Liontamer

The intro was arguably a bit too buzzy, but it's not a big deal. When the track truly kicked off at :29, something about the mixing was pretty indistinct. It felt like there was a lot of mud in the background, perhaps caused by the chippy buzzing. From 4:00-4:15, the source melody was pushed WAY back and might as well not have been there. It was still pretty low after that, but loud enough to be heard more plainly, so no big deal. I get Chimpa's crit about there not being much of a driving melodic aspect to this, but it doesn't matter to me. The source wasn't made like that, and we don't require that of arrangements. This had good dynamic contrast throughout and managed to keep the basic loop of the source fairly interesting, which was a pleasant surprise. I thought the mixing and production was a bigger issue; perhaps some folks may NO on that level. IMO, the production's rough around the edges, but the part-writing was distinct ENOUGH that I'll live, even though it could gain some clarity while still maintaining most of the atmosphere they're going for. In any case, I'm on board. Solid fusion of geetar and chiptune by Mikhail and Jeff! YES

I see what you mean about the second para being a jarring change. Perhaps it's not the best grammar, but switching the 2nd para's first sentence around to something like: "Due in large part to Iwao's influence, Ryo epitomizes Japanese self-discipline and resourcefulness." This would improve the flow by mentioning Iwao that final time and then proceeding to Ryo's description. I see what Dafydd means about wanting more flow, but I wasn't bothered by it. I thought it was an effectively concise way to give Ryo's story and explain his personality. I believe it reads fine and flows well enough as is.

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

Those suggestions sounds like a solid, informed base for an album. IMO, if you want to turn something out faster but still get a good focus of titles important to Iwata's career, leave it at those 7 or 8, don't go for more than that, and focus on matching artists to games. EDIT: This has my OK to be in Community.

While the production wasn't perfect, the muddyness did add body to the piano sound; things were OK overall. Arrangement-wise, the new supporting writing, while simple, wasn't taken from the source. Combining that with the adaptation to piano, changes to the source's bridge and slowed tempo for the finish at 2:33 was enough to consider this a pass. It's not a blowaway piece as far as twists with the source arrangement or dramatic dynamic shifts, but Daniel gets the job done with a solid subtractive approach to the source while adapting it for piano. YES

Game: Deus Ex Original track: DuClare Chateau Arrangement name: Only in Novels The arrangement is available on SoundCloud as an MP3. ReMixer name: Xae if one is required, otherwise real name is fine. Real name: Daniel Ran Email: Website: www.danielran.com User ID: 41883 I don't think I've got any comments. -----------------------------------------

I'm truly satisfied that you have 0 control over the selection process.

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

Actually, the YouTube video for the second source was gone, so Chimpa didn't link to a different one. Now that I've heard the "Sumner's Tower" source, everything after 2:04 is just a cover of the second source, so there's very little interpretation there.

Yeah, I agreed with all of this. It's not what I'd call a submissions violation, because there was added original countermelodic writing here, and the effort was made with the new instrumentation to distinguish itself from the source tune. But when the structures match up that closely, it does feel like a MIDI-rip with garnish on it. Also, watch the brass articulations for 2:52's section, they're very stiffly timed and sound unrealistic. NO

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

Like Chimpa said, there are positive things going on, for sure, but most of the synths were very generic, and ultimately there's not enough dynamically going on with this piece. I agreed with DarkeSword about the melodic variation at 1:22 not adding anything to the picture. Also, 2:30 shouldn't have been a copy-pasta retread of 1:08. Keep things developing and changing, even if it's subtle, so that the arrangement is more fully developed. NO

