Liontamer

I too am "jelly," as the kids say.

I didn't hear the same intensity/levels for every note, so I'm not sure what you mean there. It's awesome dance music. Do the robot. (No, really, play the song to this...) Seriously though, I get the point of the rigid sequencing potentially being taxing, at least for the slower parts (3:53-end), but it ultimately didn't bother me and sounded pretty stylistic, as opposed to failing at humanizing the sound or sounding too dynamically flat. The upbeat stuff especially was nice and stylish. Like Beyonce.

Yeah, we're on LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE! http://youtu.be/VE3YvfrW29c

read: The Ear Candy Game

REALLY smoove.

The opening brass at :20 wasn't the greatest, but definitely got the job done. Nice subtle dynamic shift at 1:08; very genteel, then moving into some nice, gradual escalation, followed by more changeups at 1:40 and 1:49 with some solid transitions. Everything was at a fairly even keel until getting more forceful at 2:16. Everything Adam was presenting here was dynamically interesting. Though you wonder where the choir went for the rest (if it were a real performance), nice use of the vocal cameo at 3:11. The weak point came at 4:04 with the brass sounding pretty thin and having fast decays that really exposed the samples until the bowed strings rose in volume and helped pad things out. The realism lacks, sure, but not too much to kill the listening experience vis-a-vis the standards. This was full of excellent rises and falls, and a thoroughly creative arrangement that I'd love to hear performed by a live orchestra. YES

If you're willing to revisit this, Matt, it shouldn't take a lot to flip a lot of these votes. But the sample quality has to be increased, or a better job needs to be done working around the piano sample's limitations to create a more realistic sound.

I'm right there in Palpable's camp. You really need to figure out how to get much, much cleaner, clearer sound quality before you submit anything else, otherwise the horrible production quality will always cause the submission to be turned down. Everything sounds distant and extremely lossy. The piano tone also sounds thin and brittle. Literally everything about the production prevented this otherwise solid arrangement from sounding good. I also agreed with Palpable that some runs were played too fast (e.g. 1:51-2:00); it wasn't a huge deal, but watch out for stuff like that. This same arrangement with clearer sound quality and a richer piano sound would have a chance at being approved. Until you can get a decent, clear sound from your setup, your time needs to be spent in the Workshop forums asking for advice. NO (resubmit)

Wasn't a huge fan of how the source tune immediately got pushed way back at :08 when the the guitars came in, but as long as that's not a constant thing, that's cool. Interesting approach going for the chiptune-ish leads. Good personalization of the theme at 1:16; it doesn't take much for an artist to just add a little bit of their own flavor while keeping the structure intact; really nice stuff from Juan there. From 1:50-2:21, I thought the rhythm guitar work ended up sounding a bit flooded. It's not that everything was muddy, not at all for me, but it was mixed in a way where the notes sort of slurred together; some more clarity would have been nice. Moved over into some original writing at 2:22 with that C64 vibe, followed by soloing at 3:07. 4:03 went back to the source on SID lead. Good stuff overall for the final few minutes; a bit cramped, but excellent energy. We didn't necessarily need to panel this one, but it's nice to formally comment on this new approach from Sixto. Juan did an awesome job combining the chip leads and influences alongside his signature rock style, and the arrangement's energy just grew and evolved over the course of the 6 1/2 minutes. It's like he's found a new toy, but damned if it didn't sound like he wasn't already familiar with how to put those tools to work. Great stuff! YES

Hahaha, what the hell is this? Well, that intro definitely caught my attention. Took a while to build, but the theme finally came in at :34. I thought the lead should have been more in the foreground. The positioning of things in the soundscape was definitely too distant; the premise itself isn't bad, but it shouldn't sound THIS distant, that's all. The melodic arrangement didn't really have much interpretation to speak of; up until 2:21 it was dependant on the surrounding instrumentation. Finally some melodic variation occurred at 2:21, followed by the original countermelody layered with another cover-ish iteration of the theme at 2:37. So basically there was only 15 or 16 seconds of some sort of melodic variations. See what else you can bring to the table there. Not sure the vocals fading back in at 3:14 really fit with the key of the source tune, so it was a strange way to close it. Nice delayed fade-out of the final notes. We're definitely not calling for it to be squeaky clean-sounding with no ambiance in the soundscape, but yeah, rework the mixing so the lead cuts through more and so everything doesn't sound so far away. Also, I'm overall OK with cover-ish melodic stuff when it's paired with otherwise interpretive elements and additions. That said, it's always a balance, and I think you'd be in better shape by interpreting the actual source melody some more. It doesn't mean you need to take it over the top with super-busy, complicated variations, just something more than what's here, which was a pretty paint-by-numbers marimba line. Great potential here though, it's a very unique approach as far as the style. NO (resubmit)

We used the Maverick Rising version. If there had been an update since then, you just had to tell me. Too latez now.

This mix is the business. Absolutely amazing work by Amy.

