Liontamer

Heyyyy, nice to see an ilp0 track again, and nice work by Pieter in enhancing this further, as well as having a "never-give-up/I'm-just-resting" attitude on finishing this. I didn't have any issue with the usage of the piano, as the part-writing remained distinct enough and I didn't feel things clashed. Good stuff, easy call! YES

Quoted for truth/emphasis. I was worried the arrangement would sound too conservative because much of the instrumentation has a similar tone to the source tune, especially at the very start, but the arrangement approach does move in the right direction for the Standards here as far as including expansive new part-writing. I'd argue that it's not quite interpretive enough, but it's at least in the right direction. That said, this arrangement is just too repetitive/looped and underdeveloped once the initial ideas are established. I'd also add that the percussion added into the picture was too loud and that the string work added a lot of mud to the piece. Meanwhile, the bassline was very thin and obscured. I did like the bubbly line that came in around :36, but because the mixing was so muddy, its lovely sound didn't really cut through. Hopefully a musician J can give you some insight for how to address the muddiness of the track. You have a fine starting point for a relatively conservative arrangement with more involved percussion, Ryan, but the arrangement needs other writing/arrangement ideas beyond the first minute, and you need to clean up the soundscape. Good start though, and I hope we hear more from you. Even if you're not able to revise this into something we could post, you have the raw potential and it's clear you're trying to add your own spin to the source tune. NO

Pretty odd production. The voice stuff can't be understood, which isn't necessary in an enjoyable song and can be chocked up to a stylistic choice. That said, I still don't think that works here. Just to be clear, that's not a knock on this simply for having robotic or processed vocals; what's getting me here is that the syllables just slurred together, causing the vocals to not sound melodious. Another issue was that the vocals were pushed way behind the instrumental, which made no sense here. As soon as they came in, they were behind the lead synth, then a countermelodic synth came in at :44 that was positioned way more upfront compared to the vocals (and again at 1:10), and was even a touch louder than the synth on melody. And again, why is the beeping from 1:22-1:35 louder than everything else? None of the placement in the soundscape makes sense; you have accent parts that just push forward and drown out what are meant to be foreground parts. Just wanna be clear I'm not angry or upset when writing this, I'm just trying to point out specific times and really hammer the point home that what's in place right now isn't properly balanced. The dropoff at 1:23 was a welcome dynamic change, but the lead synth at 1:36 was super dry and vanilla, and by this point the basic beat pattern was becoming pretty stale, which was also ironic since the track's mixed in a way where the hits often barely registered. To me, the soundscape was too dry and thin, the synth design was plain, and the energy level at the 1:36 section just seemed to hit a kind of a first-and-a-half gear that was trying to be energetic but sounded relatively empty, which undercut the energy intended in this arrangement. Getting more sophisticated/creative with the synth design and padding out the background more would help flesh this out and not seem too thin like it does now. Arrangement-wise, the approach is definitely creative, so I'm sorry for possibly seeming like I didn't like anything about this, László, which is not the case. But there are lots of production issues hampering your execution. Maybe it's because I listen on headphones, but with very basic instrumentation & processing, different parts so imbalanced here and lots of stuff mudding together in the same frequency range like MindWanderer timestamped, I have absolutely no idea how Gario could go YES on this as is. NO (resubmit)

Levels were pretty quiet, and there's definitely high-end sharpness/clarity missing here. Agreed with the others on this a pretty straightforward rock cover to start; good energy, but was looking for more personalization, which thankfully arrived via some original writing/soloing from :43. The synth lead at 1:03 was pretty basic/out-of-the-box, but the writing was sprited. Good layering and countermelodic writing underneath the melody at 1:24. Whoa, what happened at 1:38-1:40? Sounded like the notes dropped down too low and didn't work with the backing parts at all. That's GOT to be fixed; how did that stay in like that? Something in the background from 2:04-2:19 (guitar?) was quietly clashing with the rest of the writing; it didn't stand out too much and I'm not saying the notes were wrong, but there's something not quite right there. If another music J could corroborate that and make a tweak suggestion, that would be good. Agreed with Gario on the piece having good energy and dynamics, as well as the minor crit on the string realism not being a huge ding against this due to being brief and not hugely exposed. The fade at the very end also went to 0 too quickly, but that's not a huge deal. I hate to be anal retentive, Elena, but I'll have to go conditional and request a fit for the sour writing around 1:38-1:40; let's get a fix for that, and perhaps it affords the chance for some EQing/clarity improvements as well, though that's not necessary. Good energy here! YES (conditional)

