Liontamer

I didn't agree with Vig either about the arrangement being disjointed. The structure was there, the dynamics just ended up flatter than they should have been. This was a pretty interesting arrangement with a lot of good things going for it. The chiptune-ish instrumentation was pretty cool, but a lot of the non-chiptune instruments were lacking Opening sounded interesting though it was possible the synth design could end up pretty boring. It's on the generic side, and the intro of the flimsy beats at :37 meant that the soundscape would never feel full. The percussion writing's not bad, it just needs more meat to the sound, IMO. The organ timing from 1:45-1:58 & 2:49-3:02 just sounds too mechanical for an instrument that needs humanized timing to sound good. That part probably sounded the worst out of anything in the track. The saws/synths from 2:10-2:23 were pretty cheap-sounding as well. Both Vig & Deia mentioned the overall lack of dynamic contrast here, and it's mostly because you're coasting off 1 beat pattern and it makes the energy level VERY static and plodding. The beat pattern changes that were already there were a decent start and pretty creative. Most of 1:05-3:22, however, was the same drum pattern and definitely got boring quickly. Even though you're going for a fairly subdued groove, you need to employ some other instrumental, rhythmic or textural changes to create more development and evolution in the composition. So to summarize: 1. You need dynamic contrast. 2. You need more variation in the percussion writing. 3. You need more humanized-sounding sequencing/timing for the organ at 1:49 & 2:49. 4. The beats were too thin and need a richer sound to better fill out the background. 5. Look into modifying some of the synths (e.g. saws at 2:05/2:10) with creative processing, effect, etc. to not sound so generic. Good effort so far, Sven. I disagree with DragonAvenger that it's close to passing, because there's a lot of parts that should be addressed. That said, you're showing some legitimate arrangement skills and definitely demonstrate potential. Please don't be discouraged. Even if you don't make it onto OCR with this mix after attempting to improve it and resubmit it, you do have some arrangement skills and I liked many of your instrumentation ideas. Keep polishing your skills. NO

The source usage was pretty straightforward, and there was no big need to stopwatch. Anyway, here's a conservative breakdown - :12.75-1:38, 2:04.5-2:15.5, 2:15.5-2:17, 2:49.5-3:00, 3:08.5-3:35 I'm not sure what's with all these subs lately where the mixing is not ideal, but oh well. I thought this sounded too hot, but not in a way that ruined the track. The drums here were on the weak side as well, but they were couched well in the background and didn't negatively stand out too much. Similar good placement of otherwise weak brass samples was effective to not expose the samples too drastically. In any case, just an awesome, souped up cover of the source that really expanded upon the instrumentation nicely, giving a source tune that already had good drive a big boost of energy. Nice dropoff at 1:40. Loving the energy of the guitar work as well; this was definitely one of Liam's best, most polished performances yet, with excellent layering to give the sound of the theme tons of depth. Wish the mixing got another pass, but what's here gets it done in spades. Nice work! YES

Do I need to change it in the OCR database then? If Bryan can post or you can find out from him, that would be good. Otherwise, if he's cool being known at Insixfour for his artist page, that's fine too. Just checking.

Added; the games listed on in-progress bios right now are just to seed them and get it started; if folks want to list other important appearances, that's fine.

/raises hand Oooh, oooh, call me! I might have an answer! It's possible Emery made a conscious or subconscious connection due to... http://youtu.be/gtJyq0STBu0?t=1m28s - 1:28-1:41 = http://youtu.be/a1YhYv6-_Os?t=3s :03-:17 It's worth a guess! That common thread wasn't really explored in this arrangement, but it was cool to hear Alexander Brandon had employed that pattern in JJ2 after Koji Kondo used it in Mario 64. The sources are distant cousins! I thought the percussion groove at :27 was VERY flimsy, so I'm actually more in Vig's corner on this one. The arrangement is nice, but a lot of the backing writing sounded too obscure, and the kick really was a weak link and undermined the energy inherent in the rest of the writing. I also thought the mixing should have had more high-end crispness to it; this all sounds distant and lossy right now. What's here, while kind of muddy, is barely serviceable enough, though a higher encoding may also help a little. It sounded like something dropped out during the 3:44-4:00 section that made things sound a little less muddy, but it was short-lived. Anyway, short and sweet. 1) Beef up the sound of the core beat first used at :27 so that it's less flimsy/bland, 2) sharpen the mixing so it doesn't sound quite as lo-fi, 3) Stop submitting at 160kbps. It's gotta be either 192kbps or VBR1. Love the arrangement, Emery. Now we just need the other half of the equation lifted up a little bit. I won't die if this makes it as is, and I hate to vote NO, but I genuinely feel it's slightly below what we should accept and that sometimes smaller details can really add up, especially listening through a 6 minute-long piece. NO (resubmit)

