Liontamer

Whoa... dat opening. Well, I'll be honest, it sounds flimsy and slightly atonal to start, but we'll see where it goes. OK, well, things continue to build at :10 as more parts are introduced, and it's still not sounding melodious. Finally at :31, we're done with whatever weird writing that made this sound wonky. At :31, a groove comes in that's very basic, vanilla, and repetitive. As far as the source tune itself, it's handled very conservatively when it arrives at :32, but you did at least make it sound different from the source instrumentation. To me, there still needed to be more in the arrangement approach differentiating this from the original, but this at least went in the right direction. The dropoff at 1:15 was definitely needed, and it gave you an opportunity to add in some original writing with the descening bubbly line, followed by some comping-style stuff with that synth lead from 1:30-1:56. I liked the addition of the guitar at 1:56; it did sound a touch behind, but it wasn't a big deal to me, and it provided a nice layer to flesh out the soundscape; I'd even argue it should have been louder. The changeup at 2:30 for a second was odd, and the track did have a very weak finish that wasn't much of a resolution. I agreed with Gario on the instrumentation mostly sounding dry and thin; you don't have to swing the pendulum the other way and make it muddy and cluttered, but the sound needs more body to it. This needs more production polish to flesh out the sounds, the beats should be more varied and lend more energy to the piece, and you need a real ending. Decent start so far, Tom, but make sure you execute with the detail work. NO

Besides the sampled rainstick, I thought the instrumentation handling the source tune sounded too similar to the tone of the original, e.g. :27-1:46, so overall, I felt the parts referencing "Forest Prayer" (airy vox, pan flute) didn't do enough in the first half to distinguish itself from the original audio. Gario mentioned the re-harmonization of the theme at :46; to me, it's very understated, plus the tone sounds the same, and then the rainstick and pan flute are more prominent and also sound nearly the same in tone as the source. I'm not saying the re-harm counts for nothing, but on balance it doesn't mean much. The original groove over the top of the "Forest Prayer" writing (:50-1:20 & 1:51-3:25) didn't connect well with the source tune, IMO; it just sounded awkwardly laid over the source references and the pattern was extremely, extremely repetitive. For me, there wasn't any real synergy there. I hear the similarity, but I can't really count the two-note pieces cited from 2:32-3:16, and they didn't sound like they were from "Forest Prayer's" melody, which has a 3-note opening. I'm open to being corrected on a music theory level and what notes were used; but even if I counted all of that as a simplification of that melody, to me, this just didn't feel like a cohesive and developed enough arrangement. To me, the sampled rainstick is leaned on for too much of the track as being the most prominent connection to the original song. It's a crutch at times, in terms of providing the audible connections to the source, but that's because I didn't agree with the melodic simplification argument for the 2nd half. And the core groove is just on a very repetitive auto-pilot. I don't dislike the piece in a vacuum, Ben. It sounds like an interesting traditional remix that falls outside of the arrangement standards, and sometimes that happens. It could have used more development/variation with the beats and different instrumentation for the "Forest Prayer" parts to distinguish it more from the original to fit the arrangement/interpretation standards here. To me, the track isn't as much a out-and-out sampling violation as much as I thought it wasn't creative and developed enough for the standards here. But definitely don't compromise your vision and goal with this track if you don't want to revisit it. NO

Odd opening, but the groove starts cool, so we'll see where it goes. Levels sound too loud, and the textures are pretty thin once the "Inner Quarters" melody starts at :30. Synth at :44 bringing in the "Abandoned Castle" was pretty vanilla. The melodic line brought in from 1:00-2:00 sounds so really rigidly timed and flat; it's sapping the track of energy; same with the synth at 2:14. When Chimpazilla says this just sounds blocky, that's on point; it just sounds stilted without sounding purposeful. I mean, you can have something with pretty deliberate/robotic-sounding pacing that nonetheless sounds expressive, with Makke's Cauldron II mix being a great example of that. I agreed with Sir_NutS on the synth design being a negative; these sounds don't really have much synergy together. That said, I thought your dropoff at 2:00 was beautiful. Though I felt the gliding synth at 2:14 was rigid, this rebuild section all the way up to 2:59 was very nicely written. Odd notes at :58-1:00, 1:28-1:30, 2:28-2:30 and other spots tied to the "Inner Quarters" melody; it's not a huge deal, but whatever's going on doesn't sound melodious there. I liked the bass kicks, but when the track is at its busiest, the core beat pattern was relatively plain & repetitive and didn't give energy to the piece. The mixing was way too bright, IMO, but any issues there felt very secondary to how these sounds were used. There's no life to this despite the inherent energy of the writing. So if you'd consider revisiting this, Beth, the focus needs to be on how to get this sounding expressive somehow. Arrangement-wise, the track's well in the right direction, but the energy implied in the writing doesn't come through and the track just ends up sounding flat. NO (resubmit)

