Liontamer

We don't get enough submissions that are spooky/eerie/creepy to do a flood month dedicated to that one theme, but that works more as a last week of October thing, when Halloween is on everyone's minds the most. I hope that by next September when we do another flood month that we're more caught up with the submissions queue, which inherently limits theme potential (but for a good reason). Even when you broaden it to anything from a horror/Gothic game or villainous, I don't see us having 31 mixes ready for this kind of month-long theme, even if we asked for them. But 3-5 is usually something that can be rustled up.

This track is the hottest fire known to man. FIRE!

I'm pretty far below 50% on source usage for this so far, so anyone who can help me with what I'm potentially missing is appreciated. :00-:15.5 - 1:01-1:26 of source :45.5-1:18 - :04-:33 of source 1:21-1:51 - 33:-1:00 of source 2:06.5-2:07.75 - :04-:06 of source 3:12.5-3:44 - 1:01-1:26 of source EDIT (11/4): Time for a fuller vote. Timing on the string pad and the e-piano was rigid to start, but we'll see how it goes. The brass lead at :47 was SNES-erific; cool throwback, but also SUPER dry and exposed, so it didn't sound good, IMO. 1:20 moved away from that into a swankier, brass-less chorus. The groove there until 1:49 was pretty static and bland, but there were enough changeups in the beats and instrumentation to not make some static grooves here and there a big problem. It's certainly a laid back vibe and achieves that well. Ever since hearing some of your Mega Man compo stuff, Txai, I thought your name on the front page was an eventuality, even if you don't submit often. Aside from some minor crits that didn't amount to much IMO, this was very smart stuff throughout with this composition. It's very chill and Very fun. Unfortunately, I'm not hearing the Sega Rally source tune used throughout most of the arrangement. 110.75 seconds of a 5:03-long arrangement or 36.55% I'm going to vote NO at least for now, but if we're mistaken on the level of source usage, let us know. If not, this possibly could be posted in some form as long as more source usage is involved to make it the dominant component of this arrangement. EDIT (12/2): Thanks to Txai for the added breakdown. And yeah, YOU GOTTA TELL US ALL THE SOURCE CONNECTIONS. The Sega Rally section was one thing; I shouldn't have missed 3:52-4:22. But not pointing out 4:22-4:54 arranging something from an entirely different game... We were never going to get that one without you telling us! Anyway, the added minute of VGM usage pushed this way over the top. I get the criticisms on production and shared some of them, but the overall package was strong and the arrangement (and later production) carried this past an underwhelming start. Count me in. YES

Texturally, the opening layerered claps were a lil' thin, but serviceable. I really appreciated Justin's arrangement breakdown, which made it easy to clarify and co-sign on the source usage. Writing-wise, the dynamics were subtle but solid. The overall energy here was pretty understated, but the elements that were there glued together nicely for a reasonably full soundscape. Nice job, Ben! YES

We can close this out. I'm just coming in quickly to co-sign on the production criticisms and reaffirm the source tune usage was absolutely no problem. The arrangement's awesome, but the mixing's just too indistinct, so I agreed with Kris, Justin & Will; clean it up and rebalance it, and let's see how you do. Some changes in the dynamic contrast would be a good thing, BUT if only the mixing was fixed, I'd still pass this, no problem. NO (resubmit)

I did a very rough breakdown, but this came out way over 50% overt source usage. 00.5-22, 36.5-1:22, 1:25-1:36 (FF battle!), 1:36-1:59 (loose), 2:00.5-2:12.25, 2:13.5-2:17, 2:36.5-2:53 (loose to 3:00), 3:02.5-3:17 It's a relatively short theme with 2 distinct sections, so it wasn't difficult to make out. The opening piano sounding so similar to the source tune's piano had my alarm bells going off to start, but there were lead changes and much more interpretive ideas later, so it was a non-issue. Smart lead change at 1:02 to keep the piece fresh. The bowed string sequencing/articulations lacked some realism, but sounded serviceable. Other than that, the arrangement was well-developed and on point, short and sweet! YES

Man, this was cool to start, but too underdeveloped. The filtering, original writing additions from 1:43-1:58 and percussion tweaks were all good things that took this in the right direction, but it's not enough yet. At 1:58, I was definitely wondering when meaningfully more or different ideas would get introduced into the picture. By 2:30, it was definitely too repetitive. There was a little more intensity with the beats, but you need to provide some more substantial development or variations, whether that's dynamics or instrumental changes. Right now, the dynamic curve is too flat after you peak at :44 after the initial build-up. 2:30's peak is exactly the same as :44's, except with the bubbly pattern added in. Develop this further, however you want to go about it, and it would have a chance at passing. The treatment of the theme is creative, Roope, but this is just too static and repetitive at the moment. NO (resubmit)

