Liontamer

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

I refuse!

Cool source! I always appreciate VGM with crystalline/glassy instrumentation, e.g. Dark Dizzy's theme from Mega Man X5. It turns out Faseeh & Joshua Kruszyna submitted their take on this same theme 3 months before The Good Ice, so this won't be the first Sonic Unleashed piece on OCR, but it's nonetheless a great sophomore representation and a trememdous contrast that stands apart on its own. The wholly original countermelody used right from :00-:59, 1:58-2:13, and then lightly again from 5:39 until the end fit this like a glove. It fit so comfortably and with such synergy, I kept trying to find it in both the source tune and "Jungle Joyride (Day)." Maybe it's found somewhere else, but I dug it. The melody at :58 (from :36 of the source) also reminds me of the melody first used in 1:06 of "G" from the Zuntata Live 1997 ~Cineteque Rave~ album. I thought the snare tone was more vanilla-sounding than it should have been (a little bit more of a trailoff to those hits would have been good, IMO), but it's just a minor nitpick as the percussion was produced well and I enjoyed the effects employed to beef up the sound. Would have loved to have heard the bass writing (which was great) also not be mixed so, so subtly; it may be intentional, but the notes tended to mud together indistinctly. BASS! Hey, you! Come out and play! I also felt that the guitar lead at 1:28 was mixed too quietly; it sounds like it should be wailing and the master volume was just turned down; actually, as the track goes on, the overall mixing and levels of this aren't ideal, but you can just bump up the overall volume. It's not a ding against the track, just a subjective mixing choice; everything still sounds super strong. That said, I dug the other sound design and dynamics more, so it made up for any other choices I didn't agree with personally; definitely professional, commericial arrangement album quality! Lots of cool sonic flourishes underneath the melodies here that give the listener things to enjoy and rewind for. Great track for late-night highway driving too, IMO; reminds me of Module's Shatter OST in that respect. Dunno what you'd call this genre, but this rocks out the original in such a creative way. I enjoyed switching back and forth between the source tune and your version to follow along with the structure and appreciate the way you guys personalized the arrangement. Small critiques aside, very creative, and a new personal favorite that I'm looping! I'm genuinely honored you submitted this for OCR to host and promote; this'll be a lifetime favorite of mine. Definitely looking forward to hearing more from the LongBoxofChocolate alums, now as The Good Ice! Should be "The Great Ice" with musicianship like this. ;-) YES

Opens with super fakey piano and super fake strings. Then super fake woodwind and even more exposed piano at :10 that sounds so stiff, it's a miracle this was allowed to leave the gate like this. Transitions to harp at :26. Exposed string decay at :29 also sounded awful and fake. Afterward, the presentation was in the uncanny valley but was more serviceable. Keys at 1:21 had more body to them, but the timing still sounded very stiff, especially around 1:40-1:43 for example. More stiff, thin sampled piano at 2:13, then stiff, fake sounding strings alongside the stiff, extremely fake piano at 2:16 (the piano lasting all the way until 2:50, yikes). Nah. I'm genuinely frustrated and not having this. Despite the arrangement being personalized above our bar per Rebecca's usual genre adaptation approach, this sounds like a well-in-progress WIP version with parts dummied in awaiting live performers. OCR's standards obviously aren't to either have 1) live musicians or 2) sampled parts indiscernible from live performance. HOWEVER, my sense of the production bar accounts for either (or a mixture of) 1) blowaway arrangement creativity to outweigh the overly fake-sounding sampled instruments or 2) using production techniques to mitigate the lack of realism of the samples. Neither has been done here to a level I'm comfortable with. Let's step things up here on the production quality, please, Rebecca, you're capable of more polish. I'd also encourage the previous YESs to revisit this with a more critical ear; I'm not saying it's getting YESs just because it's Rebecca, whose productivity we all respect and admire, but I'd argue that a newcomer's name connected to this might not receive the benefit of the doubt on obvious issues that we're all collectively hearing and agreeing on. DragonAvenger's vote in another Rebecca piece had me correct myself in a recent vote where I myself let things slide, but then I bumped up the volume and just heard all sorts of stuff sounding very exposed. There's production holes in this that a truck can be driven through, it's constantly lacking in realism to the point where it all adds up, and I'm a NO-go.

