Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

Source usage-wise, the track was 220.5 long and needed 110.25 seconds of source use for the usage to be dominant and for me to pass it. :03-:25 (original riffing paired with loud arranged backing lines direct from the source, smart stuff), :36-1:00, 1:56-2:04.25, 2:07-2:11, 2:12.5-2:16.75, 2:18-2:52, 3:26.5-3:38.5 = 108.5 seconds The choruses from :58-1:22 & 1:34-1:56 was loosely inspired by the source with some rhythmic similarities, but sounded too liberal (and atonal) for me to count as source usage from Cornelia Castle. If I'm missing something else obvious there, like another theme reference or an upgraded soundtrack version that used this writing (PlayStation, WonderSwan, etc), please let me know. Otherwise, it's close, but not overtly using the source material quite enough, from what I can tell. My opinion on the previous version was: Flippant, yes. Unfortunately, that criticism still stands with this version. And let me make it clear, you didn't commit sacrilege for "daring" to modify the mood of the source tune. I always HATE when people complain about that. But what's in place with the melody is atonal and ends up clashing with your backing writing too drastically, and that ended up killing this off. The first bars of the verse were great from :36 to :47, then everything after was atonal when paired with the backing, ESPECIALLY the choruses from 1:00-1:19 & 1:34-1:53. Notes matter. Modify your leads or your backing instrumentation, but one of 'em needs to be tweaked for this to make sense musically. Brief but baller stuff from 1:56-2:06. The energy's good and the performances are pretty solid. It's really too bad all these atonal sections were there when the core of the arrangement and performance was sweet. No hate Justin, it's a good track in a vacuum, and it takes nothing away from your skills, but the clashing sections are too extensive to let slide. If you want to touch this up, great, but either way I look forward to hearing more from you. NO (refine/resubmit)

No hate, but OA and DA are high as kites to be YESing this, especially given some of the sections with barebones textures and corny default electrosynths. C'mon guys, for real? Y'all are too nice. There are times, CJ, where you have some really cool instrumental combinations going on, like the harpsichord-style stuff and the intro ideas until :55. But there are other times where you have a lot of bland FL Studio default synths exposed with next to no modifications that stick out like a sore thumb. Somewhat generic sounds to open things up, but some cool effects, as well as the vox samples being used to nice effect to create some cool textures. Pretty generic production for the electrosynths brought in at :55, with some stuttered drums that were cool, albeit rigidly sequenced. Oh crap, super-bland FL Studio default gated synth at 1:45, along with the vanilla, generic synth lead at 2:03 and 3:09. Pretty lonely percussion stuff at 2:20. Not sure why those basic sounds were so prominent and the textures were so flimsy, when 2:46's section was markedly better by comparison (albeit not great). :55's section sounded so much more creative and cohesive by comparison as well. I messed with FL Studio for a couple of hours back in 2002, and I heard a ton of the default sounds and effects used in this piece, which just sounds way too amateur and beginner-ish. That's not to say that, because I recognize the sounds, you're punished for it, but these default synths are very raw like Palpable said, and need to be refined, especially for the second half. They generally don't work well without further effort put into refining them. There's not enough effort given to polishing the sounds up here and fleshing out these textures, and it just kills the arrangement ideas dead. I hate to gloss over the arrangement, because the source tune is clearly worked with, but the sounds are generally weak enough to make that discussion unnecessary. So, in short, your arrangement has potential, so improve these currently lame areas: the lead and gating effects at 1:45, the lead at 2:03, the plain percussion at 2:20, and the lead at 3:09. Sorry, CJ. I loved that Puggsy resubmission, so I know you can take your music to a much higher level. Step up the quality and consistantcy of your submissions, you can definitely get there! NO

April Fools!

Thanks for Nutritious for his arrangement breakdown. I ended up not needing it very much because the source tune was surprisingly memorable enough for me to grasp and then compare with the arrangement. The source tune's definitely incorporated for most of the arrangement. Wow, this needs some production love. The drums were flimsy, the guitar tone was decent but needed more meat, the synth lead at 3:39 sounded pretty generic, and the soundscape sounded really dry and ultra-squeaky clean. This really needed additional effects to give the sounds added richness and depth. I'm really strongly disagreeing with Palpable on the production not being a dealbreaker. It's THE dealbreaker. Everything here sounded WAY TOO DRY, some of the sample quality was weak with no effects to help compensate, and it's pretty obvious production is where Brent needs to get some chops. There's nothing inherently wrong with these transitions, and IMO they don't need to be re-written. Much of the reason the changeups lacked flow is because almost everything was terribly dry and exposed. We've had WAY more dramatic instrumental transitions that nonetheless clicked. The soundscape was just too flimsy here, that's the main problem. Without adequate production techniques to provide a cohesive core soundscape and a rich sound, the style changeups came off more a lot more jarring than they should have, and the potential of the arrangement wasn't anywhere near realized. I hate to throw out the term "beginner-ish," because this isn't clipping, distorting or horribly imbalanced, but this track, production-wise, sounds beginner-ish. Right now, this sounds like a WIP where the arrangement is fully laid out, but the post-production hasn't been addressed yet. And that's unfortunate, because Brent's arrangement is safely a pass. NO (resubmit)

