Gario

Staff knows, but for the public's sake here's my announcement: I'm cool with my mixes being ad'ed in. I'm hilarious.

What did I think? I thought it was awesome. The atmosphere of this one is just crunchy and dark, breathing life into a depressing song. I may still be hungry, but this is music to feed your SOUL, maaaan.

*Shrug* It's a fun arrangement. I say it doesn't need to be all that interpretive to be enjoyable.

To Brandon's credit, his presentation of this topic elsewhere (wherever I've seen, which is at least Facebook) was neutral. This is getting off topic, though - keep the focus on OCR's Youtube monetary policy, please.

He linked the threads, that is enough for that point, specifically. If you want specific names, go get um', but while the opinions are nice to know it's otherwise not important. EDIT: The names specifically, I mean.

I think the list he gave was enough to prove his point. Don't worry about specific names - anonymity doesn't need to break, here.

You really need to work on your numbers. 80% is coming completely out of your ass - again, you are the only one here that is even talking about alienation, here. A few more are saying they didn't like the move (which they have fair points), but even if they said they wanted to leave (they haven't) it would be a far cry from the apocalyptic numbers your shouting. Saying things like this doesn't suddenly make them the case, and you lose credibility for the fair points that you do hold. @Neblix There is a completely separate issue that actually comes up, if OCR decided to use the non-profit status to compensate it's staff: the submission agreement never covers this for those that are submitting their music, and those that submit under the previous agreement would have the right to claim that we broke our end of the agreement and demand that we take their music down. We COULD send out permission to the 1000+ arrangers whether this change was acceptable or not, but not only would that be incredibly time consuming, it would almost guarantee that we'd lose a load of users and content from those that didn't agree to the new terms. If we claimed that staff would be compensated from the beginning and filed for the non-profit status fro the get-go this issue would've been avoided, but go ahead and ask 1999 Dave whether or not it would've been worth creating a non-profit company out of his fledgling site. We already have a written agreement up, and it does not cover staff costs, merely hosting costs and promotion. No matter how you slice it, most of the staff are not involved with hosting the site. One can make the argument to compensate staff for promotion when they're involved with promotion (say, paying for panel spots for a big convention, perhaps), but that is minimal in comparison to moderating, quality control, feedback, etc., that really keeps OCR alive. Regular compensation would be a breach in the contract that we've already made with the previous artists.

It would be a tough call. On the one hand, yes, staff DOES work quite hard on keeping the quality control high on what is pushed through the site, as well as making sure music always meshes with the site objectives. On the other hand, Brandon's point that we shouldn't make money off of other people's work would come into play - why would the staff contribution to how this site is run outweigh the contribution that the artists put into their music? It's not a bad point, actually. I think both sides of the argument have merit, though I personally don't want to work with the quagmire of ethical and possibly legal issues involved in getting paid for this while the artist didn't. So from my stand point, I'd be against compensation for the work put into the site. On the other hand, I will point out that if this were a site about the free distribution of other people's original music, and we had the same work in quality control, I'd be all for compensating staff - the work that goes into quality control, feedback and hosting is definitely worth something. However, I would also be 100% for giving the artist a share in the revenue, too, as they would be contributing music to the site. That is neither here nor there, though - OCR will never have the benefit of original compositions passing through it, so this is moot. Since we can never compensate artists for their work, so too do I think we can never compensate the staff for their contribution. Alas. I do want to also note that my contribution to the thread is completely hypothetical - monetary compensation to the staff has never come up in my time working here, nor has it ever been considered a possibility, due to the nature of the work. I do have to make that clear, being a part of staff, and all. EDIT: Do note that this is a general statement on how to deal with revenue - I am not taking the non-profit status into account. I can comment on that aspect later. (Spoiler:I'd be against it for slightly different reasons)

It's also been stated that the revenue that exceeds expenses are re-invested into OCR. There is nothing left at the end of the day that staff or Dave can take home, so it is not in fact profit. You're correct that a non-profit status would tremendously help OCR make this very clear, though. I look forward to it, as it takes away most of the ambiguity present, here.

