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.

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

01 - Track 01.m4a = https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00735 07 - Special Stage (Sonic 3) - Remix.m4a = https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00246 07 - Those Who Fight Further (Final Fantasy VII) - Trance Remix.m4a = https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00723 08 - Track 08.m4a - https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00665 10 - Track 10.m4a - https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00112 13 - Running out of Oxygen (Sonic the Hedgehog) - Remix.m4a - https://williamjacksn.github.io/ocremoved/ - https://williamjacksn.github.io/ocremoved/mp3/SonictheHedgehog_WaterWarningUCantBreathe2This.mp3 14 - Invincible (Super Mario Bros.) - Remix.m4a - https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00456 15 - Main Theme (Super Mario Bros.) - Remix.m4a - https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00683

Well, there's no question about the level of source tune usage, so at least that's easy enough. Lo-fi kick brought in at :37; I'd argue it's too lo-fi, but then I looked up some popular vaporware and reacted with "ooooook" after hearing how it's produced. That said, where's the rest of the beats; is that it at :37? IMO, there's not enough direction here underneath the melody. The random stuff from 1:13-1:31 doesn't exactly sell this either, other than sounding odd. Ultimately, the one thing I'd say though compared to most vaporware I've heard is that this isn't as melodious and lacks direction. I'm not saying this has to ape other vaporware, but without a more present beat to anchor this and drive it forward, this comparatively feels underdeveloped. I'm willing to hear other opinions and other examples of vaporware, but for now, I'm a NO. Good potential here, but it sounds incomplete. NO (resubmit)

I liked how you made the lead at :09 warble just like the source's vocals; nice touch. The rhythm guitar from :32-:41, 1:09-1:18 & 1:21-1:24 was off-key with the lead, so watch that clashing. After the quick dropoff at 1:34, the same backing patterns returned at the same exact energy level at 1:37; you had a perfect opportunity to develop something new or more meaningfully vary up the presentation, but that finally came at 2:00. Whoa, the change into the sequenced strings from 2:00-2:13 really exposed the sample; sounded pretty fake, slightly behind with the timing, and was a quality disparity with the rest of the song. Definitely tighten this up and consider a different sound. The writing's from a different section of the source, but the track's intensity and textures at 2:14 were basically the same as before, which makes the presentation and dynamics seem samey for the last section. In the original the instrumentation for the beats is different enough from the first section to the last where you don't get that same feeling. See if there's anything you can tweak with the presentation of the final section to create a more different energy than the first 1:34. I think this was closer to passing that MindWanderer gives it credit for, because this was a solid genre adaptation and forgoing the vocals already gives it a different enough character. You just have minor issues that are adding up to drag this down. The most important thing to address is making the instrumentation and intensity from 2:14-on feel more different than the first half, and then you need to improve 2:00's string section and eliminate the off-key stuff at the beginning. Good base so far though. NO (resubmit)

Volume's extremely low, so I had to bump it way up. MindWanderer right that the track can feel repetitive in the delivery, even though you're varying the instrumentation. The verses at :14, 1:12, 1:31, 2:24, 2:49, 3:43 (though not 4:02), and 4:55 and the choruses at :56, 1:51, 3:28 & 4:21 all present in a similar enough way that you could argue the track does feel too samey. I'd argue that the textures around those leads is different enough to present substantial variation, but I understand where he's coming from with the pacing dragging on. Even with something subtle like the tambourine rhythms, those were almost always the same as well. Cutting this down a few minutes wouldn't have hurt it. Production-wise, the track sounds good overall, but had some notable issues. The choir first used at 1:51 sounds like mud; maybe you can make a case for them in the background not being a big deal, but when they're more exposed from 2:03-2:20, it just makes the lack of clarity (and robotic timing) much more apparent. Not sure the choir fit from 3:09-3:14 either, and once I heard that, it crystallized that much of this track was static with the timing. That stilted feeling including some of the string parts that anchor this, e.g. the bowed strings in the back at :08, the theremin at 2:18. Minor thing, but the ending was also flatter than a pancake. Since the track opened by starting off extra slow and gradually speeding up, I'm surprised you didn't play around with tempo more often. To me, the variations come in the textures, and the production's serviceable, so I don't want to make my personal preferences on the pacing affect my call. It's not my cup of tea, but I believe Rebecca's iterations have enough textural difference to them, and the soundscape evolves enough that I can go with this. It IS overlong and could use more dynamic contrast, but the positives outweigh the negatives enough that I'll give this a borderline YES. I can be persuaded otherwise, but let's see how this fares.

