Liontamer

Opens up sounding kind of flooded and muddy; not sure why it feels like it's cluttered, but it does. Vox in the intro was cool, then it transitioned more into strings at :53, and it really feels like something's lightly distorting or messed up with the mixing. Arrangement-wise, I'm about 1:45 in and enjoying the expansive treatment. The brass at 1:50 actually sounded pretty solid for samples and had some impact. Still, the mixing's all off, because most of the soundscape seems like mud and muck. The parts themselves sound good, so it's unfortunate that different instruments are so hard to hear and parse due to the mixing. 2:40 had a dropoff and gave things a chance to reset. 3:00 had a return of the vocals, then :41's vocals were repeated at 3:21. 3:53 went for a bigger energy again, but it was a rinse and repeat of 1:13's section, though you did try to vary up the placement of the vocals to provide some textural variation later on. Still, from about 2:44-on, the overall energy was being retread with some minor differences; the arrangement really didn't have anything new and substantive after that halfway point. Agreed in full with prophetik that the mixing needs to be addressed so that the piece's dynamics aren't undercut so much, and you also need to either drastically reduce the track's length or add some new compositional ideas or variation somewhere in this, otherwise the second half feels too tacked on and unnecessary. The overall concept and sound is very promising, Bryan; don't be discouraged if this doesn't make it with any YES votes. Great source tune choice, and you've got something to be proud of here, even if you don't work on it further. I hope you'd be open to revisiting this and would love to hear how much you can improve the arrangement and production. NO (resubmit)

Despite the strong energy of the performance, the mixing sounds pretty rough and lossy, so much so that I needed to throw on a control track to ensure my setup wasn't messed up. What happened to the highs? From :36-:54, you can very faintly hear a pad-like line doubling the guitar, but if you're not listening on headphones, you won't hear it, and it was mixed in a way where it might as well not be there. The overall performance still has a strong presense, with the drums in particular do a nice job filling things out. The arrangement has nice dynamics in spite of seeming like just a big shot of metal intensity. I'm not going to go conditional YES because if the source files were gone, I'd want this on the site, but we should certainly ask Mauricio about it. YES

Still has lots of sample-exposing moments, like at :15, 1:50 & 1:52, where the highest notes absolutely made me wince, plus the timing still feels too rigid. More attention to the right-hand part in particular not sound as stilted would help. That said, the updated piano sample's thankfully richer and more expressive. Dunno what you did, Chimpa, meddler of meddlers, but whatever secret sauce was added pulled it over the bar. YES (borderline)

Original Decision Resubmission. I switched out the piano for added depth and warmth. Tweaked the reverb. Added a little warmth and reduced some of the brightness from the highs. I asked Chimpazilla for clarification on something she had said in the previous decision and she ended up helping me and asked to let her do a master. Games & Sources: Final Fantasy 6 - Forever Rachel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWfdEj9jHDM (main source) Final Fantasy 7 - Tifa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO_ftxA28Y8 (main source) Final Fantasy 7 - Mako Reactor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZH6coTxDTo (cameo of the intro only) Final Fantasy 6 - Terra https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObccgHQdos0 (cameo of the melody)

IMO, you made the case on why this doesn't pass. Strong bell intro, which makes you think the production will be better than it ultimately turns out to be. Drums at :18 and :36 are still bland, mainly because of the snare line at the core of it, even though there's good cymbal activity. The bassline writing until :54 doesn't work in some places (e.g. :32-:36), but it's quiet enough where it's not a huge deal. Yikes at how empty this sounded from :54-1:13. The padding dropping out by 1:00 and exposing the dryness of the clap groove was needlessly sloppy. I get that it's a point of dynamic contrast; I believe another subtle part/pad could help that not feel like such a noticeable quality disparity. Better fade-in padding transition into the next section at 1:14, but the way these sections change up feels too disjointed to me. Vox sounded pretty fakey, but it's wet enough to not be a huge sticking point and gets the job done. Overall nice stuff though leading into the big bells returning at 1:53, which was a fuller presentation. The belltone-like lead at 2:11 had a nice sound, yet its timing is slightly but noticeably off, so it doesn't quite flow. There's the bassline back again noodling around and quietly sounding off on occassion until 2:29, and the snares until 2:39 were plain and plodding again. The arrangement is creative and the second half's execution is better in terms of overall fullness, Troy, and this may pass as is, but there were still lots of smaller textural details and awkward transitions that added up to prevent this from feeling cohesive enough, IMO, even though this is well in the right direction and a meaningfully marked improvement. NO (resubmit)

Just adding a YouTube for reference

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.

