Liontamer
-
Posts
13,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
132
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Liontamer
-
-
My fault for not realizing this was on the panel or I would have voted as soon as I'd first heard the unmastered version of the album.
Wonderful instrumental & vocal performances to vibrantly bring Guillaume's arrangement to life, encouraged by the helpful nudging of the album directors!YES
-
Quote
4. Arrangement
- 1. Arrangements in any genre of music (e.g. techno, jazz, rock, classical) are acceptable, so long as the genre itself does not conflict with any other arrangement criteria.
- 3. The source material must be identifiable and dominant.
After this reconsideration, we've clearly concluded that we're not accepting this submission. In the thread thus far, prophetik said he agreed with MindWanderer that this didn't meet 4.3 of the Submissions Standards. DarkeSword was saying 4.3 didn't apply here, but DarkeSword & Gario said it failed 4.1.
We then talked extensively in #judges about how to address this and came to a consensus. I'll do my best to summarize the conversation here with key excerpts (edited for clarity).
Regarding section 4.1, we concluded that the format of story narration or audio book isn't accepted as a "genre of music" due to the focus of the experience not being its music:QuoteGario: Personally I'm more a fan of DJP just saying certain things aren't allowed, like audio stories and the like.
Gario: Personally I think a clause clarifying that we only accept music arrangements onto the site and not things that aren't arrangements, but that's also fairly clunky.
Gario: Because the issue isn't that there are spoken words, it's that the submission isn't an arrangement, it's some other form of entertainment with some music in the background.QuoteGario: the words are from the game too, though, so again i don't think the source is the issue
DarkeSword: But the text of that story is from the game.
DarkeSword: That's why the source is not an issue.
DarkeSword: I guess you could make the argument that the text is not from a musical element of the game
Gario: the issue would remain if they turned the lyrics of a song into an audio book style presentation
DarkeSword: Yeah
Gario: even if the source was from a song, what they are delivering isn't a musical arrangement
Gario: i think we're overcomplicating this by bringing source into it at all, the issue is that this isn't a musical arrangement, it's something else with an arrangement accompanying itRegarding Section 4.3, and its purpose, “dominant” refers to the expectation that the arranged VGM is the “most important, powerful, or influential” component of the presentation; this would apply whether it's contrasting 1) the amount of arranged VGM vs. non-VGM composition or, in this case, 2) the arranged VGM vs. the non-musical story narration as the primary focus of the audio. With this piece, djp felt the approach did conflict with both mentioned parts of the existing arrangement standards -- primarily 4.1, and then 4.3 to a lesser extent -- then suggested added clarification to the Standards to address this:
Quotedjpretzel: the two supporting bullets for 4.3 don't speak to the issue, as written
djpretzel: however, 4.3 itself mentions "source must be dominant"
djpretzel: I would argue that the dominant element is the voiceover, which isn't source, in the sense that by source we mean musical source
djpretzel: so in that limited sense, I guess I disagree w/ Shariq that it's completely irrelevant
djpretzel: I believe Shariq's making the case that 4.1 supersedes 4.3, and I think I agree
djpretzel: if we decide that audiobooks & audio dramas are not music
djpretzel: or, specifically, genres of music
djpretzel: which might need to be explicitly clarifiedDarkeSword emphasized that the Standards issue here had nothing to do with acceptable source material (Section 3) but rather whether this arrangement format was permitted (Section 4):
QuoteDarkeSword: so for me, as an artist:
"3. Acceptable Source Material" is telling me "What am I allowed to draw inspiration FROM?"
"4. Arrangement" is telling me "What am I allowed to DO?"
DarkeSword: I feel like if you're trying to solve a problem of "dominant source usage" in section 3, you're talking to people about "what can i listen to and use as a basis for my creative process?" and you're saying "You can't use non-musical stuff from the game to inspire you," which FEELS OFF.
DarkeSword: but ultimately what I'm most concerned with here is addressing the issue in the "what am i allowed to do" section. at the end of the day, we get a file and we hit play. and what we hear is what we judge. the most important thing is judging the work in front of us. if what I'm hearing is a storybook narration, I'm gonna say no, because you didn't send me music.
DarkeSword: And I guess that it's a problem that we didn't tell people "What you send us has to be music, not just something with music in it somewhere."
