Liontamer ⚖️ Posted Sunday at 06:48 PM Posted Sunday at 06:48 PM (edited) Yes, the grammar is wrong in the title. I'm just carrying over what was there. -LT Artist Name: Craig Jackson Yoshi’s gentle heart meets smooth R&B grooves in this soulful reimagining. Layered vocals and warm instrumentation convey the quiet sting of abandonment, turning a familiar staff roll into an intimate confession of melancholy. Games & Sources Super Mario World - Staff Roll Edited 5 hours ago by pixelseph
Liontamer ⚖️ Posted Sunday at 09:40 PM Author Posted Sunday at 09:40 PM The track was 4:33-long, so I needed to hear the VGM used for at least 136.5 seconds to consider the source material dominant :03-:41, 1:32-1:42, 1:45-1:52, 2:47-2:49, 4:01-4:19 = 78 seconds or 28.57% source usage There's likely some progressions I'm overlooking re: counting source usage, but it's not a close call. The lack of direct source usage & substantive arrangement is an automatic dealbreaker for me. NO On a production level, these vocals always sound warbly, so that's definitely not ideal; since these are AI-generated vocals, that's gonna have to wait for the tech to catch up. It's difficult for a non-musician like me to articulate, but while the instrumentation sounds pretty serviceable, but it very much sounds like it has genre pockets it falls into. Drum writing once again doesn't sound bad, but feels very staid. I know Craig claimed he wrote the lyrics for these, but once again, the lyrics seem generated by prompt, not written. And two tracks in now, this again seems to have the formula of briefly but straightforwardly referencing the VGM, then completely going disconnected from arranging anything from the source theme. ----------------------------------- Sorry if my perception of this undersells how much actual human-generated content is there, Craig. If I had to bet on it though, this comes across like prompt-generated lyrics and the song structure isn't dynamic enough or connected enough to the original VGM to feel like it's mostly Craig's direct input on this. I definitely don't want a trend of people sending AI-generated content here, no matter how good it ends up being. The aim is to highlight skill, intention, and creativity with human-created, human-written, human-produced music. When you take human decision-making out of the equation, even if the end result sounds good, it wouldn't be people genuinely creating the music.
paradiddlesjosh ⚖️ Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is only the second of two tracks flooded into our submission queue in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO
Chimpazilla ⚖️ Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO
pixelseph ⚖️ Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
Recommended Posts