JJT

Yea, not bad for a first submission. there's a couple of issues that need to be addressed here though. the arrangement itself is a pretty good idea, it's just loses itself in the implimentation. the synth that takes the highwind theme is poorly designed and abrasive, and the sequencing on the synth that comes in at :59 is not very well done. The phrasing and rhythm don't line up with the guitar-ish sample playing the same line. It's just barely off but enough to cause me some discomfort whilst I listen. The drum programming also gets stale about a minute in. Add some more variety to really engage the listener. My last complaint is the transition at 2:56. Really, really weak. Conceptually its innefective, and the sequencing on the organ sample needs to be improved, it sounds awkward and out of time. Go back to the drawing board and think of a better way to end this. Some good ideas here, but this isn't OC level yet. Retool, resubmit. NO

Why does a 60s-era beach party movie rock n' roll remix have "jazz" in the title? I'm kinda confused on that. As for the mix itself, it does well with limited source material, but there's just not enough meat on the arrangement. It's too short and says too little. Good effort though. And unlike Larry, I think the samples were fine (though not stellar) and were used well. NO

Warner Pacific... Not much of a college, but as a native son of Portland, I've gotta give you a shout out. Yeah Portlanders! On to the mix... Great arrangement, and good use of the samples you had access to. Speaking of which, the samples themselves are all decent, except for the piano. I'm a little more particular than most, but I thought it sounded too dry and frankly, pretty fake. The cutoff is also very ubrupt, which doesn't sit well with my ears. There's still room for improvement here (especially some of the sequencing--the 16th note runs on the harp sound pretty mechancial) but the arrangement is very well done, and the production is passable. One of my favorite parts is the chord voicings in the strings during the Millenial Fair section. Very tasteful, very mature arranging. Good work. Keep improving and keep arranging stuff. I'd like to hear more from you. YES

the crazy abrasive drums don't really have anything to do with the relatively straight ahead arrangement of the source tune that's covered by the bass and synths. there is nothing about this that feels cohesive to me. it sounds like two different songs played simultaneously. NO

Overlong, repetitive, and devoid of any strong melody. Worst of all, there seems to be little respect for Frog's Theme itself, slicing and simplifying it to the point where it bears only a passing resemblance to the original. From an arrangement standpoint the first 1:30 of the mix is superfluous. On the whole I'd say this ReMix devotes 95% of itself to the dance groove and 5% to any kind of melodic idea. NO

hmmmmmmmm. This isn't the worst attempt at jazz I've heard. You put the melody onto a different 4 chord progression, which is something I do pretty often. However, you milk this motif a little too much. I'm not as against the arrangement as TO and LT are. I think it sounds introspective, and kind of creates a feeling that I have tried to capture in some of my own remixes. Still not up to OC standards, but you're on the right track. The improvisation section, however, is by far the weakest part of the ReMix. Sorry, I know it hurts to hear that. The theory in the solo, although sound, is rudimentary at best. I'd like to hear more than a few basic lics up and down a pentatonic scale. Worst of all though, your phrasing is really really square. It's difficult/impossible to be able to help you with phrasing via a forum post, but I'll say that you're playing with way too much stacatto. Picture yourself singing that solo with the exact same phrasing....doesn't sound very good does it? Remember that fundementally as a soloist, you are "singing" through your instrument. Try and make your phrases smooth and lyrical, not choppy and spastic. We all have different degrees of fluency as soloists, but at this point in your musical journey, your solo lines are just coming out really awkward and stilted. Keep listening, that's the best thing you can do. Albums that I would recommend you really dig into for some stylistic insight (if you haven't allready checked them out) are: "Largo" - Brad Mehldau "Freedom in the Groove" - Joshua Redman "Kind of Blue" - Miles Davis "Time Remembered" - Bill Evans Keep churnin' stuff out. I like where you're headed. NO

please submit something that's not generic 4ontehfloor tekno that repeats the same chord progression and bassline 48 times, if you're going to submit something at all. NO

