CHz

Hey now, I never said that Sakuraba writes bad music. I just liked this song better in the other ten games I heard it in, that's all. I thought the adaptation of the theme was decent. Good job in expanding the short original; your mix really sounds like an extended version of the original piece. The original material works well, and the source definitely gets a workout, being used in a bunch of different ways here and there. The melody wasn't really changed that much, and that combined with the similar instrumentation could be a bit problematic, because as I said, this feels a lot like an extended version of the source instead of a new piece. Everything else I'd say would pretty much echo DS and LT. Sample quality is nothing to write home about, and it really does show off in a few places, most notably 1:29-1:56. Humanization could use a bump. The biggest offender to me was 1:56-2:21; that build feels incredibly lifeless. It should have some power, since it's an important part leading from the soft break to the climax. 2:21-2:24 is kind of weird, and kind of works; I don't think I mind it as much as the other judges, but it does sound a bit out of place. Pretty close, but there's too much holding this one back to pass it. Although adding in more interpretation of the source would certainly help, my problems are more on the production side. The overall care to the sounds is a bit slapdash. More TLC would get this over the bar. NO (resubmit)

Sad to say it, but if you aren't willing to sacrifice everything for your dreams, then there's no way you'll ever achieve your goals. Best stick to the warm, comforting glow of the fluorescent lights hanging over the burger station at your local McDonald's. Incidentally, castrati were big time stars in the 1700s, so I don't see why chopping off the manparts would do anything but help you get a career in music.

http://www.pinksuzie.com/2007/04/05/mr-singapore-2007-reuben-kee/ EDIT: Effector sucks.

Like BGC, I actually had difficulty picking out Living Waterway at first because of how completely different it sounds, even though melody is actually relatively close. Very nice interpretation of the source in that regard, especially with the flourishes down at the end like at 2:22-2:25 and 2:31-2:37 instead of just hitting with an exact repeat of the melody immediately (which does eventually come at 3:00). The repetition of the percussion and other backing does take a toll on the remix, but there's no full on copy-pasting; even though that melody from 0:22-0:44 is repeated twice, the backing behind it is different each time. Specifically, there's more to it each time, and that combined with the other sections like 2:15-3:00 make the piece do feel like it's going somewhere, even with the amount of repetition that's going on. The production is good enough, the arrangement is fine, and the repetition is fine with me because it doesn't feel at any point like the piece is really stagnating. More variation would've been good, and I can see where the NO's are coming from, but this one works for me. YES

Arrangement is okayish. Definitely room for improvement in each of the individual source sections. Monkey Island Theme is pretty close to the original, with some additional repetition and a few little melody changes here and there. The transition to the Zelda melody at 1:13 was actually really smooth, but I thought as a whole that section didn't flow well at all with the rest of the track. Zelda overworld is pretty coverish with the melody. Transition to the cemetery theme isn't too bad either. Melody's pretty close, but there's a little bit of change to it, and the original bassline and pads are good additions. Transition at 3:18 was the weakest by my reckoning, but still not a mess. LeChuck's Theme got the most arrangement, and is easily my favorite part of the medley. Overall, I'd definitely like to see more interpretation in the sources, especially in the second section. Second and third transitions could be cleaned up a little bit, but the only big medleyitis hit was in the Zelda section, which just doesn't really fit at all in there. I'm definitely not saying you can't mix tracks from different games, but they should at least combine into a cohesive whole, and they currently don't. Guitar is good, nice and clean. Didn't think the percussion was that bad, but there's room for improvement; mix it up in the first and fourth sections, etc. The cemetery section was a good break from the rocking of the other sections, but it's actually too good of a break; as zirc said, it's pretty limp compared to everything else, dragging its legs through the whole thing. Spice that up a bit. This is pretty close, but I can't give it to you quite yet. The start and end are pretty good, but it's the middle two sections that I'm not comfortable with. Get the Zelda and cemetery sections integrated better into the track (style for the first, energy for the second), be more interpretive of the sources, and come back with another shot. NO (resubmit)

