Liontamer

In our case, it's more of a knowledge base to house some basic information & FAQs, as well as the character bios for the character mascots, so we haven't needed an open editing format. Happy to fix any typos you've found though (or they can remain forever, that's OK).

There's no reason somebody can't make one. There was AnimeRemix.org a ways back, run by @Xaleph, and the current version of the site's actually still hosted at http://dev.animeremix.org/songs.

Thanks so much for being dlligent about this; I did see the email question but didn't have the time/focus to follow up, I'm sorry about that. When we launched the Patreon, that definitely had not been an option, so it certainly wasn't leaving something unchecked on purpose. We'll look into this very soon!

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

Thank you for guaranteeing it will NEVER be moved. This community is a McRib community!

The track was 8:41-long, so I needed to identify the source tunes in play for at least 260.5 seconds for the VGM to dominate the arrangement: :00-:47, :51.5-:59, 1:50-3:08, 4:19-4:57, 4:58-5:49, 6:14.5-7:23, 7:24.5-7:35.75 = 301.25 seconds or 57.82% overt source usage I know I undersold the connections, but I was just timestamping this quickly to verify for myself that the source tune usage was there for the majority of the arrangement. Interesting approach with more subtle and understated references of the sources. Since the Final Battle theme isn't super-melodious, the key to the arrangement lies in building around that theme with interesting, well-mixed ear candy and well-executed changes in the textures and dynamics, as well as techniques to keep the track evolving and flowing. It didn't feel like a near-9 minute piece and didn't drag out. All of the Jaffar's theme usage fit nicely here as well, and the stuttering/gated vocals at 6:14 in particular were a creative touch. What a fun ride to take, and a really cool arrangement outside of Rasmus's past material. Nice job! YES

I've had 3 this year and need more! McRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiib!

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.

It helped for me to listen to the source at 1.5x speed. Thanks to Gario for his timestamping, but he actually undersold the source connections in this case, since it's almost all over the arrangement. No hate, as I've sold stuff short plenty of times in timestamping; sometimes one person missing the connections at the start ends up influencing the rest of the panel, who assuming it's source-light or on the bubble. MindWanderer caught what Gario initially missed out on. :01-:19 (:00-:11 of the source), :19-:38 (1:21-1:32 of the source, but maybe just :22-:38 from 1:23-1:32 of source), :38-1:19.75 (:00-:11 of the source); 1:39-1:57; 1:57-2:16.25 (1:09-1:20, then 1:21-1:32 of the source); 2:16.25-2:36 (very liberal take on :00-:11 countermelody of source) 2:36-2:55 (liberal take on :00-:11 melody of source); 2:55-3:13.75, 3:15.5-3:33.5 (1:09-1:32 of source); 3:34-3:53 (:00-:11 of source), 4:02-4:14 (1:14-1:20 of source) From :38-1:20, the backing patterns were also inspired by the bass countermelody parts of :00-:11 of the source, with the second half of the 5-note patterns staggering the rhythm of the 5th note (like a soft accent). This shit's clever. The track was 4:15-long, so I needed to hear the source in play for at least 127.5 seconds for the source tune to be dominant in the arrangement. Just sticking with the overt connections I heard: :01-:19, :22-1:19.75, 1:39-2:16.25, 2:55-3:13.75, 3:15.5-3:53, 4:02-4:14 = 181.25 seconds or 70.80% source usage Smart arranging, David, and nice sounds! YES

Yep, the next time the site is synced with the database, it'll be updated, no worries.

I refuse on all counts!

There’s no public access to the site’s Wiki, but if there are updates you’re looking to see, let us know.

The arrangement aspect of it is just too minimal. Just two repeating lines of the stripped down source tune that desync and wind up back in sync. A fun audio gimmick, but not a developed arrangement by any stretch. And that’s OK, it just falls outside of our arrangement standards. NO

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

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

Someone slapped the Pac-Man jingle together with Alan Braxe and Friends - "Rubicon" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKVcGViwWPA)

Man, I hadn't heard this theme in probably 15+ years, and it just unlocked some old college radio memories for me. Awesome source tune choice! Structurally, it's initially conservative, but it's a very well-personalized genre adaptation. At 1:11, some bars of the intro were repeating and I worried the arrangement wouldn't develop more, but then it quickly shifted into the comping from 1:24-1:50, following that up with another hint of the melody coupled with vamping to not just settle into too straightforward of a cover. Loved the textures at 2:38's section; the original's countermelody is such a great element. The way the track ended at 3:00 was too sudden, IMO, and this otherwise smoove rendition deserved a more substantive conclusion, but that certainly doesn't hold this back. Gotta also give credit to the production; the instrumentation had a full sound, and props for some beefy bass work and creative percussion writing. When it's clear attention's been paid to the backing elements, not just the foreground players, you can achieve a strong sound with parts that have genuine synergy together. Nice job, Arden, count me in as a new fan, and I can't wait to hear your future arrangements! YES

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

I didn't mind the production choices and thought the Portal aspect of the arrangement was solid. Presentation and performances were well above the bar here. Unfortunately, there's too much reference of non-VGM source material IMO for me to vote in favor of it. Radiohead - "No Surprises" - :01-:13.5, :57-1:25, 1:27-1:44.5 (58 seconds) Pixies - "Where Is My Mind?" - 5:00-5:41 (41 seconds) 99 seconds total or 27.88% of the piece invoking non-VGM sources In a vacuum, I love the piece, there's nothing wrong with the concept and execution in terms of our quality bar. Involving "No Surprises" is also a really cool touch given that the music videos for that track and both Portal songs all have lyrics that appear on screen, aka "I see what you did there." But the involvement of the non-VGM sources is too extensive for me to not view it as a Standards Violation. If O.R.B. were open to an OCR Edit in some form to keep the Radiohead/Pixies references a lot, lot shorter, that would be cool and we would fast-track its evaluation, but there's no requirement or request to compromise the vision of the piece just to have it posted here. :'-( NO (resubmit)

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.