The speedup section was a small part of this, and it was super-fast for only about 10 seconds from 4:12-4:21; no big deal to me (and a perfectly fine idea). The only thing I had a problem with per se was crowding/mud in the densest sections, particularly 5:36-6:29. The track had the same lead from 5:37-6:53 and was melodically conservative, which is where the perception that it was too similar for much of this hit it; it was a weak way to close it, because it did drag out, and 6:28 would have been a perfect spot to at least change the lead, if not also vary the melody somehow. That said, there were so many other things working in this track's favor as far as the creativity of the arrangement that there's no way I'd NO it off just those relatively minor issues. The arrangement was (overall) well varied in both textures and dynamics, and definitely stood apart from the original. Good ideas overall, Thomas, and I hope we hear more from you, bro. YES

Redg articulated the level of interpretation well here, and I agree with him all the way. This is short, and relatively conservative with the structure, but the genre adaptation, original additive writing, constant dynamic shifts, and different buildup here relative to the source all added up to something that stood enough apart from the original song to be a unique interpretation. I would have LIKED another 30-60 seconds of further ideas, but due to the constant subtle textural changes, you NEVER hear anything wholesale repeat at any time here, and that's VERY important for such a short piece. We have room for approaches like this. I also didn't agree with criticizing the "long build." Builds comes in all shapes, and I don't have a problem with how it was done here. I felt the NOs had an inadvertent bias/expectation toward needing to hear the main Lockjaw melody come in much sooner. I'm fine with Cory NOT doing that, and going with this non-conventional structure, as there was creative arrangement of the first part of the source that had great dynamics and variation until finally getting to the main melody. He thought outside the box, and it worked. YES

Strange ambient opening, but we'll see where it goes. Light pops at :02, :04, :06, :12 & :14, possibly from the vox triggers; needs to be fixed. Digging the popping-style percussion st00fs at :31; nice touch. The timing of the lead from :53-1:03 felt rigid and slightly behind the beat, which was unfortunate. 1:31 was an odd transition, and I didn't think the textures were fully clicking up to 2:02. Compositionally, there were subtle additions and subtractions as that bassline pattern repeated until 2:32, but that whole minute (seemingly) had very little purpose or direction, and felt like aimless filler until the main verse returned/repeated at 2:32. I thought there was rigid, awkward timing of the lead as well from 2:03-2:18 that sounded its worst/most obvious around 2:10. However, at 3:02, I WASN'T getting that robotic/stilted vibe from the sequencing... until the 3-note patterns from 3:33-4:03. The closing section from 4:03-4:29 also felt aimless and didn't even sound like it was all in the same key. Minor thing, but the ending faded to 0 at 4:27, then came back up again in volume before cutting off at 4:29; fix'er up, and don't miss details like that. IMO, you could do any or all of these things as potential ways to improve the flow and keep it fresh: 1. Smooth out some of the rigid sequencing mentioned earlier, 2. Add some other ideas or dynamic contrast for the 1:31-2:33 section it doesn't seem so relatively aimless; and 3. Do something different/varied with the core pattern at 2:32 that's stands apart from 1:01 to prevent the track from feeling too repetitive over the long run. This definitely had some creative, interpretive ideas that carried the arrangement in a good direction. However, the timing needs to stay smooth, and the arrangement can't coast/wander so much. Hopefully some other Js can better articulate what's holding this back. NO (resubmit)

The soundscape sounded pretty lossy/muddy from the jump. The piano timing also sounded stiff to start, but that was mitigated when more elements were added at :32. Not the strongest intro in that respect. I liked the sound of things after :45's transition more. Still not sure why the soundscape was murky like this, but I wasn't digging that. "Zelda's Theme" also didn't fit comfortably in here alongside "Midna's Theme," but the other theme cameos clicked fine IMO. Good conclusion, though the final note tailing off longer may have been a good idea. Every idea for the arrangement from 2:09-on was fun, and I enjoyed the subtle additions and subtractions throughout. Overall, the production issues I had weren't nearly enough to consider not taking it, when the arrangement was so strong. YES

"Too cramped" was the first thought I had listening to the intro until :31. Although the mixing of the verses was OK, the densest parts during the choruses with vocals and some extra guitar layering (1:11-1:41, 2:11-2:50, 3:02-3:13) didn't sound great either due to both the crowding and the lyrics sounding too hot. It's not clipping, and the arrangement and performances were fine, so I hate to sound like a grandpa, Dustin, but I felt like this needed more breathing room for the busiest sections. I know Phantasy Star II 'Take Turns' was loud & squished, but even there I felt like I could make out more than I could at times here. Not quite there yet close, IMO, but hopefully wouldn't be hard to address if this didn't make it as is. NO (refine/resubmit)