The instrumentation seemed too bright to me, and I'm not really a fan of the synths, but I can get past it. I have a feeling if the mixing were different, and the synths weren't as shrill, I'd love this. Bass kick is nice and meaty though. Anyway, this was a SUPER smart arrangement of Marble Garden. With the rhythms being different and the mixing of some of the parts de-emphasizing the source usage at times, I could see folks being thrown off, but the theme's there nearly all the time (except 2:07-2:33 from what I can tell). The fade ending at 3:24 was way too abrupt. Should have given it a few more bars to let it wind down more smoothly. Yeah, maybe another J can articulate some concrete ideas on how to better balance these parts; something felt off there. Not that it was something that risked a NO (far from it), just that this didn't sound optimally mixed, and you can hear unlocked potential. Regardless, this was some sweet work by Ben, and the first submission of his I've voted on where I felt like this was an easy pass rather than one I could pass with some close call issues. Good work, bro; keep stepping up your game! YES

First off, I don't care what ninja arts Vig knows, I poop on him for crapping on the X-Men soundtrack. That's a good theme, foo'! X-Men definitely had an odd sound to it, even for the Genesis, but it's got nothing but love here. Strange opening; the timing of things seemed overly rigid right from the get-go. The mixing was too muddy, IMO, and the bass timing seemed just slightly behind, at least until the melody came in. No big deal, just pointing out what I heard. The lead at :23 was too quiet compared to the bass and pads, and the lead was bland and devoid of energy. This has gotta be sequenced, because no lead should sound that robotically timed; it saps the life out of this. The claps added at :41 were also louder than the lead. The piano at 1:36 was pretty poor sound quality; just no body/richness to the sample. You need a sample with a thicker more realistic sound or need to mask the deficiencies of that sample with effects; when more things are going on at 2:31-2:49, the piano works much better in the background where it's less exposed. That said, I was enjoying the piano writing itself and thought it was a good change of pace. The thinner layered claps at 3:48 we're too exposed for a sound that dry. I thought the bass writing sounded good overall, but Vig's right that the rhythms got boring after a while. There were some subtle drop-offs and whatnot, but overall this track just plodded along without enough dynamic contrast and without enough energy or presence in ANY of the mechanically-timed leads. It felt very static and unexpressive and made a 4 minute track feel like 6 long minutes. The fadeout didn't even wind down properly; c'mon, man. You can't have it fadeout halfway then abruptly cut off. It's minor in the big picture, but that's just sloppy detail work; keep an eye on that stuff. Damn, I like the arrangement too; that aspect of this was smart. But the execution isn't there yet, and some of the supporting writing could use touch-ups as well, like Vig alluded to. If you're willing to stick with it, Harold, please get more feedback at the Workshop forums and see what else you can do to improve this. Just being honest, I'm not sure you can get this to a point where we could pass it YET, but you DO show a lot of potential and I hope you stay hungry instead of getting discouraged. NO (resubmit)

Dude, I SHOULD have known you would have wanted to get your stuff in front of Brandon. Nice work! You've already made the connection, but the next time I see him, I will definitely throw in a good word. He's been an OCR fan for a long time, even before his writing career took off. If you haven't told him you're on here, you should. Small world. And I wouldn't have known this without you talking about it in da thrad! Networkingz!!!

The energy was pretty strong, and the arrangement, while cover-ish, was personalized to the core and varied very nicely. The ear candy here was awesome, and this even made some of the fakest brass samples in the world sound cool; you get a medal for that! :41-on sounded flooded. The lead at :48 was mixed too quietly, and the soundscape sounded noticeably cramped. Overall though, I don't get these NOs. I'd be glad to have a million strong arrangements mixed this way, there's no dealbreakers here. Vig's not wrong about the bass overpowering things, and the mixing could be adjusted, yes, but IMO we could post this as is with no problems. The balance among the parts was strong enough to hear the leads and supporting instrumentation clearly; everything could still be heard fairly well to me. I'm lovin' it, Jari, this was just an amazing arrangement. If this doesn't make it because of the mixing, just tweak a few knobs and send it on back. I think we shouldn't be holding this back if this was the final version we could get; it's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good on this one. YES

