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.

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

The way the verses ended seemed off-key in places (e.g. :11-:14, :55-:58, 1:40-1:42, 2:37-2:41), and I'm not sure what the point of that was; didn't sound good at all, and I'll never like it, but it was brief and I'll move past it. Overall, the track was fine in terms of the bar, with a mellow, almost downer-style take on the source. The quick references to "Muda Kingdom" and "Dire, Dire Docks" were fun and well-integrated. Agreed with MindWanderer on having 0 problem with the ending, and co-signing that it didn't sound cut off, so I'm not sure what Gario exactly heard. I also wasn't bothered at all by the distortion and didn't hear anything problematic on that level. Nice to see Ty back in the inbox. YES

I think the potential is here for something good, Myrddin, but this needs some additional work on the production/mixing, as well as more interpretation of the source tune for OCR's arrangement standards. The first dealbreaker was that the treatment of the source theme was extremely straightforward and conservative. There were some good brass countermelodic additions, as well as some original bassline work, but the source instrumentation might as well have been the SPC file if/when it wasn't; it didn't sound like there was any meaningful/substantive difference with the instrumentation, tone & tempo. Also, I felt the source tune had no synergy with the vocals either, IMO. Also a second dealbreaker, I didn't like the imbalance of the source tune instrumental's volume vs. the vocals and rock part-writing; the source sounded very pushed back and marginalized once the lyrics arrived at :25. Particularly during the choruses, it seemed like the vocals and rock instrumentation were competing to be heard instead of complimenting each other (all while the source tune was quiet). Stuff like the source tune woodwinds at :49 also didn't click with the vocals, IMO. It's not a terrible track, but it's also a strong NO based on how I see the arrangement standards, as well as factoring in the imbalanced mixing. Not enough effort was done to interpret the source theme, and it feels like the rock instruments and vocals aren't carefully combined with the source tune. NO

Quoted for truth & emphasis. This was far from the bar, Brett, but don't be discouraged and keep on learning. You have some decent sounds, but others were much more abrasive. Melodically, this didn't go in many creative directions although the attempt was made to personalize the sound palette. Dynamically, the energy levels were pretty steady/flat most of the way, so this didn't progress in much of a meaningful arc, though you did have a nice subtraction-based finish to at least have some dynamic contrast toward the end. 1) Use our Workshop forums like Nutritious mentioned 2) Do what you can to ensure your instrumentation isn't grating; and 3) Consider other aspects of arrangement like more variations in the tempo, rhythm, and melody, and adding in original sections or countermelodies. NO

There's definitely more source usage involved. The track was 4:37-long, so I needed at least 138.5 seconds of source usage to consider it dominant in the arrangement. :00-:29, :54.75-1:38, 2:00-2:12 (:46-:55 of source), 2:21-2:41.75, 2:42.75-3:03, 3:54.5-4:25.75 = 156.5 seconds or 56.4% overt source usage Just noting some things about the track, the dropoffs/pauses can seem needless, but I wasn't bothered by them. The instrumentation was somewhat vanilla (not in a way that made the judgement close though), but the sleigh bells were a nice accent and, most importantly, the personality and creativity of the arrangement were super strong. Loved the very involved Outset melodic variations that Garrett used throughout; it was slowed down and there were a TON of grace notes, but nothing that broke up the melodic structure when you listen carefully; nice work and a fun Xmas treat! Been waiting to finally get Garrett posted as an official OC ReMixer, and this one's gonna make it happen. YES