Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

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.

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)