Liontamer

I never heard the previous version, so I'm coming in with a fresh listen on this. I'm offering more play-by-play than usual, because I think this track has subtle dynamics and interpretation that can be overlooked. The cheering SFX seemed short & looped. Normally this isn't a big deal, but every time you use it (:00, :47, 1:43, 2:56), the same loop of cheering becomes too obvious. It's the instances of faint whistling that give it away. After the intro, track opened up with an chippy yet ethereal play on the source melody. Also note how the backing beat writing is simple but completely different from anything in the original, so that new material should be noted, as far as the level of interpretion. As far as the texture, the beats & kicks fill things out nicely; this was a solid sound. Changeup at :47, and back to the synths, pads, and low-quality crowd SFX. Textures thinned out some at 1:03 going back into the chip parts, synth, and kicks. Nice doubling of the melody with the individual & sustaining chip notes. Again, using the crowd SFX around 1:38, which is weird hearing the same loop again. On the plus side, note the padding to thicken up the soundscape before going into the chorus at 1:51. Good way to subtly raise the energy within this deliberate tempo. Also for the chorus at 1:51, note the different synth doubling the chip lead, which was a good change. Bad sampled electric guitar lick from 2:05-2:07 & 2:38-2:40; super stiff timing that exposed the sample, but very short. 2:56-3:12 brought back the crowd cheering SFX yet again. You need to find different cheering SFX and use different segments of it instead of re-using the same exact clips. 3:12-3:44 with some minor variation and expansion on the source melody, but a welcome addition. 3:46-5:06 (transition at 3:46, chorus from 4:00-5:06) sounds like a pure cut-and-paste of 1:36-2:56 until 5:04 drops all the main stuff for a beat-driven finish. The track unceremoniously cut off at 5:20, so that needs to be fixed to have a proper fade down after the final bar. The crowd SFX has got to be replaced with 4 different samples of crowd noise that also blend into the soundscape better. Otherwise, I think the production quality is solid enough, and whatever issue on sample quality were there for the first version didn't seem like a huge deal here. On the arrangement/writing side, it's OK to have the tempo like this, when there are subtle but observable changes in the density of the track that provide dynamic contrast, which this has. But it's easy to view this as plodding because there are some large components that sound repetitive. For example, 1:03-1:36, 1:51-2:23, 3:12-3:43, and 3:59-5:03 had the same beat patterns in the background; consider some ways you can offer subtle variations in the instrumentation, timing, or stressed beats for those patterns. For example, the added cymbals from 2:23-2:55 were a good idea to subtly alter the texture. That said, this could use more instrumental/textural changes if you're going to go at a slow and steady tempo for a 5:20-long track, otherwise, it feels too long and somewhat underdeveloped. IMO, this is actually well in the right direction. It's maybe 85% of the way there, IMO. There's so much promise here, so don't give up on this one, and sorry for the long wait to hear back on this resubmission. If you do resubmit this again, we will evaluate it as soon as possible, which is the supposed to be the typical priority for resubmissions. NO (resubmit)

Original Decision Contact Information RJ remixes Jonathan Lemethy and Richard Földhazi https://soundcloud.com/rjremixes 51359 Submission Information Journey to silius Final Journey Journey to Silius Stage 2 (Underground Concourse) Original Composers: Naoki Kodaka Nobuyuki Hara Shinichi Seya Naohisa Morota We did this remix becouse we always do trance and upbeat tracks this time we aimed for a diffrent approach, our main objective was to keep the mystical feeling from the original track We hope you like it! we sended it with sendspace aswell so u should be able to download it! see link below ------------------------ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXCEbzjmKmc

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

For a 2:41-long track, I needed at least 80.5 seconds of overt source usage to consider the VGM usage dominant in the arrangement: :00-:20, :22.75-37, 43-51.75, 52.75-1:01.5, 1:06.75-1:07.75, 1:12.75-1:22, 1:43-1:52, 2:17.75-2:18.75 = 71 seconds There was also a lot of subtle but extended use of a beat pattern from the original (1:09-1:19 of the source) in the background, e.g. 1:52-2:32, and that usage was enough to make it clear for me that the source material was dominant within the arrangement. Arrangement-wise, this had good energy and a very personalized spin on the theme with the throwback chip-style instrumentation; interesting approach with the Commodore 64 vibe. When the track picked up at :22, the backing textures were a bit thin; this could have used a padding part or effect to fill things out, like the intro's ambiance. No big deal though; the dynamics of the piece were otherwise excellent. This interpretation was so much more upbeat and spirited than the grungier style of the original, so cheers on making this version stand out as your own. Always glad to have more much-needed Amiga representation on OCR! YES

