Liontamer

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

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

Yeah, sure, I'll take a PM whenever. Otherwise, we'll see the page when it's live; as long as it's thoroughly sourced from notable sources, it shouldn't get bahleeted.

Really had to bump the volume way up to hear the detail work and textures here. I liked the adaptation of the Stranger Things-esque pulsing line as the foundation of the track, though the sound was noticeably drier & thinner than the style of the Stranger Things theme. While there's clear effort to changeup the instrumentation, and the SFX and brass & string swells were good, the usage of the melodic and countermelodic parts of the source felt way too straightforward. Where was the change in tone at 3:43 when it was needed earlier on? Pretty late to bring that in for a few seconds, and then just end the track without a real resolution. This felt underdeveloped to me, and I thought the static nature of the ideas added up to pull this down to a NO. The adaptation to this cover style wasn't insubstantial, but there needed to be more interpretation and development. I'd need to hear more substantial personalization/interpretation of the source's writing, or more original writing ideas integrated into this; just something to help this stand apart from the feeling of the original even more. Pretty good base here though, Connor; we'll see what the others think. NO (resubmit)

The lead synth was pretty generic, but great energy out of the gate. As soon as the track pivoted to the chorus at :24-:32... yep, the mixing was totally imbalanced and sounded like indistinct mud. When you had a strong lead to focus on in the foreground, things weren't as bad, but the mixing's still pretty messed up. From :54-1:09 for example, the "Bloody Tears" melody was being played, but it was buried deep, deep, deep in the back of the track; same from 1:24-2:16, the lines playing the "Bloody Tears" theme might as well not be there, it's practically inaudible (and for multiple instances). The whole wall of sound execution of this piece ended up jacking it up pretty badly, and you've got an indistinct mush of sounds for much of the piece. On the plus side, Mikki, the energy's fantastic, and all of your original part-writing fit like a glove alongside the CV2 arrangement parts. We would love to see this get posted in some form, and the writing side doesn't need to be touched here. If you can rehabilitate your mixing job or just make sure you're rendering this correctly, then this has a chance. The arrangement aspect was definitely ready for primetime here, so -- if you're not already doing so -- please use our Workshop forums for critique of this track and to ask targeted production questions, or head to any pro audio forum and ask around there. NO (resubmit)

The track was 4:29-long, so I needed to make out at least 124.5 seconds of source usage for the source material to be considered dominant. To me, I was finding a lot of gaps where I couldn't ID the source. :35.5-40.5, 44.5-1:34.25, 1:36.5-1:42.25, 1:45.25-1:51, 1:53.75-1:59.75, 2:02.5-2:11.5, 2:15.75-2:27.5, 2:33-2:37.5, 3:12.5-3:18.5, 3:21.5-3:27, 3:56-4:02.5 = 115.5 seconds or 46.38% overt source usage As far as I could tell, this was coming up a little source light, but if MindWanderer or anyone else can point out some connections I missed, I'd appreciate it. I didn't mind that there weren't live performers, and I'm against specifically urging people in that direction only because some people aren't that inclined to collaborate. That said, I see what MW's means about the instrumentation being in an uncanny valley. The blockyness of practically all of the lead work -- particularly the guitar leads and organ from 2:37 all the way through 3:47 -- just doesn't sound good, and that ends up being a dealbreaker for me. Also, the lead synth at :09 still seems pretty generic, and the faux-guitar funk synth at :00 was also a pretty default-sounding line; maybe you can effect these in some way to give their sounds more uniqueness/character. If you find a way to smooth this out and get the piece sounding more expressive, and also get your leads to sound more sophisticated, this would be on solid ground. The arrangement itself is already strong, so now it's just about getting your production to rise to the occasion. If there are more "Overworld BGM" references that I'm overlooking, let me know; otherwise find a few other ways to subtly keep referencing the Mario theme during some of the extended original sections, and that would put the source usage over 50% to dominate the arrangement. Good base here, Garrett! NO (resubmit)