DarkeSword: Well this is a distinction I want to stress: it wasn't music with something on top, it was an audiobook with music underneath.DarkeSword proposed an added clarification point excluding narration/voiceover-focused content by name as part of section 4.1, which djp and I edited. As this submission conflicted with two aspects of the current arrangement standards, this added point isn't a new exclusion, but now codifies the reasoning behind not accepting this type of presentation. I also added "rap" into 4.1's examples list of acceptable genres to make very clear that it remains an accepted music style. Usage of lyrics with rhythms and/or musicality (e.g. beat poetry) that integrate with the music is (and has always been) allowed. We then had the panel weigh in on the final wording, which was accepted by the entire group:
QuoteLiontamer: @everyone - We think we've got some clarity on how to address the rejection of "The Little Girl and the Star" re: the Submission Standards, by adding a point to section 4, part 1.
Now's the time to poke holes in it! Are you concerned the new sentence (underlined) could accidentally exclude (or appear to exclude) certain music genres? Or otherwise be misinterpreted?
4. Arrangement
1. Arrangements in any genre of music (e.g. techno, jazz, rap, rock, classical) are acceptable, so long as the genre itself does not conflict with any other arrangement criteria.
- Submissions must have a primary focus on musical elements; this excludes extensive focus on narration/voiceover (e.g. audio drama, audio books).Gario: That's not a bad way to go.
Emunator: happy with this outcome ?
DarkSim: Sounds like a good solution to me!
Chimpazilla: Looks good to me too
prophetik music: "Musical elements" may be abusable, but imo the spirit of the rule is clear.
Rexy: only thing I can think of for a stress test is an audio tutorial masked as an ocr submission, but even then that's still mostly voiceover
Gario: i think that'd be pretty easy to reject at the inbox
MindWanderer: It seems safe to me. Hopefully it will be another 20+ years before someone tests the boundaries
XPRTNovice: I'm ok here but admittedly detached as I'm traveling
XPRTNovice: It was a hard call to makeThe revision of section 4.1 is now live in the Submission Standards:
4. Arrangement
1. Arrangements in any genre of music (e.g. techno, jazz, rap, rock, classical) are acceptable, so long as the genre itself does not conflict with any other arrangement criteria.- Submissions must have a primary focus on musical elements; this excludes extensive focus on narration/voiceover (e.g. audio drama, audio books).
-
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
-
16 minutes ago, DarkeSword said:
Larry, you are wrong in stressing that the "source material" line is what the track violated. Source usage was not the issue, and this track isn't a standards violation as it seems to be framed in your subsequent posts in the thread post-decision. The entire work showcases material from the game, narration included. The issue was that The Little Girl and the Star largely centers a non-musical performance of the story from the game. As I said in my vote, the vocal performance is a narration. It's not sung, it's not rapped, nor is it recited as beat poetry. The narration takes the lead and the musical backing track supports it.
MindWanderer invoked this aspect in both of his votes (my underline added) - "The source material must be identifiable and dominant." So I'm going off of that. No one's saying the SMG music isn't used throughout. MW was saying the SMG arrangement was identifiable but was not the dominant component of the overall piece, i.e. met the first part of that clause but not the second. Afterward, no one challenged that line of reasoning, and, from what I can tell, it seems like other NOs are effectively hitching their POV to the same type of reasoning.
If that's not true, you need to clarify it, because I had specifically asked if we needed to update the Submissions Standards language to reflect that we wouldn't accept submissions in this vein. With whatever discussion took place for that, no one advocated for changing our Standards, including djp, and this was referencing the line I quoted.
If folks are saying they just don't want narration, but it otherwise doesn't violate our Submission Standards, then we need to address that in the actual Standards.
-
RESUB Decison
Original DecisionProvided I'm not misstating anything, the consensus was that, with non-musical narration/spoken word at the forefront, this is a Standards violation for
"The source material must be identifiable and dominant."I gave additional thoughts to Joe at the end of the RESUB decision; after he read what i said, he's essentially looking for reconsideration, so I'm sharing his thoughts from the DoD Discord with all of you.
My Qs:
1) Am I wrong in saying this is being treated as not fitting that sentence from the Arrangement section of the Standards, and thus a violation?
*** In other words, is this style/genre inapplicable to begin with, or just the specific execution of this style/genre?
2) Does anything in Newmajoe's follow-up thoughts change your perspective and merit reconsideration?
