Liontamer

Lead at 1:11's effected, but still has a generic sound to it. Wish the core beats weren't louder than the other instrumentation, for example from 1:39-2:23. Texturally, there almost always feels like there's some sort of audio glue missing to truly make the textures feel cohesive. You'll have loud sections where the rigid, vanilla leads and basic beats don't fill things out enough, so even busy areas somehow feel empty and incomplete, e.g. :55, 1:12, 1:39, 3:02, 3:30, 3:57, 4:19. Something also sounded dissonant from 3:07-3:13; it seems to be on purpose, but caught my attention. Breakbeats at 3:30 were plodding; you can barely hear the breaks, just the main beats. The interpretive treatment of the theme and textural variations may carry the day here. To me, something feels very unfinished with this, and it could just be a polish thing that I'm hung up on. Since I'm not as articulate as the musicians, I'm actually going to reserve judgement until I see some other opinions. EDIT (1/24): Yeah, I'm listening through again now that prophetik has voted. I still like the variation in styles of the instrumentation. The beats plod a LOT; that's in part due to the mixing obscuring the detail work in the breakbeats, so the track’s energy feels flatter than it should. 3:30 would have been such a great point to vary things up; instead the last third dragged on the entire way for me. The lead at 3:30 was also the same as 1:11 & 1:39, but it lacked the pitch effects that gave it more personality and made the lead's sound design more creative earlier on. For the final 1 1/4 minutes, you had great bass and thick beats, but this somehow still dragged on. This'll likely pass as is, Roch, but I'd love to hear some more TLC with the mixing of the beat pattern as well as the lead's sound design from 3:30 until the end before I can get on board. Great concept overall, but listening through again crystallized where the biggest shortcomings were for me. NO (resubmit)

Haha, cool chant opening; now that's a cool interpretive approach. But yeah, MindWanderer's got this right, it's basically a close cover from :24 afterwards, where the instrumentation is fairly close to the original music, so this doesn't stand apart from it enough in terms of the level of interpretation. The effects do wash it out, I agree there, then at 2:15, the levels get way too loud and things only get more crowded until 2:50. Finally pulled back in the density at 2:50 with a throwaway sample of dial-up internet noises; not sure it thematically fits here, since there's no other sounds or imagery making me think of the whole "cyber" aspect of this maverick, but it is what it is. Too loud again at 3:13, worth noting. As long as you have more of an intentional direction of interpreting the source tune, Andre, it'll have more of a shot of making it here on OCR. It's certainly not a waste of time to submit; it's a great source tune choice, and a fun effort in attempting to beef up the sound. IMO, it doesn't need to be this bright, so just watch your levels and make sure your textures aren't too muddy. Please keep at it and keep making music! NO

Certainly a weird source, and I recall the lead synths at :20 being a big headscratcher when I first heard this. I guess the synth lead's mechanical sequencing and dissonant chorusing are features not bugs, but it's not clicking, especially alongside these tepid beats, IMO. Interesting changeup at 2:10; I like that initial instrument, but that lead synth again at 2:25 is the antithesis of smooth and polished. Nice textures at 3:05 for the finish, including that last set of notes at 3:25; beautiful writing there. Mixing criticism from others aside, what this really needs is a lead that has a humanized sound. When prophetik says "right now it is really lacking verve", that's the main culprit causing it. :'-( There's a ton of other positives with the instrumentation and arrangement. NO (resubmit)

Definitely a boomy sound, duly noted. Haha, I like how the Volt Kraken bassline reminds me of Double Dragon II's "Mission 2" music. Not a fan of this piano at :30, no sir. Very thin and mechanical sound, but it thankfully only lasted a few seconds. Wack claps too from 1:33-2:03, booooooooooooo. Never a fan of parts that present a quality disparity. Track got way beefier with the beats after that though. The levels are too bright, but not gonna hold it back for that. Arrangement is strong with nice tradeoffs and interplay between the themes, and the production's loud but reasonable, so get outta here. YES

Some odd changing of the notes, but we'll see where it goes; sometimes you hear changes that sound like changes for changes sake but don't feel entirely melodious, and that's where I'm falling here. The high end sounds like it's cutting through too much, so it should be pulled back. The percussion patterns were also feeling too basic, at least the core beat, which would sound better with some round robin action so it wasn't the same velocity and intensity practically every time. Agreed on the ending being very flat; the last note could be doubled or effected to hit stronger for the finish. At only 2 and 1/2 minutes-long, if the structure's going to be melodically conservative, there should be more creativity with the writing and/or sound design in other places, and I don't believe it's gotten all the way there (though the break from 1:09-1:43 was a fun touch.) More instrumental variation with the leads or percussion may be all that's needed. This is developed some, and it could pass as is; to me, it feels like it's still missing some further polish and/or interpretation to help this better stand apart from the original track. It's in the right direction though, no doubt, Martin! NO (resubmit) EDIT (6/5): I'm revisting this off the strength of Gario's vote, but my vote remains the same. The core beat is so bland & repetitive over essentially the entire duration that I'm still in favor of sprucing up that writing to not allow the track to repeat & plod so much, which is undermining the energy of the rest of the writing.

