Nutritious

Good source connections right off the bat here. Sounded like some bass notes/effect that sound like they may be conflicting with the rest of the chord. It's slightly noticeable in the intro, but much more so once things kick in at :43. It's the resolving note that hits in the second measure from :43 to 1:24. Actually, it might be that wobble bass that you hear much more clearly once everything drops off at 1:24. It sounds weird in the previous section because it's pretty quiet and only hits every 4 measures. Speaking of bass, I'm in total agreement on the lack of low end here as has been mentioned. Quite a critical element for this genre. It's not completely missing, but in general, the mix is pretty top-heavy. Again, agreement on the repetition issues mentioned as well. Once the rebuild at 3:10ish came and the melody set in again, I felt like we've already been down this road before. More energy or content to contrast from the rest of the mix would help. Good stuff! Tighten it up and bring it back NO resubmit, please

The Review Thread for OCR #3013 See you Next Time is improperly labeled as #3012 and links to the OCR #3012 Remix Detail Page.

Almost done with my entry. Maybe tonight even.

Reading through that google thread, it seems that people had success directly contacting the copyright claimant. It's a 3 year old post, but try the email address on the second-to-last post.

Just wanted to add a note that I was listening to this one yesterday and was having trouble making source connections to the original. I didn't get a chance to give it a second look before it was closed out. However, just wanted to give a heads-up to the mixer to make sure your source connections are clear enough in your next revision. Also, since it's possible I just totally missed what the referenced source material was, it may be helpful to provide specific timestamps on what source parts are referenced in various parts of the mix. The main qualms of the previous judgements surrounded the use of Square samples (completely correct), but not a lot on the liberality of the material here.

Am I the only one that can't help but think "Cabbage Patch Kid" when I see Jonathan's remixer name? Perhaps it's intentional Things have been covered well in the other votes, so I won't beat a dead horse here. Arrangement is solid with good source usage and personalization. The big issue is the amount of clutter in the busiest sections of the mix as mentioned before. Sounds like an extra beat was added between the guitar runs at 2:44. It's possible it was intentional, but to me it just sounds like a bit of a flub on the performance. Not a big deal; it possibly could even be fixed with a bit of creative clip chopping, rather than re-recording. Not gonna like, the fadeout felt really weak, especially given the energy of the section you had going at the time. If you can get the clutter cleaned out and parts sounding cleaner and more separated, this should be good to go. If you want, consider the ending and the 2:44 fix as well . NO resubmit, please

What version of ewqlso do you use?

To clear up some possible misunderstandings about screen time: from some of the reading/research I did quite a while ago, the limited screen time recommendations stem from the perceived effect it has on a child's developing brain. The constant onslaught of changing images & colors can overstimulate the brain and wire it to expect to have an abnormal amount of stimuli. This can (apparently) cause them to have attention/focus issues like ADHD because of the brain's need for that level of input. This largely depends on the type of programming the child is watching: intense, fast-moving vs lower-intensity, slow-moving. For example, a low-intensity program may be a sporting event, which doesn't tend to have a lot of scene changes, bright/flashing/intense colors and quickly moving camera shots. While the epitome of a high-intensity, high-stimulating (read: bad) program would be SpongeBob SquarePants which pretty much encompasses all of the aforementioned items. In our house, we have pretty strict rules for our children's screen time. They are generally allowed to watch 1 program at most a day, and some days, nothing at all. Once or twice a week we'll let them watch a full movie, which usually coincides with Friday evenings, which we've made into a "family movie night" where they get to picnic in the family room for dinner while we all watch. Besides the rare occasion where we'll let them use my old phone to play a game like angry birds, that's essentially all of the screen time they get. We have friends that pretty much don't limit screen time for their kids and I think it's reflected in their children's behavior (I don't think it's necessarily the definitive cause, but I believe it contributes). It sounds like you're coming from a bit of a tongue-in-cheek angle, Brandon, but honestly I couldn't disagree with this more. Obviously, while there is educational and informative programming available, I don't consider television as a good source for life/character/moral/etc development. Sure, as you mentioned you can watch with them and explain/guide them with regards to what they're watching, but honestly, 90% of the stuff my kids would want to watch wouldn't interest me and 90% of the stuff I want to watch won't interest them (this does make movie night a challenge, but we deal). I think you'd see in the majority of situations that kids are watching some cartoons or similar programming without parent guidance or participation, while the parent is doing or working on something else, grateful for the break. A far more ideal scenario is for the parents to utilize real life experiences to teach lessons and moral values. Also, getting the kids outside for physical activity (as a family!), especially in nature-type environments, instead of sitting in front of a screen has benefits that go beyond just the obvious physical ones. For reference, see Last Child in the Woods - very interesting read that's backed up by various research studies. Anyway, I didn't mean to make this a long rant post. We're obviously not perfect in the way we handle screen time or other development issues, but we have done quite a lot of research on this and related topics and do take it really seriously. That said, if anyone has a specific parenting-related question that they'd prefer to keep on the DL, feel free to PM me if you'd like - I have quite a bit of experience in the field .

