Liontamer

I'd argue this has moments of sounding too busy for its own good, but on the whole the arrangement is obviously a clear pass. Related to the busyness, I might have made a few balance tweaks by pulling back on some of the synth comping, but it wasn't a huge deal in the big picture. Everything's sounding much stronger and much more cohesive. Nice work, Paul, and an official welcome back! YES

Cool company. Should have offered some music services instead.

Apparently the OP would like this deleted, though I have no info as to why. If this project won't happen, I'm just going to consider the thread closed.

Note, I'm voting on the fixed version. The soundscape was sparse, and really could have used something to pad out the background and create a fuller sound. While it was too it was too quiet from 1:50-2:04, the light string work at 3:04-3:57 and 5:04-5:46 worked well to help fill that void; I really wish there had been something else earlier to fill that kind of role. The instruments sounded muffled as well, as if there was a very light delay applied that prevented any of the instruments from sounding sharp. I like the arrangement overall, but the instrumentation still sounds too sparse. Though the organ dominates, the textures are so empty, the track comes off as more of a (great) arrangement sketch with incomplete instrumentation than a fully fleshed out production. I've been looking forward to these revisions, and there's a huge improvement, but the overall product still sounds too bare. If there's some way to fill the space better with an added part or further post-production work on what's currently there, this could definitely be raised above the bar. NO (resubmit)

Great interplay between the piano and violin, with Chris's piano adding a lot of new writing ideas to really compliment Aivi's rendition of the source and add that much needed interpretive dimension to it. It's relatively straightforward, but beautiful and expressive. It's short, it's sweet, it definitely gets the job done. Nice collab. YES

What was with the beats fading in around 4:12? The timing seemed off for no real reason, resulting in an awkward transition at 4:25. Anyway, the source was indeed used throughout, with some pretty liberal usage of the chorus, but everything coming out way over the 50% mark with a quick check. The arrangement felt a bit repetitive, and somewhat static for the length, but the interpretation was still well-developed and substantial, with some nice mixing. Everything clicking nicely, James; glad you stayed on this! YES

Solid work here. The realism of the brass, string and ending piano all left something to be desired. There was a bit of rigidness to those parts that was very exposed, but the sound quality throughout was serviceable enough. Loved the acoustic guitar being introduced at 1:08 and playing off of the source tune. A subtle, but beautiful touch to add. Same with the vocals at 1:50, which had good really nice interplay with the music as well as between each voice as the levels would switch off. Beautiful dropoff at 2:38 for the finish. Just a great case of taking a great theme, going for a fairly straightforward take, but then changing the mood and expanding it with new partwriting and some original sections. The dynamics were subtle, but everything clicked nicely. Nice work, y'all! YES

Solving math problems, for example, is the element of challenge in an educational game. Educational games are typically fine. Music aside, no one here is arguing whether Number Munchers, Where in the World in Carmen Sandiego? or most of the Pico titles are games. Even Brain Age, SimCity and flOw have been referred to as "non-games," because of freeform play with no ultimate ending objective, but they all have puzzles and challenges. Dave can speak more to it, but in most cases, it seems challenges (i.e. the challenge of building a successful city in SimCity despite no ending objective, the puzzles of Brain Age) suffice as an element to call something a game. The main thing I believe Dave means by the "educational software" example are non-game educational slideshows, encyclopedias and the like, i.e. software that can be played on a computer or console, but have no challenge elements like those found in a game.

Congrats, Mazedad!

Pretty sweet chiptune cover to start, though it didn't get hugely interpretive beyond the genre adaptation until the dropoff at :51. Good variations on the theme with the busier section at 1:10. 2:06 could have gone somewhere else besides the key change, as far as showing another interpretive take on the theme. That said, what's there was OK. The different mood, original countermelodies during the more cover-ish melody section, coupled with the substantial interpretation from :51-2:05 all set this apart from the original nicely as far as the arrangement goes. Everything was mixed/balanced solidly, so I was diggin' this. I wasn't put off at all by the 1:29-2:06 section from, as that was all based on the source's acoustic guitar intro, and did a good job of giving that part a new style. In the big picture, the overall dynamics of the arrangement felt somewhat flatter than most mixes given the very deliberate tempo, but it was more than OK. Sounds like Tim's got all the pieces in place for a solid track. Count me in! YES