Arrangement-wise, MindWanderer's hung up too much on the melody being the same when the overall instrumentation and energy of the theme are completely different than the source tune. Again, there are plenty of other ways to personalize an arrangement, and that's more than accomplished here. The handling of the melody doesn't have to be transformative as long as enough other areas are. Love the energy of the opening, with faux geetars that sound expressive and reasonably good in tone. Once the beats come in at :20, there's something about those kicks in particular that feels underwhelming. The pattern's also pretty plain, though I liked the lil' fill from :43-:46. The drum tone also fit the texture a lot better during the chorus areas from :53-:59 & 1:06-1:11. It's odd that you have moments where the instrumentation has more synergy, then others where the percussion tone feels thinner and out of place. Watch the machine gun effect on the four drum hits at 1:44; making the hits all have the exact same sound needlessly exposed the samples. IMO, the percussion writing and mixing's the weaker link for an otherwise solid piece. Very nice fakeout change in style from 1:40-1:44, as well as the track essentially having the power switch shutting off for the finish right after going lo-fi; that was a creative way to escape not having a more fleshed out resolution. This is definitely substantive enough of an arrangement, and I'm on the bubble. Would love to hear a strong musician judge go after what's lacking on the production side, but I'd say this is 85% of the way there. I wouldn't change a thing with the structure, Trevor; this is an awesome start. NO (resubmit)

Very interesting rhythm for the source tune; I appreciate the unexpected direction. When the added instrumentation picks up around :27, the source tune was feeling obscured, but the brass took the melody at :50, and then there was no question the source tune usage remains front and center for the rest of the track. I can halfway understand a NO in the sense that there's a looseness in the performances and there's not a full synergy here in the instrumentation and mixing, especially because the tone of the beats feels somewhat out of place. At 2:30, I wish the piano line cut through a shade more. Literal LOL at the flatness of the ending percussion shot at 4:10; what in the hell??? Flatter than a plateful of piss. It felt like you gave up?? All that first blush criticism aside, this is cohesive enough, even if I have issues here and there. Nothing added up to a reason to hold this back. The arrangement's creative, the performances solid. Very fun concept from Logan and crew with a looser feel that embraces the change in mood. Let's goooooooooooooooo! YES

I've probably listened to this 50 times at this point. Even putting the heartbeat gimmick aside, I'm not put off by the volume or mixing, and can hear everything well. Love this, including the sidechaining. Put another way, let's say the source files are kaput, there's no way I'd reject this either. Lots of character in this one. A hex on these production NOs! (Note to any readers that I've often been the production NO deserving a hex.)

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

In focusing on criticisms first, it'll come off like I don't enjoy the arrangement. IMO, the DnB pattern droned on, because the track's mixed in a way where the breakbeats are somewhat obscured during the fullest sections, yet the core kick's much louder; it makes the writing feel more simplistic than it truly is when the soundscape was dense. The sax line introduced at 1:34 was consistantly downplayed, moreso at 1:51. Granted, it serves to mitigate the sample realism issues, but I still felt it was super quiet, especially from 2:34-2:56 (where it's a non-factor). From 1:50-2:12, there's also a light but pervasive crunchy noise going on. The breakbeats returned at 3:40, and again, you mostly hear the main beats, not the rest. If you listen to other stuff of Black Ace's like "Now the Flowers Will Grow!", those details pop a lot better. Cool break in the monotony of the beats at from 4:24-4:35. Not a sharp soundscape, but seems by design given some of the effects on the voice clips; still reasonably produced, so it's not as if this was on the bubble of acceptability. Arrangement-wise, totally appreciated the varied writing and textures; aside from the core beat feeling too repetitive, all of the other elements evolved nicely. Let's go! YES

