Liontamer

It's definitely different enough to merit looking at it again. Aside from a couple of sections retaining the same structure of the first version, this is basically a totally different animal. Honestly, this is an easy pass for me. Normally when we have a very straightforward YES, we don't need to redo a vote, and I just go with the revision the artist sent. But since the previous version split the panel, there's nothing wrong with doing another vote again if y'all would like to. Jordan is basically asking us to ignore the conditional YES on the old version in order to send us this version, which is a reasonable request. That said, I was YES last time, and this version is still very cool. I'm more partial to the relaxed nature of the first version, so I hope Jordan doesn't feel like it should never see the light of day since we'd be going with this one. Definitely a lot stranger and a lot more mutated, if you will, compared to the first version. Either way, they're both great arrangements. This one could use a higher VBR encoding to max out the size, and there were still some mixing issues where this could have sounded cleaner, but definitely nothing approaching dealbreaker to me. The timing was loose in some parts, but nothing setting off any flags or killing the experience. Not really any huge issues on arrangement or production, IMO. This here offers something sonicly [sic] unique despite us having over 700 contributors. Jordan, keep us this great work.

For the record, I've only heard the revised version from 6/25. Definitely pretty mechanical from 1:10-2:00. It was the rigid percussion sequencing and unrealistic samples there that were dragging this down. The orch stabs at 1:09 were pure cheese. Tacky, but I think I'll live. The low bowed strings there were also fakey, but not a huge deal. The rest was solid enough, and I really liked the arrangement, dynamics and instrumentation ideas on whole. But that 50 seconds of weak drums was too beginner-ish and a dealbreaker for me. It just sounds too sloppy compared to nearly everything else. Fix that up so that everything is fully clicking and sounding strong. You can do it, Mathew, just get some advice on the percussion, try some things to get it sounding more natural, and this would be golden. It's worth the effort, just tug on a few people's sleeves and see who can offer the help/advice you need on this one. NO (refine/resubmit)

2:30-2:58 of the arrangement vs. 2:21-2:54 of "So Right" I love the track in a vacuum, but nonetheless, the use of the "So Right" writing from the Roadside Romeo film soundtrack with the saxophone from 2:30-2:58 is arguably too much to be called "extremely limited." I had it at a bit over 10% of this piece. Not necessarily looking to formalize something, but what's Dave's & the panel's POV on "extremely limited" outside song usage. 28 seconds may not seem like a lot. Does it matter whether it's 28 seconds of, say, a 2 minute arrangement vs. a 4 1/2 minute one, or it is really just about the length of time outside, non-VGM sources are used? See this past decision and Dave's comments for more background: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13763

How did this get here? Oh, he put it there. Look at that, he read my mind. Really fun stuff. Obviously has some halc staples, but actually didn't remind me of any of his past work, which was a nice change of pace. It doesn't remind me of flying or anything like that (no hate on the title), but it's a geeky club joint, complete with fireball SFX as a beat. I imagine some YouTube comments will be like "Goomba in the club! Toad in the club!" I'll still facepalm. YES

Sometimes going for the most overmixed themes really pays off from a creative standpoint. Here, Gregory was actually able to cut loose with the arrangement due to the original being so familiar. The mixing was somewhat cluttered, particularly during the 8-bit parts, and there were some grating and piercing sounds. I could definitely go for the mixing/EQing being tweaked, but it wasn't a dealbreaker. That said, it's a lengthier track, but the arrangement itself was pretty swanky, keeping the base of the Zeal theme present throughout while really personalizing the sounds and flow of the piece. Cool chiptune elements, and a cool otherworldly sound that had a nice robotic feel to it. Short and sweet, it works. YES

Sounds lossy despite the bitrate and lacking in high end clarity, which was definitely unfortunate, but not a dealbreaker. The main beat was pretty deliberate, and almost too punchy and upfront, which could stand being tweaked. But again, pretty minor in the big picture. Really dug the flow, dynamics and creativity of the arrangement, including some great original writing in the middle. Not much else to say but I dig it. A fresh take on a classic. Nice work, Jamison! YES

