Phonetic Hero

Not trying to say you're silly/dumb for caring about the topic and having strong feelings, Chris, but why can't you do it WITHOUT the needless hostility to everyone who disagrees with you on this? It's a subjective conversation by its nature.

there's no point. we've resorted to "i don't really give a shit"
of course, AngelCityOutlaw isn't at all wrong that a fan work is never actually yours and never can be as it is a) legally someone else's and b) is pronouncedly more derivative; the contentious point is the mere fact that he equates that with creative originality and, well, who really gives a shit
 

So does literally every piece of music ever

So does literally every piece of music ever

Hey everyone! I'm happy to share that as of today, my name is officially attached as "composer," not "remixer," to a 100% original game soundtrack. It's an indie game, but still, I had a blast stepping into RPG mode and crafting the various map themes, battle music, castle, shop, and church tunes... lots of good stuff. I'd like to invite you to give it a listen, and let me know what you think! (Also check out the game, it's out on Steam and actually pretty challenging.)
https://mazedude.bandcamp.com/album/mazequest-2-original-soundtrack 

For your listening pleasure, the album also includes several bonus tracks that didn't actually make it to the game, and, a whole bunch of chiptune concept pieces. I'm not a keyboard player, so drafting in 8-bit seemed like a time-friendly way to present thematic ideas without getting hung up on samples and such. Have fun comparing the chiptunes to the final orchestrated pieces; some are very close, and some changed a bit during the orchestration.
Enjoy!

I wish I were doing more remixing right now. I'm feeling some nostalgia for it right now---weird because I think nostalgia was the reason most of us started it in the first place. So I'm in a weird meta-nostalgia place right now.
But I'm not a fast remixer. I'm slow and obsessive and it doesn't fit into my busy schedule these days.
I do hold arranging in high regard, as far as its creative merits go. I think it's a very strong relationship between the arranger and the listener. You're working with something that's usually already baked into the listener's memory, so you're starting with a strong common core of experience with the audience. You've already bonded with the listener over your love of the tune, but more importantly your creative decisions to alter the original material stand out strongly. The listener has greater vision into your creative process than if they were listening to your original material. Furthermore, the listener has an equally enhanced relationship to other listeners, given the shared histories listeners probably have with the tunes.
Of course, original material has different strengths. But I do think arranging has objectively unique strengths too.

Ehhh... Whether or not it happens with one person really doesn't say whether or not it's something that will happen with everyone. Zircon is a talented guy, and he's really made a name for himself outside of OCR with his music and business (which is a pretty awesome feat, by the way), but for every Zircon out there there's plenty of people who have Willrock's experience of virtually no audience transfer. I'm sure having an audience for your arrangements doesn't hurt your chances as a popular musician and/or accomplished composer elsewhere, but there's evidence (at least in this thread, anyway) that it can be a pretty insignificant boon for your other endeavors.
A combination of how good you are at marketing and networking is more likely going to give you better luck in having a large audience for your original work than having a large audience for your arrangements, I suspect, which Zircon also has quite a knack for. I understand that it can seem fruitless to logically discuss something like whether or not audiences transfer from one person's composition styles or not, but let's be honest - that's a pretty relevant thing for a lot of arrangers who want to make a living off their music in the future. Whether or not the audiences transfer from your free releases to your work that you profit off of could easily impact whether you're willing to arrange video game music, in the first place (which is how this topic cropped up in here).
If someone could crack that nut and figure out how to effectively transfer their audience, that'd be a very useful thing to know. It's at least an interesting and relevant topic to discuss, imo.

Zircon's fanbase started when he made ocremixes and pretty healthily transferred it into a fanbase for his original electronic music.

I'm really not sure why there's so much emphasis on reasoning it out with logic. Just look at actual real life examples to see what happens or not.

I write for games full time, but I still see a lot to be gained from arranging.  So yes!  I still remix when I have the time.  I'll try to be concise for a change:
You get to make a piece of music you enjoy listening to (and perhaps learn what exactly it is you enjoy in a piece of music) You get to study that piece's structure, harmony, etc. and apply what you learn to your own originals (though I find straight transcription to be even more useful for learning) You get to practice strengthening your weak points without the pressure of writing an amazing original melody/chord progression/bassline/drum groove/whatever, since it's already done You get to learn how to reuse pieces of a track to improve your arrangement game (mostly for soundtracks or theme-related albums, but it's been extremely useful for me in a work setting) I think in terms of potential for musical growth, there's a LOT to be said about arranging, and I think the inspiration and forward momentum someone can get from an existing tune/game they love is also an important part of the remixing game.
For what it's worth, I don't find the "is it mine?" debate to be very useful.  Something I consider MUCH more important when I make a remix (or any piece of music) is "do I like listening to it?"
EDIT: I also think looking at building an audience in terms of remixing vs. originals is silly.  Those who will be interested in your originals will be interested regardless, and those who won't, won't - it's not a matter of "splitting your audience".  If a remix was what got the ears there to listen to your other music in the first place, it can only help