I thought that opening synth was pretty generic, but I did like that you tried to change the tone around :36. There was a soft, but noticeable pop in the right channel at :34; not sure what happened there. That synth lead at :47 sounded kind of like a grade-up version of Tim Follin's phased music on Agent X, so that's a fun little style callback for me. I agreed with the others on the lead at 1:03 just sounding really plain. DragonAvenger did have a point on the drums being repetitive from 1:34-on. Do see if you can employ some additional subtle variations to the pattern, but IMO the arrangement felt well-developed for the second half, so this wasn't a major issue. MindWanderer also mentioned some potentially odd chords at 1:40/1:52, and I hear what he's referring to, but everything there resolved fine. I liked the wacky faux-industrial vox stuff thrown in at 1:57; it added something really cool to the texture, and clicked nicely with the synths before taking over in the foreground at 2:20. It got a little repetitive due to being used for so long without a break, but it was a cool idea and used well, so I personally didn't have an issue. For something that no one else brought up, that synth at 1:03 couldn't have been more blocky-sounding; it's strange because for certain lead tones, the blocky feel seemed sloppy (1:03-1:57) and sapped the track of energy, but once the vox/SFX fuckery arrived, the blocky timing of the lead wasn't an issue; it could be from: 1) having something more energetic and less mechanical surrounding it (e.g. 2:22); or 2) because you used doubling under the melodic synth at 1:57; or 3) because you also used a different tone for the melodic line at 2:22. Either way, I don't know. Feel free to run that by other people and see if they agree at all. To me, I'd really like to hear the synth at 1:03 in particular sound more expressive. The changeup at 3:07 didn't really make much sense to me, but that could be because I haven't played Twilight Princess. It was abrupt and broke the flow, but I'll live. Chimpazilla had some good criticisms of the mixing/panning that would definitely improve this, even though that stuff didn't affect my vote, since the part-writing was clear/discernible enough, IMO. Pretty close stuff here, Garrett, and the arrangement aspect of this seems like a pass already. There are just multiple smaller production issues adding up to hold this back (but not by much, IMO). See if you can take the advice of the Js to get the production on more solid ground. Definitely don't drop this one! NO (borderline)

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

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

Nice work, y'all. YES

That's definitely a false positive, so don't worry about it. The FLAC.exe was included in our album releases up until a couple of years ago because FLAC adoption/support wasn't standard like it is now. We no longer need to include it within our album releases.

