Gario

Only time I heard it was in 'Dumb and Dumberer'. I think that alone sums it up.

Is it an awesome video and great little technique you've got going, there? Yes. No doubt, it's great. I've seen this sort of thing done by a collegue of mine a while back before (with sax), and it was neat then, too . Will it make it on OCR? Perhaps, but the J's are probably not going to take the sophisticated performance technique into account - only the sound will matter. Fortunately, the sound is pretty tight, too, so it has a good chance of getting on there.

Great little ditty, there - always be sure to perpetuate VG music in the academic world every chance you get! Love the name, too .

I think the J's hit it pretty well, particularly with that lead. It doesn't seem to fit the rest of the mix. Either change the effects on the sample (or the sample itself) so it sounds more 'in tune' with the atmosphere, or use it more often so overall it sounds 'appropriate'. Either way, it creates an unsettling imbalance, as it is. Turning it down a pinch is a must, as well. Yeah, turn up the master track, if they say so. I'm sure you will . Well, the J's are pretty enthusiastic about it, so I can't wait until you make the changes you need to and get this one posted - it's a pretty sweet mix. If I didn't already mention it, it's one of my favorite sources in FFIX, as well .

I'm sure you could, Rozo, considering you remixed it not two weeks ago . Hey, you could always look at his submission to the GMRB submission (link in the pic) - it might give you some ideas for the source, there, since he just worked with it. While you're there, check out the other stuff, too .

Interesting - you started at the end of the source, nice change in pace, there. The metal is causing some compression and tuning issues, now. When adding new instruments you'll need to remix all of the other instruments so they all balance better ('remix' = mix all of the channels again... confusion on a site that uses that term differently so often ). The guitar sounds a little flat, as well, so tune that up a bit. Yeah, I'm sure the guitar is causing the clipping, but be sure to scour the mix again and check for any area that might be clipping and fix it. From what Rozo said earlier, it seems that you're capable of fixing overcompression issues and clipping, so just systematically go through the mix and fix it all. As for the arrangement, there's one big problem with it - the mix seems to stay in one area of the source for too long (a.k.a. the entire mix). Feel free to expand out to the other sections of the source. This will make it sound less constrictive. While I didn't hear the old mix, this one does sound close to being acceptable for OCR, arrangement-wise, so I'm going to guess you've changed the arrangement quite a bit on this (it's still conservative, though). I like this tune. This remix isn't too shabby, either. Keep it up.

The ice casting sound made me orgasm. Fuckin' great, there. Well, certainly don't have too many complaints about the production on this one. The only comment that I can see is that it seems the thematic elements are too far into the background, and the overall sound seems a touch heavy in the lower mids, to my ear. That might be an artifact of the genre, though, so it might not be a problem. I can't recognize the source immediately. It's there, don't get me wrong, and it's clear enough (well, it will be once you get the melodic elements closer to the front of the mix), so I don't think the source usage is too big of a problem, yet. What I mean is that you took a tune that everyone and their mother knows by heart and really spun it on it's head, in a good way. In fact, I think I'd get upset if I started to hear the more familiar elements of the source get introduced (like that very, very, very overused texture that they play in the background - great texture, but overused in any Zeal remix). Be careful not to overdecorate the melody over time, though - that's really your only connection to the source, so if it's not recognizable you're going to get hammered by the J's on it. Great rendition of a classic track. Keep it goin'.

Don't forget X7, there (perhaps not equal, but still represented ). I guess that means MMX has consistently awesome music, doesn't it?

Holy crap, seriously. I hope I broke that streak for at least a while .

It's nice to work from pure inspiration while you have it, but on your off-time I suggest cleaning up what you have, production-wise. There's a lot of good sound coming out of this track, but it needs some work with the production to really have that come out. Lower the volumes of some of the instruments. The balance is just crazy right now, because of a few instruments that fly out of the mix. Bring them down to more acceptable levels. EQing the highs out of a couple of the lead instruments would be a good idea, as well. Obviously, there isn't nearly enough source in this track for OCR. Less obviously, the intro takes too long to get to the material. Either shorten the intro or incorporate the source better into your mix, if you plan on submitting sometime. I really like the soundscape of this track, and making it a dance-trance is a neat approach. If you need ideas, try polishing up what you have right now, production-wise, and all the while listen to what you have in there already. You never know - there may be a texture or something that suddenly sticks out that you decide to run with. Good luck with it.

I had my first one today. They're alright, but... well, other than the novelty, I don't see why they're seen as anything more than a large chicken mcnugget patty covered in BBQ sauce. Not that it's a bad thing, or anything.

I dunno, I kinda like it.

Wow. I've been waiting for this one for almost two years, now (you started this one waaaay back in January 2009). Hell, I even remember this one being called the mix of '09, a while back. I don't care what other people say, I think the singing is perfect, for what it is. A little rough, yeah, but the style is perfect. The lyrics are surprisingly touching, when you listen to them (even in the context of a Dr. Wily song), and the peaks & valleys are set up perfectly. The soundscape was always a strong point in this one. From the start I could tell this was going to be something worth waiting for. Alright, enough gushing praise. It's a good track, people. Listen to it.