I'm at a point where I don't see myself remixing much in the future. It would probably only happen if I enjoyed a song in a new game so much that I felt compelled to do something with it, or perhaps if I came across an older game song where I thought I could do something creative enough with it to excite me. For now I intend to focus on my original material and perhaps take a step back from music for a break and some perspective.
I still have a mentality that remixing is something cool. When I first found this site I thought "wow I never thought about this before, I wish I could do this some day!". Not all musicians can make remixes and not all remixers can make great remixes (and I suppose the opposite is true for originals). So to get to a point where your name gets our there for great remixes is a really great achievement I think, even if it surpasses the audience and respect for your original work. 
I think we all want our original music to be loved and enjoyed by more but it's tough - you have to get all the audience that you can. I've written music and albums inspired by games where I was more proud of that work than some of the remixes I had done for those games, but you just have to accept that a lot of people either just don't care or won't discover that music the way they discovered your remixes. That's also true for the many clones of popular video games, like there could be a great game that's very similar to Dark Souls but a majority of Souls players either don't want it or will never hear about it, because it didn't make the impact like Dark Souls did. 
Remixes/covers can be an awesome way to celebrate the original song and where it came from, sometimes that remix/cover even surpasses the original, that's kind of nuts to think about really. But at the heart of it remixing should be fun yknow? Unless you're tied to some project where you have to take a remix more seriously (like an official album or game). I have always seen remixing as a place to explore and train, by learning about the original music and using its foundations to test out different writing and technique. And the truth is I probably wouldn't even be writing music if it weren't for remixing.

In the grand scheme it doesn’t solve world hunger or bring peace or anything like that. Specifically for myself, in the grand scheme of my life, it brings fun and enjoyment and it’s a creative escape from life’s challenges. So for me, remixing and music are worth it, since it gives me what I want to get out of it. It could have been originals too, but right now that’s something that just doesn’t interest me.
Remixing modern soundtracks is definitely possible, but also much harder. They tend to be more ambient and cinematic and less melodic/catchy (and probably less nostalgic too I guess) and you have to work harder to give it your own spin. I’ve remixed some PS2 and PS3 game music, even from orchestral to orchestral, and it’s definitely possible to do it and still make it your own.
Anyhoo, I guess my main answer to the question is still “I remix because I enjoy it and because I just feel like it”.

This topic further adds evidence to my theory that OCR folks from across the epochs and such really do keep visiting OCR, they just keep lurking for whatever reason until a topic like this shows up.

Hey man I really like the arrangement for the most part, but I think dropping it down to just the piano at 0:38 breaks the flow in such a short track.  I think keeping the energy a bit more during that section would help the track's progression a lot, and transitioning to Monster Dance right out of Bloody Tears' arpeggiated intro section is a strong structural choice.
I also think the piano isn't carrying the track as a lead instrument.  It sounds pretty dry and fake, and it's mixed pretty far into the background.
The drums also hit me as too loud and compressed.  The cymbals are pumping on a lot of their impacts and they get pretty sizzly at times - heavy compression can be pretty unflattering to cymbal hits.  I really like the timbre of the snare and kick though (with maybe a tad more low end on the latter) and the funky writing works great, I'd just pull the drums down a bit as a whole.
No qualms with the guitar/bass - once the rest of the balance is touched up and the weak lead instrument addressed, I think this'll be a sweet track.
Hope that's helpful!