Pretty abstract, but we'll see how this times out. The track was 3:08-long, so I needed to hear the source tune directly reference for at least 94 seconds of the piece for the source VGM to dominate the arrangement per the Submissions Standards. I had to really listen closely to make the A-to-B connections, and also let this one marinate, because while it's not melodically liberal, many of the references were quiet and subtle. :01.75-:07, :14.5-:27.25, :31-:38, 1:15-1:20, 1:26.25-1:40, 1:47.75-1:53.25, 1:58-2:12, 2:19-2:39.5, 2:43-3:08 = 108.75 seconds or 57.84% overt source usage It didn't make a difference for the source usage call, but if another judge heard any source tune connections from :38-1:15, I'd be interested, because I couldn't make anything out. Big respect for absolutely nailing the Brian Eno "Music for Airports" style, Zach. It's very impressively used in combination with SMW's "Overworld" theme, and a very inspired concept. It's also another great example on OCR of a track having good dynamic contrast within a narrower dynamic curve. The big hiss in the background from 2:49-3:08 should have been reduced, but other than that, I didn't have any major production issues. The sound was a bit muddy and there was some pretty resonant low notes in the picture -- both things derived from "Music for Airports" as well -- but it wasn't anything that broke the track, and the context didn't soften my vote. So while I wouldn't mind some production tweaks, I can live with it without any adjustments. Let's go! YES

Good original string writing added in from :59-1:25 to supplement the source tune, followed by the acoustic coming in over the source's chord progression. See? Arrangement's not so hard. Just do your thing with it. I thought the classical guitar introduced at 1:25 sounded OK; it was stiff, BUT expressive enough. The original writing in the middle help lift an otherwise conservative arrangement, so it pays around here to supplement things with your own ideas. I wouldn't mind a volume bump as well, but it's not a dealbreaker issue for me, so no conditional's needed. YES (borderline)

Pretty scant soundscape to open things up, but we'll see if things get fleshed out over time. Things did fill out some more at :42 once some countermelodic writing arrived, but there was always a somewhat empty vibe here. The instrumentation felt like a modernized MSX, which was cool. Gotta give respect to the subtle but constant textural changes, most notably the beat-writing, because alongside with the expansive sound and genre adaptation here, that was a lot of the personalization here. The lack of a real ending at 2:46 was pretty lame, IMO, but with the quote stuck on the end, you can tell the choice was purposeful; a resolution would have been a stronger choice, but I'll live. MindWanderer's not wrong about :59-1:41 being really close, but I thought MIDI rip was too harsh; there's additive writing behind the melody, the melody's thickened up, and the beats follow the same rhythm but weren't exactly the same writing there. I agree with the NOs that this is borderline stuff, but it's still an expansive approach that sounds valid to me. 1:35's section was pretty close to :42's as well, with some subtle additions in the writing, but then the beats behind everything were altered shortly after, so it was wasn't pure cut-and-paste stuff. If the beats hadn't been more varied, this would have been an easy NO, but I think what's here does get by. YES

The levels were low, IMO, but it's nothing impacting the vote. Nice job creating a version of the theme with a much more pensive and cinematic soundscape. I thought the mechanical-sounding woodwinds were the weak point here (e.g. 1:19, 1:48-2:03), and the vox occasionally sounded too bare (e.g. 1:37-1:40), but the overall soundscape was solid overall. The chromatic percussion accents throughout were a very nice touch and added a lot of personality to the piece. Cool! YES

