Liontamer

I had to listen again just to make sure I wasn't overlooking what the other Js were, but, nope, sounded fine enough again. Another pass at the mixing would be great, but to hold this version back? Can't co-sign. WE FIGHT TO THE DEATH!

It didn't bother me at much, but it wasn't just you. Some of those grace notes aren't working. I'd timestamp this too for my own edification, but the production quality is an automatic dealbreaker. It's basically in mono, and sounds distant. There's not much in the way of production choices, or clarity for that matter. djp elaborated on what makes for acceptable chiptune production in the judging decision for RushJet1's "Dark Depths of Wily's Castle", so I strongly recommend listening to that and reading that discussion. Right now, this needs to make more use of stereo and add in some high-end clarity. NO

Sounds harsh on the high-end to start, but nothing dealbreaking, at least initially. Around :40 in, and the groove is sounding cool, but basic, so I'm hoping it goes somewhere more sophisticated with the sound design. Whoa, the textural change at 1:08 definitely wasn't expected; curveball in a good way. Goes back to the beat-driven material at 1:36, and the lead synth for the melody is feeling very plodding and vanilla; are we ever going anywhere interesting with that lead? (Answer: nope) 2:30 recycles 1:08's writing, which was still good, but copy-pasta'ed. OK, so there's some added effects for this section, but it's basically 1:08's section looped longer. Kind of eh, creatively. That said, the very gradual build of the stuttering synth line in the background from 3:00-3:30 as a transition was smartly done. 3:52's section brings back the source verse again with some additions to the textures, before the beat dropped out at 4:20 for the finish. The synth lead first used at :13 really needs to do something else creatively over the course of the 5 minutes, especially with the tempo purposefully being slow like this. I agreed with Chimpa on how the copy-pasta of some of this hurt, as it dragged on due to the tempo. And there should be further variation on the writing or textures when core sections are being repeated. There's so much going right with this that I wouldn't die if if was posted as is, but I felt the number of smaller issues added up to needing some more development. It's maybe 80% of the way, IMO, Jan, but I see why folks are digging it; it's a creative approach, for sure. Definitely tweak this to fully realize the potential here if this version doesn't make it. NO (resubmit)

He's got you there, John. Nice work so far, but the copy-pasta/rehashing is indeed too extensive. As far as being a sonically souped-up cover, it otherwise works very well. Add in some further variations through the writing and/or instrumentation and you've got yourself your first mixpost. Let's make it happen! NO (resubmit)

Just noting for anyone that wants to fully appreciate this, you have to be familiar with both Michiko Naruke's version of this source on the Brawl soundtrack, and "Epiphany" by Intervals, which AJ noted on his YouTube as the main stylistic influence. Pretty swanky opening. The acoustic guitar stuff handling the source countermelody at :29 was getting buried under the melodic lead, but it wasn't a huge deal. Badass electric guitar lead at :45. Yeah, so the imbalance between the parts and overall muddiness were negatives, but it wasn't anything that hugely detracted from the listen. Good balance of mellow smoothness with rocked out energy, and way to pack in a substantial interpretation with a 2:37-long piece. Awesome work, AJ! Please keep the hits coming! YES

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

The introduction section was definitely muddy and messy, and I thought the balance was off, but things sounded better at 1:10. Things should have been cleaner, but it wasn't a dealbreaker in and of itself. Nice flute performance at 1:37, and awesome to hear a live one instead of a sampled one, followed by a short but sweet transition to the sax taking the lead at 1:50. Just loads of strong variations in the instrumentation throughout. 2:45 slowed things down and back when I first heard this, I was interested to see where it would go; nice rebuild to the source melody fading up. I could see how MindWanderer though the shift was abrupt, but it didn't bother me. The sax at 3:10 was too loud, and I agreed that it should have been better mixed, but it didn't strike me as enough of an issue (alongside the others) to send this back. The arrangement's stronger than the mixing, and I'd love another pass at the mixing. But on the seesaw of what works vs. what doesn't, a lot more works here, and the overall production is solid enough where this can pass. I've heard a lot of otherwise-strong arrangements with not ideal mixing, and we've passed a ton of them. Love LBC's ideas & energy, as always. YES

It's not meant to be glib or disrespectful, but the lead timing was so rigid, that it was basically a dealbreaker right there. The sound design was otherwise creative and an interesting sound upgrade, Patrick, with strong SFX. I like the Dune: Spice Opera album a lot, so I respect much of what I'm hearing in the sound palette for 2:50's section. But at such a slow tempo, it's problematic to have such robotic timing on everything. The ending also cut out rather abruptly because you had hiss in the background that didn't fade even when the instrumentation did; in any case, the ending was sudden and felt like you merely ran out of ideas. Cool approach so far, but if you can humanize the timing on this so that it sounds less mechanical, this could sound pretty grand. NO (resubmit)

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

Fun. But it's Ben, so what do you expect other than excellence? Nothing to add! Rubber stamp. YES

A lil' splashy with the timing, but nothing that felt sloppy; definitely no performance problems or hiccups overall. The transitions at 3:24 & 3:47 were awkward; the backing ambiance shouldn't have stopped suddenly like that. The ending at 4:02 was also abrupt and somewhat atonal, but those are nitpicks of an otherwise creative and well-executed fusion of ambient, jazz, and rap. Very nice! YES