Fair enough, my counter-point would be that it's a teacher's job to be hard on you and expect more out of you though.  When people don't (appear to) have any motive other than the commentary itself and providing their opinion, it can be a real kick in the ass to hear someone doesn't like something.  And whether or not the commenter actually knows what they're talking about vs. just trying to puff themselves up, if it pushes you to improve, the effect is the same (at least in terms of general advice/impressions - if someone's telling you to blow up the low mids on all your instruments or something like that, that's another story).
Using myself as an example again, I used to think of myself as a great composer, even after I found out exactly how bad of a producer I was.  But when you hear "wandering melody" and "stagnant harmony" (or whatever variation of that, if the feedback was coming from someone who didn't have the musical vocabulary to describe it as such) over and over from people on forums or non-musician friends or comments from complete strangers on music hosting sites, it eventually sunk in that "oh wait a second, maybe I'm actually not nearly as good as I think I am".  That was what it took for me, and it made much more of an impact than it did in situations where someone whose outward purpose in critiquing me was to help me learn.  I guess some additional context is also necessary to clarify my point - I've never been a good student until I "decide" I want to learn more about something, and I know I'm not the only one.  Again, that's what it took for me, and I have to wager there are others who operate the same way.
As a bonus, I came to find out eventually that a lot of those people giving me that feedback actually WERE being hyper-critical and couldn't follow their own advice.  But the result was the same - I put my nose to the grindstone to learn how to better structure a tune, how to write stronger melodies, how to mix better, whatever the criticism might've been.  I still learned as a result of the feedback, regardless of where it came from or how much the person giving the critique actually knew themselves.

Hopefully I didn't botch the point I'm trying to make in so many words, but basically: feedback from different sources can have drastically different effects, and people will respond to the effect it has on them accordingly.

Fair enough, my counter-point would be that it's a teacher's job to be hard on you and expect more out of you though.  When people don't (appear to) have any motive other than the commentary itself and providing their opinion, it can be a real kick in the ass to hear someone doesn't like something.  And whether or not the commenter actually knows what they're talking about vs. just trying to puff themselves up, if it pushes you to improve, the effect is the same (at least in terms of general advice/impressions - if someone's telling you to blow up the low mids on all your instruments or something like that, that's another story).
Using myself as an example again, I used to think of myself as a great composer, even after I found out exactly how bad of a producer I was.  But when you hear "wandering melody" and "stagnant harmony" (or whatever variation of that, if the feedback was coming from someone who didn't have the musical vocabulary to describe it as such) over and over from people on forums or non-musician friends or comments from complete strangers on music hosting sites, it eventually sunk in that "oh wait a second, maybe I'm actually not nearly as good as I think I am".  That was what it took for me, and it made much more of an impact than it did in situations where someone whose outward purpose in critiquing me was to help me learn.  I guess some additional context is also necessary to clarify my point - I've never been a good student until I "decide" I want to learn more about something, and I know I'm not the only one.  Again, that's what it took for me, and I have to wager there are others who operate the same way.
As a bonus, I came to find out eventually that a lot of those people giving me that feedback actually WERE being hyper-critical and couldn't follow their own advice.  But the result was the same - I put my nose to the grindstone to learn how to better structure a tune, how to write stronger melodies, how to mix better, whatever the criticism might've been.  I still learned as a result of the feedback, regardless of where it came from or how much the person giving the critique actually knew themselves.

Hopefully I didn't botch the point I'm trying to make in so many words, but basically: feedback from different sources can have drastically different effects, and people will respond to the effect it has on them accordingly.

Timaeus did say that he wouldn't value a mentor's word more than anyone else's.
That's true, but my personal experience is that teachers, good ones anyway, are usually way harder on their students than anyone else because it's their job and your failure reflects badly on them. People on forums can just ignore you if they don't like it and don't want to beat you down, etc. I had a kung fu instructor, shop teacher, etc. who were all hardcore on the students and it was for the better.
There is also a flipside to this and it all keeps going back to what I've said about experienced people actually being the minority in public feedback: Some people think they are, and are really good at passing themselves off as gurus when in reality, they're no better (sometimes worse) than the person they're criticizing. Not to say they may not still be correct in their criticism, but I've seen or been on the receiving end of this quite a number of times. YouTube is especially full of bad advice/blatantly incorrect information from musicians who have many followers, and no one calls them on it because they like the person's music and don't know any better.
That can also be a downside of a teacher, too.
I don't disagree at all with your point about the accessibility, because that would be stupid, although I'm willing to bet that a lot of these people could throw a bit of money into this no problem.
A lot of people will throw down money on new sample libraries, video games that cost 80 bucks, etc. but comparatively, how many do you think own books on composition, theory, orchestration, etc? How many have bought or subscribed to one of the online masterclasses (there are some good ones out there)? How many will spend a bit of cash to spend an hour or two on skype with someone like JJay Berthume for one-on-one feedback and lessons? How many out there have spent (or their parents have spent) 600 on a new Ibanez, but have never taken a single guitar lesson? 
Comparatively few, I suspect. 