For a 3:13-long track, I needed to find at least 96.5 seconds of overt references to the source tunes for the VGM to be dominant in the arrangement. Like Palpable, the way the intro bassline was modified was too far from the Marble Garden's to give it full credit, but ultimately this checked out with overall source usage (Marble Garden verses unless otherwise noted): :17-:18.5, :23.75-:25.5, :31-:34 (Azure), :37.5-:42.5 (Azure, MG), :48-:49.75, :55-:58 (Azure), 1:01.5-1:04.5 (Azure), 1:07.5-1:10 (Marble chorus), 1:12.5-1:15 (Marble chorus), 1:19-1:44.5, 1:46.5-1:49.5 (Azure), 1:53.25-1:56.25 (Azure), 1:58.75-2:01.25 (Marble chorus), 2:03.75-2:06.25 (Marble chorus), 2:14-2:39.5, 2:41.75-2:54 = 98.25 seconds or 50.9% overt source usage 1:19's version of the bassline was simplified but more overtly similar to Marble Garden's notes that I counted that. I'm probably missing some other connections, but as liberally as this was arranged, I'm not sure how much higher things would end up timestamping out anyway. That said, the overt source usage barely checked out as dominant for me, so I'm on board. Love the fusion and transformation of the two themes, with "Marble Garden" taking the lion's share of it. Incredibly driving energy behind this track, with great instrumentation choices, fun-filled AND fun fill percussion, electric geetar midway through, and excellent dynamics (loved the dropoff at 2:15). Jordan... killin' it. Great job! YES

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

Quoting Chimpazilla because she nailed it, the good and the bad: while the arrangement's clearly strong, the panning makes no sense; the percussion patterns (while creative) repeat too much for too long; the bassline tone doesn't sound bad but doesn't quite click. Emunator mentioned the electric guitar; that wasn't a huge deal for me, but you'll have to watch the levels there. 2:05-2:19 was probably the worst offender IMO once the drums splashed in; that combination was possibly lightly distorting; at the very least, the soundscape got very cramped. I'll also say, the vocals could use some additional sweetening/tightening up; they're OK, and I'm a fan, but there's some minor pitch issues that may need some Auto-Tune or another take to smooth out (e.g. "sea-son"/1:02). Right now, the vocals are pretty exposed, so when there's some subtle strain or the smoothness is not quite there (e.g. "no matter where I roam"/1:16-1:23), it's pretty apparent. Hopefully it's clear this is very promising, Kary, so definitely see if you can tweak this before the FF3 album drops. Pretty good so far, so I hope we get another version. NO (resubmit)

Just leading the horse to water: http://ocremix.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12 http://ocremix.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16 http://ocremix.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19

Opens pretty conservatively with the fade-in dance groove; we'll see where it goes. Yipes, the saw leads finally introduced at :56 were SUPER generic-sounding, AND just bled into the background; I could hardly distinguish them. The source's familiar countermelody is also barely audible once that line stops being doubled at :56. The core beats shouldn't be louder than the leads. Pretty sloppy mixing up to 1:24, and the same exact issue from 3:25-3:38 when that section repeated. Chimpa said she heard 0 repetition, but I heard areas of similarity that made the overall feel repetitive: 0:00-0:28 vs. 1:52-2:06 vs. 2:42-2:56 0:28-1:10 vs. 3:10-3:38 0:56-1:10 vs. 3:25-3:52 (saw lead) 1:32-1:52 vs. 2:06-2:35 After the quick dropoff and rebuild at 1:38, I was appreciating the overall intensity and energy of the piece; there's certainly some personalization to it. That said: 1) the track hovered at the same high intensity level with the same grooves for too long and needs more dynamic contrast 2) the sound design is pretty underwhelming, with lots of shrill, vanilla electrosynths that get fatiguing, especially the saws 3) there was enough recycling of portions where the writing felt repetitive The sound design and overall arrangement structure both needed polish and dynamics, respectively. NO

