Liontamer

I thought the Wesker/Umbrella Chronicles reference was pretty apparent. I don't know why David mentioned RE1's Wesker theme as a source, but that certainly added confusion when I'd been trying to nail down the source tunes for the BadAss 3 documentation, so I feel MindWanderer's pain there; AFAIK, it's not actually a source, just the Umbrella Chronicles version. Maybe David can re-clarify this later. Anyway, the note pattern and variations of it used in the beginning of this arrangement until 1:36 sounded more like :48 and 1:56 in the Umbrella Chronicles source as opposed to the very beginning, for what that's worth. Just noting that the RE 5 source reference started at :38 of that source, and the choir from the RE 4 source started at :26 of that one. The Umbrella Chronicles usage was over half of the arrangement, so I didn't really need to timestamp the rest. I thought the connection was pretty straightforward there. I'm seeing some of the NO-rationale based on the arrangement being an extended, quiet build to a big climax. OK, so the track opens up delicately and gradually, and then builds. The last time I checked, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Gario, DragonAvenger, and Jivemaster were right on the mixing getting cluttered during the densest section at 2:15, but the part-writing remained distinct enough, and a supermajority of the track was well-mixed, so I can easily let this go. 2:15-2:34 was only 19 seconds, it's not poorly mixed, just not ideally mixed, and it's not a dealbreaker. But enough talk. Have at you! YES

I appreciated the source breakdown, but for the future, Callum, if you have that many, please also note when in the videos you're referencing, since all of the source themes were long and many didn't get to what you referenced until 30-60 seconds in. It was all very straightforward in this case, so no harm, no foul, but this would help us eval your track and understand the A-to-B connections more quickly. The transition at :57 was pretty WTF, and the guitar timing of both the acoustic and electric sounded off with the drumwork. Not sure what effect/mood you were going for from :57-1:14, then again at 1:53 & 2:01, but it really doesn't work as is right now. I hear how "Charmed Ridge" uses a similar style with different lines having different timing, but your version sounds disjointed, while that source didn't. Whenever I hear a multi-sourced arrangement, I first listen without comparing the sources to see if I was bothered by how the arrangement combined the multiple themes. The only standards we have in place are: "Your submission must have a strong focus and direction. Medleys must sound like a single song, not multiple songs pasted together." For the first half, you're basically hearing different, short melodic fragments woven together reasonably well. By 1:14, unlike what MindWanderer's saying, I wouldn't have assumed there'd been 4 themes used, and I think MW was influenced by already knowing the layout. If Callum himself didn't break down exactly where one theme stopped and the next started, would you REALLY just divine that this was 7 total themes, or would you think 2? I say that because, to me, this basically separated out to "Agent 9's Lab" and "everything else." I'd say the arrangement/interpretation-aspect of this piece was generally OK. As long as medleys have reasonable connectivity and flow, we can work with them. With that said, there were clearly some jarring breaks in the overall flow, :57 and 3:10, areas which needed smoother transitions. Other theme changes were awkward like 1:13's and 2:45's (the latter not even being a theme change), but IMO that wasn't the writing as much as the abrupt & total shifts of the instrumentation. A smaller, but related issue, why did the electric guitar just end at 2:06 with no tail or trail-off? You just just hear the texture go from dense to empty with 0 transition. It's just one small thing, but it's just one example of how you have dramatic instrumentation shifts, but not enough care put into whether they're smooth. Total style shifts as transitions CAN work (see: Marsland Brotherhood's Speedball "Speedy Guitar"), but that's a skill in-and-of-itself. Onto my main dealbreaker: all of the sequencing sounded very stilted. Until the performance sounds reasonably humanized, this would be completely DOA from a production standpoint. Also, the snare used throughout sounded pretty hollow. The other Js said this version as is was "close." To me, it's not close yet on the production side, but the arrangement side was promising. I like the boldness of what you're working on with this arrangement, and you certainly should not be discouraged by a NO here; you're trying to raise your game with different tools rather than stick to what you're best at, and that's how you improve. Definitely take this to the Workshop and/or tug on the sleeves of some veterans you trust, Callum, so that you can get targeted advice on improving the the timing, realism, and some of the writing of the transitions here. NO (resubmit)

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

It did sample some of the original audio, but very sparingly and never as a crutch to connect this arrangement to the original source. The style changeup at 3:07 was super swanky. OMG, people harping on fadeouts, you'll be OK. Very nice job, Martin! YES

There's no inherent Standards problem with an arrangement having a bunch of themes pieced together. Obviously, MindWanderer made the case that he felt too many of the transitions were abrupt, but I just flatly disagreed. The awkward jumps at 7:52 and 9:02 didn't pull this down to NO for me due to literally everything else before it flowing smoothly to me. This just sounds like one giant prog approach, and it works. To me, what was most important was that the overall compositional flow wasn't broken, and that was the case for the first 4/5ths of the track, more than enough cohesiveness for me to be on board. YES

