Liontamer

Hearing this main source, NOW I get why Mazedude likes this soundtrack, since it totally sounds like he was borrowed to create this one. I thought the drums were the weak link here, since they didn't really fill out the back here, and I thought the soundscape could have been even airier. Otherwise, this was a solid rock cover of the theme with some expansive instrumentation touches but retaining the creepy piano to retain that feel from the original. After 2:49, the title theme was integrated with aspects of the main source, which let Chris present some more interpretive ideas along with more wholly original stuff as well. The final shot of the verse at 4:12 could have been a boring retread, but Chris beefed things up thanks to the organ; good addition of energy and tension for that final section before closing it out. Good job! YES

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

Sorry for holding this up. Like I explained to Weston directly, typically, it would take maybe a few months to go through the judges panel, depending on when judges got to it vs. everything else, and then some time to wait before posting, but stuff with unique issues can get held up. It's part of the issues of doing this in downtime and not as a job, you tend to make time as needed, and anything that's not super easy to deal with can get put into a corner, which I'm guilty of here and in a lot of other cases. Thanks a lot to EAR for his extreme patience and understanding. Thanks also to djp for chatting with me about the potential for the extensive sampled lyrics being a Standards violation on incorporating non-VGM music. Basically, he's been OK with vocal sampling of this nature, because it's raps and spoken word stuff that isn't pulling in any sort of non-VGM melodies or composition to be arranged. That many of the lines were from sample packs rather than mainstream music releases was noted thanks to Weston's info, but djp ultimately wasn't concerned about the source of the lyrical sampling, if you check his comments above. Just restating my POV on the potential direct audio sampling of the source tunes, I wasn't hearing that here at all and it wasn't a concern. The other Js say the source tune was "all over this," but no one bothered to break it down, so I think they conflated a lot of the house/rave style of the writing with the parts arranging/referencing the various "Metallic Madness" segments. The music part of the track was 4:27-long, so I needed to identify the source tunes being used for at least 133.5 seconds of the arrangement. :20.5-:22.25 (Past - 1:01-1:03), :38.5-1:43.5 (mostly Past, some Present), 2:22.25-2:47 (Bad Future), 2:47-3:01.25 (Present), 3:27-3:54.25 (Bad Future), 4:19-4:25 (Past - 1:01-1:03) = 139 seconds or 52.05% overt source usage There were a lot of things that had a soundalike feel to "Metallic Madness" but sounded more stylistically influenced by 2 Unlimited's "Twilight Zone" (e.g. that similar sampled shout at :23) or even the Mortal Kombat movie theme, The Immortals' "Techno Syndrome," due to the numerous orch stabs, like 1:56's little jingle. There were also plenty of extended sections with no direct connection to Sonic CD that I could ID, so I came up just barely over half as far as the source usage being dominant in the arrangement, which made it closer to me than the other judges believed, provided I'm not overlooking something major. I'm sure Weston can clarify after the fact. Anyway, Gario and Sir_NutS had fair production points about crowding and piercing highs that I agreed with, but on the whole, this was produced reasonably well and felt very authentic as a long-lost 90s club hit, and I didn't hear any dealbreaking issues for the production. All of the SFX & sampled lyric usage added up to a lot, but sounded reasonable in the big picture, as far as not feeling invasive and integrating well into the track. Good to go! YES

Here's my discussion with djpretzel last week (5/17/2017) on the possible Standards issue of the heavy vocal sampling in this mix (edited for clarity, with removal of some non sequitur talk)