All my thoughts were basically just a major co-sign with the others. The bowed string sequencing sounded SUPER fake, dry & rigid, then off-time later. It was unrealistic enough that there was a quality disparity with the other instrumentation. I had less of a problem with the drum repetition, but the flute mixing from 1:28-2:08 didn't make sense, and neither did the usage of the dance claps. The treatment of the source theme itself was VERY creative, so if this were just a vote based on creativity, this would make it. But execution's nearly equally as important. Good initial concept, Rebecca, but the overly fake bowed strings have to be humanized, and the mixing has to be cleaned up. Again, you're clearly a talented arranger, based on this and your Final Fantasy Forest Medley I've also heard, so don't be discouraged. Even if you don't revisit this piece, I hope you take the critique into account for the future, and continue to submit arrangements. NO

Since Palpable and the others expressed some inability to isolate the issues, I'll just chime in an extra vote. I think this is pretty far along in the right direction that, IMO, we're looking for as far as personalizing this arrangement. The groove of the original is retained, but all of the instrumentation ideas are yours, and the backing writing around the melody, and the melodic textures all evolve, so that's all positive. I definitely agreed with trimming the fat by reducing 1:36-2:44, especially because you just end up continuing that melody from 2:45-3:39. The subtle variations are there, but that repetitive melody does plod after two straight minutes. Also, while not a dealbreaker, the soundscape got cluttered during the fullest parts (e.g. 1:22-1:50, 1:56-2:44, 3:25-3:39). Anything you can do to reduce some of the muddyness would help. IMO, this is pretty solid so far, John, and if you're open to some further tweaks to clean up the soundscape and reduce some potential plodding writing, this would be a great addition! NO (resubmit)

I'll be honest, I didn't notice the constant chime hits on that one beat throughout the track until y'all pointed it out. That said: 1) in the first portion of the track, it's subtle but more audible, then it later takes on an even quieter role 2) there's a LOT of other accenting chromatic percussion going on to where it's not like the one chime at that specific interval is the only chromatic percussion occuring 3) I dunno how that part earwormed for you, but I was expecting something downright invasive when it was pointed out, when IMO, it was it mixed in a way that didn't stand out. In short, that chime's just not a problem for me, and it blended into the background. If that chime sinks this submission, I'll laugh, but it's not actually going to be that funny.

Yikes. I usually enjoy Yoko Shimomura's work, but I definitely didn't like the "Pirate Island" theme. Not catchy at all. Anyway, I wasn't bothered by the opening kick, but I can see why anyone would recommend to get rid of it. Arrangement-wise, the basic source usage breakddown was... MM9 - :13.75-:27, 1:02.25-1:42, 3:22.5-3:35.75 Magic Kingdom - :34.25-1:00.75, 1:42-2:27 Both (Magic Kingdom in foreground) 2:27-2:41 Both (equal levels) 2:41-2:54 Although Chimpa's down with it, I really disliked the drum tone at :33; it's punchy, but it sounds like there's a padding part missing to fill the gaps in the texture and keep the soundscape from sounding thin. IMO, the overall texture sounded sparse despite the volume and busyness of the other writing. Even when the additional supporting line joins in at :47, there's an overall emptiness to this piece due to the dry, hollow anchor beats. The two patterns they use are also very rigid, plus the beats are so exposed that it's easy to tell how repetitive it is, with it having the basically same two writing & velocity patterns for every measure during the verses and bridges. Things got pretty cramped from 1:29-1:42; not a huge deal, but watch for things getting too cluttered. Not digging the Pirate Island section at 1:42-2:10, mainly because the theme is bleh (just personal taste), but because every part seems really dry. 2:27-onward sounded better with the added countermelodic line added to fill things out more, and also de-emphasize the rigid sound with the sequencing. Good dropoff idea at 2:41; it was a nice textural change. The combination of the MM9 and Magic Kingdom themes was super quiet and practically might as well have not been in there given the volume, but no big deal since both sources were used in spades elsewhere. Why bring back that dry drum groove at 2:54, when it's plodding and exposed? I thought the synth design for some of the non-chiptune leads was on the vanilla side, but serviceable. The beats needs more of a snap to them, more variation, and some more spaciousness to their production, to click more with the other instrumentation. Some of the detail work on the production side isn't there, and I felt the overall execution was a step below where the bar is. IMO, this is a solid far-along late-stage work-in-progress-level piece, Corey, with an already solid arrangement, but give it more fine tuning. if this doesn't make it as is (which I think it shouldn't), you can still get it there. NO EDIT (4/22): Clarified that the snare pattern specifically was what was repetitive.

