Liontamer

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Dudes, we're NOT doing a midnight release, go to sleep. Posting now so y'all don't get carried away.

There were a couple of random pops/skips in here (1:50, 3:17, 5:19), but Emu mentioned the source files were kaput, so ah well. The timing of the snare at :59 seemed just slightly off; am I making that up; it's possible it's just me, not that it was anything remotely close to a dealbreaker. The snare pattern though was pretty bland and almost functioned like a metronome; you know, like when the clicks don't really work with the rest of the music, they just sound out louder than everything else and kind of get in the way. It's kind of strange, but the snare tone was a bit too "thick" and out of place during brief quieter areas like 1:51-2:08. The sound of it just doesn't fully click within this piece, and undermined the excellent cymbal writing. Then bringing the snare pattern in during the other sections (2:14-2:48, 2:56-3:16, etc.), it just sounded like the pattern lacked any variation and undermined the overall flow. I wanted to make sure no one felt it was a significant enough issue to hold this back. I hate to nitpick the snare drum, because it's obvious the piece is good stuff nonetheless. All of the live elements from Waleed, Amy and Frank were awesome, and provided so many great variations to the original theme. I think a different snare sound and some better variation of that plain pattern would have helped everything gel together a lot better, but the positives clearly outweigh one stickler issue. I'd really love to hear these 3 collab again, I never would have expected it. YES

I think you made the case quickly, but said what needed to be said pretty well. I lean toward allowing more structurally conservative arrangements if a live performance is personalized enough, but in this case, the first half, while somewhat personalized is still structured verbatim with the original, so I felt it was important the panel vet it. And for you folks reading, we can and have posted structurally conservative arrangements, but artists need to compensate for that in other ways, and I agree with DS's POV that the second half does that. There was some subtle but good additive background writing in the first half, particularly the drums. The guitar performances also added a little bit of subtle personalization; not anything that put it over the top, but it was an understated highlight when comparing its sound to the original. The second half of the mix, with everything that happened after 2:33, was enough to put it over the top for me. 2:40's original section provided some a great dynamic change, and the rebuild at 3:10 to transition into the next solo was nice. David Wise's sax solo 3:29-3:51 on top of the source's bassline, followed by the amazing synth soloing on top of the arranged source from 3:55 until the end were both huge and helped end this strongly and present nothing but original material and interpretation for the last few minutes. Whoever in the band thought of including the DKC1 fanfare at the finish is my boy; clever integration of that for a nostalgic and fun finish. Nice work, and a pleasure to have David supporting the OCR's community's efforts once again. YES

This was a flood candidate for the DKC3 album chosen by Emu, and previously marked DP in the submissions inbox. Great track in a vacuum, but the structure's very close to the source. Is the arrangement too straightforward/conservative, or is it expansive/personalized enough to stand apart from the original? Please don't rush a vote just to make one, but try to vote ASAP. - LT Monkey Kong, David Wise Daniel Rosenqvist, Anton Dromberg, Lucas Grönlund, Axel Johansson, Anton Fluch and David Wise danielrosenqvisten@hotmail.com www.myspace.com/monkeykong Monkey Kong userid: 5179 Sea Breeze Concerto ARRANGED BY: Monkey Kong PERFORMED BY: Monkey Kong feat. David Wise Stilt Village (Game Boy Advance) Daniel Rosenqvist of Monkey Kong: In spring last year, I got a mail from Emu asking us to be a part of the DKC3 album. Although the time wasn't optimal for us with school graduation, concerts and, of course, rehearsing for our pre-show gig at the Stockholm Concert Hall for Distant Worlds II, there really was no way for me (being such an OC ReMix fan) to turn down on this! I knew the process was gonna be long -- getting up the energy in the band, finding time to practice, jam it (A LOT of jamming, actually), arranging, recording, mixing, mastering, and so on. But to now come out in the other end and see the result is gratifying. This could not be done without David Wise. I would like to thank him from the bottom of my heart for all the love he's put in to both his playing and also in mixing and mastering. I've learned so much from this Dave, thank you!! This song is for you, the OC ReMix staff and, of course, every video game music lover that understands why it's the ultimate art form! I'm very pleased to give you the "Sea Breeze Concerto!" (first 20 seconds of source is ocean SFX)

