Liontamer

This mix is the business. Absolutely amazing work by Amy.

After combining these two themes, OA missed the golden opportunity to name this ReMix "C+C Music Factory." :'-(

Honestly, not really feeling the vocal performance at :35. Not my cup of tea at all. The chorus at 1:04 resolved fine, but those initial notes seemed totally flat and off when paired with the brass line there. It worked better at 2:41 though. Also, and I want to make clear it has 0 bearing on the decision, but the approach of having wholly original vocal sections sandwiched between the Goron melody arrangement sounded disjointed to me. Some allusions to the Goron theme or something else could have provided a bit more flow and continuity to the piece. That said, :34-1:06's bassline felt like a simplified & subtle but legit usage of the Goron theme, so I would actually count stuff like that as source use, as quiet and deemphasized as it was. 1:20-1:36's mixing was a bit cramped, but not a big deal. It was around here that I noticed y'all had pretty good usage of an otherwise horribly weak brass sample; it's all in how you use the tools. The rest of the track came off fine. I thought the spoken word stuff after the 2-minute mark during the source chorus was cool though, and I liked the sampled vocal OoT line cameo at 2:26. I wish the original vocals and Goron theme sections felt more cohesive together, but it may just be me. I did love the Goron theme treatment though. Definitely a winner, even if it won't be in my personal rotation. YES

The drumwork at :24 felt pretty plain. The mixing wasn't bad, but something about the lead guitar didn't quite cut through to the foreground. The changeup to the original writing at :54 was a VERY abrupt and flat transition; the performance there didn't have any edge to it. Something was needed to, perhaps another guitar line, though it's tough to enhance what came off as a thin, flat lead. The drum work was also relatively sparse, which added to the texture feeling too empty. Better shredding stuff at 1:06 to take the lead over :54's original writing, then shift the energy level and transition back to the source tune at 1:30; MUCH, much better. To me, this still could be produced in a way that let's the performance sound fuller and more aggressive, and makes dynamic shifts like this more pronounced, but what's there was good. Back to another interation of the source at 1:30 which was much the same as :24's... ah it's cut-and-pasted. Also, even if the 1:30 section wasn't a straight-up cut-and-paste, it might as well be, because there was no meaningful difference. ANY variation in 1:30's verse compared to :24's would help the arrangement be more substantive. Finish it strong. Even for a brief piece, it needs to evolve more. IMO, the biggest overall issue was that the dynamic curve was too flat. Reading the other votes now, yeah, there's something flat and dry about the overall production and performances that are undercutting the intended energy. This is a great start, Christoph, that just needs some fine tuning with the mixing and energy to get it where it needs to be. NO (resubmit)

Pretty sweet source tune choice. The sounds opening things up were kind of plain, but we'll see where it goes. Really thin textures at :22, with the melodic lead placed too far in the back; let that take more of the foreground instead of the countermelody. The lead got louder from :43-:56, but the melody and countermelody were bleeding into each other at the same volume instead of having one part compliment and enhance the other. In other words, the mixing was imbalanced. Moving into the groove at :58, it was more of the same imbalance (as with :22) where the lead needs to be louder instead of the bass countermelody being over the top. The groove's core beats were also grew pretty plain and repetitive by 1:20; the beats there need to be more varied and sophisticated. Deia's also right that the sound palette needed some sort of change; by 2:25, the whole sound of this grew tired because it was basically just the same 3 core sounds without any sort of sonic variation. The lack of evolution there makes the dynamic curve seem a lot flatter than what you were going for with the writing. The arrangement is definitely a good start, but the production needs fine tuning as far as the balance among the parts, and you need some variation in the instruments to create better dynamic contrast. Keep working on this one though, Mike, it's a solid arrangement premise and you've made good headway in personalizing this interpretation. NO (resubmit)

This has always been allowed for anything that's yet to be posted. I just emailed you regarding something that just passed, so maybe that's the one you're referring to. In any case, you can always email or PM me with a revision. I think you overthink.

djp already clarified: But yeah, if you and/or Polo are down with making something happen, and some momentum on cultivating good fan art forces us to come up with a visual art licensing agreement, that's cool. Or come up with other outside-the-box thinking on how to de-orphan those Squenix bio pages, though I don't see how that's possible without some sort of mascot image in the top-right. In the meantime, perhaps it's time for a fall (or winter, given how much free time we have) class of new mascots.