Opened up super-thin and robotic-sounding with the acoustic guitar, and I thought the escalation into the distorted stuff at :16 was still pretty empty, with the beats in particular sounding flimsy. More stuff faded in at :23, and the soundscape filled in as much as it was going to at :39. The piano lead at 1:01 was very rigid and with a thin tone; it does contrast with the electric guitar, but the piano sounding rigid doesn't really come off as a stylistic choice as much as the sample simply being exposed. Same with the little accents of acoustic guitar work first used at 1:35, which also sounded very mechanical and stilted. IMO, this is a solid arrangement, but the production of the instruments was lacking. If you can humanize the piano and acoustic guitar and achieve a richer tone with both of those and the drums, this would be on more solid ground. There's a quality disparity between the arrangement and the instrumentation right now that I can't overlook, but this is a great base, Sebastien. NO (resubmit)

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

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

Short and sweet, this was Jaka's usual excellence. He did a great job getting mileage out the source with constant variations of the theme via the different textures during each iteration. I thought the piano was too mechanical, but it was mixed and effected in a way where the realism issue was at least mitigated. Nice orchestration and subtle use of SFX here and there. Nice work! YES

Whoa... dat opening. Well, I'll be honest, it sounds flimsy and slightly atonal to start, but we'll see where it goes. OK, well, things continue to build at :10 as more parts are introduced, and it's still not sounding melodious. Finally at :31, we're done with whatever weird writing that made this sound wonky. At :31, a groove comes in that's very basic, vanilla, and repetitive. As far as the source tune itself, it's handled very conservatively when it arrives at :32, but you did at least make it sound different from the source instrumentation. To me, there still needed to be more in the arrangement approach differentiating this from the original, but this at least went in the right direction. The dropoff at 1:15 was definitely needed, and it gave you an opportunity to add in some original writing with the descening bubbly line, followed by some comping-style stuff with that synth lead from 1:30-1:56. I liked the addition of the guitar at 1:56; it did sound a touch behind, but it wasn't a big deal to me, and it provided a nice layer to flesh out the soundscape; I'd even argue it should have been louder. The changeup at 2:30 for a second was odd, and the track did have a very weak finish that wasn't much of a resolution. I agreed with Gario on the instrumentation mostly sounding dry and thin; you don't have to swing the pendulum the other way and make it muddy and cluttered, but the sound needs more body to it. This needs more production polish to flesh out the sounds, the beats should be more varied and lend more energy to the piece, and you need a real ending. Decent start so far, Tom, but make sure you execute with the detail work. NO

Besides the sampled rainstick, I thought the instrumentation handling the source tune sounded too similar to the tone of the original, e.g. :27-1:46, so overall, I felt the parts referencing "Forest Prayer" (airy vox, pan flute) didn't do enough in the first half to distinguish itself from the original audio. Gario mentioned the re-harmonization of the theme at :46; to me, it's very understated, plus the tone sounds the same, and then the rainstick and pan flute are more prominent and also sound nearly the same in tone as the source. I'm not saying the re-harm counts for nothing, but on balance it doesn't mean much. The original groove over the top of the "Forest Prayer" writing (:50-1:20 & 1:51-3:25) didn't connect well with the source tune, IMO; it just sounded awkwardly laid over the source references and the pattern was extremely, extremely repetitive. For me, there wasn't any real synergy there. I hear the similarity, but I can't really count the two-note pieces cited from 2:32-3:16, and they didn't sound like they were from "Forest Prayer's" melody, which has a 3-note opening. I'm open to being corrected on a music theory level and what notes were used; but even if I counted all of that as a simplification of that melody, to me, this just didn't feel like a cohesive and developed enough arrangement. To me, the sampled rainstick is leaned on for too much of the track as being the most prominent connection to the original song. It's a crutch at times, in terms of providing the audible connections to the source, but that's because I didn't agree with the melodic simplification argument for the 2nd half. And the core groove is just on a very repetitive auto-pilot. I don't dislike the piece in a vacuum, Ben. It sounds like an interesting traditional remix that falls outside of the arrangement standards, and sometimes that happens. It could have used more development/variation with the beats and different instrumentation for the "Forest Prayer" parts to distinguish it more from the original to fit the arrangement/interpretation standards here. To me, the track isn't as much a out-and-out sampling violation as much as I thought it wasn't creative and developed enough for the standards here. But definitely don't compromise your vision and goal with this track if you don't want to revisit it. NO