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.

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

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

Nothing wrong with Hemo's crits and it would be beneficial to keep them in mind. My only thing was that the last note should have been a C and how it ends now feels like you didn't get that last resolving note, but the ending itself is better. Definitely a meaningful improvement where there's less cramping and conflict between the parts. IMO, it's ready now, but I'm only one judge.

Your ReMixer name: ThePlasmas Your real name: Mauricio Castro Your email address: Your website(s): https://linktr.ee/theplasmasvgm Your userid: 30081 Name of game(s) arranged: DooM 64 Name of arrangement: Condenado A Las Penas del Infierno Name of individual song(s) arranged: Main Theme (Intro Theme) Additional information about the game: Composer: Aubrey Hodges, N64. Link to the original soundtrack: https://aubreyhodges.bandcamp.com/album/doom-64-official-soundtrack Your own comments about the mix: Doom turned 30 years old, so this is a tribute to one of my all time favorite video games. I enjoyed it a lot on my N64, and this song always made me feel goosebumps as a child. This version was recorded to participate in the "Summer of 64" event produced by GameGrooves, available here: https://theplasmasvgm.bandcamp.com/album/64-ways-to-die

Contact Information: Your ReMixer name: Bryan EL Your real name: Bryan EL Your email address: Your website(s): www.bryanel.com Your userid: 34748 Submission Information: Link to remix: Name of game arranged: Eternal Champions Name of arrangement: Seraphic Legacy Name of song arranged: Tournament Results Original composer: Joe Delia, John Hart, Jeff Marsh, Adrian van Velssen, Andy Armer Link to the original soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHzy24vjWAQ comments: I recently discovered this game has an amazing soundtrack and thought it was worthy of an orchestral adaptation. VST's used: Metropolis ARK, Albion One, 8dio Jenifer, Lacrimosa, Heavyocity Damage, The New AGE 2, Etherealwinds Harp 2, Rickenbacker Bass, Vengeance Avenger.

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

Opens up feeling like it's going to be a close cover version, just in a different genre, a kind of spacesynth style, so it's not the most promising intro from a Standards perspective, but we'll see where it goes. A countermelody joins in at :43 for a few seconds, and the soundscape seems muddy. Not sure why the mixing's so abrasive starting at 1:05 with this overly loud lead, but it's not pleasent to listen to for sure. There's an unsettling warble to this that's a nice technique in a vacuum, but quickly feels tired and stale by the time we get to the textural change at 1:57. Even though it's melodically note for note with the original, the presentation does stand apart from the original though. 3:05 gets more active with chiptune-style original writing accompanying the source arrangement, so that's notable. More additive writing seems to be here, though the mixing remains abrasive (e.g. the lead at 4:36, 4:46, 5:17, the textures from 4:56-6:09). Going more liberal and "inspired by" for the second half doesn't bother me whatsoever due to the first half invoking the source tune. To me, this is just a rejection on the mixing, George, not the arrangement. If you can rein in this mixing, I'm on board, but right now, it's too abrasive. NO (resubmit)