I like how I could tell by the first five seconds that Sakuraba wrote this source tune. The first 1:50 of your mix still sounds like every single Sakuraba battle theme ever. Decent dynamics for the build in that section, but it is rather simplistic in both arrangement and composition and does drag. After that, though, the arrangement of the source is all kinds of fine, and the piece becomes quite a bit more interesting to listen to also. Liontamer and zircon pushed at mechanical sequencing. The piano is definitely not as robotic as it could have been, but there's definitely room for improvement on that. Some passages like 2:09-2:12, 3:09-3:12, 4:04-5:04, etc. I thought were really hurting for a more human touch. Everything else could use more humanization in too, but those in particular were the biggest offenders that set off my red light. As for the sound, definitely pull down the reverb. Get a better sample that you don't have to drench so much in order for it to sound not so bad. This one has promise on the arrangement side, but tweak the sequencing to make the playing seem more real and work on getting the sound better. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, not enough done on the arrangement side of the mix. 0:31-1:12 is pretty directly from the source, 1:12-1:32 has a little bit of arrangement in the form of bumping up that string passage a few notes, 1:48-1:53 and 1:58-2:03 are bassline rips of 0:18-0:22 with original stuff on top, and that's it as far as I can hear. Your original material fits in with the mix pretty well, so props on that. The source is pretty sparse, but try to interpret it more in the mix like you did in a couple of places. Production, I'm drowning here. Very mechanical sequencing also. Tone down the reverb and try to make your sounds more distinct, and add more in the way of dynamics and other contrast. NO

Cribbing the arrangement analysis from Larry and Andy because they were hella thorough and hit everything I could hear. Not quite enough of the original piece in here for a pass. The interpretation of the original when it's in the mix is fine, and the production is all fine. Definitely feeling the groove bias with this one as is; nice flow, and the sounds all work. With more source to put this over the 50% mark, I'd YES this. NO (resubmit)

Dayum. Recording has hiss all over the place, and there's delicious clipping as well. Vocals are... soulful. Instruments aren't terribly coordinated, which really just adds to the flavor. Arrangement is oddly the best part of this mix. DAYUM

Arrangement is pretty nice. I was hoping for an organ and/or solo some time, but I'll make do with sax action. Whippin' bass is nice too. The solo section from 1:29-3:01 sounds original except for 2:41-2:48, which is liberally 0:10-0:15 of the source; big chunk of the song, but easily less than half, and there's enough source in the rest of the song so that it's not a problem. So yeah, production. Your bassline is hot, but it's doing nothing buried under everything like it is now. It's a little better during the solo section, but definitely pump that up. Drums are über-weak everywhere except the beginning and. Those are sequenced well too and need more kick. Organ is also pretty subdued; as zirc said, everything except the sax are too indistinct. Gotta let those parts shine instead of just mashing them all together in the back, because your writing ain't bad. Other things of note: the stereo separation on the saxes doesn't need to be so extreme, and the sax just drops in volume all of a sudden at 1:37 and stays too soft until 1:50 (and could stand to be longer through the whole solo section). This is passable with more work. Tighten up the production screws and send this one back. NO (resubmit)

Liontamer and zircon hit up the production side pretty well on this one, so I'm going to focus on the arrangement, since I'm having a really hard time figuring out what you've used. Most of the harp from the start to 1:29 seems to be a take on the source guitar at 1:10-1:30, ranging from somewhat recognizable to "whoa son, that's liberal." Couldn't place the subtle melody at 0:38-1:05; 0:44-0:57 I can hear in the source at 0:57-1:07. I really like the break at 1:03-1:06. Gearshift at 1:33 is kinda iffy, but not that bad. 1:33-2:12 seems all original to me except for the harp that comes back in on the arps again. The new melody at 2:24-2:50 could possibly be a liberal take on the melody of 1:10-1:34; it goes off on a new direction at the ends of the phrases, but the beginnings are similar. 2:53-2:56 is an easy reference to the four note descending figure at 1:07-1:10 and elsewhere, and then it's back to the arps again. 3:22-3:47 has a synth that hits that figure again. Piano outro at 3:57 busts out a new take on the arps that starts off closer to the guitar at 0:44-1:08. 4:23 to the end hits closer to the guitar at 1:10-1:30 than anything else in the mix. Here's what I'm comfortable linking back to the source: 0:44-0:57 (source: 0:57-1:07) 1:00-1:03 (source: 1:26-1:35) 2:24-2:56 (source: 1:07-1:34) 3:22-3:47 (source: 1:07-1:10) 4:23-4:39 (source: 1:10-1:30) total: 89 seconds (out of 289: 30.8%) With a little bit of cajoling, I'll also buy: 3:57-4:23 [noparse](source: 0:44-1:08)[/noparse] 4:39-4:49 (source: 1:10-1:30) new total: 125 seconds (43.3%) But even if I throw in all of the arps, this mix is way too liberal for my tastes. I had to work to nail down everything I've listed above, and even looking at everything and switching back and forth between the original and your mix, it's still hard to draw the connections. There are a bunch of sections that have a similar sound, but a similar sound does not a remix make. I'm certainly not asking for a MIDI rip here, but bring in more connections, both with what you've already used and what you haven't used in the source. This one strayed too far from the path. NO

