Liontamer

(Not interested in a desktop or Mac, no hate, just noting personal pref. Hoping to buy something in the next day or two.) Kyle pointed me in the direction of http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/551347/Toshiba-Satellite-L755D-S5163-Laptop-Computer/ with a deal that expires 7/7, though zircon mentioned not being a big fan of a past Toshiba he bought a while back. Don't care about it being a gaming comp (clearly), just want good reliable speed for the laptop that won't degrade too badly over time. My current Gateway was great for 5 years, but the wireless network card is failing and causing recurrent BSODs, and I'm without interweb on the comp, so it's basically dead. Had a Sony VAIO way back as well that worked well. Preferably hoping to buy from OCR's Amazon store to help the site, but a good deal's a good deal. Here are the specs of the Toshiba with the silly ad copy. Basically wanting to know if that's the best I can snag now for $500 or if anyone's got better suggestions. Hierarchy of needs goes RAM/memory's > processor speed > hard disk space. Thanks! EDIT: More specific specs:

A little early to be asking, but props for your optimism.

Since we have so many mixes, I'd wager a guess on this, to give an alternate opinion. ;-P EDIT: Moved to Community.

You should be. You are kind of a douche. TL;DR: Stop whining.

Correct! Always important to make the important stuff stand out. Congrats on reaching the 250 votes to qualify! Good luck, y'all, and I hope Ember Lab ends up winning one of the grants!

Can't get to it; same error issue others are seeing. EDIT: Got it. Assuming you did a Kickstarter update for this?

As long as no one's threatening or trying to harm anyone, SHAME is a great tool of the OCRAPS. If you need to let someone ELSE influential in that person's circle, family or friends know, and that works to get the plagiarism taken down, then that's WONDERFUL. People, Facebooking his mom with a non-threatening plea or a heads-up about the theft isn't a big deal. If it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, it's because it should. He shouldn't steal the music and we SHOULDN'T have to notify his parent that he's an idiot. But if you're going plagiarize artists' music in 21st century ways, be prepared to have it reported in 21st century ways. Stealing our community's shit and selling it was dirty, but OCRAPS, we get dirtier. EDIT: TL;DR - Harassment and threats are always douchey, so never do that. But it's fine to contact anyone about getting plagiarism halted as long as you're respectful. "Yeah, but don't tell my mom, that's embarrassing..." DON'T STEAL OUR COMMUNITY'S MUSIC, STUPID.

I agree with this entirely. Going that route was ultimately effective AND he deserved it. Fuck him. And no one needs to waste time arguing otherwise. "Oh, but don't tell his mom, he might get in trouble with her, that's too much, that's not right." This asshole stole over 200 OC ReMixes across 5 different websites, AND sold them on Bandcamp for prices as much as $15. And when he was initially caught, he decided to try and delete and block people from revealing it to keep whatever money he got from it coming. Fuck that, fuck him, and fuck his apology.

This is some good stuff! Absolutely encourage you all to check this album out, as well as his previous one!

No hate on taking a risk with the vocals here, but the vocals at :51 were flat, IMO, and deserved another take. However, the harmonization at 1:22 to help accentuate some words, followed by the extensive harmonization from 1:38-1:50 and 2:37-3:30 helped the singing sound a LOT more cohesive after an underwhelming start. As far as the instrumental, the brass articulations were certainly solid enough but were probably the most lacking element as far a realistic sound. That said, it wasn't a huge player by any means, it's difficult to work it anyway, and practically everything else sounded strong. The buildup, variation, and dynamics here were all great, really taking a pretty minimalist source in a grandiose direction. Just great pacing and overall execution here by Brandon. YES

For the record, I've only heard this version. The track sounded kind of off-key at :33 in a way that was different from the source. Side by side, I see where it came from, but it definitely sounded awkward on the first listen in a way that the source did not. Oh well, not a big deal. Pretty straightforward arrangement once it kicked off at :26. Pretty good approach here slowing down the theme, and creating a different mood, Very nice dropoff at 1:54, then changing gears completely by isolating the piano and sticking with that for a bit until 2:56. The latter half felt like it dragged a bit due to the deliberate pacing and tempo, but the arrangement clearly stayed strong overall and kept presenting new creative variations of the source. Good stuff, gradually getting way more energetic and over the top with melodic embellishments as things went on. Read Shariq's comparison of the closing section to Gitaroo Man after my vote, and I totally get it. Pretty easy call here! YES

Not really a fan of the opening synth, which is kind of obnoxious, but we'll move past it. Oh wait, it turned out nearly everyone else didn't like it either. Yeah, you probably want to refine that, and/or change it up for a different lead later on to give it later areas of the song a different feel; otherwise it feels like it's repeating a lot with that same lead with the same melodic treatment. Pretty liberal opening for the first 36 seconds. Playing around with the rhythms of the source from 1:05-1:21 before getting a bit more straightforward. I was thinking this would get aimless, but the source was used pretty straightfoward from 1:46-2:48. The energy level's on the static side until 3:19 had a good brief dropoff until 3:25 to create some much needed contrast. The beat patterns were nice and varied, BUT overall groove felt a bit underwhelming and could have used more energy and dynamic range. Right now, the dynamic curve was fairly flat. I'd say this is around 80% of the way there with a great base to build upon. The arrangement and interpretation were definitely there, even during the more conservative sections as far as creating a different mood. Along with the other criticisms, I'm actually probably closest among these NOs to actually YESing it. There aren't any single dealbreaker flaws, but a lot of smaller issues preventing this from sound cohesive and as varied as it should for the 4+ minutes. I wouldn't drastically alter this arrangement, but tweak some sound choices and mixing, and see how you can add more dynamic range to the piece. Cool stuff so far, Ben. NO (resubmit)

