Liontamer

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

Quick vote. Good source. Checked out. Mixing was smoove. Let's go. YES

The "Hey, Listen!" voice clip at :09 was a pretty lame transition, and made the mixing of the overall track sound off because the clip sounded so clean, unlike the actual music. WAY too much delay on this, with the delay flooding the soundfield; super muddy. At least the other voice clips (2:02, 2:31, 2:46, 3:00, 3:26) had more delay effects and sounded comparably distant like the music, but they're cheesy and corny. The percussion writing was pretty low-key, but fit the track well, particularly the cymbal work; however, the one downside there is that the percussion writing didn't evolve for the most part, which caused the track to drag over time. I didn't have as much of the problem with the other theme cameos here feeling tacked on, as they were reasonably integrated, IMO; I felt the muddy mixing and the lack of dynamic contrast in the arrangement ultimately were enough to drag this down to a NO. I'd suggest 1) reduce the mud while preserving the dreamy soundscape, 2) either ice the tacky voice clips or better integrate them into the soundscape, and 3) vary the percussion textures & energy to create more dynamic contrast. You show potential, Joo; keep at it! NO

I liked that opening for changing the rhythm of the source. At :29 with the beats coming in, the bass is too loud yet the claps were flimsy, which was an odd texture, but nothing horrible. If anything the bass thumping so loudly was causing what appeared to sound like a slight volume ducking effect, at least for me; hopefully a musician/producer J can clarify what may be happening there. Nice lil' bubbly original countermelody filled in at :45; it's not too noticeable unless you're outright looking for it, but it's present and showed nice attention to detail work in the writing. Whoa, the melody at 1:30 sounds super jacked up. First, why is it, as the lead melody, placed behind the beats in the soundfield? Second, why is the timing staggered in a way that sounds so sloppy? At 2:00, the briefly added line in the left channel that doubled the melody was panned too widely. The dropoff at 3:00 wasn't bad at all; the original writing there continued to have a good rhythm, and the melody coming back at 3:30 had much better timing that clicked much more strongly with the altered rhythm. Good, subtle escalation of the energy level at 4:00 with the source tune's countermelody gradually rising in volume. The bass frequencies at 4:30-4:51 and again at 5:00 were creating mud again. At 5:00 also, there should have been something else going on with the arrangement, as the ideas, energy level, and textures were all feeling too repetitive. 6:00 did add one more plucked string line which had a good sound to it and focused on that for the winddown finish. For what substance is there, this piece overstayed its welcome by at least a minute or two; this is a great start in terms of the arrangement, and is definitely transformative and creative, but some of the repetition of the fullest sections dragged on. Other than that, cleaning up the mixing (particularly the bass/low end) on this would be the most important aspect to address, followed by (less importantly) adjusting that melody at 1:30 so its a more comfortable (yet not repetitive) fit. Really cool stuff so far, Deronde, this was a solid start, and I hope you consider revising it. Even if you don't, you clearly have potential as an arranger based on the creativity here, and hope this isn't your last OCR submission. NO (resubmit)

I didn't recognize any of "The Battle of the Island in the Void," but the "Last Battle" usage was substantial enough where source usage didn't seem to be a problem. At 1:17, the adaptation of the "Last Battle" verse to piano initially felt too plain, but things got a little more personalized from 1:33-on, showing off more flair and natural performance dynamics. Awkward drop of the note at 2:20, but a good recovery otherwise. Arrangement-wise, it's somewhat by the numbers, but interpretive enough IMO. I didn't mind the click noises entirely, and -- at the level they were -- wouldn't reject an otherwise strong arrangement with good production for that reason; it adds character. John, are you sure you sent the correct version? You could already hear some very light buzzing/distortion around :21, but it really showed from 1:01-1:16. From 1:45-on, there's just lots of distortion at varying degrees of invasiveness. Also, the recording should have been clearer and cleaner; a blowaway performance can prop up a less than ideal recording, but not with distortion all over the track. If the production's jacked, we send it back. NO (resubmit)