Wow, that source tune is pretty damn cool. It's a small thing, but I really didn't know the Genesis was capable of ultra-subtle basslines like that. That definitely sounded awesome. Onto the sub, the bassline here sounded almost as pimp as the original, and the sequencing sounded fine, so I'm not really on OA's side for that. It seems like a the NOs are saying it came off like a round peg being fit into a square hole, but I can't say it sounded out of place to me in this overall style. That said, the opening instrumentation was definitely on the rough side. I wasn't really feeling the way the textures came together from :49-1:10, as the guitars ended up creating a lot of mud while the synth melody was too quiet. Though it could have been more polished, I liked the guitar work overall, though the thin percussion ended up sounding flimsy during louder sections like 1:42-1:54. It wasn't a big deal in the bigger picture. Also, I don't know what's wrong with the extended fade down of the last note as an ending; nothing seemed out of place there, so I'm ignoring that. I assumed I'd probably end up going NO given the way this vote was turning out, but while there's some production and performance work that I wish could be tightened up, this was still very capably arranged and executed, and I didn't hear any red flags that made me think this couldn't hang. The structure held fast to the source, but was extremely personalized. Like Vig, I felt the dynamics here were actually really well done. All in all, it where it needs to be to make it. Keep improving, Max! YES

This is fine, Sam. The issue with chiptune tracks is when it's only chiptune sounds with little to no other instrumentation or production techniques involved, which is why "Figaro Chiptune" and "Espergirl 2A03" didn't make it, while "Dueling Consoles" and Mazedude's "See Sixty Funk" did. That's not a personal hangup of mine, but that's been the lay of the land from djpretzel as far as wanting OCR to be a place where more modern production techniques are used, and not to allow what are essentially MIDI or chiptune format songs. Using chiptune sounds is fine as long as there's more to the track than that, as halc, Benjamin Briggs, PROTO·DOME, AeroZ, and a LOT of others have shown: http://ocremix.org/forums/tags.php?tag=chiptune Since the piano was substantially incorporated as well, this had, IMO, no issues as far as bumping up against the standards. On the production side, I thought the piano levels were too low, not because it needed to be louder than the chip stuff, but because it was too quiet compared to the chip sounds, somewhat undermining the great interplay of both parts. So I would have tweaked the balance a bit, but no big deal. That said, this was still an excellent arrangement, with the piano really giving off a different, refined feel to the source tune, and some really creative 2A03 sound choices. Keep 'em coming! YES

Musician's Friend definitely deserves some props for that. Especially when it was UPS that messed things up in the first place. Musician's Friend could have easily said "Oh well," so they're really awesome for stepping up where UPS (unfortunately) failed. EDIT: @UPS is quick on the Tweeter: http://twitter.com/UPSHelp/status/152400289293533185 - Steve, if you want to talk to them to further explain the situation and see if they'll help in any way, let them know. If you don't want to tweet, you can email them at twitter@ups.com.

This is probably being worked on for some time down the line, but it's definitely something I'd like to see as well, so I'll keep it in mind to nag djp about!

Gotta catch 'em all. http://ocremix.org/torrents/

Definitely a very cool piece, and an awesome job making the source tune seem inherently spooky. If I wasn't familiar with Mario World, I would have assumed it was dark to begin with, that's how naturally Liz made everything click.

No, Gollgagh's correct. Also, why would you complain about "OC REMIX" with a space not conforming to the internet address when neither does the "OVERCLOCKED REMIX" lettering on the current site design? But yeah, as a logo, there's nothing wrong with writing "OC REMIX." It only makes sense not to have a space if it's followed by .org.

Provided we had the time/resources, I'd like to do that for those that actually wanted mix updates via email.

Nobody does; it's poo that they don't. Cool find on the show though!

OHSNAP AHPPY BIRFDAY BROWN BR0! ... ... ... ... ... Sorry man, it... got a little heated back there.

I've heard loads of conservative covers with a lot less personalization than this. I don't think I'm just being a sucker for the performances being solid. I agreed with the crit about the soundscape being too thin at times, and it should have been fuller, but it wasn't a huge deal for me. The transitions here didn't bother me; everything there was pretty smooth instead of jarring. There are some notable personal embellishments of the themes, and a LOT of original supporting ideas involved in the interplay between the two guitars that are absolutely not in the original themes. Together with the sum total of the different instrumentation, tempo changes, new dynamics and overall different mood of the performance added up to more than an overly simplistic cover to me. This doesn't rely on melodic interpretation, but the other tennants of arrangement are there enough for me to be more than fine with this. In short, I disagree VERY strongly with these NOs. Rejecting this on arrangement grounds goes against our standards and is a huge mistake. YES

Copied from my review in the WIP area: There's a lot going for it, though I still think the Spring Man connections end up sounding tenuous because they're based more on rhythmic similarities instead of the actual melody. Justin seemed to be willing to give my structural suggestion a go (which doesn't factor into my vote either way), so I hope he keeps at it on this one. Cutting the fat on this would help significantly. NO (resub)

Because we already have over 1,000 avatars, and forum avatars will always be 498th on my mega big list of OCR & life priorities.