You. Satisfy you. Literally no one else on the site would want to see everything burn. The site is also not profiting off of the revenue, though saying that probably won't matter to you. Here's something that does matter: You're making things up about the site (claiming it's both profiting AND that the staff is sharing that profit are completely fabricated - the fact that you don't know the difference between revenue and profit doesn't matter here) with the intent of damaging both it and those involved with it. This is suspiciously close to libel, if I'm not mistaken. Regardless of its legality, it certainly isn't productive. Cool it with the accusations, they're not funny. --- As for the (legitimate) question on why OCR can do what they're doing, it's a part of the submission agreement. If you plan to submit music to OCR, the submission agreement shows that OCR will likely use advertising to create revenue, and that OCR, in fact, does have the right to distribute your material as they see fit. Now, @Neifion makes a decent point in that those reading it are not aware that Youtube ads could be included in this, but there isn't anything that precludes their use, either. I completely understand (and agree) that the ads that have been done over the past two months probably should've been done only with the approval of the affected artists, if we were merely testing to see if it would affect the user experience overall. As they say, though, hindsight is 20/20. As there isn't anything to be done about that now (other than perhaps an apology from Dave for it), it's more beneficial to discuss the Youtube ads moving forward. I absolutely agree that even more clarity in this policy would be beneficial, and I also agree that we should be discussing this in good faith. I believe that a consensus that satisfies most in this discussion can be reached, but it has to be done with the trust that the staff will do everything in their power to comply with this. @IForgotMyPassword While I'm quite upset at the simple accusations of lying from Brandon (that's actually far worse than normal, in my book), his opinions do tend to be heated - they have been for a long time. Don't worry about him.

The staff doesn't make any money at all, it's volunteer work. We are not "far beyond" taking the staff's word for this, as you suggest - that's why this conversation is happening in the first place. If you are far beyond it, then so be it, but ultimately that isn't anyone's problem but yours. Honestly, this is a good conversation to have, so thank you for bringing it up, but if your only contribution past that point is to tell everyone on here that no one should trust anyone on here again without every staff member pulling out "proof" (which is virtually impossible, by the way, without delving into each of our personal lives) then... yeah. There is nothing you will get out of this conversation.

I'm staying out of the convo otherwise (I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to participate in this meaningfully), but as far as this specific point goes I think DjP was trying to figure out how much it affects the user's overall experience - if people noticed it quickly, and submit complaints about it that would've been a clear sign it was not the right way to go. A few months into it and a discussion is started, though... that point is debatable, as far as how it affects the listener's overall experience. That portion had little to do with the money-making aspect of it, as far as I can discern.

Ooo, found this guy today. Apparently a part of the brony community (at least, a name like "MandoPony" certainly implies this), but damn can he put out an amazing Undertale vocal arrangement. Most of his things actually don't arrange themes from the game (though "The Need a Monster is still amazing, regardless), but this one does, at least.

Hmm, that might not be a bad idea, but that's assuming the artists both haven't done so already, and are willing to publish their work on Spotify. Unlike OCR, I don't believe OverClocked Records has any distribution rights to the music itself, save for placing it on sale as a digital download (Correct me if I'm wrong - I didn't find the legal nitty-gritty on the OC Records site off-hand). I think the artists are absolutely free to publish their OC Records music on Spotify, though, so if they do, awesome.

Damn, this is pretty slick. Just poppin' in to say it tickles my fancy in all the right ways.

Thanks for taking it well - it helps make the WIP boards a bit more organized. For the Bowser track, I'll give a little feedback on it, maybe it'll be helpful. Overall, I think it's pretty neat - them drum hits represent power, and the incorporation of the original Bowser's Castle theme from Mario 1 was clever. The synths are alright, though the instrument samples are a bit weak - they sound sampled, which generally is the opposite of what you want when you sample instruments. In order to get samples to sound more real, generally it's a good idea to work with the attack envelops in order to achieve the right "strike" of the notes, and play with the volume envelop in order to emulate the dynamic range that the instruments may use in a certain period of time. It's about as tough as it sounds, but I figure you need to know what you're up against when it comes to sampling instruments. As far as the arrangement goes, it has a nice bit of personal flair to it (incorporating the extra theme, as well as the drum choice), but it does follow the source pretty tightly. That's not an issue in it's own right, but that source has a terribly repetitive loop point, which your arrangement ends up suffering from, as well. It ends up getting pretty stale after the first repetition, making the listener wish there was more to the track. Be aware of little things like that - if something seems to get repetitive, change it up! The arrangement returns to some of the earlier material later, which sounds like a relief, but the repetitions are still there. I think the arrangement shows promise, though. For what's there I still enjoyed it, so kudos to that. The mixing doesn't sound nearly as problematic as in the Spider Dance arrangement, so nice work on that.

On the topic of AM2R, the music that's been remade is quite good. For the most part, it's a combination of Metroid 2 and Super Metroid tunes, remixed to fit the area appropriately. It's some good stuff, overall.