Not quite, you could make a free game on Newgrounds, i.e. somewhere where there isn't a payment or gratuity option. But yeah, it's meant for non-commericial purposes. Like others mentioned, if you want to use something in a for-profit environment, the risk is on you, and that's when you would contact the arranger via social media or email and get their explicit permission/approval to use their music in an explicit or potential for-profit setting.

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

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

I definitely enjoyed the different sound palette here, and it's a classic source tune choice; it wouldn't take too much to help this piece break out with something else different going on to then personalize it more. 1:11 was an opportunity for that kind of change; it came and went; at that point, I was already pretty sure this arrangement wasn't going to develop into anything melodically interpretive. You can really tell at 1:19 that some frequencies are missing entirely as you hear some lines just warble like it was a lossy encoding. There's a dropoff at 2:00 with some textural changes, but that was brief, and then at 2:20 sections are just being repeated wholesale. I listened through until the end, but there's not much else to comment on since this just loops until 4:00. Then there were finally some changes in the instrumentation that should have came two minutes earlier. This repetition doesn't justify 5 minutes. It's not a bad exercise, especially just starting out and going by ear, but you've got to introduce more creativity and variation here. Relative to our arrangement standards, this isn't anywhere interpretive enough relative to the original, it's repetitive and undeveloped as a arrangement, it lacks dynamics, and Emunator's spot on with the production issues. If you get to your good variation ideas at 4:00 sooner and employ instrumental variations and added original writing much earlier into the picture, this would begin to justify the length. Promising start though. NO (resubmit)

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

I dunno what setup prophetik uses (nor am I calling it into question), but I just didn't have any problem with the mixing being like this and could hear things well enough/clear enough on my ole' Sennhesier HD497s. I could hear all of the part-writing just fine, so while I'm sure there's valid mixing critique in there, I didn't hear anything so out of balance or marginalized as to make me think the mixing was out of whack. I may be presumptuous, but I've had tracks that were off-putting for a few listens and sat better with me after some acclimation. I felt the sound design and mixing were well above our bar, and there's nothing prohibiting something mixed like this from passing. It took me a few listens to wrap my head around the source usage. But I ultimately recognized, thanks to the submission letter, how the source melody was in play in the beginning (:31-:57) and toward the ending (2:45-2:59.5, 3:11.5-3:37) and Chris was mostly using the countermelody as the foundation of the piece (:58-2:45.5). Smart usage of the different sections of "End of Despair" as well (:31 of the source at 3:37, then :42 of the source from 3:56-3:59.5). Very creative arrangement, Chris! YES

I enjoyed the BotW base for this piece. The melodic line at :48 can sound basic, but the production gives it a nice resonant sound. Less so for the "Great Temple" theme at 1:47. I would have increased the volume of the doubling there to give it more depth, because right now it sounds thin, lonely, and bland (made even more apparent when shifting back to "Temple" at 3:12, hearing the contrast with how that's produced). 2:16 added a countermelody, but this needed more ear candy around it. Good doubling of the chorus at 2:35 though, including some lil' fills and stutters to put a little spice on it; OK, that's more in the right direction. When the "Temple" theme returned at 3:12, that would have been a great place to add some new ideas into the picture to be less of a retread, especially because it was only 20 seconds. I was markedly underwhelmed by the "Great Temple" section, but this overall package is well in the right direction. The nice integration of BotW's "Lost Woods" with the Zelda II material, along with a significant change in the energy and style of the Zelda themes added up to a very fresh approach. Good stuff, Peter! YES

