Liontamer

Yeah, that happens every once in a while. Whenever djp gets to updating the torrents, he'll likely refresh those MD5s in one big update.

Put your gun back in the holster, judgen00b. They're saying "I subbed a mix that was on a project, but the album version was improved after I submitted. Can you make sure not to use the old version?" Yes, we can do that. Second tomato.

We'll be using the album versions for those, no worries.

They were both voice-acted, not samples. Joker in particular was pretty sweet, Jamaal; really nice work. I'm also a NO for the reasons of overall repetition, but definitely wanna hear this sent in again with some tweaks to provide further variation, dynamics, and development.

Nice birthday, old man!

http://ocremix.org/info/Press I need help maintaining our collection of press clips, as there's tons of great interviews, album plugs and that kind of stuff that's not cataloged on the site. This is now the NEW forum home to collect this info, so that I can eventually document everything and add it to the site's Press pages. BTW, if it's negative, it's fine; we don't care. We may move it to Site Help later, but for now, if you have info about news coverage focused on (or briefly mentioning) OC ReMix, I'm looking for the following info: Interviews of OC ReMix staff published by anyone are OK Online news coverage Print publications YouTube reviews or interview mentions of OCR by e-celebs Blog mentions by e-celebs Anything else I haven't thought of Just links are fine. If it's a print publication, scans would be really awesome. If it's audio, timestamps on when discussion of OC ReMix starts and ends would be great. Interviews of OC ReMix staff published by any fan or outlet are OK to post, because they're direct conversations with the artists. However, I'm gonna end up sounding like a douche, but any reviews or mentions on someone's small personal blog will not be added to the list. Just letting you know in advance, if the blog itself isn't a direct interview and doesn't have a following, there needs to be a loose cutoff somewhere, and that's where it is. It needs to be notable. Thank you in advance to everyone who helps out, I really appreciate the help!

:00-:46 - "Zelda's Lullaby" (ALttP) :58-1:15 - "Song of Healing" (MM) 1:23.5-2:12 - "Midna's Lament" (TP) 2:09.5-2:46.75 - "The Legendary Hero" (WW) 2:52.25-3:34 - "Fi's Lament" (SS) On the first listen, this plodded a bit for me dynamically, since the tempo and energy stayed pretty samey throughout, but I enjoyed the subtlety here. The piano sound was also too thin, but overall it was mixed in a way to at least give things some decent body. I heard a super light pop at 2:49, but otherwise I'm on board. This was a smooth weaving of the themes and things floated from one source to the next without sounding jumpy. This ain't everyone's cup of tea, but a lot of people like chamomile. Relax. YES

The bassline providing the source connection was a bit buried under the other instrumentation, but the overall sound was pretty sweet. Definitely some imbalance among the parts there, not that it was a huge deal. The faux geetar at :52 definitely wasn't getting the job done with the super fakey exposed sound. Well, this is my interpretation of the standards, but the arrangement criteria says "The source material must be identifiable and dominant." The bassline definitely is from Blanka's theme, and that's easily identifiable and present for most of the track, but it's never a dominant aspect of the track. You get some simplification of the Blanka melody on the strings from :07-:21, but it's just a cameo and mixed in a way that actually de-emphasizes it; it needs to be more prominent. Same with the piano alluding to the theme here and there between :37-:44. At least :44-:51's usage of the theme was pretty clear. 1:29-2:36/end is a pure cut-and-paste of :06-1:13. That minute WAS actually really creative and interpretive, enough that it didn't bother me as much as copy-pastas normally do. Nonetheless, it was still weak to do that at the expense of further developing the arrangement. In any case, this is a great base, but you need some more overt & upfront melodic usage or something that makes the Blanka theme more front and center for much more of the mix. As long as you do that and actually develop some other ideas beyond 1:29, you'd have a shot. These days loops of otherwise awesome arrangement ideas don't get it done alone. Cool stuff so far, Aaron, but go for the gold, don't coast. NO (resubmit)

The strings definitely were thin, though serviceable, but those attacks always seem too sharp and stabby. The piano also sounds super-duper plucky. The source is similar in the way its leads sound, but those instruments have much softer tones in the original, if that makes sense. The drumkit was serviceable, but another J may want to comment on ways to improve that as well. Damon really still needs to step up his sound quality, either with upgraded samples or better effects to give his current strings and piano a richer, more realistic tone. That said, this clicks overall. It's not like this piece was close to being rejected, but Damon's limited in what he can do with these sounds. Anyway, despite those issues, the texture gelled more around 1:01 and didn't look back, with just enough resonance from added parts to glue the sounds together and not terribly expose the samples, all without creating a lot of clutter. I wouldn't have cut the sleigh bells at 3:01, but that was super minor. Damon did a nice job adding depth to the composition and retaining some of that wintry feel while adding his own distinct energy to it. Didn't have much to say on that level other than it was solid! YES

Definitely in that camp needing mixing revisions. The opening groove before :27 was flimsy and generic-sounding; that specific clap almost never fills out a track well, but at least it wasn't always exposed. The synths at 2:04 were also pretty vanilla, but I'll live. I liked the overall energy of the arrangement, but I did agree with the others that felt more dynamic contrast and variation was needed in the core patterns and overall energy. I'm so co-signing on this. I could even live without the bass being addressed as well if those two things OA mentioned got corrected. You really gotta spice things up and give some more rhythmic variation and creativity with these patterns, as well as a bit more sophisticated sound. There just needs to be more substance there, it doesn't matter too greatly how you specifically go about it. To me though, another offender was that the track lacked a lot of high-end clarity; I dunno why, but there's no spacey, purposeful-sounding feel to it, it just sounds like a lossy encoding. I'd live as long as the other issues were addressed (making the beat patterns more varied or complex, putting some meat on the sounds), but don't forget to take another listen to this and see if you agree about the soundscape sounding a bit too lo-fi compared to other songs. The arrangement's in fairly good shape, Christopher; now you just need to tighten some things up so that its potential is fully realized. NO (resubmit)

Love this source tune, another Follin Bros. masterpiece. The arrangement's relatively straightforward with the same tempo and mostly the same structure. Still, I felt it was sufficiently personalized for a cover via the new instrumentation, live performances and subtle textural changes. A smaller issue, but the snare pattern from :49-1:31 seemed like it plodded because the other parts of the drumkit were bleeding into the other parts and being obscured. I really thought the mixing job undermided this piece though, and we needed another pass at this. It sounds like almost all the highs got cut and there was a lot of mud during the densest sections. The organ from 1:16-1:31 added even more mud, and the brass ended up getting smothered. The ending cut off abruptly before the fade finished. That resolution could have been fleshed out more, but that wasn't enough to totally kill it. Still, I really think this needs the mixing to be cleaned up some; it's a little too lo-fi to get by. Hopefully Bims & Jims would be willing to revisit the post-production work on this and see if it could be spruced up. If that aspect were improved some, I could get behind this. We'll see if the others are at least feeling that the performance and instrumentation choices here are interpretive enough on the arrangement level. I'm still a big fan of Bimmy & Jimmy; we just need things clicking a bit more, and I know you guys can do it. NO (resubmit)

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)