O ye of little faith. Besides, time only matter in the USA!

The SMW Overworld section had me worried a bit, as the arrangement was obviously cool, just very cover-ish, even for a pure mallet percussion adaptation. Luckily after the transition to the SMB3/SMB Water combination, the arrangement had some more interpretation. It's conservative, but the arrangement was definitely personalized and expressive. The transitions were a little jumpy, but nothing was awkward, and the overall flow was fine. Big props to David and crew for an extremely fun mix! YES

MP3 tagging/encoding programs from ye olden days were just weird. There's not really any involved explanation other than some programs added weird metadata, and that'll be taken care of in the new torrents. Someone who's familiar with the quirks of programs used in 2000-2003 might know the actual answer.

Compared to the first version, the new lead at :45 has a less default-type sound, but the way the note changes slur so heavily undermines the melody. At 1:17, this could stand some sort of switchup for the lead sound in order to keep things fresh. Or keep 1:17 the same and change the :45 lead. I'm gonna keep saying it until something else comes along, but that same main lead going for pretty much all the 4+ minutes got old. It's old. Get away from it. Maybe alternate between some more like what you had in v1, only somewhat more more expressive. At least then you could have some actual sonic variation with these leads. The new stuff added at 2:01 compared to the last version doesn't work. The orch stabs were super tacky and didn't have any synergy with your other sounds. IMO, I don't think they work at all, but if you really must have them in there, experiment with pushing them a lot more in the background rather than upfront, to accent the more important foreground writing. The structure (basically A-B-A-B-C- was still pretty repetitive without creative enough dynamic contrast, so I have the same criticism as last time. It just seems like after 2:01, you have the exact same textures, the exact same lead, the exact same groove, exact same arrangement of the source material being repeated wholesale. But now there's needless orch stabs, lead doubling and tons of grace notes being added to create differences for the sake of verse 2 not being exactly the same, yet it doesn't have any flow. IMO, this just overcomplicated things without actually improving it, and it's something a lot of developing artists are guilty of when they feel locked into a certain structure. Not feeling the key change at 3:33 either, and the chorus at 3:48 basically gets the same crits as 2:01 (just added notes & effects over basically the same groove, same instruments, same arrangement ideas being repeated a third time.) I still really like the core ideas here, so I hate to come out and seem like "EVERYTHING IS WRONG" when this base sounds pretty cool. I love the bassline, and the opening 45 seconds sounds cool as hell. I love the crystalline countermelody at 1:15 as I've said before and the bubbly support notes (e.g. most audible at 3:48). I like the arrangement ideas, they just end up sounding too repetitive in the long run because it's the same sounds, tempo, beats, writing with little real evolution past 2:01. Structurally, you could probably just go buildup-A-B-C-B-wind down and cut some of the fat out of this instead of letting it drag for the 5 minutes. But you need more variation with your lead sounds and the core groove. Instead of slapping new coats of paint on the same ol' leads and melody via effects, doubling and grace notes, change the actual lead itself and think of other new melodic variations or integrate other areas of the source. If it's just too frustrating and the constant tinkering makes you feel like this track is getting away from what you want it to be, Justin, then forget about working on it further. But if you think you can actually develop this more, then move away from this v3 and start back at square two. I think you can, otherwise I wouldn't have spent half an hour of my limited time to listen to this. I still like the potential here.

OK, I'm seeing Scuba Divers mentions and whatnot. WHO IS MAN ENOUGH TO MAKE THE FIRST OC REMIX OF THIS, SO WE CAN POST IT SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON? P.S. This theme is hilariously incredible, I don't care what anyone says!

Pre-order: http://www.eminenceonline.com/store/soulcaliburv.html It's got a pretty awesome lineup of composers through Creative Intelligence Arts (that I, in no way, shape, or form, had any hand in ) If you caught me Easter egg'ed in Kotaku's Booth Babes of Tokyo Game Show piece, that's because I was promoting this upcoming soundtrack. For you OCR folks, the soundtrack's got both Andy and Jill on there with some epic music, and it's got friends of OCR Hiroki Kikuta, Hiroaki Yura and 18-year-old (way too good at muzak) Tomoki Miyoshi in there, live performance from the Eminence Symphony Orchestra and Symphonic Choir, and tons of other awesome composers. Hit the pre-order page to lock in for the album now. PayPal will automatically handle the conversion to Yen, so if you have the dollas to pop for an international soundtrack, definitely get it! The deluxe package is going to be pretty sweet!

That was brutal/awesome.

The time for that has come and gone. Make a 15.