Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

You should have found us in 2004.

I may have already planned that.

If it's arranging music written for games, then yes. If not, then no. We're a video game music site, not a "Fly Me to the Moon" arrangement site. We've had the Tetris/Frogger folk music exceptions, yes, but allowing mainstream music arrangements at this stage isn't what we're about, no matter how awesome the execution is.

I add them.

Yep, we'll have to get around to that, but at some point, that'll get updated. We don't have many mixes from the new generation of systems, so this isn't a priority for the moment.

There's definitely a large Cali contingent out West, but they don't organize anything.

When I lived in DMV, you couldn't help but bump into OCR people. In Atlanta, I've hung out with Tweex and his wife at a Distant Worlds concert that I got us tickets for. I've also tried to meetup with urdailywater, but he's not been available. Sometime I need to arrange a Georgia meetup, maybe around Video Games Live in October. I'd love to meet Sir Jordanius, for instance.

I just need to get the private YouTubes staged so that all of the patrons get a peek at the next set of soon-to-be-posted ReMixes. Everything should go out either late tonight or likely tomorrow, along with another free OC Records album download.

Gamer's Rhapsody Sat. November 15 - Sun. November 16, 2014 St. Paul, MN - DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel St. Paul Downtown http://gamersrhapsody.com "Gamer's Rhapsody is a convention for those interested in video games, along with all the media that is put into them. For those who love listening to video game music, creating fan fiction of their favorite characters, doodling video game landscapes, or just enjoy being immersed in the in-game atmosphere, this is your convention. We're proud to present Emily Reese from MPR's Top Score as our first guest of honor. Our newest guests of honor have been announced. Please welcome Disasterpeace and OC ReMix!" Guests: Emily Reese from MPR's Top Score Tim Turi from Game Informer Dale North Disasterpeace djpretzel DragonAvenger OA virt

Socks were rocked. YES

Sorry for not voting on it to help close it out. The balance and tone of everything was substantially improved, and even the really weak transition from before was redone to NOT break the flow of the piece. There were still some minor issues like the drum shots sounding too similar/machine-gun-ish in intensity for some periods of time, but the sum total of the changes definitely got this where it needed to be. Major props on your persistence, Anthony! That kind of determination is what will make you a cut above the rest. YES

I've wanted a Mutherpluckin' B arrangement posted on OCR for the longest time, but I don't think this is the one. The soundscape sounded pretty muddy and distant to start, and the panning's pretty hard as well. Definitely not sure if this approach works. I heard what sounded like a ton of fuzz or light, crackling distortion throughout the track from :54-1:26 & 2:07-2:51, maybe from the shaker sound. It shouldn't be creating that effect. What was going on? So there's certainly some personalizing of the "Spark Man" theme going on with some new part-writing underneath the lead, but the treatment of the theme itself wasn't interpretive or varied enough, IMO. The title theme usage from 1:52-2:21 was solidly performed, but also low on interpretation. Whether it was :23, :53, or 2:37, the "Spark Man" arrangement felt too straightforward, and the overall arrangement plodded. I'm not saying there wasn't thought or effort behind those original sections from 1:23-1:52 & 2:21-2:36, but I wasn't feeling much flow or synergy with how they pieced together with the source usage. Combined with the very cover-ish approach to the arrangement and me not feeling the personalization of this approach was enough, I just can't get behind this one as a cohesive enough, substantial enough interpretation. If it took some more interpretive or dynamic turns with the source tunes somewhere, I'd be there, but not with this as is. If another J could better articulate what my perceived issues are and either confirm or deny what I felt for themselves, I'd certainly be interested in their opinions. I definitely don't mean to grandpa this track, but the sum total isn't clicking with the level of interpretation and development we usually pass, IMO. Definitely submit some more mixes; like I said, I've been waiting to have something of yours posted as a single mix for a long time, and it's certainly not a lack of skill. NO (resubmit)

Remixer name: Mutherpluckin' B Real name: Henrik Lidbjörk Mail: Website: http://mutherpluckin-b.com OCR forum user ID: 10308 Game arranged: Mega Man 3 Name: Rock 'n' Roll Recycling Center Songs arranged: Spark Man theme, including a part of Title Screen URL to mp3: (Also attached to this mail) Comments: A Deep Purple-inspired heavy '70s rock arrangement of the Spark Man song from Mega Man 3. This song is available on the new Mutherpluckin' B album "The Mushroom Variety Show", out in November 2013. All instruments except the drums are real live instruments. Thanks in advance! ------------------------------------------------

Needs some Remix.Kwed.Org and DoD analysis. Good luck tracking down all the Touhou in the Japanese scene, too. You should do all of 'em!

