Chimpazilla

The lows and especially the mid-lows are too loud. 100-250ish Hz is too loud, giving mud to the soundscape. The idea of this mix is fantastic! But it's not there yet. The piano sounds so quiet, thin and plain compared to everything else. I agree with Gario that the backing chords, while nice, should change at some point because they get repetitive. The drums do also need some work, the kick is muffled an indistinct, and the clap sounds so generic. The arrangement overall is too repetitive. I really like the synth pad that enters at 0:54 and the entire section that follows it, that's a good step toward making the soundscape and arrangement more interesting. Adding an original-writing (or use another portion of the source track) breakdown at 2:02 would be a great way to break up the arrangement even more. At 2:18 it's just a rehash of the first section, which is a missed opportunity to change up the writing and/or soundscape again and surprise your listener with something new. Also, a proper ending would be preferable to the drop-off that you currently have here. NO

I like the idea of this, a smooth groovy rendition of this tune. I agree with Gario about the overall volume (just needs a bit better mastering) and the sour notes at 3:46. The lead does sound a bit loud/piercy but it's not killing it for me. What does kill it for me is the repetitive nature of the backing instrumentation and writing. The lead does some very nice and interesting soloing, but the backing doesn't change much throughout the entire 5:25 of the track. You've got the panning organ thing, a string pad which plays only two notes, and a super-simple bassline. Other than some occasional whooshy sfx there's not much going on back there other than those few elements, and after awhile they sound too simplistic for me. I'd sure like it if the chord structure actually changed at some point, as the source does at 1:02. That said, some change in the soundscape, maybe an extra pad layered in or just more sfx and/or ear candy would push it over for me. NO (resubmit)

I have to call this out. What total bullshit this statement is. You started this, which ultimately I think was a good thing because it got the ball rolling on some good things, but you set the angry and accusatory tone right from post #1 and maintained it for 14 pages of thread. We are all getting too old for this. Are you even serious? Dave began providing solid, undeniable answers right from the start. You continued screaming. They are pissed at you because you made incredibly insulting and darn-near libel-worthy accusations claiming you had actual evidence. You dragged OCR and Dave specifically through the mud, and not just here. Whatever. You need to clean up your act in a very big way. You had Dave on the border of insanity yesterday and I'm REALLY not ok with that. I'm sorry but this just needs to be said.

Brandon, I think it's great that you started this thread, you brought up some legitimate issues and got a good discussion going. But this has gone so very, VERY far south. Now it appears that you are simply the leader of a massive witchhunt. This discussion is so far past being constructive that it's stupid. Frankly, what you're doing appears to me VERY childish, regardless of your initial intentions. You are making unwarranted accusations and slinging mud and whipping people up into a frenzy. Are you actually happy with that? If you want to hang onto any remaining shred of goodwill that you have here, you might want to stop posting on this topic, immediately. Not a threat, I have no authority to make a threat... just my $0.02.

I don't see why they should be different. All posted ReMixes should be handled the same. No one likes youtube ads, it's clear. Some people though have expressed that they don't mind too much, or at all. I think we will know more when we have the non-profit filing process underway, and we have done some budgeting to see if youtube ads are even a viable income stream for the site when balanced against the repercussions, real or perceived. I think we should brainstorm some other ideas for revenue too, hopefully we will come up with some ideas that are more lucrative than youtube ads with a whole lot lower pissing-people-off factor.

Alrighty then. I'm finished posting on this issue. I'm hoping you are right zircon, and we are making a mountain out of a molehill. I do think it's time to do some budgeting and create some projections and some financial statements, and get the non-profit status underway. I'll do whatever I can toward that end. I remain faithful to OCR. I just read your newest reply. Good point. Maybe there are other ways for OCR to make money. Maybe we can start a new thread to brainstorm ideas. Here's one. My son's school does this thing every year called Apex Fun-Run. They raise $50,000 or more every year. It's the most obnoxious thing ever but it works for schools. Yes, I'm kidding about doing a fun-run, it's the worst thing ever and I boycott it every year. But what other ways could we raise funds, predictably and continuously? Thinking caps, everyone.

But you even said yourself that technically it has NEVER been fair use, and has ALWAYS been copyright infringement. Maybe the big game companies have let it fly under the radar before, but perhaps the youtube monetization could cause them to take notice. I know you're saying the types of advertising are essentially the same, I hear you (I hear you too Sir_NutS), but I am in the camp that feels that they are different. They are more personal, and they are attached to specific remixes. Honestly zircon, I hope you are right, and I'm prepared to go along and move forward under that assumption. I'm just stating my concerns.