3) Does your vote remain the same?QuoteFirst, thanks again Liontamer for spelling out your thoughts on the thread, and for apologizing regarding the process/communication breakdown. I totally understand the challenge involved in running an organization like OCR; I also get that this track presented a tough case and people's thinking continuously evolves. I didn't expect this to cause the stir it did, and — though I can't speak on behalf of the whole DoD community (we're a spirited bunch!) know that there's no bad blood on my end.
All that said, after thinking about it more, I still don't feel great about the panel's decision. As I understand, the standard this track allegedly violated was Section 4.3: "The source material must be identifiable and dominant." Putting my lawyer hat on for a second (sorry), the purpose of that rule seems to me designed to ensure that each arrangement contains a sufficient nexus to the video game that inspired it. To that, I'm perplexed — literally every element of the song (other than a few quotes here and there) comes from Mario Galaxy. Every word in the narration comes from the actual in-game storybook text — it's not as though I created an original prog epic and stuck the Mario jingle on the end to pass it off as a video game cover. I can't imagine any listener who played Galaxy not being able to recognize exactly what this song comes from. I do wonder/worry if in reality (as others have pointed out) that this decision was more about a bias that spoken word performance is not "musical" enough (i.e., that the spoken story dominates the music). If so, I can accept that criticism— I tried my very best to fully synergize the music and the story like you would for a film score or musical, but perhaps I failed in that regard. Even so, I take issue with that being labeled a standards violation.
To the extent I still carry some disappointment/frustration here, it's because, frankly, I don't know how a track like The Little Girl and the Star actually gets in front of people. It's not licensable for Spotify since it uses the in-game text, and putting it on my YouTube channel or bandcamp would be a wash (it's not like people come to my channel looking for children's storytime content). OCR seemed like a more natural home for the track since it has a history of showcasing more "big swing" conceptual arrangements like this. So I was disappointed (as I know you were too!) that the judges didn't feel like it "fit" in the OCR library.
-
I'm responding to feedback newmajoe and others gave in the DoD Discord following this decision, so any quotes are from there:
newmajoe was upset that his second panel decision took too long to be made and that he got conflicting feedback between the first and second decisions. In Joe's case, this second decision actually took only 4 days. It'll seem like I'm trying to take arrows for the judges and direct the issues to me. I'm just saying that they actually weighed in very quickly. I saw at several points that Joe was upset about not hearing back sooner, and being encouraged to resubmit the track, but I'M the one who made that process take longer, and I'm the one who encouraged him to resubmit.
That's all on me alone for delaying releasing his specific decision because I wanted to fully explore:
1) whether the track should be examined as potentially outside of our Submissions Standards [which didn't get analyzed/criticized as an issue in the first vote];
2) whether it meant we had to revise the wording in our Standards [we decided no changes in the wording needed to be made]; and
3) how to summarize letting Joe down, especially because any rejection can feel on some unavoidable level like a value judgement on the musician's skills and abilities.QuoteWillRock: The thing is, OCR has quite specific criteria, it's not a negative critique of your work if you don't get posted
WillRock: but people assume it is
Jorito: pretty much that
Jorito: people tend to take it very personal, whereas it’s just an evaluation against their own guidelines
Jorito: sure, those guidelines/cridetia are maybe not very clear to everyone, and there’s a healthy amount of gray area in between, but basically that’s what it is
WillRock: I mean I will say that if you struggle with production, it's a great way to improve in terms of getting feedbackCouldn't have said that better. For that last part, I'll see what I can do to add a point in our Judges Panel FAQ (to do our best) to short-circuit that negative interpretation of a NO vote; not a "solution" but making clear we recognize that artists can take rejections personally when they shouldn't.
Quotenewmajoe: yeah, I could tell that they struggled a lot with it. They've issued a clarification in the rules that going forward they don't want audiobooks. Which, for the record I totally get
newmajoe: I wouldn't want to open the floodgates for stuff like this if I was running OCR
newmajoe: but in my eyes, I just think the decision is wrong because it's actually a performance of the in-game textWe actually didn't need to clarify the wording of the Submission Standards, because the current wording we had explained why the judges didn't pass it the second time:
("The source material must be identifiable and dominant.")
Re: Joe's points above, the spoken word/narration using in-game text (vs. completely original narration) wouldn't be a factor for or against the track.It was mainly about:
1) the spoken word feeling like the "dominant" element of the track; and
2) the VGM arrangement feeling like "subordinate" accompaniment.