Weird opening, more out of a Metroid arrangement or something. That's not a criticism, and I thought it was a cool way to illustrate how different the mood of this would be compared to the original. OK, so :30 brings in the theme, but the approach sounds pretty plodding to start. The bass writing also sounded repetitive until 1:25. 1:25-1:53 hit the source tune's chorus, and the lead felt scrawny with stiff timing. 1:53 seemed to basically retread :30's writing, aside from different bassline writing, and the guitar chugs hitting at 2:20 with exactly the same stuff. 2:47-3:15 went into a different direction with some soloing, before going back to the source tune's chorus; again, I felt the lead guitar tone was scrawny and the timing felt stilted, even though the performance here was more expressive than before. I THINK there was machine gun bass kick stuff going from 4:09-4:37... yep, you could only really make out the drums at the end around 4:35 when other parts dropped out and allowed that part to breathe for a second; otherwise, they were so buried, they barely registered nearly the whole time. This could use another pass on the mixing to clarify some things, and a lot of the lead electric guitar work sounded stiff, so I dunno if you're up for fresh takes on all of that. There was also the issue of needing some more substance/development with the arrangement. Not sure why the arrangement approach was underdeveloped for the first half like this, but MindWanderer was right on his repetition criticisms. I'm actually not against more deliberate pacing, as long as there's sufficient development within the dynamic range you've staked out; this was well in the right direction, just to be clear, but more could be done here, so keep in mind the sections MW mentioned. Good base, Daniel, and I'm liking how you're given this source a completely different character. If you're up for giving this some more expressiveness in the performance, providing more development in the first half, and/or re-EQing this, this still has a lot of potential. This definitely would have been posted back in the olden days of the site, and I think it has a place here, so I urge you not to drop this one. NO (resubmit)

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

All set.

The opening "AHHH" at :18 just felt kind of there and disconnected from arranging the "Prelude" and the tone of the rest of the track, but we'll move on. Pretty solid combinations of voices and instruments, and the vocal interplay was always interesting to listen to. No one instrument was the core focus or driver here; rather you had the plucked strings and two different vocal lines taking turns with the "Prelude" melody. It works surprisingly and effectively well. Nice work, Rebecca! YES

The track was 5:11-long, so I needed to make out at least 155.5 seconds of overt source usage for the VGM usage to dominate the arrangement. :10-:28, :33-2:06.75, 2:39-2:46, 3:48.5-4:05, 4:08-4:55 = 182.25 seconds or 58.6% overt source usage Yeah, in listening to this I agreed with Gario on the bassline matching up with the opening bassline in the source at the very start, the only difference being that the bass notes drop occasionally (removing part of the source's constant pattern), so it's not the complete phrase. But it was directly referencing explicit writing from the source, so I counted most of the bass work in my timestamping. I disagreed with Gario on the synth design being strong. I did like most of the sounds here, but I thought the saw-style synth at 1:26 & 3:48 was vanilla, and the synths string timing from 4:15-4:41 sounded very stilted & exposed rather than stylized. I was put off by that, particularly the string synth, because alum's sound design usually feels fully cohesive. That said, most of the sound design was super cool. On the mixing side, I thought the lead synths at 1:26-1:53 were too loud/sizzling alongside the cymbals; this also seemed too hot there as well from 3:04-3:41 & 3:48-4:41 particularly when you had loud synth lines (e.g. 3:36-3:41). Maybe it's just me feeling like this was too loud at times, but I'm surprised none of the other Js ever brought it up. Re: MindWanderer criticizing the 3:03's rock section, I can see how he was put off by it being so different, but the transitions in and out of it were substantive, so it's not like there was a jumpy & sudden change in style, it was just a very distinct break. I can live with that, and the overall approach still felt unified. I'd appreciate another pass at the mixing (my biggest issue), and tweaking some of the instrumentation I wasn't digging, but those aren't enough to pull this down to NO when the arrangement is solid. As much as I'd like the mixing to not sound so loud and almost abrasive during the densest sections, I can live with this as is. Really catchy source tune choice by the excellent Jared Emerson-Johnson, and from a Fables game adaptation I didn't even know existed until now. Much like WayForward and Capcom, Telltale always works with the coolest outside IPs. A nice welcome back to (and from) aluminum! YES (borderline)