After combining these two themes, OA missed the golden opportunity to name this ReMix "C+C Music Factory." :'-(

Honestly, not really feeling the vocal performance at :35. Not my cup of tea at all. The chorus at 1:04 resolved fine, but those initial notes seemed totally flat and off when paired with the brass line there. It worked better at 2:41 though. Also, and I want to make clear it has 0 bearing on the decision, but the approach of having wholly original vocal sections sandwiched between the Goron melody arrangement sounded disjointed to me. Some allusions to the Goron theme or something else could have provided a bit more flow and continuity to the piece. That said, :34-1:06's bassline felt like a simplified & subtle but legit usage of the Goron theme, so I would actually count stuff like that as source use, as quiet and deemphasized as it was. 1:20-1:36's mixing was a bit cramped, but not a big deal. It was around here that I noticed y'all had pretty good usage of an otherwise horribly weak brass sample; it's all in how you use the tools. The rest of the track came off fine. I thought the spoken word stuff after the 2-minute mark during the source chorus was cool though, and I liked the sampled vocal OoT line cameo at 2:26. I wish the original vocals and Goron theme sections felt more cohesive together, but it may just be me. I did love the Goron theme treatment though. Definitely a winner, even if it won't be in my personal rotation. YES

The drumwork at :24 felt pretty plain. The mixing wasn't bad, but something about the lead guitar didn't quite cut through to the foreground. The changeup to the original writing at :54 was a VERY abrupt and flat transition; the performance there didn't have any edge to it. Something was needed to, perhaps another guitar line, though it's tough to enhance what came off as a thin, flat lead. The drum work was also relatively sparse, which added to the texture feeling too empty. Better shredding stuff at 1:06 to take the lead over :54's original writing, then shift the energy level and transition back to the source tune at 1:30; MUCH, much better. To me, this still could be produced in a way that let's the performance sound fuller and more aggressive, and makes dynamic shifts like this more pronounced, but what's there was good. Back to another interation of the source at 1:30 which was much the same as :24's... ah it's cut-and-pasted. Also, even if the 1:30 section wasn't a straight-up cut-and-paste, it might as well be, because there was no meaningful difference. ANY variation in 1:30's verse compared to :24's would help the arrangement be more substantive. Finish it strong. Even for a brief piece, it needs to evolve more. IMO, the biggest overall issue was that the dynamic curve was too flat. Reading the other votes now, yeah, there's something flat and dry about the overall production and performances that are undercutting the intended energy. This is a great start, Christoph, that just needs some fine tuning with the mixing and energy to get it where it needs to be. NO (resubmit)

Pretty sweet source tune choice. The sounds opening things up were kind of plain, but we'll see where it goes. Really thin textures at :22, with the melodic lead placed too far in the back; let that take more of the foreground instead of the countermelody. The lead got louder from :43-:56, but the melody and countermelody were bleeding into each other at the same volume instead of having one part compliment and enhance the other. In other words, the mixing was imbalanced. Moving into the groove at :58, it was more of the same imbalance (as with :22) where the lead needs to be louder instead of the bass countermelody being over the top. The groove's core beats were also grew pretty plain and repetitive by 1:20; the beats there need to be more varied and sophisticated. Deia's also right that the sound palette needed some sort of change; by 2:25, the whole sound of this grew tired because it was basically just the same 3 core sounds without any sort of sonic variation. The lack of evolution there makes the dynamic curve seem a lot flatter than what you were going for with the writing. The arrangement is definitely a good start, but the production needs fine tuning as far as the balance among the parts, and you need some variation in the instruments to create better dynamic contrast. Keep working on this one though, Mike, it's a solid arrangement premise and you've made good headway in personalizing this interpretation. NO (resubmit)

This has always been allowed for anything that's yet to be posted. I just emailed you regarding something that just passed, so maybe that's the one you're referring to. In any case, you can always email or PM me with a revision. I think you overthink.

djp already clarified: But yeah, if you and/or Polo are down with making something happen, and some momentum on cultivating good fan art forces us to come up with a visual art licensing agreement, that's cool. Or come up with other outside-the-box thinking on how to de-orphan those Squenix bio pages, though I don't see how that's possible without some sort of mascot image in the top-right. In the meantime, perhaps it's time for a fall (or winter, given how much free time we have) class of new mascots.

Ah, that. The quality of the art wouldn't matter as long as it's fan-made rather than official. It's a low priority for us (it has to be, given the other stuff we're juggling), but if someone wants to organize an art project for something like this to provide fan art for Squenix bios, it could be a cool idea. That said, when new mascots have been added recently, they've been replacing the MMX placeholders of the removed Squenix spots, so that's what will happen whenever new ones are added. Currently, there are 17 spots currently using the MMX placeholder, so we'll need up to 17 more mascots at some point. Unless y'all are tired of editing bios. Excellent job finally filling out the spots for the 10 newest ones! I really love the mascot bios, this has been a phenomenal project.