string pad part from source with original writing on top: :00-:34.25, :36-38.5, :39.75-:42, :43.75-:50, :52-54.5, :56-58, 1:00-1:10, 1:12-1:14, 1:16-1:20, 7:04-7:20 1:32.5-1:39, 1:51-2:13, 2:22-2:30, 2:37.5-2:44, 2:54.5-3:11, 3:15.5-3:24, 3:30.75-3:38, 3:46-3:57.5, 4:01.5-4:58, 5:02-5:44.25, 5:47.5-6:18 Vig missed an important part of the arrangement usage. The repeating string pattern used in the very opening corresponds to a backing part that drones much more slowly for the first :29 seconds of the original. So there's always that aspect of the source in play during the extended buildup, and it's a very important reason why the source tune sounds so eerie in the first place. Some of the instrumentation during 2:14-onward could be viewed as generic or bread-and-butter, and the beat pattern could have been more interesting. Pretty underwhelming string lead from 4:15-4:45 as well. While the energy could be called plodding, I thought the subtle dynamic builds and drops all clicked. Usually, I'm in agreement with Vig's criticisms on arrangement, but I just thought he was off-base on this one. In the big picture, I thought DarkSim's overall sound choices were solid enough, and things were mixed reasonably well. It doesn't have to reinvent the wheel as far as the instruments, and the arrangement evolved nicely throughout. I thought what was here executed the bread-and-butter sounds and arrangement approach nicely. Let's go. YES

Normally I don't have such a brief vote, but Vig and Deia really elaborated all of the core issues. I'm just co-signing at this point. Yeah, the synths were bland & flat and the textures were too sparse, and there wasn't enough substance to justify this length. The beats had some good beef to them though. Unfortunately, this wasn't close to being a pass, BUT you should actually stick around and improve your overall skills via the Workshop forums and soliciting more advice. NO

This still sounded too bright for my tastes, but not enough to disqualify it. The lead guitar at 1:11 had good energy, but why were the rhythm guitars so buried in the back? The writing and arrangement sounds good overall, but when you bury supporting instrumentation like that, it makes the whole soundscape seem as if it lacks depth. Right now, it's as if you just have a lead and the drums with no other support. The mixing needs to be adjusted to get the levels of the parts properly balanced and also not let the fullest sections sound so cluttered. Anyone think we should go conditional YES instead? The lead guitar also sounded a bit hot to me in spite of the revisions, but I could live with that if the other production issues were improved. Stellar arrangement though, Liam, you just need a little more fine tuning for the win! NO (refine/resubmit)

Definitely echoing Eino's comments; I WANT to see this posted in some form. The source usage criticism matters so much more than the production criticism. That submission with more obvious source tune connections added would have passed with that same level of production. I really hope you're willing to revisit this one at some point, it really is awesome. If not though, it's still a sweet piece of music!

Intro sounded pretty sweet. Liking the gliding lead at :15 and the gradual build. Indirectly channeling posu yan at :33 with the finger snaps. The snare at :49 still sounded too plodding, IMO (a constant issue throughout the mix for me). Meanwhile at :49, the other supporting percussion and bassline sounded kind of marginalized. XPRTsax sounded pretty swanky from :49-1:22, hearkening back to "Time Chill". Still diggin' the Schala-esque writing from 1:22 that was transitioned to very nicely. Nice build with the drums coming in from 1:39-1:55; subtle stuff that added a nice dimension to the background. Good dropoff at 1:55 as well. The piano had more body, though some higher notes still strained for credibility as far as the realism; nonetheless, a huge improvement there. There was a very soft pop at 2:05 that you'd need headphones to pick out, but it was there. Good build back up into Joe returning with the sax, which worked well in tandem with the Zeal background and Schala-esque stuff on top of that. Sounded like the end at 3:45 came 4 notes early, so that made the finish sound a little odd, but that's not a huge deal in the big picture. I'll say, while I think the mixing wasn't as clear as it should have been, and the drums really plodded, this is definitely a good step up in the overall execution. A good portion of that leap forward comes from Joe's involvement, but going beyond that, Aaron did a much better job giving better depth and realism to the instrumentation he employed, which filled in the soundscape nicely compared to the old version. This was a fuller, richer experience than before and safely gets it above the bar. YES

