Liontamer

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

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

I'll go in the minority; the piano sample was too thin and exposed throughout. When things started out with a delicate sound toward the higher notes on the piano, it wasn't a big deal, but as soon as this hit :23, it was apparent that the piano sample was very thin and unnatural. A richer sound would have made the piece sound more realistic and covered up some of the stiffer-sounding moments. The arrangement and interpretation were fine, but this piano was pretty lacking, and I felt that undermined the dynamics of the piece as well. Pretty surprised this sailed through. I'd like to get more votes on this, i.e. a 5th YES or some reconsideration of the votes here. NO (resubmit)

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.

The sample sounds.

Arrangement-wise, this seems pretty solid, so that's at least a non-issue. There's a weird property with the string sustains in particular that does expose the samples; there's a warbly effect that sounds more like a fuzzyness than bow movement. Around 2:40, the bowed string samples are also pretty exposed & mechanical there; it's something that pervades the whole arrangement, so it'd be nice to have a musician who can speak to how to address that chime in. Around 3:30, the volume seemed too low, though I get the dynamic contrast involved. The shift to brass & woodwinds around 4:50 had good power behind the writing; the samples continued to strain credibility during some big flourishes (e.g. 5:27-5:33 in particular). There's a lack of richness & tone in the samples that puts them in uncanny valley territory, though this is a strong base for the arrangement. If you could make the instrumentation sound fuller, it may help obscure some of the more exposed moments; I'd ask around in the Music Composition & Production area for advice, since I'm not saying that has to involve spending $ on other samples, but rather maximizing what you already have. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that you'd like some more feedback, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and I'll review it again! Good luck!

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

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

Just a great live jazz adaptation, straight up. Props on manifesting this in such a strong way, Jorik, taking the performance beyond what you'd originally envisioned, thanks to the Conservatorium Maastricht Big Band. Love it! 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.

No need to do that; we know about this one. I don't know the timetable on when universal search will be available (I saw a prototype of it way back and it looked great), but that should also address the overlap from some of the mascots with the search bar and user dropdown. @djpretzel can correct me if I'm wrong though.

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

If @Sixto is there, it's more likely I will be there.

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

I wasn't hearing a lot of crackling any longer, and while I didn't hear any pops around 1:49, I can confirm I heard them from 0:44-0:46, 3:21-3:22, and at 3:31 like MindWanderer did. 3 light pops isn't enough to make me a NO vote, but it would be nice to get a pop-free render. Otherwise, the arrangement's good to go, same as last time; if this is the best render we can get (with those 3 light pops), that's also OK. YES

I didn't agree on the drumwork being too repetitive in the sense that the instrumentation and effects on the beats varied enough, and a lot more was going on with the leads and textures as well to keep the track dynamic and evolving. That's not to say Jive has no valid point on this potentially seeming overlong, but it felt like a YMMV thing than something truly lacking with the track. Jive was also right about the mixing lacking some clarity but not being a dealbreaker, so take his specific points there to heart. I'm with the yea's, though I didn't think I would be based on the beginning having such a similar tone to the source tune for the first 1:37; but when you have 9 1/2 minutes to work with, there's a lot of opportunity to personalize the arrangement, and 1:37 started (gradually) moving in the right direction. By the time we got to 3:35, this was firmly in the direction of a personalized cover with subtle but good additive original writing for the rest of the time. Nice job, Glenn; you slowly but surely made a believer out of me with this track! YES

Sounded lo-fi, as well as panned too widely during the choruses. That said, the bassline and drumming was more creative and varied, and that's mainly what I needed to lend some dynamics to the piece. The machine gun kicks from 3:26-3:54 still felt buried, and I'm not sure what the point was if they weren't going to be heard more, BUT I'm not sure I would have liked them with more presense, so we'll take it. The lead guitar work still felt stilted as well, but the other surrounding elements being more varied and creative helped that stilted timing sound more like an intentional stylistic choice for the song's performance. Solid work, and a good bump up in overall quality for the resub, Daniel! YES