Interesting conservative structure to start, while still managing to subtly give the piece its own voice. I actually think this effectively pulled off an eerie feel, and from the beginning there's new, original foreground writing supplementing the source tune. 2:21 moved over into some wholly-original writing while retaining the mood of the "Omen" arrangement in the first section. Around 2:41, I dug the gradual fade-in of the piano playing the familiar six-note pattern from the source intro, only sped up. Around 2:58, the soundscape got pretty crowded and I can see where the criticisms of murkyness and shrillness are coming from. That said, it wasn't a huge deal for me, and while there's an overall ambiance to the soundscape, everything was still clear enough to be heard reasonably well. I didn't feel that the texture was hugely problematic, and just don't agree with turning this down on production grounds. Whatever perceived mistakes the artist may have made in mixing it or applying compression, I didn't hear anything that was a dealbreaker as far as distinguishing the various instruments, and don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good here. 3:49 until the end featured not only the additive original string writing, but also the altered piano line with the six-note pattern. I think the interpretation aspect of the standards is covered through the combination of subtle instrumentation changes and the substantial additive/expansive writing. IMO, this fires on all cylinders. Sure, the mixing should be cleaned up some, but a lot more works than doesn't work. Brenden really came through with a solid, deceptively expansive & interpretive arrangement, as well as good enough production to mitigate any realism issues with the samples. If this somehow doesn't pass, I don't think the arrangement needs to be touched whatsoever; this would just need some mixing adjustments. That said, I think this is fine as is, the arrangement is very strong, and I want to see this go forward. YES

On the source usage, definitely agreed with Chimpa; the short of it is that it's clear the Halo theme dominates the arrangement. The samples clearly don't sound like real organic instruments, but Pl511 did a nice job creating a soundscape that was able to mitigate the realism issues and place the focus on the composition. On the arrangement side, this was a very cool cinematic approach with a very different mood than the original, some parts plaintive, some parts hopeful. For my taste, the textures plodded a little bit once the energy peaked from 1:38-2:22. That said, the entire gradual build was very well written, with subtle rises in the density and energy level, and even during the fullest parts, there was enough variation in the leads and textures to keep the track evolving. Much like Arkimedes/Leitbur did in the past, Pl511's certainly achieved a drastically different side of Halo music. Nice job! YES

For a 6:19-long track, I needed at least 189.5 seconds of overt source usage for it to be dominate in the arrangement. :17.5-1:18.5, 1:35.75-2:54.25, 2:57.75-3:11, 3:15-3:28, 3:29.5-3:38, 3:40.5-3:45.75, 3:46.75-3:55, 3:57.5-4:02, 4:04-4:20.25, 5:52.25-6:02 = 218.25 seconds or 68.4% overt source usage There were other chord progression connections that I didn't count, as well as a BARELY audible background synth playing the chorus from 5:31-5:48.25, but the overt source usage ultimately checked out anyway. Onto the criticisms first, there was a bad transition back to the verse at 1:53; it was supposed to be smooth, but was actually pretty jarring, for whatever reason. Also, the background electrosynth lightly referencing the Hard Man melody from 4:04-4:20 didn't click with the other instrumentation, but it didn't stand out enough to be a huge deal. Those were basically my only real complaints. Despite my source usage timestamps, if you're not ultra familiar with the source tune, you might think the arrangement goes too liberal after 3:29. It's still referencing the Hard Man theme a lot, but in more subtle ways while focusing primarily on original lyrics and instrumentation. It's definitely still there though. The Megas are also known for smart lyrics that tell a cool story, and this one doesn't disappoint either with the boxing motif. Really creative, transformative approach per The Megas' usual! YES

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

FF12 - :00-:42, 1:57-2:22, 3:03.75-3:27, 5:06-6:31.5 FF6 - :36-1:57, 5:47-5:55 FF9 - 2:21-3:03 FF5 - 3:27.5-3:57 FF7 - 4:09-4:50 I'm sure I didn't ID all of the connections, but I recognized enough that the source usage being dominant in the arrangement isn't in question. Other Js with better ears may have some production advice or minor criticisms of the samples; I thought the sample quality was solid and Rebecca used them well. The piece essentially has one relaxed gear, but there were a lot of subtle dynamic changes throughout, with regular theme switches and interplays, as well as never-ending instrument additions and subtractions that kept the texture constantly evolving. The structure can definitely sound meandering or aimless, even if you're actively listening. Having done my best to break down the usage of the source tunes, I understand there's actually more direction than might be apparent from the first listen. The constant subtle shifting of what was in play was pulled off in a surprisingly effective way. We just need: 1) a higher-quality encoding, either 192kbps or VBR1; and 2) a version that doesn't cut off abruptly. Nice work, Rebecca, and welcome aboard! YES