Odd opening, but the groove starts cool, so we'll see where it goes. Levels sound too loud, and the textures are pretty thin once the "Inner Quarters" melody starts at :30. Synth at :44 bringing in the "Abandoned Castle" was pretty vanilla. The melodic line brought in from 1:00-2:00 sounds so really rigidly timed and flat; it's sapping the track of energy; same with the synth at 2:14. When Chimpazilla says this just sounds blocky, that's on point; it just sounds stilted without sounding purposeful. I mean, you can have something with pretty deliberate/robotic-sounding pacing that nonetheless sounds expressive, with Makke's Cauldron II mix being a great example of that. I agreed with Sir_NutS on the synth design being a negative; these sounds don't really have much synergy together. That said, I thought your dropoff at 2:00 was beautiful. Though I felt the gliding synth at 2:14 was rigid, this rebuild section all the way up to 2:59 was very nicely written. Odd notes at :58-1:00, 1:28-1:30, 2:28-2:30 and other spots tied to the "Inner Quarters" melody; it's not a huge deal, but whatever's going on doesn't sound melodious there. I liked the bass kicks, but when the track is at its busiest, the core beat pattern was relatively plain & repetitive and didn't give energy to the piece. The mixing was way too bright, IMO, but any issues there felt very secondary to how these sounds were used. There's no life to this despite the inherent energy of the writing. So if you'd consider revisiting this, Beth, the focus needs to be on how to get this sounding expressive somehow. Arrangement-wise, the track's well in the right direction, but the energy implied in the writing doesn't come through and the track just ends up sounding flat. NO (resubmit)

Opening synth at :10 was super scrawny, and the string sequencing at :23 was really mechanical sounding, but at least was less exposed as the brass and chip elements gradually entered in to flesh out the soundscape. Really disliked the rigidness of the string accents first used at 1:03, and the drums also sounded tepid as well. At 1:33, the attacks for everything sounded slightly behind the beat and rigidly timed again. Arrangement-wise, it's a seamless medley, and I love the energy in the writing. Even when the strings and brass don't sound great on their own, the swells for the finish from 4:16-4:45 were some powerful writing. That said, I'm really underwhelmed by the lack of humanization in nearly all of the orchestration; all of the string work in particular sounds robotic, and it says something when all of the "synthetic" sounding instrumentation seems fine, and none of the "organic" instruments sound realistic. To me, the way the orchestral instrumentation is so exposed undermines the arrangement enough to where I can't pass it, despite the great arranging and super-strong finish with these samples. The levels/mixing could have used some adjustments, but if this passes as is, I'd argue it doesn't need to be conditionally held on that level. But to me, the sound quality of the instruments was markedly below the bar. I'd love some improvements to the orchestral samples, and that's all I'd need to see improved here. NO (resubmit)

I'm OK with a more understated dynamic curve as long as something's going on. The melody at :36 did repeat a few times at 1:24 & 2:13, which felt repetitive, but enough was changing from section to section where I could live with how this went back to the melody. I don't mind the performance imperfections of the piece, and the ending isn't a big deal, even if someone had a complaint with it; they give the piece character. Chimpa's right though that the simple backing dragged on, and something more varied should have been going on with the writing there; I agreed with her on the piano sounding mechanical, but didn't think it was a huge deal. I'm close on this one, but some further variation of the backing writing would put it over the top in terms of the arrangement feeling fully developed. Good stuff either way, and a novel approach to this theme, William, so good luck with the rest of the vote. NO (resubmit)

