Liontamer

Not a fan of how blocky the performance sounded from :38-:49, and the fakeness of the piano was VERY unfortunate throughout. Anything that can be done in the future to smooth out the velocities and make the piano sound more humanized would be great. The more delicate notes sounded good on the whole, but when the volume was higher, you couldn't help but pay very close attention to how stiff/unnatural the performance comes across. It's not WAY below the bar given the arrangement and some decent handling of the production to at least thicken up the piano sound, even the rigid timing was still very exposed. Also, I'm down with the arrangement, and I can understand these YES'es given the strength of it. I won't die with this posted as is, but hearing it I've got to dissent along with Palpable and ask for more votes. NO (resubmit)

A little dated, sure, but this has always been nice and chill. The arrangement was handled pretty conservatively, but was all pieced together nicely.

Hey, I like being shown the light. Not on 50% though. I'm always basing that on the standards as written. That said, on 3:15, you're right, and I'm glad you caught that. The chorus sounds too simplified on first blush, but the note pattern from 3:14-3:18 is actually derived from the first 4 notes in the source chorus (:40-:42 of "Green Hill"). Though it comes off very liberally handled, it goes on for about half of that 3:15-3:41 section, so that definitely puts it over the top. I thought the execution was on point, and I don't get the production crits holding it back, so I'm glad djp pointed out some subtle source usage I missed. Let's go! YES

Kidding in the writeup aside, this is the way to bring it! We're always open to this kind of music, so if you ever change your mind, we're here. Send it over!

Botchamania reference!

The soundscape lacked high-end clarity, and I felt that the overall levels were too loud (though I could live with them). That said, there were clear moments where the lack of clarity hurt the writing, for example the closing section of 5:56-6:37, the piano writing seems to be muddying with the trance synths, and then the rain SFX at 6:10. It's not horrible, but some further EQ of the parts to reduce the mud and get this brighter would make the textures sound much better, IMO. The voice samples (:41 & 1:48) were too loud and sounded very stapled on top of the soundscape; they're OK, but I'd pull them back some. The music portion was 6:42-long, so I needed at least 201 seconds of overt usage of the "Secure Place" theme to pass this on arrangement: :21.5-:28, :34.5-:41, 1:01.5-1:05, 1:14-1:18, 1:21.5-1:32, 1:34.75-1:39, 1:41.5-2:00, 3:03.5-3:34, 3:36.5-3:55, 3:56.5-4:01.5, 4:03-4:15, 4:16.5-4:19, 4:36.5-4:38.75, 4:43.25-4:46.25 = 128.5 seconds or just under 32% The source tune also has some supporting string writing that could be adapted here, but I couldn't ID it anywhere in here. If I'm right that what I hear is all of what's there from the source, then this needs a LOT more RE2 theme usage in here to have a chance at passing. Either use the 'Secure Place" melody or backing string writing more, or consider integrating another RE2 theme in here, just so that the arrangement of the actual video game music stays dominant within the track, per the standards here. In any case, Vig had some crits about the way the piece was structured, and a lack of intensity. I wasn't bothered by any of that and thought everything turned out fine on that level. It's not as if his advice was invalid, but it shouldn't be anything holding this piece from passing. I could pass it without production tweaks, but I'd always want a version with better mixing, if that makes sense. Do consider Vig's production critiques, as well as reducing the volume of the voice clips a touch and seeing if the soundscape can gain a bit more clarity. Y'all have had to tweak some tracks like Sonic 3 "Breaking the Ice" and Corpse Party "Heavenly Horrors," so hopefully this is just another one of those cases where some time away from the track along with the critiques help you better realize this great work here. That said (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you need more RE2 source tune usage in here, no matter how good the track ends up sounding production-wise. Awesome work so far, you guys. You guys always bring the creativity, and I'd absolutely want to see this posted in some form. NO (resubmit)