It's very rare that a submission viewed as falling outside of the submissions standards by the judges panel even makes it to the panel in the first place; we'd never encountered this kind of piece. I paneled this due to me assuming the narration style wasn't a problem for OCR's standards.QuoteJorito: yeah, it’s poor communication on their end, imo… if they would have made clear that they’re primarily looking for music and that audio books don’t really match with their vision, then fair enough… but doing it so late in the process after a lot of work and a resubmit, it’s a faux pas
so I feel ya there, that should have been communicated earlier and better
but then again, they’re also just people and people make mistakes, so let’s not put them in tar and feathers and burn them afterwardsYep, I'm sorry that we collectively messed up here with poor communication within the two decisions; we should have recognized and hashed out the Standards concern the first time, not the second time, and Joe was justifiably mad. Again, part of it was due to me being in favor of the track yet being out of step with the other Js, which is also pretty rare. Had I known it would have been a Standards issue on this level, other Js and I would have never encouraged Joe to tweak it or resubmit it in the first place, so he should blame me for that too. I never intended to "waste his time" or stress Joe out, and ended up doing both.
I could have let Joe know that it wouldn't be posted right after seeing how the resub's votes landed, but, as jmr correctly noted, this actually was an unprecedented situation for us, so I also wanted to:
1) have most of the panel fully consider our Submissions Standards wording vs. this type of track, since it wasn't thoroughly considered by the group the first time; and
2) exhaust every chance to make my case, again something where I'm to blame.
We did speak with djp on it, and with the vote so lopsided, he stood by the panel's consensus from their reasoning.Several people chimed in to praise my demeanor or perspective. I do appreciate being called "rad" and being vouched for by several people.
Unfortunately, I'm far from perfect - the time it took to handle all of this and the process of summarizing & delivering the bad news, that was 100% my direction and my responsibility, and something I have to learn from to improve our process. (BTW, holding up the voting on PuD's "The Hot Pink of Blues", that was me too, which I stood by; I wasn't counting what I perceived as implied chord progressions as direct source tune usage. So I get plenty of bad guy points. :-D)
-
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
-
Just an FYI, from our Submissions Standards:
We mention that games/music eligibility is at our discretion. Currently, OCR won't accept any arrangements of original music created for unlicensed fan-games. As far as the Workshop goes, we're of course always happy to give arrangement/production feedback regardless, as that's what this forum is for. But sending in stuff from unlicensed fan-games, we're never gonna post that stuff.
I could only see that happening if a company retroactively published a fan game and thus made it official. For example, if Sega published the fan-game Streets of Rage Remake, THEN any original tracks from it would be eligible to be arranged for OCR. Just making that clear so that you don't set yourself up for any disappoint on that level.
-
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
-
I'm liking the instrumentation to start. The steel-string guitar's not mixed properly to be the true foreground lead. The sampled brass at 1:04 was super fake & exposed, but brief.
Really awkward transition of the instrumentation at 1:08 and again at 3:01; it then thinned out into more of a combination of the flamenco-style instrumentation along with orchestration at 1:26 and again at 3:19. I'd argue those latter moments should have appeared somewhere BEFORE 1:08 and 3:01 to serve as a transition into the full-on orchestration.
Melody redux at 2:13, annnnnd it's a full-on cut-and-paste repeating verbatim, which was disappointing. Writing a new ending section instead of doing cut-and-paste stuff from 3:49 until the end would have been good also, even if you varied things up before then.
Yeah, the mixing/balance could use touching up, and the transitions where the flamenco instrumentation drops out don't work, IMO. The level of interpretation/personalization is good, but then you rested on your laurels and didn't develop or vary the arrangement any further. You've gotta NOT just recycle the theme past the 2-minute point. C'mon, Paul, finish the story!
NO (resubmit)
-
Sorry to Joe, Michelle, Sam for the holdup in this decision. Since the discussion on this piece's overall eligibility didn't get talked through the first time around, I asked to extend this voting, then double-checked that we didn't need to update our Submissions Standards to be more explicit that audio dramas or narrations would have a more difficult time passing due to this aspect of the Submission Standards and, lastly, wanted to take the proper time to cap this decision. Especially because Joe submitted this to support our Mario Month event, I'm afraid of making the artists upset as to what amounts to a belabored decision involving technicalities, and these delays were entirely on me:
Quote4. Arrangement
- 3. The source material must be identifiable and dominant.