Could BARELY hear the mallet percussion from :25-:50; boost that up. The vocals brought in at :50 were a bit too loud compared to the instrumentation (not a huge deal, they sound pretty good), as well as dry. Source FINALLY came into the picture at 1:15, but was pushed back under the vocals from 1:17-1:41. During the arrangement chorus at 1:45, the melodic part of the instrumental's arguably too obscured under the vocals and drumkit. Then back to the dry vocals at 2:10. The source tune was at least a bit louder from 2:35-2:59, but it's still being obscured somewhat. All stuff I'd tweak with the mixing, and worth pointing out, but not a dealbreaker by any means. The source tune's not being used overtly enough throughout this piece. It sounded like mostly original composition with some bits of the source tune added in: 1:15-1:41 (source melody), 2:35-2:59 (source melody), 3:24-4:13 (source chorus) = 99 seconds or usage during 34.74% of the track As it says in the standards, the source material must be identifiable and dominant, which it is not here. So yeah, good song, cool lyrics, cool Asimov sampling idea, solid mixing and performances, but the source usage isn't dominant at all in this arrangement. If you can add references to the source during other areas of the backing instrumentation to get the source tune used in over 50% of the track (i.e. the majority of the piece), then I'd be all over this. If y'all are willing to revisit this, and think you can weave in more of Elec Man theme without compromising the quality and vision of this arrangement, I'd love to hear and would be eager to pass it, or at least have y'all submit another arrangement with more source usage down the line. The talent's definitely there, so don't take a rejection as an claim that the track is bad; this track just happens to fall outside of what we're looking for. NO (resubmit)

Opening piano sequencing was stiff but solid enough. The beats and pizz strings brought in around :20 were too loud. The soundscape was decetly filled out when the main melody kicked in at :41, though the instrumentation was kind of simplistic save for the effects. The electrosynths were pretty loud as well. The production was weird in that everything was pretty loud, except the countermelodic writing (mostly the bowed string parts; also the bass-like part from 1:39-1:48), yet the balance was off. The beats needed to be toned down instead of rolling over other instruments. Not a fan of the some of the generic synth sounds used here as well. Arrangement-wise, this was actually pretty decent, IMO. It can be viewed as aimless, but it's almost a quasi-improvisational arrangement that I wasn't too bothered by. It does come off pretty liberal aside from the one straightforward section, so grounding it with more source usage would be nice. Ultumately, I felt the balance among the parts was the main thing that held this back; the beats shouldn't be so loud, the loudest parts all need to be pulled back and the countermelodic writing needs to not be buried. Fixing those along with sprucing up some of the more generic/out-of-the-box synths in there could hook this up. NO

Finish dat shit!

Annnd we're back. Thanks!

While I don't mind what basically sounds like direct sampling, the lead at :49 basically sounds like the NES original and could stand to sound a bit more unique compared to the original. Not necessarily a huge deal IF there were more substance going on with the rest of the arrangement; sometimes that's the case, sometimes that's not the case. Agreed with the others that the structure ultimately is repetitive. The stutters at 2:51 were cool, but the track still felt like it was just being thrown on a loop with the stutters merely obscuring that there wasn't much else in the way of developing or evolving the arrangement further. I thought the production and balance were decent, but once the track picks up at 1:10, it's basically repeating itself until the end, and you need more dynamic contrast/variation than the what's there now, which is good and clearly headed in the right direction. In the effort to include some more ideas, you don't need to go crazy with over-the-top stutters or wildly changing what's here, but some subtle dropoffs and variations in your instruments and patterns could push this over the top. This is a good foundation here, Mike, so don't be discouraged! NO (resubmit)

Cool intro. Would have loved to hear more bitcrushed kind of stuff going on later. Well, there's definitely some personalization, and some more notable expansion via the freestyle guitar in the second half, but ultimately the structure still feels a bit too close to the original. It's tough to break off from the original when the tempo's the same and the instrumentation sounds chippy much like the original. It's really a matter of whether or not one thinks the arrangement, while possessing some legit interpretation, is still too conservative or not. It goes in the right direction, but IMO not far enough once the main portion of the theme arrives at 1:07. There are still more things that can be done with structure, or tempo, or rhythm, or instrumentation, or mood, etc. to make this stand more on its own. Good stuff so far, and I won't have a fit if this passes, but I don't think it's there yet on the arrangement/interpretation side. Just a bit too structurally conservative for me without enough compensation elsewhere. NO (resubmit)

