Liontamer

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.

I'm only listening to the updated version as well. Yeah, relatively straightforward rock adaptation, especially to start, but still personalized nicely. The mixing was a bit odd, as the rhythm guitar work was muddy during denser sections, and I thought the lead electric guitar should have been positioned as more upfront and clear relative to the rhythm guitars and drumming, but it was nothing jacking up the track from a Standards POV. The lead at 3:36 for the finish felt rigid and sonically out of place to me, but it wasn't a huge deal, and I liked the idea in principle in terms of changing the sound up a little before the finish. Definitely a lot to like about the arrangement approach and giving this a more aggressive feel. Nice work, Ryan! YES

My usually criticisms of Dustin's guitar performances sounding stiff are there, but the overall performance is still all sorts of solid and the other instrumentation works well. The backing guitar chugs sounded nice, and this was a nice fusion of electric guitar with some more classical sounds. Loved the fade-out transition into the whistling and SFX; really cool way to finish it! /essay 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.

If you folks wouldn’t mind, let’s evaluate per normal, but don’t make it public, so we can at least provide our usual feedback. If it’s a pass, we can at least verify that and potentially work with the artist for a fast-tracked replacement.

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.

Hahahaha! As soon as I started the track, I basically only heard music in one ear. Nope, nope; panning's just too wide for headphones. The volume was too low, IMO, and needs to be raised some. There was a noticeable click/pop at 2:02 that would be nice to have fixed as well. Lovely performances, and the source tune usage checked out as over half of the piece (:00-:31, 1:37-2:41), which made that an easy call. It's melodically straightforward but adapted well for the light ensemble instrumentation. The original section from 32-1:37 fit in very comfortably with the source tune before and after, and easily could have been assumed as also having been arranging something from Golden Sun. The transposing of the source from F to G at 2:09 for the final section was a nice touch as well. Don't make the panning so wide, and fix that one click/pop, and raise the volume. Good work otherwise, George. Just tweak this and send it on back if this doesn't make it as is. NO (resubmit)

The arrangement was melodically straightforward, there was just some extended time without usage of the source, but the latter half of the piece was nearly 3 minutes straight of source usage, so there was no issue there. Good rock expansion of the source, with solid dynamic contrast to keep the piece interesting throughout! The mixing got particularly cluttered in the latter half, especially in the build-up to the music's climax at 4:36 and dropoff at 5:11 due to the backing guitars, but in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a huge deal. The overall levels were low, but when I turned up the volume to what would be a normal listening level, the overall mixing was clean enough to get by, so this would just need a volume bump. Nice job, Kalle and Juha! YES (conditional on volume raise) EDIT (10/9): Nice job on the volume raise; now we're cooking! YES

Sounds like the highs from the strings got cut out, I presume for effect, but I wasn't sure about it working well that way. There's an overall flatness to the performance due to the accordion and I think the percussion as well. The bassline writing was good, though indistinct; IMO the part-writing muddied together, and this needs another pass to clean up the soundscape. This was also dynamically flat because you're either cut-and-pasting sections, e.g. :27 vs. 1:11 (only with added strings), or the percussion and bassline part-writing is always using the same patterns with the same intensity. The ending at 2:04 was a wet blanket, as if the track gave up; didn't seem like there was much thought with this resolution. Good potential here, Reuben, as the arrangement approach was creative and interpretive, but this still needs more variation and dynamic contrast, as well as a mixing clean-up. NO (resubmit)

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

Very minor thing, but I thought the tail of the faux geetar at 1:15 should have been longer. Agreed that the bookend section could have done a little something more, but it was another minor thing, and there was some differentiation from the opening. Melodically straightforward, so no stopwatch needed. Cool interpretive arrangement approach, one that would have made me think this source tune was from the Mega Man X/Zero series rather than Lufia II. It even made me want to fire up melody's MMZ4 ReMix, "resolut(-ion)"; guitar soloing was also a nice similarity to that one as well. Nice work, djsynthwave, welcome aboard! YES

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

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)