Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

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

I had a similar issue with this as I did with Jari's Darkwing Duck mix, i.e. the lead's too quiet relative to the pumping beats and other instrumentation. After 1:15, the balance was tilted more toward the melody being in the foreground, so that was a positive, but when things really picked up at 3:00 with a lot of original writing sprinkled in, the soundscape just felt cluttered. 3:26's section went back to being less crowded toward the finish, but I felt this otherwise solid enough arrangement needed another production pass. Good stuff so far though, just clear up the mixing to some extent. NO (resubmit)

The tempo increase right from the start definitely got my attention. The melody being buried during the intro seemed like maybe it would lead to it being more prominent later on, but that's not how it turned out; the track's just mixed in a way where the lead doesn't really occupy the foreground, and that needs to change or the track's going to remain sounding cluttered and unfocused. It wasn't until 1:54 where the melody was at least more prominent, and even then it was competing for space. MindWanderer also mentioned this as a problem, and to me it's ultimately a dealbreaker. The other instrumentation was also piercing in places, but that wasn't a huge deal, so I'm not even going to timestamp anything. The arrangement is golden, this would just need to be mixed in a way where you don't have the lead so low in volume relative to your supporting writing. Around 3:35's section, the usage of the saw lead got stale, so I see what Gario was getting at in saying things felt repetitive; it didn't bother me as much, and I felt the dynamics of this were fine, but he did have a valid point to some degree. IMO, Jari, all you really need to do is make sure the melody isn't buried and that the track is better mixed, and this would be good to go. Really nice base here, and good luck with the rest of the vote. NO (resubmit)

Gario had a good point re: the lack of realism for the high strings; I agreed with him that they were lacking but not a dealbreaker. Another great example of a structurally conservative but creatively arranged interpretation. Rebecca's ornamentations always add that extra level of personality to the mix. Good work, and glad to hear an arrangement of this theme on OCR finally; been a low-key fan of it for a while. YES

Beautiful work, David. Nice theme cameos as well, which help break up the (relative) monotony of Gaster's theme; that said, your treatment of the main source was excellent as well, and I see why MW got goosebumps; it's a very emotive performance. Didn't have any meaningful production gripes either. Very cool! YES

Nice work, Mike! Loved the interpretation here; never thought I'd hear an approach to this source like this either. YES

Listening on headphones, the panning felt too wide, but it wasn't a huge issue. That said, the soundscape did get cluttered from 1:15-2:10 & 3:45-3:55, when it seemed liked the gliding synth was too loud and creating some distortion; I'll live, but I didn't like it and would love some tweaks there. The rhythmic changes to this theme were a cool idea, and I liked that once Ilari moved from the restriction of holding to the same mood as the source, he was able to really present something interpretive. 2:40-3:01 was another iteration of the arranged main verse in a higher key; MindWanderer said it was too repetitive, but just because something repeats doesn't make it overly repetitive and I didn't agree with the inference that the arrangement was underdeveloped. Being too static is another thing entirely, but the interpretation was creative enough to bear the repetition, IMO. Let's go! YES

DA's right about the vocals being dry; they're treated, but still too dry. I didn't feel like anything sounded super out of tune though. The instrumentation sounds like all the highs have been cut, so there's no clarity/sharpness to the soundscape anywhere, and there's a weird balance where the vocals and instrumentation seem to occupy the same frequency range and dull the overall sound. If you were able to improve the mixing, Connor, this would be set, with the arrangement left as is and untouched. I wouldn't be mad if this passed as is, but to me there's a quality disparity with a strong arrangement and rough mixing. NO (resubmit)

This was mixed too quietly, IMO, but it wasn't a big deal. MindWanderer's not wrong to ding the humanization, but I wasn't bothered by it as much as he was and felt the the samples were reasonably realistic-sounding and above our bar. It's a medley, yes, but the level of realism was good enough for our bar, and the arrangement was personalized per Rebecca's usual instrumentation and textural changes, along with some tempo changes. The transition to "Fond Memories" at 2:20 did feel disjointed on some level, although the tempo slowdown at 2:08 was clearly and purposefully used as a lead in to that. To me, it's still not a great transition, but the effort was there and it's a brief blip in the grand scheme of things. The interweaving of the source themes around 1:20 was very smartly done, so that counterbalances any issue with the latter transition for me. Yeah, I just can't say I fell on the same side of the coin as MW. Count me in! YES

