Liontamer

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

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

Vanilla lead synths, but a decent groove. Something sounds lossier than it should, like some higher frequencies or clarity are gone, but the soundscape was otherwise OK. The kick/clap pattern at the core of this (first used at :20) was getting too repetitive at 1:52, but all of the other elements around it were evolving adequately. By 3:01, I was really tired of the kick/clap groove at the base of this; it needs more variation, like you have with the other writing; it doesn't need to be crazy, but vary that clap so it doesn't drag the energy of the piece down. What's here otherwise was creative, but getting so repetitive with such a plain, thin groove needlessly holds the composition in one gear despite other substantive writing changes going on. It's a somewhat close vote, and a cool piece that's IMO 85% of the way there, but just needs that attention to detail with the perc pattern to not undermine the dynamics of the piece and keep it fresh throughout. Maybe I'm the bad guy, and no one else will agree the beat was as much of a factor. Some added clarity in the mixing and a higher encoding would help as well. I wasn't bothered by anything being a cut-and-paste rehash because the overall arrangement was definitely interpretive enough. Good luck with the rest of the vote, Francisco, and definitely don't be discouraged if this doesn't make it as is. You show great potential, and I enjoyed your style. NO (resubmit)

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

Why are you asking for permission and then adding an unnecessary step? Just post or link some art here. Show, don't tell.

I didn't think this was well-produced, in terms of the mixing. I thought the soundscape was pretty quickly cluttered, starting at :34, and especially by 1:06 as more and more parts gradually added in and the soundscape became muddier and more indistinct. If you turn down the volume, it's less of a problem, but I'm listening to it at the same full volume I listen to other tracks at. The writing and atmosphere were good though. Lead synth at 2:10 had overly tight timing, IMO, but it wasn't a huge deal. That said, it had a tough time cutting through as the lead, which was more of a problem. IMO, the melodic interpretation wasn't much, sure, but the soundscape and instrumentation were personalized well, and I thought the gradual build of this song showed enough development to where I disagreed with the criticisms of calling this too repetitive. The core groove does go on, absolutely, but the elements in front of the groove subtly changed and evolved throughout most of the piece. If you're still interested in revising this piece, feel free to also include some other types of variations on the source theme, including instrumentation, rhythmic or melodic (or groove in this case) changes. IMO, it wouldn't need to be drastic stuff, just some more elements of interpretation to push it over the top for other Js concerned about that. I see where the NOs on arrangement are coming from, but I think the subtlety of the build here's ultimately lost on them or just wasn't compelling enough. For me, the arrangement was perfectly fine and a pass, but the cluttered mixing was what pushed it down to NO for me. Sorry to be such an outlier, Curt. I'm sure you and Dead Robot worked hard on the production, but IMO there are a lot of parts mudding together in the same frequency range, and it undermines an otherwise strong track. Maybe the folks judging on monitors missed it, I don't know, but when comparing it with my control track -- djp's "Consent (Make Me Dance)" -- the difference is night and day in terms of the clarity. I'm sure there are some more electronic/dance-oriented pieces on the site or elsewhere that would also make good comparisons. If you haven't done so already, consider another pass at the mixing. It doesn't need to be squeaky clean pristine, just adequately de-cluttered. NO (resubmit)

Got it. Should be fixed the next time the site is synced with the database.

This is definitely not mixed well. From the beginning, it sounds like a lot of higher frequencies just got chopped off. I was waiting for a transition to have the piece go clean and sharp to provide some contrast and explain the intro, and that didn't happen. I was actually put off a bit by the e-violin, because the way it's produced almost makes it sound like a fakey-sounding electric guitar synth instead (weird articulations, in particular). The drumwork underneath was busy and creatively written, but sounded thin, and the background felt too empty. I agreed with Chimpa that the kit didn't sound like it clicked in combination with the guitar, but it could probably work if just produced in a different way. Right now though, this track desperately needs some sort of padding to fill out the soundfield. 1:45's section was an interesting changeup, but the percussion still doesn't work, and when the tracks starts building back up at 1:58, none of the percussion drives the track forward. I'd love to hear another J better explain what the core problem is there. Creative, albeit odd violin-turned-SFX section from 2:37-3:28; doesn't really work all the way, but it's mostly OK, and it's definitely creative and ambitious. Back to the spirited but lo-fi lead work at 3:29 with good perc writing but an empty background. The textures just never, ever click here. This really needs some sort of ambient padding and more cohesive percussion sounds to fill that background space, and the highs can't be eliminated like this. The arrangement has potential, Trev, and the live video was cool, but there's a lot of detail work that's not tight despite the very cool premise behind this. NO