^THIS^ explains my biggest concern about the issue of youtube ads, pretty much perfectly. No way to know if it would actually happen, but if it ever did, it would be game changing and potentially dealbreaking for OCR.

This is relevant because it is the driving force that is causing us to examine all the other issues. They DO feel different, they feel more personal and in-your-face. The bummer here is that this was done without any notification to the artists. Everyone here hates youtube ads! (I believe I speak for most of us with this) And now they are attached directly to our individual tracks. I think our personal disappointment, along with the intrusive nature of youtube ads, is what is driving the anger and the other issues being brought up here. The other issues (copyright issues being the biggest concern, as far as I can see) need to be addressed, though. I think somehow we need to be sure we can monetize the videos without being sued. I have no idea how we can find out for sure. Just hoping we can continue to fly under the radar seems reasonable, yet risky. Overall I feel like there just needs to be a greater level of transparency with changes in policy. The remix agreement DOES need to be updated to include specific language about ads. The world is changing very fast these days, so language gets outdated quickly. As Neblix said, when many remixers got their first remixes on the site, youtube streaming and spotify etc. weren't even a thing.

I personally am not getting paid. If anyone else on staff is getting paid, I'm not aware of it and I have been left out of the loop. My strong sense is (and the evidence points to) that no one on staff is getting paid for anything.

I think the difference between the old way (site ads) and the new way (youtube ads) is that now OCR is making revenue off of specific, identifiable remixes, instead of just "remixes in general." I think it should be ok, with a couple of caveats: 1. We should update the remix agreement to include specific language about the fact that the remix videos on youtube are monetized, with the funds going to OCR and not to either the remixer or the original artist(s) 2. We should make sure that none of the original artists (Nintendo, Square Enix, etc.) would have any viable claim against OCR making money from their original work 3. We should do some budget projections to see if making money in this way is even worth the possibility of pissing off ReMixers, viewers, and potentially original artists.

Ok since this is public, I'll say this publicly. I have offered repeatedly to take on this role and we have discussed it. I have an MBA in Finance and a ton of accounting experience; this is what I do. I did a budget template and financial statement templates and invited you to the Google sheets, I hope you've looked at them. It's time to revisit these budgeting templates in a big way. We need to have some serious conversations about budgeting. Tom has just started back to school (yesterday), so my time is more available now to work on this with you. I totally understand everyone's feelings about YouTube ads, and I share these feelings. It has a totally different perception than website ads, and it feels more like a personal "fuck you" when you're on YouTube and an ad pops in your face. I fear that YouTube ads may have a negative impact overall. But I totally understand your feelings about the different types of ads and your explanations are great. Let's budget it out to see if it makes sense to continue them, or maybe there are other options we haven't explored yet.

Uh, guys,... get a room?

The strings and also the choir sound dry, inhuman and terrible to me. Luckily neither of these plays for long enough to be dealbreaker. The vibrato on the violin, while not natural sounding, doesn't bother me too much. This is an outstanding arrangement, with fun details, enjoyable and varied all the way through. Great guitar work. There are a few sections where there is minimal leadwork so it sounds random, such as from 1:35-1:55, where it would be better to have something focused playing a lead. The good outweighs the bad for me though. Please take these crits into account for future submissions, though. YES

Are you sure? Ok, well he said this: "i just wanted to share how much this has made me wet. that is all."

I can also pretty much quote-vote Mike's vote. Short but sweet, great little mix. The low kettle drum gives some sub-rumble that I think could be eq'd out (below 40Hz) and I agree that a little more highs would be nice but would most likely require writing of some higher-register instruments or sfx. Regardless, the mix has a muted emotional impact that achieves exactly what it is going for. YES

Wow I like this, it's super creative! The rapping is really good. Vocals are mixed well although they are just a bit too far forward. The processing on the vocals is cool, good use of centered and side vocals. The super fast final vocals are awesome. The arrangement is pretty relentless, some kind of breakdown would give the track some breathing room before resuming the energy level. I think there's enough source, the chords from either source are apparent throughout the track. Regarding the Disney clips, I have no idea. As long as they are ok, YES

I agree with Gario's comments about the kick, it could be meatier for this track, and feels weak as it is. I also agree with Sir_NutS's comment about the arrangement having no break in the energy, a breakdown would be very welcomed. I don't find either of those to be dealbreakers however. This arrangement has a ton of creativity and interest, and yeah, cool chips dude. Works for me. YES

