Liontamer

The dryness of the pizz strings from 1:12-1:47, and even the string accents first brought in at :25, was pretty brutal and short-sighted. The thing is, I'd probably go conditional as well, but I don't feel this is a conditional fix. A musician J can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there would probably need to be a more involved fix; IMO, the pizz strings were so upfront that it wouldn't be enough to just slap some delay on them, you'd need to adjust other things with the mixing in conjunction with addressing that first problem. Scratching my head at the complete lack of transition to the more upbeat dance stuff at 1:49, along with the massive volume disparity. There's gotta be some sort of effort given to an actual bridge from one aesthetic to the other, even just some sort of sweeping SFX to tie it together. After 1:49, the textures sounded really cramped and muddy until the dropoff at 2:48, then again during the fullest section from 4:08-5:06. The boom-tss beats starting at 3:13 felt pretty basic and vanilla in terms of the writing and sound design, but I'll live. Would have liked something more sophisticated with the writing, but what's there was serviceable. The dropoff back to the piano only at 5:07 also felt very awkward and disconnected. I see what was attempted, but it doesn't work at all. Watch the ending at 5:47 not being given enough time for a full fade; the track abruptly cuts off at 5:49, so watch the render and get everything in there. This arrangement started off very conservatively, Kare, so I was worried on where it could go, but at least the DDR-style stuff later on presented interpretation. That said, this still needs some work to refine what's there. I thought both the transition into and out of the energetic sections were abrupt & low-effort, and the string dryness was a must-fix, NOT a nice-to-have. The volume disparity has to be addressed as well, and the fullest sections shouldn't sound cluttered. Let's not get sloppy with the detail work. NO (resubmit)

I agreed that the string articulations were weak (with 4:03-4:22 being a particular offender), but I'd argue we (really) need to get some TLC on more of the articulations here. Not sure how anyone can hear, for example, the brass/wind/string combinations from :22-:54, the brass alone from 2:14-2:48 (and later on), or winds alone from 3:29-3:42, and not want to send this back for polishing. The arrangement's solid, but the treatment of these samples needs refinement. It's not that I dislike this piece, but I'm a pretty solid NO. Let's get this touched up, THEN posted up. NO (resubmit)

Just quickly timestamping this, the music was 3:44-long, so I needed at least 112 seconds worth of source usage for it to dominate the arrangement: 1:01.5-1:21.5, 1:22.75-2:47 = 104.25 seconds Then you had lots of scattered references to the source, like right at :07 that I didn't feel like counting the bits and pieces of, since there were a lot of small gaps. The source usage definitely checked out. There definitely seemed to be some light distortion in places with the sax, so it would be nice if that was looked at, but it was nothing dealbreaking. I also agreed with Gario on the jazz to nerdcore rap transition feeling abrupt, but it wasn't a big deal in the grand scheme and the overall presentation was cohesive enough. Let's go! YES

Issues first: something about the bowed strings in particular was in the uncanny valley territory of realism. 1:12 had an odd note, but we'll live. Not sure what the snapping noise at 4:26 or the last note at 5:16 was either, and the ending fadeout was way too fast, but, again, we'll live. I also checked all of the potential off sections that MindWanderer timestamped, but wasn't bothered by anything he cited; busy in places, sure, but overall it sounded fine to me. That said, I feel his pain; I too have had the issue where I just can't get past some iffy-sounding constructions and can't get on board, so it definitely happens. Otherwise, this was a pretty strong arrangement, Hassan! I enjoyed the constant "Ballad of the Goddess" variations throughout, and the way you intertwined "Song of Storms" in places was very creative. It does wander at times, but the ride is a fun one. YES