Texturally, this was pretty plain. The guitar performance at :09 was alright, but it lacked edge. Meanwhile, the drums and backing felt relatively empty; there should be something else going on to flesh this out. Minor things, but there was some sort of weird cutoff for one of the guitars at :38, and definitely some buzziness from :52-:56 that shouldn't have happened; not a huge deal. A bigger deal was the soundscape getting really mudded up by the backing guitars from :52-1:23; definitely needs some EQing adjustments so the different parts aren't crowding one another so much. The soloing section from 1:35-2:17 was admittedly kind of bland; the guitar wasn't poorly performed at all, but the tone again lacked edge again. Then the drum pattern felt too basic & plodding, which was an issue most of the way. And the bass work, while good, was indistinct enough in the back where you couldn't hear the details and it didn't gel with the rest of the instruments. 2:17 went for a strong finish. The soundscape was muddy again for this final section and the resolution at 2:44 was weak and abrupt. I like the arrangement, but it needs some fine tuning to clean up the soundscape a bit; the mud (and slight distortions) need to be cleared out. Meanwhile, the drumwork being a bit more progressive would help, as well as making the guitar work a little more expressive and fashioning a true ending. When you have something short and sweet, it really needs to be firing on all cylinders. NO

Economy of language - LT Title: Battle Dragon By: Kilobyte --------------------------

What would there be to do about the Squenix mascots?

The piano was drowned out from :15-:27, though it was a pretty flimsy sounding sample. DarkeSax at :30 sounds decent. The bass was thumpin' and that's important, but the soundscape sounded even more cluttered and imbalanced at :45 when the sustained strings came in. They also sounded thin and flimsy. The imbalance wasn't the hugest deal, but Deia has a point that the backing e-piano chords sounded like they're distorting a little during the fullest sections. In a pretty early disappointment, :30's section was repeated again via copy-pasta at 1:15. 1:30's writing is exactly the same as :45. :'-( 1:45 provided the only variation by dropping the sax. Onto to some wholly original comping on top of the core beats. The theme returned at 2:30 with the very beginning of the source being used; good stuff there. Again, the beats were a lot louder than the source, but we'll live. Back to the copy-pasta treatment of the melody of the third time at 3:00. The only real variation between 1:00, 1:45 & 3:30 was changing or dropping a supporting instrument for 15 seconds apiece. It's definitely a bit much to repeat stuff near-wholesale like that without more substantial variations. The backing instrumentation was cool, but the sax arrangement of the source melody was arguably too straightforward & paint-by-numbers and didn't get the job done, especially given the sheer repetition without some more pronounced differences on the table. I like most of the interpretation ideas here, and it's got potential, but the current bar's higher than this these days. Less copy/pasta-ing of nearly half the length of the arrangement; develop those verses further for the second and third iterations for the win. Great start though, Deandre, this kind of arrangement approach is up our alley, let's just not get too repetitive over the long haul on it. NO (resubmit)

Ah, a source tune that's unused from the game. Just in case anyone is inclined to dismiss this arrangement too quickly as a hot mess, do compare it closely to the source, which repeats the melody ad nauseum (despite not being very melodious) and has that upward-moving bass-like backing pattern (full loop of the source finishes at :25). it might not be your cup of tea, but let this one marinate for a few listens, especially since it's brief. Given the source tune, the arrangement's dissonant and unmelodious by design; what's potentially being argued is how well the piece is designed. Interesting opening with the steel drum (kind of flimsy, but a cool sound choice) and the hand percussion. The strings at :09 were super wet, but it was an interesting approach. However, I'm not sure the backing sustained strings sounded quite right, or the mixing of everything once things picked up at :35 since the leads were obscured by everything else until 1:02. The dissonance throughout the added writing until 1:02 may have been purposeful, but it still didn't click. The way the backing writing steps up in the source tune (and it's volume relative to the lead) is much more subtle than the sustained strings here, so the arrangement version sounds super dissonant. Yeah, that opening string (arguably) part repeated too much until 1:02. I realize the source is like that, but I'm not seeing how that works when trying to construct a standalone piece. That said, the original writing from 1:02-on (with woodwind, string, and percussion source usage to accent it from 1:15-on) was pretty smart. Anyway, the whole soundscape was just oddly mixed, with different things either sounded too distant, too sparse, or too muddy and too imbalanced. I know 1:46-2:16 was meant to sound eerie, but it ended up being too muddy, obscuring the source tune a lot, the same as :35-1:02. I like the concept here; this gives a more sinister almost Castlevania-esque spin on the source, I just felt the dissonance and muddiness from :35-1:02 and 1:46-2:16 were both a bit much. I may seem like the bad guy because these both seem to be purposeful decisions, but to this extent, I think both aspects being toned down would make the piece more cohesive. The mixing was the more important of the two; even though the surrounding writing was meant to convey chaos, if that were improved so that the leads weren't buried AS much, I could potentially get behind this piece and its dissonance. It's actually more substantial and developed than I initially gave it credit for, and it would throw people for a loop. Good Halloween/scary setting stuff. Again, given how it sounds, it's easy to overlook what's actually working with this piece. I'd say adjust the mixing to not be swampy for half the piece, and perhaps lessen the dissonance, but we'll also see how the others feel. Good work so far, Jake. NO (resubmit)

Remixer name: Jake Rose Name of game arranged: Shadowgate (NES) Name of arrangement: "The Sword Is In Hand" Name of song arranged: unknown, track 13 from nsf file ------------------------------------------