Yeah, as Larry said this IS good for a first submission. You've got a lot of great ideas, but the production end of this ReMix needs some luv. You have a pretty mature approach to dynamic contrast. The semi-dissonant glockenshpiel (or whatever that is) line that quotes the main melody at 1:55 is an excellent touch... the section from this point to 2:35 is my favorite. It's engaging and interesting to listen to, which is what OCR is all about. However, your samples sound like they're from the sound chip on an N64. Seriously. At one point I thought I was listening to the Zelda:OoT soundtrack or something similar. Get some better samples and slap on a little more reverb. Also, bring the percussion more to the front..it sounds like they're set up in the auditorium next door Seriously though, this is a good arrangement that's in dire need of some better samples and some slicker production. My advice: ask Graylightning for some pointers. He's a cool guy and knows VOLUMES more about how to improve your mix then I do. NO but please rework and RESUBMIT

Ummmmmm. A few things. The arrangement is non-existent. Putting the melody over a 4 on the floor beat with a "B" section or two is not enough, but your production also needs a GREAT deal of work. Experiment with the concept of reverb. The absence of any kind of reverb leaves your samples sounding dry and unsustained....basically just bad. To abbreviate a decision that was once passed down on a mix of mine, way back in 2002: good effort, but you need to be able to do more than open your software correctly and come up with 62 measures of cut and pasted material. Learn the basics of production: mixing, effects, eqing, etc Work on your abilities as an arranger, and go back to the drawing board. NO OVERRIDE

Repetitive, generic. Production is passable, but this sounds like background music. OCR is about music that engages the listener. If I ever needed some music to space out to and code C++ I'd pick this up in a heartbeat, but sadly I'm done with my programming classes. Use more harmonic/melodic variety and give the song some kind of dynamic shape if you're interested in getting mixes hosted by this site. NO

There a couple issues with the performance. First off, if you didn't use a metronome recording this, please try again using one. You're not keeping steady time in the beginning (around :14). It's pretty painful to listen to. Sometimes it's okay to drift in and out of time, but in this case it's pretty spastic and doesn't sound very deliberate. At 1:10 the chords in the left hand sound really mechanical. More work needs to be done with the velocities. As for production, this isn't eq'ed very well. There's virtually no hi-end. Thus, the low to mid range of the piano sounds very muddy. The fact that you're using so much pedal doesn't help that at all. It's an okay first try, but keep these things in mind if/when you submit a new piece. NO

I am in favor of both headphones and monitors.

I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that the production is good. It's a chiptune, and by definition is NOT. quoth david lloyd today: In my humble opinion, this mix does that. Most of the panel probably doesn't agree with this, but I feel like if I changed my vote, it would be for the wrong reasons. YES STANDS veto away.

YES I know Dave values sound quality in OCReMixes, but as far as the composition is concerned, this ReMix is in the very top tier of what the community has seen. It will probably take twice as many listens as I've currently given Figaro Chiptune to pick up on everything Sam has crammed into it. To highlight just a few of my favorite parts- 1:16 through 2:16 sounds like a collaboration between Keith Jarret and Bun Bun, and I feel like Thom Yorke could have written the transition at 3:06. I wouldn't object to a quieter mixdown, as Larry pointed out this might need. In conclusion, I have a schoolboy crush on this mix, with it's extremely mature harmonization, challenging mixed meter, and efficient use of 4 channels. Dig.

