Liontamer ⚖️ Posted Sunday at 07:01 PM Posted Sunday at 07:01 PM (edited) Artist Name: Craig Jackson High-speed heartbreak meets nostalgic 90s rock. Driving guitars and soaring choruses capture the loneliness and adrenaline of F-Zero’s racers, blending speed with the quiet ache of retirement. Games & Sources F-Zero - Big Blue Edited 2 hours ago by pixelseph
Liontamer ⚖️ Posted Sunday at 10:38 PM Author Posted Sunday at 10:38 PM The track was 4:47-long, so I needed to hear the VGM used for at least 143.5 seconds to consider the source material dominant. :00-1:16, 2:30-2:55, 4:33-4:42 = 90 seconds or 31.35% source usage The lack of direct source usage & substantive arrangement is an automatic dealbreaker for me. NO Opens with a spirited rock cover, clearly not a real guitar, but a serviceable sound. Definitely the longest stretch of invoking the source material, and then the non-VGM arrangement at least sounds similar enough to the source material that it doesn't feel as disconnected from the VGM as the previous tracks. Not to be outdone though, the dropoff at 3:33 was absolutely in a different mood/style from the rest of the song before going back to an even more intense original/non-VGM section at 3:57. Part of the problem of doing all of these tracks using the same voice across multiple tracks and the same basic song construction is just creating a samey feel to all these concepts, even with different sources & genres. ----------------------------------- Checklist: - Minimal VGM arrangement, mostly unrelated composition - Any direct VGM arrangement is very straightforward and brief - Warbly vocals - Lyrics also feel AI-prompt generated, too on the nose with the rhyming, always extended character meta-narratives - Staid, limited drum writing - Dynamics possibly undercut by limiter on volume 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.
prophetik music ⚖️ Posted Tuesday at 12:22 PM Posted Tuesday at 12:22 PM not enough source again. there's some fun stuff in the actual vgm sections, even if they're not real instruments. lyrics are better than some of the other tracks this dude submitted (although the whole verse around the 3m mark is nonsense), but i agree they're kind of tired by halfway through the dozen. the section at 3:33 has a bunch of conflicting notes even without the vocals going 110% over a bunch of strings, and that slide at the end is pretty silly. same with the sustain at the end of the song. NO
paradiddlesjosh ⚖️ Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago (edited) 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 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 Edited 5 hours ago by paradiddlesjosh
Chimpazilla ⚖️ Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 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 3 hours ago Posted 3 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