Interesting fade-in opening. The vox sounded like mud paired with the guitars. The leads from :41-:54 were way too loud. Dayum, by :41 it was apparent that the mixing was just cluttered and indistinct. Hopefully, Vig or someone else can clarify what exactly went wrong here and offer specifics on adjusting things. Really disliked the sequenced lead at 1:08; the timing was extremely stiff and just sounds like sloppy execution. That issue's even more pronounced from 1:34-2:01. If you can't smooth out that synth line, then just have it double the guitar and make sure it's never the louder of the two. Also, the transition to "Metal Man" at 1:34 was nonexistant. It was like an awkward key change. You need an actual transition there. It worked better at 2:01 though; that was a smoother fit. 2:17-3:28 sounded like mush, continuing for the long haul. The attacks for the Boomer Kuwanger theme at 3:29, again, sounded really stiff and quantized; it was less of an issue when the guitar layered with it at 3:36, but it's still unfortunate. The track cut out before the vox finished fading; watch those details. Although it's not my personal cup of tea, the arrangement generally is OK. But humanize the timing of those synths and, more importantly, clean up the soundscape. It's a decent base, Antanas, but needs mixing polish. NO (resubmit)

I actually think this is closer to the bar that Vig gives it credit for, but you do need to clean up the soundscape some and introduce further variation into the picture. I actually liked some of the sounds here, in that it definitely reminded me of European VGM arrangement scene music and some OCR stuff from ye olden days. The main difference between those throwbacks and this though is that the soundscape here was needlessly muddy/delayed. Despite the lower encoding, U-ji's Zillion "Melodic Trance" mix compares way more favorably to this as far as the mixing goes. By 2:16, yeah, I was seeing where Vig was coming from. There's some good energy at the core here, and obviously some additive writing introduced midway through, but the overall arrangement was too repetitive. The part of the arrangement handling the main source tune needed more variation. Right now the core pattern arranged from "Underwater Frigate Reactor Core" basically sounds the same in your mix from :43-3:58 & 4:39-5:11, and it does drag out. Since slimming this down seems off the table (though it shouldn't be, IMO), perhaps there are some instrument or rhythmic changes you can throw into the picture. The way you break down and rebuild the textures was definitely well in the right direction, and the additive writing was all well done too. But at the core, there's a lot that ended up being a little too repetitive due to the treatment of the core pattern. It was a close call in terms of the panel vote, but I think FFmusic Dj's Shadowrun "Running the Cyberpunks" is a great example of how to provide subtle but constant evolution of an upbeat arrangement. Definitely worth revising if you're up for it, Z. This has good potential. I hope this isn't the last we hear from you. NO (resubmit)

I disagreed about the piano sounding like "garbage," personally, but Vig was dead on (including the specific piano advice) about everything else. All those kicks sounded lossy and were very obviously muddying up the soundscape, and the lead guitar needs to be pulled back. I'd also argue that the synth at 1:28 was too dry and upfront; the timing of it sounded too rigid and its placement in the mix made that issue stand out too much; I'd use a softer synth sound there that more complimentary when trading off with and doubling the guitar. One other small detail that stuck out like a sore thumb was the audible hiss that showed up at :03 when the guitar came in. If the hiss is unavoidably part of the recording and you can't get rid of it, at least fade it in so it doesn't just plop right into the soundscape like that. Get rid of it or at least smooth out its arrival. It just feels like a lack of attention to detail the way you notice it come in. You hear more light hiss during the final guitar section at 3:50, and at 4:03 it fades down very quickly. Anyway, great arrangement otherwise; wouldn't change a thing about that. Even though this is a NO as is, you could definitely tweak this and get it passed. Like Vig said, all this needs is some production adjustments, and you'll be in the clear. Always good to hear your submissions, Ivan; they're always very creative, with great energy. NO (refine/resubmit)