Awwwww man. I really just wanted to enjoy the energy here and rock with my 3 YES crew, but instead I'm hearing the muddy mixing here and knowing this 1) shouldn't sound washed out, and 2) could sound 10 times more badass with a proper mixdown. Nah, I can't do it. The arrangement is all sorts of awesome, but this would have to be cleaned up for me to pass it on production. There are (very) brief areas when the soundscape is less cluttered where I get really hyped for what's coming up, but then everything gets dense and messy-sounding, and it's just unfortunate. Looks like it'll make it anyway, but I feel like it's a disappointment that it would in this form. Rasmus, if you're willing to take a fresh look at this, even if it does pass right now, this could sound way cleaner and actually more intense by properly mixing it. It's an incredible arrangement, but it's hard to truly appreciate what's there. NO (resubmit)

Opening sounded REALLY fuckin' cool, straight out of a Japanese pro arrange album; great quality there. Bass kick at :17 sounded sweet but, dare I say it, might have been a little TOO beefy. Nice lil' usage of the bell line from the source starting at :32. Claps at :46 were kind of weak, as well as the drum shot build at :52, and the mixing felt odd once things moved over into the melody at 1:00. I'd bump up the melodic line playing the source some more. The boom-tss percussion added in at 1:14 also sounded really generic and shouldn't have been so loud/upfront. Once that part drops back and layers with some other stuff at 1:28, the boom-tss sound incorporates much better into the overall texture, adding depth without sounding cheap. Damn, what happened to using the Bison theme, bro? From 1:28-2:28 NONE OF THAT sounded like it had much of anything to do with the source theme. Even if it did, it's way too abstract to be able to tell what it's from, and I grew up on this theme. You really need to get the source theme to be a more central element here, and make this less about the original writing. Even just adding elements of the source tune in the background while not changing what you've already written would be great. Yeah, the soundscape sounds flat from 2:29-3:26; the way it's mixed sounds pretty dull exactly like Palpable pointed out, then 3:26's section was mixed much better. Definitely fix the mixing when that bass is in play, try to the give the leads some more energy, and perhaps create some stronger clap layers if you have the time/interest. The Bison lead at 3:54 was too quiet compared to the rest of the track; you need to push that up but also declutter the soundscape. It sounded better at 4:23 though. I didn't agree with Nutritious critizing the ending; I thought it was a strong outro and did a nice job subtracting elements for the finish. It resolved totally fine, IMO. ----------------------- All that said, I thought the overall piece here was pretty cool to listen to. If the Bison theme were more involved in this piece, I would still YES it, despite the flaws, because the production is adequate and the composition and flow are pretty good. However, the source tune connections weren't there, so now I'm gonna have to call out Nutritious on this YES. The mix was 5:34-long so I needed at least 167 seconds' worth of overt source usage to put that over 50% of the track and have the source tune usage be dominant in the arrangement. :28.5-30.25, :31.5-:35, :38.75-42.25, :45.5-:49, 52.75-56.25, 1:01-1:17, 1:21-1:28, 2:29-2:43, 2:50-3:03, 3:04.25-3:11.5, 3:18.5-3:30, 3:34-3:37.5, 3:47-3:52, 3:54-3:59.5, 4:01-4:08, 4:15.75-4:19.25, 4:23-4:28, 4:29.5-4:31, 4:51.5-4:55, 4:58.5-5:02, 5:05.5-5:09 = 119 seconds or 35.6% Let me make this VERY clear for all of us, just so we don't get complacent making these calls. This is bearing in mind that I could be drastically overlooking something from THIS arrangement that overtly ties to the source and making the wrong call entirely. It's not enough to "feel" like the arrangement has enough connections to the source material. It's not enough. When you hear tracks like this were the source tune and wholly-original writing have fairly good flow and synergy like they do here, it's very easy to just accept it because the overall composition sounds strong. To some extent, it's anal-retentive, but when I stopwatch stuff and time things out, it's so that I understand exactly how an arrangement relates back to the source tune. It's important to understand that relationship BEFORE you vote on the track. ESPECIALLY when YESing a track, please do the due diligence of understanding how much the source tune is used. Just going off your general feeling can sometimes be misleading. -------------------- Anyway, OneUp, I love you. This is definitely the best piece I've heard from you yet, and I like the creativity hear. The mixing/clarity should be tightened up a little, but it's OK enough to get by. And I'm sorry if I'm missing some obvious usage of the Bison theme, but again, I know that one well and listened to the source again, and I'm not hearing it used enough in this arrangement. Please figure out a way to use it throughout more of the piece if you want this to pass; right now, this arrangement is too liberal. Hopefully, you're still willing to look further at this, but if not, this is still awesome, it just falls outside of our arrangement standards. NO (resubmit)

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. :'-(