A 12-second loop, eh? Let's see if and how David gets 3 1/2 minutes out of this. [/listens] Variations aplenty, yes! Thank god the Star Wars theme cameo at 2:21 was only 3 seconds, you about had me falling off a chair on possibly having to reject this after an amazing first few minutes. Nice job, David; very well arranged & performed! YES

I like this track in a vacuum, but it did have issues. The vox timing from :47-:59 was slightly behind, and the robotic sequencing exposed the sample. Wow, the lead and countermelody from 1:22-1:46 were way too loud. Switched over to the menu theme at 1:58 with a solid transition. The synth lead from 2:09-2:33 was extremely generic and needing more sophisticated processing; the way it switches notes was so mechanical and the sound was grating and always at the same intensity regardless of the note. Arrangement-wise, I actually thought this fell short, even though it goes well in the right direction. The two source tunes do combine well, but beyond that it didn't feel like there was much interpretation or enough personalization beyond the adaptation to this genre. The breakbeat textures are different from the original, but "Machine Passage" was also breakbeat-driven, so the overall energy felt close. And with the "Menu" theme in particular, it felt like a very conservative 60-second treatment without much interpretation or variation from the original; each theme went for one iteration and played it very close; in the older days of OCR, I could see that passing, but not so much now. That said, this does have a different character due to a clearer soundscape compared to the original, so we'll see how it fares. Good stuff so far, but I think more needs to be done with melodic interpretation or some other more overt arrangement ideas to distinguish it from these sources. There are some production/mixing tweaks that would be nice to have, but are secondary. NO (resubmit)

Nitpicks first, the opening wasn't the most promising for the first five seconds: exposed strings; thin and plunky piano. In any case, the overall textures were fine, but those fake-sounding parts were weak links that should have been touched up. I wasn't overwhelmed with shrillness on the ocarina placement and doubling like MindWanderer was, but he's still got a valid point on the mixing there, so consider tweaking that. Regardless, the textures and overall sound quality were easily over the bar, and David's performance was strong as well. This was a good expansive take on the source with a even lovelier winter feeling than the original! Very nice. YES

Cool approach, with a more dystopian sound to it. The arrangement was pretty straightforward melodically, so no issues identifying what was being arranged. MindWanderer's right that whatever white noise type of layer is over this is undermining your presentation here, and the overall mixing makes things too indistinct. A good example of that was from 2:36-3:23, where the electronic noises were louder than the leads and you're left with a muddy ball of noise without a clear enough direction, which happens to be in direct contrast with the "better sense of purpose that ultimately leads to solid resolution" you mentioned in your submission letter. Really all you need a revisiting of the mixing here to get this passed. The arrangement itself doesn't need to be changed in any way and sounds good. You've done a good job personalizing the sound, you just need to clean up and clarify the mixing so that that white noise-style sheen is gone and your parts are properly balanced/positioned for the final third. If you need more explicit feedback/guidance on this, consider posting it in either the Music Composition & Production or Post Your Game ReMixes! forums and ask for targeted production feedback Nice job so far, Li-Wen, please stay on this! NO (resubmit)

