What defines "too conservative"

[Bren]

I've been wondering this for a while now. I see WIPs on the wip board, including my own, be placed onto the panel and be disapproved mainly for being too close to the original.

My question is this: ***exactly*** what are the judges looking for in terms of original interpretation? I would like multiple examples if possible...as this has become a very frustrating aspect of remixing for me (for this site)

I ask this because I know there are a LOT of conservative sounding arrangements already on the site, and they have survived multiple lockdowns. Why is this? What makes them different from other conservative arrangements?

Would it be passable to take just the lead from a soundtrack, then remake everything else above, below and around it? Or would the lead being very close to the original warrant a "NO" because it was too similar to the original. This is a serious question, because lately, I have to question the actual judging process, as it seems to have unwritten policies a lot of the time regarding how interpretive a mix is compared to the original.

[Rozovian]

This is a problem I've brought up before, someone probably long before me too. The response I got when bringing this up in the feedback checklist thread is that too conservative means:

This could be used to describe a cover, direct rip, or in any other case where the review feels the piece is, in general, too close to the source. It's not that hard to understand.

Too conservative means just that. Too conservative. You're over-thinking it.

Too liberal is where over 50% of the track can't be traced to the source, but there's no such rule of thumb for when a remix is too conservative.

[Nase]

Would it be passable to take just the lead from a soundtrack, then remake everything else above, below and around it? Or would the lead being very close to the original warrant a "NO" because it was too similar to the original.

In this case the important question i think is what you actually do with the other parts. You could write new parts that still very much have the feel of the original track, not taking the track somewhere else. 'Taking the track somewhere else', some place interesting is probably a good way of doing it in general, and you don't have to necessarily change up everything for that.

Then again, if you have an extremely original arrangement going on and just paste the original lead on top of it, it might not communicate well with the rest going on. So at that point I guess it's up to you to decide what feels right.

There are remixes btw where I think, like, 'oh, he syncopated that note and did a pitch bend here to make it sound less close to the OST.' And it can sound pretty forced.

In the end, my approach would be to just be making the remix you'd like to hear and then think about whether OCR would like to have it. You're not OCR's bitch or something

[zircon]

I would like multiple examples if possible...as this has become a very frustrating aspect of remixing for me (for this site)

Just look at any ReMix posted in the last three years or so. That's absolutely the best way to figure out what an acceptable level of arrangement is.

I ask this because I know there are a LOT of conservative sounding arrangements already on the site, and they have survived multiple lockdowns. Why is this? What makes them different from other conservative arrangements?

Arrangements older than three years or so were passed or posted with a slightly lower bar than we have now (possibly much lower, pre-judges panel.) In any case, if you link to the mixes you think are "too conservative" I'd be happy to explain why they're still there or why they were passed.

[Bren]

Thanks for the replies everyone. A lot of what was said makes a lot of sense, and I feel a little more at ease now about the issue.

[Palpable]

It's hard to give anything specific on what is too conservative, because there are a lot of factors involved. I think that's why you get answers like those from zircon and DS above. It takes into account everything listed in the standards:

Modifying the genre, chord progression, instrumentation, rhythms, dynamics, tempo, or overall composition of the source material

Adding original solos, transitions, harmonies, counter-melodies, lyrics, or vocals to the source material

You can't point to any one of these and say there has to be this many changes or this percentage of changes. Even Larry's trademark 50% borderline for a song being too liberal is just a rough guideline, because changes can be significant or marginal, can lose or retain the feel of the original. And there have been songs that have passed with no change to melody, because the remixer changed other parts of the song significantly. Unfortunately, the best way to get an understanding of the standards is just to listen to as many recent, posted mixes as you can.

[Bren]

I have to agree about listening to recently posted mixes to get an idea of what an OCRemix sounds like in terms of originality. To be honest, I've never really thought about it before, because I haven't listened to many of the new mixes in the past couple of years.

I suppose it's worth a try, at least to get an idea.

In regards to the 50% rule, I was thinking mainly on older remixes which sounded very similar to the originals, but were still great remixes. Before now, I didn't realize that lockdowns were lenient on those particular remixes.

[DJ_JD]

I don't want to come off as lazy but I found out how to use Reason in Digital Performer. I only use a lead from a song and never the full thing for my mixes and I wanted to know do you think it is not fair, to easy or just not right to use the step record as I am more of a technology person than a true musician as I just can't keep tempo. Especially some of these video game pieces. I step record it or a variation of the lead line and use reason to get the sound I want. Is that being to conservative even though I work out the rest of the song? sweat drop:

(Didn't realize the posts go the other way. I guess I kinda asked the same question as the creater of the thread >.<)

[SnappleMan]

Holding yourself to OCR's (or anyone's) ridiculous standards is the most crippling thing you can do to yourself as a musician. Make the music you want to hear, if it happens to fall within OCR's guidelines, then submit. Too many people see getting on OCR as a status symbol and arrange music just to meet that, this results in mindless, meaningless music that does nothing for anyone who isn't listening with a heavy pinch of nostalgia.

