Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

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

Gonna have to get more specific than that. What's specifically happening when you try to download? What browser and OS are you using?

Well, in terms of the sound palette, it was somewhat vanilla/plain, but ultimately the instrumentation was serviceable and pleasing. That said, there were a lot of brief areas where deviations from the melodies led to some clashing notes and harmonizations; not sure why that happened, but we can’t roll with that at all. Arrangement-wise, this was extremely plodding and stagnant; there’s very little dynamic contrast, the sequencing was extremely rigid, and the textures were pretty thin and basic. Even when “Vampire Killer” repeated for the final third, it was just a tiny bit more intense but otherwise it was functionally a cut-and-paste without meaningful variation. The CV3 “Beginning” section wasn’t inherently a bad idea, but also didn’t have any synergy or flow with the “Vampire Killer” sections. Sorry to not have much positive I can say, Thiago. This just needs more attention to detail, more humanization, more variation, more dynamic contrast, and more interpretation beyond this genre adaptation. NO

Rubber stamp, and a big welcome back to Nick/Saiko. Great personalization of the theme, giving it a big presence while maintaining the core C64 sound palette. YES

Not sure why the melodic lead at both :17 and 1:55 is so quiet, but it's barely audible, plus that and the countermelody are pretty rigid/stilted with their timing. There's a lot of freestyling going on from 40.5-1:11 at a steady pace, following by comping over the backing writing of the source until 1:38 brings back the source tune's build via strings and later guitar. These sections were good overall, but there's a flatness to the synth timing/programming that drags the piece down and doesn't contrast well with the more organic-sounding parts. In terms of the dynamics, the percussion patterns felt too repetitive and also dragged this piece down, which is surprising given that it's only 2:28-long. On the plus side, the bass writing, while subtle, was well done throughout. Weird fadeout at 2:19, which dropped precipitously right at the start of the bar and sounded like a mistake as a result; that should be tweaked for a more gradual fade. To summarize, place the synth handling the melody more prominently, and add more dynamic contrast to the piece. You don't need to increase the tempo, and I want to be clear that I'm not implying this is being dinged for slowing the theme down, but the way this is presented here ultimately is plodding; some different/varied snares or changing other backing parts may help, but something needs to be tweaked with the writing or parts to keep this engaging throughout. I've enjoyed your work for years on YouTube, so don't be discouraged here if this doesn't make it as is. We'll see what other judges say, but this can certainly be refined into something to make the front page. It's a very solid base here. NO (resubmit)

Nice fade-in of the melody followed by the drop at :28; right from the get-go, this puts a lot of personality and swagger to the presentation. I liked the beats added in at 1:05 giving a little extra oomph and making the rhythm feel different despite the tempo being the same. Just a fun listen overall; even though the overall energy level's consistent, there are a lot of small yet constant subtle evolutions of the sounds and textures to keep this developing throughout. A textbook example of how to be melodically conservative yet overtly interpretive and personalized. For me, the ending cut off suddenly, so that needs to be fixed, but other than that, this is stellar from Andrew! YES

Like MindWaderer said, it's structurally conservative, but you did a very nice job personalizing the instrumentation and changing the textures, energy and dynamics compared to the original source. An understated but very beautifully done touch was the vox accent first used at 1:24, and the wind writing was excellent as well. The track does just end with a fadeout (boo!), but even that section didn't merely cut-and-paste a past section, so the variation & evolution was constant from start to finish. The only thing making it a close call vis-a-vis our Standards was the brevity, but it's meaningfully developed throughout, so I didn't have any reservations. Beautiful stuff, Eliott; welcome aboard! YES

Rhythmically, this doesn't really sound like the source tune at all, at least on a first listen. Can anyone else make sense of this one?