It took me a minute to understand what this was, but when I did I couldn't stop laughing . That fucker does make Invincibility a bitch to get, though. Wait, on the Wii? Meh, oldskool is oldskool - perhaps I'd care if I still had a Wii to play it on.

Adler's book is alright - it goes over what instruments can do and why instruments may have trouble performing certain things, like any other orchestration book should do, and it does this quite well. Really, though, the art of Orchestration comes from listening to orchestral music and developing a taste for timbre combinations. Tell me how the 'Midi Orchestration' book is, though - I'm sort of interested to see what take they have on the subject.

Mmm... I can hear the improvements to this one, and they're all for the better. I think the additions of source where you've added is perfect, and I think the J's will be alright with it, as well. The ending is better than the last track, although personally I don't think it meshes well with the rest of the track before it. It's not bad, on it's own, but it's noticeably different from the rest of the music (noticeably calmer, less gritty). I think you can get away with it, if you don't mind it much, but that's how I feel about it. It sounds damn sexy, otherwise.

Zuh? I never said that . I didn't even say that people should keep the source usage over 50% of the music, and be sure that straight source use stays under 80%. Liontamer did.

Oh yeah? Well, tonight I'll dine on Rozovian soup! After I have Sixto salad, that is.

I suspect you didn't unregister when you nuked the comp... You're probably going to have to contact the manufacturers and tell them the situation - you nuked the comp without unregistering the program. I don't know how well it'll turn out, but it's worth a shot (as long as you have the serial numbers and such, I suspect they'd unregister for you). As for this compo... well, you're probably SOL, unfortunately - I don't see the registration problem being fixed in a few minutes/hours. You could consider using Audacity or Reaper if it's an issue of mixing guitar parts, though... but I can't say what you're doing exactly, so I can't say.

Touche. Actually, I agree with you, there - no hypermeter, for me. My first glance was incorrect. I was only listening to the melody and shooting from the hip, there. I think you missed my point on the whole '3/4' thing, though - in your tempo, think of it in '3/2', instead. I have seen music use half-speed notation in order to simplify that to 3/4 (and again, allow for easier groupings using eighth notes). I believe calling that track 'compound time' is excessive, so I'm reducing it to a simple meter. I can't really see '6/4' being a true compound meter (read below as to why) unless it was divided as 1+3+2 or something strange (which this isn't) or if the music suddenly changed meters (like a 4/4 track changing to a 6/4 meter, in which case it truely feels like the 4/4 meter with 2/4 added to it, due to context). I can agree with this, except the compound meter that this is being reduced to is 4/4 + 2/4, correct? If this was, as I said, really a veeery slow 3/4 meter, then it actually becomes a regular meter with the accent on the first and third beat (which is normal, in 3/4 or 3/2). I personally think it overcomplicates the meter if someone subdivides it into 4/4 + 2/4 when you get the same accents just calling it a slow 3/4. It's not like an 8/8 meter where the accents on the subdivisions 3+3+2 isn't obvious, and even in that particular case I normally don't see the music written in '8/8' - I just see the meter written in common time (or 4/4) with the measures written in two dotted notes and a quarter to achieve this, or they bar the eighths/sixteenths to show that the accents on the subdivision. I don't mind if it's called 6/4, as it might be more comfortable for some people to call it that or whatnot. I'm just saying that it's not entirely insensible to call it 3/2 or 3/4, either (with that 6/8 part, of course), since that simple meter implies the subdivision through it's normal beat accents. Calling it a hypermeter is incorrect, though.

You're failing at your goal to be the youngest posted remixer on OCR, dude! TIME IS CATCHING UP TO YOU! Also, happy birthday - don't let that little fact hurt your otherwise nice birthday .

... that's cruel, bro. Just too cruel.

... I must try this game out. Even if it sucked, it'd be worth every minute to hear shit like that blasting my eardrums.

I feel I should correct this just a touch. While 6/4 exists in a very real sense (for example, when a song using 4/4 switches to 6/4, for the sake of keeping the meters clean), and while it's certainly a duple meter, if an entire song is in 6/4 it could easily reduce itself to 3/2... which can further simplify itself to 3/4, if the tempo is cut in half and the notes are all half duration (which also often has the same downbeats/upbeats as 6/4, except it works in quarter/eighth notes, not half/quarter notes). So really, 6/4 shouldn't need to exist on it's own in a piece - 3/4 is easier for the performer to read, it's easier to represent groupings and accents on paper (barring eighth notes together is incredibly effective in showing accents) and it's far more conventional. Just sayin'. Listening to the track. I personally would say it's in 2/4 with a 3 beat hypermeter (with a quick change to 3/4 toward the end of the track for a few measures), but for the sake of simplicity it's either in 6/4 or a very slow 3/4 (because of what I just said, I'm opting for the latter, here).

I don't want to see this drop off the page without a mod review. Bumped for great justice. Also, it's really got intense groove goin', dude. Just sayin'.