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

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

The track was 3:10-long, so I needed to hear source usage for at least 95 seconds of the track for the the VGM usage to dominate the arrangement. :00-:07.25, :23.25-:28.5, :34.5-:49.5, 1:06.75-1:47.5, 2:19.75-2:22.5, 2:23.75-2:56 = 104.25 seconds or 54.86% overt source usage This was actually undercounting it, but there were some more fleeting or liberal references I didn't want to go to the trouble of timing out if I didn't have to, which I didn't. Laziness! The soundscape gained some noticeable clutter when those thumping kicks started at :30, so consider re-EQing them. Sir_NutS was right on this getting busy in places. MindWanderer's also right about the squeaks in Trev's performance being an issue, BUT... it's not a conditional-level issue, even for me on headphones. The squeaks are indeed there, but so fleeting and couched within a busy soundscape, so they didn't really scream out "Whoa, WTF happened?" If there was 0 way we could get a revision, would that YES turn into a NO? That's basically what a conditional YES amounts to. To me, it's definitely not something dealbreaking. Agreed with the others on this getting some huge arrangement mileage out of the "Invincibility" theme. Great work from Jorrith and crew. Loved it! YES

The overall levels felt quiet, but no big deal. The mixing wasn't ideal, with the supporting piano playing the core melody sounding very quiet, and the supporting string work from :04-2:07 registering some but otherwise sounding mostly inaudible and not meaningfully contributing to the texture. It wasn't anything dealbreaking, just something that deserves an adjustment. Otherwise, this was an excellent, expansive approach to the arrangement. Wouldn't mind a mising revisit and/or volume bump, but no reason to hold it back. Let's go! YES

The production criticisms aren't wrong, but I fully agreed with Gario and was OK with this version as is. The wrong note should be fixed, the mixing wasn't clean enough with some parts getting lost, and the final dense section was cluttered. That said, I could distinguish the part-writing well enough, so these weren't dealbreakers, just issues that would be nice to have improvements on. No issue with rejecting it, as AJ's been effective with production revisions in the past, but to me, the arrangement's a solid rock approach, and the production was serviceable. Let's go. YES (borderline) EDIT (5/17): In order to expedite a revision, I will flip my vote to NO (resubmit) so that AJ can see the feedback and (hopefully) proceed with a revision. Let's go, bro!

Either click your profile name above your avatar or scroll to the very top of the page, click your name, then click profile. The # next to your username in the URL is your user id #, i.e. 34545.

I thought this still could have been even clearer, but mixing-wise, this was a nice step up. Great job on the refresh, Karlyn. Hooray and meow, and all that! YES

Just going off the melody and most obvious parts, the source tune was in play just over half of the track: :00.75-16.5, :54.75-1:52.5, 3:02.75-3:44.5 = 115.25 seconds or 50.1% overt source usage I'm not as familiar with the building blocks of the "Sanctuary" theme as I should be, but the rest of the track at least used the chord progression, so it felt tangentially connected at the very least. As long as more than 50% of the track overtly referenced the source, I was cool with it. Noticeable muddy/lossy to start off with. It doesn't sound horrible, just cluttered and obviously lacking high-end clarity. The thumping of the drum sounded more upfront than the guitar work, which didn't quite make sense, but I'm not dying over it; that said, the drumkit -- while it had a lot of power -- sounded kind of hollow despite the busyness. 2:31's brief peak just sounded like a ball of (well-performed) mud. I'd say this needs one more pass at the mixing to restore some clarity and sharpness, at least to some degree. It wouldn't need to sound squeaky clean or anything like that, but I'd like to hear this improved on that level before we can post it. Right now, the arrangement and performance were strong, but the listening experience was pretty muffled overall. Nice work so far though, Aitor, just touch this up. NO (refine/resubmit)

