Liontamer

What are you going to tell Hylian Lemon about making music? Not a damn thing, that's what. YES

I may not be fully accurate, but the source usage easily checks out as dominant in the arrangement: "Bad Taste Aquarium" - :16.5-:34.5, :37.5-1:25, 1:42.5-1:58.5, 4:04.25-6:34.5 "Red Barrage Area" - 1:58.5-2:18.5; (soloing over source bassline) 2:18.5-2:46, 3:15-3:21.5, 3:23.5-3:27.5 Gotta give this one credit; though we don't require OC ReMixes to sound like the original tracks in terms of instrumentation, tone, style, or mood, we're cool with that approach as long as substantial interpretation is there. This is a great example of an arrangement that personalizes the performance of the source material, yet this sounds like it would 100% fit like a glove on the original Sonic Adventure soundtrack, going for almost a middle ground of jazzy rock compared to the rock and funk styles of the two sources. Definitely on the same wavelength as OA in enjoying the energy & talent of Peter, Brett, Richard, Ric, and Shane; great job, gentlemen! YES

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

Thanks for the link updates. Re: Akumajo Dracula games, those games on those specific platforms were JP-only releases, so I don't use Western localized names in those cases. Though I know Google Translate treats both 悪魔城ドラキュラ & キャッスルヴァニア as "Castlevania," in the West, the series name is usually stated in the Japanese pronunciation/Romaji way of Akumajo Dracula rather than a translated English way (Devil Castle Dracula). YMMV on that rationale, but the more accurate English "translation" based on what I've found is the Romaji series name paired with the translated subtitle.

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

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

Wow, yeah, as soon as lead came in at :43, and the orchestration joined at :52, the whole soundscape was very overcompressed and cluttered, so it was very difficult to distinguish the different part-writing. That's easily the thing that automatically holds this back on production grounds. Definitely hit the Workshop forums to get advice on how to achieve clearer textures and prevent frequency overlap of your instruments. The electric guitar sounded very dry. Despite being dry as well, I did like the tone of the bowed strings though. Nice chugs at 1:52, although paired with the machine gun drums, it felt like they went pretty long up to 2:23. Arrangement-wise, aside from the middle section, this did present itself as a very straightforward rock cover, but the energy behind it was good. A lot of the backing part-writing was the same as the source, so I understand the criticism there when we're looking for more personalized and modified presentation, per our Submissions Standards. The mixing/production's the biggest issue to work on, Tiago. If you can clean up the textures so that the various parts are distinct, that would be half the battle right there, then you could consider tweaking some things with the arrangement. That said, you have a spirited rock cover, it just needs a lot more polished presentation. NO

As far as I could make out, "Ellinia Tree Dungeon" was barely present in the piece, maybe just a few cameos. Anyway, just being honest, I would have direct rejected this, mostly on production grounds, but also on arrangement grounds. There's no reason the piano sequencing should stay stiff and mechanical like the source. The piano tone and effects are too similar to the original for comfort, even though the dance elements are later added, and the piano is produced with basically the same sound and patterns the entire time. On the plus side, care was given to having the textures change from section to section, but the overall presentation and energy level was one-dimensional and repetitive overall. The overall sameyness of the arrangement didn't justify nearly 7 minutes. Production-wise, there was nothing but soft distortion, mud, and clutter once the track picked up, particularly from 2:14-onward, and with 5:15-5:41 easily being the worst offender. Some sound design touches were made around the dropoff at 3:15, but the phasing sounded very generic and basic. Sorry to pick at so many different things here, Anton. I'm sure any fan of MapleStory would at least dig the potential behind this, but it needs a lot more arrangement development that stands more apart from the original song, and much more sophisticated sequencing and mixing in order to have a shot. Good luck applying the criticisms to future works. NO

