Liontamer

Half of these issue posts, just clear your cache. Mascots should be fine, menus should be fine. ABG's issue is happening though, so that text may need to take up more than 1 line or be moved entirely. Already suggested to Dave, but for posterity's sake: * Home / Interviews / Links / Shirts / Torrents should turn orange when hovered over * Add "Contact Us" and or "Donate" to that row * Headband of the headphones logo lightened to not blend with the background * Donate/Shirts/Store/aStore ("Support" section) in "About" mega-dropdown, either above or below "OverClocked ReMix" section * Alex Brandon pic in People dropdown * Darker (not dark, just darker)/Off-white color for forum/writeup background. Similar to the grey used for the list pages, maybe lighter Looks good!

Nope. Just going default for now.

As a wrestling fan and Super Mario Bros. Super Show fan as a kid, Captain Lou owned. RIP.

Definitely one of the best source tunes from the soundtrack, so this was a treat. Nice work, bros!

Just make it VGDJ, not that dumb name. SLEEK

Not this week. We're still putting some things together to launch it properly.

If we do this, we'd update torrents and provide a general update, but nothing tied to the ReMix RSS feed.

My fault, I should have clarified, I'm also a bit put off by the usage because of part 3-3 of the standards: IMO, the T2 riff really doesn't need to be there (at least, for 32 seconds worth) and I think it should be tweaked, but if this were just fixed on the production side with that issue left intact, and the Js said YES, I'd live.

That's section 3-2 if you're looking. There's no hate against medleys, but there's a deterrence towards mega-medleys that aren't cohesively structured. "Fire Cross" is a great example of one that flows well. Even "Speedy Guitar", with its abrupt changeups, works very well. But the ones with 30 seconds of one theme, 30 of the next, 30 of the next, etc. for 6-8 minutes with no flow, we're never gonna roll with.

You are the one who smells, djpretzel.

Disagree completely. This is a decent mix plagued by several problems that drag it down to NO. There are plenty of mixes with some sort of issues that still pass, which have apparently been forgotten. This isn't a matter of unreasonably demanding perfection. I'm definitely not demanding that.

Opened up with some pretty deliberate pacing. The vanilla gating on the lead at :25 was corny. Spice it up, man. I know you're going for a deliberate pace, but the lead still needs to have energy and momentum behind it. I also thought the sound balance should have been tweaked. The melody needed to be the loudest part. There were countermelodic parts underneath the melody that were supposed to create some interplay and instead they were practically buried for the first 1:31. I liked the changeup at 1:32 though into the chorus and also felt the interpretation factor through the arrangement was acceptable overall from an expansionist perspective. Wasn't feeling the instrumental texture from 2:04-2:19; it went back to being boring until things picked back up at 2:20. The quasi-comping there was a little awkward with the timing, and the placement was also awkward in that I thought it should have been more upfront. Snuck in that "Rockit" ref. Regardless, fairly decent closing section afterward. Spice up/change up some of the more boring sections with elements from the sections that did click and address the sound balance so that the placement of things makes more sense and realizes the potential of the part-writing. Good base so far. Definitely nag some judges and community members on how you can best polish this up, Jesse. I didn't really get to talk to you at PAX so I could thank you for submitting "Secrets" way back in the day, but I hope you don't give up on this one. NO (resubmit)

http://www.zophar.net/download_file/12246 - (32) "Ultimate Koopa" Not sure why that T2 motif was in there for 32 seconds, but that actually managed to take me out of it for the beginning; I'd say take it out or alter it. Also, the production was ass. Sorry, man, I dunno how it ended up sounding like this, but I had to listen to other tracks just to make sure my headphones hadn't broken. This was so compressed, lo-fi and distorted, it needs to be put through a car wash so it sounds a lot cleaner. Definitely unacceptable to post as is. The string & brass sequencing sounded like it could have used some work for the note movements to sound less mechanical, but the poor production tended to obscure that. You got a good foundation, but I dunno how this encoding made it past your ears. Maybe they were fatigued or you flipped the wrong switch somewhere, but you better spit polish this, refine the sequencing and send it on back. Good base though, Jon, so this hopefully shouldn't need too much more work to fly high. NO (resubmit)

Sequencing was too mechanical, particularly the strings. The textures had some promise, but were too flimsy; pad out the back and bring some fullness and high frequencies to the instrumentation. The arrangement had a somewhat interesting approach, using the source as a background element via the pad and adding new writing for the leads that had some interplay with the source. The execution was just sloppy like the others pointed out. You've got a ways to go before you're making something truly decent, Vivien, but please keep at it. The concept is at least better than many other rejections, so just keep working on the fundamentals. NO