Always interesting to hear these arrangements, with so many different ways to keep the atmosphere dark yet really dig into unique sound design choices. 2:29 & 2:40 was an opportunity to add some more spices instead of cut-and-pasting :33's bridge & chorus sections wholesale. I think there's enough interpretation of the theme to weather to repetition, but some differences in the instrumentation, effects, or textures would have been small, easy steps to give this a more varied presentation (instead of having to make an argument that it's not TOO formulaic). That doesn't make this a borderline YES for me, but it would have been a ZOMG easy peasy, why-are-we-paneling-this YES for me with observable variations. We'll see if the amount of cut-and-paste is a dealbreaker for others; the context matters for me, with the level of interpretation being so strong to begin with that this can get past that hurdle. For me, the synths, beats, and voice clips combine in a good way for a busy beat-driven piece of business that's energetic while still retaining some dark SMW vibes. Good stuff, Jordan! YES

Greetings! I couldn't get enough of Zircon's Monstrous Turtles when it came out and always wanted to remix the theme myself. This track came out in a purely inspired moment and turned out to be a fine bass house remix of the castle theme. I originally wanted to include this in my upcoming album Snesteryears but unfortunately, the source tune isn't available to cover. No loss, however, because I am sending it to ocremix. Hope you enjoy Jordan bLiNd

The four Spirit Realm themes are, surprisingly, totally unique compositions (I added them to the original post), so MindWanderer's mistaken in that conclusion. He should see if he can identify them all in this arrangement with that in mind. I only noticed Nayru's theme opening things (note the melody at :00 and :33), then Fi's theme arriving at 1:00 and staying for most of the way. Heard Din's theme at 3:02 and didn't recognize Goddess or Farore in there. Without being overly repetitive, I'll say Chimpazilla's vote matched my own, not just in terms of recognizing but accepting the flaws that were heard, but also speaking against DarkSim's inference that you need to exceed the sound quality/sample quality of the source material, which is mistaken. I'm in. YES

There are a lot more ways to interpret a source tune besides melodically. Melodically conservative doesn't discount the other arrangement techniques going on here. Nice original writing to introduce things until the source tune arrived at :23. This is definitely a creative instrumentation of the theme. As always, well-executed instrumentation tradeoffs that prevent the piece from feeling repetitive, as well as beautiful accenting parts that add that signature shimmering quality to Rebecca's pieces. Some of the samples aren't the greatest, but they generally get the job done, including the tremolo strings. As far as MindWanderer's criticism of the arrangement not being interpretive enough, there's more to interpretive arrangements than melodic variation. Hmm, whatever's playing from 1:15-1:29 had a lot of buzziness to it; same from 1:38-1:45, that stuff should not be going on at all. If we couldn't get that addressed, I wouldn't say that should hold back this piece, but I've love to see some touchups there. I could understand something that exposed the samples this badly and created a quality disparity by sounding so poor causing some NOs or conditional YESs. Not much to the ending; I've heard worse endings, but I'd just call this one unsatisfying. A extended fadeout from 3:05 until the very end could have worked well for a structure like this; it would have seemed a lot less abrupt. If the buzzy weirdness wasn't going on, it wouldn't be a close vote despite the flaws. That said, on balance, much more works there than doesn't, so count me in! YES (borderline)

Gotta be honest, Gaspode's always solid based on my previous experiences, so with his stuff -- barring some sort of massive & unexpected curveball -- it's more about diving into another cool track rather than wondering whether or not it'll meet our arrangement and production standards, which he's always done. And indeed, creative arrangement ideas that blend the pair of themes well and show off cool instrumentation choices. The lead at 1:35 should have cut through more. Nothing struck me as out of place with any of the notes or transitions. A pleasure to listen to! YES

Hmmm... 2 NOs on a Kabukibear piece has definitely got my curiosity piqued. It's an acoustic guitar-based source; could it play it too conservatively or not fully fleshed out??? Let's see! Opens up sounding like a laid-back Western vibe, complete with body hits for percussion; I'm liking the vibe, for sure. Rhythmically, I appreciated this different presentation of the source. By about 1:00, the looped beats were droning on and didn't sound varied at all, so consider recording other hits to not end up with a loop that undermines the realism of the quasi-live performance. Cut-and-paste going on around 2:10 when the opening repeated. Dynamically, it's flat; structurally, it's repetitive. Surprising as it is to say, once you've gotten to about :51, you've essentially heard the entire dynamic range of the piece. There's too much that's looped throughout; sequencing/recording additional takes would allow for chorusing or stereo tricks, or even just provide more intrisically different performance dynamics. Unfortunate as it is to say, as I'm a sincere fan of your work, the others are right that this coasts for too long and isn't fully developed. You're leaning on too much cut-and-paste in a way that takes the listener out of believing this could be an organic performance. As in-game music, this totally works; if I heard this on a PS2, I wouldn't bat an eye. Intended as a standalone arrangement, however, the length isn't justified without more compositional & performance dynamics. If you're willing to revisit this, Justin, you definitely are capable of creating a rendition with different articulations that doesn't play the exact same way each and every time, and -- even within a narrower dynamic range like this one -- present more varied writing and textures that still carry this same energy level. Could be a fun challenge! It's really nice to see your name in the inbox again; I look forward to your future submissions, as always, and remain a fan! NO (resubmit)

