Vig

I'm definitely fine with the guitar sound, as well as the piano. Clearly doesn't need to sound realistic. Putting the drums way left is an interesting decision. I love the arrangement. There's a little mud in the low mids; a bit washy, but it's really not egregious. There's a ton of cool stuff going on. Love the backwards strings. Pretty easy YES

I'd bring up the drums, and lay back a bit on the pads. The mix is certainly good enough to pass though. Sparkly. I think this track is good, and the atmosphere works well, but I feel the arrangement is a bit meandering. I feel the energy level could use a jolt in some places. Just when I expect some big saw lead to come in or something, the groove will drop out into a wash of pads. I'd really like to see you focus your direction with the arrangement. Close, but I'm not really satisfied yet. NO BTW, I've got no problem with the liberal arrangement. Enter Larry.

I'd like to start by congratulating you all on a truly...spectacular discussion. Somewhere out there there's a guy sitting at a workbench making stopwatches, and you guys are putting his kids through college. Love the arrangement, and your piano sample has a nice wide stereo field. I could go on, but on a submission where the only point of debate is whether the arrangement is a little bit too liberal, is it really any mystery where I'm going to land? YES

I don't know if there's anything really wrong with his tone so much as his tuner. The tone is okay. But why are the guitars dry? Reverb, people. The arrangement is good. The bass is too low. I know it's not prominent in metal, but my speakers are against the wall and push the hell out of 90-120Hz and I'm not hearing any of that, so you've got some compensating to do. I'd re record the guitars, in tune this time. Then I would make the bass a couple dB louder, and I would throw a little reverb on those guitars. Then you're done. NO

I really like where you're heading with this, although it's not quite ready. What's working: The arrangement. I think it's great, and I disagree with OA that it needs to be more melodic. You have dynamics, you have harmony, you have texture. What's not working: Those vocal samples are really irking me. I would if at all possible, try to meet a singer who can sing the part. Meeting musicians is really not that hard; it's just a skill that tends to be missing from the average OCRemixer's skillset. If you can't do this, try brighening the vocals up in the mix. carve out a little 200-300Hz maybe, boost around 10k. The other thing I think this mix could use is more overall level. There's really not a lot here in terms of dynamic peaks, so maybe just slap a nice limiter on it and booost! NO

I don't think it's too close to the original at all...There's definitely a lot of material added, and the structure/arrangement is different. My problem with this mix is that the parts are incredibly repetitive. I'm not speaking of the larger arrangement of the song, but in a given section, many of the parts repeat ad nauseum. For instance, most of the edgier synths in the first half of the song...well they just don't quit. I agree about the lead sound towards the end. NO

I hear what you guys are saying about the samples. The piano I think is more an issue with somewhat mechanical sequencing than the sample itself, but I think the string attacks are too long for the parts. Also, I think the stereo separation is a bit jarring to say the least, and not particularly natural. Strings are hard panned, as are choirs and synths. I realize if you're working with mono samples this can be difficult to navigate, but the mix could benefit from a more natural stereo field. However I feel like these are really easy issues to fix. So lets hear this again soon, k? NO

there's some sloppiness here that could be excusable in one or two places, but cumulatively gets really grating. I'm mainly speaking harmonically and rhythmically, there are places where the piano will play a note that seems to be ignoring the harmony, for instance :31. Once the synthesizer comes in, I'm jarred by the rhythmic spasticity of that part. This is one case where quantization is your friend. aside from that, I agree with Shariq that the tune meanders. Say what you want to say more efficiently (I should talk) NO

Halfway through the song I'm already begging for something different. 2 minutes in this happens. I would really consider shortening the A section and extending the bridge. by 2:22 it's back to the first groove, albeit with a busier lead. That groove gets a little tiresome, as it doesn't have a great deal of momentum. I have no problems with the production that I think are relevant, but the arrangement needs to be tighter. I don't think it would take a great deal of time, but trim down the first part and put a little more development into the bridge section. As it is, the major section is a bit too tiresome to devote so much time to it. Don't get me wrong, the track sounds great, just trim the fat a bit. NO

Hmm...I really dig the instrumentation. The lead guitar is cool, even if it does sound like the mic was 20 feet away from the speaker...the soundsape is really good, but the mixing isn't. The low mids are muddy, the bass is boomy, and until the organ and distorted guitar come in, the middle sounds scooped. I love btw, the guitar and organ entrance. However, the lead guitar is buried beneath the wall. For the first minute or two i was going to say the arrangement is too conservative, but i'm telling you, that organ section kicked ass. I hate to use the yes conditional, but I'm thinking this thing is just about there, save a couple of mixing issues. Really wouldn't take much to fix. Yes Cond. -bring out lead guitar, make rhythm guitar warmer, a bit less boom in the bass.

Thanks for clarifying, but the production is the least of this guy's problems. the arrangement isn't really what I'd consider coverish: he dumbed-down the harmony and added a bunch of clumsy mistakes. He "arranged" the string part to make it sound less like a well-written NES song and more like a deaf 5-year-old playing a game of Chase the Melody. He's got some decent instrumentation ideas, but the composition in this tune is atrocious.