I corrected the source tune link in the original post. The submitting said in his subject line that the track was "Thunder Cloud," but that track name from the arcade soundtrack wasn't right. This fan-named track from the SNES score ("Thunderstorm Stealth Bomber & Wolfpack") is actually the right source. Moving onto the arrangement, really weird phasing here throughout the intro that quickly wore out its welcome; way too long at 57 seconds. The phasing made the track feel like it had no direction until the main verse theme finally arrived at :57. All of the sequencing is very stiff. Moved into a super-straightforward DnB adaptation of the source with little melodic interpretation and an overcompressed soundscape. Rinse and repeat at 1:54 with another supporting line under it to add a little bit more, though it was difficult to actually hear that given how cramped the soundscape was. There's really not much beyond an intensity upgrade here. 2:52 repeated the intro again, this time changing up the beat pattern some, but leaving the same shrill, overcompressed synths. No variations on the leads though. It's a decent cover, but there's not enough interpretation and expansion on the writing of the original VGM. The production was also super-cramped and crowded. There's likely too much to address here to get this to a passable state, but if you're interested in producing more interpretive arrangements, you'll have to employ more variation and personality into the arrangement, and the parts need room to breathe. NO

For a 5:35-long arrangement, I needed at least 167.5 seconds of overt source usage for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement. :11.5-1:24, 1:39-1:53, 1:53-2:23 (subtle), 3:39-3:50.75, 4:05.75-5:31.75 = 214.25 seconds or 60.69% overt source usage There were actually more liberal nods to the source that I didn't explicitly count, but it wasn't really a question of the original song being referenced enough. The middle didn't reference the source overtly, but the core pattern opening the source was used in spades for the first and last few minutes, and other sections of the theme were referenced. Cool opening synths; didn't quite click with the source line brought in at :11 at first blush, but we'll see where it goes. Pretty long intro until 1:09. Interesting line added at 1:09, though the new beat added sounded kind of thin and the texture was empty until 1:25. Yet another interesting bit with the SFX from 1:42-1:57. Got my attention with the near-fadeout around 2:30 and the gradual re-raising of the volume; cool idea there. Chimpa said, "The middle part of the arrangement is nebulous and sparse for my taste." I acknowledge both things and wished it didn't get so thin from 2:23-2:44. That said, I did like the dynamic shift there, even if the soundscape got too thin with generic synths for a segment of it. Agreed with Chimpazilla on the lameness of reusing the SFX from 3:02-3:14 & 3:53-4:05. Not sure why you needed those re-used, or at least didn't produce those sounds in a different way. There's no hard limit on repetition, but you do have to be careful about the wholesale reuse of ideas without variation. Overall, the synth design was generic for some extended sections, and portions like 3:14-4:05 were more vanilla-sounding. However, 4:05-4:49 helped move against that synth design blandness by doing more energetic, varied things with the leads and employing lots of great ear candy for supporting instrumentation. Overall, the soundscape is generally filled out enough where I think it's OK, but I believe this needs one more pass with some of the thinnest, most dry synth sections tweaked to add some meat to the bones, e.g. 1:57-2:44 & 3:14-4:05. In my opinion, the arrangement itself doesn't need to be touched, but some synth changes or some additional, subtle part-writing for the thinnest most generic-sounding sections could pull this over the line. Either way, Austin, this is an excellent piece that's well in the right direction; it just needs some further tightening up with the synth design. NO (resubmit)

Mixing's certainly muddy and imbalanced; the leads definitely don't stand out as much as they should, and the backing material's taking up most of the space. 1:31-1:49 shifts into some different material before hitting the chorus again, then an abrupt, but interesting segue at 2:15 into an original section that then referenced the very beginning of the source from 2:32-2:45. 2:54 repeated the intro without the drums, then hit a more intense version of the first main verse at 3:03. Again on a Futebol Arte track, I don't agree with Chimpa saying there's no direction and that the track repeats itself the whole time; the final section at 2:54 did repeat wholesale (with textural additions), but there was enough dynamics and variation in the verses, IMO. I felt the arrangement was a solid pass. Unfortunately, the mixing kills this dead. I agreed with Chimpa that this is just way overcompressed and nothing has room to breathe. The overall levels are too loud and much of the part-writing is indistinct. If you can rein in the volume, EQ certain parts to reduce muddiness, and better balance the leads vs. the supporting writing, this would be an easy pass in my book. I hope another judge can give some targeted production advice on this. No matter what, Max, definitely get some production advice from the Workshop forums and resubmit this. To me, the arrangement & performance doesn't need to be redone in any way, but you do need to clean up the mixing. Once that's addressed, you'd be much more likely to get this posted. It's a very good, expansive arrangement, IMO. NO (resubmit)