Ah, that. The quality of the art wouldn't matter as long as it's fan-made rather than official. It's a low priority for us (it has to be, given the other stuff we're juggling), but if someone wants to organize an art project for something like this to provide fan art for Squenix bios, it could be a cool idea. That said, when new mascots have been added recently, they've been replacing the MMX placeholders of the removed Squenix spots, so that's what will happen whenever new ones are added. Currently, there are 17 spots currently using the MMX placeholder, so we'll need up to 17 more mascots at some point. Unless y'all are tired of editing bios. Excellent job finally filling out the spots for the 10 newest ones! I really love the mascot bios, this has been a phenomenal project.

Texturally, this was pretty plain. The guitar performance at :09 was alright, but it lacked edge. Meanwhile, the drums and backing felt relatively empty; there should be something else going on to flesh this out. Minor things, but there was some sort of weird cutoff for one of the guitars at :38, and definitely some buzziness from :52-:56 that shouldn't have happened; not a huge deal. A bigger deal was the soundscape getting really mudded up by the backing guitars from :52-1:23; definitely needs some EQing adjustments so the different parts aren't crowding one another so much. The soloing section from 1:35-2:17 was admittedly kind of bland; the guitar wasn't poorly performed at all, but the tone again lacked edge again. Then the drum pattern felt too basic & plodding, which was an issue most of the way. And the bass work, while good, was indistinct enough in the back where you couldn't hear the details and it didn't gel with the rest of the instruments. 2:17 went for a strong finish. The soundscape was muddy again for this final section and the resolution at 2:44 was weak and abrupt. I like the arrangement, but it needs some fine tuning to clean up the soundscape a bit; the mud (and slight distortions) need to be cleared out. Meanwhile, the drumwork being a bit more progressive would help, as well as making the guitar work a little more expressive and fashioning a true ending. When you have something short and sweet, it really needs to be firing on all cylinders. NO

Economy of language - LT Title: Battle Dragon By: Kilobyte --------------------------

What would there be to do about the Squenix mascots?

The piano was drowned out from :15-:27, though it was a pretty flimsy sounding sample. DarkeSax at :30 sounds decent. The bass was thumpin' and that's important, but the soundscape sounded even more cluttered and imbalanced at :45 when the sustained strings came in. They also sounded thin and flimsy. The imbalance wasn't the hugest deal, but Deia has a point that the backing e-piano chords sounded like they're distorting a little during the fullest sections. In a pretty early disappointment, :30's section was repeated again via copy-pasta at 1:15. 1:30's writing is exactly the same as :45. :'-( 1:45 provided the only variation by dropping the sax. Onto to some wholly original comping on top of the core beats. The theme returned at 2:30 with the very beginning of the source being used; good stuff there. Again, the beats were a lot louder than the source, but we'll live. Back to the copy-pasta treatment of the melody of the third time at 3:00. The only real variation between 1:00, 1:45 & 3:30 was changing or dropping a supporting instrument for 15 seconds apiece. It's definitely a bit much to repeat stuff near-wholesale like that without more substantial variations. The backing instrumentation was cool, but the sax arrangement of the source melody was arguably too straightforward & paint-by-numbers and didn't get the job done, especially given the sheer repetition without some more pronounced differences on the table. I like most of the interpretation ideas here, and it's got potential, but the current bar's higher than this these days. Less copy/pasta-ing of nearly half the length of the arrangement; develop those verses further for the second and third iterations for the win. Great start though, Deandre, this kind of arrangement approach is up our alley, let's just not get too repetitive over the long haul on it. NO (resubmit)

