Liontamer

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

No one's mentioned it because it's not a sour chord.

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

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

I was slightly more generous with my timestamping that Gario, but this also checked out for me. The music was 2:47-long, so I needed at least 83.5 seconds of source usage for it to be dominant here. 00.75-54.25, 1:49.5-2:16 = 80 seconds or 47.9% Then, accounting for the other sections like Gario mentioned, I didn't recognize as much, but there was clearly more than enough for the additional few seconds once I started counting. Nice mellow groove that was a little static, but did have dynamic contrast within a much more limited dynamic curve, which is totally fine and valid. Catchy stuff, and a very cool approach with this arrangement, adding a touch more funkyness to it, and certainly presenting a totally different feel, even compared to the more laid-back feel of the original SimCity version of the theme. I wasn't down with Nick's previous EarthBound submission (vis-a-vis the Standards) due to feeling it wasn't interpretive enough (despite going in the right direction), but had 0 reservations here. Also cool to find out Nick's in the Atlanta area. Keep it up! YES

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

Sources were in play from :00-1:20 & 3:02.5-4:54, so no question on the VGM dominating the arrangement. I agreed with Gario that the piece was strong, and the performances above the bar, but I also agreed that there needs to be an overall volume raise before we post it. Count me in the conditional crowd, but nice job by John and everyone in the JSO. YES (conditional)

Way late on this, but awesome job, guys! I thought the soundscape could have been even more intense, but the execution here was strong nonetheless. Arrangement checked out, so just throwing on another vote as a show of support. 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.

Interesting opening layering the guitars with the chiptune. At :33, the chip lead was getting buried by the guitar work and should have cut through more, IMO. That said, the guitar work complimented the lead well, and the interplay was interesting even if imbalanced. I didn't like that aspect, and wouldn't be mad at anyone NOing it for that reason, but I'll live with what's there. The guitar-only sections also had great intensity on their own, and I had 0 problem with the execution of the soloing. There could have been some dropoffs or lead tone changes or textural changes somewhere to give this more dynamic contrast, but it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Solid work by Connor. :-) YES

The brass sequencing at :38 was pretty rigid. Same with the mallet perc first used at :45. And Gario's got you dead to rights on the flute lead at :57; the sample itself is fine, but the sequencing is awful with the same attack every time and rigid timing. You've got a nice sound pallette here, but samples themselves don't get it done if there's no humanization. I agreed with Gario feeling that the soundscape was static, but it was more laid back and did have some subtle dynamic changes, like the dropoff of the beats from 1:35-1:55; it could use more in the way of dynamic contrast, not simply by making things dramatically wilder or less intense, but through subtle yet more frequent variations of the textures. That said, it's suitably transformative with the treatment of the theme, and I also agreed with Gario that what's here might ultimately be fine anyway as long as the sequencing was improved. Agreed with djp on the ending; it just cut off with 0 resolution, so you've got to write an actual ending. "Smooth" is in your handle, so you've gotta live up to the handle and smooth this out with some major detail work. Good start though, Joey, but don't be sloppy or uninterested in the detail work that will take your writing (and realize your creative vision) to that next level. NO (resubmit)

The source usage checked out fine, and I like Ali's piece from a compositional/arrangement standpoint. That said, the production was a miss for me. Beyond a personal taste thing, the soundscape is just too muddy, IMO. Once it picked up around 2:04 as more elements added to the texture, the overall sound was so washed out, with the kicks in particular crowding out the lead. I'm not saying everything needs to be squeaky clean, and I'll certainly listen to this additional times to get more used it and see if it settles as a dealbreaker, but to me the huge lack of clarity in this soundscape makes it a NO (resubmit). EDIT (1/30/17): I listened again to see if my POV changed, but I'll stay an outlier.

Why is the harpsichord lead so quiet? That needs to be fixed. The brass in particular has some rigid timing that undermines the intended energy of the composition, sounding very mechanical from 1:55-2:30 in particular (though it was a problem throughout the entire piece). DragonAvenger had more in-depth criticisms on the other instrumentation that you should listen to. The arrangement was solid otherwise, with some creative rhythmic and time-sig changes, but those two main issues need to be addressed, IMO. The lead instrument, whether harpsichord or woodwind, can't sound buried, and the brass needs to sound more humanized. Gario mentioned how he thought the placement ultimately made sense given the structure of the writing and how it was used to build, but it still doesn't really work having the melody so quiet for your opening section in this current form, regardless of what was coming later. Good base so far though, Guillaume. NO (resubmit)

