Liontamer

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

I gave a little more credit that Gario based on some of the brief 4-note variations clearly taken from the source that were sprinkled in beyond the two main arrangement sections. For me, they were enough to put the source usage over 50% of the track and make the VGM the dominant part of the arrangement. The track was 2:09-long, so I needed at least 64.5 seconds of overt source usage for the VGM usage to be dominant: :16.75-:45, 48.75-49.75, 52.75-53.75, 56.75-57.75, 1:00.5-1:02.5, 1:12.75-1:41, 1:44.75-1:45.75, 148.75-1:49.75, 1:52.5-1:53.5, 1:56-1:58 = 66.5 seconds or 51.55% overt source usage The arrangement is repetitive in terms of the sections, but the interpretation and integration with original writing were strong enough to mitigate that issue, so I'm OK with this as is. I didn't agree with MindWanderer at all on his production criticisms and felt it missed the forest for the trees in terms of the arrangement strength. There wasn't anything problematic in terms of any of the instrumentation, IMO, but we'll see what others think. Count me in on all levels, including the source usage squeaking by in terms of being enough. YES

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

I'm not voting yet, but just pointing out that I don't vote by whether another listener can identify the modified source material, but only whether I myself can. Sometimes that's not possible to do unless I'm explicitly told what to listen for, and that's allowed. I'm happy to have djp clarify his POV of this language in the Standards, but I don't believe anyone should frame votes with other listeners in mind. If, for example, the standards were about what a casual listener could pick out, we'd be a lot more conservative and less transformative re: what was approved. Not that there isn't some degree of subjectivity to voting, and no hate on Chimpa, but this feels too subjective and unconstructive. Odd effects, sounding unusual, and, yes, even personally disliking a track all aren't things that would necessarily tank a submission according to the standards, even all at once, so it's important to clarify if this is just a NO vote on lack of identifiable source usage -- and the other observations having no bearing on your decision -- or if the writing and/or production were lacking for any specific and (potentially actionable) reasons. "2 weird 4 me" shouldn't cut it.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Original Decision Remixer Name: APZX Real Name: Austin Simons e-mail address: Website: https://soundcloud.com/apzx UserID: 21436 Game Arragned: Final Fantasy IV (SNES) Name of Arrangement: Devotion to the Motif Song/s Arranged: Theme of Love Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffeBZOqZGU Remix: Comments: So, I'd like to address some things directly because if you're anything like me then you're a curious one. Sorry Gario but you basically said everything first that needed to be addressed. Not trying to single you out or anything. "This has a pretty interesting method of expanding and varying the source that I think you're either going to love or hate: it syncopates the timing so that the main theme is about a half measure off the beat. As far as I can tell this is definitely intentional, and I'll admit that it works better than I thought it would." So, it started off as a consequence of what it is I did and then I just ran with it because I liked it. Basically, I went the lazy route with putting this into 4/4. Just some note lengthening and shortening as necessary on the main melody. As a test I threw it over a pad and I really liked how the lead and pad were interacting. I'll go by my ever trusty mantra of, "If it sounds good, it is good." Though I typically say this in relation to mixing and not composition lol. "The use of the theme at 0:54 - 1:08 is an exception to this, though - the harmonization clashes hard against the theme, making it sound dissonant, unresolved and ugly. A clean fix would be to remove the source in the background and let the music build into the meat of the material without it, but if the artist would rather keep the source there he'll have to more carefully alter either the source material or the harmonies so that they harmonize together better." All right so this one is a bit of a complicated bag. If you didn't like the harmonization of the main melody then why would you not like the harmonization of the exact same melody over the same backing track? In truth this was an issue for not only you, but pretty much everyone else it seemed. And the fix was basically alluded to by yourself, DJP, and Liontamer. Replace that sound with something with a more distinctive attack. "The production on this is solid, and the mixing is just where it should be, so kudos for the high production values on this." Thank you! I put a lot of effort into this aspect, which makes the next comment hurt a bit "Some of the instruments sound rather low quality, though (primarily the slow strings used to carry the