AngelCityOutlaw

The technomanga "don't fuck around" guy was also pretty inspiring.

If they were smart, they'd pull a Sonic Mania here and give this guy a job and develop the game to completion. 
But Nintendo has a history of failing to capitalize on the obvious.

The technomanga "don't fuck around" guy was also pretty inspiring.

"Transitions", as in, an independent little section or fill that bridges the gap between 2 distinct sections is honestly more of a thing in rock and electronic music. 
This is something that was always a big topic around here back when I joined, but I actually think a lot of music is made worse by having these little 1 bar phrases and such between two different sections because it creates an odd (or even, depending on song) # of bars in a phrase and feels like it "resets" the tune to my ears rather than creates a flow into the next section.
Like listen to these examples of orchestral or cinematic tunes:
None of these pieces have anything I would specifically call a "transition". It just goes one section into another. They do however pay attention to two things:
Anacrusis, and voice leading.
An anacrusis is a few notes before the first measure of a phrase that "lead-in" to it. A very common variant is that, in a minor key, you might have played the 5th and the minor 7th before playing the root on the downbeat of the first measure of the phrase. 
Voice-leading refers to how the voices (instruments) or lines move to another pitch. You want to avoid creating too many "leaps", that is: movement larger than a major third. You want stepwise motion as much as possible.
So let's say that: Sections A and B are both 8 measures long. The melody note in the last bar of section A ends on the root, an octave below where you started.
This means that section B should ideally start in the new, lower octave rather than having the melody jump all the way back up. If I do go back up into that higher register for the beginning of section B, than I would create an anacrusis leading into that pitch, with a different instrument(s) above the previous melody in the last bar of section A. Also, if you come back to the tonic chord in the last bar before a new phrase, have a quick chord change on the last beat or couple of beats in the last bar so that it will smoothly lead back to the tonic, or whatever chord begins the new phrase.
You can use percussion like timpani and cymbals rolls to accent this or ramp the tempo a bit, but basically: There is nothing terribly special you should have to do to make two sections, even very different ones, flow into each other well if your voice-leading is strong.

The technomanga "don't fuck around" guy was also pretty inspiring.

"Transitions", as in, an independent little section or fill that bridges the gap between 2 distinct sections is honestly more of a thing in rock and electronic music. 
This is something that was always a big topic around here back when I joined, but I actually think a lot of music is made worse by having these little 1 bar phrases and such between two different sections because it creates an odd (or even, depending on song) # of bars in a phrase and feels like it "resets" the tune to my ears rather than creates a flow into the next section.
Like listen to these examples of orchestral or cinematic tunes:
None of these pieces have anything I would specifically call a "transition". It just goes one section into another. They do however pay attention to two things:
Anacrusis, and voice leading.
An anacrusis is a few notes before the first measure of a phrase that "lead-in" to it. A very common variant is that, in a minor key, you might have played the 5th and the minor 7th before playing the root on the downbeat of the first measure of the phrase. 
Voice-leading refers to how the voices (instruments) or lines move to another pitch. You want to avoid creating too many "leaps", that is: movement larger than a major third. You want stepwise motion as much as possible.
So let's say that: Sections A and B are both 8 measures long. The melody note in the last bar of section A ends on the root, an octave below where you started.
This means that section B should ideally start in the new, lower octave rather than having the melody jump all the way back up. If I do go back up into that higher register for the beginning of section B, than I would create an anacrusis leading into that pitch, with a different instrument(s) above the previous melody in the last bar of section A. Also, if you come back to the tonic chord in the last bar before a new phrase, have a quick chord change on the last beat or couple of beats in the last bar so that it will smoothly lead back to the tonic, or whatever chord begins the new phrase.
You can use percussion like timpani and cymbals rolls to accent this or ramp the tempo a bit, but basically: There is nothing terribly special you should have to do to make two sections, even very different ones, flow into each other well if your voice-leading is strong.

