Liontamer

Very intriguing opening with a nice build into the beats arriving at :21. Theme arrived at :35 with a rhythmic change along with a cool phasing effect on the notes. The mixing's somewhat trebly/sharp, but it's nothing really dinging the track, and I could easily make out all of the parts; I'd much rather have things be sharp than lossy-sounding. The way the beats shifted from 2:15-2:31, I felt the change-up didn't flow with the rest of the writing, but it was a brief bump in the road and was at least executed more smoothly from 4:04-4:18. Great use of stereo, effects, and textural variations to help put a very personalized arrangement stamp on this. Wow, very nice work, Jari, I love it! YES

There was clipping/distortion from :49-:50 that would need to be fixed before this was posted. Aside from the drums, the opening orchestration sounded very flimsy, particularly the brass. The sample quality seemed serviceable but there was a stiff quality to nearly all of the instrumentation and this didn't sound as expressive as it could have. Perhaps my production bar's too high here, so I'd like to hear from other Js on whether they felt the way the samples were used here was solid enough. Since I'm not able to better articulate my reservations, I'll reserve a vote until some other opinions come in. EDIT (10/15): Yeah, just taking some time away from this and revisiting it, this is solid enough orchestral writing, but, boy, if that intro doesn't prove the instrumentation has no body. Very stilted timing. The samples themselves are serviceable, but it neither sounds polished to Rebecca's usual standard nor OCR's. NO

Great source tune choice; even though BoF5 is my favorite soundtrack in the series by a mile, I've been a fan of this source tune ever since Mattias first arranged it for OCR. The arrangement was conservative but personalized per Rebecca's usual skills, and was a relaxing listen. I did however have an issue with the production quality. There was a noticeable lack of humanization in the note-to-note movements and decays of the male choir vox first used quietly at 1:23, then louder at 1:57. The bowed string articulations also stuck out to a lesser degree, e.g. 2:28-2:51. The production's well in the right direction, so I wouldn't fault others for being more permissive and going YES, but IMO, these are such central elements to the track and so integral to the textures, because there's not too much else going on, so this needs another bit of polish and realism before I can get behind it. Good base here though; the arrangement doesn't need to be changed, just some improvements with the sequencing/humanization. NO (resubmit)

Keeping it brief in following up Gario's vote. The arrangement concept, compositional dynamics, and the level of interpretation were solid, Danilo. Gotta agree with Gario though; the sequencing was very mechanical/unrealistic-sounding, and you had crowded moments. For an organ, not as big of a deal; for strings & winds, much bigger deal. Organ was very clearly off-key from :43-49, and again from 2:21-2:23. Flute from 2:34-2:37 was off-key as well. Not much of a resolution to the ending, which felt very abrupt. Humanize the instrumentation and watch for the brief off-key moments. You can also clean up the textures and fashion a genuine ending, but those are more in the nice-to-have category. NO (resubmit)

I thought the instrumentation was interesting, but the textures were too flimsy given the overall energy level, e.g. the claps from :39-:50, 1:03-1:41, 2:59-3:10 & 3:43-4:30, the synth line from 1:16-1:42 (which was WAY too quietly placed, yet also grating, even as a doubling part). Yes, the levels were quiet, but you can turn it up to hear how everything sounded at what would be normal volume. IMO, the claps were a weak link and needed a fuller/denser sound yet not be as upfront. Meanwhile the bassline writing was good, but too subtly placed; you could barely hear it and had to be actively listening for it in order to make it out. I liked the original break section at 1:42 followed by the melody returning via the portamento line at 2:07. I liked the gradual morphing of the lead from 1:42-2:07, or it would have sounded too repetitive compared to the beginning. Minor thing, but the SFX usage playing around the stereo field from 2:20-2:46 was a laudable concept, but the overall placement seemed odd and uncomplimentary as it ended up occupying the same frequency space as the music and crowding it out at times. The SFX usage from 2:49-3:08 was a lot more subtle while still adding to the textures, then from 3:11-3:38 it was louder than before (could have been pulled back a touch) but just thickened the sound up without crowding out other parts. Back to the original writing as the base of the track from 3:38 until the finish; the stuttering line felt like a big retread, but then another original line arrived on top from 4:09 until the end at 4:30 to freshen up the finish. Arrangement-wise, the overall energy level and dynamics were good, and this was a strong combination of arranging the "Lost Woods" theme while trading off with wholly original writing. Production-wise though, I felt the claps were a pretty extended, and thus integral, part of the piece and needed to be tweaked/improved before I can totally get behind it, and also wanted to hear the bassline register. Along with bumping up the volume, some hopefully quick production tweaks could get this over the line. Very good start here, so we'll see how the rest of the vote fares. NO (resubmit)

