Liontamer

So... fuckin'... SMART! Love this arrangement!

I be late too! Happy belated bloopday, hal-sizzle!

We're gettin' all tingly! But seriously, NICE WORK, Alex. An awesome debut. I hope you and your crew team up for some more, it would be pretty sweet! (Oh yeah, I linked your G-Bomb tutorial to the writeup page. Thanks for mentioning it!)

Alright! Now we're playing with power. YES

"usually against a common foe opposing both of them." -> "usually against a common foe." I'd say make that minor edit because the second part is redundant.

Like DarkeSword always says, you DON'T need pro-grade samples to pass the panel. Using what you have well always counts with the music here!

Yes, just like any submission in the inbox.

Why are The OneUps so smoove? Stop! Too smoove!

... Not even the first 3? Sonic & Knuckles? Noooooooooooooooo, ur breakin' mah hearts. :'-(

If this was spruced up some more and didn't sound too fakey like it is now (no hate, obviously a fun, quick turnaround to show it off), this would be fun to add to the bonus disc and get "??" represented.

Design looks pretty strong to start. It's tough to get it looking accurate. Great job to whoever inked you. Fuck what the haters said. Why rag on it, when the tattoo actually looks like it's gonna turn out pretty awesome? Why are you VGM-listening/making nerds cannibalizing fellow nerds?

Spring 2013 Mascot Top 10! 1. Amaterasu (Ōkami) 2. Pikachu (Pokémon) 3. Skull Kid (Legend of Zelda) 4. Alucard (Castlevania) 5. Proto Man (Mega Man) 6. Vyse (Skies of Arcadia) 7. Marth (Fire Emblem) 8. Isaac (Golden Sun) 9. Bayonetta 10. Arthur (Ghosts'n Goblins)

139 votes later ( ) and we finally have our top 10! 1. Amaterasu (Ōkami) 2. Pikachu (Pokémon) 3. Skull Kid (Legend of Zelda) 4. Alucard (Castlevania) 5. Proto Man (Mega Man) 6. Vyse (Skies of Arcadia) 7. Marth (Fire Emblem) 8. Isaac (Golden Sun) 9. Bayonetta 10. Arthur (Ghosts'n Goblins) Thanks for everyone who took the time out to vote! Thanks to your responses, we're gonna add some more mascots people want to see from a pretty diverse mix of franchises.

Hooray for legit choices! Better total it in, B-Rex.

That's not a bug, it's deliberate.

It's still too loud, and there's definitely some cluttered spots in here, but overall it's nowhere near as problematic as the previous version, which was just redone too quickly and without the proper care. Brandon's mixing ear could just be off sometimes, but the important thing is that when push comes to shove, when he gets corrected, he'll eventually fix it. He just goes too fast most of the time, but he's trying a lot of things and learning along the way; 5 years ago with a situation like this, he wouldn't have been able to fix it at all. But now he's been bugging people like Sixto and learning, and that's exactly the kind of guidance he needs to be seeking. With this arrangement, now most of these parts can breathe and the Chun-Li integration no longer sounds shoehorned in, because it gets some more breathing room of its own. All in all, not a perfect mixdown, but definitely in much better shape, which allows the great writing and interpretation here to stand out. Laughed at the Schala cameo. YES

http://ocremix.org/artist/1/yuzo-koshiro

The drumbeat being kind of repetitive for the first section dragged this down some, because it's not that interesting. Strange shift at 2:02 that could have used more of a transition, but no big deal. Some dense sections were too cluttered. That's about all the criticisms I had. I'm not sure what's there to NO besides feeling the arrangement approach is potentially too gimmicky or disjointed. OK sure, it sounds kind of gimmicky. Could it be better? Yes. But is it cohesively put together and mixed alright? Absolutely. I just don't agree with the NOs at all and felt those calls were too subjective. What's here is creative, interpretive, and reasonably well-executed. Let's go. YES

