DarkeSword

@Liontamer I get what MW was trying to say but I don't think other Js hooked onto 4.3 specifically in the votes that followed. I agree with MW's vote in the spirit of what he was saying and I'm glad he brought up the issue at the very start of that thread, but I don't think 4.3 specifically is where the track gets tripped up. Gario just now made a better case for 4.1 being the sticking point. Ultimately though I think it comes down to an evaluation of the track by the panel of judges. And I see the issue was raised in the initial decision but sort of glossed over with some judges essentially saying "I'm not if sure this a violation or not, so I'll just vote normally on performance and production issues and since I'm voting NO anyway I'll sidestep the concept issue." This is a very unique track, and ultimately where we screwed up as a panel is we didn't have a larger discussion when that first thread was live to really answer the question of "Is this conceptually a good fit for OCR?" Genuine question: do we really need to spell out in the standards that we want people to submit work that is musical, first and foremost? If so, then fine, let's put it in the standards. But like Gario pointed out, 4.1 asks for "arrangements in any genre of music." I feel like we've already covered it.

Larry, you are wrong in stressing that the "source material" line is what the track violated. Source usage was not the issue, and this track isn't a standards violation as it seems to be framed in your subsequent posts in the thread post-decision. The entire work showcases material from the game, narration included. The issue was that The Little Girl and the Star largely centers a non-musical performance of the story from the game. As I said in my vote, the vocal performance is a narration. It's not sung, it's not rapped, nor is it recited as beat poetry. The narration takes the lead and the musical backing track supports it. Joe frames that as a bias but I will argue that it's a very valid distinction for us to make with regards to what we showcase in the OCR catalog. We would not post a track that, for example, takes a scene from a popular JRPG and recreates it as a full-cast audio drama with acted dialogue and the music from the game arranged in the background. A track like that would not be a standards violation either because everything is taken from the game; the issue would be that it's not wholly or in-majority a musical work. Now, I don't want to get into defining quantitative standards here; I don't want to go down the road where we're saying "At least 75% of the track should primarily be musical in nature" because then we're both inviting tracks that will skirt close to 25% non-musical performance and also that's just more stopwatching, which I personally am just not a fan of. This track is a very unique case. I understand that our standards don't specifically call out "non-musical performance" as a limiting factor. I think that this is just part of judging though; we're presented with a track that challenges our view of what fits into what we want OCR to showcase, and we make the judgement call in that evaluation. I personally am sorry I didn't catch this on the first go-around; I didn't see the first decision and I was specifically asked when the second thread went up by Dave to weigh in, which is the first I heard the track and when I made my opinion very clear that this track is not a fit for OCR.

Agree with Joe. It's a NO (resub or else) from me too. I think the arrangement is good but some of the performances (outside the trumpet) feel a little wilted. I'm not sure if that's the EQ or the mud or what but it feels like the energy is being sucked out of this one. My touchstone for a track like this would be (obviously) Pulp Fiction but also Juno Reactor's Pistolero. There's a clarity that's missing here and it's hurting this track, which is a shame. Would love to see this on the site eventually. Hopefully it's not too late to fix up.

I don't think enough of the arrangement here has enough recognizable and identifiable source usage. I appreciate the source breakdown but I think that overall the arrangement only hints at source usage at points. If you changed the lyrics to be about anything other than Paper Mario, I don't think I'd recognize this as a Paper Mario arrangement, and I feel like I shouldn't have to sit down with a source breakdown to make sure that this is actually covering music from the game. It's asking a lot of me, which is fine, because I'm a judge and that's my job, but it's also asking a lot of regular folks who are just listening on shuffle. Nice performance though, and I like the "PAPER MARIIIOOO" bit at the end, that was pretty good. NO