The mixing wasn't clear, with the backing guitars until :14-:28 just adding clutter, IMO; Not sure why the panning was so wide with that stuff either; it's disorienting on headphones. Better stuff at :28 with the source tune more straight up, though the basic, metronome-ish backing drumwork quickly got repetitive. The timing/multitracking of the chorus from 1:09-1:37 was noticeably loose; an acquired taste maybe, and worth pointing out, though not something I'd necessarily ding the track on if the interpretation was solid. The adaptation to rock is decent, but it's too straightforward of a cover. You'll need to get more interpretive with the source material or more expansive with the part-writing to add your own observable touches; don't wait until 2:34 to throw in something that shows off more of your personality in the performance (and helps your rendition stand on its own). The drumwork also needs to be more varied and fleshed out; the writing for it was too simple and repetitive. There's nothing bad here, Christian, but this needs more development and interpretation of the source theme. NO

It's difficult to go anywhere with a source like this other than additive, but there still should have been more interpretive work done with what little melody the source tune had via some sort of rhythmic changes or grace notes, just something else there to further develop the arrangement. Right now the only differentiation in the source usage over time was dropping the melodic part out and leaving the beats, which wasn't much in terms of development. The gradual additive approach employing original lines was commendable, Jens, but the entire texture was so minimal and skeletal, and never really filled up the soundscape at any point. The beats had some bass presence but were otherwise pretty empty. It's a decent groove, but there just isn't much substance to this as a standalone piece of music. NO

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

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

For me the 1:22 transition to Zelda's theme from OoT was abrupt, IMO, and the worst offender of the structure here. I actually disagree with Gario about Alex achieving "absolute perfection" as it were with his pieces -- not being a hater -- but I didn't have any hangups about the instrumentation execution or volume relative to the bar, and obviously Alex should take in the critiques of the Js on those issues to refine his work. It's not something I would have focused on, but Gario was right about the brass and string humanization being a sticking point and sounding samey. Otherwise, the arrangement was lovely, and I disagreed with Chimpa on the pacing or tempo feeling rushed. Nearly everything clicked well, and the energy and creativity in the orchestral approach were strong. A great way to bring Breath of the Wild to OCR! YES

I wouldn't mind a volume raise, but didn't mind the level, so I'm not condition on that. The arrangement was straightforward and well over 50% of the piece, so I didn't need to timestamp anything. The opening piano sample was exposed with a thin/fake tone, so watch the detail work on that when there's nothing else in play; it was just a few seconds, but was the opening, so start strong as far as the production. The pacing and mood were pretty deliberate, arguably droning, but some good instrumentation and subtle textural changeups over time kept this from feeling repetitive within this narrower dynamic curve. Nice additional of the female solo & choir vox 2:32 for that added level of activity in the final section. Not my cup of tea personally, but Jaka nails the mood here very nicely. YES

As soon as the beats started from :11-:29, it felt like the beats were pumping and causing the levels of the leads to be constantly duck; frankly, it sounded pretty annoying and didn't sound stylized. The ducking's not as pronounced and thus not as big of a deal for most the rest of the track. The initial breakbeats from :32-:52 were a bit of an awkward fit only because that sampled pattern is so generic and stuck out as not really feeling like it was written for the arrangement; I don't mean to make it sound like a bigger deal than it was, just something that hit me having heard that pattern a lot before. Wasn't digging the beats, which picked up more for the :53-1:13; they just sound hollow like hitting a plastic bucket and don't fill out the soundscape well, yet too loud and upfront compared to the other instrumentation. Nice drops at 1:13 & 2:08, creating some good contrast after the (great) guitar work and the breakbeats before that, respectively. Swanky stuff from 2:19-2:40 with the jazzier synth work and claps, then shifting over to another rock section. The little note accents behind the guitar from 3:01-3:11 got buried when the writing there would really complimented the guitar; why bother having it there if it's not going to register? I 100% get the criticisms on the ducking, but for me it was only a notable deal from :11-:29 & (to a lesser extent) 3:11-3:30 and, at least for me, didn't hugely strike me as a dealbreaker on my headphones. Overall, the arrangement was creative, varied and dynamic, and doesn't need to be touched. I wasn't blown away by the percussion, and felt like the production was thinner/emptier than it should have been, but the arrangement carries it. I'd love to hear an improved version before we posted it, but I'm OK with this passing as is. If it doesn't make it as is, Faseeh, just tighten up the mixing with some of the feedback in mind and we can definitely get this up in some form. YES (borderline)

It's a music production workshop, that's why it's not there.