Opening synth at :10 was super scrawny, and the string sequencing at :23 was really mechanical sounding, but at least was less exposed as the brass and chip elements gradually entered in to flesh out the soundscape. Really disliked the rigidness of the string accents first used at 1:03, and the drums also sounded tepid as well. At 1:33, the attacks for everything sounded slightly behind the beat and rigidly timed again. Arrangement-wise, it's a seamless medley, and I love the energy in the writing. Even when the strings and brass don't sound great on their own, the swells for the finish from 4:16-4:45 were some powerful writing. That said, I'm really underwhelmed by the lack of humanization in nearly all of the orchestration; all of the string work in particular sounds robotic, and it says something when all of the "synthetic" sounding instrumentation seems fine, and none of the "organic" instruments sound realistic. To me, the way the orchestral instrumentation is so exposed undermines the arrangement enough to where I can't pass it, despite the great arranging and super-strong finish with these samples. The levels/mixing could have used some adjustments, but if this passes as is, I'd argue it doesn't need to be conditionally held on that level. But to me, the sound quality of the instruments was markedly below the bar. I'd love some improvements to the orchestral samples, and that's all I'd need to see improved here. NO (resubmit)

I'm OK with a more understated dynamic curve as long as something's going on. The melody at :36 did repeat a few times at 1:24 & 2:13, which felt repetitive, but enough was changing from section to section where I could live with how this went back to the melody. I don't mind the performance imperfections of the piece, and the ending isn't a big deal, even if someone had a complaint with it; they give the piece character. Chimpa's right though that the simple backing dragged on, and something more varied should have been going on with the writing there; I agreed with her on the piano sounding mechanical, but didn't think it was a huge deal. I'm close on this one, but some further variation of the backing writing would put it over the top in terms of the arrangement feeling fully developed. Good stuff either way, and a novel approach to this theme, William, so good luck with the rest of the vote. NO (resubmit)

The timing of the faux-geetar synth at :42 sounded stilted, but it works enough. I agreed with the volume jump at 1:33 being too much, but things pulled back after a few seconds. Mixing could have been cleaner during the densest parts, but I'll live; it was too busy, IMO, but not for long enough to be a dealbreaker. Appreciated the boldness of the arrangement; I don't think anyone would have expected an approach like this for this theme, yet you integrated it well into this piece. There were some moments where the source inclusion felt like more of a background player, but it wasn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Nice job, guys! YES

Not often I WTF something, but... what??? Nooooo, you've got that all wrong. Production-wise, this is dead on arrival. Wow, really muddy vox to open it up. When the groove arrived at :30, the soundscape was just a lot of mud. There are lines used from 1:00-1:14 and 1:46-2:15 during chorus sections that are barely audible; they're mixed in a way where they didn't register enough. From 1:22-1:43, that beat pattern is so sizzly. I can't go into everything, but other judges covered the production issues in detail and I'm not a musician, so I leave it to their expertise. The other Js have touched on the production changes that would need to be made to take some of the high-end sizzle off of this. Arrangement-wise, the rhythmic changes were good, and this energy went well in the right direction of interpretation we're looking for; nice work there. If you're able to clean up the mixing on this, then you'd be in business. Good base her, Patrick; you don't need to alter the arrangement, so see how much you can clean this mixing up. NO (resubmit)

It wasn't a borderline call for me, but this track's well in the right direction creatively, so I see why others went that way. As far the game we'd classify this under, I generally go by whatever the artist says. To me, I could hear how this was influenced by the MP2 version of the source based on some of the instrumentation choices here. Opening synths were vanilla, and somewhat bright and bubbly. It's an interesting sound palette, but we'll see how this goes. Not sure why the melody was so downplayed from :21-:44, but it's not a big deal. By :48, I was hoping something would change with the textures, and right on cue you had a change, so good stuff there. At 1:06, the buildup was solid. At 1:28, some beats came in, and the lead and kicks felt very thin. At 1:39, the wobble bass felt stapled on top of the soundscape, but some other elements came in later to let that sound fit in better. The processing's pretty basic on these elements, so past 2 minutes I was looking for something more to be going on dynamically with this and it never really came. You have some good energy in place, but then the ideas and textures feel very static and repetitive over time, like the others have said. After I wrote all this, I decided to check what the other judges said, and MindWanderer nailed it: While I never thought the textures here were totally cohesive and full, you did basically have me on board until I noticed the track repeat ideas and not vary up enough texturally or dynamically. Try altering some leads or processing things differently, changing some rhythms, adding in some other writing ideas. You just need to develop something more here to seal the deal. NO (resubmit)

Yep, a bit quiet, but solid stuff from Johnathan once again; I'd expect nothing less. YES

As far the arrangement, it felt too liberal to me, but that may just be me wanting to have heard something more melodious; if you could timestamp how you arranged the theme from section to section, that would have been helpful. I did like the contrast in energy compared to the source. Not feeling the bright brass synth either, which definitely gets old over the long run. Way, WAY too much copy-pasta of the writing going on like MindWanderer timestamped. Dynamically, this felt very flat aside from some very brief dropoffs, and the overall groove and energy levels were too repetitive. I also felt the 2:27-3:10 section felt relatively atonal, so I'm not sure the key change there worked. Keep at it on this one, James, but you'll need much more variation and development of the ideas here so that it doesn't drag. NO

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

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

I didn't label you dumb, I labeled "it", i.e. hating vocal mixes, dumb. It's dumb. I'm glad you clarified you don't feel that way; that's good, because it would be a dumb POV.