Passing it with reservations, as there are a lot of the same issues I take with Dustin's rock material. In this case, the opening bowed strings strained for realism (but were only there briefly). At :26, the lead guitar was performed live but had very stiff timing that made it seem sequenced and unexpressive; also, the lead sound was relatively dry. Arrangement-wise, this is a solid rock approach, but there's something off about the lead guitar. Nice bass work at 2:00 that was subtle but added to the texture nicely, followed up by the added layer of guitar work from 2:12-2:25 that all came together nicely. At 3:17, I really liked the layering of the guitars once again. So, yeah, when the lead guitar is out there on its own, it's stiff and not expressive enough, but the overall balance of the arrangement quality and solid production gets it done. YES

Nice overview of Tony's work, Will; fun read! Looking forward to more.

Good original intro. Hard to see how this would be a NO based off of this, but I can expect anything. The static SFX is a little too clean-sounding and upfront, to where it sounds more stapled on top of the soundscape than an actual part of it, but we'll see how it ultimately works. Interesting approach fading in the source tune's chorus at :32, which most folks don't start with when arranging this theme. Good energy from the guitars at 1:15 heading into the end of the build. At 1:23, the percussion was very tepid-sounding (e.g. those cymbals are super quiet) and its writing was very basic/vanilla. More important than that, once the theme picks up at 1:23, it's a by-the-numbers rock cover. That was brief though, as at 1:49, the theme dropped out and we moved into some original writing until the bridge at 2:05, which had more personalization of the source in the performance than the verse. 3:03-3:51 went back to orginal writing that seemed like it was there for the sake of including some non-source moments, but was an awkward fit that didn't really flow from the Kraid writing; however, the transition back to the source tune at 3:51 was solid. While Gario had some detailed production critiques, I didn't think the current mixing was problematic enough for the bar; the part-writing was distinct enough to be appreciated. While I had some issues with the arrangement being straightforward in places, it's still expansive, and while I had some issues with the overall flow, the arranged sections pieced together well enough with the additive original writing. Some qualms, but Schmoo's getting it done here. I'm not making the perfect the enemy of the good. YES

Some ever-present hiss in the recording that's annoying, but not a dealbreaker. Sticks to the source melody's pretty closely, going for interpretation via live performance dynamics and some expansive lines. The bassline brought in at :27 was so quiet, it was almost a non-factor; it would have been nice for it to sound more overt and defined, but it wasn't a huge deal. It was louder when you repeated the verse again from :55. Good subtle change in the mood at 1:20 that flowed seamlessly from the prior section. The guitar layering was effective throughout. At 2:08, the track went back to repeating :28's section with basically a copy-and-paste, then a quick ending at 2:33. If 2:08-2:37 wasn't just a cut-and-paste of the first section for the finish, this would have been a pass. It's a lovely expansion that I wouldn't be mad if it was posted as is. However, when the arrangement is only 2 1/2 minutes, I don't believe there should be any extended copy-and-paste writing for something so short. Great stuff so far, and, like DragonAvenger, I see this picking up support, even though I think it needs just a bit more substance/variation in the arrangement. Nice work here, Chris, no matter the outcome of the vote. NO (resubmit)

Not sure what was up with the lone cymbal shot at the start, but OK. Right after the opening, the bowed strings indeed sounded off, but it was brief and, more importantly, quiet (:02-10). Why's the lead guitar at :10 so quiet relative to the drums? The placement isn't a dealbreaker in and of itself, but it also doesn't make sense, and the track sounds oddly distant as a result. Sir_NutS is correct about the bassline sounding static, but it was also quiet and bled into the background enough where that issue was actually mitigated, IMO. There's definitely some mud and clutter due to the bassline, but it wasn't bad enough where I couldn't distinctly pick out other elements, including the supporting electric guitar. Not a dealbreaker for me in this case. At 2:12, there was some original material over the riff from the source, and then over simplified chords, before going back to the chorus at 2:57. I was hoping there'd be no rinse and repeat material in here, since the melodic interpretation was conservative, and that was the case here. Good stuff. The track cut off at 3:40 without fading out fully, so that was a small detail that unfortunately was overlooked. Unlike Sir_NutS, I didn't have a problem with the ending bars at 3:22; it could be my familiarity with the theme, but that's just how it goes, and the 15-second-long ending section went on long enough where it felt like the track wound down (despite the abrupt cut-off) Straightforward stuff as far as the melodic treatment, but expanded well enough, IMO. The balance of the parts was odd, but nothing that holds back this arrangement for me. Fun stuff, Douglas! YES

CHz = legend.

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.