No one here would want or expect Joe and crew to compromise the vision of this piece just to have it accepted in some form for OCR; the criticisms about this being a storytelling format are strictly made with those specific standards in mind. Based on this outcome, I'm not sure audio dramas or story narration have a place here, though I'm always game for anyone else continuing to test this out.
Doing my best interpretation of a dissenting Supreme Court justice, I'm very disappointed that this didn't fare better strictly from the up-or-down voting. "Dominant" was the most relevant word quoted above. I obviously disagreed that having spoken word delivery over the top of an arrangement is a case where the source material isn't "dominant" -- similar to how prominent original vocals/lyrics on top of arranged VGM has never disqualified anything -- but I'm hugely outvoted; we as a group discussed this specific aspect of the Standards when it comes to this piece internally and in this vote, so the consensus is clear, which I think is summarized best by DarkeSword's vote.
No matter what, this was a very fun track concept, one I also would have loved to have had on our childrens' album (Esther's Dreams) way back when. Would love to hear all involved again, and hope we do get to hear more great arrangements come our way from Newmajoe.
-
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
-
6 hours ago, TimComposer said:
Hello everyone! About 6 months ago, I asked if there was still time to work on a music track, but unfortunately, the answer I received wasn't clear. I'm hoping someone could help me figure out how much time I have left, so I can plan accordingly and create a track that I'll be proud of. I don't need a lot of time, but I would hate to miss an opportunity due to a lack of time. Thank you in advance for any insights you can offer!
Go for it!
-
It's not unpleasant, but it's also not pleasant; the opening minute's just there, so we'll see if it goes anywhere interesting. 1:19 shifted more toward the opening moments of Act 2's version (and you hear more of Act 2's backing writing invoked from 2:10-2:45).
I know there's a method to Michael's madness. I've also heard tracks of his that I enjoyed that I know others wouldn't, and I think this is more in that vein, except that others may enjoy it and I didn't. I don't actively dislike it (and I wouldn't soft-pedal it), but it doesn't hook me. It's certainly a valid sound design exercise where I like some of the moments, and I hear and recognize the source material being in there. Do I wish it were more melodious in the treatment though?
YES
-
Usually when we have a posted mixer get straight NOs across the board, I like to sanity check things just to be sure. As soon as the melody kicked in at :30, I thought this was too muddy and overcrowded; I definitey couldn't get behind a track mixed like this all the way; the parts are just too indistinct. Yeah, I heard the main verse at 1:25, and it's a little clearer, but basically mixed like this the whole way through; the melody doesn't cut through, the drums take up all of the space. By 4 minutes in, I also agree that the arrangement was just recycling the Terra theme over and over and I would have loved to have heard other arrangement/interpretation ideas.
At 5:27, there was finally a dropoff and new writing; though I still felt the balance of parts was misguided/off, mixing like this would have worked better. But at 6:57, the same machine gun drumming and crowded soundscape came back for the finish, essentially sounding like a rehash of what came before.
It'll seem like I just don't get the genre, and I know, for example, Emunator has stuck up for tracks/genres with unorthdox mixing in the past. I just don't believe this approach works as properly balanced mixing, even accounting for stylistic authenticity; the overall musicianship is clearly there, but the production on this is too messy. It's completely unclear what the listener should (or even can) focus on.
NO
-
Nice variations of the intrumentation of the theme, because, yeah, it initially sounds so close to the original that I wanted to know if it was sampled; it's thankfully a non-issue as far as our arrangement standards go. Sometimes I wanted the lyrics to cut through, but everything's well mixed. Cool atmosphere; you could definitely see this getting used for some TikToks and YouTube Shorts to do some Zelda clips videos with an edge.
YES
-
Yes, I've been working on getting Shea to send something in. No need to put OCR on a pedestal.
Two key critiques I've had for some of Shea's past arrangements are that 1) some of the concepts haven't been fully developed (i.e. ~2 minutes long and could be more substantive) and 2) the percussion was on auto-pilot, which led to a plodding feel. That wasn't uniformly across her content, but I'd see it enough that I knew untapped compositional and dynamic potential was there just waiting to be realized.