Poison Mind (0:00-0:16) Direct sound upgrade from the source. Wicked Child (0:16-2:12) Direct sound upgrade from the source with additional rhythm guitar, background pads, and better drums. Vampire Killer (2:16-3:17) Direct sound upgrade with better drums, except for 2:24-2:31 and 2:55-3:02, which also have some rhythm riffs and background synth work. Heart of Fire (3:21-4:42) Direct sound upgrade with better drums and background pads, with slight melodic interpretation at 3:56-4:00 and 4:07-4:15. Original stuff during the transitions at 2:12-2:16, 3:18-3:21, and 4:42-4:57 is way too little, too late. There is almost no arrangement done to any of the sources beyond dropping in some better drums and shredding one of the voices. Transitions are weak also. This is basically four completely direct covers of the source tunes joined together, and nowhere close to the bar on the arrangement side. Cool though. Not saying your guitarwork is bad or anything, because you have some nice covers. But covers are not for OCR. NO EDIT: Amended the section on Heart of Fire slightly because I left out the only melodic interpretation in the mix. Meant to get that in there, but it slipped. Already factored it into my vote.

Uncharted Waters II, I approve. UWII: Special Edition is an amazing album (Kanno, I know, right?), and the original pieces are snazzy too. Nice source pick. Arrangement here is decent enough. I think the first half would've been better if it had built up into something even darker and tense to set up the contrast with the "ray of sun" feel-good second half. I have to say that it's really the production dragging this one down. First off, pump up the volume. Don't just uniformly do it across the whole track, though, but instead use a larger dynamic range as well. You have several sections that are screaming for bigger changes, like 1:52-2:04. There's some variety when instruments drop in and out, especially at the beginning and end, but overall the track is too flat. The writing is pretty mechanical also, linking back with there not being enough dynamic contrast, so definitely drop some humanization in this too. Biggest problem are the strings at 1:52-2:04: same hit every single time. It sounds like the timing is off there too; intentional or not, it's not working as is. I'd like to see a bit more oomph in your flute lines as well. There's a little bit of improvement at 1:28-1:36, and the last part at 3:28-3:52 is much better, but there's definitely more room for it to let loose and sound less canned than it does now. Good ideas, but it's the execution that's the killer. Take this one back to the shop and tune it up. NO (resubmit)

Oh yeah, nice arrangement. Thought the transitions at 2:16-2:18 and 2:53-2:58 were a bit weak; the movement of the piece to the climax is perfectly fine, and the sections of the track do fit together, but the crescendos just seem a little bit too rough in what's otherwise a smooth, emotional piece. First one especially. Otherwise, totally feeling your take on Celes. Good amplification of the feelings of the original. I don't mind that there's no bottom end in the first half because I don't think it detracts at all from your nice nice nice writing. Percussion is pretty weak when it's actually there; definitely fatten that up, because it has no kick at all. More lows in general in the second half in particular would make the build in that direction nicer. Production could definitely be better, but it's not bad enough to pass this one up. YES

Yeah, pretty much. In your Flashback mix, even though the transitions were also fairly weak, there was still a solid overall shape to the piece, at least in the first three minutes or so. Felt like you lost track of where you were trying to head at 3:08, but it recovers down the stretch. Here, though, the whole package feels much more aimless, because the parts don't lock together by themselves. Might do well alongside a video, but standalone, it's far too jumpy and feels much more like a bunch of pieces glued together. I like your individual arrangement ideas (especially the added stuff to Lester's Lab at 1:18-1:51), but try to hook them together into a song that sounds like it's one song and not four or five. NO