I agreed with MindWanderer on the track feeling static and on auto-pilot overall. 1:54 did bring in that added synth line and SFX, but that wasn't much. This needs more dynamic contrast and less repetition. Besides that, there's too much high end here, and the track's too bright and shrill as a result. Now, I get that the track's supposed to sound jacked from 1:30-1:54 to allude to the game, but that doesn't make it any less unpleasent to listen to. I'll live, but we'll see what other Js say. Also, I felt this was texturally too thin and could have used some other element to fill out the soundscape, so consider adding something else and see if it could work for you. Good base so far, Damon! NO (resubmit)

Hmm... didn't like how the bass was so muted from :02-:27, especially because it was handling some of the source melody and just got swallowed up instead. Even though the mixing managed to dampen the drumwork during the densest sections, and MindWanderer got into more details on elements crowding out, the track was good energy otherwise and the mixing not being ideal didn't hurt too much. Lots of good original writing ideas from 1:10-1:53 before going back to the source and adding even more original ideas on top of the source until 2:10, and some expressive shredding from 2:18-2:37. Fun stuff, Mad, and a great take on this classic theme! Keep it coming! YES

Just noting the padding alone being taken from the source tune's opening and being used as a base for the track, the source references were all over this: :00-:47, 1:12-1:35.5, 2:11.75-3:24 (just the pads referencing the source) I only bother pointing that out given the source's obscurity. No issues on source usage throughout the arrangement. The plinky piano's a stylized thing I've heard in this kind of music; same with the synth bowed strings at :47 and the 3rd Strike-style fakey sax introduced at 1:11. All not my cup of tea in terms of realism, particularly those exposed strings, but I'll live. If you told me this was from some Japanese VGM arrangement album, I wouldn't flinch; the production sounded super authentic, including that drop/transition at 1:35. At 2:11, the guitar sounded straight out of Zuntata's Metal Black: The First arrange album; Michael seriously nailed the 90s VGM arrangement album aesthetic, and I meant that in a good way. At 2:14 when the breakbeats came back, I agreed it was repetitive, but the pattern itself were pretty energetic and varied, which mitigated that issue. I would have liked something different from 2:35 until the end instead of the copy-pasta with slightly warmer padding, but it's creative enough that it doesn't drag it down to NO in any respect for me. The previous 2 1/2 minutes were developed well, and I didn't mind the repeat of that previous section either; the track could bear it, given how well-written it was. I thought I might be a NO coming in, just seeing how the initial votes came down, but I'm listening, and yep, I'm with the ladies here. Dunno if this'll pass as is, but Michael could certainly get this posted in some form if it doesn't make it as is. That said, has the tide swung on this one? YES

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

Just checking this before we posted it, and loved it. Spear of Destiny - :01-1:43 Wolfenstein 3D - 1:43-3:40 I thought the transition from SoD to Wolf3D was sudden, but you can hear how it was purposeful; not ideal, IMO, but it definitely works just fine. Bobby Prince really did a lot with some flimsy sounds, creating some timeless & catchy hooks that Michael was able to flesh out. Nice job expanding both themes and giving a big boost of energy to both! Welcome aboard, Michael, and keep sending in this great stuff! YES

While it's all above my pay grade, awesome breakdown of Jer's genuine sonata approach here by Gario. Arrangement-wise, it's all good, and the variations throughout were creative. I've had issues in the past with Jer's material not sounding fluid enough in the performance, and I got that vibe again here; there are a lot of areas that just sound stilted, which -- coupled with the thin piano tone -- don't sound great. I don't really have to timestamp anything, because it's pretty pervasive; it reminds me of the timing of Rexy's earliest piano material, i.e. limited and dehumanized by the piano patch and not your actual performance. That said, what's here was serviceable and the arrangement carries it. I'd really love to hear the piano tone sound richer and your timing sound less rigid for your future work; don't let these issues constantly undermine the emotiveness of your performances. If you had cleaner mic-ing of your stuff on the actual piano, like your older version of this arrangement, and you also had a fluid performance, it'd be the best of both worlds with the performance and the production quality. YES (borderline)

Pretty chill approach with a narrower dynamic curve, something I'm used to with Damon's work. The sampled guitar had a mechanical sound, but it was effected in a way where it was serviceable, particularly due to the nice delay trail the notes had. Didn't love the synth from 1:23-1:49, if only because it was kind of vanilla, but I did like that it noticeably changed the texture. 1:49 shifted to a thinner texture primarily backed by string accents. The bowed strings there and then the piano at 2:18 didn't sound realistic, but also weren't too exposed to where it caused a big issue; just something to work on to elevate your execution. The fade at the end wasn't sudden, per se, but felt a touch too fast; no big deal there. It's possible there could be some NOs, but this was solidly developed and executed, IMO. So overall, solid use of these samples, and mixed in a way that mitigated the realism issues, but I'd love to hear this part of your track step up. That said, for something where the textures weren't busy, you did a nice job of filling in the soundscape and not allowing this to feel thin and empty. Arrangement-wise, you did well in working in subtle variations in the leads and textures, and shifting the focus from source tune to original writing at 1:49; pretty seamless work in that respect. YES