Love it! Dunno why you said one of the sources was BGM 3-1, when the main source was really BGM 1-1. In any case, nice combination of the 1-1 and 0-1 themes, with lots of energy. YES

For the opening, I felt like the source melody was buried in the background, so I was waiting to hear it be put in the foreground and that finally happened at :26; nothing wrong with that approach, I just was hoping the balance of the parts wouldn't be an issue like last time, and that concern was quickly put to rest. Nice work by Peíorele on the trumpet, and you can really feel the fun come through from Guillaume's arrangement. Really nice personalization of the theme and a great addition to the SoA album. Lovely! YES

The sound design was pretty plain, but the combinations were unorthdox and interesting, so we'll see where it goes. I completely agreed with djp on the strings being in uncanny valley territory. I actually didn't have a problem with the pitch bends, but I can understand how they could appear unintentional rather than purposeful; they didn't bother me in any meaningful way and you get used to them over repeated listens. The boom-tss beats at :44 were very generic along with the synth fading in around :52. Not really getting much synnergy with these parts as far as the buildup. 1:10 moved onto the main melody, then brought the plain beats back at 1:22, only couched much better in the soundscape; the writing underneath the lead was pretty plain and could have used more creativity, but did fill out the background space well. There was crowding, like Jivemaster pointed out, but I didn't feel it was bad enough to meaningfully detract from the listen. 2:09 dropped out the beats only to bring them back at 2:12. The lead was already feeling samey by this time, so the drop at 2:27 was very welcome. The strings and pads for the close were a decent change of pace for the final section, although (and it's strange to say it), but the padding felt too dry/exposed from 2:42-2:57. To me, this arrangement felt underdeveloped and didn't evolve quite enough, BUT it was very well in the right direction. Dynamically, there's obviously a build between :44 and the beats returning at 1:22, but once you hear the beat at :44, you've basically coasted on that beat until 2:28 and it's too basic to carry this track, IMO; it needs to do something different or varied over time. That was my main issue, the beats making this track feel plain and dynamically flat. All in all, the arrangement was creative, so I don't think it would take much to tweak some things to put this over the top. The criticisms seem like a mixed bag, and I'm sure I'm not helping in that regard, but just take stock of everything, see what seems valid for you to work on, ignore the rest, and send this one back. Good stuff so far, Austin, and I'm confident you could get this one improved further just like your great Lawnmower Man mix. NO (resubmit)

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

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

I'm only going off of the revised version, just FYI. I hated the ending; no real resolution and flatter than a fuckin' pancake. To me, this was a mixed bag production-wise. The vocals were too dry, and the chorused ones were mixed in a way where they felt pushed into the background and didn't sound clearly pronounced. That said, this was a creative, interesting, and understated arrangement approach. Some strong vocal production could have lifted this up more, but the overall presentation was solid enough and this gets more right than wrong. I'll go with an unconditional YES to close this out.

Wasn't my cup of tea, and I felt the synth design was vanilla and thin in places, but it gets 'er done in terms of the interpretation. Let's go. YES

Well, subtractive is a valid arrangement approach, but it's gotta be clicking. Unlike the others, I actually felt there were enough changes to the instrumentation and overall textures to have this significantly stand apart from the source tune despite the structure being so similar; IMO, they need to be much more open to arrangements like this. That said, I also thought the textures here were extremely thin and didn't really gel together (which had nothing to do with the volume and more with the instrumentation not filling out the soundscape). For example, the vox programming was pretty exposed, as one example, but pretty much every sample sounded uncharacteristically thin and exposed for a piece of Rebecca's. Without percussion more involved, it's hard to see where the textural depth would majorly come from, but obviously there's more than one way to approach it. NO (resubmit)

Good start, but I felt the drum writing was too basic, and the samples used for the beats/kicks were very flimsy. Anything with denser textures just felt extremely thin and empty, e.g. 3:19, which undercut the dynamic contrast you were going for. Just addressing those two things could be enough to lift this up, because the arrangement was creative otherwise. I agreed with other NOs about the soundscape being muffled as well, and the sound design was pretty basic as well, so there are lots of areas for further refinement and creativity in terms of the instrumentation. No hate on this, but the YESs were too forgiving of some pretty standout issues. Keep working on this; good base. NO

Quoted for agreement. That's how I look at it as well. Sampling's no problem, but it also doesn't count for source usage, and it can tank a track if it's used too much.

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

Having heard the sources and compared, nice work. YES

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

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

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

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