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

I definitely hope this video gains more attention for Ensemble Urbane, this was a fun listen and well made! The Zelda portion has the best application of weaving themes together by adding in the Dungeon theme at 3:58 and using the arranged main theme alongside it. There was a lot more substance put into the Zelda to Tetris transition with some original writing, and if the whole arrangement had flowed like that, with less of the abrupt theme changes for a composition that sounded like one song rather than a mega-medley, we'd definitely post this. It's not to sell the effort short, because there's beautiful performance dynamics in play here from the live performance and adaptation to quartet. However, arrangement-wise, much of the structure was play Theme A a bit, then go to Theme B a bit, then Theme C a bit, etc. I love the piece, it unfortunately just falls outside of our wheelhouse with medleys needing to flow like one fully developed composition rather than having brief pieces of multiple themes assembled together. I wish the recording's had some more clarity, but the room ambiance works without a doubt, and the performances and video are impeccable. We aren't inherently against medleys, and have a lot of them posted, but the glue and flow between the themes is usually a lot smoother that simply stopping one theme and going to the next, which is ingrained into our guidelines. It definitely doesn't mean anything's wrong with this great performance, it's just doesn't line up with those specific guidelines enough. If you guys had any other performances where the composition was less of a "A, then B, then C" burst of theme with more substantial transitions and flow or just an arrangement with fewer themes that allowed more extended arrangements of those themes, y'all would be a shoo-in. NO

Places where I recognized source - :35-2:37.5, 3:30.25-3:42.5, 3:46.5-4:55.5 (quiet) I didn't readily recognize "The Day the World Revived" much, but it didn't matter. I ain't tellin' this guy nothin'. Nice work, Wes. YES

I agreed with Chimpazilla's criticisms and had some of my own to include: The intro was anemic (:01-:10) and not melodious (:10-:21). Not sure what the point of it was, but in my opinion, it didn't add anything to the track. Anyway, when the rap came in, things were at least more interesting. On the production side, the instrumental was too quiet compared to the vocals, so the backing music feels sparse and empty (including when the bigger beat was brought in from 1:04-1:25). The vocal layering during the chorus was effective though. 1:26-1:46's section was the coolest in terms of the blippy instrumentation, although that was brief. All of the percussion stuff from the drum machine sounded very robotic and stilted; the samples are too exposed for it, and it shouldn't sound so bland and static. Yeah, there's basically no ending, the track just immediately wraps after a verse; oh well. I like the vocal delivery, but not much of the instrumentation behind it, because the vocals don't sit into the music at all, and the music itself was too sparse like Chimpa said. This was very promising, but needs more sophisticated production/mixing, and a real ending. NO

Yipes. There's no beat, so it ends up sounding empty as hell. The textures at :08 are just too empty, especially with no meaningful percussion driving anything forward. Everything sounds ultra thin. Structurally and in tone, there's not enough different than Danny B's original version until :47 finally changes the rhythms a little. Very blocky sequencing in particular of the lead at 1:03. There's just 0 meat on the body to this at all. On the plus side, I liked the speedy guitar synth sequencing from 1:43-1:51 & 1:58-2:00, which was such a rare case of me digging a faux-geetar synth, but even then this track's still a victim of thin, empty textures and very mechanical sequencing. Don't get me wrong, this isn't supposed to ape Danny B's version, but there's charm in his and none in this; you really need something to flesh out the piece, and that means crafting your own percussion writing. You also need more richness/body to this instrumentation through effects or better samples; it can't sound bone dry like this. Cool start, Avery, but get that detail work in, and, through that, do more to make your arrangement stand apart from the original version. NO