The track was 3:20-long, so I needed to identify overt source usage for at least 100 seconds for the source material to be considered dominant. The hand percussion's also derived from a 3-beat pattern at the foundation of the source from :01-:03 that underlies the whole source tune, and it's used every other measure here in the arrangement. I could be not recognizing something else within the soloing, but didn't have a problem with the source usage:
melody - :00-:56.5, 1:56.5-2:08.25, 2:35-2:37, 2:54.5-3:19 = 94.75 seconds
drumming - :59-1:01, 1:03.75-1:05.75, 1:08.5-1:10.5, 1:13.25-1:15.25, 1:18.5-1:20.25, 1:23-1:25, 1:27.75-1:29.75, 1:32.5-1:34.5, 1:37.5-1:39.5, 1:42.5-1:44.25, 1:47-1:49.25, 2:11-2:13.25, 2:15.75-2:17.75, 2:20.5-2:22.5, 2:25.5-2:27.5, 2:30.25-2:32.25 (most audible example of the rhythm if you want to compare it to the source), 2:39.75-2:41.75, 2:44.75-2:46.75 = 36.25 secondsThis is the good stuff, y'all, straight up pro arrange album material. We've HAD official FFMQ arrange stuff stolen, submitted, and POSTED way way way back, before my time, so it's nice to get something that would pass the sniff test as a fan arrangement that sounds elite & pro grade. I love the treatment of the theme, with the arrangement taking a basic source-soloing-source sandwich approach. If you had told me this was released back in the mid-90s on an official Square album, I'd have said "No doubt, this sounds great!" and went investigating on VGMdb for who made it.
I just said in the writeup for "Song of the Desperado" that Shea and her fellow string players needed to stop wowing people so much, but she doesn't listen. :-( For the last hit of the melody at 3:12, when she elongated that final note, I yelled [cuss words of amazement & friendship] at the screen again!
Elegant, silky, smoove. Strong stuff that illustrates how DoD encourages folks to bring out their best!
YES
-
Remixer Name: Shea's Violin (https://ocremix.org/artist/
18601/sheas-violin )Real Name: Shea HenryEmail:User ID: 18601Name of game arranged: Final Fantasy Mystic QuestName of arrangement: Forest Through the TreesName of individual songs: Beautiful Forest (a.k.a. Level Forest)OCR song link: https://ocremix.org/song/12616/beautiful-forest More sound information: https://vgmdb.net/album/81348 Comments: I started this arrangement for a dwelling of duels competition. I've done a lot of covers that don't transform the original material very much, and I think this arrangement and production represents a lot of the experience I've gained over the past two years. The very first track that I talked about in the workshop channel on the OCR discord was a bossa re-imagining of Celes' theme from Final Fantasy, but at the time it was more of a mashup between celes and terra and had a lot of improvisational elements that didn't pass the 'original material dominant' sniff test. I had been a little discouraged about entering since then, but after a few conversations with folks in the OCR discord (and my very first mixpost as a collaborator!) I decided to actually submit one of my tracks.All of the instruments on this track are live, and I was aiming for a classic violin and guitar bossa nova. The tempo is faster than the original to give it a little more of a pulse. The improvised solos are harmonically conservative because they were recorded and created "live" without writing something down, and I didn't want big execution risks to ruin my takes. I kept the solo sections short so that the original material wouldn't dominate the arrangement, and I tried to create a transitional line in the improvisation to tie back into the last theme of the original song, which I think I succeeded at!Thanks for encouraging me to submit something! I've been an OCR fan since very early on, and when I finally do get a submission accepted (some day!) I'll be so happy to have contributed something to this community that's fostered so much wonderful and creative music over the years.THE LINK! -
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
-
Or, in other words...
16 minutes ago, djpretzel said:Highly recommended!
;-D
-
OC ReMix Presents Final Fantasy VIII: SeeDs of Pandora!
May 8, 2023
Contact: press@ocremix.org
FAIRFAX, VA... OverClocked ReMix today released its 78th arrangement album, Final Fantasy VIII: SeeDs of Pandora. The album pays tribute to Final Fantasy VIII, released by Square in 1999 for the Sony PlayStation. Featuring 80 tracks from 97 artists, SeeDs of Pandora is the OC ReMix community's largest-ever album, directed by OC ReMixers Darkflamewolf and Jorrith "Jorito" Schaap, and is available for free download at https://ff8.ocremix.org.SeeDs of Pandora includes a diverse roster of musicians honoring composer Nobuo Uematsu's classic second score from the Final Fantasy PS1 lineup -- boasting some of the series' most enduring themes, including "Eyes on Me" and "Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec" -- by arranging the soundtrack in a myriad of styles, including folk, rock, jazz, mariachi, pop, bebop, rap, metal, EDM, chiptune, new age, experimental, and loads more. SeeDs of Pandora was made by fans, for fans, and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Square Enix; all original compositions are copyright their respective owners.