What's that, 7/8 then 4/4? Yeah, Chimpa says 15/16, and that sounds about right. Pretty cool. I didn't mind the bass pattern drop-off at 1:29, but agree it could be construed as a mistake. I didn't treat it as a negative here. Definitely disliked the unrealistic piano, particularly at :44 & 1:38; the lack of realism sounded very exposed. IMO, the soundscape was too thin in spots, and the sound design isn't super sophisticated. However, the overall subtle dynamic contrast in the piece from build-up to verse to chorus was solidly executed, and the textures were reasonably filled out. Did 3:05-3:46 repeat 1:38-2:19? Sure sounded like it most of the way. Pretty underwhelming cut-and-paste of that section, when some subtle differences would have made a meaningful difference in keeping the track engaging. Then 4:08-4:31 repeated :44-1:07, and 4:31-4:54 mirrored 1:18-1:39. Man, that's a lot of copy-pasta. Well, that's disappointing, especially after being so creative for more than half of the piece. I'd argue this piece could bear some measure of repetition, but nearly 2 minutes of it was copy-pasta. Repeating sections isn't an automatic dealbreaker, but in this case, it's how the repetition was at the expense of development and dynamic contrast for the arrangement. Right now, your energy level and style hits one gear and just sits there, so the piece needlessly drags. For now, I'm in the NO (resubmit) category as well, but this was a creative and strong start, well in the right direction, Cameron. You pulled off the time sig alteration beautifully, and made a solid go of it with these samples. That said, the last 2 minutes of writing were repetitive and stagnant. You DO NOT need to wildly change the writing (don't do that), tempo or intensity, but consider different leads, supporting rhythms, and/or textural changes for the last 2 minutes to keep the arrangement fresh and evolving. I definitely hope to see this posted in some form. Don't drop this one, Cameron.

If this receives some NOs for not being more melodically interpretive, I could see why, but I wasn't bothered by it. Arrangement-wise, I've always said, you don't need to reinvent the wheel with an arrangement, you just need to come through with an interpretive arrangement that puts your own creative, personalized spin on things. Good job including the bells at 2:12 to mitigate the realism issue with the piano. The piece doesn't repeat, and the instrumentation kept changing, which was an important form of arrangement for such a melodically conservative piece. The arrangement could have benefited from some more energy or dynamic contrast, but that's potentially more of a personal taste thing that's ultimately not a strong criticism or a dealbreaker. What's in place is a solid, straightforward rock interpretation that effectively adds more body and depth to the source tune. YES

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

The melody's conservatively handled, as to be expected from a MnP mix, but this was a VERY stylish treatment, so IMO the arrangement was on solid ground, and I didn't have concerns on melodic or percussion repetition. When the overall structure repeats, I'm looking for the leads and/or supporting writing to have at least subtle variations, as well as the overall arrangements approach to be heavily interpretive in the first place, and Jorrith achieved that without a problem. The opening brass at :03 seemed pretty low quality, though it functions a lot like a synth, so it's not a dealbreaker per se. The brass sounds better at :15 when the percussion fills the background out, and by :27 it's just a supporting player, so it's not a big issue. The string accents from :52-:56 & 2:16-2:27 were also too exposed as well. On the plus side though, all of the other instrumentation sounds a lot stronger, and the upbeat, funky groove here locked together nicely. In particular, I loved the the energy of the percussion and bass writing. I thought the melodic lead at 1:10 should have stood out more; until 1:25, the percussion dominated, but I do appreciate the contrast, and the more traditional balance of the parts at 1:25 showed that 1:10 was a purposeful choice. The scatting vocal samples at 2:29 remind a little of the Where's My Perry? soundtrack, which is awesome. Anyway, nitpicking aside, this had great energy, Jorrith, and you nailed it when it came to giving the source tune your own unique treatment. (> )> YES

Would you be willing to direct one? A 5-7 track EP could be something the community could pull together quickly, as long as someone was pushing it forward. AnSo asked about a potential album on Twitter, so I know he's interested in creating something.

