• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MindWanderer

  1. I don't mind the percussion being mechanical, but I do mind how up-front it is, as well as the sidechaining that NutS pointed out. There's also a crackle from 0:52-0:59, 2:22-2:29, and 2:39-2:49 caused by clipping (which Rexy pointed out). You're clipping by about 0.8dB in those sections, and by about 0.3dB in several other sections (though it's less audible). This is a killer arrangement, and I had really high hopes for it, but you really need to bring the top down, especially on the snares, to let it breathe a little. That will address both the sidechaining (which bothered me much more than it did NutS) and the clipping. NO (resubmit)
  2. Can't argue with any of that. The production is a little too grungy IMO, but it would still be passable if this weren't so close to the original. There are a few little riffs and frills thrown in, but it's not enough for what we look for. Thanks for submitting it, though, it's a great piece of music and I'm glad I got the chance to hear it. NO
  3. Clearly a huge improvement over the version we originally heard submitted for the album. Production is mostly clear, just a little mushy when the reverb gets up there. The leads are suitably emotive now. Overall it's a creative, engaging approach, and I'm very glad it got another pass. A worthy addition to the album and to our library. YES
  4. Ditto on the sound design, it was definitely vanilla and thin. That's my biggest concern. The source connection seemed roughly reasonable; it does use the melody somewhat, and the source does have a distinct harmony that the remix uses extensively. I'm okay with the structure, just not the instrumentation. NO
  5. I like the idea behind this. There are a lot of high-energy Green Hill remixes out there, so it's nice to hear something more pastoral. I didn't realize that Irish-Americans have been integrating the banjo into their own folk music for nearly a century--it came across as more American old-time with Celtic influence to me, especially since the melodica sounds a lot like a harmonica. The performance quality is definitely solid, if a bit rigid. At first I actually thought some of it was sequenced and not performed live, your timing and velocity are so consistent. My one big concern is that this isn't very fully developed as an arrangement. It's very well "orchestrated" (if that's the word) for the parts you chose to use, with excellent instrumentation and accompaniment throughout. But the overall structure is basically a cover. It's very short, with extremely minimal introduction and ending, otherwise consisting of two loops of the source. We've historically accepted arrangements done much like this--structurally conservative but thoroughly reorchestrated--but they tend to be longer and with more parts. This is very well done for what it is, though. I'm going to think about this one some more, and see what other judges have to say. Update 7/8/19: While I wouldn't go so far as to call this a transcription--there are some differences, especially in the second half--the bulk of the accompaniment is lifted straight from the source. It's executed well but not enough is added or changed for our purposes. NO
  6. I've been watching VOD's of the Kusogrande tournaments, which is a contest to see which competitor can get the furthest in a bad video game they've never seen before in an hour. And the games are really bad, but sometimes the music is really good, and none of the games are represented on here. I'm watching Golgo 13: The Mafat Conspiracy right now; other gems I recall offhand are The Flash, Time Lord, ALF, Amagon, and Flying Dragon: The Secret Scroll. I have my hands full just trying to get one short album completed, but maybe someone else would like to run with this idea. It's a semiregular event, so I'm sure Brossentia (the organizer) would love an official partnership.
  7. Yeah, I'm afraid that while the beginning and ending are clearly derived from Kokiri Forest, 1:10-2:33 definitely is not (and I personally wouldn't count it until 3:08, although 3:28-3:38 is close enough for me). The original content in the middle is very high-quality and goes with the rest of the arrangement very well, but there is indeed a lot of it. That said... The 50% source we look for is a guideline, not a hard rule. Being 11 seconds short (or even 16 seconds, which is what I'd count) out of a 4:18 arrangement doesn't have to be a dealbreaker. IMHO, the source material is still what I'd call "dominant". The interlude, while somewhat lengthy, doesn't obscure the fact that this is a Kokiri Forest arrangement. I'd rather not miss the forest for the trees here (nyuk nyuk). This is fine by me. YES
  8. I'm afraid I agree with the above 100%. The sax parts are really good, but everything else, including the backing during the sax parts, is way too conservative, too repetitive, and too static. NO
  9. There's a lot of this that is fun--as Sir_NutS said, the structure is solid, your risers get the job done, and you make good use of empty space--but I agree that there are a number of things holding it back. NutS has given you a great rundown on the EDM aspects of it in particular, so take careful note of all that. The soundscape in general is overly simplistic; good EDM not only has more dynamic synths, but there are more layers that hit more of the sound spectrum. Your bass is too quiet most of the time and entirely absent half the time. Also, those exposed arps in the intro, starting at 0:16 in particular, are painfully shrill. The ending is a bit anticlimactic, too; the lack of any sort of filter or modulation there really stands out. It's actually a really good start. The bones are there, they just need some more flesh on them. Keep at it! NO (resubmit)