Our goal is to provide something new and transformative with these songs", declared album director Darkflamewolf, who previously directed OCR's tributes to Skies of Arcadia (Arcadia Legends) and Jet Force Gemini (Mizar Attacks!) before helming SeeDs of Pandora. "So go in with an open mind and know that this listening experience was carefully crafted to take you on a journey".
Visual artists from Game-Art-HQ once again teamed up with OCR -- a collaboration first forged with the Final Fantasy IX: Worlds Apart album -- to provide full album artwork, including pieces for SeeDs of Pandora's five discs featuring FF8 locations as well as character art including Squall, Rinoa, Zell, Seifer, Laguna, and more.
"We managed to interest a lot of people from the VGM community, with a good mix of OC ReMix veterans, people from other communities, and newcomers", explained album co-director Jorrith Schaap, instrumental in helping SeeDs of Pandora become OC ReMix's biggest community album collaboration, resulting in 5 1/2 hours of music. "I hope all the fun and joy we had while creating this album for you shines through, and that you, dear listener, enjoy this fresh new take on the music of Final Fantasy 8 as much as we enjoyed making it."
SeeDs of Pandora completes OC ReMix's tributes to the mainline Final Fantasy series' Sony PlayStation entries, following 2007's Final Fantasy VII: Voices of the Lifestream and 2015's Final Fantasy IX: Worlds Apart. "Coming back to the series after being gone from it for so long was like coming home", director Darkflamewolf added, along with their hope that SeeDs of Pandora may "rekindle your fond memories of your time playing Final Fantasy VIII".
About OverClocked ReMix
Founded in 1999, OverClocked ReMix is an organization dedicated to the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form. Its primary focus is ocremix.org, a website featuring thousands of free fan arrangements, information on game music and composers, resources for aspiring artists, and a thriving community of video game music fans.
About Game-Art-HQ
Founded in 2011, Game-Art-HQ is an artistic community featuring fan-created drawings, as well as cosplay photography, sculptures, and crafts inspired by video games. Influenced by the quality standards and community of OverClocked ReMix, Game-Art-HQ houses individual pieces alongside themed collaborative art projects tributing major video game franchises.
###
- Preview it: https://youtu.be/WVx6a1JHaDk
- Download it: https://ff8.ocremix.org
- Torrent: http://bt.ocremix.org/torrents/Final_Fantasy_VIII_-_SeeDs_of_Pandora.torrent
- Comments/Reviews: http://ocremix.org/community/topic/52180
-
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.
OCR04530 - *YES* Lord of the Rings, Vol. 1 (DOS) "A Long Road"
in Judges Decisions
Posted · Edited by Liontamer
updated vote from ? to YES
Maybe it's just me failing to wrap my head around this theme, so I was coming up source-light.
:11-:35, :43-1:03, 1:54.5-2:26, 2:41.75-3:01, 3:05.5-3:11 = 100.25 seconds
Can someone point out other areas of the source usage I'm overlooking?
?
EDIT (8/16): MW changed his vote on account of my initial timestamps, but I went "?" rather than "NO"; I wasn't saying my counts were definitive, just that I had questions. This is a very long source tune, so I really needed more time to get familiar with it or hear other perspectives on what I could have missed. I was overlooking some connective tissue segments of the source that Peter was clearly using; for example, 2:34-2:41.75 was from 3:37-3:44 of the source and 3:01-3:05.5 was from :27-:30 of the source. I've got a better handle on it now, so I'm sorry that my inability to make all of the connections held this up.
The track was 4:01-long, so I needed to make out the source tune being invoked for at least 120.5 seconds of the arrangement for the source tune to be considered dominant.
:07.5-:08.5, :10.5-:35, :39-1:03, 1:54.5-3:13.5 = 128.5 seconds or 53.31% overt source usage
Good to go! Loved the arrangement. Strong instrumentation with loads of dynamics. A very spirited fleshing out of this theme, Peter, welcome aboard!
YES