This opened up on the thin side, but we'll see how it develops. Texturally, it sounds like it needed something else to glue it together from :38-:57. The scratching first used at :59 sounded cheesy and too loud, though it was pulled back at 1:08. More cheese at 1:35 with the pizz strings and triangle. Again, I'm not convinced the elements all click together as well as they could, but they ultimately get the job done for me. The stutter from 2:20-2:21 was arguably out of place, but not a big deal; you get adjusted to it after the first listen. Good synth soloing from 2:24 until the close at 2:43. the ending just cuts out in the middle of the fade at 2:48, which needs to be fixed. I agreed with Chimpa about the snare needing variation, but it also didn't stand out to me as a big negative. Tackling the source tune usage next, for a 2:48-long piece, the source tune had to be used for at least 84 seconds to make the source material dominant in the arrangement. It may be from being used to the source tune, but I didn't find the piano at :57 too repetitive since the parts around that anchor were gradually changing until 1:37. :00-:18, :19.5-:20.5, :23.5-:35.5, :39-:40, :57.5-2:05 = 99.5 seconds or 59.2% From 2:05-2:43, the backing bassline pattern from :38 the source (first used in the mix at :57) was still used, but in a very quiet and obscured way, so I didn't count it, and it didn't make a difference since the source usage was ultimately dominant within the arrangement. Anyway, not the most cohesive combination of sounds upon the first listen, but the approach here was definitely interpretive and, on balance, the instrumentation was reasonably mixed despite some noticeable muddiness/clutter. The constant instrumentation and beat change-ups kept the piece evolving well over the near-3 minutes and gave it a reasonably close mood but different-enough texture compared to the original. I'd love to hear this piece with some more high-end clarity and a better encoding to push it further beyond borderline, but the production was solid enough and what's here on the arrangement side got it done, IMO. We'll see how the others feel, but this is a promising piece no matter the call, so good luck with the rest of the vote! YES (borderline)

I'll co-sign what everyone else said and also point out that you 1) can edit your old posts) and 2) don't need to waste energy being self-conscious about the old stuff, because no one cares. Face forward. Less thinking. More doing.

Yeah, I checked the video, and whatever happened wasn't obvious on my side. I noticed the messages, but didn't realize it was just buzzing with intermittent talking. For the first 5 minutes, the audio was perfectly fine, then it got jacked for the rest. Over the course of the show, I tried plugging in an external mic, plugging & unplugging that mic and turning it off and on again, and disabling the internal mic, but none of that ended up working. First time I've ever had G+ fuck up the audio like that ever, so I've got no idea what caused the issue or how to avoid it in the future. Will try again in the next few days and we'll see if the problem persists.

Can't be shifting the start time EVERY week! Let's go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjiQ4VRYv_g

It's dated, especially due to the thin claps. I wish the textures were denser; even for its day, there should have been at least a bit more density to this. That said, it had a good groove. The bike rev SFX at 1:19 was actually pretty baller, and the source tune itself is fun. Michael pulled off an effective gradual build, finally getting to the meat of the source at 2:38. Smart stuff for one of the longest mixes out there in OCR's old days.

MAGFest the 13th! Where are my Friday the 13th NES logo T-shirts????

Would have to hear everything in context. Any non-VGM usage should be limited.

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

Yeah, I agree with the other in terms of liking the overall intensity, but definitely had the same complaints. The track got SUPER EMPTY at :26 with no backing guitar and basic drumwork. What happened there? The drum tone from :24-1:14 definitely didn't fit at all, and you need to fill out the soundscape there. I see you're attempting to create dynamic contrast, but don't gut the track to do it. The mixing was definitely off. I also couldn't hear the bass ANYWHERE after :49, and everything sounded very lossy with no high frequencies. The rinse-and-repeat at 2:02 and 2:27 was a bummer. We definitely need more variation and development of the arrangement. I disagree with Palpable that this is very close to passing, but it IS well in the right direction. To summarize, Julian, this is a good start, the arrangement and performance are interpretive, but... * the mixing is imbalanced * the soundscape is empty from :26-1:14 * the drums have to be changed from :24-1:14 * the arrangement shouldn't repeat verbatim from 2:02 until the finish in a track that's only 3 minutes; add more variations to your treatment of the source tune NO (resubmit)

Though the leads aren't merely taken from the original audio, I agree that the leads starting at :20 are very similar in tone & feel to the original track, so I don't have a problem with Chimpa treating those as a minus as far as level of interpretation. That said, I don't see how this wasn't still a substantive interpretation. Definitely up until 1:13, I wouldn't have passed this. But from 1:13-on, especially after 1:58, the new supporting writing, rhythmic changeups, and beat drop-offs definitely distinguished it from the original. The dropoff at 2:52 had a very smart reference to a subtle supporting part from 2:19 of the source and gradually rebuilt things working around it. 3:22-3:36 was an area where the beats and writing being so similar to the source was another knock against this, and the overall feel was very close once again with the original, but that only lasted that short while before changing the instrumentation and textures distinctly from the source for the rest of the piece. I was more disappointed that the textures didn't get more complex and sophisticated than they generally were, so on the production side, I would have liked more meat in the sammich, but that's neither here nor there. I'm a little underwhelmed, but it does get the job done for me production-wise, and I felt the arrangement did enough to stand apart from the original. YES (borderline)

Removed your self-plug. A link to your thread (in passing without fanfare) is fine, but don't make it more about your track in a thread where someone is looking for feedback for THEIR piece. Keep it classy, plz!