Sounds pretty beefy. When the melody entered at :27, the soundscape was fairly cluttered and the countermelody, while probably subtle on purpose, was almost completely obscured. Same with 1:21-1:48; the melody was totally obscured so the balance between parts is weak, and the overall levels were just insanely over the top. Yeah, this arrangement was pretty sweet, so I was surprised there could be 2 NOs. But it's all about the mixing being jacked here, so I don't really need further play-by-play. halc's right when he describes this as both hot and crowded, and it needs to be fixed. Don't touch the writing, but adjust your levels and declutter the dense sections. Hey, wouldn't be the first time an awesome arrangement got sent back due to the production being a mess. Tighten it up, and let's get this posted, Alex! NO (resubmit)

The track was 6:11.5-long, so this needed 185.75 seconds worth of overt source tune usage to pass on the arrangement level. I'll never have DarkeSword's theory ear, but I've been familiar with this source ever since The Black Mages arranged it, I listened through to both versions of the source (NES and PS1), and I listened through to this with the breakdown provided by Ian. That said, I like liberal arrangements, and I don't mind an arrangement focusing on the minutia of a source tune, but this arrangement definitely crossed that line towards being too liberal while coasting off of oversimplified stylistic similarities. I caught whiffs here and there, but what's there ultimately felt too liberal and overly simplified to the point of not enough overt recognizability compared to the source. Palpable mentioned something I also heard, which were a lot of instances of using, say, the first two notes of a pattern, then drastically altering what came after it. Just a lot of liberal, seemingly original writing that had vague similarities to the source, but that was it. Here's what I walked away agreeing with: * :17-:52 (A) * 1:02-1:32 (A2, just the first 2 notes in the pattern repeated 12 times = 12 seconds) * 1:36.5-1:49, 1:53-2:01.5 (IA/A3) * 2:06.25-2:21.5 ( * 2:36.5-2:44.5 * 2:59.5-3:16 * 4:08-6:08 (just the first 2 notes in the pattern repeated 16 times = 32 seconds) 139.75 seconds or 37.6% source usage Some stuff I didn't count: * 2:21.5-2:36.5 & 2:44.5-2:58.5 (stylistically/rhytmically similar, but notes are too different from 8 note patterns of source; doesn't count for me) * 2:59-3:34 - Too overly simplified. The synth arpeggios possibly would have counted if they weren't so buried in the soundscape. If anyone can point out A-to-B comparisons that involve shared melodies or transformations that go beyond rhythmic and time-signature based oversimplifications of certain parts, I'm all ears. I appreciate the breakdown, but I didn't identify much strength and directness with these stated connections. NO (resubmit)

Yep, it's totally fine. Plug the site in the chat too, if people enjoyed the mix you played.

Interesting opening. Good thickening of the vocals, though they sounded too distant, IMO; seems like a purposeful choice though, and it's not a huge deal to me. The backing percussion and rhythm guitars brought in at 1:09 were kind of metronome-ish and vanilla. It's not poorly done, but it just seemed to have no real life to it and dragged on. Ironically, just altering the rhythm on the shaker-type sound and snare at 2:31 was enough to make that pattern sound much more interesting Well, the lead vocals are generally not decipherable. But indecipherable words are perfectly acceptable in mainstream music, so I don't see the big deal here; the mixing's more important than whether I understand the words. The chorusing on the supporting vocals at :49 seems OK, though I would have pulled them back just a bit. That said, 1:58's chorus vocals seemed too muddy (mixing-wise, forget the delivery), there were a couple of spots that needed to be de-essed, and the combination with the supporting vocals just mudded together until 2:14. Weird fadeout of the vocals at 2:14 and again from 2:51-2:53; minor thing, but a slower fade would be better. Loved the vocal build from 2:31 slowly getting more intense, then the epic chorusing at 2:44. Some decent soloing from 2:49-3:06, though it was over the more plodding backing patterns, and the guitar performance should have been tighter. Heh. Interesting wail from 3:27-3:30. Would have went for different notes there, but it was fine and I liked the energy. The mixing from 3:30 was extremely cluttered; it just felt like guitars & backing vocals were sharing the same frequency range and mudding together, though it could be something else. 4:03-on was even worse where both sets of vocals and the instrumentation all just washed over each other with nothing cutting through in a clear foreground or background role. I liked the deconstruction from 4:48 until the end for the finish; sweet idea there for a cooler way to fade things out. Yeah, I'm not an engineer or production mind like Vig, but I know what I'm hearing and that's a messy soundscape getting in the way of a great arrangement. I may not be dead on in articulating what's specifically off, but do what you can to allow the individual parts to breathe more, Connor, and you guys would be in great shape. Definitely do NOT drop this one and nag anyone and everyone you know that's better at mixing and take a tumble down the learning tree. This is a well-though out arrangement concept where the performances get it done; you just need to adequately clean this up and you'd be good to go. I want to see this posted in some form, for sure. NO (resubmit)

