Pokemon R/S/E - Ending Theme (House / Electro)

[ElectricMudkip]

https://soundcloud.com/electricmudkip/pokemon-rse-ending-theme-remix

Hey OCR!

First-timer here on the forums. As a bit of background, I've been remixing for three years, and I like Pokemon a lot. I also mostly only focus on electronic genres.

My main reason behind posting today is to ask a question that I've been wondering about for a while now:

Is this structure of remix too liberal for OCR standards? I know most of my work probably is, and I already regret rashly deciding to send off a different remix to be judged for this very reason alone (whoops), but this is probably one of my more source-heavy tracks in a sense so as to know if this is more acceptable or not would be very much appreciated. Of course, if anyone has any extra criticisms, I'd love to hear them--I'm still very much an amateur when it comes to music, and I know I make a lot of dumb mistakes, haha. Thanks in advance!

[Uffe von Lauterbach]

Not too liberal or conservative if you ask me.

[mystaura]

Cool remix! Reminds me of 1990s stuff. It's not too liberal. I think arrangement is what remixes should be. Following the original arrangement is a cover to me. The part between 2:47-3:25 it's way too loud. I think lowering the crash would help with that.

It's a really great remix though. Great job!

[ElectricMudkip]

Thanks for the opinions! It makes me a little more reassured to know that at least some people think this a good balance for OCR, haha. And good point about the cymbals, mystaura--now that you mention it, they do seem to be loud, and that might be what's making that whole section as a result seem louder to you.

[timaeus222]

If you list what it is you intended your source usage to be, it'll help us evaluate (or try to evaluate) what could count and what might not count. Just the time stamps from the ReMix would be fine, as the source tune is fairly straightforward. Generally over 50% is recommended, but just saying that it "feels like it's enough" wouldn't be enough, though. It'd help to actually check.

[ElectricMudkip]

Oh right, haha. Good point. Sorry that I didn't do that in the first place.

1. 0:36 - 1:05 (both melodies present here are from the source. Main melody I'll label as A, other melody I'll label as

2. 1:34 - 2:04 (

3. 3:01 - 3:16 (altered melody B in background)

4. 3:31 - 4:00 (A)

5. 4:14 - 5:12 (new melody from source [C], altered from original)

6. 5:42 - 6:11 (A &

7. 6:11 - 6:26 (

Whether or not you count sections like #3 or #5 though, I'm not really sure, but I'll include them anyway.

[timaeus222]

Hm... that adds up to 185 seconds out of 393 (29+30+15+9+58+29+15), so, at least according to the attributions to the source that you gave yourself credit for (i.e. the max), it's at 47%. It might help to fill in the gap at 2:00 - 3:00. I would agree with you that 3:01 - 3:16 is too different. 4:14 - 4:45 might be using the original melody, but I actually can't hear it because it's overcome by the original melody you have there. So I would call it 35% instead.

What you have from 2:04 - 2:33 seems fairly close to Melody B, so I think it won't be too hard if you tweaked that, for example. 4:14 - 4:45 is a definite candidate for volume and EQ adjustments so you can bring out the actually-attributable melody. Even then, it would still be really close to 50%. So perhaps hinting at the theme in the intro can help too.

Ultimately, if there's more of the source tune incorporated than there is now, then a few abrupt transitions aside (2:33, 3:31) and the slight crowdedness at 4:45 aside, it has a pretty nice chance of being YESed. It couldn't hurt to also address those two things in addition, though. Those two sections, 2:33 and 3:31, sound like unexpected key changes, and 4:45 feels a touch crowded in the midrange.

Edited September 29, 2014 by timaeus222