We'd host it. Are there any WAVs still available though or only the MP3s?

That's right, it's just set up as a cleaner-looking redirect.

http://flight.ocremix.org should work

I'm with the YESes that this is an example of a piece that seems deceptively straightforward, but is actually involving lots of different textures, subtle interpretation, and genuine personalization of the source theme; Rexy laid out the differences the best in her comments. I liked the potential of the ending section, but it could have been stronger. The beats at 3:02 were a letdown by having no depth/thickness to them, and the tone of the beeping-style supporting line also sounded too soft. That, and the underwhelming fadeout (and I'm not one of the judges who's inherently against them). The rest of the arrangement made up for a weak ending. YES

The panning's too wide -- very apparent on headphones -- and nothing sounds clear & clean despite having fairly simple textures. Though I appreciate the creativity and style, I'm not a fan of the sound palette; the piece has a driving beat, but the energy inherent in the writing feels like it's not showing up in the music, so maybe this needs a stronger beat. The ending at 2:10 was an abrupt letdown after an otherwise creative arrangement that felt like it had only just started and not fully developed. This definitely felt like there were other places this could/should have went. It's promising, but feels like it's missing some elements or thickness to the beat to drive it forward; not panning this quite as widely would help as well. I think you could get another 30-60 seconds out of this at least, so that potentially, other parts (EDIT 8/1: variations, not parts - thanks, MW!) of the theme could be used, and you'd also have the space to create a more substantial ending. Lots of smaller issues adding up to wanting a revision, but we need some Rescue Rangers on OCR, so please don't drop this. Good base here, Jonas, this is well in the right direction! NO (resubmit)

Dunno of a way to do that, but feel free to grab this mega-ZIP instead, which has a lot more.

Opens up extremely conservative, so was looking forward to hearing it branch off. The strings fading in at :14 were a nice touch, only hitting the countermelody at :21, which was another nice, subtle touch. Expanding things out into an orchestral suite was a nice piece of business. Not sure what was going on with the key change at 1:07, but we'll live. Overall, a short and sweet expansive take that puts more meats on a skeletal source with beautiful results. I thought it was personalized when it was straightforward, as well as expansive, so I didn't think it was a close call. Cool approach, Jason! YES

Co-signed with Gario. Cool stuff; a little static for my tastes, but gets it done with a nice interweaving of the sources. Compress it and send it on back. YES (conditional) EDIT (7/30): Alright, now we're set. Thanks for the volume bump! YES