Super minor, but the drums at the very end were exposed as not a real kit; no big deal, but a little mixing/production touch up could have made that sound more natural. Strong, personalized metal cover with machine gun drums aplenty. It never lets up, but there's textural variety throughout, so it never sounded repetitive or stale. Good work, Andy! \m/ YES

The source tune was referenced pretty clearly throughout this, even just with the guitar chugs, so there was no need to timestamp it. I thought the opening synths at :08 sounded generic, BUT were produced in a way to give them depth and fullness, so nice work there. The soundscape felt a little lo-fi (no big deal) and the beat pattern first used at :50 being so plain and plodding was a negative. No big issue here either, as I liked the energy of the electric guitar, but felt it was too loud vs. the other elements; luckily, the synth writing cut through to the foreground enough to be heard, though the mixing could have been tweaked. Aside from the drum writing being underwhelming, the rest of the track was creatively developed and the part-writing was full and distinct enough to be appreciated. Fun energy! Lemmings is now the first game on OCR to be repped on 4 different platforms. YES

The source tune was all over this. I had it at least from :10-1:25, 1:42.5-1:50.75 & 2:33.25-4:03.5, and I'm sure there were other sections I didn't immediately recognize, so there were no concerns on that level. The arrangement aspect was a pass, and the collaborators all stepped up and delivered. Also gotta co-sign that the drumwork was definitely solid, and a strong foundation here. However, I'm definitely on the NO side of this with the current execution. I wouldn't be angry if this passed, BUT I also strongly don't believe there's a legitimate case that this should pass as is. As others pointed out, those sequenced bowed strings were definitely pretty lacking, with some of the longest sustained notes really exposed (e.g. :32-37). I don't think saying "they're stated as string synths" makes them sound serviceable; I've heard better usage of synth strings before, these are too exposed, and for all intents and purposes they're serving the function of real orchestral strings. The background synth brought in at :31 was arguably too quiet, but it at least registered; no issue there, I just thought it could have been more prominent, including at 2:07's section as well. Onto some other production issues: The timing of the flute at :47 was also extremely blocky and mechanical-sounding. I'm not sure if it was just the 160kbps encoding here, but the mixing wasn't strong either. For example, I felt like the rhythm guitar work introduced at 1:03 did a decent job filling in the soundscape, but the performance of it tended to mud into the background and not sound clear; that said, the backing guitar at 1:25 did noticeably sound clearer and did a better job filling in the textures. It was only at 2:47 that I even noticed a bassline even existed in this piece; it barely registered for me, so let's not make sure THG's work there isn't lost in the shuffle so badly. The overall mixing wasn't awful, and it's decent enough to get by with some Js, but do what you can to clear the overall piece up so that some of your team's part-writing isn't getting buried. Very good base here, Kevin, and if this doesn't make it as is, the potential is there. The arrangement doesn't need to be touched, so it would then be about fine-tuning the production, i.e. the sample realism issues and the mixing. Good luck, and definitely keep at it with this one. NO (resubmit)

Yep, I'm with MindWanderer all the way. I would have loved more melodic interpretation and the theme got repetitive over time (but only near the very end for me). That said, the new instrumentation ideas, and the expansive writing touches do collectively get it done here. Rebecca with a conservatively structured but solid cover. YES

The track was 5:28-long, so I needed to hear the source tune employed during at least 164 seconds of the track for it to dominate the arrangement. :00-:00.5, :02.5-1:43, 2:16.5-2:30, 3:48-4:09, 4:17.5-4:38, 4:55-5:07, 5:08.5-5:18.75 = 179.25 seconds or 54.64% overt source usage Just sanity checking the source usage to be sure it was there, and that was no problem; I'm likely shortchanging it on a few connections. Anyone know the mainstream prog music referenced here? We can't have too much non-VGM source usage in the arrangement, though I'm pretty sure PuD got away with way more due to our ignorance on what he referenced. Not really feeling the synths here, which sounded low-quality compared to all of the other instrumentation. The sequenced strings also strained credibility some. Otherwise, the prog was strong here, and the track developed nicely throughout. Sean and crew got a lot of mileage out of this theme, for sure. YES

