Liontamer

Moseph explained it, but just leaving this here as another reference: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=60151

Melodically, this got plodding fairly soon after it started. Initially, the conservative approach was personalized nicely with the new instrumentation, but then the arrangement never went anywhere else interpretive structurally until 3:57. The addition of the drums at 1:19 was underwhelming in the long run. The tone was vanilla and the pattern, especially the snare, was boring and repetitive after a minute, when the soundscape really needed to be devloping and evolving more substantially. 2:37 finally added the escalating warbling-style synth, but the drums were still plodding on complete auto-pilot, and the overall texture was still thin, with a lot of empty space. Trim the fat on this (e.g. some of 1:19-1:41). You're following the source's structure so closely, yet leaving the soundscape empty, so a lot of the quieter sections before the main melody drops in are too sparse and just bloat the length. You also need to write less plain and repetitive drums (1:19-3:56 with 0 variation in the pattern is too long) and pad/flesh out the background instrumentation further so the soundscape isn't empty leading up to 3:56. The final section with the piano was sweet, and served a nice changeup (finally) and more substantial interpretation of the source. Good start, Aleksandar, definitely figure out what criticisms you feel will help the piece, and work on this some more to take the development of it to the next level. You may be able to get this where it needs to be. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, we're definitely not having paid memberships where members could help eval tracks. Let's not run too far with evaluating how that idea would work; we're not doing that.

For those curious, a source tune use breakdown: "Spring" - :13-:47 (vocals sing woodwind melody from theme's :00-:32) "Summer" - 1:22-1:32 (vocals sing :10-:20 of theme) "Autumn" - 1:43.75-1:47.5, 1:48.75-1:57, 1:58.5-2:02 (guitar plays rising note patterns from theme's :00-:15); 2:03-2:11, 2:12-2:22 (vocals sing woodwind melody from theme's :15-:23) "Winter" - 2:37-3:03 & 3:17-3:35.5 (vocals arrange theme's :00-:27 string melody); 3:03-3:17 (vocals arrange theme's :27-:41 backing string part)

In before tomorrow! Happy birthday, bro!

Correct, it's both. Also, "ha!" at 9-bit dubwub.

That, and we can't use folks who can/want to only judge 1 genre. We need folks who are willing to evaluate anything no matter the genre.

I heard some clicks/pops around :06 (light), :12, and :25 during the initial build. I'm co-signed with Vinnie on the production. It was kind muddy, but ultimately fine for me. That said, I'm not with him on the arrangement, even though we basically counted the same things. I needed more than 126 seconds of recognizable, overt source usage here for the source tune to be dominant: 1:29-2:07.75 (obscured), 2:46.25-3:37, 3:37-4:02.75 (partially obscured) = 115.25 seconds or 45.73% Simply put, the parts that are slowed down are slowed to the point of being unrecognizable. And the parts that are "simplified" are oversimplified to the point of being unrecognizable. For me, the production was solid enough, so tweaking the arrangement to have more overt source usage is all I think this needs for the win. NO (refine/resubmit)

Overt source use (quick check): :08-:40, :56-1:28, 1:40-1:48, 2:12-2:20, 2:28-3:00 = 112 seconds (i.e. plenty) Not feeling the woodwind sample, which was kind of a weak link. Also not a fan of the generic FL default style warbles at :48, but was glad other stuff joined in at :56. Short and sweet, solid variation of the instruments and expansive writing to get a lot of mileage out of this one. It was put together cohesively enough to get by, IMO. I didn't agree with Vinnie's assessment of the arrangement. It's a very limited source, and Max used it well, not just variations of the instruments playing the core 4-note pattern, but also stuff like the strings that used the same progression but not with quarter notes, to provide a kind of rhythmic variation. I thought it checked out just fine and wasn't put off by the approach. But since he's such a strong NO, we definitely should leave this open for either one more YES before closing it or see if there's more NOs. Max continues to have mixes that pass despite being rough around the edges, so I'm looking forward to his continued improvement so everything can sound polished. It's not the strongest YES, but it gets by.

I'm co-signing on this. The arrangement is sweet, but the dub-wub parts are too loud/grating AND the source usage, while there, is getting marginalized in volume when that dub-wub stuff's in play. Literally, those are the only 2 production issues for me in the big picture, but they hurt it. I'd go conditional YES, but we're collectively trying to refrain from that going forward, so I'll throw on another NO, but heavily encourage you to tweak the levels of the loud dubstep-style stuff and make sure the airy source usage during those sections isn't getting steamrolled. Smooth out those levels and you're golden, IMO. NO (resubmit)

I like the track in a vacuum, and I'm actually in DarkeSword's camp there. But the rhythmic alterations compared to the source tune are really making it difficult for me to wrap my head around the arrangement and what's directly used from what. It sound pretty liberal from what I can tell. I recognize some aspects of the melody in brief pieces, but then it seems like wholly original writing follows for a few seconds before going back to another brief altered version of the melody. Very loose breakdown: :19-:27, :49-1:13, 1:21-1:24, 1:26-1:33, 1:36-1:45, 2:14-2:23.75, 2:33-2:38, 2:43-3:02, 3:31-3:52 I'd need a breakdown from someone before I could sign off on this arrangement, so I'll holler at Guifrog.

It was "Ajax," as in his last name.

That's not "really low." Most can't tell 192 from lossless in ABX testing.

No, you just misunderstood the change. The standards & encoding guide are consistent with what it says in the original post. Those are the encoding standards right now, either 192kbps CBR or V1 VBR. You cannot submit music at 320kbps CBR, that's too high.