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

It's dumb to just hate vocal mixes. Words are allowed.

I'll just note that Rebecca has lost some project files in the past and this one is older. So, though I don't know for sure on this one, keep in mind there may not be the possibility to revise this.

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

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

The stiffness of the sequencing's almost a take-it-or-leave-it thing, because it really successfully apes the style of the actual FF9 soundtrack, which I immediately noticed as well. That said, a fair amount of the instrumentation sounds so similar to the source, so the arrangement would really have to stand out in some other way, which it doesn't as far as melodic interpretation. The additive original part-writing, while always a positive in your works, isn't enough to carry the day here. I agree with the others that the track's very static and lacks dynamic contrast, even accounting for a purposefully narrow dynamic curve, so it's dinged on that level, but that may be case where the vision of the artist doesn't fit with the bar here. As a piece of BGM, it works great, Rebecca; it sounds to me like holding fairly fast to the source tune was likely the point of this one, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But as a transformative arrangement and looking at it from the bar here, it's certainly not there yet as far as the level of interpretation. No harm in submitting this one though, and I always look forward to your future submission. Love your work, and I know we'll hear more great stuff from you. Like Gario said, your older work shows how far you've come. NO

I never quit, I just don't have free time for console gaming. People got kids/work/hobbies. But iPhone games still count, so Pokemanz GO! and Tap My Katamari are my current go-to's.

Dunno why the clarinet was farther back in the soundfield to start, but OK. Good arrangement concept as far as adapting it for jazz, Alex, but adjust the mixing to bring the instruments further forward in the soundfield and also add some high-end clarity to this. MindWanderer's got you on the brief copy-pasta aspects of this re: the chorus. Agreed with the other NOs though that the mechanical/stilted timing to pretty much all of the parts kills this dead, especially for a piece that's only 2:17-long. For short pieces, you really need everything clicking on all cylinders, so besides the already creative arrangement, you need solid production, realistic enough performance dynamics, and no cut-and-paste repetition. Good start, but polish this up further if you're interested. If not, no worries, and I hope you submit more, because your arrangement sensibilities are in the right direction.

Why u panel dis? I'm not even gonna listen. YES ... OK, wait... [hey lissens] OK, great! YES

I do wish the synths were more sophisticated, but that's not a big deal. The core beats were super repetitive, so I wish the beats got more varied somehow, even in subtle ways; but the way the lyrical delivery never was repetitive helped the track not drag out too much (though it did drag). The mixing of the lyrics was solid but felt like it had too much high end and could have been pulled back just a little; totally no big deal, just a personal taste thing, and the recording & performance were both excellent. Besides the mixing sounding too squeaky clean, you've definitely got the classic 70s-80s hip hop aesthetic in mind with this, albeit with more swearing (hey, hey!). The source returned in the background as a quiet, distorted line at 1:04-1:43 & 2:02-2:40, but it's SO quiet and marginalized, so it's difficult to count that as a meaningful connection. Even on headphones, it's way too quiet. If you bump that up in some way, either in volume or with another synth chorused with it, then I'd be behind this. That's literally the only update I'd like to see with this, to ensure the source tune usage truly dominated the arrangement. The track was 4:15-long, so I needed to hear "Demon Seed" overtly used during at least 127.5 seconds of the arrangement for the obvious source tune usage to be over 50% and "dominate" the arrangement per the Arrangement standards. overt: :00-45, 1:43-2:02, 3:18-3:55.5 = 101.5 seconds or 39.8% overt source usage quiet: 1:04.75-1:43, 2:02-2:40 = 76.25 seconds or 29.9% (very) quiet source usage TL;DR - Beats are repetitive, but the rest of this is strong and we should post this in some form. The "Demon Seed" melody usage from 1:04-1:43 & 2:02-2:40 was so quiet that it may as well have not been there, so please use that more audibly, but watch that that line doesn't sound abrasive if you would just bump it up in volume. Great work otherwise, Isaac! If this passes as is, I won't die, but I feel you marginalized the "Demon Seed" theme for too long here. If you're willing to vary up the beats some as well, that's cool too, but not necessary IMO. Let's please get this posted in some form! NO (refine/resubmit)

Cool to hear a source similar to "Tifa's Theme." I don't go in thinking someone can get a 2:08-long piece passed, and just hope it isn't repetitive and underdeveloped. No worries on that from AJ though. It's melodically straightforward, but beautifully fleshed out. Subtle stuff, but love that dropoff at 1:13 for that understated dynamic contrast before picking back up at 1:31. Didn't hear anything potentially dissonant, just noting. Lovely work, AJ! Please keep 'em coming! YES

All set, @TSori. Email me if you need help getting into your account, since the password matchs the oldest one now.