Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

You didn't miss out; it's not over. The upvotes keep coming, the questions keep coming. If you have answers to others Qs you can answer from your own Reddit account or we can edit them into the OCR answers. Let's go!

Even though I am chopped liver (I am), I'm helping too!

Sometimes it can take a little bit for the site's cache to clear, but at least on my side things are showing up fine. I'll double-check with djp if anything else needs to be done there.

Right now, you can't. Maybe one day.

It's only 10 hours driving. Then another 10. You got it!

Yep. Hook 'em up.

Otakon 2013 August 9-11, 2013 Baltimore, MD - Baltimore Convention Center http://otakon.com OC ReMix: Video Game Music Community of Awesomeness!!! Panel Room #2 Friday, 4:15-5:15 PM What should we do for our panel? If you're gonna be there, give us suggestions! Final Fantasy VI will definitely factor into it!

I don't mind FLAC or WAV, those just can't be attached. But if you host them, that's fine with me, since an MP3 can be made from those.

The distinct stereo panning periodically used here was just too wide. For example, from :32-:38 & 1:35-1:39, it's like 5% left-95% right, which is over the top to me. I'm not saying panning can't be used in a cool way, but don't make it that drastic. Maybe that sounds alright on speakers, but on headphones, it just sounds bad. Jesus though, was this ever loud. Fuck. Can't wait until I'm an old man and can't stand stuff like this anymore. Nice changeup at 2:08 to the washed out sound. The percussion added in at 2:28 should have been pulled back. It shouldn't have been louder than the lead, but it wasn't a huge deal. Another extremely wide pan from 3:23-3:28. I put a hex on you. Anyway, aside from the volume being set to ear-break and some questionable (but brief) panning, this... was... awesome. Great energy, great performances, and reasonably well mixed. Loud doesn't have to mean cluttered and indistinct, and it was nice to hear something \m/ where all the details can still be appreciated. Nice work, Steve! Want something intense? It's right here. YES

I thought the drums were pretty empty and, drowned down by the guitars, had little presence in the piece. The guitars and padding did a decent job setting up an airy, distant mood; so why would the percussion sound so much drier? At least by around 1:19, they were pushed more into the background, obscuring how dry their sound was. Also, the way the drums got WAY louder at 3:04 was like swinging the pendulum totally in the other direction, making it too loud and interfering with hearing the rest of the piece. It's a solid attempt so far, and I like the dark sound of the pads and foreground elements, but the textures were never cohesive on account of the percussion never being mixed in the right way, and the bass work nearly being drowned into submission. I'd love to hear another pass at the production to improve some things here. Some potential here though. NO

The track was 3:17-long, so I needed at least 98.5 seconds of overt source usage to be cool with the arrangement. I wasn't very worried about it, but it seemed like there were enough breaks from the source that I should check it. :00-16, 17-19, 20-25, 27-37.5, 39.5-45.5, 52-57, 1:04.5-1:11, 1:16.5-1:25, 1:30.5-1:41.5, 2:08-2:17, 2:29.5-2:39, 2:54.5-3:04, 3:07-3:16.5 = 110 seconds or 55.8% I could have missed some other usage as well, but it doesn't matter in the end. That said, the first thing that really stood out was "Whoa, this could use another pass at the mixing." As soon as it reached :14, I thought this sounded extremely crowded, and different parts really seemed to mud together in the same frequency ranges. It just kept doing it as it built up at :26 & :39. If y'all told me this was the 96kbps or 112kbps encoding, I would have believed you. Basically, :14-1:07 and 1:30-2:07 were the problematic areas to me; 2:17-2:55 as well, but less so. I definitely love the arrangement; I also am sad-faced over how swamped this sounded. It probably will make it, and I'd have no problem with it passing as is. It's an awesome interpretation, but I'll always just want to hear this cleaned up some. The lack of clarity is just enough for me to not be able to look past it. Sorry, Chris. If it doesn't make it, it would just take some EQing touch-ups to get it passed. I'd absolutely hate for this to not get posted in some form. Best of luck with the rest of the vote. NO (refine/resubmit)

Really loved the constant source usage throughout. Thanks for the breakdown to make the connections pretty obvious. This is an absolutely standout example of maintaining dynamic contrast and evolution throughout an arrangement with a slower, deliberate tempo; just because an arrangement is slower-paced doesn't mean it needs to plod. The instrumental switchups and various dropoffs & buildups in the intensity were all smartly handled. I'll definitely be using this as an example to point to. On the negative side, I wish the mixing here was cleaned up during the beefiest sections. The clutter of the mixing job in parts prevented this from sounding its best. For example, the synth from 1:01-1:23 was kind of buried; it seemed as if the electric guitar from 1:23-1:48 was mudding with other background parts; same criticism for the padding from 1:48-2:14. None of this was remotely enough to push this toward a no, but I'll always hope for a cleaner version. I'd love a fresh look at the mixing, but what's here more than meets the bar. Great arrangement! YES

Ooofs. Yeah... this isn't clicking, IMO... Yep. The dynamic curve was pretty flat here; this plods along most of the way was relatively sparse ideas. That was the most significant thing holding this back, IMO. It's also worth pointing out that something sounds kind of dissonant when the "Sky Chase Zone" countermelody is in from 1:18-1:34 & 3:02-3:17. Yep. Worth noting, the piano sample was serviceable, but the timing was too rigid throughout 1:50-2:24, undermining the emotion behind the writing. I thought the bass was fine, but yep on the ride. NO