I didn't count many of the extended gaps/rests in the theme, so I timed this out just to be sure the source tune dominated the arrangement. Thanks to Jorito for the very thorough breakdown. The track was 7:23-long, so I needed to hear the source material used in at least 226.5 seconds of the arrangement for the VGM usage to dominate the arrangement per the standards. 47.5-56.75, :59.75-1:08.25, 1:12-1:35.5, 1:47.5-2:21.75, 2:23.75-2:33.5, 2:35.75-2:45.75, 2:47.75-2:59.75, 3:02-3:21.5, 3:26-3:46, 5:11-5:45.25, 5:47.5-5:57.5, 5:59.5-6:09.5, 6:11.5-6:20.5, 6:23.5-6:33.75, 6:35.5-6:47.75 = 232.5 seconds or 52.48% overt source usage Onto the overall track itself, there was noticeable stiffness in the wind lead introduced at :46 (which otherwise had a nice tone), but that was masked better once the guitar came in at :59. The string articulations and sustains from 1:11-1:35 were very stiff and unrealistic, exacerbated by being so upfront. Small thing, but there were some odd notes with the organ from 1:46-1:47 that didn't click. From 1:36-2:12, I'm hearing Furilas's bassline stand out, but the organ, electric guitars and strings are just mudding together indistinctly and the track sounded like it lacked direction and focus for that time. It's really strange how the source theme was there, but just pushed way, way back compared to the bass. The new string lead for the melody at 2:12 was a good addition, though the writing of the core drum pattern behind it felt plodding, especially by the time it finally changed up at 2:52. Good, distinct changeup at 2:59; the sequenced string lead sounded sluggish but wasn't a huge deal. The addition of choir at 3:25 seemingly appeared out of nowhere, had some stiff-sounding timing (that was decently masked), and also sounded pretty muffled and not mixed in a way that seemed to share the same soundscape as the other instrumentation; not saying it was a huge issue, but there was a bit of a quality disparity there. Tuberz' guitar at 3:55 was my favorite part. It should have sounded cleaner/clearer, but the energy in the performance was strong and added some good variation to the source melody. The synth soloing joining in from 4:24-4:48 with the guitar overpowered the guitar somewhat, but the combination worked overall. Smooth integration of the "Vampire Killer" cameo. Later on, I liked the melodic doubling and interplay from 5:36-6:45, which left the arrangement with a stronger finish in terms of the execution, even though the first faux-guitar synth had weird, blocky timing. Back to the choir at 6:49 and then a random wolf howl at 6:56 at villainous laughing + more wolf at 7:05 that all just sounded lo-fi and felt awkwardly tacked on. I honestly chuckled at how unnecessary it was the first time I heard it; if those samples were cleaner and fit into the soundscape more, it wouldn't have been an issue though. What's here was pretty promising, and the arrangement itself was a solid pass, so I definitely understand the YESs. It'll make it as is, but IMO this needed some production TLC on the mixing, some timing/articulations, some more sophisticated drum writing in spots, and better integration of the SFX/voice samples (or you could have iced them, since you didn't really need them). Still, a very well developed arrangement, and no big issue with seeing it posted. NO (borderline)

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

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

The performance could have been a little smoother, and it seemed like the levels got overloaded a few times, but everything sounds much fuller now. Way to rehab this, Dylan! YES

I don't agree with Gario's assessment of long intros or his guideline on how long you can go to max one out. I take this stuff on a case-by-case basis, and the main things I'm concered about are the interpretation of the source tune and track development. I didn't have any inherent problem with the build here being nearly half the track because there was development and contrast throughout the way. Songs come in all kind of forms, and there was nothing inherently problematic with this piece's structure vis-a-vis our Standards. I break on the side of leaving artists flexibility with how they want to write. Onto the track analysis, that opening is just... oof. The sound quality of the opening piano and then drums were basically General MIDI-type quality. Just robotic-sounding, bone dry, and super fake. C'mon, bro, let's not settle for stuff like this. The quick intro speech at :20 was cheesy too, but we'll let that go for now. The guitar work at :26 sounded better. Agreed with MindWanderer on the vocalization brought in at :30 & 1:36 being flat in a lot of places, even though the delay was able to somewhat mitigate that. Oh, the spoken work stuff comes back at 1:08. Well, I'll say this; I like the effects on it, but the voice doesn't really have much presense; it's somewhat nasally/chipmunky the way it's produced now. The electric guitar coming in at 1:25 added some good depth to your texture, but the drums writing (while not too simplistic) still felt plodding and metronom-ish. I didn't agree with MindWanderer's criticism of the electric guitar being produced differently at 2:17 vs. 1:29. They have two different tones, but what's the problem? Calling it a "discontinuity" sounded pretty overblown to me, and the bookends approach of the closing section compared with the opening sounded just fine from a writing and sound perspective. Apologies for not saying much about the writing and arrangement. Conceptually, this arrangement works fine and was a creative take on "Southern Shrine," but the execution needs refinement, so most of the issues are production-related. The drum writing felt pretty plodding, and you've also got to improve the sound quality/realism of the opening piano and your drums, and tighten up the notes of the choir work. The spoken word stuff could use a little more body to it. That said, you have a decent base here, Reuben, but it would take a fair amount of work to shape it up. Do what you can via the Workshop forums here or any other resources to given this one another shot, at least to see how far you can improve it. Even if you don't get this one posted here in some form, you show good potential and your creative ideas are well in the right direction for what we're looking for with interpretive arrangements. NO (resubmit)