Wow, I dunno what y'all heard, but I though the execution was pretty weak compared to what else is passed. The gimpy snare drums had no meat behind 'em and were absolutely the wrong tone, the guitar performance wasn't tight or expressive enough, the background wasn't filled out well enough, and the production was too lo-fi. This should be cleaned up first if anything. I would have expected some conditionals at least, and I like the concept & arrangement, but I feel like Prot back in 2004 wondering what the hell just happened to the bar. This would get completely middle of the road placement in a packed DoD month. Fine arrangement, flimsy production. Fishy's vote pretty much rattled off the reasons this is cool but isn't there yet, then went YES. Nah. These YESs are a little too lax. NO (resubmit)

That name's pretty n00b. Drop the 5 at least. All of the sequencing was pretty mechanical (literally every part), which would have been enough to kill off any track on the panel, IMO. Once things picked up at :42, I thought the sound was too muddy and indistinct, and the vanilla drum writing lacked energy and didn't fill out the background adequately. The arrangement was otherwise in the right direction as far as creating a different mood from the original and presenting your own style, so you really just need to fine tune your details here. That said, you're new, and it'll probably take you a while to be good at that; but I'd say try your hand at touching this up for the learning experience. NO (resubmit)

As far as the chord progression goes, it's a pretty obvious one, but it's not the source tune explicitly, and Palp's right, it's a pretty scant connection without the chorus for context. In other words, use more of the source tune in this, and don't oversimplify it. Honestly, if the execution wasn't so barebones, it would have more potential. As is though, the sound balance needed work, and Palp was dead-on about the lack of high frequencies making this sound like a really crappy low encoding. Sorry, bros, that's just how it was. The instrumental was too sparse as well as underdeveloped and repetitive. Bottom line though, I think the arrangement has some merit, even if it's not my style. If the instrumental were developed more, I could run with this. NO (resubmit)

See that? All of this. NO

The sound balance was pretty weak. The mixing should have been cleaner and the backing parts were way too quiet and positioned too far away in the soundscape compared to the lead. Also, the usage of the vocal clips & SFX was pretty n00bish given how much of it there was. Use them sparingly for effect. Agreed that the arrangement was too liberal, in that there were too many wholly original sections thrown in there without enough focus on arranging Ryu's theme. Once you heard the Ryu section, it was just cut-and-pasted for the rest of the usage, which was lazy as hell. Gimme some more substance beyond the changes in the last 30 seconds. The sequencing was also pretty unrealistic with all those string parts, and there was basically no resolution for the ending. Not bad for a beginner's effort; you show off some initial promise. In the future, focus more on arranging the actual VGM theme and less on slapping voices & sound effects over a beat. Hope to hear improvement from you with the sequencing the next time around as you continue to improve your skills. NO

Jimmy, not my fault you guys never check stuff. Benjamin, give us more EXPLICIT info on what sources you used and where next time. In any case, enjoyable piece, just not enough usage of the Zelda themes throughout to meet the standards. Keep submitting stuff, bro, you have some talent. NO

Second half of track 5 from http://vgmdb.net/album/394

:16 was the backing pattern to the SMB3 underwater music, not Toad's House. :37-:55 was indeed the first 7 notes of that source melody of that same theme stretched out. SMB3's my favorite game, and I know the music like the back of my hand, so I'm actually going to co-sign on Cain's detailed breakdown. He knows what he's talking about. That said, even though I heard the connections, I can also understand BGC concluding the arrangement isn't recognizable enough. I've passed some VERY liberal track where I've made the A-to-B connections, but given very scant melodies & patterns being worked with, I thought the transformation was too drastic. The usage of the backing pattern of the SMB3 Underwater BGM, which was the arrangement's foundation, was incredibly devoid of energy. If it wasn't for the rhythm being similar, I wouldn't even recognized it as source usage, and even now I'm on the fence, because it manages to strip the character of the original to where it now just sounds like a generic beat pattern. Side note, the light usage of the Toad's House music from 3:40-3:50 was totally pointless. The production was also too cluttered & imbalanced. I also thought the arrangement, as far as the overall writing just was not that interesting to merit 4 minutes. On that level, I don't feel like we heard the same track at all. I'd lop off the first 1:16 or give it more direction. If the arrangement were less drawn out and reworked to pay more overt homage to the sources, and the sounds balance was tweaked, this could hang. Sorry, Marcellis, I hate to be a downer on your material; there's potential with the idea, I like the Mario 64 arrangement stuff and when the SMB3 Underwater theme was more overtly recognizable later on, I liked the ideas. But everything lacking here makes this a non-starter. NO (resubmit)

It's just a placeholder. If you don't put a date, then it would consider the release as in the past (since it's now Oct. '09) rather than upcoming. It's a quirk.

Not a priority, but a breakdown of arrangers vs. performers vs. lyricists (if applicable) on a per track basis would be helpful for VGMdb: http://vgmdb.net/album/15579

http://twitter.com/ocremix/status/4498576242