The sounds were on the generic side, but this opened up with a different energy level than the original, so I already like it standing apart from the source tune. I felt the mixing was too loud, same like MindWanderer, but it was OK. At 1:20, you hit a loop point where you cut and paste :20's section, and MindWander's correct that the overall dynamics are just too samey, which is too bad because the concept was solid, it's just underdeveloped. I liked that you brought in an original section from 2:01-2:35, but the synth comping from 2:21-2:35 was totally off the rails and wasn't melodious at all, so consider re-writing that lead. IMO, the piece is maybe 70% of the way there because your interpretation is creative and the track's reasonably mixed albeit too loud. Figure out how to vary up the repetitive sections (1:20-2:01, 2:35-2:49) while still keeping them interpretive, and see what you can do to have some dynamic contrast somehow, i.e. some sort of changes/variations in the instrumentation, textures, rhythms. Really strong start, Deandre. If you're still interested in revisiting this one, see what more you can do with it, but even if not, keep submitting more VGM arrangements here; they have good character and you're well on the right track to getting something approved with the skills you're already showing now. Very promising work here. NO (resubmit)

I actually didn't have a problem with much of the instrumentation, so I honestly don't get MindWanderer's criticism; yes, it's not as polished sounding and realistic as some of your later pieces, but it's cohesive enough to pass today's bar. I liked the original writing included alongside the source during the introduction; with such a minimal drum groove, there aren't as many interpretive directions you can take it in. That said, once the original writing arrived at 1:11, it was much louder than the source tune beat and majorly de-emphasized the source tune. The original & source parts didn't have synergy because of the volume disparity, and that ended up tanking this for me. In the arrangement section of the Standards, it says "The source material must be identifiable and dominant", and it's just not dominant here. In short, the drumming of the source tune would have to be mixed in a way to stay more audible and participatory, and the arrangement would need to work in interpretation of the source tune itself. It's actually doable with a percussion-focused source, so never say never. Enjoyable track, but I think the concept manages to fall outside of OCR's scope due to taking all of the emphasis away from the source tune. NO

With the source usage being straightforward, I don't have to get into any extensive breakdowns. At the very end at 4:55, you had a nice slowdown and all it made me think was "Where was something like this before?" in order to change up the flow some. Dynamically, this felt flatter and more repetitive than it should have been. That said, it's nonetheless a very cool take on the original that manages to have its own personalized presentation style. A beautifully constructed arrangement with a more ethereal presentation than the original; it still feels like you're swimming underwater, but maybe here you're in the deepest, darkest depths. Let's go. YES

I like the arrangement overall, and felt this was a creative take on it, but the execution holds this back, IMO. Though I can live with it, the sax is mixed too low and doesn't stand out enough vs. the rhythms guitars. The track's also mixed quietly in general. As soon as the sax went into comping, the timing slipped (e.g. :35, 41). What happened to the notes at 1:43 and 1:47? Should have re-recorded. The sax comping from 2:04 until the finish at 2:35 also felt directionless. The sax performance doesn't sound polished enough, so please watch those smaller details. Dynamically, this actually got plodding despite the energy inherent in the writing. Part of that is because the backing rhythm guitar and drumwork never let up, always going at the same overall energy, intensity and busyness the whole way; just because it's surf doesn't mean you can really get away with the overall energy level feeling so flat. Vary up the textures to create more dynamic contrast, tighten up the saxophone performances and give them more direction for the finish. It's a cool take on Tal Tal, so I hope you guys are willing to revisit this if it doesn't pass. NO (resubmit)

