Liontamer

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

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

The track was 3:10-long, so I needed to hear source usage for at least 95 seconds of the track for the the VGM usage to dominate the arrangement. :00-:07.25, :23.25-:28.5, :34.5-:49.5, 1:06.75-1:47.5, 2:19.75-2:22.5, 2:23.75-2:56 = 104.25 seconds or 54.86% overt source usage This was actually undercounting it, but there were some more fleeting or liberal references I didn't want to go to the trouble of timing out if I didn't have to, which I didn't. Laziness! The soundscape gained some noticeable clutter when those thumping kicks started at :30, so consider re-EQing them. Sir_NutS was right on this getting busy in places. MindWanderer's also right about the squeaks in Trev's performance being an issue, BUT... it's not a conditional-level issue, even for me on headphones. The squeaks are indeed there, but so fleeting and couched within a busy soundscape, so they didn't really scream out "Whoa, WTF happened?" If there was 0 way we could get a revision, would that YES turn into a NO? That's basically what a conditional YES amounts to. To me, it's definitely not something dealbreaking. Agreed with the others on this getting some huge arrangement mileage out of the "Invincibility" theme. Great work from Jorrith and crew. Loved it! YES

The overall levels felt quiet, but no big deal. The mixing wasn't ideal, with the supporting piano playing the core melody sounding very quiet, and the supporting string work from :04-2:07 registering some but otherwise sounding mostly inaudible and not meaningfully contributing to the texture. It wasn't anything dealbreaking, just something that deserves an adjustment. Otherwise, this was an excellent, expansive approach to the arrangement. Wouldn't mind a mising revisit and/or volume bump, but no reason to hold it back. Let's go! YES

The production criticisms aren't wrong, but I fully agreed with Gario and was OK with this version as is. The wrong note should be fixed, the mixing wasn't clean enough with some parts getting lost, and the final dense section was cluttered. That said, I could distinguish the part-writing well enough, so these weren't dealbreakers, just issues that would be nice to have improvements on. No issue with rejecting it, as AJ's been effective with production revisions in the past, but to me, the arrangement's a solid rock approach, and the production was serviceable. Let's go. YES (borderline) EDIT (5/17): In order to expedite a revision, I will flip my vote to NO (resubmit) so that AJ can see the feedback and (hopefully) proceed with a revision. Let's go, bro!

Either click your profile name above your avatar or scroll to the very top of the page, click your name, then click profile. The # next to your username in the URL is your user id #, i.e. 34545.

I thought this still could have been even clearer, but mixing-wise, this was a nice step up. Great job on the refresh, Karlyn. Hooray and meow, and all that! YES

Just going off the melody and most obvious parts, the source tune was in play just over half of the track: :00.75-16.5, :54.75-1:52.5, 3:02.75-3:44.5 = 115.25 seconds or 50.1% overt source usage I'm not as familiar with the building blocks of the "Sanctuary" theme as I should be, but the rest of the track at least used the chord progression, so it felt tangentially connected at the very least. As long as more than 50% of the track overtly referenced the source, I was cool with it. Noticeable muddy/lossy to start off with. It doesn't sound horrible, just cluttered and obviously lacking high-end clarity. The thumping of the drum sounded more upfront than the guitar work, which didn't quite make sense, but I'm not dying over it; that said, the drumkit -- while it had a lot of power -- sounded kind of hollow despite the busyness. 2:31's brief peak just sounded like a ball of (well-performed) mud. I'd say this needs one more pass at the mixing to restore some clarity and sharpness, at least to some degree. It wouldn't need to sound squeaky clean or anything like that, but I'd like to hear this improved on that level before we can post it. Right now, the arrangement and performance were strong, but the listening experience was pretty muffled overall. Nice work so far though, Aitor, just touch this up. NO (refine/resubmit)

Super minor, but the drums at the very end were exposed as not a real kit; no big deal, but a little mixing/production touch up could have made that sound more natural. Strong, personalized metal cover with machine gun drums aplenty. It never lets up, but there's textural variety throughout, so it never sounded repetitive or stale. Good work, Andy! \m/ YES