Ah, a source tune that's unused from the game. Just in case anyone is inclined to dismiss this arrangement too quickly as a hot mess, do compare it closely to the source, which repeats the melody ad nauseum (despite not being very melodious) and has that upward-moving bass-like backing pattern (full loop of the source finishes at :25). it might not be your cup of tea, but let this one marinate for a few listens, especially since it's brief. Given the source tune, the arrangement's dissonant and unmelodious by design; what's potentially being argued is how well the piece is designed. Interesting opening with the steel drum (kind of flimsy, but a cool sound choice) and the hand percussion. The strings at :09 were super wet, but it was an interesting approach. However, I'm not sure the backing sustained strings sounded quite right, or the mixing of everything once things picked up at :35 since the leads were obscured by everything else until 1:02. The dissonance throughout the added writing until 1:02 may have been purposeful, but it still didn't click. The way the backing writing steps up in the source tune (and it's volume relative to the lead) is much more subtle than the sustained strings here, so the arrangement version sounds super dissonant. Yeah, that opening string (arguably) part repeated too much until 1:02. I realize the source is like that, but I'm not seeing how that works when trying to construct a standalone piece. That said, the original writing from 1:02-on (with woodwind, string, and percussion source usage to accent it from 1:15-on) was pretty smart. Anyway, the whole soundscape was just oddly mixed, with different things either sounded too distant, too sparse, or too muddy and too imbalanced. I know 1:46-2:16 was meant to sound eerie, but it ended up being too muddy, obscuring the source tune a lot, the same as :35-1:02. I like the concept here; this gives a more sinister almost Castlevania-esque spin on the source, I just felt the dissonance and muddiness from :35-1:02 and 1:46-2:16 were both a bit much. I may seem like the bad guy because these both seem to be purposeful decisions, but to this extent, I think both aspects being toned down would make the piece more cohesive. The mixing was the more important of the two; even though the surrounding writing was meant to convey chaos, if that were improved so that the leads weren't buried AS much, I could potentially get behind this piece and its dissonance. It's actually more substantial and developed than I initially gave it credit for, and it would throw people for a loop. Good Halloween/scary setting stuff. Again, given how it sounds, it's easy to overlook what's actually working with this piece. I'd say adjust the mixing to not be swampy for half the piece, and perhaps lessen the dissonance, but we'll also see how the others feel. Good work so far, Jake. NO (resubmit)

Remixer name: Jake Rose Name of game arranged: Shadowgate (NES) Name of arrangement: "The Sword Is In Hand" Name of song arranged: unknown, track 13 from nsf file ------------------------------------------

:05.5-1:14, 1:31-1:58..., I stopped counting once I hit over 50% source usage. I didn't judge the last version, but the source usage was pretty straightforward and apparent for the first half, so I'm not sure what the concerns were there. It's a little bit of a difficult source to wrap one's head around (it ain't easily hummable), but it's definitely there and not too difficult to make out. Once the melody came in at :21, the mixing didn't sound ideal since the countermelody until :35 got buried. Not a huge deal, but it definitely felt like the beeps in the countermelody were mudding up there and from 1:45-1:58; it would have been better for the lead to not be obscured. The clav/organ/wuteva from :45-:55 sounded flat and lifeless. Those were the minor issues. Otherwise, a HEAVY arrangement with lots of energy and some overall strong instrumentation. A small thought, but I also loved the Eastern instruments at 2:54 for a great dynamic shift before the finish; nice touch there. Dunno what issues held this back before, but they ain't here now. Strong sauce, you two. YES