Yeah, I enjoyed this one as well. Things seemed OK to start, then there was a weird shift in the mixing at :34. Every time the electric guitars came in, it seemed like it was all mid-range, and you couldn't hear much of anything else with the supporting instruments other than the drums. Cool vocals by Sheila at :55. I wasn't bothered by the instrumentation seeming similar for too long, as Deia felt. The overall arrangement was very personalized and interpretive, so everything felt strong there. The soloing from 2:07-2:35 was indulgent but fun; it clicked well and fed back nicely into the return of the theme at 2:31. Too bad the vocals were copy-pasta'ed at 2:35, but the instrumentation for this iteration was changed. Ooooh, bad production at 2:53 with that other vocal line, I see what DA was talking about. The need for de-essing was more apparent, and Sheila's vocals sounded drier and more exposed than how they were produced earlier. The mixing of those vocals was stronger at 1:33 than 2:53. The transition back into the acoustic stuff at 3:31 was a bit weak, because the electric guitars faded out too quickly, but it wasn't a big deal. Awesome final section to close this out with an entirely different feel. Derick's keybopard timing was too stiff, but was alright in the big picture and didn't drag this down. I hear the production issues Deia was talking about, and nothing she said was wrong there, but the level of creativity, interpretation, and overall execution was more than strong enough for me to be comfortable with this. A lot more works than doesn't work. Nice job, Gerard; you, Sheila and Derick made a great team here. YES

Source usage ended up being easy to timestamp: :03.75-:33, :54-:57.5, 1:13-2:05, 2:53.5-3:25 = 116.25 seconds No question of using the source tune enough; it's significantly over 50%, but I had to double check. Seemed to open strong, albeit a pure cover with the Eastern instrumentation. Finally picked up at :34. I could see why the strings were a bit of a bother. They're distant-sounding and the attacks were ending up sounding fake to a discerning ear, though serviceable. Most casual listeners wouldn't mind, and I don't think they were a huge deadbreaker. I see where halc's coming from on the arrangement, but I wasn't as impressed, so my criticisms are coming from a different angle. The backing harp writing was pretty similar in structure and tone with the original, so the level of interpretation felt lacking for extended periods of time (e.g. 1:13-2:05). I mean, that original harp line is awesome. If you're going to copy it with weaker but very similar instrumentation, it'll still sound good, but anyone can do that. The fade-out didn't bother me substantially, but it did sound like the volume came down a bit too fast. The original sections flowed well and pieced together nicely with the arrangement. None of the transitions bothered me either. If there were a way to make the harp portions more interpretive, that would rock and make this a more solid call. As is, I'm feeling a weak NO, but it's a NO nonetheless. That said, this is clearly pointing in the right direction, and may make it. Good luck with the rest of the vote!

:32.5-:38, :40.5-:45.5, :48.25-:54, :56.25-1:00, 1:19.5-2:07 (backing guitar part from :16 of source; buried from 1:35-2:07), 2:39-2:56 (more backing guitar), 2:56-3:28 (main source verse paired with the guitar), 3:59-4:14.75 (more backing guitar) Need 131.5 for acceptable source usage. I counted 100.25 of overt usage along with 32 seconds of the buried guitar riff. So it would barely get over the line from what I can make out, provided the mixing was better and I'm not missing other interpretation. I'd need a breakdown to better understand the way the source material was used (aside from the obvious verse from :50 of the source). Sounds like there's no source usage until :32.5 of the mix, if I understand the arrangement correctly. Also seems like a lot of it rests on using the backing guitar as a background element, which isn't working that well. The arrangement came off as too liberal, and should use some more overt references to the source tune in other places in the arrangement, IMO, but it's all about what you'd be willing to do with it. Hated the piano introing things. It was so barren sounding and the sequencing sounded way too robotic and out of sync. I try not to get carried away describing it, but "hated" was indeed the right word. Sorry, bro. Gotta agree with Andrew that the timing was too loose. However, I thought the mixing was still sloppy in places, making individual parts too difficult to parse. The cool crystalline sounds from 1:03-1:20 were buried in the soundscape; as is, there was almost no point to them being there doubling the piano (which was also buried during the section). The chorus from 2:07-2:39 just sounded like a wall of guitars; you couldn't really hear the notes change from those rhythm guitars. Same problem with the guitars being overloaded from 1:03-1:20. Something needs to be dialed back. During the vocals at 1:35, the backing guitars are supposed to be paying an arranged variation of the riffing from :16 of the source (a part first brought in at 1:19.5), but the soundscape is muddy and cluttered, so you can barely hear them even though they're supposed to be the main connection to the source tune. If you COULD hear them better, it's apparent the timing's too loose. Also, the vocals needed de-essing, and were too dry. Love the drums, though; beefy as hell. They end up kind of being in the way of hearing the source tune arrangement in the guitars, but they were cool nonetheless. Anyway, in short, more overt source usage would be nice, the timing between parts needs to be tightened, and the mixing needs to be properly balanced. NO

