Liontamer

I disagreed with MindWanderer's criticisms on the arrangement structure feeling too much like a medley in places. The theme change at 3:15 was sudden, but fine to me as the tempo and overall rhythm held in place before shifting to the dropoff 20 seconds later. Same with 2:14 changing themes while retaining the same backing writing and tempo as the glue; it just sounded like prog rock writing to me. I'm reminded of 2 particular past votes: 1) Jorito's original version of his Contra mega-collab and 2) audio fidelity's Final Fantasy IV mega-collab; in other words, this is an awesome, ambitious arrangement that's not mixed well. At :38, Ryan's vocals seemed distant, which didn't make sense, but I wanted to see where it went. Odd note as Ryan dropped down at :52 which should have been smoothed out. I think the female supporting vocals could have been mixed more forward to register in the ear better, but the combination of male and female vocals up to 1:18 combined beautifully. At 1:18-1:37, the bassline did register, but to me it was practically inaudible. The padding parts from 1:37-1:47 also might as well have not been there. The energy of the guitar work at 1:55 sounded awesome, but like the vocals at :38, the guitar leads seem far away for no apparent reason. The string accents from 2:24-2:33 were a nice writing touch, and I think them being more audible would have exposed the sample; that said, they were still buried, and it happened again from 2:52-3:12 (with the strings there feeling slightly out of sync with the lead as well). Even from 3:12, the string work sounded so soft and wasn't significantly registering in the overall texture; I hear it, but it not really contributing anything meaningful due to it being so pushed down behind everything else. I wasn't bothered at all by the vocals returning at 4:12; they were there at the beginning, so it's not any sort of surprise to hear them return. Great energy from Ryan here as well. The rock instrumentation was really muddy and indistinct though, particularly starting at 4:33 and getting worse as more parts would add in (female vocals at 4:42, machine gun drums at 4:49, big crashes at 4:51). All of the writing and energy here is amazing, but the mixing doesn't do it justice. That said, the mixing is far from ideal, but I'm with Gario that it can pass as is. You have part-writing that was obviously getting pushed back and minimized, but texturally I thought the track was clear enough to pass and is bolstered by a very strong, creative arrangement. Unlike Gario, I'd have no huge problem with this being rejected due to the mixing, so if Sir_NutS or anyone listens several times and can't go YES, I get it. But with an arrangement this strong, I can let this level of mixing go; regardless of how it fares, this really needs another pass at the mixing to shore it up, but again, I think it's serviceable enough in light of the arrangement making up for it. If the track just sounded like indistinguishable mud, it wouldn't matter how good the arrangement was. Right now, this is just a case where the supporting writing isn't totally washed out, it's just not as present and clean as it should be. YES (borderline)

I normally don't have problems with SFX, but the nature SFX opening things up seemed too loud relative to the instrumentation; not a huge deal. The recording quality or production of the vocals at :31 seems odd; not sure why it sounds so distant. The vocals were noticeably flat at 1:34 and 1:47, thought I didn't have a problem with anywhere else. The bowed string writing first used at 1:15 is 1-for-1 with the source tune, but layering the strings and making them more prominent here (compared to the source) helped to change the texture of the source. The Meat 'n Potatoes approach has been working for you, Alex. I still hope one day you get the writing chops to add your own original writing without the notes being dicey, but a melodically conservative approach always works here when you expand upon the composition. Your strengths have always been holding fast to the source composition and adding in interpretation through other means. Working with Stahalamora and doubling/chorusing some parts along with the new instrumentation have all helped present this theme in a more fleshed out way. Let's go. YES

Strings from :29-:44 & 1:43-1:58 were massively exposed and I'm not sure of the point of that; it's just such a dry sound. Honestly, I'm pretty disappointed timaeus and ACO just let it slide. 2:21's string writing also exposed the sample pretty badly as they came in. In any case, those are the main criticisms of an otherwise solid arrangement. [reads above] Yeah, poo on you guys for these strings. What gives? YES

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

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

Reinstall Winamp, then try the directions in the first post I had.

You'd possibly have to go to Preferences > Output or General Purpose (wherever the extension would be), find the Format Converter plug-in and click the "Uninstall plug-in" button.

The Winamp version doesn't matter, and I have no idea about the Converter in your context menu, because it's not something that comes up on mine; maybe you added some sort of extension/plug-in to Winamp that's not part of the default configuration.

He keeps telling you though, don't use the Format Converter interface at all. It's unintuitive, but that's not what you use. Do the instructions from my post. If you also need to do some sort of step to disable the Format Converter, then do that.

