Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

Oof, ProJared. What we've learned about ProJared since this submission came in... Oof. Fuck that guy. Moving on... The opening at :18 after the sampled section sounded like a MIDI-rip, so I was waiting for things to get more interpretive, which arrived with :35's melody on top of the backing writing of the original. Back to the theme cover at 1:06, again, VERY straightforward and not meaningfully different in presentation & tone than the original. Changeup at 1:26 to the Village theme, but trying to make it more jaunty like the Dr. Wright theme; the transition at 1:22 seemed pretty sudden and not smooth enough, but we'll live and move on. Good comping-style approach from 1:50-2:07 over the backing writing of the source, but it was short. 2:07 essentially sounded like a cut-and-paste of :51's section, so not much development there beyond a rehash. I'll be honest, the arrangement doesn't excite me too much, but it's meant to be light and low-key, so I can get behind that. Most of the interpretive value comes from adapting the Village theme to the tone of the Dr. Wright theme. Back to the Dr. Wright theme at 2:39, and AGAIN it's very cover-ish and super straightforward just like :18 and 1:06. Some light additive comping over the top of the theme from 2:55-3:18; where was that before? Regardless, that was very short as well before going to the sampled audio for the close. What's holding me back on this is that the Dr. Wright sections are EXTREMELY straightforward and just retain the overall tone, instrumentation, and presentation of the source tune, so those sections just don't do enough to differentiate themselves from the source. Not much coloring outside of the lines there, and the Village sections and sprinkles of additive writing during the Dr. Wright sections don't present enough interpretation to pass the arrangement bar, IMO. It's a decent base, Toby, but even just changing the instrumentation of the Dr. Wright sections would help this stand apart more from the original. Can't get behind this yet. NO (resubmit)

I thought this went well in the right direction in terms of the arrangement, but the execution's not tight or reasonably polished, which I'm surprised to say on Reuben's work. Though nasally, the vocals aren't the worst, BUT they lack strength and get strained & pitchy at points; some chorusing, further effects beside the delay/thickening, or additional takes could have benefited this. Back when he started, djpretzel's vocals were brutal; there's more effects on this than his old stuff, but they're still very exposed. The instrumental backing was sparse, which wasn't inherently bad, but the mechanical timing of the sequenced drumkit was extremely exposed, and you're left with obvious moments where the timing between the vocals and drums is slightly but noticeably off (e.g. you hear a half-beat drop out of nowhere at :41), as well as spots where the tone of the kit sounds really fake (e.g. :48, 1:19-1:21). The accordion timing also sounded really stilted, even though it sounded live or played in live. Whether it's the guitar or the accordion, neither instrument gels with the drum timing, the combinations just aren't smooth. With the thin textures and the mechanical timing of the drums, the pacing's sluggish and stilted, which undermines the relaxing vibe that's part of this concept. To me it needs another pass to tighten things up; as a WIP to demonstrate proof of concept, I'd get it, but not as a final cut. In any case, don't be discouraged by the criticism of the vocals or performances; let's get another pass at tightening up an otherwise fine arrangement. NO (resubmit)

Excellent personalization per Rebecca's usual arrangement approaches. Some of the lower string sequencing strained for credibility during brief moments, but it wasn't anything that stood out in a huge way, just something small I noticed. Nothing but love here. YES

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

Beautiful arrangement work per Rebecca's usual. The theme's constantly in play from :01-2:46, and the melody/chorus leads were there until 2:13, so MindWanderer's breakdown doesn't make sense in any context, and I'm not sure where his timestamping came from. We don't have a rule that the melody must be in play, just that references to the source material need to be identifiable; for me, as long as they're explicit connections, you can reference a melody, a countermelody, a rhythm, a drum pattern, a droning line, whatever. If a chord progression is explicitly used, I'm OK with referencing that. It's when an overly simplified and implicit chord progression is used that I start to not count that stuff. I didn't have any issues with Rebecca's source usage, and a NO on that level is a mistake. The final section after 2:46 was an extended breakdown and did meander, but it's totally musical and I didn't have any problem with it from a writing perspective. Let's go! YES

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

Not to minimize the presentation here, but this was a nice, straightforward example of holding fairly fast to the melodies of the original but personalizing the instrumentation. Dug it all the way, and Ben's theme is such a great base to work from. Nice job giving this your own spin, Mike! 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.

Rubber stamp so I can move on, but this is excellent. Great energy throughout, and I like following the bassline. The string work was also excellent whether lead or supporting lines. Loved the progressive style of the arrangement. Glad to finally have you officially posted, Lucas; nice work pulling together your team! 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.

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

And that's basically the name of the game. This plays it much too close to the vest, arrangement-wise. The mixing also wasn't sharp and ideal; IMO, while your leads sound good, the backing parts seem obscured and the overall sound was needlessly distant. This would work very well in the actual game, much like hearing 8-bit versions of NieR: Automata's themes, but the level of interpretation and personalization doesn't stand apart enough from the original piece to pass as an OC ReMix. Still an excellent chippy cover, and it doesn't need to be an OC ReMix to find a lot of happy fans. Nice work here, Nick. It just happens to fall outside of our arrangement/interpretation standards due to how conservative the adaptation is. NO

There's also @Guifrog and @8 Bit Instrumental.

