Liontamer

Pretty dated at this point with pretty exposed & stiff-sounding samples; would love to hear Wingy give this one another go; he could craft something that sounded smoother, because the interpretation itself is strong.

Nice slowdown of the theme with a more pensive style. An arrangement doesn't have to be overcomplicated to work, and I'm fine with a flatter dynamic curve as long as there are dynamic things going on within that narrower range, which this has, IMO. By 1:12 in, it did drag on first blush if you focus on the main pattern, but other smaller details were going on from the very beginning. At 2:03 with another section of the theme, you hear more pronounced inclusion of gentle SFX, padding, and ornamentation, which helped spice things up along with some part doubling; good subtle stuff there. DragonAvenger's not wrong about that main pattern repeating a lot, and it being purposeful doesn't automatically mitigate that criticism. But to some extent it's a your-mileage-may-vary thing; to me, though the foundation was repetitive, it was interpretive and still served as a solid base that other subtler, evolving writing was built around, so I didn't have a problem with it as long as the other writing was varied. To me, ReMixes come in a lot of different forms, and I'm very open to something structured like this. YES

The synths coming in at 1:00 were pretty vanilla, but we'll see if the energy level or textures develop further. Bigger drums arrived around 1:24, but the overall energy was still very flat due to the lead. Melodically, there's not much going on different with this compared to the source, so there's more pressure, IMO, for the instrumentation to be fully clicking. Even at 2:49, there's a bit of a swell, but ultimately nothing fresh going on with the textures or the writing for the finish. I agreed with DragonAvenger that this is an excellent base, but some combination of more interpretive/varied treatment of the melody, changes or variations in the lead sound, and some more pronounced dynamic contrast over time would put this over the top. Good stuff so far, Phillip, please don't drop this one. Whatever you think works for you in terms of applying the criticisms to some revisions, that may be enough to put it over the top. NO (resubmit)

Would have liked a cleaner sound to this for sure, especially towards the second half when things got boomier. That said, loads of personality with this rendition of the title theme. Great energy here, something Ryan's always delivered.

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

The track was 2:54-long, so I needed at least 87 seconds of source usage for the VGM to dominate the arrangement: 12.5-30.5, 1:10.5-1:49.75, 2:10-2:30, 2:39.5-2:54.5 = 92.25 seconds or 53.01% overt source usage Going for a pretty apparent (but legally different enough) soundalike of Afrosound's "El Pesebre" was interesting; I do wish the homage were more interpretive than mostly the note changes. I definitely see where DragonAvenger was coming from with her vote. Dynamically, there could have been more going on, and the dynamic curve was narrow, but for me there were enough subtle changes in the texture and energy level due to the different instrument timbres and combinations for some different sections. Being inspired by the samey structure & sound of "El Pesebre" explains what Daniel was going for there, not that that lowers the bar. To me, there was enough of an alteration in the style of the source tune here that I thought mitigated the downside of the flatter dynamic curve and repetitive sections. Even in the sections whether the writing repeated, the performances actually weren't cut-and-pasted, and that needs to be acknowledged. Smaller thing, but props to the bassline for always having a good presense. I agree that it should have been more varied, but it did its part as an additive part of the background; I actually listened to the HD version of "Dragon Roost Island" first that Daniel linked in his sub letter before going back to the original version of the song, and one YouTube comment that struck me was how the HD version -- for whatever reason -- eliminated the bassline from the song, an important detail that a lot of people would miss. There certainly could have been more pronounced dynamics and variation, but they were in fact there, and the arrangement was sufficiently interpretive. The "El Pesebre"' inspired sections did initially stick out as disconnected from the VGM arrangement side once you listen to that song, but everything ultimately pieces together just fine when you get used to the flow of the track. Good stuff with the final section around 2:30, which the track could have used more of besides that one quick original flourish. All that said, I can roll with this as is. YES