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

I didn't have any problem with the source being derived somewhat from "Rock-a-bye Baby." I hear the connection, but that theme here has a different character to it and wasn't melodically similar enough. The track was 2:41-long, so I needed at least 80.5 seconds' worth of source usage for the VGM to dominate the arrangement. 30.25-37.75, 38.75-48, 50.25-57.75, 59.25-1:08.5, 1:10.25-1:28, 1:30.75-1:37.75, 1:39.5-1:50, 2:04.5-2:17, 2:18.75-2:21.75, 2:23.75-2:32 = 92 seconds or 57.14% overt source usage The Celtic harp lead at :30 & 1:30 felt mechanical, but sat reasonably enough in the soundscape due to the padding behind it. The string accompaniment added at :50 was well-done and added some good original writing to fill things out. The light percussion at 1:10 was also a nice, subtle touch. I didn't have any other issues with the instrumentation, jyst following up on MindWanderer's reaction. On the arrangement side, props for not repeating anything too much in such a short piece, and adding in good original writing ideas to compliment the source tune. You avoided some common pitfalls for a lot of submissions under 3 minutes, and really added a lot of depth to a very short and sparse original theme. Nice work! YES

The way this was mixed, I thought the percussion got completely lost during 1:14-1:28 & 1:53-2:26. Some of the highs also sounded sizzly, and I also would have liked one more pass at this mixing, but the rest of the presentation sounded solid. Nice take on this theme, adding some good intensity to it! YES

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

Rather than a direct post, I'm moving this to the panel to give my feedback and criticisms. The mixing lacks highs, so there's a lossy, distant sound to this. I would have liked something more to the melodic treatment, but what's here is OK due to an effective genre adaptation with some new part-writing thrown into the mix. The original breakdown from 1:06-1:27 was OK, but the texture felt thin despite everything going on. 1:45-2:15 sounded like a cut-and-paste of :00's lead guitar with different drumming underneath. This gets by, but should have been developed further. Would love to see you explore the possibilities of longer arrangements some more with future subs, Mike, and also brighten up the soundscape a little just so all of the strong performances sound cleaner and more upfront. YES

Nope. Should be fixed the next time the site syncs with the DB.

Preferences > Output > select Nullsoft Disk Writer > Choose the directory location for the geenrated file > For "Conversion", check the Covert to Format box, then select the desired format (I'd use PCM with attributes 44.100 kHz, 16 Bit, Stereo (172kb/sec) Then play the file as you would, and Winamp will convert it to a WAV instead of playing the audio. Watch for not having the file itself play on an infinite loop or having the playlist loop.

Yeah, I fell basically in this camp. The arrangement here uses the theme through most of the piece, so source usage wasn't in question. MindWanderer's wrong to ding this on not being more melodic; as long as there's arrangement of identifiable writing or patterns, the approach is valid even if not melodious, and that's definitely done here by Mellow Sonic, without question. ------------------------- EDIT (3/23): Thanks to MindWander for clarifying his POV. When MW noted this wasn't melodic, that caught my eye more than his explicit point that it was neither melodic nor progressive, which is absolutely spot on. So that's my mistake, and we're totally on the same page along with the other NOs. It doesn't have to be melodic, but if it's not going to be, it still have to evolve and develop more. -------------------------- I'm also OK with a piece that's more of an overall groove with only subtle dynamic changes as long as the changes are apparent within that narrower dynamic curve -- and that also happens here. However, in reading Jivemaster's vote in particular, he nailed down what was nagging me about this piece. The part-writing combinations do change, but the different core patterns of the song feel repetitive and overlong as they mix and match, e.g. the synth lead at :36, 4:43 the heavy bassline at :45, 2:27, 5:40 the breakbeats at :45, 3:11, 3:46 the ambient strings at :45, 3:12, 5:06 the warbling synths at 1:30, 2:16, 4:08 the drones at 2:04, 4:08 Even though you're hearing the textures change throughout, the components feel like just the same loops cycling in and out without meaningful variation, which made the atmosphere seem repetitive and underdeveloped for such a long piece. If the individual part-writing varied a bit more, this wouldn't feel like it was dragging on and not justifying the length. To me, this was a really cool approach that's got a good overall groove, but this needs more variation in the writing and/or instrumentation of the patterns being cycled in and out, which could be subtly addressed. I wouldn't mind an additional vote or two on this just to make sure there may not be other YES's for this as is, so I'd like to continue voting with either a 5th NO or another YES to keeping things going. NO (resubmit)

