Liontamer

So the first time around (for direct post/flood consideration), Chimpazilla and I were fine with this, but djp pointed out loads of performance issues, mainly with the sax, that DarkeSword, prophetik, and others co-signed, and I definitely heard where they were coming from. Loads of hiss right from the jump; really unsure how that wound up here, because even as an aesthetic, it doesn't sound good at all; the hiss here is much louder than than album version. Starts off sounding so lossy here with the sax at :18; where's the sharpness??? I had to throw on a control track to ensure my listening setup wasn't compromised. Still hearing loads of shakiness/honkiness/flatness in the sax at :30-:31, :50-:52, 1:15-1:25, 1:48-1:51, 1:56-1:57, 2:03, 2:18-2:20 - TOO MANY PLACES. Now the mixing's not strong either, which is a shame, because the album version was fine with me there. The sax still needs more strength and control, and now the mixing's not sharp enough either. If this is to be revisited, let it be with more time to have some distance and clarity on what needs work; this may even need a new sax take from Lucas or someone else. Great arrangement, Mel, but the performances and mixing are hurting this. NO (resubmit)

Immediately digging the interpretive approach here. Even the nighttime/cricket SFX underneath is a very subtle touch. Beats brought in at :14 feel scant, but the bassline bumps and has a nice presense to it. Good instrumentation and textural tradeoffs throughout. I could see someone arguing that the development's too basic, as the textures aren't complex and the tempo's slow; to me, there's original writing involved and the genre change is cohesive. Dunno why I heard a bird crowing in the background at 1:41, but OK; it fits the opening SFX premise of this track somehow taking place outside. Oooh, no, that woodwind line from 1:59-2:02 was wildly off-key. This is well along the way, Alexis, but does need some sort of real resolution (as well as that off-key part fixed). Any further development, maybe another 30 seconds and with a real ending, would make this feel more complete, more solid. This is very far along the way and could use some extra spices and/or room to grow. NO (resubmit)

Wow, these levels are fuckin' SLAMMED, what in the living hell??? My brother in Christ, pull this back. Sounds like a big density change, but otherwise 0 compositional differences in this version compared to the original. Starts with a fade, ends with a fade, loops the same, structure's the same, no differences from section to section, and no effort given to personalize the arrangement approach beyond a simple MIDI rip/instrument swap, so this would be a clear Standards violation here. I'm sad to say that we don't have any "Fire Field" arrangements on OCR yet, so for reference on what we're looking for with more transformative and interpretive arrangement techniques, listen through the F-Zero arrangements we've posted and compare those to the original songs. NO