Hmm, the instrumentation definitely sounds lower quality to start for this intro, I think because of the faux electric guitar synth coupled with the keyboard-esque (?) countermelody sounding rigid, but we'll see where it goes. Mixing seems too cluttered once the track kicks in at :15; there's not a TON going on texturally, yet it felt like there was a lot of muddiness. Cleared WAY up at 1:03... OK. By about 1:10, the beat pattern was already dragging on. It's a solid tone, but the pattern's not interesting enough; occasional variations there could spice things up. Some of that is caused by the other instrumentation crowding the soundscape and obscuring the off-beat bass writing, so you just hear the main thumps at 2 & 4. Cluttered again with the lead at 1:20; there may be some effects on it that's creating this muddiness problem. I'll also note that the bass writing is being steamrolled; I notice it if I'm actively listening for it, but it's almost a non-entity, it's so buried. When the soundscape clears up again at 2:29, you can hear it better again; it still doesn't cut through enough, IMO, but at least it's audible then. There are probably EQing issues that are allowing different parts to occupy the same frequency range. I did like how the writing changed from 1:59-2:28, as I was also getting lead fatigue at 1:59. You could vary up the lead instrument for the verses, or accent it with something other than the saw-like sound. The flute-style stuff at 1:03 & 2:29 were welcome changes. Gotta work on those endings; what you have now is too abrupt; you could let that least note trail off longer and feel like an actual resolution Yeah, a lot of this feels more like a work-in-progress without some impending writing and production refinements, and the other Js all heard the same issues I heard. Solid concept, but needs that attention to detail to carry it over the finish line. Would love to hear a further developed version! NO (resubmit)

Production-wise, I didn't have any significant issues with this; a more developed, substantive arrangement with this level of production would easily pass. Opens up super close in structure to the original, just adapted for orchestration. Leads and percussion sound very similar, and the tempo's the same, so more could be done to stand apart from the original. It comes off feeling like a MIDI transcription of the original was used as the base, then ornamented with some additional parts, but it ultimately doesn't feel particularly interpretive. Yeah, just texturally, this is beefed up, but it's too much of a cover structure without enough factors to distinguish it enough from the source tune. 3:13 sounds like a copy-pasta of 2:11 with the strings & choir brightened up some; more additive part-writing is there at 3:26, and I do notice the density's increased, but in execution it just feels like the volume's turned up rather than anything meaningful developing compositionally, since the lead instrumentation looping just continues ad nauseum. There are a lot of avenues for varying this up, whether that's changing up the leads, dropping some parts out, altering the rhythms or tempo, adding original sections or transitions. The goal here seems to be making a sound-upgraded orchestration, and there's nothing wrong with that in a vacuum. For OC ReMix, we're looking for arrangements that showcase more aspects of interpretation than this, just something to note for the future, Paul. I hope you're willing to submit something else and also tap into some more techniques of musical interpretation. NO