Original Decision ReMixer Name: DusK Real Name: Dustin Branscum Website: http://www.itstartsatdusk.com User ID: 24328 ReMixer Name: Dj Mokram Website: http://djmokram.bandcamp.com/ User ID: 28433 Game: Dynamite Headdy Arrangement Name: Zenpyo! Song Arranged: Ohnami Konami Platform: Sega Genesis/ Mega Drive Composer: Nazo² Unit (Katsuhiko Suzuki, Norio Hanzawa, Aki Hata, Koji Yamada and Yasuko) Release Year: 1994 Source: Original judges decision: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=33861 Comments (DusK): We subbed this remix to OC ReMix around the time Secret Bonus Point was released back in 2011. ; Lacking high end, bad balance on the rock side of things, etc, etc. I like to think I've grown quite a bit in my abilities since then. So I asked Dj Mokram to hook me up with a WAV of his sections, and then re-recorded all of my parts from scratch, changed up the drums a bit with better samples and such, and varied up that organ a bit so it's not always centered and fits into the mix better.I disagree with the judges about the remix being all that liberal. There are actually very few parts in the remix where the source tune isn't in there in some form. From the beginning to 1:08, it's pretty conservative, breaking off for an ethnic section which builds off of the source tune's key until 1:30. From there, it extends this sort of brief "intense moment" from the source track (heard in the YouTube video from 1:04 to 1:10) with a solo on top, jumping back into its intro motif before a breakdown, which alludes to the source in the ethnic instrumentation (which is now a bit more audible in that breakdown). After the breakdown, it remains pretty conservative until the end of the track. We really tried to mix up the source in ways that build on it rather than transform it, and I think that might have thrown a few of the judges off last time. Anyway, hope you guys enjoy. ----------------------------------------

There's a pop right at the very beginning of the track that needs to be fixed. I liked this piece before, but the way different parts were mixed too evenly in the previous version caused this to lack direction and flow. By making some of the supporting writing stay more in the background where it belonged, the progression of the song made more sense. I say this in a good way, but these revisions almost make me forget anything was ever wrong with the previous version. I thought at times the bassline could have been a bit louder and more prominent, but it's a very delicate thing, and I could easily picture how adjusting the bass could make it overpowering. The dynamic curve was relatively subtle until the slowdown transition at 3:41, so I could see some judges or listeners thinking it was a little flat or overlong until then; that said, I liked the subtle changes in energy and instrumentation for the first two-thirds and didn't feel anything was a dealbreaker there. The final section felt a bit barren, the synths were a bit plain, and the pad-style sounds seemed to muddy the soundscape a bit, but again, it wasn't a big deal and nothing was remotely in danger of being a problem with regards to the standards. Things gradually built up for a solid close. It's a low-key take, but a stylish and personalized take, on an already low-key original. Nice work, Eino. YES

Original Decision Your ReMixer name: Eino Keskitalo Your real name: Eino Keskitalo Your website: https://sites.google.com/site/evktalo/ Your userid: 20708 Name of game(s) arranged: Deus Ex (PC/Windows) Name of arrangement: Sadevakio Name of individual song(s) arranged: UNATCO (http://vgmdb.net/album/910) Link to the original soundtrack: FLAC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5casso3w9wd00oh/eino_keskitalo-sadevakio-resub.flac Renoise project file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dk6cgelngwv9y6v/eino_keskitalo_-_sadevakio.xrns Previous decision thread here: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42906 Hi! Here's a resubmission of my UNATCO theme rearrangement. Previous submission letter stuff (thanks etc) still applies Many thanks for the excellent (& diverse!) feedback in the judging thread. I've addressed most of the issues one way or the other. Specifically: - Toned down reverbs - Cleared bass frequencies, especially in the outro - Adjusted writing in 01:12-01:30 part - Retoned lead & support instrument frequencies in places to reduce frequency clash - Much adjustment of levels - Varied up the cymbal sound - Changed some drum patterns for less busy bass drum, more busy toms - Adressed Vig's criticism about the flow of the piece by extending the middle part (with a four-to-the-floor bass drum, no less) Also: - More use of panning/width in End, also fade out some other tracks apart from the drums (as per Magellanic's suggestion from the workshop last time around) - Corrected the bell melody (kept the mistake-as-variation in places) Things I didn't do: - Change the sounds themselves (apart from layering the cymbal) - Get rid of the tempo changes Source usage of the middle part: the background melody ( ) plays throughout. The main riff plays 2:39-2:57, varied up. The bell melody playing 2:58-3:42 is based on the figure at in the source.cheers, --Eino -------------------------------------------

It was originally released as OGGs and WAVs. This updated release is MP3s and FLACs. The source tune names are also corrected to the official titles, the album art is embedded, and the files are tagged to be compatible with iTunes and portable music players. That's why.

