Liontamer

As soon as things picked up at :22, this piece consistently sounded needlessly lossy and muffled for some reason. I'm not sure of the cause, but it defintiely undermines the energy of the piece. I'm not a fan of the panning and the way the soundscape sounded cramped. This almost like certain parts would get pushed down only when other channels triggered. The woodwind soundfont first brought in at 1:23 sounds uber-fake; definitely not feeling it and was glad it bounced at 1:48. The attacks and trills were way too unrealistic and exposed. The fadeout ending was a bit anti-climactic, but otherwise I really enjoyed the creativity and dynamics of the arrangement. There could stand to be a bit more dynamic contrast, as most of the time, things are loud and the chip sounds bordered on shrill sometimes; softening some areas would help. Mainly, I felt it was the mixing and production that needed tightening up. Hopefully some musician Js can point you in the right direction, as this has good potential, Chris. I hope you're willing to revisit this one. NO (resubmit)

Hi OCRemix! I'm ChrisColaMusic. My submission is a remix of music from the Legend of Zelda games on Game Boy and Game Boy color. The tracks primarily used are "Mabe Village" from Link's Awakening, "Horon Village" from Oracle of Seasons, and "Lynna Village" from Oracle of Ages. "Mabe Village" is the most prominently featured of the three, I would say. The name of the arrangement is "Get Some Fresh Air." The track is a blend of chip-tune sounds, bouncy rhythms, echoey synths, and some orchestral instruments too. The remix starts with the "House" theme from Link's Awakening with a tinny and claustrophobic filter, then the listener "gets some fresh air" by stepping outside, and the remix starts. Even if my submission doesn't cut it, I hope you enjoy the music! You can reach me at the address used to send this email, chriscola66@yahoo.com. -------------------- - "Mabe Village" (Link's Awakening) - "Horon Village" (Oracle of Seasons) - "Lynna Village" (Oracle of Ages)

It's a cool arrangement that would have been over the bar in ye olden days but, IMO, doesn't bring it enough for the current standards. It's not undeveloped, but it feels underdeveloped. On a more minor thing, the clap groove (while layered) sounds super basic and doesn't fill out the soundscape. Meanwhile, the level of melodic interpretation was low and the adaptation to this genre wasn't personalized and expanded as much as it could have been. 2:10 was essentially a copy-pasta of :48, while 2:24 was essentially a copy-pasta of 1:29 only thickened a little bit. Ultimately, for a 3 minute arrangement, it felt like there wasn't enough development or evolution in the long run. It's a good cover that was somewhat personalized, just not enough to really allow it to stand apart from the original. It's still a cool piece, but there's a lot of unrealized potential. NO (resubmit)

Contact Information RJ remixes Jonathan Lemethy and Richard Földhazi jonathan@ilproduction.se https://soundcloud.com/rjremixes 51359 Submission Information Megaman 3 Yasuaki Fujita - Megaman 3 Title Screen (RJ Remix) Megaman 3 Title Screen Made this remix becouse we love THE BLUE BOMBER! ---------------------------------------------------------

WE'RE LIVE! http://youtu.be/qAadPiqcMiQ

Pretty mechanical-sounding strings attacks at :11 that were very, very exposed. There was some light reverb on 'em, but otherwise, you could hear how rigid the timing was throughout the track, and I had more of a problem with that than the other judges. There needs to be more sonic glue to properly pad out the soundscape and give the strings something to sit in and mask the fakeness a bit. Also, having the attacks like this the entire way also undermined what little dynamic contrast was in the composition. There was some distortion around the 1-minute mark, but man, this got pretty cramped, distorted and buzzy from 2:03-2:27. What HAPPENED at 3:11 with that abrasive, dissonant instrumentation? Just an awkward addition for the finish that merely barreled over the string lead and didn't click with anything else there. There was no need to mix it that way. Then the ending cut off abruptly in the middle of the fade, which was sloppy. There are some interpretive ideas arrangement-wise, so I'm not trying to rip on this piece overall, but anything going in the right direction's completely hampered by really weak execution. The textures are just thin and dry (effects notwithstanding), there's needless clipping/distortion, and there's imbalanced mixing. Sorry, Johnathan, it's just very unpolished so far and sounds like a work-in-progress that's more of a compositional sketch without any detail work on the production side. NO

Can't wait for Season 3. Loved Season 2! I'm a fan of the original House of Cards, so the big "ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOMG" moment that opened Season 2 wasn't a total shock if you knew that version (just the way it was done was ). I didn't think it dragged out, though The Lady got tired of the subplot with the Chief of Staff. I enjoy political shows, so I got a kick out of everything.

Wow, this is awesome. "Oui Are Al Bhed" is a very calm and laid back piece, while this track's energy just grabs your attention immediately. As someone who actually enjoys dissecting arrangements and understanding the connections with the source tune, I liked the main verses where one part of the melody was the lead, while another part was on countermelody; great use of those melodies in tandem. At only 2:41-long, this one's short, sweet, and upbeat. I could loop this all day and have a smile on my face, and I think it's not unfair to assume Uematsu might smile too if he heard this take on his original. Nice work, Dustin!

My eye batted, for the record.

What's the month/cover of the issue? Also, cool to be next to (OCR fan) Brandon Sanderson in the plug section.

Niiiiiiiiiiice. Definitely holler, man.

That's the point about being 'blunt'. Sometimes you have to be to express an opinion. And I've been around DJ EAR a bunch of times as well and he has shown enough hands-on experience to back up his blunt criticisms. I've certainly heard both ways of criticism work. I hope everyone I'm mentioning will forgive me if I'm screwing up the details and misrepresenting something, but IIRC, Suzumebachi mentioned how Mustin's blunt suggestion for him to simply stop making music -- i.e. the suggestion that Ty didn't have what it took to ever be good -- ended up fueling him to become better. I think Protricity felt the same way about virt being that negative about Ari's music way back when he was also a beginner, and Prot didn't forget it or forgive it for a long time, again if I'm not mistaken with my memory. So it's not to say that tactless, unconstructive negative feedback can't have some benefit and drive some people. I just think that on the whole, "blunt" criticism without some sort of meaningful insight or takeaway is not nearly as beneficial as offering fair criticism with substance and support. I'm biased towards that, and that bias definitely has to do with cultivating a community of active artists with a desire to continue learning and growing. In this instance, it's certainly not DJ EAR's job or responsibility to offer what I feel would be more constructive, meaningful negative feedback while still being candid. That said, I've seen a lot more people in the VGM community persevere and improve because of helpful feedback, not hyperbolic putdowns. "This is shit, you are shit, just keepin' it real" doesn't strike me as fair or accurate with much of the music the community puts out. Those kind of reactions only work to motivate so many people, and I think it's reasonable to say they don't motivate most. There's a reason the panel moved away from it a long time ago. If anything, I think going away from kneejerk, over-the-top blunt criticism isn't about compromising your opinion, it's about taking the time to make sure your opinion settles into what's genuine instead of being hyped up.

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!