I'll do one better.
I can't stand JRPGS
I like the album, though

I agree with all of your points, and especially like this last part. 
I've been thinking about a way to try to summarize this, and I think the easiest way to put it is that it's a matter of creation vs adaptation. Perhaps we're at a point where there will always be a little of each present in both, but the latter ultimately only exists because of the former. Therefore, no matter how much I may prefer a cover, I just can't place as much artistic value, both as a listener and as a writer, on it as I can on the band/composer's own ideas

Thank you, I take that as a compliment.
Interesting, my brother gave almost the exact same advice to me.
I personally don't think it's depressing. Actually, I think it's interesting.  It obviously depends on everyone's personal point of view.
Let me give you some personal advice in exchange for yours.
Since one can learn a lot from remixing (and also covering) existing songs, even going as far as almost changing it up so much it may well be "original", it holds a lot of potential for musical growth. So going about it with creative, open thoughts may be the best course of action. Same goes for arrangements. Through arranging music, we can learn and grow into the kind of musician we truly want to be. Composing, of course, would be the next logical step. Sounds very generic, now that I actually wrote this. You all probably know this already. I also feel like someone wrote something similar before, probably several people.
Well, since this is what I basically told my younger brother when he was struggling, I'll leave it in.
And I admit, this is me being carefull because some of my favorite ReMixers posted comments in here, including you @AngelCityOutlaw, so this puts me in a kind of awkward position.
Especially considering the different opinions of many professional musicians. I mean, look at Trent Reznor, he gave an interview where he described how he felt about Johnny Cash covering "Hurt" (which I think was mentioned in this thread a few hours earlier). He described hearing another person sing one of his most personal songs as "very strange". Another description he gave was that it felt like "someone else kissing your girlfriend". He did feel honored about it, though.
And Johnny Cash definitely made that song his own. I like his cover, never even heard the original Nine Inch Nail song, but gotta still say, the original song obviously belongs to Trent Reznor.
This is NOT supposed to sound condescending or as dismal as it probably does. Quite the contrary actually. Like I said, I think all these different perspectives are very interesting. And I DO love cover songs, remixes, rearrangements, for me personally, it's about music in general. There are remixes and covers that I think are better than the originals. But does this objectively mean the remix (or cover) has more merit? That is something I don't know. Part of me wants to say: "Yes, definitely!", you know, in a kind of cheerful way, to encourage cooperation and more freedom for artistic fields... And then there's that other part of me... >_>
But no matter how you look at it, I definitely understand any kind of strong feeling people might have for or against the opinions and/or facts presented in this thread.  And I accept pretty much all of them, keeping a more neutral, yet still kind of realistic approach to this topic. The most important thing is the craft itself, I suppose. The art.

Oh, Boy... Here we go.
 
O.K. first off, you all have some good, valid points. Some of these points though, I'd still like to address. As a Fan. Not as Musician, not as ReMixer, just as a Fan (of remixes and music in general).
I feel like my english skills are already dropping because I'm nervous as hell (social anxiety speaking) but I'll try to keep this as professional as possible.
I've been lurking on OC ReMix since about 2013, I think. I was looking for Deus Ex Style Music and google was like: "Dude, there is some Deus Ex remix stuff right over there!" So, here I am.
(Please note that I said "Deus Ex STYLE Music", not remixes, important distinction. Obviously still decided to give those remixes a chance, after looking into the "legal stuff" explanation on this site)
 
I do not (not really) compose or remix anything at this point in time. Even though I have a boatload of ideas, I'm keeping them inside my head for now.
The reason for this (as in, "Why I haven't even started to remix OR create any kind of music?"), is precisely what is being discussed in this thread. You Know? What is REALLY original? What is enough of your own "seasoning"? Questions like this!
Because I fear, as soon as I do something original, there will definitely be some guy being like: "Dude, you totally ripped this off of composer XYZ!", that I literally never heard of. Or maybe I did, in fact, rip a composer off without realising it. Might actually happen to me. >_>
 
My Brother has a more or less professional musical background, so I do have some experience in general, with me helping him compose and arrange things for his orchestral activities. Well, sometimes, it's more or less a rare experience, also do not take credit for it. It's basically just some creative input, not much to brag about. But I DO tend to help him out, if I feel like he needs help.
Point being, I do kinda know how it feels like to actually compose and arrange and/or remix. Even though about 80% of it is just "theoretical knowledge".
 