Strong weaving of the themes. Here's all I could make out: Adrian's Asleep (Map25) - :00-1:11 lead; 1:11-1:48 support; 1:48-2:10, 2:29-2:31, 2:33-2:35, 2:40.5-2:48, 2:50-2:53 lead Shawn's Got the Shotgun (Map07) - 1:11-1:48 lead, 2:57-3:11 lead, 3:11-3:59 support Running from Evil (Map01) - 2:11-2:27 lead, 2:27-2:42 supporting Bye Bye American Pie (Map23) - 2:35-2:42.75, 4:00-4:06 lead Into Sandy's City (Map09) - 3:11-3:15.5, 3:21-3:59 lead Any other insights are appreciated. Other people's attempts at a breakdown aren't entirely clear or accurate.

The arrangement remains awesome. I could end up being a total outlier or merely outvoted, but while the dryness of the first version was gone, it was replaced with something that was mostly too muddy and wet. In some places, the mixing change helped, but all of the fullest sections generally sounded cramped with a lot of parts seemingly overlapping and mushing together (particularly :58-1:28, 1:48-2:10, 2:35-3:40, and 4:23-4:59). The entire first minute seemed good, and I was glad to hear things more fully fleshed out than the previous version. Once we hit the first fuller section at :58 though, I thought the soundscape became VERY murky and cramped. Meanwhile, the electric guitar from :58-1:28, 1:48-2:10 & 2:35-3:19 could have used a murkier sound to disguise its fakeness and give it more body/quasi-realism. Adam's violin at 2:09 was mixed better, with a wetter sound that masked any minor performance issues and blended more with the overall soundscape. The guitar at 3:41 had some swanky delay on it that made it sound great. Nice improvement on the synth at 3:54; the delay these also helped it. The soundscape was a bit swamped at things filled in more at 4:08 and then way more so from 4:23-4:59. I'm certainly not the production expert judge, but I know the gist of what I'm hearing even if I can't articulate it as well as I'd like to. In the effort to thicken up the sound, which WAS a good move, the pendulum swung too hard the other way, and now there's a lot of unnecessary mud. Once that's tweaked, we're off to the races. If this doesn't make it, DON'T give up on this. I hate when production ends up being the only big issue, because I want to see arrangements like this get posted, but wouldn't want to vote against my instincts. I'm very confident Adam can adjust things to improve it to where it should be. NO (refine/resubmit) EDIT (10/09): One other thing to note, the cymbals cut off abruptly at :52 (sounds bad) and 1:46 (not as big a deal). Anyway, I asked Adam for a revision on this and the selective volume cuts he made really exposed the guitar sample at 1:03/1:47/etc., but I'll go with it. While the soundscape of the original resub is a little too murky, IMO, the way it's mixed ultimately did a good ENOUGH job of thickening up the weaker samples and giving this a full sound, and I can make out the various parts well enough. It's a bit too unintentionally lo-fi, but we'll live. I'm not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good with these issues or Adam's further mixing tweaks, and the arrangement is super excellent, so let's go. YES (borderline)