Not really impressed by the synths during the intro; pretty vanilla/stock choices here. Super bland layered claps and kick at :44. Wow, not feeling the piano sequencing at 1:11; weird notes from 1:21-1:23. Decent piano run there from 1:25-1:29, but everything sounded so mechanical and devoid of feeling. Pretty minimalist beats and pads from 1:44-2:42. I guess with a 6:18-long piece, you can have a minimalist build somewhere, but even so this was still REALLY barebones. 2:43 (finally - you could trim that last section) moved onto something from the source, gradually building into some bass kicks coming in at 3:44. The lead to things picking up at 4:14, though the energy level was way lower than that buildup implied. The writing was decent there, but the textures remained VERY thin despite everything indicating this was the apex of the arrangement. The sounds just have no body, no richness whatsoever. The mixing lacked clarity/sharpness as well. Yeah, Deia mentioned some interesting arrangement ideas in there, but it's all hampered by weak execution. Many of the instrumentation choices were flimsy with no creative processing, none of the textures were cohesive, you often had odd notes from the way the leads combined with the pads, and the climax didn't even get into second gear as far as the energy level. There's just a ton of unrealized potential here, and a lot to work on to get it into shape. I wish I could be more complimentary, as the arrangement approach was good and used the source tune creatively throughout. But the energy inherent in the writing never arrived. NO

The piano timing (first heard at :32) sounded really stiff and awkward, which needs to be addressed before we could post it, IMO. If it didn't sound so rigid and fake, it would be fine. Yeah, pretty much the same piano lead writing from 1:32-2:16 we heard from :33-1:17, while adding (good) string and bass accompaniment. Good additions, but yeah, it just comes off like a copy-pasta; perhaps a different lead, some flourishes or rhythmic changeups could give you something more substantive, though IMO what's here was still solid enough despite Vig's concerns. The beat-writing had lots subtle variations, though it was odd that it still felt bland and metronome-ish at times with the constant core pattern. It wasn't a dealbreak or anything, and there are subtle dynamic shifts throughout, but there was an overall feeling of sameyness in the arrangement that Vig pointed out. Solid stuff so far. While the verses were a bit repetitive, I thought what was there could get by. We'll see if anyone else agrees. That said, the piano forms the core of the arrangement, and the timing needs to sound humanized. Good, creative work so far, Steve, just get it over the hump. NO (resubmit)

Dude, save us some headaches! If you're arrangement is 7 minutes, give us a breakdown of how the source tunes are used in here. "Nisus" is 3 minutes long with no loops. "Dancing Mad" itself is 17 minutes long. What did you use from either? You're just making the evaluation process take longer with no specifics to go off of. I barely recognized any "Dancing Mad" in here beyond the 2-minute mark, but I'm also not overly familiar with all 17 minutes of it. Little help here? Wow. Yeah, this mixing is egregiously whacked. The vox is just barreling over everything else with a ton of mud, and there's 0 clarity in anything. Anyway, I'd focus on critiquing the arrangement more, but the mixing is a non-starter. I'm not mad, but definitely address the mixing AND provide a thorough breakdown on how the sources are used in the arrangement, just so it's clear what you used everything NO

Definitely a muddy soundscape. Something about the backing writing from :23-:35 was weak and didn't move the :36-on was better at driving the track forward. The guitars at :11 were pushed too far back, although they sounded like FL Slayer stuff the way the articulations sounded; if there's any way to get a better lead guitar sound, go for it. That supporting writing from 1:23-1:35 sounded like an awkward fit, not that it affected the decision. Basically sounded like a copy-pasta loop of the verse at 1:53. Yep, it was. Some variation for that verse would have been good. Switched to a more electronic deal with laid back bass and beat from 2:35-3:05. Really poor synth lead there with super stiff sequencing, along with cheap-sounding claps that were mixed too loud and didn't create a cohesive sound. Well, I'll say this, Mike; your last sub took 4 tries to get it up above the acceptance bar, but you HAVE done it before. The arrangement has merit, so don't be discouraged. You're using a pretty different sound palette here, so it's understandable that it's not as polished as how the previous mix ended up. That said, this track definitely needs a lot of work in terms of the production. Vig's right about the way the guitars are mixed. Beyond that, some of the supporting instrumentation sounded really poor compared to everything else (e.g. the guitar lead at :11, the drums from 1:23-1:36, the synth lead from 2:42-3:05, and the layered claps from 2:42-3:03); there's definitely a quality disparity with some stuff used here. If you're still interested in working on this further, use the Workshop resources here and see how much you lift this up. NO