Once things picked up into the more electronic style around 1:00, I thought the synth design was generic, but the production was decent. 1:37 moved over into a generic dance adaptation until 2:34; the groove was too simplistic and basic-sounding; it quickly plodded and things weren't very interesting so the dropoff was welcome. From 2:34-on, it shifted to a more epic, cinematic style on "Suicide Mission" until 5:05. There's legitimate interpretion there for sure, though I would have enjoyed some melodic variations or other arrangement methods along with the genre adaptation. The beats added in from 5:09-5:37 were super generic again, and I didn't feel they clicked with the cinematic strings. Really didn't need those kicks coming back from 5:52-6:20 with a key change, though the transition before it was pretty creative. Overall, the mixing was cluttered, but nothing that was a dealbreaker. I like the idea of the dance groove adding and subtracting in theory, Oscar, but the way it's applied lacks sophistication; the pattern's so bland and sounds like its shoehorned in, when I know that's not your intention. I may be the outlier here, but the creativity of the electronic/EDM components was lacking, IMO, and that was enough to drag this down. It's a solid arrangement though, and the orchestration's OK, so we'll see how the others feel about the overall cohesiveness and flow. Reservations aside, this is promising stuff and well in the right direction. NO (resubmit)

Pretty sweet. Arrangement easily checks out, and I appreciate being told where the first usage of the source starts after the difficulty of my last vote on another track. The soundscape was a bit on the murky side, but a strong listen nonetheless. Nice job, Brad! Also, DEFINITELY don't take this the wrong way, but I'm OK with Kate not being able to be on this track, but only because it put Merrigan's great vocals on my radar now. Props to Kate for making the connection! Great, emotive performance and a beautiful end result! Quite the introduction to the music of The Witcher series for anyone unfamiliar. YES

I have no idea if the arrangement uses the source tunes enough, because I didn't recognize much of the FF8 piece beyond some of the opening, I couldn't make out the FF9 source at 2:48, because everything was mixed poorly, and the FF7 source is 8 minutes and he didn't say what part of it was used, so I'm not commenting on that level. Jesus, help a brother out and break down where you used each source tune within the arrangement. Opens up with some pretty stiffly-timed woodwind and string work until :13. Once the eletric guitar came in at :17, I'll just be honest, I wasn't looking forward to what was coming aftwerward. I say that because the combination of sequenced and live instruments clearly didn't combine well together, so I'm not confident it's going to work for the rest of the track. At :27, both the brass and string articulations again sound really stiff & unrealistic. The strings also sounded dry. Then you add in the woodwind at :49, and the other brass at 1:00, and it's just more of the same in terms of the timing sounding robotic. Meanwhile, the live electric guitar and string work just added clutter to the soundscape. I agreed with DragonAvenger on the balance/mixing issues. There was a lot of clutter throughout the piece, and nothing sounds focused at all. 4:04-4:46 sounds like a mess, when it should be an energetic closing section. That said, I think the timing issues of the sequenced parts also hurt this a lot. The piece is in that difficult middle ground where the sample quality sounds reasonable, but the timing sounds so fake. Anyway, besides the question of the arrangement, this track is clearly a very far way away from being passable on the production quality alone. The mixing is the primary problem, since there are too many parts that are either dry or muddy & extremely indistinct. As a result, the piece sounds like it has 0 focus. It shouldn't be resubmitted again without a drastic overhaul of the production. NO

Agreed with Palpable and Chimpazilla's overall criticisms. The arrangement's creative and the theme interplay definitely works well, Victor. A super bland saw was used for the Guile theme at and Metal Man at 1:31, and this just had overall bland synth design and thin, plodding beats. Even if you somehow changed the weak leads, you also have to make sure the overall texture isn't too empty. The copy-pasta layout of 2:30-3:37 was a huge knock against it as well. Good ending though, but don't get lazy on the main substance. Hit the Workshop forums so you can learn FL Studio more. You'll need to improve your sound design and allow it to compliment (rather than hurt) your arrangement. NO