This was a flood candidate for the DKC3 album chosen by Emu. I think the bland drum pattern that goes in and out and the slightly-off timing of things drag it down from DP and the panel should make a call on it. Please don't rush a vote just to make one, but try to vote ASAP. - LT Cornfed Kong ARRANGED BY: zykO PERFORMED BY: zykO feat. diotrans, Diggi Dis Rockface Rumble (Game Boy Advance) zykO: I listen to a lot more country than I let on. More of the Hank Williams III variety, no doubt, but my ears perked up immediately when I saw the opportunity to work with this source. I have a soft spot for the wondrous mix of the piano, violin, and upright bass, and with a little guitar, it's practically gold. The GBA version of "Rockface" is so completely unlike its SNES counterpart and while I was tempted to go off the deep end with the ambiance and SFX (as you'd expect me to), I opted instead to go for writing a song and letting the vibe of the piece do all the table setting instead of my normal dose of meandering scene-building. I was very blessed to be able to welcome the talents of incredibly talented folk like diotrans and Diggi Dis onto the project. Otherwise, we'd all have been stuck listening to me sequence piano and violin, hahaha. No, but really, their work is PRO, no question about it. WILL DO AGAIN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtzMF8cMKVE

Dayum, definitely rest up and get better, man. Let us know if you know more about what caused the lung to partially collapse when you can. That's crazy that's happened, but we're glad you're OK, and not out of action.

Pretty swank! Definitely worth the 2 years of effort.

Original Decision Remixer name: Bluelighter Real Name: Guillaume SAUMANDE ID forum: 30998 Game & Songs: Astérix (Game Boy) – Helvetia & Title Screen & Secret Level Composer: Alberto Jose Gonzalez Helvetia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4S2vXj5quc Title Screen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE0PnZAI7s Secret Level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0UXZ7J1AVc Comment: Hi! With these themes, I wanted to get something sunny, exotic and funny One year after the first version, I make a new attempt on this mix. My first post was based only on Helvetia’s theme. I’ve had on it major critics on the arrangement, too close to the original. In this version, I’ve completely rethought the first arrangement, by including two other sources: Title Screen (that well marry with Helvetia's Theme IMO) and a little of the Secret Level. In this version, I’ve worked to get a better orchestration, but keeping the first spirit: rhythm of circus music; exotic consonances with marimba and pizz; and still an accent on clavichords. I've after applied a small correction (trumpets at 1'27); new version posted the 13rd of october. I believed it was possible to bring some minor retouches in some cases. They were in staccato in the first version and didn’t stand out enough IMO. Now, I find the result better. All sounds are made by Finale, except drums and marimba done by FL. So, for the next time, I understand I’ve better to contact directly a judge than posting a new time to OCR. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tell me if this update can be considered. Hope you like this arrangement Guillaume

Alright, Vinnie, that sounds like the right call. You definitively gave it a good go with the WAV, but if there's no sequencing/source files to work with, it just limited what you could do to spruce it up. Derek, especially nowadays, it's not often we pull back a direct post nomination, so we're sorry the outcome changed. We do include a disclaimer when direct post nominations are sent out, but we still don't mean to wrongly get anyone's hopes up or piss anyone off through a retraction. As the panel's collectively said, the arrangement quality is clearly there, but the lack of realism in the sound really undermines that arrangement quality and we're looking for reasonable execution on both the arrangement and production levels. Seriously, do consider what other avenues you may have to turn out a fuller, more realistic-sounding performance of this piece, including asking for help in the Music Composition & Production or Recruit & Collaborate forums, as it's a great arrangement that just needs another level of TLC. If someone reads this thread, and realizes this arrangement is clearly a pass, they may be more inclined to offer their help.