I kind of like the kick, but everything else is very quiet, in comparison. It's a matter of mixing balance - if everything else sounds nearly non-existent in comparison, you've got to cut it back a little bit. More importantly, though, there is a way to use this forum (which you can read here) that this thread generally misses the mark on. One track per thread, one thread per track is the rule (with the exception of posting an album) - more than one track and it becomes difficult for others to comment and discuss your music with you (which is the general sentiment I'm seeing in here, in fact). More than one thread per track... well, I'm sure you can see the issue with that. I hate to shut a thread down (I like the activity, actually), so pick a track and focus on that, and I'll remove the rest. If you want attention on a few other tracks, make a thread for them individually. Sorry I've got to be that guy, but it's a problem if I let things like this go and people get the wrong idea. Don't be too discouraged, though - it means more variety of more focused comments on what you do have, and you can always link you your TY page from your signature, for the sake of garnering attention there.

Very jazzy style to this, and it's something that I dig. Taking this source and building off of it as a base for some slick lead improvisation is pretty neat. It's quiet, but it's also calming and interesting throughout. I found the synths to be a bit simplistic, but all things considered you utilize them very well, for the most part. The lead works well as a relatively plain synth, and the background e-piano is smooth, if a little repetitive. While there's quite a bit of subtle variation of the backing textures, that e-piano could've made minute changes from time to time to make it a bit more interesting. The drumwork is very interesting in this - subdue'd, and it never gets brought to the front, like I expected it to be. Interestingly enough, considering the rest of the soundscape I thought it worked surprisingly well, so kudos to that. Since everything else is pretty soft, the synth that comes in at 1:15 (and elsewhere in the track) pierces rather painfully. The highs in that should be taken down a notch. At 3:46 the melody is off. The run that plays the original overworld theme a little bit uses a major 3rd, where it should've utilized a minor third in order to match the rest of the harmony under it. It clashes, and sounds rather awful, at that point. On the subject of that instrument, it has a tendancy to be far too loud in comparison to the rest of the mix, which just makes it sound out of place (especially at 4:23, where it shoots waaay above the levels of everything else). You'll need to mix that element down considerably, as it drags the end of this track down quite a bit. Overall, it's too quiet. I don't mean that stylistically we won't accept quiet, subtle tracks, but it's very easy to push more volume by just... raising the volume. There are no points in the mix where it peaks out (even at the aforementioned loud part mentioned above), so raising the volume provides no downside to this track. If you mix that other instrument down, in fact, you could easily push 3 or 4 dB out of this without risking production errors, so you should do so in order to better match the levels of other calmer, quieter songs on OCR. I think it's great, but I think there's a little bit of TLC that needs to go into this before I can give it my thumbs up. The wrong note at 3:46 really affects this track, and the overall loudness of that instrument that pervades the entire ending of this track takes this one down, for me. Be sure to also raise your levels, and give that background e-piano a little bit of variety. I think this is very close, but I'm going to have to pass on this, for now. NO