Not the most cohesive piece I've heard from Rebecca; most of the sequenced parts had uncanny valley realism issues. Even the plucked string lead here, which I can see being inspired by the super-fake sounds of N64-era Zelda, just didn't sound rich enough. Brass and bowed strings also had the same issue, IMO. Arrangement-wise, this was fine. The bowed string attacks from 1:08-1:28 also stuck out. Perhaps other judges may feel differently, but this piece struck me as the samples not being used anywhere near their best. I'll come back to this one. ? EDIT (11/18): I thought the transition from one theme to the next was smooth; while I agree that the combinations of themes is just A then B, the structure flowed perfectly fine from one theme to the next. This track passing isn't a hill I'm dying on, and I respect Rexy and prophetik's knowledge, but IMO, the arrangement still gets by and the production's adequate, even though it has flaws, several of which I also pointed out in my initial comments. The sustains leading into dissonance didn't stand out for me though, so I didn't ding it on that level. I don't need this to be impeccable (not saying the NOs did), I just need this to be creatively interpretive and reasonably produced; to me, this ticked both boxes with the genre and instrumentation adaptations being good enough, and the sound/sample quality and mixing being good enough to get by. Some of the sequencing should have sounded less rigid, but the overall result was still expressive enough. Again, I don't mind being outvoted, but I think Rebecca came through enough that I'm all good accepting this, and not making the perfect the enemy of the good. YES (borderline)

YO I don't know how to delete a post so I'll post a cute picture of a Abby the Furret instead. ~Deia

Most of track directly samples the original audio as the major connection to the source tune, which violates our arrangement standards. It's not enough to build original material around the sampled source tune audio, you have to substantially arrange and interpret the VGM theme. There's some but there's not enough incorporation of the source tune that isn't sampled. NO

Stilted's the first word coming to mind with this. I thought the theme change at :49 was abrupt, but we'll see how other changes go. I can't help but feeling like the relatively stilted timing undermines a lot of the personality of the performances. 1:30 had another abrupt change, then again at 1:52. I like the concept and the overall performances are capable, but there's a very flat quality to the accordion performances that pull this down. And 2:57 with a sudden change as well; I really felt this needed at least some brief but notable transitions, which this didn't have. I didn't have any significant issues with the mixing; I do hear the tambourines cutting through, but they weren't a big deal, nor did I feel they sounded bone dry, as there's clearly light effects on them. I want to be clear that I'm not saying that the track needs to sound more high-energy with toe-tapping pacing, but the timing when the accordion's in the foreground feels very mechanical; 1:29-1:52 felt a lot more natural-sounding in comparison, for example. IMO, the two biggest issues holding this back were the stiff accordion performance and the abrupt transitions. Address those, and I think the overall execution would be cohesive enough to roll with. Good base here so far, and the vote ain't over till it's over. NO (resubmit)

Interesting opening; very basic/generic sounds, but we'll see where this goes. At :28, it seemed like you had the perfect opportunity to layer or effect the vocals on some of the parts, like "break me"/"save me"/"again"/"spend", to put some additional depth and contrast into the vocals. Immediately I can tell the vocals need pitch correction/AutoTune (e.g. the "me" in "wake me" at :10 is flat; the notes in "desperation" at :24; a flattening at :44 during "over and over"; "away" during "run away" at :47 and :49, "stay" at :54). Clearly said "exscape" instead of "escape" at :13, but we'll move on. Less than a minute in with this many issues, and I already know it's a dealbreaker and will further prove that as we go on. Not trying to be demoralizing or short, but I just don't have the cycles to note each & every instance, and you should be more mindful of stuff like this going forward. If you yourself are listening to this and not realizing that it's off-key, we've got significant problems. There's even what's effectively a mouth fart at 1:45 as you say "break". On the plus side, your overall tone of voice is good; it's not like you couldn't develop a strong singing voice, but it's not there right now. Texturally, this is decent, but you also have moments like 2:07 where you've got relatively thin textures after the drop at 2:02 joined by a super-dry clap lasting until 2:24, and it sounds like a quality disparity between parts. I'd also argue the drum tone at 2:26 and the countermelodic synth line at 2:46 didn't click with the rest of the instrumentation. I'd argue that you should overtly incorporate more of the source tune into the arrangement, but I honestly didn't investigate that yet because the production's not passable yet. There's so much raw potential here, but raw's the key word. It's not a polished piece, though you do have a really solid WIP. See if you're able to refurbish this by fleshing out the textures more, replacing some of the more generic/thin parts, and consider re-taking or pitch correcting the vocals. Don't be discouraged, Aaron, this is a good base to build on. NO