I think another deeply valuable aspect of public feedback that hasn't really been touched on is that you might find out you're not as good as you think you are.  Sometimes people on a forum are blunt and brutally honest, and as far as I'm concerned, that exposure is extremely important.  Because hey, that's the way the world is, and if you really want to improve then you have to learn to be brutally honest with yourself.  Sometimes, that's a practice that begins externally.
When I was 19 and first starting out, I thought I was amazing.  After having my ass broken repeatedly, learning just how much there was to know and breaking through that Dunning-Kruger wall, I was able to be MUCH more objective and honest about where I actually was, what my weaknesses were, and what to do in order to address them (or who to ask if I didn't know).  If you already think you're the best, you don't have much incentive to improve, and without people giving me their honest impressions (musically experienced or not) I doubt I'd be half the musician I am today.  Often it takes time to sink in, and sometimes people can be very averse to honest critique (I certainly was for a good while), but I find it to be another valuable part of the process. 
In this regard, I think feedback from strangers is much more potent than that of a mentor or teacher - finding out what your peers or the general public thinks about your art can be a powerful agent for introspection.

I think another deeply valuable aspect of public feedback that hasn't really been touched on is that you might find out you're not as good as you think you are.  Sometimes people on a forum are blunt and brutally honest, and as far as I'm concerned, that exposure is extremely important.  Because hey, that's the way the world is, and if you really want to improve then you have to learn to be brutally honest with yourself.  Sometimes, that's a practice that begins externally.
When I was 19 and first starting out, I thought I was amazing.  After having my ass broken repeatedly, learning just how much there was to know and breaking through that Dunning-Kruger wall, I was able to be MUCH more objective and honest about where I actually was, what my weaknesses were, and what to do in order to address them (or who to ask if I didn't know).  If you already think you're the best, you don't have much incentive to improve, and without people giving me their honest impressions (musically experienced or not) I doubt I'd be half the musician I am today.  Often it takes time to sink in, and sometimes people can be very averse to honest critique (I certainly was for a good while), but I find it to be another valuable part of the process. 
In this regard, I think feedback from strangers is much more potent than that of a mentor or teacher - finding out what your peers or the general public thinks about your art can be a powerful agent for introspection.

I think another deeply valuable aspect of public feedback that hasn't really been touched on is that you might find out you're not as good as you think you are.  Sometimes people on a forum are blunt and brutally honest, and as far as I'm concerned, that exposure is extremely important.  Because hey, that's the way the world is, and if you really want to improve then you have to learn to be brutally honest with yourself.  Sometimes, that's a practice that begins externally.
When I was 19 and first starting out, I thought I was amazing.  After having my ass broken repeatedly, learning just how much there was to know and breaking through that Dunning-Kruger wall, I was able to be MUCH more objective and honest about where I actually was, what my weaknesses were, and what to do in order to address them (or who to ask if I didn't know).  If you already think you're the best, you don't have much incentive to improve, and without people giving me their honest impressions (musically experienced or not) I doubt I'd be half the musician I am today.  Often it takes time to sink in, and sometimes people can be very averse to honest critique (I certainly was for a good while), but I find it to be another valuable part of the process. 
In this regard, I think feedback from strangers is much more potent than that of a mentor or teacher - finding out what your peers or the general public thinks about your art can be a powerful agent for introspection.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I'd argue that feedback is more often than not helpful when someone is specifically asks for it, no matter the skill level. However, if no one is asking for the help and they're just sharing their music it can be counterproductive to point out all of the track's flaws. It took me a few years to realize this myself, but if you pour your critique of someone's music when they're not asking for it, it can take the fun out of the craft and possibly drive people away. Context is important, so if you want to be helpful pay attention to what the artist wants from you.
It sounds a little counter-intuitive saying even experts can benefit from critique, but given the right circumstances it can help make things go faster. Sometimes, for example, if I'm working on something and I need a fresh set of ears I ask for some feedback (I haven't written anything in months, so you'd likely not notice nowadays). It's harder to accept feedback when you're more seasoned, but you can still get some use out of it if you remains somewhat humble about it. Most seasoned musicians will likely fine tune the track eventually, sure, but it can help make things go faster if you just let more fresh ears listen to something and give some honest feedback.
So yeah, if people are looking for feedback it's quite helpful for them when they receive it no matter the skill level, but it's markedly less so when they're not looking for it.