Updated my vote per the info from Nabeel. No change in decision, though.

Right off the bat, the piano sounds a bit stiff. It sounds like too many loud, sharp notes played in sequence. It could be that you're not letting off the velocity levels on the less prominent notes or it could be the timbre of the sample not having a softer tone on the lower velocity notes. Feels like a step back from the piano work in the OST. lol Larry @ the FF battle theme pseudo cameo Nice use of reverb spacing to give this a very wide-open feel, like with the glock and sleigh bells. As mentioned, the strings sound a bit fakey, but they work here. Arrangement is on point with good expansion on the short original theme. Really cool changeup at 2:31 with an effective transition. Way to bring it back to business . Overall, very nice arrangement and pretty solid production minus a couple minor issues. Good stuffs. YES

Not much to add here, really. Larry/Kris are right that needs needs further development in writing and textures as it's pretty repetitive right now. The production is pretty solid and the source treatment is nice and creative. Solid base here, but more work is needed to flesh this one out. NO resubmit, please

Cool sounding track here. Went ahead and did an arrangement breakdown: :00 - :33 - Bassline covering melody from OST :34 - :50 - Original :51 - 1:06 - Very loose organ interpretation from the OST, not counting this 1:07 - 1:56 - Organ section from :26 of OST with altered chord backing 1:57 - 2:13 - Bassline covering melody from OST 2:14 - 2:47 - Bassline on B section bassline from 1:09 of OST 2:48 - 3:55 - More heavily modified B section bassline with organ stabs I initially missed the organ connection at 1:07, which is what prompted me to stopwatch it in the first place. With that covered, it's well over the 50% mark, even not counting the modified 2:48 section. Beyond that, there's lot of great arrangement ideas on display here. While he retains the basic bass and organ elements, he's focused on expanding on complimentary part-writing, chord changes to drive the energy (like at 1:07), and progresses to electro-mode near the end of the track along with original soloing on top. I agree with Kris that the synth bass is pretty loud in the mix. It's quite buzzy, which is causing it to cut through the mix even more than it normally would. Just gently rolling off some of the highs on it may be enough to get it to sit better. While I feel it's an issue, it isn't a dealbreaker for me, personally, but I could see it possibly being a bigger issue for others. Overall, a solid mix and that retains the groovyness of the original. Good stuff. YES

There are some off-key parts with the patterned synth sequences throughout the track (the synth in question first plays @ 1:18 ), which throws me a bit. It may very well a stylistic choice, so I can understand it from that perspective. I can hear the inspiration you've taken from some of the older Infected Mushroom tracks. The arrangement is one of the stronger aspects of this track. The Kefka theme is adapted nicely to a 4 on the floor I liked the transition into strings and gradual transition into the electronic section at 4:57. One could argue that this track is a bit empty-sounding in the soundfield at times, but to me it brings me back to the techno style music we used to hear in the late 90's. I will say, 5:37 did get pretty crowded to me and a bit messy, even for the style. The backing, atonal sequenced synths were too loud and start to overpower the melody. They could be brought down without losing the frenetic/chaotic feel you're going for. Good stuff, and an interesting take on the iconic Kefka theme. YES