The source tune was referenced pretty clearly throughout this, even just with the guitar chugs, so there was no need to timestamp it. I thought the opening synths at :08 sounded generic, BUT were produced in a way to give them depth and fullness, so nice work there. The soundscape felt a little lo-fi (no big deal) and the beat pattern first used at :50 being so plain and plodding was a negative. No big issue here either, as I liked the energy of the electric guitar, but felt it was too loud vs. the other elements; luckily, the synth writing cut through to the foreground enough to be heard, though the mixing could have been tweaked. Aside from the drum writing being underwhelming, the rest of the track was creatively developed and the part-writing was full and distinct enough to be appreciated. Fun energy! Lemmings is now the first game on OCR to be repped on 4 different platforms. YES

The source tune was all over this. I had it at least from :10-1:25, 1:42.5-1:50.75 & 2:33.25-4:03.5, and I'm sure there were other sections I didn't immediately recognize, so there were no concerns on that level. The arrangement aspect was a pass, and the collaborators all stepped up and delivered. Also gotta co-sign that the drumwork was definitely solid, and a strong foundation here. However, I'm definitely on the NO side of this with the current execution. I wouldn't be angry if this passed, BUT I also strongly don't believe there's a legitimate case that this should pass as is. As others pointed out, those sequenced bowed strings were definitely pretty lacking, with some of the longest sustained notes really exposed (e.g. :32-37). I don't think saying "they're stated as string synths" makes them sound serviceable; I've heard better usage of synth strings before, these are too exposed, and for all intents and purposes they're serving the function of real orchestral strings. The background synth brought in at :31 was arguably too quiet, but it at least registered; no issue there, I just thought it could have been more prominent, including at 2:07's section as well. Onto some other production issues: The timing of the flute at :47 was also extremely blocky and mechanical-sounding. I'm not sure if it was just the 160kbps encoding here, but the mixing wasn't strong either. For example, I felt like the rhythm guitar work introduced at 1:03 did a decent job filling in the soundscape, but the performance of it tended to mud into the background and not sound clear; that said, the backing guitar at 1:25 did noticeably sound clearer and did a better job filling in the textures. It was only at 2:47 that I even noticed a bassline even existed in this piece; it barely registered for me, so let's not make sure THG's work there isn't lost in the shuffle so badly. The overall mixing wasn't awful, and it's decent enough to get by with some Js, but do what you can to clear the overall piece up so that some of your team's part-writing isn't getting buried. Very good base here, Kevin, and if this doesn't make it as is, the potential is there. The arrangement doesn't need to be touched, so it would then be about fine-tuning the production, i.e. the sample realism issues and the mixing. Good luck, and definitely keep at it with this one. NO (resubmit)

Yep, I'm with MindWanderer all the way. I would have loved more melodic interpretation and the theme got repetitive over time (but only near the very end for me). That said, the new instrumentation ideas, and the expansive writing touches do collectively get it done here. Rebecca with a conservatively structured but solid cover. YES

The track was 5:28-long, so I needed to hear the source tune employed during at least 164 seconds of the track for it to dominate the arrangement. :00-:00.5, :02.5-1:43, 2:16.5-2:30, 3:48-4:09, 4:17.5-4:38, 4:55-5:07, 5:08.5-5:18.75 = 179.25 seconds or 54.64% overt source usage Just sanity checking the source usage to be sure it was there, and that was no problem; I'm likely shortchanging it on a few connections. Anyone know the mainstream prog music referenced here? We can't have too much non-VGM source usage in the arrangement, though I'm pretty sure PuD got away with way more due to our ignorance on what he referenced. Not really feeling the synths here, which sounded low-quality compared to all of the other instrumentation. The sequenced strings also strained credibility some. Otherwise, the prog was strong here, and the track developed nicely throughout. Sean and crew got a lot of mileage out of this theme, for sure. YES

