Liontamer

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

Just holler on when you're trying to drop it and we'll work on it. Good to see some action for a very overlooked OST!

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

As far as the levels go, they're low, and this could use a remaster, but I wasn't really put off by that. Overall, I like the arrangement, and I agreed with DA on the sense of dread there. I have no idea if this was played in live, but the whole track sounded stilted. And as the track became more forceful from :32-:48, 2:19-2:33 & 2:56-3:33, the realism limitations of the piano soundfont were very exposed, and things sounded even more blocky and mechanical. IMO, it's very important that good solo piano arrangements are also firing on nearly all cylinders when it comes to the production. This should have been even more humanized and emotive through more careful production, particularly of the track's more forceful sections. Given that the source files are gone, Dylan, if it's possible to manipulate that MP3 and re-mix it to obscure the stiff timing, go for it. Otherwise, it's a cool piece, but just needed that additional level of polish to smooth out the timing. NO (resubmit)

Can't say I have much to add, Rakesh. The extremely rigid sequencing, lack of panning, repetitive beats, imbalanced instruments, and lack of dynamic contrast anywhere all add up to a straightforward reason this isn't close to making it. The only positive here is that the attempt is made to add some sort of distinct take on the source tune, along with some cameos of "In a Snow-Bound Land." Super rough stuff. NO

When it's Hylian Lemon, I just need to break out a rubber stamp. YES OK, wait. Lemme listen... /listens /checks arrangement /checks production Confirmed. When it's Hylian Lemon, I just need to break out a rubber stamp. (Kidding, of course, but nice work!) YES

No problem here!

In effect, you're saying disable it all, because you're saying that it's currently handled in an incomplete way. All of the parent-child song relationships in the DB cause the same thing to happen, e.g. http://ocremix.org/song/660 where usages of LoZ:OoT's "Zelda's Theme" also appear on the Zelda 3 song "Princess Zelda's Rescue". djp will have to add some lines in the song information to display the name of the parent or child songs as well. That said, I'm OK with it as is, not because I want the connection to be unclear, but because it errs on the side of displaying more music. Everything will get there eventually, as far as what's displayed.

I don't think we need to disable those relationships. At some point, djp can add a sentence to all Song pages with something to the effect of... Note: This list also includes ReMixes assigned to other songs which derive from this song. ...and that basically covers it.

We're likely not going with 7/7 due to needing some additional time to finalize things (not only djp's track), but this one's definitely up next and my current focus. Soooooon(-ish) is definitely the deal, so we're calling it Summer 2015. Be prepared for it!

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

No, that's right. We have parent-child relationships in the database for some songs. That unused FF2 song was later re-purposed in FF6 as "The Magic House", so ReMixes of "The Magic House" will also appear in that FF2 song entry. We currently don't display any information to that fact, but it's another thing (very far down) the to-do list.

I was a fan of the arrangement from the start, and that remains a pass. The production isn't ideal, but IMO, the drumwork shouldn't be louder than the leads. I also thought the panning was WAY too wide during the rock sections, enough to where it was a meaningful problem; people on monitors may not mind, but on headphones it's disorienting, and I'm generally pretty permissive with wide panning. Some of the sound here was dry in places, but serviceable; it's a much better thing to have than the other way around like the clutter all of the previous versions. The quiet section from 2:21-2:52 still didn't make sense; I get the intent of the dynamic contrast, but the way that section is produced doesn't sound like someone's playing in the distance, it just sounds like the master volume was cut, which is just careless and doesn't make sense. Hated the synth triggering at 3:03-3:13, which just sounded ridiculous, but it was brief. The remaining issues I mentioned, particularly the panning, make this a NO (resubmit), but this is close now, and Chimpa's right on the strides that have been made this time around. IMO, this still needs further tweaks to be above the line, but it's in great shape regardless. Anthony, you NEVER give up, and it's working.