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

Heyyyy, nice to see an ilp0 track again, and nice work by Pieter in enhancing this further, as well as having a "never-give-up/I'm-just-resting" attitude on finishing this. I didn't have any issue with the usage of the piano, as the part-writing remained distinct enough and I didn't feel things clashed. Good stuff, easy call! YES

Quoted for truth/emphasis. I was worried the arrangement would sound too conservative because much of the instrumentation has a similar tone to the source tune, especially at the very start, but the arrangement approach does move in the right direction for the Standards here as far as including expansive new part-writing. I'd argue that it's not quite interpretive enough, but it's at least in the right direction. That said, this arrangement is just too repetitive/looped and underdeveloped once the initial ideas are established. I'd also add that the percussion added into the picture was too loud and that the string work added a lot of mud to the piece. Meanwhile, the bassline was very thin and obscured. I did like the bubbly line that came in around :36, but because the mixing was so muddy, its lovely sound didn't really cut through. Hopefully a musician J can give you some insight for how to address the muddiness of the track. You have a fine starting point for a relatively conservative arrangement with more involved percussion, Ryan, but the arrangement needs other writing/arrangement ideas beyond the first minute, and you need to clean up the soundscape. Good start though, and I hope we hear more from you. Even if you're not able to revise this into something we could post, you have the raw potential and it's clear you're trying to add your own spin to the source tune. NO

Pretty odd production. The voice stuff can't be understood, which isn't necessary in an enjoyable song and can be chocked up to a stylistic choice. That said, I still don't think that works here. Just to be clear, that's not a knock on this simply for having robotic or processed vocals; what's getting me here is that the syllables just slurred together, causing the vocals to not sound melodious. Another issue was that the vocals were pushed way behind the instrumental, which made no sense here. As soon as they came in, they were behind the lead synth, then a countermelodic synth came in at :44 that was positioned way more upfront compared to the vocals (and again at 1:10), and was even a touch louder than the synth on melody. And again, why is the beeping from 1:22-1:35 louder than everything else? None of the placement in the soundscape makes sense; you have accent parts that just push forward and drown out what are meant to be foreground parts. Just wanna be clear I'm not angry or upset when writing this, I'm just trying to point out specific times and really hammer the point home that what's in place right now isn't properly balanced. The dropoff at 1:23 was a welcome dynamic change, but the lead synth at 1:36 was super dry and vanilla, and by this point the basic beat pattern was becoming pretty stale, which was also ironic since the track's mixed in a way where the hits often barely registered. To me, the soundscape was too dry and thin, the synth design was plain, and the energy level at the 1:36 section just seemed to hit a kind of a first-and-a-half gear that was trying to be energetic but sounded relatively empty, which undercut the energy intended in this arrangement. Getting more sophisticated/creative with the synth design and padding out the background more would help flesh this out and not seem too thin like it does now. Arrangement-wise, the approach is definitely creative, so I'm sorry for possibly seeming like I didn't like anything about this, László, which is not the case. But there are lots of production issues hampering your execution. Maybe it's because I listen on headphones, but with very basic instrumentation & processing, different parts so imbalanced here and lots of stuff mudding together in the same frequency range like MindWanderer timestamped, I have absolutely no idea how Gario could go YES on this as is. NO (resubmit)

Levels were pretty quiet, and there's definitely high-end sharpness/clarity missing here. Agreed with the others on this a pretty straightforward rock cover to start; good energy, but was looking for more personalization, which thankfully arrived via some original writing/soloing from :43. The synth lead at 1:03 was pretty basic/out-of-the-box, but the writing was sprited. Good layering and countermelodic writing underneath the melody at 1:24. Whoa, what happened at 1:38-1:40? Sounded like the notes dropped down too low and didn't work with the backing parts at all. That's GOT to be fixed; how did that stay in like that? Something in the background from 2:04-2:19 (guitar?) was quietly clashing with the rest of the writing; it didn't stand out too much and I'm not saying the notes were wrong, but there's something not quite right there. If another music J could corroborate that and make a tweak suggestion, that would be good. Agreed with Gario on the piece having good energy and dynamics, as well as the minor crit on the string realism not being a huge ding against this due to being brief and not hugely exposed. The fade at the very end also went to 0 too quickly, but that's not a huge deal. I hate to be anal retentive, Elena, but I'll have to go conditional and request a fit for the sour writing around 1:38-1:40; let's get a fix for that, and perhaps it affords the chance for some EQing/clarity improvements as well, though that's not necessary. Good energy here! YES (conditional)