Production is solid. Could use a little bit more dynamic variation, as well as more originality in the sounds, etc. All been said. I thought the intro section riff that Liontamer and Palpable mentioned was an okay use of the source. Slowed down from the original and modified a little bit, but I felt it was still recognizable enough. Giving 0:14-0:42, 2:43-2:57, 3:40-3:54, 4:23-4:40, and 5:45-6:06 source connections too puts this easily over the 50% bar, so I don't have a problem with the raw amount of source usage. Looking at the big picture, though, I don't think the overall arrangement quite stacks up. You've made some personalization, but then just ride those changes through almost the entire mix. There's a huge three minute block in the middle of the mix without anything new and exciting from the source side, finally ending at 5:09. Original stuff is fine and links in well, but my overall feel of the piece is that there isn't enough done with the source between the original stuff. pixie's saying the connection being "spread thin over a 6+ minute track" was a fine way of putting it. With more variety in both production (sounds + dynamics) and arrangement (source interpretation), this could be a very good remix. But as it stands, both areas are sitting at okay but unremarkable, and that's leading me to a very close NO (resubmit)

My initial call on this was an extremely narrow YES, but I've talked with some of the judges and given some more thought to my decision. First off–and this absolutely has to be mentioned first and foremost–the first 2:18 of this mix is basically a sound upgrade of the original. There are a couple of personal touches, like the extra little melody line ender at 1:26-1:28, but for the most part, this goes beyond mere similarity; it's exactly the same, except with slightly better sounds. OCR is about arranging video game music by putting your own personal spin on it, not just recreating the original song note for note. Which is why it's absolutely infuriating that, from that point on, you've got lots of arrangement ideas in there. Guitar solo from 2:18-2:33 that's built on 1:39-1:44 of the original, another solo at 2:59-3:14 built on 0:51-0:54 of the original, good additive stuff at 2:52-2:59 and 3:14-3:28, an excellent progression at 3:28-4:13 that's four variations on 0:51-1:02 of the source, a nicely arranged section at 4:13-4:43 featuring varieties of the melody of 0:51-0:54 of the source combined with the keyboard accompaniment of 1:17-1:32, and a big fat ol' ending at 4:43 that's a huge take on the section right before the loop of the original. Where was anything even remotely resembling this level of arrangement in the first half of the track? Going for the exact same style as the original, epic orchestral rock, didn't help you at all either. It's certainly possible to remix a source in the same style (see Krispy's Halo mix Insurrection as an example), but you'll have to step up your arrangement game in other areas to compensate, and you haven't really here. More things you could do to the original are adding in even more instrumental variety, dropping in some tempo shifts; hell, just see the submissions standards: I see what you've done so far, and I like it a lot, but to go the distance, you'll have to add even more variety, and make this your piece, not just Shimomura's piece with some cool new additions. The production on this track is alright, and might be good enough if the arrangement were stronger, but it's not good enough to make up for less than ideal arrangement. The build from start to finish of the track would be a lot more dramatic if the dynamics were better; the mix is the same volume throughout almost the entire track and that detracts from the direction you're trying to give the piece. Instrument quality can use some work in a few places, most notably the orchestra in the intro and 3:29-3:40 and repeated guitar notes at 2:44-2:46. Would I say try to resub this one? Not really. As a cover, this is good, and the first half of the mix is a solid intro that's built on by the last half into a very nice climax. It might be more work trying to create a new first half and shoehorn the last half of this mix into it than to simply just make a new mix entirely. I'm sure you have the ability to get a mix onto OCR some day, but you'll have to make the whole mix your own, not just the last half of one. NO