The point is that this mix doesn't represent a violation of the technical standards of OCR. You just don't like the choices that have been made.Nobody's talking about "violations". Violations are things that automatically disqualify a submission, e.g. MIDI ripping, going over the size/bitrate limit, mixing non-game music. This is a production decision that I feel negatively impacts the mix in a significant enough way to not warrant posting vs. the other material we choose to post. You should be focusing on the "standards" aspect more. Things like low volume or a cutoff ending or whathaveyou are not violations of anything, as we've accepted tracks like that. Obviously there are non-standard things that are acceptable to some but not all, i.e. nearly any mix that hasn't gone to a unanimous vote on the panel. Right here, some of the choices aren't up to my standard of a ReMix. The drums don't have to clip to sound too loud, abrasive, distorted, and indistinct. There's more to any production choice being acceptable to most of the panel than literally not clipping. Alongside my view that AB actually pulled off the technique better earlier in the track, I don't see any reason to approve the mix based on the sections I had issue with. Don't like what seems too subjective? Tough, because this scenario isn't any different than anything else that's split the panel before. I've been on both the YES and NO sides of other mixes like this, and the feeling that the other side is off-base isn't anything new. But to say that the NOs (or YESs for that matter) are voting without trying to reconcile the submission with site standards is misguided at best, and poor form no matter what the situation. If you really think people are voting out of pure bias/personal preference, it's best to address those issues privately and not inadvertently damage the panel's credibility. If you levy these kind of claims against someone, there's nothing stopping anyone else (especially in the public sphere) from using the same claims against you, regarding any of your votes and any of your reasoning. That wasn't intended as a personal attack, I just wasn't satisfied with how you defended your NO vote. I am now. I know it's not your job to defend every decision you make, but me opening up the subject for further debate can only be a good thing, right?

The point is that this mix doesn't represent a violation of the technical standards of OCR. You just don't like the choices that have been made.

so you're admiting this isn't a technical issue then?

This remix actually does a lot of things very well. There is plenty of original material blended with the source, as well as a reasonable amount of variation. The remixer also takes some cues from the original as far as structure is concerned. However, a 6:50 length is a little too ambitious for what this mix actually puts on the table. There's some good melodic variety, but it's spread out over way too much time. There are parts of this mix that are very engaging and parts that just make me want to space out. OCR is more geared toward the former of these then the latter, so if you're planning on resubmitting, bear that in mind. NO I like it, but at the same time I don't think it's OCR material yet.

repetitive, muddy, and poorly mixed. zircon and liontamer have already covered my main gripes with this mix. it sucks to keep going back to the drawing board, but stick with it and keep improving both your arrangement and production skills. good luck. NO

The production and the arrangement for this track are both respectable, but both need a little more improvement before this will pass. The slap bass sticks out as a pretty weak sample, and the sequencing in the strings gets pretty mechanical at times. As far as dynamics go, this arrangement is pretty static. I would try to make the more sparse sections even more so, and give the busy sections more intensity, to give the overall mix a bit more tension. For example, the transition to double time at 2:20 is a great idea, but would work even better if the actual dynamics of the arrangement complimented such a change. This mix hovers around metzo-forte for the entire duration. This is pretty good, but can be even better. NO RESUBMIT

Respectable arrangement and a good trademark Karl performance. I personally would like to have heard a little more dynamic contrast in the string accompanyment, especially in response to what the piano is doing. At 2:10 Karl begins transitioning towards the break at 2:35, dropping the dynamic level and getting less busy. The drums, strings and bass don't respond to this, but maintain the same groove at the same volume. Also the piano is mixed a little too soft for my taste. These issue aren't enough to persuade me to change my YES vote however. Nice work, though I feel like some of Karl's interpretation has been lost in the final mixdown. YES

I don't hate the arrangement as much as Vig does, but the popping is a major problem. I dig the rhodes (though I always dig a good rhodes), and I especially liked the breaks. However, by about 2:37 I grow weary of hearing that same variation of "the place i'll return to someday." Some new melodic ideas would be nice. Also, the bass sounds GM. I like it (loooooove the rhodes), but it needs more work. Get rid of the popping too. NO

wow, there's really not a lot to work with as far as the source tune goes... hmmmmm. this is repetitious and is basically a hi-fi version of the original. suggestions: * trim the arrangement down * change up the harmonic structure * make the drum programming more varied these will help hold the listeners attention. NO

This isn't recognizable as Sandopolis, has no variation and repeats the same melodic idea 74 times. NO OVERRIDE If anyone has a problem with this, let me know

I'm not particularly wild about how this feels like two different remixes put back to back, but I'd say there's enough stylistic similarities between the two sections to provide some continuity. I actually kind of like the click leading up to the start of the track, reminds me of the transition between "Airbag" and "Paranoid Android" off OK Computer. Production is slick, and though as the other judges pointed out, there's less interpretation going on in the sanctuary garden section, the overall presentation of this ReMix puts it over the bar. Groovin' Yes