Oof that brass. Really fakey when it plays fast passages. That is where using multiple articulations to play a single line is a must. Other than that, the production is good, and I appreciate what a big undertaking this is. The constant clanking thing goes on a bit too long for my taste. I'm with the Js who dislike the extreme dynamics here, it feels too exaggerated, and the soft sections lose my interest as a result. However, the track does seem to achieve the eerie emotion it is going for. YES

The other Js' crits are completely valid. This arrangement is really good and it is full of lots of nice little details and creativity. The piano does sound quite fake. You should learn how to sequence piano with varied velocities so it sounds more natural, and a better sample would be an improvement too (or just use a synth timbre). That piano is really a shame, it takes this track just under the bar for me, most especially the section starting at 2:58 since it is so exposed and repetitive there. The drums are well written but they could be a drop louder. The guitar work here is quite good, no complaints. I like the little chiptune interlude at 1:36 a lot. You should work on balance; Gario is right that some parts tend to pop out unexpectedly, volume-wise. My other main crit for you is you need to work on transitions, you want to always signal the listener that something new is coming, even just with one or two bars of something, even a white noise sweep. The transition at 2:31 is total silence, and I think that is a lost opportunity for some kind of awesome sound effect or sweep. My vote is very borderline as I think this is close, just needs a bit more TLC. Please resubmit this! I expect to hear even more improvement from you and more good submissions going forward. NO (borderline, resubmit)

The production here is quite good, other than the string pad which sounds really dry and vanilla in contrast to the rest of the track. The arrangement though is really simple and repetitive, and the middle breakdown doesn't fit with the rest of the track at all, it feels tacked on and it breaks the flow totally for me. The playing and sequencing are much too simple, repetitive, rigid and grid-snapped for my liking. I'm afraid I'm in complete agreement with Larry's vote on this one. NO

I am not familiar with these two sources so I decided to listen to the remix cold to see if it sounded cohesive, and to me it does. I do think the transitions are not signaled as well as they could be, so if this doesn't pass that is my biggest recommendation, make sure you build up to the transitions, especially where sources change. The soundscape sounds very good to me and the guitar work is excellent. I do think the snare is just a tad too loud (like just 1 or 2 db, or you could just take a little out of the mids), but the snare sound along with the synth choices and heavy reverb gives the track a nice modernized 80s flavor. I like it. YES

Sources like this one are great to remix, since it is pretty much just bgm, and one can build an entire new track right over the top of it. I can tell that is what you tried to do here. Unfortunately most of it comes off as really repetitive, even with little snippets of other motifs/melodies included. The glitching and drum fills are quite good. I agree with Larry 100% on these two points: ------------------------------- "I disagreed that 2:23.5-2:53.5 section was directly referencing the source. All I heard were rhythmic similarities, but not the same note patterns as the source. With such a simple source tune, it's easier to veer into soundalike territory when attempting to arrange it." "I thought 2:55-4:03's section felt totally disconnected from everything that came before and after it; it broke the flow of the piece and just sounded awkwardly shoe-horned in. The sampled source audio behind it was so quiet that it was practically inaudible, so I don't know why it was even counted in Gario's timestamps." ------------------------------- I love radio intros, but I'm not sure how well it is working here, the first 30 seconds just sounds like quiet, crackly mush, then the track just whomps in cold. The production is pretty good here. I think the arrangement just isn't cutting it. It is too repetitive overall to maintain my interest, and the arrangement wanders away from the source too much to maintain a good connection to it throughout the track. For a source tune such as this one, I'd suggest doing a shorter and more varied remix unless you can come up with multiple unique ways to write original and/or complimentary material over the backing track. NO

My vote is on version #2. The mixing isn't optimal, the drums could use some more presence and highs. The bass is somewhat muddy/indistinct. I don't hear any sidechaining, and that is a technique that can be used to clean up the soundscape without obvious ducking if it is done gently. The drum writing is for the most part simple and repetitive. I don't mind the vocoded parts being hard to understand. The fake strings aren't bothering me in this context. Jesse's vocals sound just a touch dry, but not dealbreakingly so. Generally the vocals are well done and on-pitch. I hear some elements that are hard panned left or right and I'm not a fan of that. Nice vocal effect at 3:01! This isn't my strongest yes but I think this is a cool track despite not being perfect. YES

Not much to add to what has already been said, the writing and arrangement are cool, tons of creativity. The synths are vanilla, but they are used well enough for a pass. I can't see rejecting this based solely on the synth choices, not with a track this creative. I hope for next time though, you will be able to do more modulation with your sounds and/or get some better synths. I'm sure whatever you do next will be dynamite, if you do. YES