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

Yep, the sound design was lacking, mainly for the electrosynths, and you also had realism issues with the timing of stuff like the bowed strings, and then most of the textures were too empty. But you did some good stuff with the available instrumentation in terms of creating your own sound. The arrangement did stand apart from the original source tune, even if the arrangement was melodically conversative. The way the textures feel so empty though, the percussion definitely doesn't drive the track forward. Definitely agreed on the lack of low-end hurting this. I did not get a sense of stagnation from the writing, just emptiness and the overall soundscape feeling too thin and the percussion production not adequately filling out the piece. Definitely get more feedback on this from the ReMixes area of the Workshop forums, because you show off a lot of promise. Good stuff so far, Zach, it lacks production polish to give your instrumentation more heft, and you'd also need to bring back in the low-end presense, but this was at least moving well in the right direction in terms of your arrangement/writing. I definitely hope you'll continue submitting here, even if it's not a revision of this one. Nice source tune choice, BTW. 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 gave a little more credit that Gario based on some of the brief 4-note variations clearly taken from the source that were sprinkled in beyond the two main arrangement sections. For me, they were enough to put the source usage over 50% of the track and make the VGM the dominant part of the arrangement. The track was 2:09-long, so I needed at least 64.5 seconds of overt source usage for the VGM usage to be dominant: :16.75-:45, 48.75-49.75, 52.75-53.75, 56.75-57.75, 1:00.5-1:02.5, 1:12.75-1:41, 1:44.75-1:45.75, 148.75-1:49.75, 1:52.5-1:53.5, 1:56-1:58 = 66.5 seconds or 51.55% overt source usage The arrangement is repetitive in terms of the sections, but the interpretation and integration with original writing were strong enough to mitigate that issue, so I'm OK with this as is. I didn't agree with MindWanderer at all on his production criticisms and felt it missed the forest for the trees in terms of the arrangement strength. There wasn't anything problematic in terms of any of the instrumentation, IMO, but we'll see what others think. Count me in on all levels, including the source usage squeaking by in terms of being enough. 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.

I'm not voting yet, but just pointing out that I don't vote by whether another listener can identify the modified source material, but only whether I myself can. Sometimes that's not possible to do unless I'm explicitly told what to listen for, and that's allowed. I'm happy to have djp clarify his POV of this language in the Standards, but I don't believe anyone should frame votes with other listeners in mind. If, for example, the standards were about what a casual listener could pick out, we'd be a lot more conservative and less transformative re: what was approved. Not that there isn't some degree of subjectivity to voting, and no hate on Chimpa, but this feels too subjective and unconstructive. Odd effects, sounding unusual, and, yes, even personally disliking a track all aren't things that would necessarily tank a submission according to the standards, even all at once, so it's important to clarify if this is just a NO vote on lack of identifiable source usage -- and the other observations having no bearing on your decision -- or if the writing and/or production were lacking for any specific and (potentially actionable) reasons. "2 weird 4 me" shouldn't cut it.