[Nase]

Holding yourself to OCR's (or anyone's) ridiculous standards is the most crippling thing you can do to yourself as a musician. Make the music you want to hear, if it happens to fall within OCR's guidelines, then submit. Too many people see getting on OCR as a status symbol and arrange music just to meet that, this results in mindless, meaningless music that does nothing for anyone who isn't listening with a heavy pinch of nostalgia.

Exactly. When I discovered OCRemix and 'real' music apps in '04, I wanted to join that super exclusive club of OC Remixers soo badly, but at least I understood after a while that everything I produced with that mindset was utter crap.

Maybe I'll actually submit something sooner or later now that I'm more relaxed about it...

[Rozovian]

There's also a certain discipline you need to learn in order to get stuff done well enough. While OCR's standards don't specify genres or styles you gotta conform to, the source/interpretation requirement is a challenge for newbs to arranging - and as such a great reason to develop their arrangement discipline.

Also, I know my music has risen in quality since I came here and tried to conform to the standards. It's about setting goals. I made enjoyable music before, but people with critical music ears probably wouldn't enjoy those songs. The music I make now is a step up in quality, and it's because I had to improve to get stuff on OCR.

So while creative growth might be withheld by conforming to OCR's standards, it does serve as an incentive for technical growth.

[TheHands]

What I'd say is to write music for yourself first, then try reworking other people's works. It's hard to reimagine someone else's work if you're not sure what your own should sound like, or if you don't know the interface you're using very well.

[Jens Wulvik]

What I'd say is to write music for yourself first, then try reworking other people's works. It's hard to reimagine someone else's work if you're not sure what your own should sound like, or if you don't know the interface you're using very well.

That's so true. You have to gain your own style first, then you can do remixing by adding your own style, sound and creation to other people's work.

[-RK-]

Too conservative is when you rely on the source too heavily to compensate for a lack of skill or motivation to compose a well crafted piece of music.

[Lie Mf B]

What I'd say is to write music for yourself first, then try reworking other people's works. It's hard to reimagine someone else's work if you're not sure what your own should sound like, or if you don't know the interface you're using very well.

That is actually the opposite to the old rock 'n' roll saying, "You gotta fake it 'til you make it." Which means, you can't learn how to write songs without trying to interpret or imitate other people's music. That's basically how every super star musician alive today started out (ask the Beatles or the Stones). So from a general point of view, I don't agree with the quoted post.

But to make good and original re-interpretations of video game music, it helps very much if you have already developed a style.

Personally, I've faked my favourite artists' rock 'n' roll songs for years, and my style stems entirely from my old music heroes. This dictates my video games covers both conciously and unconciously. Sometimes I deliberately steal passages from Led Zeppelin and Hendrix songs, while the rest of the time it's impossible for me to play in any style other than what has come from years of listening and faking. At the same time, I enjoy "faking" the original vgm, sometimes making my songs "conservative".

So I guess you could summarize a basic remix school as such:

1. Develop your style from music you like.

2. Possibly write original music to consolidate your style.

3. Make video game remixes and notice how your style comes through.

4. Get accepted by the OCR judges if your style is strong enough (combined with technical skills).

[Bren]

That is actually the opposite to the old rock 'n' roll saying, "You gotta fake it 'til you make it." Which means, you can't learn how to write songs without trying to interpret or imitate other people's music. That's basically how every super star musician alive today started out (ask the Beatles or the Stones). So from a general point of view, I don't agree with the quoted post.

But to make good and original re-interpretations of video game music, it helps very much if you have already developed a style.

Personally, I've faked my favourite artists' rock 'n' roll songs for years, and my style stems entirely from my old music heroes. This dictates my video games covers both conciously and unconciously. Sometimes I deliberately steal passages from Led Zeppelin and Hendrix songs, while the rest of the time it's impossible for me to play in any style other than what has come from years of listening and faking. At the same time, I enjoy "faking" the original vgm, sometimes making my songs "conservative".

So I guess you could summarize a basic remix school as such:

1. Develop your style from music you like.

2. Possibly write original music to consolidate your style.

3. Make video game remixes and notice how your style comes through.

4. Get accepted by the OCR judges if your style is strong enough (combined with technical skills).

*cough* I actually caught myself faking this past month in my own original WIPs. Although to me, it didn't feel right...it kind of felt like this isn't my style, and I'm just learning to copy other people. I don't know if I like that. I've kind of had my own style since I started 5 years ago, and lately, it feels like I've just been copying other people. It's almost as if I reversed the process, y'know?

That aside, I've become much less concerned with getting accepted on OCR as of late, though I most likely will try again in the future. For now, I'm just doing my own thing in music, and the occasional VG Cover.