I thought the Wesker/Umbrella Chronicles reference was pretty apparent. I don't know why David mentioned RE1's Wesker theme as a source, but that certainly added confusion when I'd been trying to nail down the source tunes for the BadAss 3 documentation, so I feel MindWanderer's pain there; AFAIK, it's not actually a source, just the Umbrella Chronicles version. Maybe David can re-clarify this later. Anyway, the note pattern and variations of it used in the beginning of this arrangement until 1:36 sounded more like :48 and 1:56 in the Umbrella Chronicles source as opposed to the very beginning, for what that's worth. Just noting that the RE 5 source reference started at :38 of that source, and the choir from the RE 4 source started at :26 of that one. The Umbrella Chronicles usage was over half of the arrangement, so I didn't really need to timestamp the rest. I thought the connection was pretty straightforward there. I'm seeing some of the NO-rationale based on the arrangement being an extended, quiet build to a big climax. OK, so the track opens up delicately and gradually, and then builds. The last time I checked, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Gario, DragonAvenger, and Jivemaster were right on the mixing getting cluttered during the densest section at 2:15, but the part-writing remained distinct enough, and a supermajority of the track was well-mixed, so I can easily let this go. 2:15-2:34 was only 19 seconds, it's not poorly mixed, just not ideally mixed, and it's not a dealbreaker. But enough talk. Have at you! YES

I appreciated the source breakdown, but for the future, Callum, if you have that many, please also note when in the videos you're referencing, since all of the source themes were long and many didn't get to what you referenced until 30-60 seconds in. It was all very straightforward in this case, so no harm, no foul, but this would help us eval your track and understand the A-to-B connections more quickly. The transition at :57 was pretty WTF, and the guitar timing of both the acoustic and electric sounded off with the drumwork. Not sure what effect/mood you were going for from :57-1:14, then again at 1:53 & 2:01, but it really doesn't work as is right now. I hear how "Charmed Ridge" uses a similar style with different lines having different timing, but your version sounds disjointed, while that source didn't. Whenever I hear a multi-sourced arrangement, I first listen without comparing the sources to see if I was bothered by how the arrangement combined the multiple themes. The only standards we have in place are: "Your submission must have a strong focus and direction. Medleys must sound like a single song, not multiple songs pasted together." For the first half, you're basically hearing different, short melodic fragments woven together reasonably well. By 1:14, unlike what MindWanderer's saying, I wouldn't have assumed there'd been 4 themes used, and I think MW was influenced by already knowing the layout. If Callum himself didn't break down exactly where one theme stopped and the next started, would you REALLY just divine that this was 7 total themes, or would you think 2? I say that because, to me, this basically separated out to "Agent 9's Lab" and "everything else." I'd say the arrangement/interpretation-aspect of this piece was generally OK. As long as medleys have reasonable connectivity and flow, we can work with them. With that said, there were clearly some jarring breaks in the overall flow, :57 and 3:10, areas which needed smoother transitions. Other theme changes were awkward like 1:13's and 2:45's (the latter not even being a theme change), but IMO that wasn't the writing as much as the abrupt & total shifts of the instrumentation. A smaller, but related issue, why did the electric guitar just end at 2:06 with no tail or trail-off? You just just hear the texture go from dense to empty with 0 transition. It's just one small thing, but it's just one example of how you have dramatic instrumentation shifts, but not enough care put into whether they're smooth. Total style shifts as transitions CAN work (see: Marsland Brotherhood's Speedball "Speedy Guitar"), but that's a skill in-and-of-itself. Onto my main dealbreaker: all of the sequencing sounded very stilted. Until the performance sounds reasonably humanized, this would be completely DOA from a production standpoint. Also, the snare used throughout sounded pretty hollow. The other Js said this version as is was "close." To me, it's not close yet on the production side, but the arrangement side was promising. I like the boldness of what you're working on with this arrangement, and you certainly should not be discouraged by a NO here; you're trying to raise your game with different tools rather than stick to what you're best at, and that's how you improve. Definitely take this to the Workshop and/or tug on the sleeves of some veterans you trust, Callum, so that you can get targeted advice on improving the the timing, realism, and some of the writing of the transitions here. NO (resubmit)