Hearing this main source, NOW I get why Mazedude likes this soundtrack, since it totally sounds like he was borrowed to create this one. I thought the drums were the weak link here, since they didn't really fill out the back here, and I thought the soundscape could have been even airier. Otherwise, this was a solid rock cover of the theme with some expansive instrumentation touches but retaining the creepy piano to retain that feel from the original. After 2:49, the title theme was integrated with aspects of the main source, which let Chris present some more interpretive ideas along with more wholly original stuff as well. The final shot of the verse at 4:12 could have been a boring retread, but Chris beefed things up thanks to the organ; good addition of energy and tension for that final section before closing it out. Good job! YES

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

Sorry for holding this up. Like I explained to Weston directly, typically, it would take maybe a few months to go through the judges panel, depending on when judges got to it vs. everything else, and then some time to wait before posting, but stuff with unique issues can get held up. It's part of the issues of doing this in downtime and not as a job, you tend to make time as needed, and anything that's not super easy to deal with can get put into a corner, which I'm guilty of here and in a lot of other cases. Thanks a lot to EAR for his extreme patience and understanding. Thanks also to djp for chatting with me about the potential for the extensive sampled lyrics being a Standards violation on incorporating non-VGM music. Basically, he's been OK with vocal sampling of this nature, because it's raps and spoken word stuff that isn't pulling in any sort of non-VGM melodies or composition to be arranged. That many of the lines were from sample packs rather than mainstream music releases was noted thanks to Weston's info, but djp ultimately wasn't concerned about the source of the lyrical sampling, if you check his comments above. Just restating my POV on the potential direct audio sampling of the source tunes, I wasn't hearing that here at all and it wasn't a concern. The other Js say the source tune was "all over this," but no one bothered to break it down, so I think they conflated a lot of the house/rave style of the writing with the parts arranging/referencing the various "Metallic Madness" segments. The music part of the track was 4:27-long, so I needed to identify the source tunes being used for at least 133.5 seconds of the arrangement. :20.5-:22.25 (Past - 1:01-1:03), :38.5-1:43.5 (mostly Past, some Present), 2:22.25-2:47 (Bad Future), 2:47-3:01.25 (Present), 3:27-3:54.25 (Bad Future), 4:19-4:25 (Past - 1:01-1:03) = 139 seconds or 52.05% overt source usage There were a lot of things that had a soundalike feel to "Metallic Madness" but sounded more stylistically influenced by 2 Unlimited's "Twilight Zone" (e.g. that similar sampled shout at :23) or even the Mortal Kombat movie theme, The Immortals' "Techno Syndrome," due to the numerous orch stabs, like 1:56's little jingle. There were also plenty of extended sections with no direct connection to Sonic CD that I could ID, so I came up just barely over half as far as the source usage being dominant in the arrangement, which made it closer to me than the other judges believed, provided I'm not overlooking something major. I'm sure Weston can clarify after the fact. Anyway, Gario and Sir_NutS had fair production points about crowding and piercing highs that I agreed with, but on the whole, this was produced reasonably well and felt very authentic as a long-lost 90s club hit, and I didn't hear any dealbreaking issues for the production. All of the SFX & sampled lyric usage added up to a lot, but sounded reasonable in the big picture, as far as not feeling invasive and integrating well into the track. Good to go! YES

Here's my discussion with djpretzel last week (5/17/2017) on the possible Standards issue of the heavy vocal sampling in this mix (edited for clarity, with removal of some non sequitur talk)