Yeah, opens up pretty stilted, so we'll see if this goes anywhere with that premise... 30 seconds in, it's not. 45 seconds in, it's not... :59 finally brought in Freya's theme in combination, but yeah, this approach isn't working at all, it's way too static, and there's definitely no live band feel. Then there's JoePRT with some silky sax at 1:37. Then back to the same stilted stuff at 2:06, only with sax accents, but not much else going on conceptually or interpretation-wise. Didn't get out of first-and-a-half gear either, which wasn't wrong in-and-of-itself, but it was dynamically flat. "Freya's Theme" was creatively integrated here, but "Sazh's Theme" didn't have much interpretation. It was basically an 11/8 copy of "Sazh's Theme" with a lot less expressiveness, which won't get it done. There's some interpretation, but ultimately not much; you'll need more, Will. I also gotta have more variation, more expression, more dynamics, and more cowbell. NO

I will say, this v2/"now with less bass" take did ease issues of the string sequencing sounding super-duper fake and mechanical, and 1:25-1:43 & 2:29-2:41's sections seemingly sounding flat/out-of-key, so those were both good things. I needed to identify at least 121.5 seconds of overt source usage for the source material to be dominant: :06-:57, 1:25.5-1:43, 2:14.5-2:45.75, 2:47-2:50, 3:29.5-4:03 136.25 seconds or 56.07% overt source usage There were some other more liberal usages of the theme I wasn't stopwatching in there, but I didn't need to break it down, since the source usage was well over 50%. Definitely enjoying the creativity of the arrangement approach, and there was no questioning the creativity and interpretation behind this metal take. The strings & brass kind of died from :30-:54, poorly mixed & buried under the guitar and drums. Then it was WAY worse from 3:29 until the finish, where it was just a wall of mud and the orchestral writing was either steamrolled (strings) or basically inaudible (brass). I could live with the first section I mentioned, but that ending was super cramped from 3:05-on, which made no sense. If you address/fix THAT, I can pass it, but as long as it's just crowded mud for the final section, that's too problematic for me to look past, and it drags the rest of an otherwise strong arrangement down. It's a great start, and may make it as is, so good luck with the rest of the vote, Jon. NO (refine/resubmit)

Once the track picked up at :37, I wished the bassline wasn't quite so similar to the original "Present" track, but the overall arrangement was unquestionably personalized substantially, so it wasn't a big deal. Not that I'm looking the other way, but it's understandably difficult not to just roll with that bassline fully intact, since it's so swank. Nice chiptune and piano spices, as well as extended freestyle-ish sections. The Genesis-style chippy intro and outro were huge ear candy, nostalgia-inducing highlights. On the minus sides, the piano timing was stilted in places, but nothing beyond a passing comment rather than a big hit against it. Agreed as well re: the compression being a bit much; you SHOULD have eased it back some, but at the same time it didn't bother me at all personally. Nothing but strength on this one overall, and an awesome component of Temporal Duality. In 2012, I said Bev was showcasing more well-rounded execution with Mega Man 6 'Synthesize This!'; even with the flaws in that one, the potential was clear. Lately, there's nary a meaningful seam to be found. Her stride. She has it. YES

The dynamic curve was flatter than a pancake here, which already killed this dead; this is always just loud and thick with no dropoff of the beats or even subtle changes in the energy level. I like high energy, but you need some sort of builds/drops/instrument changes to create contrast, otherwise it's just taxing. [reads Chimpa's vote...] HA! Yeah, we thought the same thing. Arrangement-wise, you did personalize the sound here with higher energy and different supporting writing, but once you've gotten to 1:06, you've heard it all (aside from the key change) because you just do another loop. I disagree, but mainly because of what I bolded ("just barely"). IMO, the instrumental changes and original writing definitely do not get the job done here on interpretation. There's not really much development or evolution of the ideas here after 60 seconds, which ain't much to begin with, especially given the conservative treatment. 2 short loops of one idea doesn't cut it. There's also 0 ending here, the track just closes up at 2:10 with no resolution, which was like giving up. C'mon, bro, this is a standalone track; resolve it somehow and do it properly. Needs more dynamics, more interpretive arrangement ideas, and less untapped potential, Ray. Be more, do more. NO

Great praise & criticisms by both Chimpa and Nutritious that I fully agreed with. Co-signed. Verbatim repetition can be permissible in relatively limited amounts within the big picture, but it's often done at the expense of development of the arrangement. Do something different with 2:01-3:18 to offer some sort of variation, dynamic contrast, or further development, and you'd be more likely to have a shot at passing. Great concept and one I think you successfully personalized despite the conservative structure of the arrangement, but don't make the final section of such a relatively short piece an extended copy-pasta when you can offer something more substantive. Awesome stuff so far, Morgan; definitely don't give up on this one. NO (resubmit)

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.

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.