Never a fan of those extremely generic electrosynths like the ones opening the track. Good stuff with the piano that came in much later on at 1:46. Whoa. Bass at :14 is definitely loud, but sounds rather muddy. The bass being so beefed up fills out the soundscape some, but the overall mixing sounds needlessly lossy. Would love to hear that tweaked a bit. You can have that beefy punch to the bass while clarifying the other instrumentation. That said, the annoying electrosynths only were a big issue in the beginning. This one's on the lower tier of what I could pass, just being transparent, but ultimately the sound quality was barely serviceable enough and the arrangement was solid, which carried it. YES (borderline)

I've only heard the resubmitted version, for the record. From reading the decision threads of the previous submissions, the production and mixing of your sounds are what's mainly holding this back, Ben. That's still the case now, though everything's seemingly improved from version to version. The arrangement approach is in the right direction, but the instrumentation choices and mixing still don't sound quite cohesive enough. The intro sounded pretty sweet, though the bass around :48 felt a bit lacking in body (but got the job done). The electrosynth introduced at :53 was kind of vanilla-sounding, but serviceable. It didn't quite click with the other instrumentation. The electro-kicks started to stick out as too loud and busy at 1:27. It's got good body, but is (at least to me), too far upfront. Interesting use of the synth pad around 1:38; it should sound warmer, and so should the piano, which are both kind of dry. Basically a repeat of :52's build and verse around 3:24 (though the different lead and the addition of the chippy sounds was sweet). The dynamic curve of this piece was also relatively flat. The generic synths at the foundation of the mix never really changed up much once they gradually came in around :53; it was basically the synth padding, kicks, vanilla synths and piano hovering at around the same energy levels for about 4 minutes. I'd definitely need to hear the input of other Js to better articulate these issues and may come back to this afterward, but what I can say for now is that this still isn't quite there yet. Don't be discouraged, because I think you're already maybe 75% of the way there. Your arrangement creativity is there; now the harder part is getting all the sounds and articulations to click together properly and create more dynamic contrast in the way the piece develops over time. NO (resubmit)

I've only heard the resubmitted version, for the record. Very interesting and fresh arrangement approach here, Nicholas. The performances aren't tight in some sections (more noticeable e.g. :37-:55). When you have relatively few instruments and thin textures where the instruments are pretty exposed, very upfront stuff like the guitar should be performed tighter so that timing or note flubs don't stick out this much; we definitely allow for mistakes hear and there, but overall the flow needs to stay reasonably strong. Arrangement-wise, this was an easy pass. The sound quality sounded kind of lossy, but was alright. But the performance, which has a lot of quality and character, needs to be improved another step or two before this felt like it was fully clicking. Can't say enough how fully I agreed with OA, even having not read his vote until after I wrote my own; we're hearing the same issues. Don't be discouraged at all. I think you could definitely get the timing a bit tighter on this piece or apply those criticisms to your future pieces, but either way you're on the road to getting something approved here and posted if you keep at it. I loved listening to this one and hearing this creative take on Ky Kiske's theme. Let's improve it another step further! NO (resubmit)

Yeah, right from :47, the robotic stiffness of the guitar sequencing sticks out too much. Love the treatment of the theme overall though, which was a surprisingly catchy source tune. Wow, the track was SPARSE at the dropoff at 1:25. The drumming introduced there needs to fill up the space more while we're waiting for more elements to come in. The low encoding hurt the sound quality (we need at least 192kbps now, anyway), but totally agreed with Vinnie that the stiff sequencing was what ultimately dragged this down. I'm also agreed that more overt references to the source tune in the second half of the track would make the source use more obvious. Definitely resubmit this one, CJ, it's going in the right direction! NO (resubmit)

Pretty cover-ish, but nicely personalized instrumentation. The energy's a bit subdued due to relative emptiness in the textures -- it's arguably thin, but I think adequate; the space is filled out OK. The mixing's OK, but a bit weaker than it should be; it almost sounds like some highs got cut that prevents the performance from sounding as upfront as it probably should. Not a huge deal, overall. The ending was also a bit sudden and not a strong resolution, but that said, I'm feeling the arrangement all the way. It gets a lot more right than it gets wrong, and has a mellow approach that ultimately shows off a lot creativity. YES

Needs a unique title, but sounded good - LT Hello Guys, I speak from Brazil and I have a project where we played games of the classic 8-bit and 16 bit platforms among others. Is called ''Abreu Project''. Would you like to send a version of a song I did. The arrangement is for the song'' Marble Garden Zone'' From the Genesis Sonic 3. I have many other remix on my Soundcloud. www.soundcloud.com/breusera Facebook - Abreu Project Twitter - Abreu Project YT - Abreuprojectvgmusic Hope you enjoy. Music - Marble Garden Zone Game - Sonic The Hedgehog 3 Original composer - Brad Buxer Remix - Leandro Abreu Plataform - Genesis 16bits Cheers -- L.Abreu Twitter - @Breusera ---------------------------------------------------------- http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8xMxjgvUM

Mental note put here for posterity: Hated (HATE) the fonts for credits & tracklist within the rough art in the OP. They look too generic, so let's spice 'em up for the final look!