No, I hear it. There's light fuzz throughout the recording, you're not making things up. It was nothing that was a dealbreaker or that would negatively affect the experience for a casual listener, but it was there. I definitely agreed with Vinnie about this needing more body, IMO, but I also though what was here was well-performed and sounded strong enough even if the right-hand notes sounded thin. I agreed with Nutritious about the overall arrangement being personalized enough despite the structure being close to the original; it's definitely a good example of how to do that and still use embellishments and additive writing to give a source tune its own unique feel and not just adapt it for a solo instrument with no interpretation. Good stuff, and a very welcome mix for me. I've always enjoyed this source since hearing Cloud's "Hostile But Cuddly" from way back! Nice debut and I hope we get more from you, Casey! YES

Hey, hey. Thanks, Joe!

As Moseph said, VBR is fine.

It's difficult for me to articulate on a theory level, but the nature of the arrangement initially wasn't working for me beyond a pretty liberal level as well. The arrangement needed 141.5 seconds of overt source use to achieve a YES on arrangement. :36-1:23, 1:27-1:48.5, 2:01-2:13, 2:25-2:36, 2:37-3:19 = 143.5 seconds Questionable call/pretty liberal: 1:48-2:01, 2:13-2:24 EDIT (8/16): The rhythmic changes to the melody (e.g. :36-1:23, 2:01-2:13) might sound too liberal to some, but it's clearly the source's main melody, only stuttered. Even if someone said the arrangement was a little out there, it wasn't melodically off base. Not sure why someone would argue this is too liberal. It could have been most of the last minute and a half doing its own thing that threw off the scent. Even there, there could be stuff I'm not counting, but once I find 50% source, I'm fine. I liked the track in a vacuum, and wasn't as put off, as other were, about the structure. Stylistically, I could see why someone wouldn't like the section from :59-1:23, which wasn't very melodious, but I didn't mind it. Dynamically, it's meant to be come off flat before the build at 1:24. Not sure how 3:20's section is melodic noodling, as Vig put it, for all of 28 seconds, even if someone could be put off by that. I've heard rock songs noodle for a lot longer and in a more pronounced way. Honestly, I'm not hearing anything either too structurally strange with the track or liberal with the source tune. I'm feeling like Palpable did: production issues aside (and there were no dealbreakers or even anything worth coming down on, IMO), the arrangement is there, the flow is there, and it's creative and interpretive. I just don't see anything but a lot of flimsy reasons to NO it, and some of y'all need to take another look at the arrangement. It checks out, and y'all know I give the least credit out of anyone. YES

If that was my only responsibility here, I'd agree with you.

The opening seemed fine to me, despite being unconnected to the source. Though she went YES, I didn't agree with Deia on the arrangement being almost too conservative. There were a lot of embellishments and interpretive flourishes even in just peforming that verses that I thought showed off creativity basically the whole way. The chiptune-ish percussion brought in at :52 didn't seem like a great fit with the other instrumentation. From 1:19-1:45, the mixing/production was off and the piece really feels very cluttered. And it pretty much stayed like that no matter what was in play from that point on. Really strange, I wish I could articulate the issues better here (the others covered it thoroughly), but really the balance and/or EQing needs to be addressed. I felt like too many parts were stepping on each other. Oh DAYUM, what an abrupt fadeout around 3:36. Definitely poorly done, it faded down way too fast and just came across like you had to just end the song because you ran out of time to work on it further and flesh it out. Even just doing an extended fade would have sounded so much smoother. I thought the arrangement was fine aside from the ending not really being written or properly resolved. Fixing that up along with tweaking the production would easily put this over the top. No shame in a NO here, but a NO it is for now. Hopefully, it's a pretty easy resubmission.