Good, comprehensive vote from Larry that echos my crits as well. Timing issues in the lead instruments, which could either be caused by performance or trying to get more humanization out of the sequencing. If the latter, I'd recommend focusing more on velocity/volume changes, rather than note timings (I actually almost never adjust the note timings on sequenced leads). 2:11 & 3:56 are especially problematic in this regard as mentioned. Double agreement on the 1:31 transition and section. I think I hear what you're going for, but it sounds both directionless and doesn't contrast enough with surrounding sections to be an effective bridge between main sections. I'll add that I felt like the bassline had a fairly bland tone and repetitive writing throughout the track. Some changes to it's writing alone could help the repetition we're seeing. Some note choices on it seemed odd to me as well. Notes like @ :39, :54, 1:45/2:01/2:15/etc (when compared to vox pad), 3:16, & 4:09 (compare to other notes used). Unfortunately, I don't have a keyboard in front of me to give specifics on what might work better. I'll try to get back to this at home to see if I can edit my reply. Nice use of airy synths and percussion to set the mood here. Nice arrangement ideas on display here. The lead flute could have a bit more presence. It might be the sample, but it's very centered in the soundfield. I'm not saying you need to add a bunch of stereo delay or anything, but something to separate the L/R channels a bit may help. Could come up a tad in volume as well. Overall, it's actually quite a good start here. Definitely take a look at the loose sequencing, song flow/direction, as well as, though not as critical, the flute/bass issues I mentioned. NO resubmit, please

Revised vote, yo

Kristina & Joel pretty much covered it here, so I'll be relatively brief. Super creative arrangement. Really love the creative touches throughout in writing, chopping up samples, etc. It gets problematic in the louder/busier sections with too many parts competing for space. Biggest offenders are :45, 1:26, 2:02, 3:02 (esp. 3:20). It sounds like there is some loud resonance/decay on some of the backing parts like the plucked guitar and pizz strings, which is causing them to take up more than their fair share of space. Better balance between background supporting parts (too loud) and the intended leads would help as well. It was a bit long, but you managed to change things up quite effectively throughout, keeping me interested. This is quite close to the mark actually. Get the clarity/balance/mixing a bit tighter and should be good to go. Great stuff overall, bring it back soon. Guess that wasn't very brief after all NO (borderline) resubmit, please

Kristina nailed it here. Production is quite good. Everything comes through pretty cleanly, with a lot of punch in the drums and strong guitar work. But yeah, this basically comes off as a metal cover. Which, cool as it is, doesn't really jive with our standards here: I feel like you're just starting to scratch the surface on expanding/personalizing the original, but a ton more could be done. You've clearly got the performance and production chops, so I really hope you develop this more and bring it back. (edit: revised below) Reading the additional votes below prompted me to go ahead and give this one a second look. While I never had an issue with the delayed melody appearance, I did base my decision on whether the arrangement expanded enough on the original to meet what is considered acceptable. A/Bing with the source once again is convincing me I was too quick with the "this is just a cover" rubber stamp. While still on the conservative side, there is performance personalization, transition changes and flow. Good call by Clem on this one. Imma Benedict Arnold this one and go: YES

Nice adaptation to the acoustic guitars. Great mood setter that really compliments the feels of the original. Off the bat, timing on the backing arpeggio sounds both a bit loose and rigid at the same time, if that makes any sense. Loose in the sense that some of the notes on the back end of the looped recording (I'm assuming it's a chopped loop) are a little off beat, while the quick delay effect gives it a bit of an artificial rigidity. Minor issue, but I'd try to do a quick bit of editing to line up the notes better on the pattern. The more I listen, the more I like the delay effect, so I'd keep that. Nice arrangement work and ideas. Though I'd like to see a little more expansion on the theme (see below). But yeah, Kristina's nailed the main issue here, which is the verbatim repeat for a good chunk of the track. The last third of the track would be a great opportunity to expand the arrangement further and play with the source a bit more, rather than just repeat what's already been heard (nice as the guitars sound ) Great start here! Get it a bit more developed and bring it back quick. NO resubmit, please

Man, that percussion pattern in the source tune really starts grating on you after a while. Really liking the blend of electronic elements and orchestra. Very seamless blending of the two. Adaptation of the annoying (at least to me!) percussion from the OST was nicely handled. Arrangement is well executed with plenty of source melody utilization as well as the aforementioned percussion use. This takes a bit of a conservative approach with the melody lines, while expanding upon the background elements and creatively developing the song progression. One gripe I have is the brass stabs at 4:12 are pretty repetitive & buzzy. Variation on the note velocities would've helped here a lot. It also sounds like the track is starting to push the compression a little too hard and causing some minor pumping effects (this continues until the big hit at 4:51). It's not a dealbreaker to me as-is, mainly because it's limited to those 40 seconds. Still, something to be cognizant about in the future. YES