The track was 6:25-long, so I needed at least 192.5 seconds of source material here for the FF9 OST tracks to dominate the arrangement. I counted... 0:07-1:21.5 - "Endless Sorrow" 1:55-2:16, 2:18.5-2:42, 2:47-3:12 - "Terra" 2:57.5-3:29 - "Endless Sorrow" 3:44-4:10 - "Bittersweet Love" 4:15.5-5:01 - "Melodies of Life" 5:36-6:17 - "Bittersweet Love" ...or 273.5 seconds. I basically heard what Chimpazilla heard. Whatever other connections I couldn't make out didn't matter as far as meeting our standards, as this arrangement was already strongly referential to the FF9 source tunes. This was a smooth, seamless combination of themes with some original transitions that worked nicely. It's beautiful and expressive for sampled orchestration, and the dynamic shifts throughout worked wonderfully. The soft touch of the keys for the "Melodies of Life" section at 4:15 was a highlight as far as the writing. Not to make you the designate replacement for the late Reuben Kee (who we miss terribly), but it's meaningful to have another great Singaporean contributor to the community. Welcome aboard, Avery, and we hope you'll submit more arrangements our way! YES

Wasn't a fan of the mixing off the bat, because the lead at :14 felt buried under the rhythm guitars, which sounded muddy and cluttered. The panning also sounded a bit too wide on some parts, which stood out on headphones to me, but nothing that was a enough of a dealbreaker there. The mixing wasn't ideal, and some more selective EQing/filtering would have made this sound clearer, but what's here is otherwise strong, so the decision tilts toward the impressive arrangement and performance, which rock. Golden Axe doesn't get nearly enough love, and Shinray hook it up again with some attention-grabbing energy. YES

Opens up pretty sweet. The opening line at :14 sounds pretty similar in tone to the source tune, but interested in seeing where else this goes. About a minute in, and I'm loving the soundscape. 1:29 shifts to a more straight-up chiptune lead. The kick is FULL OF POWAR, and is arguably too loud, but I'm cool with it. 2:14 moves over into a seemingly original section that was mixed too loud, though the source melody and beat patterns are quickly brought back at 2:22. The original lead dropped at 2:36, so I'm not sure what the purpose of it was in the gran scheme of things, though it did sound fine conceptually. 2:14-2:36 was cluttered, but the overall production quality was solid, so this one area wasn't a dealbreaker. 3:06 changed up the textures a bit so that it wasn't a total retread in terms of the energy level. Not sure what the big deal about the sudden ending was. Obviously, it's a take it or leave it thing on a personal level, and I get how it comes off as a mistake, but the track ends right at the end of a measure (as opposed to a rendering screw-up or incomplete fade), and the cutoff during the build could 100% be treated like a style thing. It's silly to dock points from this for that reason. Also, the drops at 2:12 and 3:06 do not go to total silence, so that criticism makes no sense. I did agree with Emu that using the same drop three times though at 2:12, 3:06, and 3:50 was more than enough times, so I would have liked to have heard something different there. Very nice catch by Chimpa of the rendering click/pops at 1:43 and 3:20. Arrangement-wise, I didn't agree with Chimpa's criticism that the arrangement isn't ready for prime-time. IMO, this is creatively firing on all cylinders, and while there's repetition, the melodic treatment is sufficiently creative and personalized where some repetition is OK, plus it's not pure cut-and-paste stuff where there's no meaningful differences from section to section. This is a melodically conservative mix, but Adeseye did a nice job putting his own spin on it, retaining many of the original's patterns, but crafting a more driving beat with richer, more evolving textures than the source. I can see why there'd be some concern on the tone being too similar, but IMO this struck a fine balance of sounding melodically close to the original while changing the instrumentation, adding original backing writing, and shifting the textures regularly to present more than enough interpretation. YES

Looking to pick this back up. If anyone's interested in digging into the older mixes and proposing tags for them, please let us know!

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

What version of IE, and what operating system? Any deeper level of information you can give could be helpful.

A WAV file's actually fine nowadays; internet speed's much better these days, so we can handle it. Arrangement-wise, the melodic treatment was generally too conservative, with most of the lead and supporting part-writing retained wholesale from the original, so I definitely agreed with Jive's assessment. It's not just the melody being so similar but the instrumentation and tone. It's definitely a nice step up from the sound of the N64 version, John, but it's too close, beats aside. Solid cover, but not interpretive enough. Small thing, but the brief move to the vox at 1:44 was a nice touch; would have liked to have heard more original writing tied to that part, because it sounded beautiful. Also keep in mind, these days, any Bond game arrangement needs very limited usage of the non-VGM Bond music to be posted on OCR, otherwise even a great submission will get rejected on the grounds of using too much non-VGM music in the arrangement, which we've had to do in the past. (The older posted GoldenEye mixes that do this are grandfathered in before we explicitly disallowed extensive non-VGM usage.) So, on a technicality, even if everything was awesome, if there was a lot of Monty Norman Bond theme usage, we'd reject it, I'm afraid. NO