Sweeet. KyleJCrb's responsible for introducing me to Mega Beardo's music. Just a very freaky VGM persona, that's for sure. Good fun. Right off the bat, the instrumentation was distant, but it was purposeful and presented an excellent constrast with the guitar being so upfront at :08. The levels of the percussion at :24 felt a bit too hot though, with the cymbals and beats being way too loud, STEAMROLLING over the leads, over the melody. What was up with that? At :37, that might have been acceptable, but when the verse truly arrives at :50, the levels/balance just don't make enough sense. Your leads need to be louder and more upfront compared to the percussion. 2:12 was a bit repetitive, structurally. It wasn't literally cut and pasted, but it just sounded like more of the same. Beyond that second iteration of the theme, I was hoping for some more substance and interpretation. Luckily, that arrived when 3:20 had a beautiful dropoff, leading to a gradual build starting at 3:59. THe second half here really presented a lot of new original and interpretive ideas with the source to make sure the arrangement creativity wasn't in doubt. I'll be honest, I'm leaning with the conditionals, but if Ryan called this track a done deal, I felt he was able to put it over the top enough with the arrangement and the production was decent enough where I could ultimately live with this as is. That said, I'd prefer the levels of the first half could be touched up. Good stuff! YES (conditional)

Wow, VERY cool source tune. Very interesting, especially the vocals. The arrangement breakdown was definitely much appreciated! Definitely feelin' this arrangement. Lots of Shnabubula-style sounds & samples in there. Can't say the notes bothered me anywhere, maybe I just don't have as sensitive ears as OA. Was definitely feeling the overall minimalism here, and loving the mood and dynamics of the piece the entire way. I love how this one's leaving all the YES's pretty speechless. Count me in, this is strange, awesome stuff that I can't describe. It's interpretive and it works. I love it. JAWESOME!

Yeah, Kyle had selected this for an episode of Nitro Game Injection, so I was already pretty familiar with David's DoD take, although it wasn't the further polished version. Wow. What the fuck? No. I gotta say, this stated rationale for this vote is completely arbitrary and wrong, and it makes the panel look bad. So if music from Super Mario 64 were much more obscure, a pretty straightforward cover of it would make it? That's not how we're supposed to be evaluating anything, giving bonus points or leniency for source obscurity. It shouldn't matter whether the source has never been mixed or has been done to death, the level of interpretation needs to be pretty substantive. I agree with the overall arrangement being too conservative. 1:12-2:00 does some soloing and riffing on top of the foundation of the original. I love the soloing, but that's basically the aspect that made this stand apart from the original, not really any particular interpretation of the source tune itself beyond the adaptation to rock. As was pointed out, the patterns, rhythms, tempo and overall mood were pretty much the same as the original, only a rock cover and upgrade. I love it in a vacuum, and don't mean to disrespect David, who is an awesome musician and really on fire with quality arrangement since returning to the scene. This one just happened to be much more conservative than his previous material, no hate. If you want to come back to it and interpret the theme itself more, David, that's cool. If not, it's a great rock arrangement that everyone should check out regardless. NO (resubmit)

Which, by Liontamer's own admission a few threads ago, was shaky, at best. Fair Use, by NO means, is guaranteed protection for OCR. I didn't say it was "shaky," I said I believe what we do here falls under fair use, and also made clear I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to have the authority of one.

He answered this: http://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/83928854581874688 http://www.picturepundit.com/2011/06/23/andy-baio-vs-jay-maisel-in-a-fair-use-case-my-quick-question/

Andy had an artist create a pixelated rendition of the album art photo of Kind of Blue for Kind of Bloop. The original photographer said it violated his copyright and sued him. The lawsuit would have been too expensive and time-consuming, so Andy, without admitting guilt and firmly believing the transformative nature of the work meant it fell under fair use, nonetheless felt he had to settle the case to get it behind him. It cost $32,500 to settle. The blog is his story of the case, and an informal analysis of fair use, particularly in regards to transformative visual artwork.