Not much to add to what's been said already. Source connections are quite clear throughout. Nice use of various sounds and effects to give this an ethereal feel. Claps could've blended better for sure with the rest, but a minor gripe there. I agree it also could have been trimmed down as things take a long time to develop, but at the same time, I don't feel like it's repetitive or dragging on. On the contrary, it's quite relaxing and a fun listen. YES

Man, I started on a vote for this one, but got distracted and closed it somewhere along the way. Man, that source. Great job taking the best from it and giving it the structure and drive it should've had. The only thing that really throws me is the off-key chip part (which has been mentioned) from :56 - 1:57. I'm assuming it was intentional, but it does give that part of the song a really odd feel, especially when the lead comes in. I personally don't like it, but it's not gonna hold back my vote. YES

Good call on this one, I did miss that but totally hear it now that you pointed it out. Nice touch by the remixer there. It doesn't flip my vote given the production issues, but it does bring it to acceptable source usage IMO.

Very creative approach here. Initially, the mix sounds really quiet to me. The sudden volume increase around the minute mark brings this to a more reasonable listening level. I'd recommend bringing up the intro volume further, while using other elements or methods to try to build the action in addition to what you have here. While the beat sounds cool, it sounded a bit pasted-on-loop to me, rather than integrated well into the track. It's a heavy electro style loop that sits upfront in the soundfield, which contrasts against the slower attack and quieter natural instruments. Not sure that's really working as-is. As prominent as it plays, the plucked guitar lead had a weak sounding tone and a bit rigid on the sequencing. The brass stabs sounded really fakey as well, though they weren't utilized as frequently. Bass synth tone is really basic sounding and doesn't really have the low end frequency presence as it should. Strings were relegated to background show sweeps and don't have a ton of presence, but they're servicable to me. I liked the whistling lead and the delayed flute flourishes were a good idea. Overall, everything sounded pretty dry, which exposes the fakey samples more than it really should. Arrangement is pretty straightforward for most of the mix. Good use of source melodies, with backing additions and flourishes on the lead parts throughout. Thing is, once it gets going, we only get about a minute of content before things fade out, not giving a whole lot of time for the main thrust of the mix to be further explored and kinda kills the energy of the song. The outro section is a cool unexpected touch. However, it's completely original content for 2:28 until the end at 4:14, which is a significant chunk of the song and prompting me to go ahead and break it down: Breakdown: :00 - :10 Heavily modified OST melody line (I'm iffy on this, but leaning no) :11 - :17 Modified, but closer rendition of melody :18 - :27 Lead goes original, but backing pattern follows OST chords :28 - :37 Original :38 - 2:27 Brass stabs playing brass stabs from original going into much more direct source usage for the rest of this section 2:28 - 4:14 Original I count 127 seconds of source usage of 254 total, which is exactly 50% of the track. Really shaving it close here with whether or not this could be considered dominant source usage. To sum up, there's an imbalance between the instrument/sample quality of the various elements used here, which makes it sound incohesive to me. There's a significant portion of the mix that is completely original, which leaves a lot on the table as to potential arrangement work. I guess I'm on the other side of the fence on this one from Kris as I feel like a good amount of work is still needed to tighten it up. Good luck to you . NO resubmit, please

Great points made by Kris above. Having a directly sampled (it sounds like, at least) part from the OST featured this prominently is pretty much a NO, override by itself. Liking the chilled vibe here (how many times have I said that before? doesn't matter). I agree, though, that this basically stays in the same gear with parts entering/exiting to support the same progression. Not saying you need to kick it up into high intensity territory or anything (actually, don't do that at all), but some contrast in the backing part to break into a B section could help keep the listener interested. Though it's a little unusual, I do like the idea of including cameos of other themes within what's primarily a Donkey Kong arrangement. The arrangement itself is pretty conservative overall with some pretty close to verbatim treatment of source melodies and repeated patterns. I wouldn't mind hearing some more expansion/personalization on those. NO resubmit, please