Liontamer

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

Interesting arrangement approach here; doesn't sound particularly focused, but let's see where it goes. Flute from :18-:26 was pretty shrill, and had other moments like that (1:08). The beats from 1:08-on felt so tame, but I suppose they shouldn't overpower the rest of the instrumentation; but listen to 1:31-1:38, for example, and you hear how muted they are. An odd fit, but I'll live. Not sure what that snap/pop sound at 1:19 was, but it didn't seem intentional. I just ended up sitting back to go on the ride the track took me on. The track's pretty wild, but it's audacious stuff and I love how unorthodox this whole concept is. Any lack of realism in the instrumentation's offset by the strength of the writing, IMO, and the sounds were pretty capably used here regardless. We come to the sticking point though. The track was 4:38-long, so I needed to hear "Slow Moon" referenced for at least 139 seconds for the source tune usage to be dominant in the arrangement. :03-:20, :41.75-:47, :49.5-:55, :56.75-1:22, 1:31-1:35.75, 1:38.75-1:44, 2:00.5-2:07, 2:38-2:45, 2:47.5-2:51.5, 3:06.5-3:12, 3:14-3:20, 3:21.75-3:29.5, 3:33.5-3:40.5, 4:10.75-4:13 = 109 seconds or 39.20% overt source usage As far as I could tell, this arrangement doesn't reference "Slow Moon" enough for the theme to qualify as "dominant" per the Submissions Standards. Unless I'm missing big swathes of references to the source tune, I think this is too liberal of an arrangement. I know the submission letter also mentions being inspired by the source's bassline, but I muted channels in the "Slow Moon" .VGM to listen to just that, and I didn't hear it explicitly referenced anywhere; I only heard bass work that was stylistically similar (and very quiet and subdued, it was worth noting). For those that want to isolate that part in the source, play it with a player supporting in_vgm, mute all of the SN76496 channels, and all but Channel 4 and DAC channel of the YM2612 side. Nice work here, Mathieu, but as far as I can tell, it falls outside of what we can accept, even though this is a very enjoyable, spirited piece regardless. If you could somehow fit in more references to the theme, e.g. sticking more closely to the source tune's bassline, I could get behind this. NO (resubmit)

Production-wise, it was a bit lo-fi and lacked high-end but was otherwise reasonably produced; beats were laying it on thick and had strong bass presence. Agreed with MW and Rexy on the whole. Not a bad instrumental, but it's very very tough to get a piece on OCR that relies so heavily on sampling the original game audio like this does AND stays so repetitive and underdeveloped; it would have to be extremely transformative. Adding on sampled vocal lines could help break up the repetition of the instrumental and create more dynamic contrast. Read over the Arrangement aspect of the Standards again, David, but if you arranged the theme into a hip hop beat and had more variation to it, that would have a fighting chance. Best example relative to yours would be http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03662. NO

This was cluttered and lacking clarity, and I didn't like how the piano line tended to rest in the same frequency range as other parts, and there were low parts that also served to add mud to the soundscape instead of just padding things out. See 2:34-3:08 for one of the worst offenders, e.g. low hum/drone noise, and cluttered textures (mostly from 2:48-3:08). The mixing and placement attempted to give this a spacious feel, but I didn't really feel much of that from the stereo spread. Arrangement was solid and carries this. Another pass at the production/mixing would be ideal, and I'm actually going to ask for another pass at the production/EQing, even though I could see this passing as is. NO (resubmit)

Dynamically, this was relatively flat, because the textures were so thin, with the beats feeling particularly empty. Big re-build at 2:07 into... more of the same stuff at 2:34 at the same intensity as before at 1:14? What the hell? Yeah, disappointing. There was subtle melodic doubling going on, and a tiny bit more to the textures, but it wasn't a meaningful difference. Beautiful wind-down for the last few seconds at 3:28 though. Flesh out the textures and/or beats more so the track doesn't feel empty overall, and develop or vary the arrangement further for the last minute-and-a-half, and this would be a lot more solid in terms of the overall level of development. Solid base here though. NO (resubmit)

Not to be glib, but this was par for the course with Guillaume, i.e. good orchestration with some sounds in the uncanny valley, but ultimately above our bar. The arrangement felt a little by the numbers melodically, but the supporting writing had subtle differences alongside the different tone of the melodies to help distinguish this from the originals. The brass at its fullest seemed to crowd out other parts, and there were other moments where the textures washed together, but it wasn't enough to hold this back. Mastered too quietly, so I'd like to hear a louder version before we posted it, but when I turned up the volume, the overall mixing seemed good aside from some spots of mud during the fullest parts. YES (conditional on higher volume)