That all said, I remember a tiny discussion about people coming to OCR not for the ReMixers, but for the work of the original composer. A few pages back.
That, at least from my personal point of view, is not true. I personally am, in fact, here for the ReMixers. Many of my favorite remixes on OCR are from games I never played, soundtracks I never heard. No nostalgia attached. Just me wanting to witness different visions from different artists on different songs (or sometimes even the same song).
Maybe I am the exception to the rule? I don't know, but...
The appreciation of video game music is what I am here for. The philosophy of OverClocked ReMix, so to speak.
However, it is kinda true, that I may not want to check out the original stuff (from ReMixers, in this case), I admit that. It depends on what kind of music it is and what kind of mood I'm in.
 
And I also admit, I do favor the: "Your remix belongs to you, even though the original song does not!", argument.
It's a complicated topic, with lots of different and somewhat controversial opinions. Of course one can always fall back on the typical: "but legally speaking..." stuff... But I don't think this is healthy (not always).
Especially considering that, just because something is law, doesn't really make it "right" or "just". There are many laws that are "unjust" in this world.
And considering laws CAN change and are man-made to begin with... >_>
Of course, there SHOULD definitely be laws, I'm NOT an anarchist, and composers (or in general "content creators") should definitely be protected from straight up piracy or plagiarism.
It's just that I'm wondering... Is a remix really plagiarism? And what about "original content" that is... let's call it "heavily inspired"? Isn't that the popular description these days?
How much leeway should we give artists? Should we only care if someone admits to plagiarism? Essentially turning a blind eye to everyone just because of an "original name" or (maybe) one or two actual original things in something?
Example: I create a game. I call it "Final Dubstep 'n' Dungeons Fantasy Quest". I clearly use large parts of the DnD-System, let's say 75%, then continue to copy the basic story of Final Fantasy (about 60%, with clearly Final Fantasy "inspired" character names, like Sid, Yuppie and Skwall), but give it a modern, highly Dubstep/Cyberpunk inspired setting (and with that I basically mean a Neuromancer-like setting with generic, Skrillex-like sounding dubstep), with the DJ being an actual mandatory party member that "plays" the music in game, all combined with a nice 16-Bit graphics style, of course. Original enough? Would it be any more original just because I call it "Hideous Dubstep Dungeon Day" or tag it as "Parody", you know, just in case Square calls me?
I suppose this example is slightly out of place (slightly because this IS a site about video game music after all), but still, you probably all get what I mean, right? The Idea is my own, the name somewhat original, but everything in this game is "heavily inspired".
You can all hold on to your own opinions, I am not (not even trying) to force my opinion on any of you. Just making some statements about my personal point of view, how I think about some of these things and what kind of questions are circling in my mind. I find this thread to be very interesting, if somewhat toxic at times.
I mean, hey, you got ME to write something, that's a big Achievement. Since I usually don't engage in discussions, english not being my native language and in general thinking people probably won't care about what I have to say, especially if things get heated.

The Duke Nukem Forever of OCR.
Also, congrats

All I can say is it's pretty shocking how many of you seem to feel: "As long as it's got enough of my touch, it's mine." Even though John's examples of classical variations have the original composer's name in the title. I assume I can expect no legal action nor royalty payments to you if I copy one of the original tunes from your arrangements or pieces, then? Because after all, what with my variations to it and all, it will become uniquely mine now, right? 