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

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

Original Decision Remixer Name: APZX Real Name: Austin Simons e-mail address: Website: https://soundcloud.com/apzx UserID: 21436 Game Arragned: Final Fantasy IV (SNES) Name of Arrangement: Devotion to the Motif Song/s Arranged: Theme of Love Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffeBZOqZGU Remix: Comments: So, I'd like to address some things directly because if you're anything like me then you're a curious one. Sorry Gario but you basically said everything first that needed to be addressed. Not trying to single you out or anything. "This has a pretty interesting method of expanding and varying the source that I think you're either going to love or hate: it syncopates the timing so that the main theme is about a half measure off the beat. As far as I can tell this is definitely intentional, and I'll admit that it works better than I thought it would." So, it started off as a consequence of what it is I did and then I just ran with it because I liked it. Basically, I went the lazy route with putting this into 4/4. Just some note lengthening and shortening as necessary on the main melody. As a test I threw it over a pad and I really liked how the lead and pad were interacting. I'll go by my ever trusty mantra of, "If it sounds good, it is good." Though I typically say this in relation to mixing and not composition lol. "The use of the theme at 0:54 - 1:08 is an exception to this, though - the harmonization clashes hard against the theme, making it sound dissonant, unresolved and ugly. A clean fix would be to remove the source in the background and let the music build into the meat of the material without it, but if the artist would rather keep the source there he'll have to more carefully alter either the source material or the harmonies so that they harmonize together better." All right so this one is a bit of a complicated bag. If you didn't like the harmonization of the main melody then why would you not like the harmonization of the exact same melody over the same backing track? In truth this was an issue for not only you, but pretty much everyone else it seemed. And the fix was basically alluded to by yourself, DJP, and Liontamer. Replace that sound with something with a more distinctive attack. "The production on this is solid, and the mixing is just where it should be, so kudos for the high production values on this." Thank you! I put a lot of effort into this aspect, which makes the next comment hurt a bit "Some of the instruments sound rather low quality, though (primarily the slow strings used to carry the theme in the opening and closing section)." and I'm gonna add DJP's and Liontamer's comment with this one. DJP, "The dynamic panning helps the strings, and it's a unique lead sound you don't hear much... by the same token, it kinda sits in uncanny valley for me, sounding more realistic than most classic string synths (Solina, etc.) but not as realistic as actual strings... something more committed to either a classic analog string synth or realistic strings would probably work better, and an entirely different approach to the lead might also be more effective." Liontamer, "I completely agreed with djp on the strings being in uncanny valley territory." Ohhhhhhhhkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. So, the sound I had used if anyone is interested in the slightest is actually a fairly lo-fi violin preset from a wonderful little VST, SQ8L, in fact called "VIOLINS". I rather like the sound and it does have a very soft attack. Though even then decreasing the attack in the VST really didn't yield much improvement. Instead I opted to go DJP's suggested route of trying a more "classic analog string synth". While I actually don't have a VST dedicated to this task, I do have a wonderful Oberheim OB-Xa VST that has some fantastic analog string sounds, do some tweaking, apply some ensemble chorus, and the last bit of fairy dust is a phaser set to Smallstone. Easy enough to resolve that issue, hopefully. Back to more Gario because I'm not going to try and quote everything that was said about these pitch bends, though a special mention to DJP with the comment about the Bladerunner link, which is important for what I ended up doing. "One final criticism I have is the extreme nature of the lead pitch bending. While for the meat of the track it causes no issue, at 3:06 - 3:10 the bending clashes hard against the rest of the track when the delay carries it past where it should've been. Decreasing the size of the bends, decreasing the delay or a combination of both of these things would alleviate this issue considerably." Well, wasn't this just a wonderful appreciation for how wonderful synths are? Sarcasm aside, as I said DJP's comment about the link to Bladerunner got me thinking a bit, and I removed every single pitchbend except the last drop on the final phrase, which IIRC occurs 3 times. And for the record the warble on the very last pitch bend is intentional. However, I do have a couple of things to address with Liontamer now. "The sound design was pretty plain, but the combinations were unorthdox and interesting, so we'll see where it goes." That is more or less how I roll. I can do really cool stuff with synths, but a lot of times those really cool sounds don't fit in a mix or composition the way I want them to. So, I generally stay on the more vanilla side of things. And in fairness this track to me really didn't seem like it needed super complicated sound design. Honestly, sometimes the simple stuff works better for a given situation. "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 right so this was actually the hardest thing to work on because I had tried different things previously that IMO detracted from the overall direction I wanted in the track. With that being said I did not do a whole lot in this regard, but I did add some extra closed hats and varied their patterns a few times throughout the track. While not drastic it does at least to my ears keep the track moving along a bit more than before. However, don't be expecting any DnB level work here. It is quite small and really just tries to better push what portion of the track things are on. Additionally, I added a drum loop to further add some "texture". Other small things are basically the entire rework of the FX sounds (lots of repeated ones originally), and a completely new mix from the ground up (hopefully getting some additional clarity). I think that should address most of the concerns. Listening to it now, I really don't know what I'd do to really make this any better than it is lol.

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.