Liontamer

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

I've been on the panel for nearly 14 years at this point, so I've seen a lot and done a lot to guide this process. I can't vote on everything, so it has happened where I run into a case like this where a track gets rejected and I'm strongly against it. This is one of those times. A word of caution to any current or future Js reading this; provided you really think a submission is good, yet you're thinking the Standards are somehow against it, then the best way to make your case is to refer to and quote the Submissions Standards. That wasn't done here, and it seemed like the initial feelings questioning the dynamics and level of substance led the day, while missing the bigger picture of this arrangement's strengths. Before I get to a vote, let me say that I'll be updating the Judges Panel Wiki/FAQ page to note that we welcome artists telling us if they think we're substantially off-base and appealing a decision, because that's always been our policy even if we haven't spelled that out. If someone gripes in a different way than coming to us, we also will treat that as an appeal, because whenever we're challenged about a decision, we're always willing to revisit it. It doesn't matter whether the artist is calm or upset, and it isn't influenced by whether an artist will submit music in the future. That said, we do take the integrity and consistency of the process seriously. Situations like these can't 100% be avoided, but provided I see another posted ReMixer 3N'ed like this, I'll be more likely to check the track before moving out the decision thread. In this case, the original decision was in 2015, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be reassessed, either due to stubbornness or how much time has elapsed since the decision. --------------------------------------- Onto the track itself... The track was 2:14-long, so I needed to hear the source tune used for at least 67 seconds for the VGM to be dominant within the arrangement. :20-:26, :29-:34, :36-1:07, 1:15-1:21, 1:23.5-1:28, 1:31-1:37, 1:39-1:54, 1:57.5-2:10 = 73.5 seconds or 54.8% overt source usage I'm likely shortchanging it, but I'm just timing it out to establish that I heard the Tornado Man theme in play for most of the performance. My rebuttal to the initial 3 NO votes: This is not too short. This is not too quiet or sparse. This is not lacking dynamics. I'm not sure how labeling this as quiet and sparse is justified; it's a solo piano piece with a pretty normal volume. Arrangement & interpretation-wise, you have a fast & upbeat 8-bit source tune adapted to solo piano, slowed down, switched to 3/4 time, given a genteel presentation with subtle tempo changes and, IMO, strong performance dynamics. The overall dynamic curve of this piece may be narrower, but there are clearly noticeably fuller (e.g. :21, 1:11) and softer sections (e.g. :00, 1:48) that show off this arrangement as an intimate piano performance. How is this piece not substantial enough when it comes to interpretation of the source tune? It's only 2:15-long, but there's 0 repetition as far as the presentation & performance dynamics, and we have plenty of sub-2:30-long arrangements, including 8 in the past 4 years. It could be longer, but it's not underdeveloped; saying it wasn't a substantive enough approach given what in fact was done is not cut-and-dry, so I'm pulling this back to the panel for more votes. I'm not saying anyone has to vote with me; this isn't me trying to browbeat a change in this vote. However, after hearing this piece, I feel like the panel made a mistake with this original vote and that the Standards weren't properly applied, so, once again, I'm flipping a table. While the original votes will stand, I am calling for the current panelists to weigh in, and requesting a full majority vote of 6 YESs or NOs (i.e. 9 current judges, factoring in the votes here of 2 past judges). YES

The mixing was a little cluttered, and there was some dullness to the sound that made it seem like some high-end frequencies got cut somehow, but those were nitpicks about an overall creative, fun, and spirited arrangement. At 2:57, the original writing felt aimless and wasn't melodious, but it didn't necessarily have to be and it did change things up relative to the source tune before going back to it at 3:25. Generally speaking, no meaningful issues here. Rubber stamp. 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.

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

Rainwave.cc has dedicated streams for OC ReMixes, non-OCR arrangements, VGM soundtracks, and chiptunes. Enjoy!

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

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

I'll see what I can do on this one. There are some good Sonic Spinball mixes that should be sent our way. If I knew nothing about OCR's exact catalog, I would have bet my life that we had at least one Sonic Spinball cover, so we need to fill this gap!

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.

Looks good here.

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

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

Good stuff in terms of keeping the timing loose. The piano and sax samples were very weak, but the arrangement itself was well done and the bass -- though low-key -- was well executed and filled out the piece well. Another one of the older mixes where you'd love to hear a band take a stab at this arrangement and give the sound more depth. I wonder if the OC Jazz Collective would ever be interested in something like that?

The piano and strings lacked body, but the writing was pretty forceful. Would love to hear this done with higher-quality instrumentation to better realize the potential here. Too bad Pancake Chef disappeared; he was one of the old-school ReMixers that always merited a listen.

Oh wow, yeah, I remember hearing this back in 2002 when first learning of OCR. The warbly beat was low-key yet attention grabbing, and I was surprised at how this relaxing take on "Breezy" paired with the warbles. Cool stuff by Tim that demonstrated the appeal of a community like this back in the day. Smoove.

Super-dated sounding brass, but agreed that this was fun though short. Fun concept by Matt that would be cool for someone else to pick up and expand upon, if they were feeling inspired by the potential here.

Ha, those opening claps and thumps are such a generi-teknoz throwback. When the theme actually kicked in around :43, it was certainly an interesting approach. Was never my cup of tea, especially because once the track got going, it was pretty repetitive and didn't have much development or dynamic contrast. I appreciate the interpretation approach, but wish this had more substance and variation behind it.

I wish the percussion drove this forward better, because it was too flimsy-sounding. That said, the energy of this one has always been light-hearted and fun.