Ain't nothing inherently wrong with a medley as long as the individual components are 1) sufficiently interpreted and 2) piece together cohesively. If you didn't know better, you could think there were 5 sources, but Brandon really was just hitting distinct sections from each of the main 3. The result's no doubt cohesive as the themes flow from one to another, and Brandon also got a nice amount of mileage out of extending the shorter motifs from these sources. Thanks, Brandon, for putting the Beyond OST on my radar; this is truly amazing work by Lorne Balfe. I agreed with Brandon that the vocal articulations did almost sound like a Vocaloid when held, and I enjoyed the sound. Even though it's obviously not a real vocal performance in spots, it was produced in a stylized way that made it OK, and it sounded very expressive. On the minus side, good piece, but very cluttered mixing that sounded problematic on headphones. It's not enough to reject it, because of the strength of the arrangement and quality of the instrumentation, but it's close on that level. 2:20-3:26 in particular was swamped and a lot of the detail work was lost (e.g. brass, bells, beat pattern, 2:53's vocal line). IMO, this was a lot like Brandon's first pass at the mixing for his Chrono Trigger mix, "The Masamune," mix where he needed to take a second pass at the mixing. That said, I was fine with that one, and I think this can get away with the clutter due to other sections being more distinct and the lead work sounding strong. Though I'd like another pass at the mixing, what's here gets a lot more right than wrong, and is another example of Brandon's killer arrangement chops. YES

http://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2015/07/30/a-musicologist-s-look-at-final-fantasy-vi MP3 -------------- A few months ago, Ryan appeared on Emily Reese's previous radio show, Top Score, to discuss the FF6 soundtrack, in particular the opera scene. I assumed no one's heard of this game, so this is just an FYI.

djp and I have both wanted to have a hub for deeper discussion of VGM for quite a while, so I'm glad Ryan was down with creating this forum. He's the perfect person to lead it. I'll add, in particular I'd love for musiclogists to: share & discuss papers conduct original research; and organize & promote academic events. This is also something for down the line, but if enough folks are down with hosting papers, research or other academic material on OCR, perhaps we could integrate it into our database. Welcome to everyone looking to learn more about video game music!

I liked the mixfloods. I'm biased. There wasn't enough Kirby material in the submission's box to do a 5-mix flood, but at the least, we posted a Kirby arrangement by Jorito shortly after Iwata-san's passing. I generally pick the floods to fit what's already approved and available, but if we had enough in the hopper, I'd enjoy a modern game flood (basically Xbox 360/PS3 and newer). The most important thing is keeping the categories reasonably broad, e.g. high-level genre, obscure games (NOT just from 1 platform), a generation, indie games, a popular company. Keep in mind, a lot of the theme suggestions in the thread are just way too restrictive. We generally do 5-mix groups, though you saw we had a couple of 2-mix pairs also. Always a fun, albeit challenging month.

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.

SUPER-thin and rigid opening line to start, which didn't bode well for the rest, even though things filled out better around :14. Synth at :21 was too loud and almost piercing. The melody on bassline at :42 was getting swallowed up and didn't cut through to the foreground. Also hearing those wrong notes and wasn't sure how they got in there. I disagree with Chimpazilla. I don't feel this is a good start yet, because there needs to be more substance and more care put into the production, otherwise, what's in place now really doesn't show strong development potential. Very strange phasing effect at 1:24 due to the sidechaining (the same thing going on with the bassline, BTW) where the lead randomly gets pushed back and pulled forward. No real melodic development to speak of throughout, and the ending at 2:21 is abrupt and flatter than a pancake. Well, I mean, if you don't care to finish this, Micah, why should anyone else care? No hate here, but you've gotta not get sloppy on the smaller details. Keep at it, but use the Workshop forums to get feedback, ask questions, and broaden your knowledge. NO