Great source tune choice. I'd love to hear someone turn it into an alternate version of Mario Kart 64 "Koopa Castle," MK64 instrumentation, rhythms and all. Now... I say this with no personal insult intended, but... :19 is a bunch of bullshit. What in the world happened? The screamo stuff and mixing makes no sense whatsoever and sounded as if I turned the preamp on Winamp to +12db and everything was just flooded and distorted. It's gotta be crazy when I'm checking other tracks to make sure my computer AND ears aren't broken. It's a great arrangement, but the way it's produced/mixed is just sillyness. Pull it BACK. Source melody comes in at :45 and it's just buried behind the vox and drums. Even when the unintelligible vocals come in, everything was just mud and volume. I'd be begging someone like Sixto or something to see what they think. Again, great arrangement, Joachim, but the overboard mixing choices that are intended to enhance how intense this is just ended up swamping and undermining the whole thing. Once that's fixed, it would be such an easy pass. NO EDIT (9/6): I was reaching out to Joachim today to potentially get a revision for this mix, and he mentioned he thought I was bashing the vocals. I wasn't, but I was glad to get the chance to clear up what I meant : Just to clarify for the peoples, I didn't know that was an insult, sorry. I wasn't using it as a pejorative, and until today I didn't know it was considered a separate genre OR that it's more about emo music. OOPS. Now I get why that could be taken the wrong way, that's my fault. I'm referring to more the power & intensity of the vocals, but I don't meant that the performance/lyrics/creativity isn't substantive, just more that the vocals are meant to be way out front, SUPER intense, and less about being able to understand each word (which isn't required for OCR, by the way). Again, sorry for unintentionally insulting your approach; I'm down with all genres, so I don't want you to think I was just trying to wave off black metal. As far as the decision, and how the production factored into it, Torzelan mentioned he wasn't sure that some of the production inherent in the genre fits OCR's standards. I think that old techno/trance argument is more about being too repetitive, but everything goes on a case-by-case basis. For this mix, IMO, it's just about the different parts all being at the same high volume, it was near impossible to hear the details in your composition and performance, enough to (in my opinion) undermine what you were otherwise going for. I think it's definitely possible to do black metal and have it sound loud, intense, aggressive and all that while at the same time not having all of the parts mud together. Thankfully, while asking Joachim if he could somehow revise this piece before BadAss 2 came out, he let me know about his problem with what I said, and (I hope) I was able to clear things up so he could understand where I'm coming from. BTW, artists, if your track is being judged and you see something written that that pisses you off, don't hold it in. Contact the judge who set you off first and see if you can make sure there's no misunderstandings. But if the judge is being a jerk about it when talking to them (they shouldn't be, we're not out to be mean), then make a thread on the forums and have at it!

Vig's crits about the muddyness aren't wrong, but having heard a bunch of Brandon's subs with these kinds of problems being more pervasive, I just wasn't bothered by this as much as others, and thought the mixing worked well enough. 3:23's section was the most swamped to me, but even then it was nothing that would bar posting it. The compression didn't bother me overall, and I thought all of the elements pieced together well. The drums were a non-issue to me and nothing ever sounded off or wrong to me. I didn't mind the transitions; the move into Chrono Cross could seem jumpy because that theme is so well-known, but I thought that usage, and the 7th Guest one were fine. I'm not hearing anything other than a great arrangement with strong, stylish execution. Let's go. YES