If anyone wants to come on board to offer something productive to the site, volunteering is great. IIRC, I first did work here in 2003 when I PMed djp to offer new mix titles for old mixes which had non-unique titles (the ReMix name was the same name as the source tune, or just the artist name. I never WAS able to get a hold of AmIEviL...). After joining the panel, I also led a project to update the homepages, real names, and emails of all the ReMixers. I've also worked on adding source tune names to most of the mixes after the community took an initial stab way back when. And then there's the updated tagging project that will see the light of day this year. I didn't ask permission to pursue any of those efforts, you just need the time to pursue it and the skills to get the job done. Find a void that need to be filled, make sure you're not rolling your own solution that possibly can't be integrated into the site (e.g. if you're going to code an automated submissions form, make sure it's done in a way djp can work with) and be proactive. I'd LOVE to see the tags project (genre/instrument/mood classifications for all the ReMixes) get tackled pretty aggressively, I just don't have the time myself. If community members wanted to work on THAT, for example, that's something any number of people could tackle with an organized effort.

Hate to be dismissive, but I'd never be in favor of seasonal submissions periods. There's no way we'd do that. More music, plz.

The translated articles need to be updated, but what exactly are you talking about with those main articles? They've been updated from day 1 of that post.

I wouldn't do writeups anyway, and I don't think those would get delegated, but you ARE right that all I'd say if I wrote them is http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?p=817967&postcount=215 for every mix no matter what the circumstances.

It's an acquired taste. "Dub Slash" might be my favorite uptempo piece of the whole SoR series. Motohiro Kawashima and Koshiro split up that soundtrack, so you may only like the one's Koshiro wrote, who knows. That said, SoR3 soundtrack, do NOT co-sign.

That one's held for a reason, but point taken, since that could apply to some other things. It's mainly the mixposts not being frequent enough that's led to that particular backlog, not the panel. Like djp said, when all this current stuff subsides, I think the posting frequency will have a chance to increase and we can get things back to normal.

Quite the attention-grabbing intro and build. A little cramped at :56 when the melody kicked in at and the soundscape was at its fullest. I do wish this had more high-end frequencies for a sharper overall sound. Not a big deal, and one's mileage may vary. Really awesome combination of chiptune sounds with modern instrumentation and techniques to create some intriguing textures. Loved all the tasteful SFX touches as well. Never a dull moment with this one; things NEVER stopped evolving with this arrangement. All panel votes should be this fun to listen to and this easy to make a decision on. Brilliant concepts and execution with this one, Jari and Nicklas! YES

Not the best piano sample, as it was a little exposed during the opening, but I've heard it a million times and it's definitely solid. Excellent time signature change with the arrangement here, and kick ass instrumentation. The leads, the percussion, the bass; everything gelled together wonderfully. By 1:48, I could have gone for some minor variations with the verse instead of a rinse and repeat, but that never came. The fadeout ending at 2:39 did bookend the beginning of the track, but felt like a cop-out, and I don't normally take issue with fadeouts. Those minor flaws notwithstanding, what WAS here was a substantive enough interpretation that I thought it clearly could bear the rinse-and-repeat repetition of one verse without dragging it down to a NO. What would have been a super strong YES with a further evolving second half was weakened some, but this still easily gets over the line, IMO. An awesome, elegant arrangement that's over before you know it. Alan, you've GOT to submit more VGM arrangements after this one! Amazing stuff, keep 'em coming! YES

You have a faulty gut. Easy call here. The structure's retained but with an extremely personalized set of instruments, loads of different variations, and other subtle expansive writing touches. The excellent mixing and production further contributed to a serene experience. A cover with true uniqueness and style throughout! YES

The drums and kicks brought in at :08 were too loud, and I wasn't a fan of the generic electrosynth used at :15, though it got buried soon enough after the guitar first appeared at :24. Funny how the guitar adaptation of the source tune sounded reminiscent of Frank Klepacki's "Hell March." Not sure the mallet percussion was the best fit here, but what can you do? Not a big deal. The piano sequencing at 1:20 was stiff and unrealistic, but was obscured enough that it wasn't a huge deal. 1:59's section with the guitar soloing came off as the most cohesive part of the track. It made me wish the guitar was the melodic lead for the majority of the piece, thinking back to it. Like Max's Ecco piece, there were some flaws in how this was put together, but the sum total was more than solid enough to get the job done. This was a relatively strong arrangement, one that was personalized and fleshed out with the awesome guitar and other solid instrumentation choices. Great energy and solid work from Max yet again. YES

I was definitely worried from the piano intro that this might be too cover-ish, but once the vocals came in, everything checked out just fine with the interpretation level of the arrangement, IMO. Conservatively structured, but the personalization was apparent. There's half a breath at :30 left in the main vocals before they actually start that sounds like it was left in there by mistake and sounded kind of sloppy. The mixing took a strange turn at :54, where the vocals felt too quiet and the pizz strings sounded rather lo-fi. I appreciated the vocals panning from ear to ear though; it may have been a little too drastically panned IMO, but nothing that was a significant issue. The vocals were more upfront at 1:24, sounding much cleaner like :31's section. The pizz strings and drums still sounded like they weren't part of the same soundscape. The mixing wasn't horrible, but something about it felt like the vocals, drums, and strings all were recorded with significantly different room ambiance, and just didn't sound quite cohesive together. Someone can listen and better articulate what production issues there may or may not be, but obviously this gets much more right than it does wrong, and what doesn't quite click for me on the production side doesn't come close to dragging this down in a big way. Very cool, very personalized approach to arranging this, Kate! Keep 'em coming! YES