Whatever you posted would get obsoleted in due time.

Barely had a hint of Super Mario World's Overworld BGM theme from :09-:11, but I definitely can't place the theme as being an arrangement, AFAIK.

Yeesh, imbalanced mixing. :'-( Drums at :03 were too loud. Piano at :18 was too quiet and buried. Flute/guitar interplay at :50 was good in concept, but the parts seemed to mush into each other. Guitar at 1:05 was blaring while flute at 1:08 was too quiet. String sequencing at 1:35 was poo. I use the term with endearment, but those strings were unfortunate, I'll just put it like that. That's a piano at 2:08, but you barely can tell since it's getting steamrolled by the guitars and drums. The arrangement's on point, but I'd tweak this mixing. Since we're not doing conditionals over production anymore, I've gotta unfortunately call this a NO even though the arrangement is balls out awesome. I'll live if this goes up as is, but it'll be pretty unfortunate, because some tweaks would result in a significantly stronger, more cohesive sound. Fix the levels so all of the smart instrumental interplay doesn't get undermined (and improve the strings at 1:35 if you can) and then we'll be good to go. Awesome combination of MM4 and MM6, y'all are a solid team. NO (refine/resubmit)

Co-signing with this in FULL, so I'm quoting it. Super bland instrumentation at :48. The frequencies of the saw from 1:00-1:20 were muddying with the countermelody that first faded in at :47. The melodic lead at 1:27 was WAY too loud compared to the other instrumentation, IMO. Good transition from the American Gladiators source into Ice Cap around the 2 minute mark, along with an interesting liberal usage of the Ice Cap progression at 2:36. There was a transition into the more aggressive part at 2:51, though it still felt abrupt and unfitting. The syrupy Ice Cap lead at 2:59 didn't click at all with the super gritty countermelodic synth. Can't really say the synth at 3:15 at or the whistling/ghost-like synth first used for doubling at 3:21 worked with in combination with the other instruments either. The finish at 3:33 was pretty swanky though; good transition into that, with a better combination of sounds that clicked, as well as a nice contrast with the previous sections. DA's right in that the overall arrangement plodded with the same basic beat patterns and progressions. This isn't terrible, CJ, it just isn't fully developed or cohesive yet. You might want to call this a done deal. But if you can spice some of composition up (so that the beats/progression aren't basically on cruise control from :46-2:50), and improve some of the instrumentation and mixing, you'd be in better shape. But there'd be a lot of work involved. NO

Still dislike the drums, but they weren't as big of a deal given the other improvements. At least the string tone was refined nicely and the worst offending notes were fixed. The guitar performance at 1:26 still sounded very stiff, especially paired with those machine gun drums. The guitar was more expressive at 2:10; not quite where it deserved to be, but stronger. Everything still sounds so robotically timed and lacking in energy and expressiveness as a result, which is a shame, because I loved the creativity, expansiveness and interpretation behind the arrangement concept. If this were on arrangement alone, it would be a clear pass. It's not a strong NO, but I'm still leaning NO. I wouldn't have an issue if it passed, I just think the potential wasn't realized because the mechanical timing zapped a lot of the energy and dynamics that were inherent in the writing, which was unfortunate. Still a very solid effort, so no hate. I just don't see any other way to get a pass with this without re-performing the guitar and playing the sequenced drum parts live into a keyboard. NO (resubmit)