Sweet source tune choice, looking forward to checking out this one. WHOA. Holy shit, I've gotta agree regarding the synth at :10 being way, way too loud. Pretty generic synths and textures at :23, but I did appreciate the delay effects on there. Synths at :45 were pretty abrasive, and... stayed for a while, until they mercifully left at 1:04. Hahahaha, then some ear-breaking warbling synth introduced at 1:06; wow, this is just grating. Beyond that, the grating part just accentuates how texturally empty the rest of the instrumentation was. Glad to see (hear) it go away at 1:28. I like the attention to detail with the beats in the background, BUT they're still relatively empty and the overall groove was repetitive. I did like the chorus melody being used as a countermelody at 1:49; nice touch. That said, that added part wasn't enough to prevent the arrangement from dragging and feeling repetitive. For the chorus at 2:10, the grating synth was brought back, but sounded serviceable without the warbling effect on it; still not sure why it was made so overly loud. And again with the warble at 2:32 all the way until 3:11. /shrug The beats are creative, but the core pattern is just super basic and drags down the track. Arrangement-wise, Olli, you certainly have your own style here in terms of the instrumentation. Abrasive choices aside, you have a decent base, but half of this isn't very listenable, and I'm not just having old-man ears about it. By 1;28, you're doing different textures surrounding the source melody, but the presentation still feels like a retread; consider changing the leads at some point, for example, to create a more varied sound overall. Still needs more development, and the production choices causing the grating section need to be reined in. NO

I just rejected a long, slowly-paced track for being too conservative, too repetitive, and not developing enough. Here, you have something more interpretive just by virtue of the slowed down tempo, but also some ear candy spices in the background. The instrumentation being different enough from the original helps, as did chorusing the melody to give it more depth. You get a surprisingly different character to this theme just from the relatively simple arrangement ideas here. 2:43 was a moment where something needed to happen to break up the previous energy level of the piece and that was there with the addition of a countermelodic synth as well as a bassline; good ideas there to thicken up the texture and also make the energy feel different, even within a narrower dynamic curve. 3:31's section moved into a pure cut-and-paste of :47's section (including a photocopy of the melody redux at 3:54 of :1:34, then 4:18 copies 2:21, and 4:41 copies 2:44); just a huge letdown and a lot of unrealized potential. You could argue that the arrangement approach was interpretive enough to bear the repetition, but I disagreed. Just bring some new arrangement ideas to the table for 3:31-on and this would be golden. That doesn't mean doing anything wild and crazy, but you have the opportunity to change the instrumentation, add original writing ideas, play with the rhythms, cameo/integrate other themes in the background, basically any number of ideas to further develop this piece. Good start here, bsolmaz; now see what more you can do with it. NO (resubmit)

Way too conservative to start; this was just a reinstrumentation, albeit a pleasant one. The acoustic guitar sample at :27 won't fool anyone due to being in the uncanny valley with its timing, but the tone is great; once you added in other parts, the guitar sample was less exposed. Just before the 2-minute mark, we get into something more interpretive just by the addition of the drumwork as well as the bassline. For the bassline though, it was well-written (taken from the source, of course), but way too quiet; it barely registered as a indistinct buzz. It's a subtle part in the source tune, but too subtle in your version; make it stand out some more, but also get interpretive/creative with the part-writing there to help personalize your approach more. At 1:54, I see what MindWanderer's saying about the electric guitar sample, but the tone of it was unique enough IMO that it didn't have to sound like a traditional electric guitar; that said, it could have been mixed in louder to have more presence. 3:25's chorus did have an additional line added in and some subtle drum variation later on at 3:51, but was essentially a cut-and-paste, so that was a drag, and the arrangement felt underdeveloped overall despite going in the right direction for the last 3 minutes. I agreed with MW that this arrangement was too conservative. That said, you could lop off most of the first 2 minutes and not lose anything. If you have the remaining 3 minutes, but also continue adding/swapping in other different instruments, and adding in more of your own original writing ideas, this is relatively conservative, but maybe 70% of the way there in terms of making it. There's a lot to like here, Arman, and you have a good base here. Please consider resubmitting this. NO (resubmit)

Aside from changing the rhythms a bit, Kyle, this was extremely straightforward and ultimately repetitive; once you hear the rhythmic changes to the melody, that's the only interpretation you hear without any further variations. Very anti-climactic addition of that countermelodic line at :59; if you're looking for a super-close cover, that's all good, but since we're looking for more interpretation, that was a pretty bland approach. Then repeating it at 1:29 was another drag; the track's relatively slowly paced, so when you wholesale repeat bars at this tempo and with textures this thin, it's pretty boring. Dropoff at 2:00 led to SA's smoove sax work, but the beats behind that were just thin and plodding; the texture gradually thicken up at 2:15 and emerging more at 2:26, but the overall pattern is still so straightforward and plain. The beats here didn't add any movement, and as soon as I was thinking that, something more substantive came in at 2:46, which was a good, albeit late, addition. The finish was just more of the same stuff from the opening. Sorry that I can't be more positive on this, because it's a classic theme and a great choice, plus Andrew's sax contribution was strong. But right now there's really bland beats, barebones textures, and a plodding arrangement; there's some development, but not enough. You don't have to get crazy and wild with the level of interpretation, but there's not ENOUGH variation/personalization of the theme, and dynamically this is too flat. You can keep SA's sax performance intact but figure out other ways to further develop this concept. NO