Finally. Took me a long while to wrap my head around this piece, but (after a lot of back and forth comparisons) I hear the source in there. I rearranged Chris's breakdown to make more sense in following the arrangement: REMIX - soft, ethereal string and choir chords; easier to hear at beginning (LT Note: :11.25-:37.5 of the arrangement, though Chris would possibly argue it lasted until :46) ORIGINAL - oompah oompah chords (LT Note: looping in source background from :00-:07) REMIX - 0:46-1:20 - soft strings and choir ORIGINAL - 0:15-0:22 - tuba and xylophone REMIX - 1:22-1:57 - synth lead ORIGINAL - 0:00-0:08 - tuba theme REMIX - 1:58-2:32 - synth lead and accomp. ORIGINAL - 0:15-0:22 - tuba and xylophone REMIX - 2:33-2:50 - bells melody, w/ some decoration ORIGINAL - 0:08-0:15 - tuba secondary melody --------------------------------------------- The track was 3:27.75 long, so I needed 103.875 seconds of overt source usage for the pass on arrangement: 11.25-37.5, 46-1:11.5, 1:21.5-1:47, 1:57-2:03, 2:05.75-2:13, 2:14-2:19, 2:50-2:54.75, 2:56.5-3:03, 3:05.5-3:08 = 109.25 seconds Once I got past the source usaeg threshold I was looking for, I stopped, so there's definitely more I'm not counting. This arrangement'll definitely (and understandably) fly way, way, way over people's heads, so if they don't like this, I get it. Slowing the tempo AND changing the rhythms of the melody like this (e.g. 1:22's section) gets pretty dicey, but those source parts are there, just like Chris said they were. I wouldn't speed up the track 400%, but 150-250% did help, for anyone curious enough to try. In a vacuum, I love it. It's too abstract to appeal to most people as a Plok arrangement, so I would have liked something a bit more melodically straightforward, but that's more a subjective concern than anything else. It's definitely a liberal take, but as long as the source usage is clear to me, I'll allow it. YES

The music part of the track was 3:43.5-long, so I needed 111.75 seconds of overt source usage for it to be dominant in the arrangement. I get the similarity to the theme from :29-:31, but the notes and rhythms of that pattern aren't the same and it's not something I'd say sounds directly enough like the source, not that the case was even being made. Thanks for the guide. I never referred to it until after I made my own breakdown. Aside from a lot of the end that had areas I didn't get/count, it was relatively on point. :36-:38.25, :41.25-:44, :45-:51.5, :53.5-1:10.5, 1:11.5-1:25, 1:27.5-1:31.5, 1:32.5-1:52, 2:06-2:11.5, 2:14.75-2:20, 2:23-2:28, 2:31-2:36, 2:52.5-2:56.5, 3:01-3:06, 3:09-3:15.5, 3:17.75-3:21, 3:26-3:32, 3:34.5-3:40.5 = 114 seconds or 51% Wow, super subtle variation of the source from 1:32.5-1:52 by the backing vox that I didn't pick up on until I was hunting for more source usage. Liberal, but that slowed down rhythm to it was distinct. In any case, the question seems to be did this noodle too much or whatever, and that all comes across as very subjective. So it gets a little busy at times, but that doesn't mean there's no clear direction. IMO, the arrangement clicked the whole way, had excellent shifts in the dynamics & instrumentation, never lacked focus, and did a great job getting mileage out of these theme "Requiem" variations. It cuts things close, but it doesn't merely "dance around" anything as far as the source usage. Excellent, sophisticated work by Kristina, IMO. Count it. YES

Duly noted. Alright, fixed and good to go. I'mma add it. I inspire new rules!

Weird, but I've heard a lot of submissions today with needlessly exposed, fake-sounding piano. It doesn't sound "horrible" here, though there's got to be a way to thicken or delay that piano to give it a more ethereal sound that helps mask the mechanical sequencing earlier. :00-:51 needs some tightening up there, but the big offender was from 1:17-1:42, since the individual notes sound significantly worse than the chords. At least there was more going on from 1:42 onward to fill out the soundscape and obscure that lack of realism with the piano. The electric guitar sample brought in at 1:41 was barely audible, but damned if you do, damned if you don't, since it would sound fake and exposed at any higher volume. IMO, the piano pattern droned on for too long from 1:16-2:20; you could cut this down a little (e.g. at 1:54 or 2:07, since the subtle buildup has already finished) and get to the new ideas more quickly so that the piece doesn't get too repetitive. I liked the original writing ideas like the bowed strings and synth line brought in at 2:20. Those dropped out at 2:59 in favor of the breakbeats until 3:24; solid touch. Heard some light but constant distortion from 3:25-3:37 that needs to be fixed. The piano for the finish was rigid again, but didn't overstay its welcome. Production-wise, I thought the mixing lacked some clarity but was generally OK to listen to; some other Js may be able to recommend how to clean that up a little. Right now, the arrangement is far in the right direction, but several smaler issues were adding up making me hold back an enthusiastic YES. Anything that can be done to make the individual piano notes sound less stiff would be good. Getting a brighter soundscape, consider trimming that middle section, and fix the distortion towards the end. I'm hoping another judge can comment further and with more detail about the production drawbacks here. It's a very promising mix here, and I've love to see both Zackary and Elebits represented on OCR in some form. Good work so far! NO (resubmit)