Yeah, the source is a classic, so it's hard to dislike any rendition of it, but this version has no meat on it to start. There's very quiet countermelodic writing starting at :18, but it's barely audible for the entrie track, so it might as well have not been there. If I wasn't listening on headphones, I'm sure I would have missed it entirely, and that ain't good, especially when the track already feels empty to start. Push all of that up and let it be heard, because the writing there was creative and would have further personalized this arrangement. The machine-gun drumming at :36 sounded ridiculous, like a limited-channel soundchip dropping out an instrument line to accommodate the part; the machine-gun stuff's going on, yet there was no percussion that drove the track forward. Despite the intensity, the soundfield's actually very thin despite all the business going on. This needs something in the background in the beginning, as you only get some padding at 1:03. The dropoff at 1:03 was a welcome dynamic change and showed off some good personalization in adapting the source to new instrumentation. I agree with them that more interpretation techniques would help this in relation to our standards, but that you were going in the right direction as far as how you changed the instrumentation and introduced a decent amount of original part-writing underneath the theme, even though the melodic structure/timing was close to the original song. Return of the machine-gun drums at 1:38 crowded up the supporting writing too much, but at least there was other drum-writing to push the track forward. The ending at 2:05 had a cool glassy fadeout after the last note, but as a resolution this was pretty weak, basically shutting the track off after ending the verse. IMO, there should have been a more substantive ending instead of suddenly stopping at what amounts to a loop point. Good potential here, Rémi. You need to refine your mixing, but your arrangement ideas are well in the right direction. Once you tighten things up, I think you could get something approved. Definitely do not be discouraged and keep working at it. NO

Agreed with DarkeSword that the guitar work is the best part but not much of this is strong. At 1:14, I then understood what the "sonic mush" criticism was about, because the backing instrumentation became very cluttered, with the bass in particular booming too loudly and creating mud. The drum writing was serviceable, but there's an overall flat energy here with the plodding percussion & bell pattern repetition that undermines the wilder energy of the guitar. The string stabs were very rigidly timed as well. The overall timing of the beats felt too tight compared to the guitar stuff, and the combination of instrument doesn't click, IMO. The mixing needed work, but I felt the bland auto-pilot repetition of the source tune ultimately hurt this the most. It's got cool potential, Darrell, but you need to develop and vary the writing under the guitar, not just coast on it. NO

The piece was 3:32-long, so I needed at least 106 seconds of overt source usage for the VGM to be dominant in the arrangement. I didn't suspect anything was close here, but the original writing additions merely sounded Zelda-y and seamlessly combined with the Windmill Hunt/Song of Storms theme, thus I wanted to trust but verify. :29.5-:44, :58-1:10, 1:27.75-1:59.75, 2:12.75-2:37.5, 2:50.5-3:30 = 122.75 seconds or 57.9% Arrangement-wise, I agreed with Chimpa on the personalization being strong enough to outdo any concerns on sameyness with the instrumentation. Nice work per grandpa's usual! YES

For a 4:26-long track, I needed at least 133 seconds of overt source usage for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement. I didn't agree with Markus's timestamps exactly and thought some of the credit to flourishes was too generous (and that some of his timestamping was off), but it wasn't a big deal: :00-:46.75, 1:30.75-2:13.25, 2:14.75-2:28, 2:48.5-2:55, 2:57.75-3:00.25, 3:09.5-3:33.75, 4:12.5-4:15 = 138.5 seconds or 52.06% I counted the bassline from 2:07-2:28, which had already been in play earlier behind the Muda melody and was taken from Muda and adapted for the time signature, but held the same basic rhythm. When I stopwatch, I just need some direct and overt connection to the source tune in play, and the bassline there was a close enough match for me, where I recognized the adaptation of it. Close shave, but count it. Arrangement-wise, I can understand the complaint of the sections not weaving together 100% smoothly, but I didn't have any problem with these transitions. Smooth work overall, and IMO an effective combination of two classic Mario Land themes that comfortably connected with the original writing. YES

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.