Need a timestamp, eh? I got you. :05.5-1:06.5, 1:08.5-1:23.75, 1:25.5-1:29.5, 1:42-2:04.75, 3:23-4:00, 4:02.5-4:07 = 144.5 seconds or 54.73% overt source usage If you fire up the source theme and speed it up, it's just 12 notes. The layout of this mix is more about the ear candy that's built over the top of the references to the source, a lot like SGX's "Kick Your A"; you can still hear the source in play the whole time, but it's not what the ear gravitates to, which is a totally valid arrangement approach in the sense that when I have to look for the source, I can readily identify it. Not much else to say beyond this being a very transformative piece with strong sound design. Very creative interpretation and referencing of the themes in the first and last thirds of the track while also showcasing energetic original writing in between that fit very comfortably. Nice work, Mike! YES

Yep, opens up as a melodic cover, so we'll see where it goes. Agreed with prophetik that the fakey guitar lead is pretty bad and needs to be something else; it has no depth and the note changes/timing sound super stilted and robotic. All of the guitars sound rigid and fake. zircon may be able to help with that via Impact Soundworks' Shreddage. https://impactsoundworks.com/series/shreddage-3-series/ 1:15 in and I still haven't heard anything really setting this apart from the source tune. It's a fun cover, and you do have original writing underneath the melody, which shouldn't be discounted, but this wasn't standing apart from the source tune enough. Finally something changing up from 1:38-2:16 with some original writing, then it was back to the melodic arrangement only more interpretive by going with different writing for the instrument surrounding the melody; much better stuff in terms of personalizing the arrangement approach there. I enjoyed the drum writing and didn't have any significant problems with it; this kit could use more oomph to the sound, but that's it. The ending was flatter than a pancake and just sounded like a loop point ending, so create a real resolution. For the guitars, the bass (except 2:51's section) and chugs were serviceable, but the rest of the guitar samples all sound very fake and rigid, especially the leads. Good base here, Karol. Perhaps get more interpretive with the melody, but it's a take it or leave it thing. If you can improve the guitar sample tone and timing to achieve a more realistic sound, or change those leads into something electronic that clicks, those seem like possible options to improve this. It's not a close call for me in the sense that the instrumentation's pretty lacking throughout. It sounds like a decent arrangement that could stand apart from the original in the first half. The main dealbreaker for me is that the samples comes across like a proof-of-concept WIP for live players to listen to and adapt, and that's not strong enough on the production side, IMO. NO (resubmit)

I never heard the first submission, so I'm coming into this eval fresh. Opening orchestral vamping was in the uncanny valley of sample realism. Good stuff at :39 with dynamic contrast by changing the textures; nice lil' transition at 1:00 as well, and a nice move into a darker tone at 1:13. Oof, not a good look on that fakey piano from 1:43-1:55; it sounds like a WIP/proof-of-concept sketch there. Anything to give that a richer, more realistic sound would be great, because that was the weak link here of an otherwise nice concept. This was rightly criticized last time around, so I'm not sure if this was meaningfully improved from before, but it's still not there. What's even going on with the strings at 1:55? Sounded like the initial note faded in, which didn't make any sense. Then it's followed by super-fake-sounding attacks; the note-to-note movements sound very awkward in places. The strings from 2:39-2:50 for the build to the finish were also pretty exposed and that could have been tightened up with a wetter or more reverb-y sound; same with the brass from 2:53-3:15. No big deal, but there's also a small pop in the render at 2:30 during the strings. Well, lemme say, I enjoy the arrangement. The argument from the YESes -- and it's not an unreasonable one -- is that this sound quality, while not ideal, meets the production bar, with the arrangement carrying things. No hate if this makes it as is, but to me, it's several instances adding up of smaller detail work being missing for the overall soundscape that leaves this sounding too dry and exposes the samples too much; Chris's work here is definitely on the higher end of enjoyability for something like that, but it's still too apparent, IMO. It may just be a matter of applying some effects to give this a denser sound and could mitigate the realism issues. I'd rather hear this given another round of TLC. NO (resubmit)