As someone who has recently been in the category (may still be) of "barely play a coherent phrase", the feedback I have received from the WIP board and random mixers have been extraordinarily helpful in learning musical concepts I would not have figured out on my own otherwise. The only problem is this forum tends to be rather inactive.

I think @Gario pretty much shares brains with me at this point. Yes, all this. Having a mentor is good and if you find someone who can help like that, go for it. But don't let that be your only avenue for learning.
Public feedback can be useful too, because
It potentially could provide a greater number of fresh ears. In principle it is probably easier to obtain (if the mentor would be hard to contact, which he/she probably will be because he/she is only one person who has a life). It opens you to potentially inexperienced perspectives that you should digest, which likely provide for you a realistic experience on how your music may sound to a general audience. The main problem with public feedback is of course that sometimes, you have to filter it and figure out who is actually saying what, because more experienced people might either speak with jargon, or less experienced people might say what they think they mean without actually projecting what they meant. That's the chance you take, and I am quite glad I took that chance for 2+ years...
Fortunately, when I got public feedback, the people who came in (Flexstyle, Gario, Phonetic Hero, Chimpazilla, DaMonz, . . . ) knew enough, and I will fully admit that at the time it was I who needed to learn more! And it was because I took that chance and met those people, that I had extra motivation to keep coming back! So, for me personally, public feedback (forum feedback) was more important than mentor feedback. I don't think I had a real mentor (besides the Judges), more like I had some friendly collaborators...

Wait, are we asking if it's better to get one-on-one, personal training from a professional over random public feedback? I'd think that's almost comically obvious - of course it's better to have one-on-one teaching from a professional (assuming the professional is worth their salt). If you can afford personalized training and education, that's the way to go. That's sort of like saying a healthy balanced diet is better for you than McDonalds, because of course it is.
However, the caveat is pretty easy, here - also like a balanced diet vs. McDonalds, it's better if you can afford it, and it's better if you can dedicate the extra time required for it. Many casual artists simply don't have those kind of resources, and unless they push toward making it into a profession it's difficult to justify the time and financial investments required for such one-on-one interaction. Sometimes you can get lucky and get some attention from a willing professional for funsies, but outside of that you've got to put in some real resources in order to get something like the one-on-one mentoring you're talking about. You won't get as much out of something like public feedback, sure, but getting less out of it is certainly different than getting nothing out of it. With online forums and chat servers today it requires much less investment from an artist - dropping a quick link and asking "Thoughts?" is faster and cheaper than sitting with a mentor to discuss your music.
tl;dr of course personal mentoring is better than public feedback, but public feedback is more accessible, and it's better than nothing at all (provided my caveat I presented earlier).

I'll concede that feedback isn't technically necessary in a mentorship (which is extremely strange to read), but I still think you're reeeaaally glossing over the importance of feedback.  A "mentorship" in which the mentor isn't observing the mentee's work and giving feedback more fits the description of a generalized teaching course, where a teacher/professor is going down a list and throwing out advice or covering topics point by point, regardless of whether or not it's pertinent to the student.   At least in my opinion/experience, this isn't the most effective way to help someone learn.
Back on topic (and a slight edit for clarity): the feedback process, to me, is about looking at where someone needs to improve and providing targeted advice to help them learn how to do it.  The source of advice doesn't matter imo - whether it's a forum rando or someone you look up to, you're the ultimate arbitrator of which pieces you decide to listen to and which you don't.  Yes, personal drive/ambition is obviously important to anyone's progress as an artist, but why undercut feedback (even "forum feedback") as a valuable part of the improvement process?

I'll concede that feedback isn't technically necessary in a mentorship (which is extremely strange to read), but I still think you're reeeaaally glossing over the importance of feedback.  A "mentorship" in which the mentor isn't observing the mentee's work and giving feedback more fits the description of a generalized teaching course, where a teacher/professor is going down a list and throwing out advice or covering topics point by point, regardless of whether or not it's pertinent to the student.   At least in my opinion/experience, this isn't the most effective way to help someone learn.
Back on topic (and a slight edit for clarity): the feedback process, to me, is about looking at where someone needs to improve and providing targeted advice to help them learn how to do it.  The source of advice doesn't matter imo - whether it's a forum rando or someone you look up to, you're the ultimate arbitrator of which pieces you decide to listen to and which you don't.  Yes, personal drive/ambition is obviously important to anyone's progress as an artist, but why undercut feedback (even "forum feedback") as a valuable part of the improvement process?