Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

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.

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

Well, I had a full vote, but unfortunately lost it, so I'll just have to summarize it by agreeing with Deia. This is 85% of the way there, but the instrumentation needs to sound more realistic, particularly IMO the piano. You rock, Rebecca; definitely spend the time to tweak this and fully realize the potential of this otherwise-solid arrangement. NO (resubmit) EDIT (5/27): I realize that the overall instrumentation's purposefully delicate in many ways, but it comes off not sounding ideal. Some extra humanization and richness would have set this off even more. I've listened again several times, and -- though I'm still put off some by the piano feeling flimsy and fake, and other judges articulated more legitimate issues -- the issues all don't bother me as much when weighing it against the strength of the arrangement. YES (borderline)

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

For the intro, the bass pattern derived from the Kid Icarus source was marginalized in the background in a way I wasn't quite feeling, but it was still audible if you were looking for it. Around 1:31 in particular, the looseness of the timing felt off. Some of the electrosynths used here weren't anything to write home about, and the dropoff at 1:49 felt so empty until 1:58. The performance arguably plods, and the timing won't be for everyone. On the whole though, the production sounded fine, and the various elements were distinctly heard. My main issue is on the repetitive, static nature of the arrangement. I didn't like how the guitar work from 2:24-2:41 & 3:47-4:05 was a cut-and-paste of :17-:39 with the chromatic percussion or bwomp chicka on top, followed by the pair of disco strings cameos, always the same exact intensity. I had the same cut-and-paste criticisms with 1:49-1:58 vs. 2:59-3:08 and more importantly 1:58-2:23 vs. 3:21-3:47 (then :57-1:14 vs. 4:05-4:17 is slightly different); some more meaningful variations there would have sounded like more development was done and made the structure seem like less of a formula. Everything's got such a distinct sound and energy level that the copy-pasta layout of the arrangement seem more lazy and obvious; it flattens the energy level and drags down interest. At 2:42, I feel like I've already heard all this coast at the same basic energy level and style, so there's not much going on afterward that isn't a rinse-and-repeat with some light additions on top for a bare minimum of variation. As far as the genre, Thomas, the interpretation is cool on that level, but there needs to be more extensive development of this concept. Right now, it's just attaching sections one after the other like they're Legos; maybe it technically gets the job done as far as song construction, but it lacks natural-sounding performance variations. NO

We do those in the actual site database now, which isn't visible to users yet. It's a work in progress.

Very blocky and thin piano sample opening things up. The synths brought in at :16 were generically produced, but I did like the glassy lead for the melody and the bassline sounded nice. I'm wondering why this is mixed so quietly, but we'll see if anything changes. Around 1:35, there was a rebuild with very subtle additions of new elements, but the overall groove felt very static until the change in pattern at 2:53; it's not poorly made, but there's just not much interest in this build as a listener, IMO. The phasing synth brought in at 2:38 sounded super generic and was just crowding out other elements, and I didn't enjoy when it took over as the lead at 2:53, as it sounded behind the beat. The "Stickerbush Symphony" cameo from 3:10-3:25 was an odd placement, but nothing inherently bad. It felt like 3:51 was a short cut-and-paste of 2:53 with some accents added, including "Stickerbush Symphony" coming in again as the track shifted to a dropoff. It's promising stuff so far, John, but unpolished. It's strange to hear a relatively varied arrangement sound so plodding; for example the relative energy level of the piece peaked at 2:38, and the densest sections with the phasing synths don't have the energy intended by the writing, while the beats & groove behind it were very plainly written. While Sir_NutS had great insight with the production criticisms, I'd like to see more about whether the execution of the arrangement clicks; for me, the interpretation is there, but the execution is not, at least not yet. For me, writing with more creative dynamic contrast and adding more energy to the arrangement would be the most important area to address. NO (resubmit)

Dunno when OCR got a reputation for being anti-repetition, when we have a lot of mixes with some manner of it. We're just against lazy and excessive repetition, usually when it involves minimal changes or (worse), the dreaded cut-and-paste.