Not much to say other than nice work going for that '80s style with the instrumentation, Gian. Great energy and a very fun take on the 2 sources! YES

Opens up pretty lo-fi at :16 with some pretty oddball textures; taking a wait-and-see approach on this, as I'm honestly not digging the textures and don't think they work at all (and I like quirky arrangements). At :47, that could have been a spot where the soundscape got much clearer and that didn't happen, so the lo-fi/unclear sound isn't purposeful. Yeah, I'd need another J to articulate why this instrumentation isn't clicking; to me, it's mostly thin elements, and a flimsy padding line that doesn't really glue the track together. Dynamically, I felt something more drastic/notable of a changeup in the energy level or textures should have happened at 2:24, but it never arrived; despite the change in the percussion writing, the puchy parts of the drums are always the same beats, making the groove way too repetitive. Lastly, the lead instrument subtly changed constantly, which was a postitive, but the melodic interpretation of the source tune never varies. As a result of all those issues, the energy level feels very samey, and the song's basically in one gear from :16-onward. It's a markedly different sound to things, which is commendable, Peter, but the mixing sounds needlessly lossy, the textures don't click, and the dynamic contrast is lacking. NO

Wow, those opening synths have a very out-of-the box quality to 'em; I kind of feel like I'm listening to the Altered Beast soundtrack from the Genesis, though that's neither here nor there. That said, I did like the vox padding starting at 1:06, which added a good eerie quality to the piece; the effects on it slurred the otherwise-rigid articulations, which effectively covered up that potential issue. Anyway, at :44, I was expecting the textures to get more sophisticated, but Chimpa was correct that the wubs and lead writing sounded too basic. At that point, the track stays in the same gear for the rest of the way, and then gradually reduces for the finish starting at 3:19; everything's too samey and re-treading for much too long, so you need to develop and evolve the arrangement and dynamic contrast of the piece. IMO, this is a quality start. I'm not a production guy, so I can't give detailed advice on that level, but Chimpa and Nutritious have it right that the overall levels being so loud creates a crowding/cramped feeling, even though there's actually not TOO much going on in terms of the writing. As far as the arrangement, it has some creative interpretation, and I'd argue it's too liberal and needs to directly reference the source tune theme more; while the original writing you're using fits nicely with the "Sub Castle BGM," be careful that the VGM dominates the arrangement. Also, once you hit the verse at :44 and go through a few loops, you've heard everything there is to be had, and the track's overly long and underdeveloped. Also, watch for the ending cutting off as well, that's a small detail a lot of folks overlook. Definitely don't be discouraged, Brandynn and Elizabeth. Creatively, this is a lot more creative and promising than many first subs we get. I hope we hear more submissions from you, and that you stick around the community and get feedback & advice from folks in the Workshop forums. NO (resubmit)

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

Don't think so, but it wouldn't matter if anyone else was. Do your thing!

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

I received a WAV from Skrypnyk, and that's simply how it ends, i.e. it's on purpose.

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

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

The track was 2:35-long, so I needed to hear the sources used in at least 77.5 seconds of the piece to consider the VGM source material dominant in the arrangement, per the standards ("The source material must be identifiable and dominant."). 0:14.75-0:29.5, 0:33-0:38.5, 1:05.5-1:18, 2:06-2:16 = 42.75 seconds or 27.58% overt source usage Like I mentioned to DragonAvenger, part of the issue of why it's not a closer call for me is because even the judges who agree with her breakdown believe this treatment is still too liberal. You could take my vote on YamaYama's Ocarina of Time mix, do a find/replace of the relevant terms and it would generally be the same vote. In other words, this sounds fucking incredible as far as the production and presentation, but the arrangement is too liberal. For the only long section where I disagreed with DragonAvenger's source usage credit (1:36-2:01), I thought the notes of the melody were altered too much and I couldn't count most of those supposed variations as source usage. Even if that was counted in full, that wouldn't pull it up to the source tune use dominating the arrangement. Yeah, so thinking about it, I'm going to go NO, but, Vladimir, if there are other aspect of the original song that you used in this arrangement that we are simply overlooking, please let us know and we will go back and revisit this vote.