I can see why any judge should look at a medley carefully, but I didn't believe it was a tough call. On the level of interpretation, the key changes, different instrumental textures, live performance dynamics, as well as the addition of original part-writing all together added up to a substantive arrangement. Nice move from the woodwind lead to the piano (with original string accents) at 1:30. The swell at 2:23 was nicely done also. As far as the arrangement's structure with multiple themes, I don't see how the medley was problematic; the pacing and flow didn't feel disconnected or "pasted together" from theme to theme, IMO. The transitions at :37, 2:39 (with the bowed strings as the common thread), and the move into original writing at 3:14, then the shift back into CT at 3:34 were all fine. Same at 3:46 (with the bowed strings fading down as the next section built); all of the transitions here are clearly given legitimate thought. Everything sounds kosher to me. Nice job by Andrew, Kristy, and Fernando! YES

The opening strings sounded very mechanical; it wasn't as much the sample quality as it was the articulations repeating so perfectly due to the string writing being looped. At :23, the woodwinds attacks were also very stilted, followed by the brass at :38. None of the performances sounded humanized, and the textures were surprisingly sparse for an orchestrated piece, which undermined a lot of the forcefulness intended in the writing. Totally agreed with MindWanderer on the writing for the melody being too repetitive; the arrangement was extremely samey throughout despite it not being very long. I thought the droning instrument from 2:34-2:49 resolved fine, for what it's worth; I did hear some dissonance in places, but nothing that stood out in a huge way. Beyond that, Alex, I'm co-signed on MW's main criticisms; vary the melodic treatment more substantially and humanize the instrumentation. I don't think it's an easy fix, per se, but it's worth the attempt. NO (resubmit)

I'll go in the minority. I wouldn't be mad if this got posted, but I thought Gario's criticisms of the drums being plodding was actually sold short. The tone & production of the beats was good, but they basically droned on with little development. To me, you could skip around to different parts of the track after :42, you basically heard the same groove throughout. The textures did change up, so I'm not saying there's no substance or dynamic contrast ever, but I felt the beats droning on, the melodic lead sticking by the same synth the whole time, and the overall similar energy level throughout made the track feel more static, plodding, and flat than it needed to be. It didn't knock any points off here, at least for me, but MindWanderer had a valid point on the track not even needing the restart at 4:10. It's a enjoyable arrangement, but it also feels underdeveloped. Would love another pass at this to spice it up further, Martin. No disrespect intended of course, but it felt like this wasn't quite as developed as your R-Type arrangement. NO (resubmit)

I'm not sure why MindWanderer went YES, when his vote seemed to make a pretty concrete case as to why the lack of interpretation made it a NO, nearly all of the part-writing of the first half being straight from the original song. That said, I understand there's further context. After 1:32, original additive writing was introduced that worked together well with the source tune; IMO, that kind of writing should have been present throughout the first half in some form as well if the arrangement was going to maintain the tone and structure of the source so closely. It's a nice sound upgrade that doesn't sound completely unlike something RoeTaKa could have attempted. The additive approach of the second half was working, but this needs more arrangement substance in the first half, especially due to the track being so brief at just under 3 minutes. Good stuff so far, Alex, but develop this further, whether that's through more original additive part-writing in the first half, introducing melodic interpretation, or providing more length and/or dynamic contrast. It's a solid sound, but you've played this too safe. NO (resubmit)

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

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

Just chiming in after the fact that I agree the arrangement is a pass, but I more of a conditional YES on toning down the highs. The "tss" sound first brought in at :37 was pretty sizzly and piercing on headphones. And from :53-1:11 & 1:46-2:04, the "tss" is too loud over the melodic stuff, IMO. I'll reach out to Andy and see if it's something that can be tweaked. Poo on the piano being mechanical, though it's not a huge deal once other elements came in the fill out the soundscape.

SoundCloud The streaming may be 128kbps, but you can make your music downloadable in 320kbps or whatever MP3 encoding level you want, or you can just upload in lossless format instead. Bandcamp You upload lossless, and people can DL the format they want. MP3s from there are downloadable as either 320kbps or VBR0. If you're concerned strictly about higher bitrate streaming (as opposed to downloading), I'll join the popular sentiment: the demand isn't there, and the difference to the ear isn't practically discernible. As bandwidth capabilities rise over time, it'll eventually happen in the same way FLAC has grown as an increasingly offered downloadable option, but the baseline standard of quality is currently phone earbuds, so it'll require a sea change of sorts in maybe 5-10 years.