[Content missing] I get the feeling that having never heard this in earlier iterations before, I have a bit of a fresh perspective that you guys may be lacking. I'm having serious trouble identifying why you guys think this thing is [over] the bar. Larry Deliberate [is an understatement]. I know you're being generous, but maybe you shouldn't. Palp admits [You're damn right. The harmony is dumbed-down from the original, with a sprinkling of outright mistakes for good measure] Too bad we don't post remixes based on how hard the remixer tried. Shariq likes the Really? Exactly which part of the soundscape? The muddy plodding strings, the "plinky" piano, or the bone dry, paper thin chorus which for some reason is standing to my right? Soundscape votes YES [because] "the arrangement is pretty cool." [Content missing] Dumbing down the harmony doesn't count. Guys, the only [solid] part of this song is the bridge. Again, sorry for being a dick about it, but you guys were asleep at the wheel for this one and you need a wakeup call. You're all still totally invited to my birthday party.

Why are the vocals off to the right in the beginning? The mix is really muddy mainly thanks to the strings. The arrangement is also kinda clunky..what's with all the 1/8th note octave strings? Try some harmony. The break is the bright spot of the song. It's really cool. Unfortunately it's not from zelda at all. This needs lots of work on all fronts. Good luck. NO

This is really cool. I like the arrangement a lot. My main issue is with the mixing. The samples aren't great, but I'm not going to hold it against you. However, there's an overwhelming feeling that the samples are separate..there's no shared ambience. The bass feels too scooped..it's a bit boomy, but also thin on top. There's tons of string noise, but it really needs more definition around 1-2 kHz. As for the ensemble sound, I might add some chorus to the non-lead horns to give it a little size, and maybe don't pan them quite so hard. or just share a reverb. The drums could use a bit more meat too, try compressing that snare a bit. I really love your arrangement, and I hope you tweak the mix a bit and resubmit. NO

Oh my. How embarrassing for the both of us. Mainly me.

I'm going to go ahead and YES first, and listen later. You guys know that shnabubula is the most talented musician in the community, bar none, right? Just checking. ggggah...you have no idea how much it pains me to say this, but I think I agree with Larry on the source tune usage. Compare this to "Sugar, Water, Purple." That tune was a clear, creative extrapolation of a simple theme. That 5 note melody is obviously the foundation of the whole piece, which spends 5 minutes developing. This on the other hand, at times sounds like Sam was just playing whatever, occasionally remembering it's supposed to be based on mario, and then at other times it's got a cut and dry case of medlytits. There's no real direction or focus to it; it doesn't sound like a song. Not Shna's best work... NO

I could do without the string synth in the back. It takes up space but doesn't add anything. get rid of it and reduce mud in the mix. Hmmm...sounds like that's going to be my main complaint with this thing in general: too much going on that isn't well-enough separated. some of those busy synths sound too similar and are placed too close in the stereo field, it just gets really messy. I don't think those strings/pad synths add anything at all the whole tune through, so i'd get rid of it. great tune, but work on clearing out some space. NO

The mixing could use a little work, though I don't think the drum placement is anything worth rejecting the submission for. The bass is there, but it could use a bit more presence. Too bottom heavy. I don't have a problem with open space, but problems arise when you're using samples because empty space exposes the artificiality of your instruments. One other problem I have is that the lead synths are kind of washy. They aren't very well separated either by panning or spectrally, so when those synths come in, suddenly the mix sounds really messy. I think this submission would be easy to fix. NO

I know this is a great track and everything, but it's really poorly mixed, and frankly that's a NO, not a yes conditional. The vocal treatment is nice, but where is the bottom end? That bass is really thin and bare. My speakers are usually boomy as hell around 110Hz, but there's nothing here. This is not a big issue in that you can remix it and resubmit it and it shouldn't take you a ton of time, but as is, NO

I'm not going to complain about the dissonance or original/source ratio, but i'm leaning towards NO on this one because it's really...not complete, structurally. It's really slow to get started, which is fine by me, i'm really patient when it comes to listening to music (far more so than Mr. Lloyd, anyway), but this never really develops. It only gets started towards the end, and while it seems to be building dynamically, it never gets there. This seems like it has another 4 minutes of song before the ideas are developed.

Cool. You are clearly going for a sort of retro revival sound, and it's great. Larry thinks your instruments are too simple or something. Idunno. They are mixed well so it doesn't bother me that they aren't overly complex. Great dynamic use of reverb. Yes it's pretty straightforward, but the execution is excellent. YES

Nice concept, somewhat sloppy execution. You guys are doing some cool stuff, but it's just not ready for primetime yet. You need a more organized arrangement. Keep it up though. NO

The melody is recognizable, if somewhat altered. I can see this one being somewhat divisive, but it certainly is no worse than some of Wingless' artistic "transgressions" with regard to liberal interpretation. Ignoring that issue, the piece sounds great, and is well arranged. I might have asked for more variation in the beat, which gets a bit tiresome, but I'm not going to complain too loudly. This sounds great. YES

This is pretty, but it's so underdeveloped. I agree that the samples are more important in a sparse tune like this, but I don't think the samples are the problem. I'd just really like to hear a little more direction. It doesn't hold up as a strictly atmospheric CotMM type tune, so I'm waiting for more. NO

I think the arrangement here is great. My problem with this track is purely on the mixing end. The track is both quiet and dark. The beat is way back, and the whole tune is not quite muddy, but distinctly muted. More shimmer! The problem may be that those pads eat up a lot of space in the 250Hz range. Use a reference mix tocompare frequency content. Maybe something by bliss or Delirium. NO