I wasn't bothered by the sequencing as much. I understand the criticisms, but yeah, Emu is right, IMO, that it has a solid JRPG vibe. The instruments don't sound live, but the articulations are good enough/expressive enough to get by despite noticeable stiffness. That said, it took until 2:42 for the arrangement to truly open up into something totally creative and interpretive. Those kind of interpretive ideas need to come in much sooner. As far as OCR's standards goes, when you start off with super-similar instrumentation (pizz strings plus different lead with same struture), that's all well and good, but it should end up branching off into something different relatively soon, otherwise it just ends up being too cover-ish for a decent portion. That's not to discount the additions and changes that were there, but overall it didn't stand apart from the original enough, unlike the second half. You know we love your work, Patrick. If you're willing to revisit this, I know you could add some other ideas earlier on, not to make it busier per se, but just to add or change some things so the overall mood/sound turns into something more unique earlier on. The second half finished it strong. NO (resubmit)

DA summed up the positives and negatives well. The strings strained for realism the whole way, but the sample quality was solid enough and the execution was more than reasonable and passable, IMO. That production was paired with a solid arrangement that worked well with noticeably new and different partwriting complimenting the source tunes. This had a mood that you'd love to hear performed by a live orchestra for an even more dynamic feel. Nice work, Kevvviiinnn! YES

Damn. Yeah, pretty sweet cover. The tempo was increased and used different Genesis-y/chiptune sounds for much of the instrumentation aside from the excellent guitar, but yeah, structurally it didn't feel different ENOUGH than the original. Which is a shame, because clearly there's different partwriting in several of the chiptune parts I heard. It's not devoid of any creative interpretation, obviously, but it needs other ideas to further differentiate the overall sound and mood of the piece more from the original. Both still sound like primarily Y2612 piece with the same structure, only the arranged version has some (great) non-chip flavor with the guitar, but that's probably the only thing that really stood out in the arrangement as having a distinctly different sound palette than the original. It's a good piece, Ken, so I don't want that sold short, but it needs some additional creative interpretation to put it over the top, especially when the writing structure basically stayed the same. Whether that's employing some other instrumentation, adding solos, doing some sort of rhythm or tempo changeups or whatever works for you, this needs more to distinctly stand apart from the source tune. I hope you're not discouraged and would like to either re-submit this or submit more stuff, since you know what you're doing when it comes to putting together good music. No hate on this, it's just a bit too conservative on the arrangement side, IMO. NO (resubmit)

The boom-tss beat foundation and some of the synths chosen here were a little too generic-sounding, and the snapping percussion style sound was flimsy like DA mentioned. But the interplay of the two source themes was definitely interpretive and creative. The arrangement is clearly in the right direction. It's a little long and comes off a bit repetitive-sounding over the course of 4 minutes, but that part is where it needs to be, even if it could be spiced up some with more interesting dynamic contrast somehow. I thought OA summed it up. The various synths sounded too upfront, a bit grating, and when more than one electrosynth was in play, I felt like they were crowding each other in the same frequency range. Texturally, this sounded pretty weak despite all the parts in play (chimes, bells, beefy bass, those all sounded good in a vacuum, IMO). It's like OA said, it felt like all the sounds were pushed up into (and competing with each other in) the foreground. That's the best I can articulate there, but I'd love to get some more opinions. Good luck with the rest of the vote! If this doesn't make it, hopefully you're able to make some tweaks that will help push this over the top. NO (resubmit)

I literally was going to write a vote hitting basically these issues, but Vinnie's right. I curse the panel for disallowing conditional votes, because this is one where some proper production/mixing tweaks would get this where it would need to be, and I'd rather YES this. But the backing track indeed sounds very lossy and distant; it's a classic example of where poor sound quality makes it seem like the encoding quality is 96kbps or something silly like that. The vocals did sound too dry as well, but I could live with that providing the instrumentation mixing was fixed. Sorry, Austin, I love the arrangement, and you nailed the concept, but the mixing needs some TLC before I can so-sign as is. NO (refine/resubmit) EDIT (5/14): Also just noting that Palpable saying "Urgh" was because he likes the track, and wants to pass it, but he can't yet due to the issues holding it back. It's not frustration at the artist or anything like that. If it doesn't make it, hopefully you can tighten it up for the win.

Or, you know, no.