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

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

(ALSO ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL POST) These resources really helped me when I hadn't done any job hunting in 11 years and was super rusty and out of practice: https://youtube.com/c/DonGeorgevich - Don Georgevich: Job Interview Tools https://youtube.com/c/ALifeAfterLayoff - Bryan Creely: A Life After Layoff What I'd recommend with these two YouTube channels: Just search through the videos for each of these channels for ANY topics that directly interest you the most. It could be about résumé writing, could be about cover letters, it could be about what interviewers are actually looking for when they ask you certain questions, it could be about career changes. There's enough content on both channels that you can just pick and choose what's interesting for you. So don't feel pressured to "OMG, watch every video", but when you get some breathing room, scan around and dig in. For all jobs, order the skills/impact bullet points in the order of relevance to the type of job you want, i.e. if you want to manage people, put any managerial experiences first; if you love reviewing contracts and data, list those kind of actions first; if you love solving problems, put the instances of product development, tool creation/metric measurement innovation first or customer service experience. In other words, steer your relevant experience towards what you want going forward, and de-emphasize other stuff. Include any professional development accolades, e.g. formal trainings, certifications, presentations. If you have anything like that, that’s relevant. Lists of impactful résumé verbs: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/resumes-cover-letters/action-verbs-to-make-your-resume-stand-out Lists of overused résumé terms: https://www.capstoneresumes.com/remove-25-words-from-resume Without overhyping yourself or using words you wouldn't normally say when casually speaking, use more of these impact verbs instead of more passive and generic verbs like "provide", "support", “work with”, and “assist”. In other words, stay true to how you communicate, but put yourself in the best possible light with verbs that you like from the big list. You'll need to add placeholders for numbers you would fill in to help demonstrate impact. Good résumés convey your IMPACT at your jobs, not just the list of responsibilities. Your aim is to illustrate: 1) how you left each job better than you found it; and 2) what hard & soft skills you demonstrated to do it. What specific things did you accomplish? How did you make money or innovate for the company? How did you make things more efficient or effective? That said: 1) If a number wouldn't be impressive (i.e. typically 10+), then don't include it. 2) NEVER ever overstate a number. Always underestimate while giving your best guess if you don't remember something more specific (e.g. "worked with 300+ customers"). If you overstate, you risk the company contacting an employer and them being told you've embellished/lied. 3) The numbers usually should represent total impact (e.g. if you did customer service at store for 5 years, you should say either a) approximately how many total customers you worked with over the years or b) how many customer, on average, you worked with per year). 8 most requested general skills, in order, according to ZipRecruiter (July 2022) - these are important skill to both say by name (for ATS/computer screenings) and demonstrate by listing related accomplishments: Communication skills Customer service Scheduling Time management skills Project management Analytical thinking Ability to work independently Flexibility

Intro was too crunchy for my personal taste, but no big deal. I enjoyed reading the submission letter and seeing how the structure played out based on it. It's going to be REALLY difficult not crediting "Hot Pursuit" as a source tune; you're right those MJ and DKC3 themes are close. Anyway, solid! YES

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

We'll see how this arrangement attempts to expand on such a straightforward loop. Building on top on it with original writing's not a bad approach here. The lead guitar probably doesn't need to be so loud over the bass handling the source tune until :55, but it's alright. Something about the mixing of the leads leaves this sounding cluttered. Good idea to let the lead guitars take over the source theme after :51 to vary up the presentation of the melody. Got the mid-90's Spider-Man cartoon theme brought in for a cameo from 1:13-1:32; it's a limited usage, so it doesn't tank the track for having too much non-VGM arrangement in there. [None of the other Js are nerdy enough to have watched Spider-Man? :'-( My wife and I both loved it!] Nice dropoff at 1:49 to begin winding down the track down and gradually simplify the texture to make the mood more reminiscent of the original track. The overall levels could have been pushed up more, and something about the mixing's not bright enough, but no big deal. On the short side of arrangements here, but you're arguably not going to get more length out of a concept like this without just (cohesively) adding in completely original sections. The textures never stay in one place, so even though the structure has the source tune as the foundation, the track doesn't plod by sounding overly repetitive or static with the sound combinations or energy level. Solid work, Fabio! YES

Super conservative cover to start, though at 4 1/2 minutes, there's plenty of runway to eventually play with. Nice sampled voice stuff. I feel like I'm hearing a lot of light crackling before 1:30. 1:37 finally made the instrumentation pivot I was looking for to start personalizing the sound more. 3:12 had some nice female choir vocals as well to add some original writing, definitely very anime-esque. So about 90 seconds apiece of a super-close cover, 90 seconds of more interpretive instrumentation but still melodically conservative treatment, then 60 seconds of an original choir. Unlike some others, I didn't have an inherent problem with 3:12's choir section being "disconnected" from the rest of the track. The transition to it was just fine, and structures of tracks come in all sorts of forms; it's just important to keep in mind from an OCR arrangement standards perspective that none of that original writing section's material is interpretive arrangement. That said, the development and level of interpretation applied to "Bonds of Sea and Fire" needs to be more substantial for me to feel comfortable passing this. No issues if if ultimately passes, but I think the arrangement bar is higher and requires further personalization. The final non-VGM section is fine in a vacuum and doesn't need to be altered, IMO, but because the source tune isn't being invoked there, it just means the amount of time given to more thoroughly interpreting the source track is too limited. On the production side, this sounds great, and if this didn't pass as is, I don't think it would be a heavy lift at all for HarlemHeat to get this above the bar. Now can you dig that, sucka! NO (resubmit)