* Zeneshac Raiser * Zackery Banton * * https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTWqm0wrUdeiuoPclaKL6BQ * Name of game arranged : Elebits * Name of arrangement: Together with Zero * Name of individual song arranged: Elebits: Boss Theme - Zero Elebit * Elebits is a first person action/adventure game on the Wii developed and published by Konami and Produced by Shingo Mukaitoge. The album is composed by Naoyuki Sato and Michiru Yamane. (Incomplete soundtrack) * My inspiration for this song actually came from the game itself. I loved playing the game and listening to the different styles of music that the composers came up with. I love techno music so i just gave it a mellow DnB feel. I wanted to recreate the bond between the main character, Kai, and his elebit friend, Zero. --------------------------------------

The source usage and arrangement were more than fine, but the balance among the parts wasn't. 1:18-2:44 & 2:52-3:25 were large areas where the leads don't actually take the lead and the levels among the various parts being so even made the whole thing sound too scattershot. It's a lot like how Sonic Colors "Gone" was going off the rails some. I wouldn't have a fit if this passed as is, it was somewhat close; but it's enough of an issue where I can't sign off on it until some adjustments are made to clean this up and give it more focus. It can be done without compromising the dark nature of the piece. NO (resubmit)

Game: The Grinch Source: Lake Whoville Composer Unknown, Sega Dreamcast (Konami 2000) Title: Whovian Waltz Source: This was one of the few Dreamcast games I owned as a kid, along with Centipede and Sonic Adventure. These were all fun games that I really enjoyed. The Grinch in particular was an awesome game for a kid back then, I'm sure it didn't stand the test of time (neither did Sonic Adventure) but what game really does by today's standards? It was amazing then, that's all that matters to me. This song... Let's just say that the entirety of it was written on the road with plenty of time to sink into it, and a fittingly bleak atmosphere. After it was written, I recorded and finished it at home over an 8 hour stretch of time instead of sleeping between shifts (and the day before MAGFest 11). It has that "live band" feel I do too much, and has a very Anathema-esque ending imo. Lots of cool whistling, lots of fun soloing, spooky theramin at 3:03 and a beautiful and enjoyable mellotron (which is essential to every good OC ReMix) at 3:24. It's a nice little dark rock tune, hope you enjoy it. -----------------------------------------------------------

The piano and bowed strings having such a mechanical sound to them was definitely a weak link; it's not a bad sample, but the fakeness of the timing/sequencing stands out. Switch over to the electronic base at :56 was OK. It was good the piano dropped out at 1:19, but it's not expressive enough with that kind of rigid sound. The beats up to 2:04 were decent, but lacked depth and energy to the sound, even though the pattern itself was good; needs some oomph. That's pretty much how I feel about this the whole way through. The arrangement's respectable, but the instrumentation lacks richness the whole way through. It's like hearing a good sketch/mock-up version of a composition where all the meat isn't on the bones; everything sounds flatter and less expressive than it should as far as conveying the energy inherent in the arrangement. Another J can articulate it better than I can, but to me this needs more polish and more pronounced dynamics. But it's a good start. NO

Contact info: ReMixer name: Noisebringer Real name: Ravi Van Meel E-Mail: Website: https://soundcloud.com/dj-noisebringer UserID: 51175 Submission info: Name of game: Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Name of original song: Midna's Lament Name of Remix: Midnight Dreams Additional info: This is probably my favourite song in Twilight Princess, so i decided to remix it since it had been stuck in my head for about a week or so. And this is the result. -----------------------------

I have nothing to add but "it's important."