It doesn't really matter whether an artist knows or doesn't know if a source tune was originally written for a game. Just because the artist doesn't know doesn't mean we just toss out our rules. Otherwise, we'd post every mix of that Mortal Kombat techno theme. That said, a community project to make a list of VGM tunes that aren't commonly known as not being originally written for a game would be a handy reference tool.

zircon's right on how the standards have evolved. That said, Rabid is saying that the Doom source only uses one riff from a mainstream song, then goes to all-original material, meaning the majority of the source is stuff originally written for a game, according to him. I'll take a look into this, compare the source and mainstream stuff in question, and get back to you. It's rare we pull back decisions, but obviously if we made a mistake, there's no issue doing a full vote. But if the Doom source is basically a Black Sabbath arrangement, then what zircon said is correct. After our Doom albums, we got a lot more information on what in-game tracks were in fact mainstream music covers/arrangement and thus ineligible to be source tunes for OC ReMixes.

As DarkeSword said, the mix you send should be the final version of your mix. Some people attempt to game the system and replace a file with an updated version before we get to it. Updating the file only works if the filename and path are exactly the same and we haven't listened to it yet. It also leads to some confusion when people assume we haven't already started judging it and we end up judging an out of date version, so I can't recommend it. If you're still in the middle of revising your piece, don't submit it yet. It's always worth pointing out that the # of submissions has increased year by year, so that's why the wait time continues to be long. The judges (no help from me) have definitely been working a lot faster now and are getting much closer to present day. Their goal is to be caught up by the end of July, so we hope to be back to quicker judgements before the summer is over. Also, ALL resubmissions are meant to be fast-tracked back to the panel as a priority, and don't have to wait in line in the process, so just make sure you flag a resubmission as such in the title of your email and link to the post where the original decision took place.

Durr. Anyone who does that obviously isn't in it to win it.

http://ocremix.org/events/distantworlds2011/ It doesn't get much bigger than this. YOU can win the opportunity to meet Nobuo Uematsu OR some amazing Final Fantasy music autographed by the man himself, courtesy AWR Music & Distant Worlds! We recommend to LIKE ALL 3 of the Facebook pages of the folks putting together this contest, including Uematsu-san's official page: • http://on.fb.me/NobuoUematsuFB • http://facebook.com/ffdistantworlds • http://facebook.com/ocremix POST HERE IN THIS THREAD TO ENTER INTO THE CONTEST! Anything you want, just make it about Final Fantasy, Nobuo Uematsu, Distant Worlds, OC ReMix, or the fact that you're in it to win it! Larry Oji, Nobuo Uematsu & Jimmy Hinson at Distant Worlds - Atlanta's Woodruff Arts Center: May 7, 2011 ENTER FOR VICTORY! THIS COULD BE YOU!

Good genteel stuff here. Had a nice intimate sound, but I initially had a hard time making out a lot of the direct sources in this. It's really due to the embellishments being so liberal that I frequently felt like the source tunes were constantly phasing in and out of the arrangement. The piece was 3:48-long, so I needed 114 seconds of overt source usage so that they were the dominant part of the arrangement: :02.75-:05.5, :22-:30, :37-:49, :51-:54.25, :56-1:06, 1:08-1:10, 1:12-1:34, 1:38-1:40, 1:42-1:46, 1:47-1:50, 1:53-1:59, 2:04-2:06, 2:12.75-2:20, 2:21-2:25, 2:28-2:31, 2:49-2:51, 2:54-2:56, 3:07-3:31, 3:33-3:41 That said, even with my stopwatching, the themes were overtly in play for more than 2 minutes (2:07.25 minutes, to be more precise) just off a quick look. There could be other areas that I was missing, even though I'm pretty familiar with both. Honestly, a little too busy for my personal taste, but it's nonetheless a very creative, sophisticated take on both themes. The Theme of Love cameos were nice, and I really enjoyed the brief interplay of the themes. And the VERY quiet opening of the melody from :37-:43 and gradually bringing up the intensity by 1:06? A thing of beauty. Nice work! YES