Whatever that lead was at :17 sounded really rigid with its attacks. At :33, I'm not sure why the warbling synths were louder than the pad-style lead. This kind of imbalance pervaids the whole track, because the beats were the loudest instrument except during the verses with the guitar in play. Yeah, I can already tell I'm not feeling the execution on this. The guitar performance sounded expressive, and the bassline had presence, but most of the other sounds were anemic, e.g. the pad-like synth handling the melody, the boom-tss percussion, and the synth quietly doubling the melody. And beats/kicks at 1:03 had volume but a flimsy tone, even though the beats were at the foundation of the track and too often pushed as the loudest element. I dunno what was up with the panning choices here either, but it's seems too wide overall as I'm listening on headphones, with an imbalance to the right side; had to listen to some control tracks on my comp just to be sure my headphone connection wasn't jacked. EQ-wise, you sometimes have a lot of instruments fighting for the same space in the soundscape (e.g. 2:03-2:18). The source is one of PC gaming's catchiest, and I liked the additive writing of the guitar, which was easily the track's highlight. The rest of this sounded sloppy with the mixing/balance issues. MindWanderer pointed out the repetition as well as the lack of a developed ending/resolution, so don't overlook that. Keep developing/varying the arrangement further and re-examine the mixing, Zak; post this in the Workshop area if you haven't already done so, and badger for production advice to rehab this. Right now you have a decent cover with some expansive guitar work added in, but the production lacks polish. NO (resubmit)

It's not that I disliked this, but I was less enthused than the other Js. The synthwave concept is intriguing, but the result here was a plodding, straightforward one-trick pony of a genre adaptation that didn't develop the arrangement ideas much beyond that. Melodically, this played it pretty conservatively, so I was expecting other unique ideas here to offset that beyond the genre adaptation, and they never really arrived. As pointed out, the percussion was plodding and insignificant, which hurt the second half. There was a transition section bridging the Sanctuary theme to the Hyrule Castle theme (2:11-2:35), sure, but no effort was made to have this all flow together; it definitely came off like a lazy, uninspired way to change from one theme to the next with no real connection between the two. Gario made note of a lot of production issues to focus on, so don't lose sight of that. I would just say this piece needs to develop and evolve more (even within a narrow dynamic curve), whether that means more melodic interpretation/variations, altering rhythm or tempo, or employing other sounds to break up the uniformity of each of the two sections. Also, if you're going to have both themes separated, the transition between the two should nonetheless be more cohesive. Keep at it on this one, Moritz, and see where else you can take it. NO

The beats from :07-1:52 & 2:37-3:37 (71% of the track) were really, REALLY plain and plodding, which left the entire arrangement sounding static. No offense intended, but how can you be on the third iteration of this track and not have addressed this with something more sophisticated and varied??? The piano at :22 was still very blocky-sounding and hasn't aged well; let's step this up. The vanilla, generic saw from :45-1:07 & 1:37-1:52 was just so rigidly timed and plain. Do what you can to raise your sound design game, Aaron. From 1:37-1:52, I did like the saw moving around the stereo field. I didn't have a big problem with the 1:10 note; it's odd, but it resolved fine. For a smaller detail that got squashed, I really liked the bassline writing in principle, but it's so quiet and buried that it might as well not be there. It's a non-factor here right now. The original countermelodic oboe writing from 2:52-3:22 was a nice touch. Vary up the beats (they're the dealbreaker), improve the uniqueness and humanity of the saw and piano sounds, and revisit the mixing so that important supporting elements like the bass aren't pushed out. I think this needs much more TLC than than any of the other judges implied, and to me it wasn't a close vote, though this is still in the right direction. You've really need to put in the effort to achieve more sophisticated writing & production with your sounds, and fully develop this piece. NO (resubmit)

The track was 4:46.75 long (due to the silence from 44.5-48.5 & 2:50.25-2:52.5), so I needed to hear the source tune referenced for at least 143.375 seconds for the source tune usage to dominate the arrangement. 59.25-1:08.75, 1:10-2:19, 2:23-2:26.75, 2:34.5-2:39.5, 3:01.5-3:40.25, 3:43-4:02.75 = 145.75 seconds or 50.82% overt source usage A squeaker as far as counting out what I could pick out from the source tune. Lots of good original writing that pieced together comfortably with the source, such as the opening and ending sections; I could also be overlooking some connections, and maybe another source was actually referenced, but source usage didn't end up being a dealbreaker anyway. The interpretation ideas were very substantive here, and unlike Dylan's Final Fantasy 2 'Variations de Chocobo' piece that we rejected, the overall flow of the arrangement didn't sound disjointed by the pauses. I didn't have any issues with the performance. Nice work, Dylan! YES

The drumming at :11 didn't inspire too much confidence in terms of the texture getting properly filled in, but by :23, things were OK. Not a fan of the vocals at :40, which didn't have much flow, though the stuttering-type effects were fine. Chorus vocals were stronger here. On the production side, things got very cluttered at :23, and it pretty much stayed like that for the rest of the track any times things got dense, mostly during the choruses; if this could be cleaned/cleared up so that the part-writing behind the vocals didn't mud together so indistinctly, I'd be behind this. The arrangement's an easy pass, but one more pass to tighten up the mixing would solidify this. NO (resubmit)