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

It did sample some of the original audio, but very sparingly and never as a crutch to connect this arrangement to the original source. The style changeup at 3:07 was super swanky. OMG, people harping on fadeouts, you'll be OK. Very nice job, Martin! YES

There's no inherent Standards problem with an arrangement having a bunch of themes pieced together. Obviously, MindWanderer made the case that he felt too many of the transitions were abrupt, but I just flatly disagreed. The awkward jumps at 7:52 and 9:02 didn't pull this down to NO for me due to literally everything else before it flowing smoothly to me. This just sounds like one giant prog approach, and it works. To me, what was most important was that the overall compositional flow wasn't broken, and that was the case for the first 4/5ths of the track, more than enough cohesiveness for me to be on board. YES

I agreed with MindWanderer on the track feeling static and on auto-pilot overall. 1:54 did bring in that added synth line and SFX, but that wasn't much. This needs more dynamic contrast and less repetition. Besides that, there's too much high end here, and the track's too bright and shrill as a result. Now, I get that the track's supposed to sound jacked from 1:30-1:54 to allude to the game, but that doesn't make it any less unpleasent to listen to. I'll live, but we'll see what other Js say. Also, I felt this was texturally too thin and could have used some other element to fill out the soundscape, so consider adding something else and see if it could work for you. Good base so far, Damon! NO (resubmit)

Hmm... didn't like how the bass was so muted from :02-:27, especially because it was handling some of the source melody and just got swallowed up instead. Even though the mixing managed to dampen the drumwork during the densest sections, and MindWanderer got into more details on elements crowding out, the track was good energy otherwise and the mixing not being ideal didn't hurt too much. Lots of good original writing ideas from 1:10-1:53 before going back to the source and adding even more original ideas on top of the source until 2:10, and some expressive shredding from 2:18-2:37. Fun stuff, Mad, and a great take on this classic theme! Keep it coming! YES

Just noting the padding alone being taken from the source tune's opening and being used as a base for the track, the source references were all over this: :00-:47, 1:12-1:35.5, 2:11.75-3:24 (just the pads referencing the source) I only bother pointing that out given the source's obscurity. No issues on source usage throughout the arrangement. The plinky piano's a stylized thing I've heard in this kind of music; same with the synth bowed strings at :47 and the 3rd Strike-style fakey sax introduced at 1:11. All not my cup of tea in terms of realism, particularly those exposed strings, but I'll live. If you told me this was from some Japanese VGM arrangement album, I wouldn't flinch; the production sounded super authentic, including that drop/transition at 1:35. At 2:11, the guitar sounded straight out of Zuntata's Metal Black: The First arrange album; Michael seriously nailed the 90s VGM arrangement album aesthetic, and I meant that in a good way. At 2:14 when the breakbeats came back, I agreed it was repetitive, but the pattern itself were pretty energetic and varied, which mitigated that issue. I would have liked something different from 2:35 until the end instead of the copy-pasta with slightly warmer padding, but it's creative enough that it doesn't drag it down to NO in any respect for me. The previous 2 1/2 minutes were developed well, and I didn't mind the repeat of that previous section either; the track could bear it, given how well-written it was. I thought I might be a NO coming in, just seeing how the initial votes came down, but I'm listening, and yep, I'm with the ladies here. Dunno if this'll pass as is, but Michael could certainly get this posted in some form if it doesn't make it as is. That said, has the tide swung on this one? YES

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