Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

The build all the way into the melody at 2:14 basically was an extended arrangement of the opening 6-note pattern that plays 3 times in the source before the melody kicks in; not something I immediately recognized (since I judged this without reading the sub letter beforehand), but appreciated once I made the connection. And with that connection there, there was no need to timestamp the source usage, since it was essentially always in play. Watch for detail work like the bow movements (particularly 1:12) cutting abruptly. There were also lots of faint click/pops that made it into the render (e.g. 4:05, 4:23, 4:28), which wasn't a huge deal and were usually drowned out, but I did notice them. The production quality was otherwise solid relatively to the bar. The sound should have been a bit cleaner/clearer, but the muddiness wasn't a dealbreaker; it may have been a purposeful choice to give the orchestra some depth, but it could have been pulled back some. Very smart arrangement, Slimy, and great concept; this was a beautiful approach. YES

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

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

This meandered some and was somewhat cramped, but otherwise I didn't have anything else to criticize. Congrats on giving a theme like "Groan" very different sound design that set it apart from the original, and the original Akuma theme usage fit comfortably here as well. Keep 'em coming, Ruku! YES

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

Just noting we already have a mix with this name from the same game by Sbeast. http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03269 EDIT (3/14): Whoops. Forgot to actually vote on it. The arrangement was 3:22-long, so I needed at least need 101 seconds of overt source usage for the VGM to be dominant in the arrangement. MindWander and I basically agreed, and I counted some tails I could still hear for a little longer: 21.5-23.75, 26.5-33, 39.5-41, 47-52.75, 55.5-1:12.75, 1:22.25-1:40.25, 1:43.75-2:25, 2:28.5-2:30.5, 2:34.75-2:40.5, 2:47-2:54 = 107.25 seconds or 53.09% Pretty smoove arrangement. The sax and other brass samples weren't the most realistic, and some of the textures were murky. Not sure why the main beat sounded so "crispy" as it were, but it wasn't a big deal. That said, the presentation was solid. I was almost very disappointed with the ending seemingly being at 2:59, because it felt flat, but the transition into the light strings instead was more creative, so props on faking me out. YES

Cool opening with the glassy mallet percussion; a bit flooded, but sounding OK enough. At :35 though, the mallet perc became a muddy background player and I'm not sure when it dropped out. Weird... hand-drum shot, was it?... at 1:02 that just sounded like a random thump that was disconnected from the rest of the soundscape; watch the detail work there, please. The sequenced brass from 1:23-2:12 was decent, but still dry and with some stiff timing and flatness exposed in many places. I get going for a more ethereal soundscape, but I felt some of the detail work was obscured. That said, the arrangement execution was pretty solid and interpretive, with good subtle dynamic shifts and good use of these samples for the most part. I would have liked for this to sound less murky, but the overall package works. I could see this also being rejected on production grounds, but on the seesaw of what's positive vs. negative, more works here than doesn't. Though there's some reservations, I'm down. But if this doesn't make it as is, you'd just need to touch up some things on the production side, but the arrangement itself is a done deal and doesn't need to be touched. Nice job, Slimy! YES

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

The lack of clarity here was a substantial negative; it sounded as if all the highs got filtered out, which caused a cluttered sound. At :13 and particularly :34, the beats felt very filmsy after the build-up, and it felt like there was energy missing in the presentation. I loved the frenetic energy of 1:12-1:38's section and all of the constant SFX/instrumentation changes. At 2:08 again, when the beats were thicker, the core beat/kick pattern just seemed very tame, quiet, and basic compared to the more frantic lead writing. I'd love for a musician J to better articulate why the energy felt lacking here despite some of the wilder stuff in the foreground. Nice little SNES-style sounds around the 2-minute mark. Brightening/cleaning up the soundscape to have some high-end clarity might be enough to get this up to being a pass, but the main beat pattern should have been more sophisticated & varied and less empty, as well. Tweaking those two things would be enough for me to pass this, and this is already most of the way there. Good luck with the rest of the vote, but if this doesn't make it, please revisit this. Would love for you to have this Delta mix posted in some form! NO (resubmit)

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

When I first heard this on The Lesser Dogs, I meant to ask Trevor what the whispered vocals were. A relatively minor criticism, but the guitars at 1:33 should have sounded more upfront, because the dropoff from the violin's volume before seemed odd and made it feel like the performers weren't sharing the same space. Otherwise, quite the expansive and interpretive approach to the arrangement; "Waterfall" was already a gloomy, contemplative theme, but I felt like there was a different kind of darkness and angst here. Fun stuff, guys, and great job having Tyler and Mary combine their talents with LBoC! YES

Wow. Nice work, Dean! Agreed with Gario that this presented a new style for Chemical Plant Zone that I hadn't heard before, mainly distinguished by the effects you employed. Rubber stamped. YES