The timing of the faux-geetar synth at :42 sounded stilted, but it works enough. I agreed with the volume jump at 1:33 being too much, but things pulled back after a few seconds. Mixing could have been cleaner during the densest parts, but I'll live; it was too busy, IMO, but not for long enough to be a dealbreaker. Appreciated the boldness of the arrangement; I don't think anyone would have expected an approach like this for this theme, yet you integrated it well into this piece. There were some moments where the source inclusion felt like more of a background player, but it wasn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Nice job, guys! YES

Not often I WTF something, but... what??? Nooooo, you've got that all wrong. Production-wise, this is dead on arrival. Wow, really muddy vox to open it up. When the groove arrived at :30, the soundscape was just a lot of mud. There are lines used from 1:00-1:14 and 1:46-2:15 during chorus sections that are barely audible; they're mixed in a way where they didn't register enough. From 1:22-1:43, that beat pattern is so sizzly. I can't go into everything, but other judges covered the production issues in detail and I'm not a musician, so I leave it to their expertise. The other Js have touched on the production changes that would need to be made to take some of the high-end sizzle off of this. Arrangement-wise, the rhythmic changes were good, and this energy went well in the right direction of interpretation we're looking for; nice work there. If you're able to clean up the mixing on this, then you'd be in business. Good base her, Patrick; you don't need to alter the arrangement, so see how much you can clean this mixing up. NO (resubmit)

It wasn't a borderline call for me, but this track's well in the right direction creatively, so I see why others went that way. As far the game we'd classify this under, I generally go by whatever the artist says. To me, I could hear how this was influenced by the MP2 version of the source based on some of the instrumentation choices here. Opening synths were vanilla, and somewhat bright and bubbly. It's an interesting sound palette, but we'll see how this goes. Not sure why the melody was so downplayed from :21-:44, but it's not a big deal. By :48, I was hoping something would change with the textures, and right on cue you had a change, so good stuff there. At 1:06, the buildup was solid. At 1:28, some beats came in, and the lead and kicks felt very thin. At 1:39, the wobble bass felt stapled on top of the soundscape, but some other elements came in later to let that sound fit in better. The processing's pretty basic on these elements, so past 2 minutes I was looking for something more to be going on dynamically with this and it never really came. You have some good energy in place, but then the ideas and textures feel very static and repetitive over time, like the others have said. After I wrote all this, I decided to check what the other judges said, and MindWanderer nailed it: While I never thought the textures here were totally cohesive and full, you did basically have me on board until I noticed the track repeat ideas and not vary up enough texturally or dynamically. Try altering some leads or processing things differently, changing some rhythms, adding in some other writing ideas. You just need to develop something more here to seal the deal. NO (resubmit)

Yep, a bit quiet, but solid stuff from Johnathan once again; I'd expect nothing less. YES

As far the arrangement, it felt too liberal to me, but that may just be me wanting to have heard something more melodious; if you could timestamp how you arranged the theme from section to section, that would have been helpful. I did like the contrast in energy compared to the source. Not feeling the bright brass synth either, which definitely gets old over the long run. Way, WAY too much copy-pasta of the writing going on like MindWanderer timestamped. Dynamically, this felt very flat aside from some very brief dropoffs, and the overall groove and energy levels were too repetitive. I also felt the 2:27-3:10 section felt relatively atonal, so I'm not sure the key change there worked. Keep at it on this one, James, but you'll need much more variation and development of the ideas here so that it doesn't drag. NO

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

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

I didn't label you dumb, I labeled "it", i.e. hating vocal mixes, dumb. It's dumb. I'm glad you clarified you don't feel that way; that's good, because it would be a dumb POV.