Liontamer

Message me a copy of the 160kbps version, if you have it.

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.

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

I get the problem with the accordion, but it's not a dealbreaker at all for me, and the presentation's cohesively rocked out. Let's go! YES

I love the piece in a vacuum. It's jazzy, it's tightly performed, the treatment of the source tunes (which are variations of the same song) was creative, and I didn't have any problem with the mixing or levels. But I was coming up just a little source-light in terms of identifying where the source tunes were referenced in the arrangement. The track was 5:11-long, so I needed to identify references to the sources for at least 155.5 seconds of the arrangement for the source material to be dominant. :23-:58, 1:01-1:05.5, 1:07.25-1:38.5, 1:48-2:11, 3:36.5-3:59.5, 4:02.5-4:20, 4:26.25-4:44.75 = 152.75 seconds or 49.11% overt source usage. If another judge can point out some source usage I'm overlooking, then please let me know. Since my breakdown is so close, I'll leave it at not making a call yet, but I need >50% for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement, otherwise it's a NO from me. EDIT (10/24): I'll also count :19.25-:21.5 for the 4-notes having a different rhythm as the 4-note patterns in the melody (e.g. :06-:11 of "Ice Mountain"), and 1:41.5-1:43.5 having the final 2 notes from a 4-note pattern (e.g. :08-:11 of "Ice Mountain"). That pushes it up to 157 seconds or 50.48% overt source usage. OK, count me in. YES (borderline)

Hi OCR, I hope you guys are doing well! Nostalvania here with a new remix submission! - Remixer Name: Nostalvania - Name of game: Super Mario Galaxy - Name of arrangement: Where Hot and Cold Collide - Name of individual songs: Ice Mountain, Lava Path Sources: Ice Mountain - https://youtu.be/rvnaiyu2R0E Lava Path - https://youtu.be/tY3REzIfvuk Remix: Note: Since I'm not the best at mixing/mastering, the track came out relatively quiet. That is to say you would have to turn up your volume a bit to get the full experience. Not sure if that's gonna be a problem. - Comments: This remix was originally supposed to be my contribution to a Super Mario Galaxy album which unfortunately got cancelled. It's a shame, because I always thought that the track had a lot of potential. Now after several years, I finally had the time and patience to finish it. The result is an energetic jazz arrangement in 6/8 time, which alternates between organ and piano as the lead instrument. The more busy/energetic organ sections may be interpreted as hot/fire, whereas the calm/open piano parts are more reminiscent of coldness/ice. Hope you enjoy! -Markus

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

Welcome back!

Nice opening SFX, but the intro notes at :04 were sparse, so we'll see where it goes. The English pronunciation's not good; the lisps and (I dunno the technical term) slurps affecting the delivery don't help either, but can't be helped to some extent. For me, it's not that criticism of the English pronunciation's not merited, but if this were a foreign language, it wouldn't stand out or inherently bother me. The more important thing to me is how the syllables are shoehorned into the melody's timing, which feels forced, but it's an earnest approach. The overall execution for the first 90 seconds was solid. Another minor thing, but there's some light hissing/warbling noises from 1:16-1:33 & 3:37-4:16 that seemed tied to a sample, or at least doesn't sound intentional but rather like an audio artifact; double-check if that can be removed. I wouldn't have brought back that anemic-sounding melodic line at 1:33; the sound is too bubbly, dry, and thin, and the timing too rigid, so it doesn't click with the other instruments at all. When the vocals come back at 2:13, the mixing's odd, IMO. The vocals are chorused but relatively dry, while other elements aren't, so there's another instance where parts don't mix well and thus don't have synergy. Nice effects on the vocals at 3:14 for the transition out of them though. I'd argue the arrangement was creatively approached but dragged on too long. There's dynamic contrast throughout the piece, though it's worth noting that the piece "peaks" with basically the same energy level and textures in the :50-1:13, 2:34-3:16, and 4:40-5:06 verses; some more obvious differences between these verses would be helpful. This piece has promise, bros, though I'd like to hear a version with a new take on the vocals -- preferably de-essed, not as dry, and with clearer pronunciation (not perfect, just clearer) -- more balanced mixing between the parts, and considering a change in the synth line first used at :04. NO (resubmit)

Right off the bat, the backing synths were very static-sounding. Everyone's given extensive feedback on how vanilla these sounds are, so I'll leave it there. Brief issue, but the drum fill from :25-:27 sounded very robotic and fake; I would have went with a different, non-faux-organic sound that didn't expose your samples. At :41, I would have done something different with the textures, because just changing the leads yet keeping the beat and backing so repetitive made this feel dynamically flat. Then at 1:44 with another iteration of the verse, the core backing beats just drone on ("BOOM...TSS...BOOM...TSS"). Just jump around to any point in the song and the energy level is basically the same no matter if the beats are there or not. The choruses at 1:09 and 2:19 had more personalization, and were the highlight of the arrangement for me. However, the textures feel very empty/hollow despite everything going on. Small thing, but I'm not sure what SFX that was from 2:46-2:54, but it sounded so muffled that it just added indistinct noise and clutter. The verses could have been more interpretive. The production also wasn't sophisticated either. Keep at it though, we've all gotta start somewhere, and this is a more promising start than most. NO

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.

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

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

Short and sweet: A really fun take on a source tune I'd unfortunately never heard before now (Vectorman 2 is definitely a hidden gem compared to Vectorman 1). I've been around OCR quite a long time, and I felt this piece combines and old school kind of creativity & sound design along with sharp, modern production quality. I could easily envision something like this being posted back in OCR in 2000, yet if it were submitted then it wouldn't have sounded as clean (not antiseptic, just clean) as it does with today's higher production standards. Nice work, Michael! YES

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.

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

A simple theme with a beautiful expansive approach. This could have easily been too repetitive and not justified the length, but Rebecca employed tons of variations with the instrumentation and ornamentations to get some legit mileage out of what could have easily just been a 90-second concept. Nice work! YES

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

The DK64 source is referencing 1:12 of the original from :55-1:20 of the arrangement. The instrumentation's super fakey, yet that's clearly part of the track's charm, I agree. The core drums at :09 are definitely bothering me though; they're way louder than everything else and extremely plodding and static, which might not inherently be a big problem for the genre as prophetik pointed out, but once they arrive they just blare over the top of everything else for the rest of the track on cruise control. Both more humanization/round-robin of the core drums and pulling them back some would help the track sound less static and on auto-pilot. I see where Chimpa's coming from on the transposing of the sources making the connections difficult to make out, but I felt things were straightforward enough. The track was 2:19-long, so I needed to make out the source for at least 69.5 seconds of the arrangement for the source tunes to be dominant. :00-:06, :09-:30, :55.5-:1:07.5, 1:14.5-1:20, 1:24-1:46, 2:05.5-2:09 = 70 seconds There's likely much more I'm not counting, but I'm just timing this out to illustrate that I recognized the source tunes being invoked for more than half of the arrangement's duration. Fun stuff, let's just improve the drum production & mixing. NO (resubmit)