Weird opening, more out of a Metroid arrangement or something. That's not a criticism, and I thought it was a cool way to illustrate how different the mood of this would be compared to the original. OK, so :30 brings in the theme, but the approach sounds pretty plodding to start. The bass writing also sounded repetitive until 1:25. 1:25-1:53 hit the source tune's chorus, and the lead felt scrawny with stiff timing. 1:53 seemed to basically retread :30's writing, aside from different bassline writing, and the guitar chugs hitting at 2:20 with exactly the same stuff. 2:47-3:15 went into a different direction with some soloing, before going back to the source tune's chorus; again, I felt the lead guitar tone was scrawny and the timing felt stilted, even though the performance here was more expressive than before. I THINK there was machine gun bass kick stuff going from 4:09-4:37... yep, you could only really make out the drums at the end around 4:35 when other parts dropped out and allowed that part to breathe for a second; otherwise, they were so buried, they barely registered nearly the whole time. This could use another pass on the mixing to clarify some things, and a lot of the lead electric guitar work sounded stiff, so I dunno if you're up for fresh takes on all of that. There was also the issue of needing some more substance/development with the arrangement. Not sure why the arrangement approach was underdeveloped for the first half like this, but MindWanderer was right on his repetition criticisms. I'm actually not against more deliberate pacing, as long as there's sufficient development within the dynamic range you've staked out; this was well in the right direction, just to be clear, but more could be done here, so keep in mind the sections MW mentioned. Good base, Daniel, and I'm liking how you're given this source a completely different character. If you're up for giving this some more expressiveness in the performance, providing more development in the first half, and/or re-EQing this, this still has a lot of potential. This definitely would have been posted back in the olden days of the site, and I think it has a place here, so I urge you not to drop this one. NO (resubmit)

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

All set.

The opening "AHHH" at :18 just felt kind of there and disconnected from arranging the "Prelude" and the tone of the rest of the track, but we'll move on. Pretty solid combinations of voices and instruments, and the vocal interplay was always interesting to listen to. No one instrument was the core focus or driver here; rather you had the plucked strings and two different vocal lines taking turns with the "Prelude" melody. It works surprisingly and effectively well. Nice work, Rebecca! YES

The track was 5:11-long, so I needed to make out at least 155.5 seconds of overt source usage for the VGM usage to dominate the arrangement. :10-:28, :33-2:06.75, 2:39-2:46, 3:48.5-4:05, 4:08-4:55 = 182.25 seconds or 58.6% overt source usage Yeah, in listening to this I agreed with Gario on the bassline matching up with the opening bassline in the source at the very start, the only difference being that the bass notes drop occasionally (removing part of the source's constant pattern), so it's not the complete phrase. But it was directly referencing explicit writing from the source, so I counted most of the bass work in my timestamping. I disagreed with Gario on the synth design being strong. I did like most of the sounds here, but I thought the saw-style synth at 1:26 & 3:48 was vanilla, and the synths string timing from 4:15-4:41 sounded very stilted & exposed rather than stylized. I was put off by that, particularly the string synth, because alum's sound design usually feels fully cohesive. That said, most of the sound design was super cool. On the mixing side, I thought the lead synths at 1:26-1:53 were too loud/sizzling alongside the cymbals; this also seemed too hot there as well from 3:04-3:41 & 3:48-4:41 particularly when you had loud synth lines (e.g. 3:36-3:41). Maybe it's just me feeling like this was too loud at times, but I'm surprised none of the other Js ever brought it up. Re: MindWanderer criticizing the 3:03's rock section, I can see how he was put off by it being so different, but the transitions in and out of it were substantive, so it's not like there was a jumpy & sudden change in style, it was just a very distinct break. I can live with that, and the overall approach still felt unified. I'd appreciate another pass at the mixing (my biggest issue), and tweaking some of the instrumentation I wasn't digging, but those aren't enough to pull this down to NO when the arrangement is solid. As much as I'd like the mixing to not sound so loud and almost abrasive during the densest sections, I can live with this as is. Really catchy source tune choice by the excellent Jared Emerson-Johnson, and from a Fables game adaptation I didn't even know existed until now. Much like WayForward and Capcom, Telltale always works with the coolest outside IPs. A nice welcome back to (and from) aluminum! YES (borderline)

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