Original Decision Formal stuff: Contact Information Your ReMixer name: jnWake. Your email address: This one... Collab ReMixer name: Argle. Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged: Final Fantasy IX. Name of arrangement: Into the Sandstorm. Name of individual song(s) arranged: Cleyra Trunk. Link to arrangement: So, here I am, giving this song a second go! When I initially submitted, I honestly wasn't convinced on its chances. It wasn't the mixing my main worry though (even if I knew it wasn't stellar), but I wasn't sure about how the judges were going to react to the arrangement. Luckily for me, the song was rejected because of the mixing and the arrangement actually received some compliments! Anyway, I then noticed that Argle was offering free mixing, and considering that he already was a collaber in this remix, it seemed like a great idea to have him mix the song, since he's much better at that than me! Main changes from the original song are (obviously) a much better mix, better samples for the drum kit, better amps for the guitar tracks and a pad in the violin section. Argle also added a much better use of reverb than my original submission, giving the mix more of an eerie feeling. Hope you like it! Old write-up: Hi, This is my second submission to the site! I originally made this track for the FFIX project but it didn't make it... Anyway, this mix is a progressive metal or something like that version of the Cleyra Trunk theme. The original is a mysterious slow paced song, while mine is a heavier and faster (but not fast) version of it. I tried to keep the eerie harmonies from the original but the mix may feel a bit liberal. Argle provides a violin section in the middle of the song. Anyway, to make judging easier I'll make a breakdown here. First, for the original Section 1 - 0:00 - 0:28 : This is the "main melody" of the song to me. I use the initial ascension (A - A - B - G) a lot in my mix. Also, the first part has A and F as low notes, which is also an element present in the mix. Section 2 - 0:29 - 0:58 : My mix has a version of the diminished arpeggios here. Section 3 - 1:49 - 1:56 : Weird descending chords! Section 4 - 1:57 - 2:24 : Some sort of arpeggios here too. And now, my mix: 0:00 - 0:58: "Eerie" intro. E. Piano plays the Section 1 notes. 0:59 - 1:25: Heavy section based on Section 4 (E. Piano again). 1:26 - 2:09: E. Piano based on Section 1 (here I use the A-F thing I mentioned there). I like the piano effect at 1:47. 2:10 - 2:34: The Argle part! The guitar part is based on Section 2. I like how the violin keeps playing when this section ends. Next section is a repeat. 2:56 - 3:17: Yet another part based on section 2 (the E. Piano plays the arpeggios). 3:18 - 3:40: Here the mix gets a bit liberal. The E. Piano is using the same motive from Section 1. 3:41 - 3:54: Finally, Section 3! Not the same chords, but same idea. 3:55 - 4:38: Synth solo. The chord progression follows the idea from Section 3. Outro is a repeat. Hope you like it! ----------------------------------

There's something that comes off too loud and imbalanced with this; the leads and beat overpower everything else, and don't lock together as well as they should with the supporting writing. It's pretty difficult to hear any details of the supporting instrumentation. With the dropoff of background elements at :52, this sounded too empty despite the volume. The core drum beat during the verses also felt too static over the long run. Well, I form lettered this in the inbox for being too muddy (and also to speed things up a bit), but this version now seems a bit too bright. Overall, I think the arrangement is OK and extended the theme decently, but the textures just don't click all the way and the drum pattern during the verses quickly got boring/complacent after a while. It's alright, and there's a lot of attention paid to various effects and instrument changes to make the theme variations not be cut-and-paste, but something feels a bit too repetitive/overlong about the arrangement, and the production possibly isn't quite as balanced as it should be. I'm initially leaning NO (resubmit), but I need a second or third opinion before I vote on this. EDIT (10/10): Shaun sent an update of his own accord: Checking out the revised version, the overall levels seemed a touch lower, but the soundscape was balance better, and I could hear more of the detail work. With the production being more solid now, I'm good to go with this. YES

Mega Man X - Zero's Theme (the one with the nasty guitar riff where he falls from the sky in the opening sequence and annihilates some poor robots) Added some slight stuttering and glitchery madness in the 2nd half for some variation. Also completely gutted the super saw synths and the orchestral strings. Cheers, ~Shaun -------------------------------

OH SNAP! Nice!