After opening up very conservatively until 1:04, the arrangement ended up (finally) ended up doing something different with the tempo and dynamics to stand apart from the original. At 2:06, it went back to the original tempo but with some further additive writing to help give it it's own interpretation until the slowdown and finish at 3:09. I would have loved to have heard this go in more interpretive direction, and I'm not sure I could give it a YES on the arrangement even if the sound quality and realism of the piano sample was on point. It does do some things to stand apart from the original, but that's mostly in the middle, and for only about 60 seconds. About 2/3rds of this sounded pretty cover-ish with the same tempo, time signature and overall mood, and merely adapted to piano, so I didn't really get a sense of it standing apart from the original. Coupled with the piano realism issues that Deia, OA & Palp pointed out, I'm definitely not on board yet and need to hear an improved version before I could pass this. Maybe no one co-signs with me on the arrangement needing some additional levels of interpretation, but the sound quality and humanization of the piano both need work. Palp's right that it doesn't compare favorably to any recent piano piece we have. NO

Source usage: :45.25-2:15.5, 2:48-2:54, 3:11-3:17, 3:32-3:38, 3:46.25-5:15 - way over the line Cool arrangement approach. Definitely agreed with Emu on how the approach isn't meant to be dramatic twists and turns. This piece has got great energy, a solid arrangement, and cool production. The middle section basically does its own thing, bookended by the other two sections working extensively with the source. During that middle, it sounded like Alex used a J-E-N-O-V-A cameo from 2:48-2:54, 3:11-3:17 & 3:32-3:38 (which I'll count, even if it wasn't intentional, since the notes were dead on). The tempo's pretty steady, but this ended up evolving nicely and doing a great job of giving off a retro-futuristic vibe, like something you'd hear in a dark, 80's vision of the future, kind of like Blade Runner. Maybe Tron too (wouldn't know, haven't seen it). Good stuff, Alex! YES

As far as the SNES instrumentation being outside the scope of the site, that's more for Dave to decide, though there are certainly more production options available compared to the 2A03. I don't have any inherent problem with going this route, though I'd say for this piece, if you assumed it would be a pass on the arrangement, I'd argue the sound quality (in this case, realism) of the instruments would need to be improved. But we take everything on a case-by-case basis. Getting to the substance though, I love the arrangement here in the SPC700 style of the SNES, and I don't mean to dismiss any of the modifications. But at it's core, it holds pretty fast to the original's structure, tempo and mood, as a demake-style cover, with the aim being to replicate the original fairly faithfully and adapt to this instrument set. Whether of not the instrument set was strictly from the SNES ends up being a moot point, since the arrangement is too conservative overall for our standards here. That doesn't diminish from how cool this arrangement is, William, but it does fall outside the scope of what we're looking for on account of being too straightforward of a cover. NO

What's the gameplan now, i.e. would anyone like to help lift this up further or can get the actual source files to this from Derek? Vinnie, you wanna try to spice this up further?

Yeah, this is a great start, and I actually didn't mind the approach de-emphasizing the melody, as the source tune structure and writing was still pretty apparent. I thought this was pretty close. The opening was definitely hot with some basic but good rhythmic changes to the source. 1:24's section had the blandest, most generic sounding synths of the entire track without some creative processing and effects to flesh the sound out and make it sound like a good amount of effort and creativity was invested. Leading up to 1:40's transition, this quick section felt pretty aimless and off-key with the rest of the song. Tighten this up. There's some subtle dynamic changes here from section to section, but the textures were ultimately pretty basic. The slow, constant tempo left the basic textures here sounding pretty exposed, and also made it seem like the track dragged and was repetitive, even though no group of sounds stayed in place for more than maybe 40 seconds or so. I think DA and OA are on point here: this sounds like a very strong base, but the second half lost steam, and I also though that one brief dropoff from 1:26-1:40 was sloppy and the low point of the piece. If you can create a bit more dynamic contrast with some new ideas, that could lift it up to a YES. It's definitely something you can improve, CJ, so give it a shot! Good potential here! NO (resubmit)

Gar, your idea needs at least a few proofs of concept to show a substantive example of this kind of analysis you're aiming for, and how thorough it would be. Sounds like it has potential though. It's worth noting that this sounds like analysis that, when essentially completed, probably should be merged into respective Review threads, since thought out analysis of ReMixes does belong there alongside non-analytical reviews. Music Composition & Production makes sense for the homebase of this project though.

The piano sequencing was the weakest bit, but otherwise loved the variations and dynamics here. Nice job bookending this with the focus on strings, though IMO the resolution at the very end didn't quite work. I'm making it short and sweet while I'm multitasking, but this was a great exploration of the credits theme here for sure. Keep 'em coming! YES