I was NO on the first version of this, but I really like the new ideas you've thrown in. The arrangement's definitely improved. The interpretation level went up a little bit (like the string stabs from 1:22-1:40), and increasing the instrumentation variety of the source through the track helped (mainly during the chorus: the darker sound at 2:03-2:34 and overhauled ending at the end of the track give it much more flavor). Pulling in the length of the original section was also a good idea, as was changing up the ending. I didn't mind the cutoff of the first version (a cheap trick, but one I like), but this does a much better job of rounding out the track and gets a little more interpretation in there: two plusses. The additional stuff to fill out the instrumental work pretty well also. The new melody line at 0:24 is a great lead into the short break. The additional countermelody from 1:26-1:44 is good, and the volume boost you've given the background stuff from 1:42-2:03 helps bunches. The big drums from 3:55 to the ending are good too. I'm feeling much better about the arrangement level. I didn't have a big problem with the off-time horns in the first version, but this version definitely sounds better with the fixed timing in the beginning of the track. Unfortunately, they're still lagging a bit at 1:43-2:03, and this just sounds sloppy given that the timing is fine earlier. String stabs at 1:22-1:40 are clearly fake, but they add some nice menace to that section as is, so I don't think those need touching. More percussion variety would be nifty; the new drums in the ending are great, but I still think the instrumental section in the middle is still too empty for that loop to anchor from start to finish. It also interferes with the big drums. Toning it down or dropping it out completely at 3:55 would've helped because the part immediately after sounds too messy. There's still room for improvement, but I'm definitely feeling your changes from the first version. So much, in fact, that I'm now on the other side of the bar. YES

IggyBot's back in #ocremix, so !gigo <ocrwars> works again.

20:19 < DrumUltimA> oh come off it wingless, you're not black 20:19 <+TheWingless> 20:19 <+TheWingless> no, but I'm going to e3 and you bitches aint 20:19 <+TheWingless> 20:19 < DrumUltimA> snap! 20:19 <+GeoffreyTaucer> crackle! 20:19 < CHz> He's a booth babe. 20:19 <+GeoffreyTaucer> haha 20:19 < Cyan_Ide> Meh...not really into the whole "video games current events" thing anyway. 20:19 <+TheWingless> I'm Jack Thompson's apprentice 20:19 < DrumUltimA> hahaha 20:20 < CHz> So, by "going to e3," you meant that you're going to stand outside and yell illogical declamations at passers-by? 20:20 < theMuse> :3 20:20 < DrumUltimA> oh i'm so glad i get to be on irc with all of my ocr friends 20:20 <+GeoffreyTaucer> and try to save their souls from the evil that is gaming 20:20 <+TheWingless> CHz, eat ducks and shit fire! 20:20 < Cyan_Ide> haha 20:20 < CHz> Yeah, that's the stuff I'm talking about. 20:20 < theMuse> 20:20 < theMuse> NOT DUCKS 20:20 < theMuse> D: 20:21 <+TheWingless> Hey Chz, when I"m playing the Revolution, holding its patented controller near my trembling scrotal sack, I'll think you 20:21 <+TheWingless> deeply and dearly 20:21 < theMuse> o_O 20:21 < CHz> Make sure you don't get caught shoplifting it.

I love this piece. Saving it until the end of time. THE PROS I'm loving the percussion. The first 1:12 of the track has none of it at all, so the simple cymbal loop that starts up then makes a huge presence, and the freestyle loop riffage when the perc starts properly at 1:36 is boss. The ending is pretty tight too. I don't know what it is about them, but keep up the good work. Second, your leads: badass. I've looped the first 1:12 of this track like 15 times already, that's how much I love the writing and synths. They pick back up again near the end of the track, but I'm thinking about moving to Massachusetts so I can legally marry the first third of this track. THE CONS Most of this track feels too empty. In the first part, you've got the bass and drums on the bottom, and the hot synth action on the top, but nothing meaty enough in the middle to keep the whole thing solid. At 1:12, we get a nice synth in the middle, but all the leads drop out save one, which eventually goes away at 1:36. So now we have a solid base for the leads to come back to, and indeed when they hit at 2:24 the song cranks into awesometh gear, but 1:36-2:24 lasts too long by itself, especially since the synth does a whole lot of flipping back and forth between two notes. It occasionally hits a note below and one above, and the notes it alternates between switches, but that section is screaming for more variety. Much more pressing, though, is the arrangement factor. Takes guts to tackle a four-measure source tune, but you have to be really mindful of the balance between source and original material, and there's just too way much of the latter in this mix. I can hear occasional brief references to the source in one of the leads, most noticeable in the first twenty-five seconds or so, in the style of AeroZ's recent mix Wicked n' Floating: it hits the notes, but there are a ton of notes inserted as well to fill out the melody. Much more often, though, it's going on doing its own thing completely unrelated to the source, as do the rest of the leads. Other than the very faint use of the source verbatim in the background during the first part of the song from around 0:12-1:12, all the rest is original content. If the source connection were more substantial, I would pass this in a heartbeat, but until then, NO. I don't know how much you can do to what you've got without radically overhauling the whole thing, but make an effort for your old pal CHz, wouldja? I'd love to see something like this on the site some day.