The mixing's not ideal in places, so I'll go over a few things I heard: the lo-fi mixing from :26-:38 didn't sound good and had some needless distortion, the cymbals at :50 created a kind of quiet & indistinct sizzling sound which never sounded good throughout the entire track while some countermelodic writing was also barely audible, 2:24-2:37 was indistinct and muddy, vox at 2:40 (among other places) was quiet and fought to be heard over the guitars, the bell at 2:38/2:46 might as well have not even been there, and all I could hear from 2:39-3:15 was the guitars and cymbals. I'm sure rock musician Js could speak better to this, and I wouldn't be against anyone saying they could live with it, but it seemed like the mixing could use another pass. I did like the use of the stereo field, particularly from 1:43-1:55, to have the dueling guitars. Seemed like that wasn't employed much of anywhere else, at least in a noticeable way. Not sure what was up with the key change transition at 3:15 and guitar chugs from 3:19-3:24. I mean, I hear how it's referencing another section of "Dancing Mad", but it still seemed really disconnected. Man, this mixing was just taxing though. 3:24 has another super-aggressive section where choir vox was there, but was just getting steamrolled and sharing the same frequencies as the guitars and machine gun drums. Then 3:42 just gets even louder and more crowded until 3:54 and it's not clear what the focus is, before going back to more of the choir stuff from 3:24 but with different backing until 4:14. So, yeah, some parts seem clean and upfront, then you switch to something muddy and distant (e.g. shifting at 3:19, then 3:24 sounds even more cramped, then 3:45 sounded even MORE cramped), and IMO it doesn't make much sense. 4:14 went into the organ section, which sounded muddy/distant, but more purposefully so, even though I think it should have sounded a bit clearer. 4:58's section sounded more clear than almost anything else before in the track, and then 5:17's guitar work sounded nice. Then things got more crowded, but I thought the mixing was a lot clearer and more cohesive than before, which is a shame because the song's almost over. 6:11 shifted to the final section, with a distant-sounding (but purposefully so) organ for the finish. Good ending there. Arrangement-wise, there were some disjointed transitions, which you'd think wouldn't be a big deal given than this is arranging "Dancing Mad", but I thought there were several times the sound quality changed from distant/muddy to clean/sharp or vice versa but didn't seem like a part of the song's narrative (e.g. 2:26, 3:19, 4:31), or sections that were simply too crowded (2:25-2:53, 3:24-4:17). Again, I'm not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good; if others are comfortable with the mixing as is, more power to them, as this is well on the way there, but I felt this needed one more pass at it. The arrangement's fine, Justin, but there's just too much of the track that merits mixing tweaks for clarity and consistency. Definitely please tweak this and send it on back; I'd love this up in some form, no doubt. NO (resubmit)

Timing was slightly off at :58, but not a huge deal. Not a fan of the drum tone & kicks; there's no synergy there, e.g. 2:38-2:52 when they're even more prominent, but we'll move on. The guitar performance was solid though, as well as the vox accents. 4:04 switched the style up. Again not feeling some of the drums/kicks, which sounded somewhat random at times, but again, we'll live. The arrangement continues to be creative and interpretive, so the overall package has been good from the start. Nice little piano accents between the melodic phrases first used at 5:56 (and heard more prominently at 6:10). Really good job as well keeping the textures varied (particularly with the verses) from iteration to iteration; it's inherently hard to justify 9 minutes in length, but already 2/3rds of the way in, I know this'll be just fine the whole way through. While I took issues with some of the drum/percussion production in the first few minutes, the overall arrangement was very nicely personalized and varied, and the production was more than capable. Nice debut, Andy, welcome aboard! YES

Amazing source tune choice, but you're setting yourself up for failure with a low-quality encoding (160kbps) and muddy mixing. Off sound quality alone, this is already a dealbreaker despite having a solid performance. Drums are too loud, and everything has no sharpness. Cymbal shots starting from 2:25-2:45 sound out much louder than anything else for no real reason. Snare drum tone doesn't fit at all and sounds weak compared to the guitar. Damn, Brad, it's a shame the recording quality and mixing isn't clean or properly separated. Arrangement-wise, I agree with MindWanderer; sounds like a straightforward rock cover to start, albeit reasonably arranged for guitar, then just original comping/soloing from 1:44-on. For a few moments, you used the patterns from the source tune in the back, but it was always for a few quick seconds, then those references stopped, so over half of this wasn't really related to the "Sky High" theme. Incorporate that theme some more. Yeah, good stuff in a vacuum and well-performed, just very poorly mixed. Not sure what the master recordings sound like, but if they're as muddy/lossy-sounding as what's shown in this version, you're better off re-recording. Agreed with MindWanderer in that your mixing crippled this, and you need to meaningfully reference the source tune within some part of the second half. Even if you don't revisit this one, you clearly have the skills to get posted here, but you need to take a lot more care on the production side. NO (resubmit)

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.

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.

Chiming in after the fact, but wanted to quickly co-sign on this. Production was reasonably clean, and while the arrangement is gimmicky, that's not a pejorative. Good job getting a lot of melodic and textural variations out of this to justify the length. The ending was a too sudden, so I wish that was more thoughtful, but this clicks overall. Welcome! YES