I agree that most advanced torrent users are accustomed to selecting what they want to download but I'd also suggest (and this is pure conjecture) that the average torrent user is just downloading everything. Like Larry said, OGG was a thing many years ago but ultimate it comes down to what file formats are ubiquitous amongst the larger listener base. I don't see any significant advantages to offering ALAC alongside FLAC aside from catering to the specific use case of iTunes/Music.app not supporting FLAC. MP3s are offered because MP3 is the ubiquitous, de facto standard when it comes to lossy compression. FLAC is offered for the same reason (ubiquity), and also because once someone has lossless files, they can do whatever they'd like, such as converting to other formats like OGG, AAC, or ALAC. My personal feeling is that having the one lossy set (MP3) and one lossless set (FLAC) covers all of the bases for our distribution channels. If we start offering more encodes based on the idea that people can just deselect what they don't want, we're going down the rabbit hole of providing more and more sets. This is extra work for everyone for very little return, IMO.

Hey, I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here. OCR already provides downloads for all of the music we post. You don't need to post a zip file or a torrent of your favorite tracks, and you really don't need to re-tag them. If you're interested in talking about your favorite tracks, feel free to leave reviews in the associated threads for those remixes and albums. I'm going to edit out those links and lock this thread.

Beautiful track, right up my alley, that sort of dreamy big band sound, but after the initial treatment of the melody it just spiraled away. Source usage just isn't dominant here. NO

I love the wall of sound here. Detuned lead is great, actually. I agree with Larry; I think other judgements are skewed a bit high. This track sounds very good and it's well performed and well produced. The detuned lead is a stylistic choice that works, IMO. YES

Nice arrangement, sticks close to the original's energy but some nice performances. Love the callbacks to older Yoshi music. Bongos are great. Mixing is an issue though. What happened here? Other Js articulated it well. Needs anot pass on that. NO, resub

NO We absolutely should not post this track. I don't say that as a qualitative judgement on the track itself, but look: this is, as Joe said in the previous decision, an audio book with background music. The focal point of this work is the storytelling. I've often defended vocals in remixes we get but those are tracks that feature singing or rap. This is not a lyrical performance, it's a straight narration. The backing music is good. If feels loose and organically performed, which other Js might take issue with but I thought it sounded nice. There are some intonation issues with the singing at the end, and it feels very exposed when all of the accompaniment drops out. But back to my main point: the narration here completely pulls me out of listening to this as a piece of music. This is not, in its entirety, a musical work. There's too much focus being pulled by the non-musical storytelling performance. I don't see myself ever putting this in a playlist of music to listen to. I don't think OCR is the place for this.

Arrangement and energy is killer. Production is not killer. Other Js have outlined the problems already so I won't rehash. Needs a production pass and then we'll be in business. NO

Got it

Hey, this response is unnecessarily antagonistic. I also agree that this is a big ask and $170 a pop is actually a bargain, but you can express that without all of the bold text indignation. I mean it's not like he's not asking you personally to do it. Also weird to get all mad about a post from July. It's also not your concern if something is posted in the wrong forum or not. Recruit & Collaborate is probably a better fit, and I'll move this there, but it's a pretty honest mistake. -- @Zye84 I'm glad you understand that this is commission work that'll cost money, but you've gotta understand that this is a big ask. If you really want to see this done, you're gonna have to be realistic about costs.

Incredible soundscape. Fantastic production and solo. Great part-writing. But the structure of the arrangement is incomplete. You state the melody exactly one time, move into the incredible breakdown and solo section, but never return to the melody. I don't mind fade-outs. I use them all the time, and have even written up how to do good fade-outs in the past. I even understand shortening an arrangement because you don't want to overstay your welcome, so-to-speak. Perhaps you don't have more to say. But the fade-out here is premature. Something as simple as a copy+paste of the melody after the breakdown section would work. Shift it an octave or double it in another instrument if you're after some variety, or don't! But at the very least, bookend your breakdown section. This is perhaps a harsh judgement, but NO, resubmit. If we can get an updated version we can fast track. UPDATE: Checked out the updated version. Feels like a proper ending now. I'm good. YES

Nah you're good.