Pretty abstract, but we'll see how this times out. The track was 3:08-long, so I needed to hear the source tune directly reference for at least 94 seconds of the piece for the source VGM to dominate the arrangement per the Submissions Standards. I had to really listen closely to make the A-to-B connections, and also let this one marinate, because while it's not melodically liberal, many of the references were quiet and subtle. :01.75-:07, :14.5-:27.25, :31-:38, 1:15-1:20, 1:26.25-1:40, 1:47.75-1:53.25, 1:58-2:12, 2:19-2:39.5, 2:43-3:08 = 108.75 seconds or 57.84% overt source usage It didn't make a difference for the source usage call, but if another judge heard any source tune connections from :38-1:15, I'd be interested, because I couldn't make anything out. Big respect for absolutely nailing the Brian Eno "Music for Airports" style, Zach. It's very impressively used in combination with SMW's "Overworld" theme, and a very inspired concept. It's also another great example on OCR of a track having good dynamic contrast within a narrower dynamic curve. The big hiss in the background from 2:49-3:08 should have been reduced, but other than that, I didn't have any major production issues. The sound was a bit muddy and there was some pretty resonant low notes in the picture -- both things derived from "Music for Airports" as well -- but it wasn't anything that broke the track, and the context didn't soften my vote. So while I wouldn't mind some production tweaks, I can live with it without any adjustments. Let's go! YES

Good original string writing added in from :59-1:25 to supplement the source tune, followed by the acoustic coming in over the source's chord progression. See? Arrangement's not so hard. Just do your thing with it. I thought the classical guitar introduced at 1:25 sounded OK; it was stiff, BUT expressive enough. The original writing in the middle help lift an otherwise conservative arrangement, so it pays around here to supplement things with your own ideas. I wouldn't mind a volume bump as well, but it's not a dealbreaker issue for me, so no conditional's needed. YES (borderline)

Pretty scant soundscape to open things up, but we'll see if things get fleshed out over time. Things did fill out some more at :42 once some countermelodic writing arrived, but there was always a somewhat empty vibe here. The instrumentation felt like a modernized MSX, which was cool. Gotta give respect to the subtle but constant textural changes, most notably the beat-writing, because alongside with the expansive sound and genre adaptation here, that was a lot of the personalization here. The lack of a real ending at 2:46 was pretty lame, IMO, but with the quote stuck on the end, you can tell the choice was purposeful; a resolution would have been a stronger choice, but I'll live. MindWanderer's not wrong about :59-1:41 being really close, but I thought MIDI rip was too harsh; there's additive writing behind the melody, the melody's thickened up, and the beats follow the same rhythm but weren't exactly the same writing there. I agree with the NOs that this is borderline stuff, but it's still an expansive approach that sounds valid to me. 1:35's section was pretty close to :42's as well, with some subtle additions in the writing, but then the beats behind everything were altered shortly after, so it was wasn't pure cut-and-paste stuff. If the beats hadn't been more varied, this would have been an easy NO, but I think what's here does get by. YES

The levels were low, IMO, but it's nothing impacting the vote. Nice job creating a version of the theme with a much more pensive and cinematic soundscape. I thought the mechanical-sounding woodwinds were the weak point here (e.g. 1:19, 1:48-2:03), and the vox occasionally sounded too bare (e.g. 1:37-1:40), but the overall soundscape was solid overall. The chromatic percussion accents throughout were a very nice touch and added a lot of personality to the piece. Cool! YES

Opened up super-thin and robotic-sounding with the acoustic guitar, and I thought the escalation into the distorted stuff at :16 was still pretty empty, with the beats in particular sounding flimsy. More stuff faded in at :23, and the soundscape filled in as much as it was going to at :39. The piano lead at 1:01 was very rigid and with a thin tone; it does contrast with the electric guitar, but the piano sounding rigid doesn't really come off as a stylistic choice as much as the sample simply being exposed. Same with the little accents of acoustic guitar work first used at 1:35, which also sounded very mechanical and stilted. IMO, this is a solid arrangement, but the production of the instruments was lacking. If you can humanize the piano and acoustic guitar and achieve a richer tone with both of those and the drums, this would be on more solid ground. There's a quality disparity between the arrangement and the instrumentation right now that I can't overlook, but this is a great base, Sebastien. NO (resubmit)

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

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

Short and sweet, this was Jaka's usual excellence. He did a great job getting mileage out the source with constant variations of the theme via the different textures during each iteration. I thought the piano was too mechanical, but it was mixed and effected in a way where the realism issue was at least mitigated. Nice orchestration and subtle use of SFX here and there. Nice work! YES