Welp, that's what Mod Evals are for, eh? Also, as much as I love R:TS (submit about five songs there, myself), they've been down for about two months now. I've got to get in touch with the head peeps there and see what's up, but it's not looking good lately. Anyhoo, I'll give you a forecast on it, and can let you know how I'll handle it if it gets to the panel. Perks of a mod eval judge. EVAL Well, it's a very solid recreation of the original - I think you nailed it, note for note. Regardless of the quality otherwise, one quirk of OCR is that they, as a rule, require reinterpretation of the source. There's nothing wrong with a good, solid remake of a song in itself, but OCR will likely reject this straight out due to how close it follows the source. I always like to remind people that this does not mean something is inherently bad because it conservatively follows the source; it's just one of the things that OCR requires of the songs it posts. Now, that being said, I'll give some other advice on production and such to help you out for future arrangements. As far as instruments go, I could see them working out okay, but they do get a little boring after some time. The same synths play throughout the track - I think even the source had more variety in instrumentation with the synths and brass. Be sure for your next production to experiment with changing the instrumentation up a little as the piece moves forward, as that can help stretch an arrangement without having the listener fatigue on listening to the instrumentation. I like the chords that you play in the background with that synth at 0:07 (as well as throughout the song) - I think that gives this a more ragtime feel than the source had. Be sure to take elements like that, though, and mix them in such a way that they don't dominate the track, though. It's difficult to hear the themes that are supposed to carry a track when the harmonies are that loud, in comparison. As a rule of thumb, bring your melodies and themes out in a mix so they're the cleanest and clearest, followed by interesting textures, finally with basic chords safely in the background. It's a basic organization, but it keeps the melodic hooks in the front, the interesting textures within listening reach and the harmonies set firmly in the background. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions, but it's a great starting point, as far as making a solidly mixed track. The drums are dry, but they're not bad. The dry-ness is in comparison to how wet your other instruments are; the synths all have a decent amount of reverb on them, while the drums sound like they're from another recording completely. When you have multiple things going on at once in an arrangement, be sure to make it sound like they're being played all in the same conditions, all at once. In this case, either the reverb of the synths should match the drums (not recommended), or the drums should have a little reverb to match the synths. Blending is key, so when instruments don't blend they sound out of place. I hear a synth bass in this, but it's a little bit weak in the bass department. Bass is one of the most important instruments in an arrangement, as it gives a song some grounding to play off of. The bass in this case is quiet, and is lacking in bass EQ. More bass EQ! More presence! YEAH! One final aspect to this is that the middle EQ range feels a little incomplete. The chords that play throughout the track normally would fill the role of filling that EQ space, but in this case the instrument sounds like it fills the upper range of the EQ, instead. This makes the arrangement sound a little bit hollow, so for any other arrangement you go for I do suggest taking a look at using instruments that fill the middle range of the EQ a bit more solidly. I'll be honest and say it's probably not getting to the panel, due to how conservative it is (again, nothing wrong with that, just something OCR won't accept), but if it were to get to the panel that's what advice I'd give on this track. I understand you probably won't work on this (it's six years old, after all - you've probably improved considerably since then), but I thought you'd appreciate a more full rundown on the track. I do hope you stick around and contribute more to the forums here, though - people like you are the lifeblood of the WIP boards, after all. EDIT: I'm aware this wasn't tagged for eval, but considering the intent of the final post in here I thought it would be appropriate, anyhow. Just the way I am, sometimes.

Happy 30th, Metroid series. As much as I enjoy this series, I'mma release a relatively unknown arrangement of Sandy Maridia that I did ages ago for some Metroid orchestration project unrelated to OCR. It was made in Sibelius, so be gentle to the instrument quality, lol. Enjoy the gift. Also, AM2R is absolutely balls-out amazing, and everyone who enjoys any of the 2D metroid games should give it a go. It lives up to the hype, and then some.

Yes, they do make a fuss - specifically, Square Enix got very upset when the OCR FF6 album kickstarter got underway to fund a physical release of the album (all money went into printing the album - no profit was to be made). Some negotiation happened and they eventually allowed it under certain conditions, but it was a very complex ordeal that took months to resolve. No one but Pretzel and Zircon (the album's head person) knows the full details of the negotiation, but to say the least it wasn't simple or easy.

I personally vouch for someone developing another streaming service that's dedicated to OCR music, so that we don't need to deal with the legal stuff involved in streaming. qwertymoto, come back, plz...

What's this? This thread's been up for a month, and no mention of Mutherpluckin' B? Let's fix this. http://www.mutherpluckin-b.com/ Pretty much classic rock gold, all around, with three albums out of his music to listen to. Some highlights include my personal favorite Silver Surfer / Megaman 3 remix... ... as well as a Napalm man / Ducktales Moon arrangement. It's all great, though - go check him out!

EVAL Very interesting, eerie arrangement. I think you can sell a lot of people on making something that's more atmospheric than melodic, especially with a track that's as naturally haunting as this one. I really enjoyed the direction that this took. That being said, there are a few things that hold it back from realizing it's full potential. First, a few nitty-gritty details: the synth that comes in at 0:40 is very piercing, to the point where it kind of hurts to hear. The highs in that instrument need to be decreased (which, for an instrument like that, equates to a straight volume decrease). The drums that come in at 1:31 are awesome, but they don't have a very strong presence. They should be mixed a bit more to the front of the mix. Overall (and especially toward the second half of the track) this track seems to deal with clutter. Moments like 2:26 - 2:38 and 3:00 are affected by individual instruments that just get too overpoweringly loud, which creates a muddy, unfocused moment in the track. Mixing too-loud elements down a bit would help clear the mud. I think there's an argument to be made about the unfocused nature of the track, but there are some harmonies that sound out of place. 2:55 - 3:00 doesn't seem to fit harmonically, and it's the only time that harmony comes in, making it stand out that much more. While you don't have to use the same harmonies that you do throughout, that particular combination didn't seem to mesh well. I like it, but I don't think it'll pass the panel quite yet. Make sure there isn't nearly as much clutter in the second half of the track, and take another look at the harmonization at 2:55 - 3:00. Hopefully this helps, as I do think this is a really cool idea.