Liontamer

I never heard v1, so I'm just voting on v2. At :14, the bassline entered, but sounded very quiet; not sure if its levels were too much in v1, but it's arguably too muted here; I know it's a difficult balance to strike, so I wouldn't be shocked if messing with it caused more problems than it solved; not a dealbreaker issue anyway. At :28, there's some chippy-sounding supporting counter-melodic writing in the background that was ultra quiet; really not sure what the point of the inclusion of that writing was if it's effectively inaudible, but what was audible did properly fill up the soundscape and arrange the theme well, so that also wasn't a dealbreaker issue, though it was one that could afford to be revisited. After the brief dropoff and rebuild (1:11-1:43; nice work there), the core groove first introduced at :28 returned at 1:43, and I felt it was plodding and could have been spiced up and varied at that point (and/or at 2:15/2:39). There was a brief change from 2:33-2:39, but then it was back to the same beat pattern; dynamically, the piece feels flat. I'm certainly not saying it needs to be much wilder, and I have 0 problem with it passing as is, but it's ends up sounding too repetitive at its core for me. At 3:25, the track abruptly cut off without fully dropping to 0, so watch that. Close here, and there's no question the interpretation of the source tune itself was a pass. But the foundation of the track dragging on ended up undermining the interest of the piece as a whole. I'd like to see one more pass at this from Mike to keep the main beat pattern from coasting so long, and if he wanted to revisit some other minor issues, then go for it. NO (refine/resubmit)

Props for being inspired by Plasma3Music's take on the theme, but making yours different enough that it didn't seem like a mere copy of his approach. Those strings were pretty dry, leaving the fake-sounding articulations pretty exposed in the 25-second intro, then again from 1:40-2:06, which hurt the close. The crux of the arrangement was original brass writing on top of the main backing pattern of the source tune (:34-1:21), which was a valid approach with the source tune ever-present. The placement of the piano cameo at 1:26 was odd and sounded muddy. Dunno why the last note of the music box at 2:05 was sour/flat, but that was a bad look, so watch those smaller details. The ~7 seconds of pregnant silence should have been trimmed off, just noting. Gario had good feedback on humanizing your brass, so definitely take his advice into account and tweak the presentation. IMO, the orchestration sounded somewhat stiff, but was generally serviceable relative to our bar, but you'll need to smooth out stiff-sounding parts like the strings as well. With those touches, the production will sound as strong as the arrangement. Good stuff so far, and IMO this wasn't far off the mark at all. With some improvements to the detail work of the production, this already-creative arrangement would sound more realistically executed. Definitely touch this up and send it back, Konstantin, I'd love to hear this posted in some form, and you've got a great base here. NO (resubmit)

Saw an artist "M.S" in VGMdb, but couldn't directly match them with an album having a track containing "Encounter" http://vgmdb.net/artist/1822

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.

Having heard this just now, James really downplayed the extensiveness of the arrangement. Nice job transforming this, even while keeping it relatively melodically conservative. So many great rhythmic changes, and even when the foreground went into more a comping-style approach, the familiar backing chords of the source were always in play. Smart stuff! Welcome, James. YES

Funny enough, but if you listen to Debussy's "Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune," it has an area around 1:45-2:00 with a 3-note pattern that sounds like it could have been adapted from the Lost Woods/Saria theme. Smart stuff, and I see why the overall piece was a point of inspiration. Anyway, might as well vote if I'm gonna leave a note. Fun stuff from Alex. YES

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

It's just for admins right now, but PM me and lemme know what you need updated.

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.

I'll at least put down some articles that pass the test on valid sources, and someone can take it from there, though we'll need more sources: Books http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520291249 https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/ludomusicology/ https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-interactive-audio-9780199797226?cc=us&lang=en& Media https://www.wired.com/2014/01/game-music/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/ludomusicology-study-video-game-music-gains-recognition/

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.

Man, I really liked the writing of Curse of Darkness's "Abandoned Castle" theme; the instrumentation could have used an upgrade, but good choice otherwise and one I'm glad is now on my radar thanks to Beth. Opening claps sounded flimsy yet muffled and too loud/upfront; we'll see where that goes and if the production makes sense. At :15, CV3 is used, and the track continues to sound extremely muffled; if things sharpen up later, it might make sense, but it's pretty off-putting already. Well, there was kind of a sweep building up to :31 and the lyrics arriving, so things did become less muffled, but the track still wasn't sharp. The vocals at :31 are obviously mixed too loud and upfront; the SotN "Dracula's Castle" line that was used in the background before :31 might as well have been removed once the vocals arrived because it was practically inaudible; too bad, because the writing there was strong. Odd notes around :52 ("morning sun") and 2:26 ("and when you"). Really liked the vocals based on SotN "Dracula's Castle" from 1:02-1:16 though; very nice integration of that theme there. Yipes on that default-y, generic, vanilla SUPAH-saw used from 1:33-2:04; the tone just isn't pleasing or sophisticated. For me, the core beat pattern at :31 eventually and finally wore out its welcome at 2:35's chorus. It really droned and ending up flattening your dynamic curve here; it's almost always the same pattern, rhythms, and energy level. See what else you can do to subtly but more significantly vary the beat writing or instrumentation throughout. Would definitely love to have this posted in some form, but this isn't it yet. The arrangement's creative and interpretive, so the core of it is a pass, but you mainly need more TLC with the mixing for better clarity and balance, as well as less metronome-like beats, and potentially upgrading some of the weaker sounds. I hope you'll take this to someone who can help you raise your production skills through instruction and criticism (rather than just tweak it themselves into a passable state), so that you can keep the skills upgrade for the future. NO (resubmit)

Opening sounds like the "Gaster's Theme" audio was being directly sampled, which I would have preferred wasn't the case, but at least was affected and played with sonically. At :19, I really liked the intensity of the beats, and the constant movement of the sounds around the stereo field is frantic and purposeful. That said, some of the loudest parts seem like they're clipping or at least distorting in an uncomfortable way, and the textures get cluttered. At :39, there's a lack of sophistication in the lead sound; same at :57 with the synth lead paired with the very exposed, robotically timed, and fake-sounding guitar chugs. :59-1:17 in particular was just extremely cluttered with sizzling highs for no real reason; it actually undermines the intensity of the arrangement instead of enhancing it. It wasn't a huge deal to me and may have been purposeful, but the "CORE" lead at 1:16 seemed like it was ducking here and there; not something I was deducting points for, and it fit the overall crazy aesthetic. At 1:36, it sounded like you were copy-pasta'ing the introduction over again, with the transitions at :19 and 1:55 being practically if not exactly the same. More cut-and-paste action when comparing :38 & 2:14, and the rehashing just continued from there. Well, that's a huge disappointment. The return of the sampling of Gaster's Theme at 3:12 had some wild effects on it for a creative finish though. Arrangement-wise, this has great energy, but you can't just go 1:36-long, then basically retread everything again unless everything's really firing on all cylinders with the interpretation and production, and that's not yet the case here. Get more creative with the sound design of the synth leads, humanize the guitar chugs at :57, reduce the clutter and/or frequency overlap causing some sections to sound cluttered, and lastly but most importantly, vary the arrangement more with some subtle variations instead of the wholesale cut-and-paste approach. Great start so far; even if you don't revisit this track, it's a fun arrangement, but just needs better attention to detail. Would love to hear an updated version that got more creative/varied with the 2nd half of the arrangement. NO (resubmit)

Just posting that I'm so glad the McRib is back! I've had 3 since it came back this year, and I'mma have morrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre! McRIB!

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.