Okay, first, there's more than thirty seconds of silence at the end of this track. Not cool at all. Second, even giving you five seconds of silence puts this mix under two minutes. I hope you've done really cool stuff to my favorite Metroid track ever. Decent attempt at fleshing out the original while keeping the unsettling flavor, but I wasn't really feeling the melody. The arrangement of it is there through the whole song, but the final result seems pretty aimless, especially in comparison with the original's. It just putters around, repeating similar phrases higher, lower, lower, higher, lower, higher, higher, lower, etc. The rest of the track doesn't really help that either. There's the occasional pad swell like 0:17-0:24 and break like 0:32-0:36, but nothing strong enough to make the track seem like it's doing anything more than spinning its wheels until the build from 1:25 to the end. Your instruments could use some serious work too. Quality of, first of all. I'm mainly thinking of that violin that comes in at 1:25. It's incredibly harsh on the low notes, incredibly thin on the high notes, and the attack on each note just hurts. The vocals aren't too great either. The writing is so mechanical that your sounds stick out even more. Pick any instrument save for that swelling pad and any two parts of the song with that instrument, and the instrument will be playing at the same volume. This ties back in with the aimlessness; it's hard to feel like you're going anywhere when everything sounds exactly the same. This one needs a lot of work on everything. You've got the personalization part of arrangement down, so now work on making the arrangement feel like it has a point. Work on your sounds too: get some better samples and try to use them better as well. NO

Very fun track. Excellent personal take on the awesome source (that's right), funkifizing the drive from the original into some sweet groove. The main melody is all over the mix, but you've got all sorts of twists on it throughout to keep it fresh, as well as additional supporting writing, like the organ in the chorus repeat at 1:15-1:28 and mallets in that repeat and the one at 2:23-2:37. Even during the original organ solo at 1:01-1:14, the bassline is arranged from the very beginning of the source, so you've still got the original in there. I don't think I ever would've realized that you snuck in some FF9 at 1:29-1:56 if you hadn't said anything in your e-mail. The melody just fits in with the rest of the material perfectly. Great overall arrangement. I'm mostly fine with the fadeout ending, which the exception of the bass just rapidly dropping out at 2:49. It goes away far too abruptly without really sounding like it finished its phrase. Better closure on that would've improved the ending. Production is pretty slick. Your sounds are all clear and well balanced. I thought your drums could use a little bit more kick at 1:56-2:09 when they're exposed. Through the rest of the mix, they're fine, but right during that one section, I didn't feel there was enough anchoring the track. Some bass would've also done the job. Other than that, this sounds good to me. YES

I didn't hear the first sub, but I really like your dark take on Stickerbrush. Nice and brooding, with killer transitions at 1:06 and 2:14. When 2:42 hits, c'est magnifique. Very good spin on the source. I've got a bit of a repetition issue with this. 0:28-0:47 is repeated immediately at 0:48-1:06, and again with a little fuller instrumentation at 1:36-1:52 and 1:56-2:14. Since this is a slow song with only a few instruments, the repetition causes the piece to drag a bit. I don't really have a big problem with the third and fourth appearances, because the added textures (especially that new piano line) are decent enough to keep things moving, but then we get an exact hit of 1:06-1:36. If you could add more to 2:14-2:42 like you did to the repetitions preceding it, I think you'd have a great build into that final section. Other than that, the arrangement is grand. A few J's mentioned mechanical sequencing; I agree that this could definitely use some humanization, but I thought your arrangement was good enough that I didn't really mind. My other big thing is the sound. You might be going for a deep, restrained approach to this one, but this sounds too muffled overall. You said that you brought out the oboe, but I could use it even further out, because right now it doesn't stand out quite well enough against the piano and everything else. More instrument clarity in 1:06-1:36/2:14-2:42 (and generally overall) would be great too, because right now everything sounds too muddy. The biggest muddiness offender is your piano, especially from 1:55-2:14. Less reverb, maybe? This one's extremely close. Add a touch more variety to the arrangement (even just to 2:14-2:42), tune up the sound, and you're over the bar for sure. NO (resubmit)

Sadly not.