theme in the opening and closing section)." and I'm gonna add DJP's and Liontamer's comment with this one. DJP, "The dynamic panning helps the strings, and it's a unique lead sound you don't hear much... by the same token, it kinda sits in uncanny valley for me, sounding more realistic than most classic string synths (Solina, etc.) but not as realistic as actual strings... something more committed to either a classic analog string synth or realistic strings would probably work better, and an entirely different approach to the lead might also be more effective." Liontamer, "I completely agreed with djp on the strings being in uncanny valley territory." Ohhhhhhhhkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. So, the sound I had used if anyone is interested in the slightest is actually a fairly lo-fi violin preset from a wonderful little VST, SQ8L, in fact called "VIOLINS". I rather like the sound and it does have a very soft attack. Though even then decreasing the attack in the VST really didn't yield much improvement. Instead I opted to go DJP's suggested route of trying a more "classic analog string synth". While I actually don't have a VST dedicated to this task, I do have a wonderful Oberheim OB-Xa VST that has some fantastic analog string sounds, do some tweaking, apply some ensemble chorus, and the last bit of fairy dust is a phaser set to Smallstone. Easy enough to resolve that issue, hopefully. Back to more Gario because I'm not going to try and quote everything that was said about these pitch bends, though a special mention to DJP with the comment about the Bladerunner link, which is important for what I ended up doing. "One final criticism I have is the extreme nature of the lead pitch bending. While for the meat of the track it causes no issue, at 3:06 - 3:10 the bending clashes hard against the rest of the track when the delay carries it past where it should've been. Decreasing the size of the bends, decreasing the delay or a combination of both of these things would alleviate this issue considerably." Well, wasn't this just a wonderful appreciation for how wonderful synths are? Sarcasm aside, as I said DJP's comment about the link to Bladerunner got me thinking a bit, and I removed every single pitchbend except the last drop on the final phrase, which IIRC occurs 3 times. And for the record the warble on the very last pitch bend is intentional. However, I do have a couple of things to address with Liontamer now. "The sound design was pretty plain, but the combinations were unorthdox and interesting, so we'll see where it goes." That is more or less how I roll. I can do really cool stuff with synths, but a lot of times those really cool sounds don't fit in a mix or composition the way I want them to. So, I generally stay on the more vanilla side of things. And in fairness this track to me really didn't seem like it needed super complicated sound design. Honestly, sometimes the simple stuff works better for a given situation. "To me, this arrangement felt underdeveloped and didn't evolve quite enough, BUT it was very well in the right direction. Dynamically, there's obviously a build between :44 and the beats returning at 1:22, but once you hear the beat at :44, you've basically coasted on that beat until 2:28 and it's too basic to carry this track, IMO; it needs to do something different or varied over time. That was my main issue, the beats making this track feel plain and dynamically flat." All right so this was actually the hardest thing to work on because I had tried different things previously that IMO detracted from the overall direction I wanted in the track. With that being said I did not do a whole lot in this regard, but I did add some extra closed hats and varied their patterns a few times throughout the track. While not drastic it does at least to my ears keep the track moving along a bit more than before. However, don't be expecting any DnB level work here. It is quite small and really just tries to better push what portion of the track things are on. Additionally, I added a drum loop to further add some "texture". Other small things are basically the entire rework of the FX sounds (lots of repeated ones originally), and a completely new mix from the ground up (hopefully getting some additional clarity). I think that should address most of the concerns. Listening to it now, I really don't know what I'd do to really make this any better than it is lol.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Just to follow up on this, I'll also be mailing the mixer to see his reaction to the MIDI similarity, and offer him the chance to co-credit the MIDI author if it's true. I would then have to contact the MIDI author, Monster Iestyn, to get their approval as well. djp agreed with both Gario and I that -- while the arrangement is close to the original and is more borderline, there was enough going on that removing it on arrangement grounds compared to the original song itself isn't the issue. This is strictly about the closeness to the MIDI version on VGMusic.

