OCR01324 - *YES* Sonic & Knuckles 'Tomorrow's Wake' *RESUB*

[Liontamer]

Original decision: http://www.ocremix.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=50559

ReMixer name: Rexy

Real name: Bev Wooff

Email: bev.wooff@gmail.com (Thankyou Mr Oji!)

OCRemix user ID: 7528

REMIX INFO:

Remix title: "Tomorrow's Wake"

Game covered: Sonic & Knuckles

Individual song covered: Sky Sanctuary Zone

Song link:

---

First of all, I thank you gentlemen for your (eventual) analysis concerning my previous submission "Tomorrow's Wake" (version 1). I've managed to learn a lot of things within the week leading towards the decision's posting, and to see the final results also come along they have also worked on to sort out the eventual decision.

So in the course of the day following the posting I spent time tidying up the piece and re-mastering the source. (See? I can work pretty fast in a piano roll, huh?) They included the re-shaping of some of the timing/dynamics, a hint of transposing, the changing of the sample (the only way to get rid of the bleedin' plunkiness you stated ) and some more cautious reverb work.

Thanks for your time when going through the re-vision. I hope this goes down well, but if not, let me know.

Less hesitance, more judge-appreciation.

Peace out,

-Rexy-

[Malcos]

Sample is still a bit dodgy, but I'm not gonna nitpick. This is a lot more dynamic than the last submission, and I said yes last time so obviously I'm gonna say it this time. Another case of arrangement beating sample quality.

YES

[danny B]

This is better than the original submission. I said yes to the original, so obviously,

YES

-D

[analoq]

well, it's a little better now.

but the velocity/rhythm patterns still seem amateurish.

and unfortunately the darker sample exposes more of the less-appealing voicing choices.

the piano players in the community will probably scrutinize this like i have, but i'd say it's improved itself into a passable effort.

yes (borderline)

[Digital Coma]

New sample is better, recording is cleaner, tone is warmer. But the problem of plunkiness still remains, courtesy of the stiff and occasionally spiked velocities on key notes. Thanks to the improved mixing, it's a little easier to ignore.

My main problem with this work was and still is the original phrasings and voicings, which aren't too interesting; the arrangement is best when interpreting and improvising on the theme. But as a whole, the rearrangement is fine.

Past these problems from last time, my borderline no has turned to a borderline YES

[GrayLightning]

Well said by Binnie. I completely agree. As he suggested, I think the stronger velocities on the higher notes are the most problematic, but that's nitpicking.

My main problem with the mix before was the hesitancy and robotic execution of the piece. For the most part this is addressed and it really does sound much more convincing, and better.

Not the most daring piano solo mix by recent standard, but what's here is quite endearing. Nice arrangement, good enough production and nice execution. This is what you should have sent us in the first place.

Welcome to the OCR canon. YES

[Liontamer]

Modified from my WIP board comment. I purposefully waited for others to vote first.

http://www.zophar.net/gym/SK+SONIC3.RAR - 24 Sky Sanctuary

Kinda funny how you were saying at VGMix (paraphrase) "What the hell is Vigilante talking about 'bring it down a third', what does that meeeeeean?!?!?" It was just a music theory term, not something meant to confuse you or sound forceful.

Like I said in the first vote, since you played the track live, I think if you had played through the piece a few more times to get more comfortable with playing it, it would haved flowed better, which is still the case to me for parts of the track.

Nonetheless, I think you did a beautiful job working on this revision. Transposing it downward and creating a slightly fuller atmosphere brought about a great result. Much more emotive and memorable, and the track still manages to give off an intimate setting. You really did some nice work eliminating some of the more jarring & awkward intensity changes that plauged the track, creating dynamics that were more natural-sounding. Absolutely excellent.

For someone like Bev, who takes negative criticism pretty harshly (VERY harshly), a borderline NO can somehow seem just as harsh as a straight 4N. For all the people that get pissed at us for rejections, especially close ones, I disagree with vilifying the judging process or being greatly discouraged. We're simply going by the strengths of your arrangement, production & performance. If you get NOed but desperately want a piece to be accepted, then you've gotta take a step back at the decision and subsequently step up your effort.

The important thing I hope you gained from the process, Bev, is that you yourself like this version of the track more and feel that the criticisms given out have helped you to create something that you are personally more satisfied with than before. I'm not saying our word is gospel, but I think you'll be able to look back on the first version of the track in the long-run and see how it had the potential for improvement.

If the criticisms received on this piece as well as your other disputed NO from Crash Bandicoot 3 have helped you assess your pieces and have lead to self-improvement that genuinely makes you feel you're a better artist, then we've accomplished our purpose in giving your our concerns and asking you to come back.

So, yeah, I realize the rejections suck, but why grumble in the Chatterbox about how collectively bad/confusing/mean we are if you get one? If you have a track rejected in the future, you can vent, but just place your focus on whatever valid advice you obtain in order to benefit your material.

YES