Just leaving my fun political note that Trump is garbage. I didn't mind the intro clip sampling action from the game; it was only 10 seconds and more about the sound & action than taking the original music, so that was all OK. I'm not sure why your lead and synth accents were quieter than the guitar chugs and drumming, so the mixing/placement doesn't make sense. 1:23 was already repeating the melody essentially verbatim from the first iteration at :43. Melodically, this could also stand to be more interpretive, but you did at least have a spirited rock cover here. The changeup at 2:29 fell flat to me; didn't quiet flow from what came before, but it was just a momentary bump in the road. Not sure about the notes around 2:55, 3:01, 3:05 & 3:11; didn't quite resolve correctly, IMO. Wow, back to the same writing at 3:23 with a little more guitar and synth accenting, but basically a copy-pasta of the :43 verse. The final section at 3:59 sounded fine to start, but dragged out without something melodic going on during the fade. A near-minute-long conclusion like that was overwrought; wrap it up sooner if there's essentially nothing more to say. The arrangement has good energy, and I actually thought the sampling and SFX stuff was tastefully included. You need to vary the melodic verses somehow, either through arranging/interpreting the melody, changing the rhythms or tempo, or presenting some different instrumental combinations/textures. Develop this more. The mixing of the parts needs to make more sense. Good base here though, Fahad; definitely see what more you can do with this one, it has great potential, and your rock arrangement ideas are well in the right direction of what we're looking for. NO (resubmit)

This one's pretty dated, in that the mixing was cluttered and the ideas eventually became repetitive over the 4 1/2 minutes. That said, I loved how Tim essentially channeled Secret of Mana's sound palette with the piano lead and string pads. The dance groove alongside that was a shaky fit for me, but it certainly got the job done back in the day and expanded upon the theme with a more upbeat approach.

This one has aged very nicely. Cool, unique spin on Flash Man's theme with a lot of the trademark @StarBLaSt synths and funk he's great at. Wish it went in a more varied direction at around 2:50 when it retread the verse, but it was a creative interpretation to begin with, so it can bear the repetition. Nice changeup to the strings around 3:20; that's what I'm talking about. I hope Star hasn't stopped making music entirely. His personal site's only had one track added since 2010, and I know he's had to have come up with some many great ideas since then.

@OceansAndrew echoed my thoughts, only more articulately than I ever could. This doesn't age well in that the opening brass articulations were rough, but when it was mostly held notes, it was OK. Same criticism could be put on the strings as well. The pace was pretty deliberate, which ended up exposing the samples, but it was interesting to hear a decidedly different mood to the Halo theme. Would be interested to hear how far @Edgen has come these days.

Structurally sounded the same as the original to start off, but good original writing additions at :12 to help adapt this to an ethereal dance piece. The dropoff and build at :25 could have had more dynamic contrast, since the rebuild was so fast and the track quickly plateaued in energy again at :38. Even when the beats were brought back in at :49, the textures still seem like they're in a pretty low-key gear. The core snare writing should have been more intricate just to keep things fresh, but you at least had a needed change in the beats at 1:33. At 1:33, the beats were still pretty pedestrian, but you at least had some decent effects on them. Also have to co-sign on the cymbals from 1:46-1:57 distorting. At 1:58, there was another rendition of the verse with some more quiet supporting writing added to fill out the textures; at this point, the new parts seemed to just add some clutter and density, but without the energy level feeling any different; kind of a shame how the different densities of your textures didn't truly register and help the track to sound like it was developing/evolving. Summarizing, I thought your track needed more dynamic contrast and that the various news parts coming in over time failed to create that contrast. In other words, 1:00 sounds very similar to 1:30... and 2:00... and 2:30. While you have some developments, the overall energy level just hovers in place with mostly the same sounds and not enough variation in the textures, instrumentation, or writing. MindWanderer also mentioned some close, nearly cut-and-paste looping of sections, so be sure to develop the interpretation of the theme further to avoid coasting for too long. Good base here, Miguel. I really like the 80s style you're going for, and this piece goes well in the right direction. See what more you can do with it. NO (resubmit)

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

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