It's our first recall vote in over a decade, and these things happen. As I said above, this all underscores my feelings after I first heard this VGMusic MIDI. Had there been no MIDI for this source tune, the mix had indeed stood apart from the original in terms of the style, despite being structurally close. But when you compare it to the MIDI, the tempo is different, yes, but it sounds like the parts were just taken from this specific MIDI and re-instrumented, including subtler backing writing. djp brought up the question of whether the mix is simply too close to the source tune anyway, given that the MIDI was a cover. The MIDI is close yes, but the mix did change the presentation style of the track some with the different drumming, the different style of the vocals, more emphasis on different supporting parts (though all of those parts existed in both the source and MIDI). It's really about the tone feeling different enough. He's not wrong though, and it's at least debate-able, i.e. this might qualify as just a full removal based on this arrangement not being different enough from the Sega CD song, but I was OK with this as a personalized-sounding cover or I wouldn't have went YES on the original vote. All of that said... at all times, artists need to disclose if other people's music or arrangements were referenced or used a base for their submission; it isn't an automatic disqualification, and we have some arrangements of arrangements on the site already. But even if -- somehow -- this mix wasn't taken from the MIDI itself, it's too similar -- too close of a cover -- to an already existing arrangement without standing apart enough from that existing arrangement. It's too similar, IMO, so I'll vote YES on removal. YES on removal

This is being revisited because someone told Sir_NutS it was too close to the source, and NutS then found a MIDI on VGMusic that's not 100% the same, but is similar and brings in the possibility that this was ripped. To me, when I actually heard the MIDI, it's a reasonable concern because the mix does have a fairly straightforward usage of all the same part-writing found in the MIDI, pretty much for the entire track. Judges' votes:

Though the ending was abrupt, the arrangement's all good, Paul, and I especially loved the rhythmic changes to the melody, so there's absolutely no issues there. That said, I felt the mixing was muddy and cluttered, which dinged this. Ultimately, I felt the arrangement carried it enough where I don't think we should hold this back. I'd love to get another pass at the mixing that was clearer without weakening the energy here, but I'll live with what's there. YES (borderline)

There were times where the main source tune was more pushed back and marginalized, but it was audible enough overall, that I didn't have a problem with counting it when it was in play. Really creative and expansive way to handle things, Vasily! Great to finally have you aboard. YES

The opening piano should sound more realistic and less mechanical, but I'll live. Nah, this isn't nitpicky at all. The backing gets practically lost for me on headphones, so this mixing's a dealbreaker because the source tune's getting marginalized during the fullest sections, e.g. every chorus and even some of the verses (:24-:36, :50-1:01, 1:13-1:38). Even when it's audible, it's too pushed back (e.g. :36-:46, 1:01-1:13). It's otherwise a strong & creative track, and I didn't have a problem with any dissonance, but this mixing's got to be addressed for me to get on board. NO (resubmit)

Big energy to kick things off, that's for sure. The arrangement was substantive enough to bear the repetition, but the copy-pasta was disappointing because it was definitely too straightforward and it made the track feel too flat/samey over the long haul. I also thought the mixing was cluttered, and felt there was some high-end sizzle; not enough to hold this back, but it's indeed crowded like Gario and MW mentioned. Andrew still bringing it big-time, but more detail work in the repeated sections to keep the show fresh would have been awesome. YES

Co-signed with Gario entirely. The lack of humanization bothered me a bit less, but it still did, and this would sound much more solid if it were addressed. The textures were pretty cluttered, and there was indeed not much low-end presence. The arrangement was creative, but I'd also recommend doing something different with the lead writing or instrumentation at 2:09 to vary things up more for the final section, otherwise this felt too repetitive for a closing section. Good base here, James; see what more you can do to polish this up! NO (resubmit)