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

Really smart arranging, and nailed the psychedelic rock vibe; loved the sound here. Nice work using a lot of comping, but always keeping the backing patterns of the original, particularly the rising countermelody, to keep the arrangement grounded in the source most of the time. The piercing frequency did stick out but wasn't a factor for me for more than a few seconds, BUT... it would be nice to eliminate that, so I'll also ask for a fix before we post it for that reason. Otherwise, incredible stuff, Lucas, Jared & Grant! YES (conditional) EDIT (8/15): The tweaked version eliminates those piercing frequencies, so I'm fully on board. Thanks, Lucas! YES

The stereo panning's too wide onto the right side. I only realized it once the intro finished at :22 and you heard the beats come in, but it's actually a problem from the very start. I wasn't hearing anything where I was worrying about overcompression, though 1:47-1:58 was crowded. While the core snare beats had some snap to them, I actually though that part sounded lackluster and needed to be even denser/more impactful-sounding AND more varied with the patterns. Arrangement-wise, no issues here though. We just need to the get the mixing/balance addressed, so until then, it's a NO, but just waiting for the tweaks to be turned around into a YES. Nice work so far, Adam!

Cool theme choice, Christopher; maybe they'll make Mighty No. 10 and have a hit game down the line. Very quiet mixing; you'll need to bump the volume up some. The arrangement for the first minute was essentially a quieter, less impactful, super straightforward cover of the source tune with slightly different beats, but basically the same tone. Not much here to distinguish it from the original. I did like the bassline tone, and if you turn the volume up, the instrumentation's pleasant. Hiss got introduced at :42 and lasted all the way until 1:52, though I'm not sure what it was tied to; figure out what part is responsible. Not sure what was going on with the writing/comping from :56-1:24, followed by some glitching/stuttering effects from 1:24-1:53; in a vacuum, there's aren't inherently bad writing ideas, but there's no direction or flow to this at all. Chorus arrived at 2:07, again super soft, with very thin textures and a very lackluster ending. It's like a sandwich of cover-original writing-cover that doesn't flow. Rexy's correct that the sections arranging the Mighty No. 9 theme are way too straightforward and by the numbers for the arrangement/interpretation standards here. You'll have to do more with that, and also give more direction to your original sections. NO

Really good potential here. The main thing holding this back was stuff like the bowed strings and brass having silted timing. It immediately stood out, and so I have to also piggyback on what Sir_NutS said, especially because the issue immediately stood without without having read the other votes first. The second verse at 1:44 sounded at about the same energy level as :31; even though there was more going on, the levels, textures, and writing felt so relatively similar that the contrast doesn't register as much as it should. I think you could probably reduce the impact and bombasticness of the first section to give more oomph to the second iteration, but it's more of an example of a way to create more dynamic contrast, not a recommendation that you employ that specific idea. Otherwise, the arrangement was generally on point and shows off a lot of potential, Alex! Tweak it further and send it on back, it's well in the right direction. NO (resubmit)

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

What's this doing here? Git. YES

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

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

The drill SFX cut out abruptly at :36, so watch for sloppy detail work like that. The acoustic guitar handling the "Fear Factory" was nice, and the banjo at :51 brought a smile to my face as soon as it dropped in; very cool idea. There were some minor mixing tweaks that could have been made for a better balance among the parts, but it was a minor thing in the big picture. For example, the backing string line at 1:05 was too loud relative to the banjo, IMO, but that's just a personal taste thing going on; you can also make the case that you just want that string line to stand out more. Vox and electric guitar arrived at 1:26 for the chorus; very cool instrumentation ideas that are disparate and unorthodox, but ultimately click very well. It was around this point that I also noticed how well the bassline functioned as well. 2:13 included some original string writing loosely derived from the source tune to help vary things up. Dug the vox hitting some sustained notes at 3:14 for a nice bit of dynamic contrast. Easily Reuben's best concept piece; a hugely interpretive and personalized sound, a very varied sound palette that came together nicely, and good performances by the collaborators. Never thought I'd hear "Fear Factory" like this. Again, every time you think "this is a cliched source tune choice", people in the VGM arrangement community make you realize there are so many different and creative ways to approach an interpretation. Nice work, Reuben, Natalya, and Sean! YES

Besides the mixing losing some of the high-end and muddying the textures up, this was well performed. However, like the others have said, it's structured like a medley with no meaningful transitions or cohesiveness in the writing/arrangement between the themes. Some good OCR rock medley examples are here: https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01341 https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01515 https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03268 https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03871 Great energy here, Alex and Deep, we just only accept medleys structured to flow like one overall composition. NO

Italo disco, orchestral, same difference.