Whatever that lead was at :17 sounded really rigid with its attacks. At :33, I'm not sure why the warbling synths were louder than the pad-style lead. This kind of imbalance pervaids the whole track, because the beats were the loudest instrument except during the verses with the guitar in play. Yeah, I can already tell I'm not feeling the execution on this. The guitar performance sounded expressive, and the bassline had presence, but most of the other sounds were anemic, e.g. the pad-like synth handling the melody, the boom-tss percussion, and the synth quietly doubling the melody. And beats/kicks at 1:03 had volume but a flimsy tone, even though the beats were at the foundation of the track and too often pushed as the loudest element. I dunno what was up with the panning choices here either, but it's seems too wide overall as I'm listening on headphones, with an imbalance to the right side; had to listen to some control tracks on my comp just to be sure my headphone connection wasn't jacked. EQ-wise, you sometimes have a lot of instruments fighting for the same space in the soundscape (e.g. 2:03-2:18). The source is one of PC gaming's catchiest, and I liked the additive writing of the guitar, which was easily the track's highlight. The rest of this sounded sloppy with the mixing/balance issues. MindWanderer pointed out the repetition as well as the lack of a developed ending/resolution, so don't overlook that. Keep developing/varying the arrangement further and re-examine the mixing, Zak; post this in the Workshop area if you haven't already done so, and badger for production advice to rehab this. Right now you have a decent cover with some expansive guitar work added in, but the production lacks polish. NO (resubmit)

It's not that I disliked this, but I was less enthused than the other Js. The synthwave concept is intriguing, but the result here was a plodding, straightforward one-trick pony of a genre adaptation that didn't develop the arrangement ideas much beyond that. Melodically, this played it pretty conservatively, so I was expecting other unique ideas here to offset that beyond the genre adaptation, and they never really arrived. As pointed out, the percussion was plodding and insignificant, which hurt the second half. There was a transition section bridging the Sanctuary theme to the Hyrule Castle theme (2:11-2:35), sure, but no effort was made to have this all flow together; it definitely came off like a lazy, uninspired way to change from one theme to the next with no real connection between the two. Gario made note of a lot of production issues to focus on, so don't lose sight of that. I would just say this piece needs to develop and evolve more (even within a narrow dynamic curve), whether that means more melodic interpretation/variations, altering rhythm or tempo, or employing other sounds to break up the uniformity of each of the two sections. Also, if you're going to have both themes separated, the transition between the two should nonetheless be more cohesive. Keep at it on this one, Moritz, and see where else you can take it. NO

The beats from :07-1:52 & 2:37-3:37 (71% of the track) were really, REALLY plain and plodding, which left the entire arrangement sounding static. No offense intended, but how can you be on the third iteration of this track and not have addressed this with something more sophisticated and varied??? The piano at :22 was still very blocky-sounding and hasn't aged well; let's step this up. The vanilla, generic saw from :45-1:07 & 1:37-1:52 was just so rigidly timed and plain. Do what you can to raise your sound design game, Aaron. From 1:37-1:52, I did like the saw moving around the stereo field. I didn't have a big problem with the 1:10 note; it's odd, but it resolved fine. For a smaller detail that got squashed, I really liked the bassline writing in principle, but it's so quiet and buried that it might as well not be there. It's a non-factor here right now. The original countermelodic oboe writing from 2:52-3:22 was a nice touch. Vary up the beats (they're the dealbreaker), improve the uniqueness and humanity of the saw and piano sounds, and revisit the mixing so that important supporting elements like the bass aren't pushed out. I think this needs much more TLC than than any of the other judges implied, and to me it wasn't a close vote, though this is still in the right direction. You've really need to put in the effort to achieve more sophisticated writing & production with your sounds, and fully develop this piece. NO (resubmit)