Oof. As soon as that sampled piano kicked in at :07 sounding so incredibly fake, this was at a huge deficit. Let's see if it can climb out. Yipes. I like the creativity of the beats, mixing (for the most part; sounds like the highs are muted), and overall sound design, but that fake piano sounds awful and that's the base of the track. It's a complete non-starter like this. Hearing the chorus loop again at 1:10 with a retread was also a downer. The layered string/piano combo at 1:23 just sounds so lacking. I'm not saying you need the organic-style instruments to sound more real or that money needs to be dropped on better samples or live collaborators, but changing the tone on those parts may be all you need to make the focus less about how robotic the samples sound. I agreed with MindWanderer in that there's care given to create textural variation, but the track ultimately still feels too repetitive when just listening to the core structure. That, coupled with the weak samples, drags this down to a NO, but it's a very promising arrangement. We'll see how the rest of the vote shakes out, but if this doesn't make it as it, beefing up or changing the piano & string samples and employing more melodic or instrumental variation with the leads would help make this an easier call. NO (resubmit)

The little percussion SFX from :16-:47 & 1:03- is actually piercing when listening on headphones (especially the glassy synth line :42-:47 and 1:27-1:34). Would be great to get that tweaked to nerf the shriller frequencies. Seemed like it was less of an issue later on in the track though. Not sure why the panning's so wide in places, but it's OK. Piano comping from 1:02-1:34 exposes the sample pretty badly; the piano sound needs more depth and realism to it. Good idea for the dropoff at 2:05 for some dynamic contrast. The track picked back up at 2:24, but I'd argue the lead sounded super dry; there's trailing noise on the drums, but focusing on it actually exposes how thin the overall soundscape truly is. Fills out better from 2:56-onward at least, but it really feels like it needs a wetter sound to fill this out. Good guitar wank starting at 3:27 (though it sounds like there's some blip/hiccup noise on the guitar line right before it starts). Another good twist in the arrangement at 4:00 with the additional instrumentation coming in to add some new lines. The 8-bit main theme variation from 4:10-4:50 didn't integrate well with the rest of the instruments and came off needless gimmicky instead of providing synergy; maybe just dropping the levels on it to serve as a subtler accent in the background would have clicked more instead of overpowering the other sounds; agreed with prophetik that it was way too loud. Good idea in principle, just an odd finish that seemed out of left field given that everything was smoove up until the conclusion. There was a cameo of chiptune in the very beginning, but you don't really notice it there, so the chiptune part at the end didn't come off like a bookend idea (nor do I think it would work in either spot). It may seem like I'm just nitpicking things, but I'm focusing on the areas for improvement. Unlike MindWanderer, I didn't have any issue with pumping. That said, the arrangement's certainly creative and the production is serviceable, just not ideal, and that's OK. Wouldn't mind some production tweaks to this, but it can run as is. What's here works fairly well, and the on the execution seesaw, it's tilting much more heavily to YES. Nice concept, Damian!

The source tune's pure Phantasy Star Online; love Garoad's stuff! Texturally, this was thin, and it's conservatively structured; but the sound design's markedly different. I was waiting for the arrangement to further interpret the source beyond the new soundset and it didn't get there even by 2 minutes in. At 2:02, you have the intro repeat again, now supplemented by the beats. 2:41 had some different stuff over the top of the previous patterns, but it felt very much like a retread with minor changes. 3:06 briefly had a dropoff that finally changed the dynamics up, but was then followed by the repeating chorus at 3:17 with just the new countermelodic stuff stapled on top. 3:29 with a total cut-and-paste of the chorus that made the track feel overlong. The ending was also pretty flat/anticlimatic; a stronger resolution would tie this up nicely. The SFX isn't anything more than a minor ding, but it just sounds dry and stapled on top of this; some effects on it could make those brief cameos at least feel more integrated into the soundscape. OverCoat didn't fully realize the potential of this piece. As far as the Standards here go, keeping the structure, tempo, and rhythms the same as the source means you have to make up for that on the interpretation level through more extensive original part-writing or evolving sound design. This was a very by-the-numbers genre change. Once you got past 2:02, the other new writing in this track felt very minor as core parts of this repeated; some instrumentation changes for the verses or choruses could have helped there. Dynamically, this was too flat; not saying the original needs to be copied in this way, but note the more dynamic changes in the energy of the source tune. Needs more variation and development, but it's definitely something OverCoat's more than capable of if interested in revisiting this. Would love to have Garoad's soundtrack work represented on OCR, SOC, please don't drop this! NO (resubmit)

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

We post new music to the front page every few days. We've posted about 10 more arrangements since that latest torrent, but we intend to update the torrent quarterly going forward.