If you get posted, Nick, keep on submitting stuff. Props either way for having a goal in mind and reaching for it. The arrangement's nicely personalized, so that part was easy enough to discern. Piano sequencing was super rigid/robotic from :53-1:12, but that issue was sidestepped once the plucked leads arrived after 1:13. The piano sequencing fakeness was less of an issue but still one from 2:21-2:42 headed towards the finish. From :53-onward, there's was a pretty pervasive buzzing/distortion effect going on here, and the soundscape very obviously lacked high-end clarity. I'm not sure the production could be tweaked to get this over the line like a typical conditional YES, and I know I'm definitely not in that camp. If you can refine the mixing and also spruce up (or mitigate) the piano sample, I'm on board, Nick. Very nice arrangement that just need some production TLC. NO (resubmit)

I thought the writing of the harp lines arranging Re:Zero should have been altered more, otherwise it sounds like a pretty 1-for-1 adaptation of that writing, which was making it more of a Standards issue of incorporating non-VGM arrangement. Why did the piano have such a drastic drop in volume when it showed up at 3:05? That was an issue long with the big quality disparity in the realism/humanization of that part compared to everything else; let's make sure the 3:05-3:59 section doesn't sound so thin, quiet, and mechanical compared to the rest of the track. The woodwind sequencing also didn't sound as humanized as it could have, but the tone was much better and more realistic than the piano; if you can get the piano at least sounding as capable as the woodwinds, we're having more of a conversation. I like this as a concept piece, the orchestration is beautiful for the most past, and I still need to time it out for source tune usage, but until the harp line and piano quality are addressed, I'm a NO for now. Super strong foundation here, Jeremy, that just needs some production improvements for that one section, and if I'm wrong on the harp line being so close, I await correction. NO (resubmit)

Opened up with some very flat, basic-sounding synths, but we'll see where it goes. Lead at :19 was super flimsy and all of the parts had very basic effects on them; some decent personality to the sounds, but the lines were very thin and the timing was stilted. Picked up more at :59 during the chorus, filling out the soundscape more thanks to the beat, before dropping out the padding/countermelodic stuff (very abruptly at 1:17). It didn't make any sense for instruments to drop out without some sort of fade in this context. Back to the verse with a cut-and-paste repeat at 1:18, only with some more beatwork behind it and an original countermelodic line added at 1:37; the claps and stuttering tick-tick-tick lines were just too sparse, with only light delay effects giving this any body/density at all. Filled out more again with another chorus at 1:56. Another original line was added in at 2:16 along with some cliched trap "AY!" shouts (which later come back at 3:32). Sudden key change at 2:53, with the soundscape getting very murky and indistinct around 3:03. The sustaining string synth lines didn't sound natural at all, so be careful with how you program them to sound. There a good deal of effort given to weaving in original composition alongside the source tune arrangement, so that was a huge positive by Matt and Kerry. But the instrumentation and textures weren't sophisticated; even the densest sections didn't have much richness to them, and when you went into more complex textures at 3:03, the parts mushed together. Based on how this is written, it needs more impactful-sounding everything; that's the crux of this. Once this doesn't sound thin, flat, stilted, and repetitive, the character and creativity of the writing and arrangement will show through more. NO

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

Nice re-instrumentation, beautiful, varied textures, and good expansion of the part-writing behind the melody. Lovely work per your usual, Rebecca! YES

Just noting, I didn't mind that change to create dynamic contrast in and of itself, I just though it wasn't smoothly timed, unlike the 4:04-4:18 section where it went back to the technique but with timing that didn't seem slightly out of step.

Really dug the original intro; great fade in and a nice, rich sound. Beats at :31 felt underwhelming though, so I'm hoping it goes somewhere else. OK, cool layering and countermelodic stuff from the source tune at :46. This is playing things by the numbers in terms of being a straightforward genre adaptation, but we'll see where it goes. Back to the cool original writing at 1:25, followed by another new original section from 1:41-2:24. The way the beat here had almost a semi-stuttering type cadence seemed to interrupt the flow of the track, IMO. By this time, the track was also starting to feel sluggish. Played a little with some different ideas via a dropoff before renewing the theme at 2:46, which essentially sounded like a cut-and-paste of :46's section. This track needed to develop or vary more significantly, otherwise it doesn't really justify the length. Then 4:03 was basically and cut-and-paste of 1:25's section before winding it down for the finish. The tempo dragged on after the halfway point; more instrumental textural variation would help this not get too stale, especially if you don't intend to vary the writing itself, though I'd recommend that too. MindWanderer's correct in that it's ultimately a very static presentation. Good start here, Glenn, with tons of potential, but please vary this up further. Production-wise, this was nicely mixed and balanced, so props for a great job there. NO (resubmit)