Liontamer

This was mixed too quietly, IMO, but it wasn't a big deal. MindWanderer's not wrong to ding the humanization, but I wasn't bothered by it as much as he was and felt the the samples were reasonably realistic-sounding and above our bar. It's a medley, yes, but the level of realism was good enough for our bar, and the arrangement was personalized per Rebecca's usual instrumentation and textural changes, along with some tempo changes. The transition to "Fond Memories" at 2:20 did feel disjointed on some level, although the tempo slowdown at 2:08 was clearly and purposefully used as a lead in to that. To me, it's still not a great transition, but the effort was there and it's a brief blip in the grand scheme of things. The interweaving of the source themes around 1:20 was very smartly done, so that counterbalances any issue with the latter transition for me. Yeah, I just can't say I fell on the same side of the coin as MW. Count me in! YES

Love it! Dunno why you said one of the sources was BGM 3-1, when the main source was really BGM 1-1. In any case, nice combination of the 1-1 and 0-1 themes, with lots of energy. YES

For the opening, I felt like the source melody was buried in the background, so I was waiting to hear it be put in the foreground and that finally happened at :26; nothing wrong with that approach, I just was hoping the balance of the parts wouldn't be an issue like last time, and that concern was quickly put to rest. Nice work by Peíorele on the trumpet, and you can really feel the fun come through from Guillaume's arrangement. Really nice personalization of the theme and a great addition to the SoA album. Lovely! YES

The sound design was pretty plain, but the combinations were unorthdox and interesting, so we'll see where it goes. I completely agreed with djp on the strings being in uncanny valley territory. I actually didn't have a problem with the pitch bends, but I can understand how they could appear unintentional rather than purposeful; they didn't bother me in any meaningful way and you get used to them over repeated listens. The boom-tss beats at :44 were very generic along with the synth fading in around :52. Not really getting much synnergy with these parts as far as the buildup. 1:10 moved onto the main melody, then brought the plain beats back at 1:22, only couched much better in the soundscape; the writing underneath the lead was pretty plain and could have used more creativity, but did fill out the background space well. There was crowding, like Jivemaster pointed out, but I didn't feel it was bad enough to meaningfully detract from the listen. 2:09 dropped out the beats only to bring them back at 2:12. The lead was already feeling samey by this time, so the drop at 2:27 was very welcome. The strings and pads for the close were a decent change of pace for the final section, although (and it's strange to say it), but the padding felt too dry/exposed from 2:42-2:57. 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 in all, the arrangement was creative, so I don't think it would take much to tweak some things to put this over the top. The criticisms seem like a mixed bag, and I'm sure I'm not helping in that regard, but just take stock of everything, see what seems valid for you to work on, ignore the rest, and send this one back. Good stuff so far, Austin, and I'm confident you could get this one improved further just like your great Lawnmower Man mix. NO (resubmit)

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

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

I'm only going off of the revised version, just FYI. I hated the ending; no real resolution and flatter than a fuckin' pancake. To me, this was a mixed bag production-wise. The vocals were too dry, and the chorused ones were mixed in a way where they felt pushed into the background and didn't sound clearly pronounced. That said, this was a creative, interesting, and understated arrangement approach. Some strong vocal production could have lifted this up more, but the overall presentation was solid enough and this gets more right than wrong. I'll go with an unconditional YES to close this out.

Wasn't my cup of tea, and I felt the synth design was vanilla and thin in places, but it gets 'er done in terms of the interpretation. Let's go. YES

Well, subtractive is a valid arrangement approach, but it's gotta be clicking. Unlike the others, I actually felt there were enough changes to the instrumentation and overall textures to have this significantly stand apart from the source tune despite the structure being so similar; IMO, they need to be much more open to arrangements like this. That said, I also thought the textures here were extremely thin and didn't really gel together (which had nothing to do with the volume and more with the instrumentation not filling out the soundscape). For example, the vox programming was pretty exposed, as one example, but pretty much every sample sounded uncharacteristically thin and exposed for a piece of Rebecca's. Without percussion more involved, it's hard to see where the textural depth would majorly come from, but obviously there's more than one way to approach it. NO (resubmit)

Good start, but I felt the drum writing was too basic, and the samples used for the beats/kicks were very flimsy. Anything with denser textures just felt extremely thin and empty, e.g. 3:19, which undercut the dynamic contrast you were going for. Just addressing those two things could be enough to lift this up, because the arrangement was creative otherwise. I agreed with other NOs about the soundscape being muffled as well, and the sound design was pretty basic as well, so there are lots of areas for further refinement and creativity in terms of the instrumentation. No hate on this, but the YESs were too forgiving of some pretty standout issues. Keep working on this; good base. NO

Quoted for agreement. That's how I look at it as well. Sampling's no problem, but it also doesn't count for source usage, and it can tank a track if it's used too much.

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

Having heard the sources and compared, nice work. 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.

I didn't hear the first version, but I was initially more on the fence, mainly because the Super Mario Land portion actually felt more plodding to me on account of the beats, along with the arrangement being melodically conservative. That said, the sound palette was changed and filled in, so that was personalized well, and the Super Mario Bros. portion had more arrangement flair to it after 1:36 that picked everything back up with further variety and creativity, followed by the original section towards the end. The chippy sound was strong and the effects really did fill this in nicely; good low-end heft to the sound. I didn't have a problem with the production stuff that MindWanderer pointed out, but if what he says is accurate re: the clipping, it should be tweaked/fixed before we post it. I was more borderline and I would have liked more dynamic contrast here, but Shael gets it done. YES (borderline)

I'm not strongly against this, but I also didn't hear any significant arrangement updates to the lead or the plodding percussion, for example at 1:36. The mixing was improved, and some of the supporting elements were brighter and better mixed, but I thought the writing was what needed tweaks and I didn't hear anything meaningfully tweaked there, especially after listening to this version compared to the previous one. That said, no hate, because all of the arrangement praise I had from this the first time around still stands, and it looks like this'll pass, but I felt this was still needing some further creativity with some of the part-writing. 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.

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.