Thanks a lot to DragonAvenger for her legwork in breaking this down, which helped me very much. I was telling her, it didn't help me that "Grahf" isn't a memorable theme for me, so I appreciate the extra attention to detail on the arrangement. The pattern starting at 1:14.5 is supposed to be a variation of the "Omen/Premonition" melodic rhythm, but it's different & non-melodious enough where I wouldn't count that as source usage. I also see how 1:29 related to :30 of the source and was something one could make a case for, but I felt like it was tweaked a bit too much compared to the source and didn't count that. Despite those liberal treatment issues in the first half, I was cool counting all of the second half and the source usage checked out just above dominant for what I'd count. For a 4:22-long track, there needed to be at least 131 seconds of overt source usage: 1:55.75-2:23 (:49 of source), 2:37.5-3:15.5 (:59 of source) - "Grahf" 2:23-2:36.5, 3:19.75-4:15.5 - "Omen" That came out to 134.5 seconds or 51.33% overt source usage, so the source material is dominant. Other than sanity checking the source tunes, this was on solid ground! There you go, Joe! YES

The piano sound was definitely making me want to go NO in spite of the performance and arrangement when I first heard this, but I don't have a vote yet. On production though, currently feeling NO. No vote from me until I formally evaluate it. EDIT (6/10): I haven't timestamped this on source usage grounds, but heard a fair amount of CV4 involved. If pressed, I'd be glad to time it out. Onto the production quality, some of the lower chords in particular sounded pretty lifeless, and I just feel the thin and stilted quality of the keyboard is ultimately too much of a negative sound quality choice. It sounds like a MIDI in places; there's not nearly enough velocity sensitivity here. Sam's performance dynamics are just undermined the entire way, so this is a case of the tools not adequately conveying the energy, humanity, and precision of the performance. I'm afraid I have to go NO on this version.

Now that I've heard this, just co-signing; this is good times. YES

Once the piece picked up around :26.75, the source tune was in play the entire time. The core groove was somewhat plodding, and I thought something less static would have increased the energy inherent in the writing and given more dynamic contrast. Bringing it back at 2:27 & 2:40 was pretty boring, but the rest of the arrangement was OK. It's good that it's fairly transformative to put it into this genre, because there's some repetition that drags it down. In particular, 3:07's use of the voice clip and then back into the melody at 3:20 felt like a total rehash of :40 voice work and :53's melody, but there was a touch more volume and minor additional writing to beef up the texture. I could see some NOs, but I'm not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Even though more substantial variations of the arranged theme would have made this a top-notch creative effort -- and I agreed with DragonAvenger that the quote was very overdone -- what's here from Andreas is substantially transformative with the theme, and reasonably mixed as well. Not a strong YES, but it gets it done. YES (borderline) EDIT (3/17): Reading the NOs, I agree on the production criticism on the soundscape sounding washed out, but it wasn't quite enough of a negative for me to go NO. It's "reasonably mixed" in the sense that it's not a dealbreaker for me, and I can make out the parts well enough. Still a YES, but added "borderline" to it to better emphasize it's not a strong one.

:08.5-:25.5, :37-1:51.5, 2:31.5-2:50.5, 3:37.75-3:54.5 = 127 seconds or 52.91% overt source usage (that I recognized) I'm hearing a ton of light crackling from 2:54-3:37; it's easy to miss or overlook, and wasn't a huge deal, but that's an unfortunate production issue. Otherwise, pretty solid arrangement and performance. I didn't hear the first version, but whatever held it back before isn't doing so now. The mixing was somewhat cluttered, but nothing that was below the bar since I could make out the various parts well enough. Let's go. YES

When the piece opened so quietly, I was initially put off because the accordions didn't sound like they were being played quietly as much as the master volume was reduced, so it sounded pretty unnatural. Thankfully, that was only a few seconds long and once things picked up, it was smooth sailing from there. I think DA's too risk-averse to voting YES. Nothing wrong with the structure being close as long as the approach is personalized and the overall presentation is substantially modified. This was great adaptation to orchestral with lots of smart original writing additions and ornamentation. The tempo slowdown and rise from :54-1:11 was well-written, and I'm impressed and appreciative with the arrangement not lazily retreading anything, since it was only 2:30-long. Fun source, and I'm surprised we're going to post a Bad Piggies arrangement before Angry Birds. And yet, here we are. Nice work, David! YES