The volume seemed a bit high, but had an interesting intro. Pretty beefy beats at :20. Oooooh, no... when the melody came in at :40, the mixing became a mess for a bit. Definitely too cluttered during the densest areas. The leads should have cut through more, and they also weren't particularly expressive. The more saw-style synths just created noise and didn't add a thing to the piece except crowding. Air horn at 3:38 & bubble SFX at 3:49 sounded too gimmicky, IMO, but whatever; that's not gonna swing a vote either way. Vig's right about the sparseness of the writing. The TEXTURES are loud/dense, but as far as the partwriting and tone that are contributing, again, a lot of the leads handling the Mystic Cave melody sounded very plain and very flat. The pace was really plodding and the dynamic curve of the composition was too flat. Play with some rhythmic, tempo or instrumentation changeups; just something to give this more life and variety over time. NO

Not a big fan of the piano sound here; it definitely gets by, but it has just that bit of rigidness that makes it very clear it's not a real piano. The first half of the arrangement felt a little by the numbers and the piano sample lacked the richness of a real piano (which can't be helped) and prevented things from sounding as awesome as they could have. In any case, the arrangement here got it done, so let's not miss the big picture. 3:16, 3:18 and a few other spots had some quick pops that unfortunately made it through; most won't notice them, and it wasn't a huge deal. Let's go. YES

You've been unbanned! HOORAY!

Depending on who you ask, that's all you guys do.

Those electric guitar samples at :25 definitely ain't foolin' anyone. Not a fan of how jumpy the "performance" sounds moving from note to note; it does give the sound a different kind of feel that's not like a real electric guitar, but the sequencing was pretty robotic. Beyond that, the mixing was SUPER murky, as pointed out by Vig and Deia. That said, even if the mixing were great, the super fake and rigid instrumentation was the biggest dealbreaker, and there'd be no way a piece with guitar "tone" like that would make it. The bass stuff and bowed strings at 2:43 sounded better in comparison, but it's nothing that would save this piece. The brass sequencing also sounded too fake as well. The ending also cut out abruptly. The arrangement has decent, creative ideas, but there's absolutely no polish put into this presentation. If you don't bother to humanize sequenced parts AT ALL for a piece that's meant to come off as a pseudo-live performance, there 0 chance it would pass. Wish I had something more enthusiastic to say on that level, but on the production level, this left a lot to be desired. NO

We laughed in between takes. It took 10 minutes total. 5 minutes to write the lyrics, 5 more minutes to record my two takes. I might have the piece of paper I wrote them down on somewhere (collector's item), but it's been 9 years.

Nothing we haven't solved before. Prepare for a colon-cleansing bowel movement of music!

Solid update. It could be better (not because of the organ), I'm still thinking about the mixing. The overall sound was still too heavy on the reverb in a lot of places, IMO. But the drums in that one spot were layered (minor), and the guitars cut through better (major). The balance among the parts was improved a bit, and most important parts have ENOUGH clarity and presence to be appreciated. It's not perfect, but I was on the borderline before, and it's good enough to me to get by now. From form letter rejection to a YES in 2 moves. Not bad.

No, it's not a matter of the bar moving up there. If something passes years ago but is held off (which generally happens for project mixes submitted early in an album's development), it isn't re-evaluated in any way when it's time to post it. In the case of "Shinesparks," it was conditionally accepted on improving the production (addressing the pervasive distortion), which was never above the bar. Nowadays though, we'd just reject it on account of the production being jacked up and ask for a resub rather than give conditional YES's (to avoid situations like this). Why wait so long? Aside from periodic asks/check-ins, we're pretty relaxed. So I'm checking in one last time with the artist to see if we can anticipate any touch-ups, or we'll just reject it since the conditions for the conditional YES's haven't been satisfied.

Original Decision (Resub from form rejection) Contact Information > ReMixer name: HeavenWraith > Real name: Antanas Palaitis > Website: http://www.heavenwraithmusic.net > Forum userID: 50325 Submission Information > Game: Metal Slug 4 > ReMix Name: Eau Charix > Original Name: Furiously Hello once again. I've polished the piece following the advice you've all given me and some little nitpicks I've noticed myself since the last time I've submitted this track. Though, the only thing I couldn't make myself change was organ playing the main theme, I'm sorry and I hope it won't tick anybody off. On the bright side, I gave it more presence and backing pads, let's see how that'll work out. And lastly - thanks for your time. P. S. For convenience, you can call me Anthony, the international version of my name. P. P. S. And thanks for doing a great job of posting lots of mixposts/rejects recently. ------------------------ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpph3E6KtfM

Having heard the 192kbps version (included in the first post), there's a little bit more clarity than before, but that alone wouldn't address the various issues here.

Forgot to update this a while back, but after NemesisTheory/Maurice was made aware of the potential issue, he looked into as well, and it matches the info I found on Psykosonik and the creation of the music being prior to the game. Unfortunately, that confirms it's ineligible as source material for OCR, so the submission can't be posted.