I disagreed with MindWander saying this sounds like the original audio was sampled, and we need to be careful when making that specific criticism. It's definitely chippy and close in tone, but that's not the original audio; it sounds recreated. For example, listen to the crescendo of the source from :25-:29, then the same point of the theme from :29-:33 of the mix. That said, if there's another version of this theme that was directly sampled, let me know, but there's not enough of the chip stuff even if it was directly sampled to make it feel like direct audio sampling was a crutch here. From :33-1:26, the soundscape sounded pretty muddy, with (for example) the supporting sustained synth line seeming pretty obscured. This wasn't a big deal in terms of the arrangement, and I saw Gario's reservations, but I'm ultimately OK with what's here even though the mixing wasn't ideal. The piano sample from 1:27-2:20 sounded generic and blocky. I liked the phasing synth from 1:53-2:19 though; it's not necessarily the sound you chose as much as how you used it, and that area was a nice touch. The rebuild at 2:34 had good intensity but essentially was a cut-and-paste of :33's section. Some more subtle difference from the previous use of that section would have been a step up in creativity. Some minor issues, but more going on that's right in terms of interpretation, dynamic contrast, and personalizing the arrangement. I would argue this does enough to get the job done, but that the repetition didn't help, and the track actually dragged on as a result. Still, Brett takes it over the line. YES

The main issue I had with the previous version was the overall texture sounding puny; thankfully, this has been adequately filled out. Even with some relatively simple writing for the beat patterns, they now fill up the background better. I still had the same criticisms on the lossy sound, and the voice clips feeling disconnected from the track, but the arrangement's strong enough to carry this. Would have liked for this to sound sharper, but re-balancing some of the more problematic instrument combinations and beefing up the soundscape were enough to nudge this over the line. YES

The piece isn't poor, but the piano sample lacks realism and body, which made the higher notes in particular sound very flat with blocky timing. The arrangement -- while having performance flourishes that personalized it and moved in the right direction -- didn't sound like it had much interpretation beyond adapting it to piano, IMO. That doesn't necessarily mean doing dramatically different things with the themes, but this could use more melodic interpretation and/or more changes with the tempo, rhythms, and use of grace notes, since this was so melodically straightforward. The transition at 3:12 was sudden, but it was a purposeful shift and it's over before you can linger on it; not a big deal for me, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't at least worth pointing out. This was well in the right direction, the production in particular needs an additional level of polish. When you have a one-instrument piece, the sound quality should be on point. The arrangement needs further personalization to help it stand apart more distinctly from the source tunes, at least to me, but just focusing on making this performance sound more like a real piano could be enough to put it over the top. NO (resubmit)

It'll be soon.

The connection to the source tune was pretty straightforward, so I'm not what the problem would be there, but overall I'm agreed with the others, particularly on Gario with regards to the solemn church imagery. I liked the instrumentation, but MW's right that the strings were majorly exposed and unrealistic-sounding, and the overall static nature of the arrangement means it doesn't sustain interest this long as a standalone piece. As BGM though, it's phenomenal. I didn't mind the volume jump as much, but I see how it could be viewed by others as off-putting. More clarity in the soundscape, better execution of the strings, and more variation/dynamic contrast are needed to seal the deal here, but this was a solid start. I hope you're willing to go back to this and provide more variation, Connor, but no matter what, you showed promise here, and I hope we hear from you again with more subs! NO (resubmit)

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

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

I remember listening to the original version back when you first submitted it, so it's good to hear you back with a more fleshed-out version. I like the harpsichord opening transitioning into the familar theme. Not sure why the soundscape is so lossy-sounding though; when the lead comes in at :40, it sounds like there's no high end to it. The exposed voice cameo at 1:00 was odd, and seemingly had no purpose to it, but better to be bold with ideas, since I'm hearing a lot of fun sounds sprinkled throughout (including the voices later on). Really odd then having the soundscape suddenly become very sharp at upfront at 1:36; didn't make any sense compared with the previous section. The beats from 1:36-2:45 & 2:53-3:28 were too flimsy and barebones, especially during the more fast-paced areas (1:56 & 2:13), so it's unfortunate the backing writing didn't fill out the soundscape enough. That's a shame, because while the synths and sounds used upfront were fairly generic, they were used in creative ways. It's not enough to constantly be morphing and changing the textures (which was a strong positive here), you just need more sophisticated and/or fuller-sounding textures. The clicking from 3:28-4:30 was too loud & upfront, which distracted and detracted from the otherwise-creative orchestral & synth combinations you were using. Not trying to be insulting in any way, but I'm really not sure why you would think that clicking wasn't just crowding out more important elements; see whatever works better with either pulling this back or removing it entirely. Nice slowdown at 4:30 going to the close, including the droning sound that you combined with the organ. There's a lot of positives in terms of evolving these textures, so props on the creative approach to arranging this theme. If you can improve the beat-writing, and then re-balance 3:28-4:40 section, the execution would be more consistant and cohesive. Making the section at :40 not sound so lossy, or at least creating a legit transition from lossy to sharp around 1:36 would also be a nice touch. Very promising so far though, Forest. Even if you don't get passed with this arrangement, the potential is there for either another revision of this one, or a different piece. Definitely don't be discouraged, you're moving well in the right direction. NO (resubmit)

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

NP with that change.

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.