Opens up with some cool sound design. Melody kicks in at :23 and it's ultra-muddy. There's also a distorted line that comes in around :23 that's also abrasive. At :47, the bassline's handling the source tune's melody, but it's very quiet and just too understated. At 1:12, it's louder and accompanied by the tremolo strings, so it's more audible, which was better. There's some pizz strings at 1:47, but the rumbling of the bass buries it. At 1:59, the lead is playing the part from the bowed strings at 1:13 of the source, but the way it's mixed, it's more of a low rumble, so it's another melodic part where it's more abstract than it should be due to the mixing. Nice bowed strings at 2:24 though, and I hadn't commented before but the vox accents were also solid. Strings at 2:47 were slightly behind the beat, but seemed like a stylistic thing. This arrangement concept sounds awesome, it's just the mixing holding it back, IMO. There's no sharpness here Transition at 3:11 seemed like there was gonna be a big boom or something to mark the change, but then that didn't happen. Sounds like the highs were cut out of this, then something got scooped out briefly around 3:35 for an odd effect. I'm not gonna play-by-play anything else, but I disagree with prophetik's POV that it's too repetitive. The way this is mixed makes the length fatiguing, but it's not on account of the writing, IMO, and the track continued to vary up the textures for the second half. I'm OK with the way things and mixed and matched, it's enough variation and the presentation also stands apart very distinctly from the source tune. Yeah, the arrangement itself is amazingly transformative and high octane, and I completely understand why it was used at MechCon. Yet, at least for me, this mixing is the dealbreaker here, and perhaps that's something where on headphones the issues are easier to isolate than in a booth or over a speaker system. Hopefully another pass at it could get this sounding sharper and clearer, Animattronic, because it's a shame to say no to this when the writing and sound design are strong. What could have happened on the mixing side to undermine this so much? If the source files are gone or there's no way to revisit this, that would be a shame. If this track isn't approved in some form, please submit something else. I appreciate your style and like what I heard, it just needs some TLC on the production side. NO (resubmit)

The source tune isn't much -- it's a minimalistic 35-second loop -- but for OCR standards, you've gotta have something more substantive and varied with the arrangement going on. The "San Jacinto" influence was a genuinely cool idea that worked here; I'd keep in mind that "San Jacinto" has several textural twists and turns even as that pattern remains in play. Beyond the beep-boopy "San Jacinto"-style countermelody, which was a good addition, as well as some organ with a bit of a low rumble that would, this was just as repetitive as the source tune. We need something that develops and evolves as a standalone piece of music. I'm not saying prophetik's wrong about the off-notes he felt he heard (he's right), but they were quiet enough that they didn't bother me. They should still be addressed, but it wasn't a big deal. If you have any other ideas to vary and evolve the presentation, Janet, e.g. more substantive textural changes, additive writing, changing leads or other instrumentation, then take another crack at it. NO

Definitely in MW's camp, i.e. I understand the mixing criticisms, but they're not a dealbreaker by any stretch. A winner! YES

At :27, with the lead notes taking up more space, it helps mitigate the realism issues of the left-hand chords. Literally said "ugh" at the awkward decay/stop at :46, which felt sloppy. The performance sounds emotive enough to get by, and the arrangement's totally solid, so no worries there, but the tone & performance still sound stilted on account of the sampled piano, so the arrangement's potential isn't fully realized. I've not heard a piano piece from Torby yet that sounds like a realistic piano. Are there any technical tweaks that could humanize this beyond a pricier keyboard? The sample's too exposed and, for a stickler like me, it makes the listen more about what's lacking on the production side than what's working on the arrangement side. Make no mistake though, the production squeaks by for me, with the arrangement carrying it. YES

Nice opening and close with the "Danger" voice. Sound design was underwhelming, for example the opening synths at :05, the leads at :58, 1:05, 2:31, the beats feeling metronome-like at :52, 1:16, 1:28. Lots of portions (e.g. :58-1:22, 1:28-1:39, 2:31-2:54) felt too stilted. The arrangement's no problem at all, Peter, yet the sound design and sequencing is undermining the energy, IMO. Would love to hear another pass at adding personality and fluidity here. NO (resubmit)

Yep, I get where proph's coming from on the intro seeming disconnected, the overall conservative approach, and the fact that it's a pass regardless. This felt to me like the kind of melodically conservative but substantively transformative arrangements that I've heard at Remix.Kwed.Org in the European side of the scene. More measured than what I'm used to from Peter; interesting to hear a markedly different approach in his instrumentation and style. YES