that was much smoother this time around. Nice work, Guillaume. We've been waiting for something like this from you for a long time, but finally we have a finished track that does justice your arrangement concepts with solid sample and production quality. YES