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

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

As far as the production/mixing, I see what Chimpa's talking about, but I wasn't bothered by the panning or levels of anything, at least enough where I think that should hold this back. As far as the arrangement goes, I agreed with the theme not being present in the second half. I needed at least 95.5 seconds overt source usage in a 3:11-long track for the VGM to be dominant in the arrangement: :00-:57.5, 1:07.25-1:11.75, 1:14.5-1:35 = 82.5 seconds or 43.19% overt source usage I tried to give as much credit there as possible. The arrangement of the first half was conservative, but personalized well, and there was a lot of smart usage of not just the melody but the bassline and backing patterns as well. The performance was expressive, yet laid back, so the mood here was excellent. After 1:35 though, 1:35-1:53 just follows the chord progression, but doesn't explicitly use the theme in a way I could recognize, then 1:53 until the end didn't sound connected to the source at all, and never circled back to it. So that was it for the DuckTales theme usage. Going back to the theme's not required for the song structure, but in this case, not doing that at some point in the second half meant the Himalayas theme wasn't the dominant part of this piece. Even with brief returns of a backing line here and there during all that soloing, that could have been enough to keep the Himalayas theme in play a little longer. The track's awesome in a vacuum, but we would need some more Himalayas theme used in the arrangement to make the VGM dominant in the arrangement. If you were willing to revisit this, you could add a bit more of the source tune somewhere and this could easily pass. Sweet piece though, Henrik; your musicianship's never in doubt. NO (resubmit)

I don't have anything to add on the production criticisms, but I agreed with Chimpa on everything she touched on re: production and arrangement. I loved the industrial SFX, though the saw & electrosynth leads were very vanilla/cookie-cutter and definitely dragged on as the piece continued. That said, it was coming across like a conservatively arranged but solidly personalized cover for the first 1:24. Things kept going, but I felt like at 2:07, we hit stagnation as far as the energy level of the writing, the arrangement/interpretation of the source melody, and the textural/instrumental variations. The track ultimately sounded very repetitive: same leads, same textures, same writing, same basic energy level for the 5+ minutes. Like Chimpa was getting at, Bryan, this needs more development and dynamic contrast. NO

Palpable has helped polish up some sequenced piano pieces in the past. He may not be available to do any of that while he's in Vietnam, but he may have some advice or suggestions that Mike can apply. I don't want to imply that a live performer is the main or only way this can get posted; it ain't.

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

The arrangement is structurally straightforward but slowed down nicely while presented with a more contemplative feel. The string work serving as an original countermeloody at 3:02 was too stiff, IMO, but otherwise Alex really nailed the cinematic approach. I also would have liked 3:30's section not to initially sound like a retread of 1:26's, but there was more intensity for the latter due to added part-writing, so it wasn't a big deal. The softness of 4:24's close was nicely crafted as well. Alex continues to demonstrate his ability to create emotional arrangements. Nice work! YES

Funny to read Chimpa saying "I'm not sure how well these two themes go together" and "I have no suggestions on how to make it flow better, simply because of the disparity of the two themes" because Shariq has already shown those themes can be combined pretty well. Yeah, the transition at :55 isn't smooth or connected at all thanks to the abrupt key change. It just sounds like one song ended, then a clip of another unrelated song started. All that would have been needed was an added chord at :53 as a final note to truly transition it from one song to the other, instead of such a clunky shift. Just noting I heard some quick distortion or pops at 1:22, 1:26, 2:40 & 2:43. The soundscape was arguably too compressed, but I could make out the various parts well enough. The machine gun drums from 3:42-4:08 didn't add much IMO, since they weren't very audible, but I'm glad they weren't too loud and obscuring other parts, so I guess I'll take too quiet over too loud. 4:24's transition from "Departure" back to "For Endless Fight II" was a lot smoother compared to :55's transition the other way around. I'm a little let down that it just sounds like a cut-and-paste of the intro, but that was minor in the big picture when the rest of the arrangement was solid. The decay of the final string note ended too quickly at 4:58; watch those details. It's not perfect, and the lack of an effective transition at :55 was needless, but otherwise this was a solid rock adaptation of "Departure" with great energy and reasonable mixing. I'm cool with it. YES