Just noting that I never heard the first version, so I'm going into this one fresh. I wish the melody was more interpretive during the first iteration at :13, but there were other creative ideas later that made the conservative opening not that huge of an issue. Opening saws were pretty vanilla, and the attacks seemed basically the same for every note; same with the electric guitar synth from 1:32-2:25, which sounded very exposed as unrealistic. I liked the bass writing in the background, even if that also sounded mechanically timed. I'd have to say the drumwork, particularly the cymbals, sounded the best here. At :14, the overall texture seemed empty; despite the overall volume, it felt like there wasn't much going on with this instrumentation; a musician J could better articulate why the texture sounds empty, but part of it for me was how the backing electric guitar chugs were very understated. There's some effort given to varying the textures, but because nothing was ever humanized or full-sounding, it's harder to notice that amidst the production/sample quality issues. NO

Heh. The tone of the booming drums at the outset gave me a "DK Island Swing" vibe that got a chuckle out of me. Kind of weird to hear a goofy light-hearted approach to this theme, but the energy is good, and feels like a personalized approach to the theme; let's see where this goes. Very subtle detail, but the mallet perc tones from :14-:24 were a nice touch. The chorused opening strings were exposed and sounded pretty fake, but get the job done in this context. The sax sample strains for credibility also, but I've heard DarkeSword get mileage out of it. That said, the sax chorusing at :44 is a rarer example where layering actually made a fake-sounding sample sound worse (rather than mitigate the realism issues). Would love to see some musician Js' advice on what's making these samples sound lacking and how to make better usage of them. At 1:08, the writing was sounding like a cut-and-paste of the opening aside from some minor instrumentation tweaks. The quasi-comping piano at 1:27-1:46 sounded sloppily performed and lacking energy; it may be subjective, but from the writing I heard, it seemed as if the piano should have been more forceful-sounding and more in the foreground. More essentially cut-and-paste rehashing of the arrangement from 1:46 until the end, which was a negative. Please understand, I really like the energy and arrangement approach in terms of making this a more upbeat theme, but then you just repeated the sections wholesale instead of further developing the arrangement ideas; that doesn't make the piece inherently bad or poorly done, but we are looking for a further level of creativity and personalization than that. Main issue: develop/vary the arrangement a lot more. You could also see what you can do to improve the realism of the strings and sax samples, but (IMO at least) a more developed arrangement with this soundset could pass the production quality part of the bar. Good base here, James. I hope you're willing to revisit this one, or at least submit some more material down the line, because it's clear you have the right idea in terms of arrangement; you just need to take the concepts further instead of just looping the good ideas. NO (resubmit)

I thought the textures were on the empty side but OK until 1:08. Then the countermelodic writing (which I liked the writing of) seemed too loud relative to the lead until 1:42. Arrangement-wise, it's all OK though, and the production wasn't a dealbreaker, though I agree with everyone saying the lead was shrill/piercing. It wasn't ENOUGH so that it had to be a NO on production, but the lead was an issue. Things got a bit better when the lead sound changed at 2:42, but the same issues returned with the original lead at 3:17. Anyway, it's ultimately fine, just annoying, how about that? YES

Not hazing. If you're going to point out "sour notes," particularly if it's often, it's very important to actually be correct about it.

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

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

No one's mentioned it because it's not a sour chord.

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

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

I was slightly more generous with my timestamping that Gario, but this also checked out for me. The music was 2:47-long, so I needed at least 83.5 seconds of source usage for it to be dominant here. 00.75-54.25, 1:49.5-2:16 = 80 seconds or 47.9% Then, accounting for the other sections like Gario mentioned, I didn't recognize as much, but there was clearly more than enough for the additional few seconds once I started counting. Nice mellow groove that was a little static, but did have dynamic contrast within a much more limited dynamic curve, which is totally fine and valid. Catchy stuff, and a very cool approach with this arrangement, adding a touch more funkyness to it, and certainly presenting a totally different feel, even compared to the more laid-back feel of the original SimCity version of the theme. I wasn't down with Nick's previous EarthBound submission (vis-a-vis the Standards) due to feeling it wasn't interpretive enough (despite going in the right direction), but had 0 reservations here. Also cool to find out Nick's in the Atlanta area. Keep it up! YES

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

Sources were in play from :00-1:20 & 3:02.5-4:54, so no question on the VGM dominating the arrangement. I agreed with Gario that the piece was strong, and the performances above the bar, but I also agreed that there needs to be an overall volume raise before we post it. Count me in the conditional crowd, but nice job by John and everyone in the JSO. YES (conditional)

Way late on this, but awesome job, guys! I thought the soundscape could have been even more intense, but the execution here was strong nonetheless. Arrangement checked out, so just throwing on another vote as a show of support. YES