I didn't hear any obvious flubs, but that could be because I watched the updated performance video at: Had to say first that I don't like the piano sound here. Obviously, the keyboard doesn't have the resonance/release sounds of a genuine piano, but that uncanny valley with the lack of realism really stands out. In any case, the arrangement and performance more than carries it. YES

No need for source tune timestamping, since it's basically 100% source. Pretty straightforward coverage that could have gone more places but was still well-adapted for acoustic guitar, especially the dual lines going on. I liked hearing Hal attempt to adapt some of the more cyber-style writing of the original for guitar, e.g. 1:21-1:42 & 1:45/1:50, and would have enjoyed even more touches like that. Nonetheless, points for an unexpected non-electronic take on Snatcher, it's a pleasant surprise. YES

47.75-1:04, 1:10.25-2:04.5, 2:06.5-2:09, 2:10.5-2:33.5, 2:39.5-4:22.75, 4:39.5-7:36 The source tune was there in spades, so I won't add it all up since it clearly dominated the arrangement. The pipes at 1:55 and brass at 3:49 were so-so as far as realism and sounded a bit stilted but serviceable enough, and more importantly, mixed well into the soundscape to minimize the realism issues. The mood sometimes feels a little static, like with some of the mallet percussion, but the overall presentation is awesome. Emu's right in that no one's arranged "Aquatic Ambiance" this way, and it's a unique approach; not sure why there would even be pause for a vote just because the source tune is "over-mixed." The piece could be a little shorter without losing anything, especially since 3:39's section repeats at 5:53 (except filled out a little more), but it's a comfortable 7 1/2-minute listen that employs textural variations to keep the piece fresh. Nice work, Tom! YES

Wow, I didn't agree with you guys on the lack of source at all. :01-:37 - static-y line doing slower two-note pattern of source's opening vox line :37-:52 - melody added :52-1:09 - low strings doing slower two-note pattern of source's opening vox line 1:28-1:53.5 - lo-fi line doing source's melody, dropping in and out, but present enough for me to count 2:21-3:31 - source melody loud and clear 1:09-1:28 - mostly original material 1:53.5-2:21 lo-fi line doing source's melody, dropping in and out even more, not present enough for me to count What I'm counting - :01-1:09, 1:28-1:53.5 (quiet), 2:21-3:31 = 164.5 seconds or 76.86% overt source usage Just the melody - :37-:52, 1:28-1:53.5 (quiet), (1:44-2:21 - too quiet/phasing), 2:21-3:31 - 110.5 seconds or 51.63% invokes the source melody I didn't feel this was a case like Metroid "Lucre" where parts of the track using the source had the source so marginalized that I couldn't count it as dominant usage. This was a creepy, abstract presentation that transformed the mood of the source a lot, but used it pretty consistently. The two-note pattern is pretty simplistic, but that's how it's explicitly used in the source, so I don't have a problem with it at all. I strongly urge folks to reconsider these NOs, this is just way off the mark. YES

No, we don't accept arrangements of music created for pinball or pachinko machines. It's got to be from video games.

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

My sentiments exactly. YES (borderline)

Ha, always love hearing the soundset of Dune: Spice Opera. Weird stuff that takes getting used to, including the one change in the melody that sounds "off" but is actually fine once you listen more than once. I disagreed with NutS on the arrangement; there's some repetition, yes, but the textures and leads of the melody subtly but constantly evolve, plus the way the Whiterun melody is handled was transformative in its own way via the new instrumentation changing the tone and mood of the song. Structurally similar doesn't mean it's an automatic NO on arrangement grounds, and that's not a concern for me here. This piece had a ton of ear candy, and the glitching starting at 1:45 was well-done as well. I didn't think the soundscape was too dry either; I don't doubt there could be some good adjustments made, but all of the parts had room to breathe, and I could hear everything in play. The jazz cameo at 4:29 was a pleasant surprise. Though the ending was a cutoff, it was fine to me. There could be some more pronounced dynamic contrast here, but what's here clicks. Again, it's an odd sound, so IMO this isn't something you can judge off of one listen. Let it play through two or three times and see if you think the pieces fall into place. YES

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