Cool idea altering the rhythms of the various fragments of the source tune. Very lush soundscape, and great dynamic contrast throughout. Extremely well personalized, that's for sure. Always loved this theme, and this was something you wouldn't immediately connect back to it, but I love and respect the extreme transformation here. Nice work, Michael! YES

Bowed strings opening things up are super-exposed and too thin. Woodwind was also too thin. There are still obvious uncanny valley issues, particularly with the bowed strings, but unlike the FF3 piece of Rebecca's that I just voted on, this piece doesn't expose the samples quite as much. Arrangement's beautiful, interpretive, and personalized per the Tripp standard. Would love some more depth to the strings, woodwind, and vox, but what's here gets the job done. Wish it was a stronger YES on the production side, but it's there.

I had to turn up the volume a touch to truly hear the details. I'm OK with the looseness of the timing in parts; nothing sounded out of place. There were some flat moments with the sax, but nothing close to making this not a pass on performance grounds. Great variations of the source tune throughout; lots of great varied iterations from both Karol and Andrew, and strong dynamic contrast during the whole piece! Short and sweet, good deal! YES

Sounds pretty MIDI-rippy to start, but I did like the sound palette there. At :36 and 1:10, the melody's too quiet underneath the supporting writing, but the melody's in the foreground again at :53; I don't think the contrast quite works as intended in these sections, but maybe increasing the melodic volume a touch would still make it more audible yet still subordinate in those other sections. While prophetik had a lot of production critiques as well, and he's an accomplished musician (whereas I don't make any music), I just wasn't hearing much to take issue with on the production level; everything seemed to occupy its own space and though I took issue with the prominence of the melody in places, it's a potentially subjective thing for me there. Really nice dynamic contrast with the change in instrumentation at 1:53. 2:10 basically goes back to a rinse-and-repeat of :35 but with :52's lead. 2:53 essentially repeats 1:27 with some instrumental variation but the same beats/patterns and energy underneath. While I can hear how the arrangement isn't just doing a complete cut-and-paste for the second half beyond 2:10, the overall tone and presentation was repetitive nonetheless and things started dragging out. I wouldn't go as far as prophetik would in terms of saying the arrangement doesn't stand apart from the original source tune; the part-writing and instrumentation are significantly and meaningfully expanded here. However, the percussion patterns and overall levels generally hovering in the same place for nearly the entire track did make this feel overlong and underdeveloped. Anything else you can do in terms of creating some sort of dynamic contrast would help put this over the top, IMO. Good work so far, Marc, and I think you'd be able to refine this and get it over the top if the arrangement writing and/or sound palette evolved some more. NO (resubmit)

The instrumentation is firmly in the uncanny valley, so it's not gonna win any awards for realism and depth, but it's certainly serviceable and solid relative to our production standards. This is definitely a medley structure with brief hits of several themes, including some quick transitions, but the instrumentation and dynamics employed here do make the piece feel cohesively presented and it's obvious the transitions are thought through and purposeful. I'm willing to hear other judges opinions as well, including djp's, but I'd say this is a valid medley with care put into the transitions. The expansive part-writing and solid orchestration make it an easier sell on the arrangement side. Good stuff, Ben! YES

The brass samples in particular were in uncanny valley territory. Really bad decay at the very end that very needlessly exposed the samples. Would love to hear this using samples or production techniques that gave these sounds more depth. The arrangement's short and sweet but certainly interpretive with varied instrumentation and expansive enough with additional part-writing. Volume was also quiet, but I could hear everything. YES (borderline) EDIT (10/27): Actually, DragonAvenger's on point with the samples ultimately dragging this down. The bowed strings are also very exposed (e.g. 1:47), and areas where the brass should be pulling more weight (e.g. 1:24, 1:42, 2:14) stand out like a sore thumb. Nah. This is definitely below the bar. Let's beef up these samples and run it back. NO (resubmit)