  10. I've been mulling over this one for some time. The balance and the dissonance were my main hangups with it, and I have to agree that the latter is a subjective complaint, not an objective one. It's unique and well-executed, and we should post it. YES
  11. I have very little to add to Larry's vote. The bland synth instrumentation, repetitive backing, and sour notes are all problematic. There are some fun original riffs but every one of them is spoiled by clashing notes. There's a lot of creativity here but the execution needs to back it up. NO
  12. Yeah, it's a decent background track but it's basically on autopilot. I was expecting it to build to something, but then it just ends. The soundscape makes it sound more repetitive than it really is. Larry's crits are dead-on. NO
  13. This is a nice little folk number. It's sloppy but that's suitable for the style. The structure is repetitive, but the lyrics aren't, and that makes all the difference in a piece like this. Other than a painful half-rhyme near the end, I don't have any major concerns; this is simple but effective. YES
  14. It's impressive how slowing it down makes room for the different instruments to really shine. A beautiful but faithful reinterpretation. I also don't really agree with the choice of the electric guitar, but in my case it's more because it devours too much of the frequency spectrum and smothers the delicate interplay between the flute and guitar. But as with Larry, it's more a subjective preference. YES
  15. They're both really great, but somehow OCR has no remixes of Divine Bloodlines, so that's where my preference would be. Although, if you wanted to remix both together as a "tag team" theme, that would also make a lot of sense story-wise!
  16. Yeah, this is pretty solid. I'm not crazy about the weird attack on the saw lead, which was throwing me off for a while, but otherwise I agree with NutS's analysis. It's a lot of fun and a cool interpretation. YES
  17. Recycling aluminum was much more profitable back in the the mid-80's. The price took a dive later on.
  18. Technically Super Mario Bros., because that's what came with the NES. Cost me $87 worth of recycled aluminum cans, after tax.
  19. Ha, actually, ibeginwiththeendinmind just checked back in with me after a long absence, and it turns out that one is almost done after all, so I'm putting his name back on there. Is there something else you'd be interested in?
  20. OCR (and Game Music Initiative) is located in the U.S. and is subject to its laws. It doesn't operate businesses in other countries so it doesn't have to follow their laws. (This is unlike companies such as Google, which do have points of presence and child companies in other countries.) Now, if OCR content was mirrored in another country, the mirror host might be subject to those laws. That would be up to them; typically they'd open a dialogue with OCR about it.
  21. Ditto, ditto. I'm not sure why kart-style remixes usually fade out, but they do, so I guess it's forgivable. It's easy to recognize the source and I don't have any problems with the production (kicks sound perfectly fine to me). YES
  22. I felt mostly the same way as Gario: it's an unexpectedly chill arrangement, very simple and lo-fi, but still had me tapping my feet to its groove. It's a simple soundscape but it hits the full spectrum; I think it's adequate in that respect. That said, I'm hearing a lot more repetition than Gario did, specifically, that 3:32-5:28 is almost a copy-paste of 1:11-3:31--there's one extra loop in the first instance that isn't repeated in the second, but otherwise it's exact. That brings the amount of repetition up to 33%, and that's too much. Bring something new into the second half, maybe some different sounds to spice up the sound palette a little, and I'd be happy to have this on the front page. But this version I have to give a NO (resubmit)
  23. Very nice acoustic arrangement. It doesn't go anywhere surprising, but there is a decent level of interpretation, and the performances are solid. But what is up with the rock/choral section? The soundscape is thin and muffled, the vocals are flat, and choruses don't work very well with just, what, 3 voices? without a whole lot of processing. Normally I wouldn't send something back for such a short section, but it's notably sub-par and really sinks the experience as a whole, especially since the rest of the soundscape is fairly static, so that one different part really leaps out. I like the idea of doing something different there to change things up, but the execution needs to be there. NO (resubmit)
  24. Well, this just jumps straight into the thick of it, doesn't it? Great groove right off the bat. Really fun stuff... ...but at 1:43, it loops back to 0:27, and then goes into a full minute of fade-out. I'm afraid that's a dealbreaker for me; this comes across as incomplete. Don't get me wrong, what is there is great, but it's over after the breakdown. For something this short, it really needs a second verse and an ending, and a little bit more of an intro wouldn't be amiss either. I do really enjoy this, and I badly want what I hear to get posted. But without more meat to this arrangement I have to give it a NO (please resubmit!)
  25. Yep, I concur. Fully half of it feels like an intro, and about a quarter of it like a breakdown. And then it ends with a loop back to the intro and fades out. It would be okay in the context of, say, a remaster, where it's supposed to loop at that point, but as a standalone track it's lacking substance and structure. NO