Love this source tune. Definitely used it as talking segment music during the VG Frequency days; it's nice to have on loop. A little straightforward for the melodic side of the arrangement and the orchestral adaptation, and I thought the mixing sounded noticeably muddy for the densest parts possibly due to the drums. I'd really prefer another pass at that before it was posted, as I think Joe will look back on this one and agree it shouldn't quite sound this way. It feels pretty borderline to me, but I can get beyond it enough to not NO it on those grounds. I liked the countermelodic writing added to the melody at 2:18; that was a late addition that was definitely needed badly or the melody would have been too repetitive. But yeah, I agreed with Vig that it's hard to fault the execution. The additive parts were good and the execution was there, even if the soundscape should have been cleaner. Short and sweet, Joe gets it done here with a swanky approach here. The new part-writing and dynamic shifts here and there did a nice job extending the theme, and I think it's a solid treatment. YES (borderline)

You know, people bitch about when OC ReMixes don't fit the mood & instrumentation of the original pieces, but when they have a closed-minded attitude, they miss out on gold like this. Yeah, the piece was definitely on the liberal side, so I needed to time it out and not count any flourishes that, while nice to listen to, were arguably too liberal in the treatment of the source. The music was 3:22.5 long, so I needed more than 101.25 of overt source usage for the source material to be dominant. Here's what I timed out: :03-:18.5, :49.5-1:08.5, 1:11-1:36.5, 1:41.5-1:45.25, 1:49.25-1:55.75, 1:56.75-2:00, 2:04.25-2:15.75, 2:51.5-2:58.5, 2:59-3:05.75, 3:06.75-3:13.5, 3:14.5-3:17.5 = 101.5 seconds or 50.12% One could possibly count the droning-style approach of :18.5-:44 as inspired by the intro or the first note of the melody, but either way, I would have let that different style usage of the intro's drone push me over the top if this was a few seconds below my count. Turns out it checked out over 50% anyway, slim as it was. You could probably count a lot of the flourishes as source usage on some tangential level, though they were pretty indulgent and hard to A-to-B with the source. Anyway, that's just getting down in the weeds for the folks that care about the source usage (everyone should) and want to understand where exactly the theme is heard. On the arrangement & performance side, this was just transcendent, amazing work. Markus, you have a new fan. This is exceptional and such a fresh spin on a very underappreciated theme from FF9. YES

Right at :01, there's a light but pervasive hiss present. It wasn't a huge deal, but if it can be eliminated, that would be helpful. It stands out more during quieter sections like :53-1:20. Well, I'm hearing the mixing/balance criticisms from Vig, but it just sounds like a pretty purposeful stylistic approach. It does have a washed out quality, but all the parts actually sounded pretty clean. I would have preferred the volumes between the parts to be balanced in a different way as well, but I felt what was there ultimately works. You should see if you think some other minor balance tweaks might be an improvement on the kind of soundscape you had in mind; I thought what you had sounded a little too distant, and it's possible you might like this more after some tweaks, but IMO that's not necessary. That said ()... I would actually say the big negative was the panning being WAY too wide, which is just taxing on headphones when nearly all the foreground is panned pretty hard left. Just adjust the panning so it's not as drastic, and maybe raise the overall volume a touch. The arrangement was stellar -- very delicate, expressive and exceptional, so don't change a thing about the writing itself. If we were still doing conditional YES votes, that's what I would give it until the panning was addressed. Nonetheless, this is very awesome stuff so far, Kevin, and I really want to see this posted in some form. Some quick touch-ups will address the panning and make passing this a formality. NO (borderline/refine/resubmit)