 

I don't really give a shit.
What point do you hope I concede to, exactly? That because some original works are highly-cliche and plenty of fan art or arrangements are of high quality, possibly even better than the original work, that deliberately piggybacking on existing works therefore has just as much artistic merit as making your own creations? Because it's not going to happen. 
Marvel and DC have made all the good superheroes and anyone I could come up with would likely be similar to one that already exists: Guess I better just say to hell with it and just draw Spiderman then, right? Drawing someone else stuff is just as worth my time as drawing from imagination! 
The fact is: No matter how much you spin it, you cannot claim creative ownership over a remix and that is precisely because it only exists thanks to a work before it. If you want to be a composer, artist, writer, etc. It makes no sense to place equal value on fan works — it really isn't any more nuanced than that.
 

yeah to be honest, it was really just one aspect of the original point that didn't need to be extrapolated upon nearly as much as it ended up being...
but hey, even vgm nerds like to argue lol

I think we've exhausted the topic of people disputing the ownership tbh

this is a good way to say it. i got a few degrees in music that essentially nailed the coffin on ever doing it professionally simply because i hated it so much by the time i was done - the in-culture, the requirement to network constantly, and the number of good gigs going to someone because they knew a guy that knew a guy instead of going to the best choice (not that i ever was that) really was a turn-off. the actual music was fun, but doing it for a job was maybe 10% of that.
then we had some kids, and my hours changed, and my priorities changed. success for me was providing for my family no matter the circumstances, and finding a way to pursue more than just one interest both from a financial and time standpoint. i think i've accomplished that pretty comfortably. it looks way different than what i thought it'd be in my early 20s, and that's probably for the better now that i know more about who i am and who i am not.

This decade?
Seconding The Witcher 3.  First game had charm and a fantastic soundtrack but wasn't all there. I remember towards the end of the game it would crash about every 30 seconds. The second game was fun but felt too small. The third game made me remember what it was like to have a game that resonated so well with you which I had not experienced since I first played FFVII all those years ago.  (it's awesome not overrated)
Runner Up would be Overwatch i guess. Didn't want to play that game at all the first time I I saw it but somehow I managed to sink almost 500 hours of my time on this planet since it launched.
Soldier 76 for life. 
 
 
oh and uhh freedom planet... because it's better than undertale.

Nintendo owns the melodies from Metroid. As such, the Metroid ReMixes Timaeus and I have done are more Nintendo's property than anyone else's. It's a derivative work from material we do not own the rights too, nor did we have permission to make. No matter how many unique ideas we stuff into it, the fact remains that we have little in the way of claim to the whole track. If Nintendo cared enough to strike an unauthorized arrangement down, they have every right to do so.
I see it as no different than fanart, cosplay, or fanfiction. The poses and stuff might be different, but at the end of the day, someone else's imagination is responsible for its very existence and they do have legal power over it. Who wants the foundations of their legacy to be the work of someone else? 
I also see your point about derivative original music as apples to oranges. The original tunes rely on musical devices that have become cliche, while the arrangements directly take from an existing work. It's the difference between painting in the style of Bob Ross, or John Williams ripping romantic-era cliches, versus copying a drawing and making some changes along the way. Influence vs copy.
If we want to sound like "cultured" art snobs, I'd side with those who'd say there is more artistic worth in the former, and historically, these are the works that have stood the test of time.
So I don't have any problem with people who'd just rather remix if that's what they want to do, but isn't fulfilling for me anymore.

It's fitting that MazeDude scored MazeQuest. 

It's fitting that MazeDude scored MazeQuest. 

Hollywood Strings and Eduardo Tarilonte's Era libraries use CC11 to control dynamics.

The Duke Nukem Forever of OCR.
Also, congrats

The Duke Nukem Forever of OCR.
Also, congrats

Some European folk influence.
 

When people hear of a video game involving big superheroes and Game of Thrones, they imagine things like Witcher, Arkham City or that Spider-Man game that's busted more records for Sony than one of their turntables: Games that put you in the role of these characters.
Not "it's basically a movie that you can push buttons to" like Until Yawn