Slowed down first two notes of beep pattern (:00-:01) from Mix 1: :02.5-:10.75, :13.5-:19.5, :24.5-:27.5, :29.5-:32.5, :40.25-:43, :45.75-:48.5, 1:28-1:30.25 Pattern from intro (:00-:15) of Mix 3: 1:30.25-1:41, 1:44-1:45.5, 1:46.75-1:48, 2:00.5-2:12.5 Mix 1 bassline's two sets of 5 notes (:14-:42) simplified into two set of 3 notes - 2:12.5-2:16.75, 2:18.5-2:22.75, 2:24.5-2:34.75, 3:07.5-3:13.5, 3:18-3:33.75 Seemingly liberal version of 1:29-1:43 & 2:14-2:28 from arcade version (also :00-:16 of Mix 2): 3:32-3:56.5, 4:20-4:57 I've come back to this so many times. This is a game I loved as a kid, so I've looped these sources a bunch of times and even included the arranged version and all 3 Dreamcast mixes to dig deep on comparisons. I enjoy the sound design and production, so that's not in question. Even with Kyle's breakdown, none of these stated connections are overt, with the only exception being the slowed down beep pattern used at the start (:02-:48). I'm not counting the whistling SFX, which sounds sampled as far as I can tell, but it wouldn't have added much to my count. To me, the source theme's just too liberally treated; when you're talking about references to brief patterns and cadences, you can't go too far off the beaten path or it becomes unrecognizable and feels only like stylistic influences rather than adapted patterns or arranged melodic fragments. Even something like the synth line from 3:07-3:13, I hear how that's adapted from :00-:12 of the arcade version (the first source video) or :00-:12 of Mix 1 from the Dreamcast, but that's not actually how the source melody goes in the original. It's a difficult source tune to work with, and it felt there (3:07-3:13) like an inaccurate internal/mental transcription was what was being arranged. I'm one of the judges known as being very appreciative of very liberal arrangements, and I wanted to divine what you're selling, but it's not happening here, IMO, unfortunately. Unless someone on the panel can explicitly timestamp segments of the source and explicitly connect them to segments of the arrangement, a case for this being a recognizable arrangement is too difficult to make. NO (resubmit) EDIT (11/9): Alright, Dagger_G's breakdown isn't as explicit/clear as I'd like, but I'm listening more and more to the Dreamcast mixes in particular (which are cleaner/clearer), and I have a better picture of what's referenced. This definitely isn't focused on arranging the source's most memorable melody, and IMO, some will say the references aren't overt enough, so my more detailed A-to-B breakdown may not be compelling for some. That said, it's offered with timestamps and me pointing out what patterns/parts are referenced: * Slowed down first two notes of beep pattern (:00-:01) from Mix 1 - :02.5-:10.75, :13.5-:19.5, :24.5-:27.5, :29.5-:32.5, :40.25-:43, :45.75-:48.5, 1:28-1:30.25 * Pattern from intro (:00-:15) of Mix 3 - 1:30.25-1:41, 1:44-1:45.5, 1:46.75-1:48, 2:00.5-2:12.5 * Mix 1 bassline's two sets of 5 notes (:14-:42) simplified into two sets of 3 notes (like simplifying 1-1-2-2-3 to 1-2-3) - 2:12.5-2:16.75, 2:18.5-2:22.75, 2:24.5-2:34.75, 3:07.5-3:13.5, 3:18-3:33.75 * Mix 2 springy line (:01-:16) - 3:34.75-3:36.25, 3:37.75-3:39.25, 3:40.75-3:42.25, 3:43.75-3:45.25, 3:46.75-3:48.25, 3:50-3:56.5, 4:19.75-4:21.25, 4:22.75-4:24.25, 4:26-4:27.5, 4:29-4:32.5, 4:38.75-4:39.25, 4:41-4:42.5, 4:44.25-4:45.75, 4:47-4:50.25 * Mix 1 bassline pattern (:00-:14, sounds like a low rumble), 2 notes twice, rhythm altered - 3:56.5-4:29, 4:32.25-4:37.25 * Mix 1 bassline's two sets of 5 notes (:14-:42) - 4:31.75-4:33.5, 4:35-4:37.5. 4:38.25-4:39.5, 4:40.75-4:42.5, 4:43.75-4:45.75, 4:46.75-4:48.5, 4:50.25-4:57 The track's 4:54-long (due to silence at the beginning), so I needed to make out the source tune for at least 147 seconds for the source tune usage to be dominant: :02.5-:10.75, :13.5-:19.5, :24.5-:27.5, :29.5-:32.5, :40.25-:43, :45.75-:48.5, 1:28-1:41, 1:44-1:45.5, 1:46.75-1:48, 2:00.5-2:16.75, 2:18.5-2:22.75, 2:24.5-2:34.75, 3:07.5-3:13.5, 3:18-3:33.75, 3:34.75-3:36.25, 3:37.75-3:39.25, 3:40.75-3:42.25, 3:43.75-3:45.25, 3:46.75-3:48.25, 3:50-4:39.5, 4:40.75-4:42.5, 4:43.75-4:45.75, 4:46.75-4:57 = 165.25 seconds or 56.20% overt source usage I can get over not recognizing the source usage in the ways I would have expected to, and I'm happy to recognize lots more subtle references; there's possibly other connections I'm overlooking. More cerebral and granular of an arrangement approach than I'd prefer, way more difficult to make the connections than I'd prefer, but those gripes are immaterial to how I'm judging it, nor do I need a casual listener to say it's recognizable. It may not sound like what I'd expect an arrangement of "The Beep" to be, but Dagger_G's in fact referencing a lot of different elements from the different mixes. Clever! I ain't too proud to change my vote. YES

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

Liked the Minish Cap treatment in particular, but everything was seamlessly combined. Short and sweet; nice job, Peter! YES

So many themes... so many trees... -LT Hi. I always wanted to do a megamix of forest-themes throughout the Zelda-series and it took quite some time to finish this. I concentrated on the more strange, eerie sounding themes to give this a dark, mysterious and sometimes haunting vibe. You could listen to it here: To spare you the effort of timing the different pieces, here’s an overview. According to the timings it seems the song most used is the »Forest Temple« from »Ocarina Of Time«. Ocarina Of Time – Forest Temple (composed by Kōji Kondō) 1:00 – 1:18 2:49 – 3:35 4:12 – 4:48 A Link To The Past – Forest Theme (composed by Kōji Kondō) 1:18 – 2:03 4:15 – 4:43 (little bits between this area) Spirit Tracks – Lost Woods (composed by Toru Minegishi, Manaka Kataoka, Asuka Hayazaki, Kōji Kondō) Only a 7-note-sequence pitched a few tones up 2:04 – 2:40 4:21 – 4:43 (little bits in this area) The Minish Cap – Minish Woods (composed by Mitsuhiko Takano) 2:22 – 2:45 Twilight Princess – Faron Woods (composed by Toru Minegishi, Asuka Hayazaki) 3:28 – 4:10 Breath Of The Wild / Tears of The Kingdom – Korok Forest (composed by Manaka Kataoka, Yasuaki Iwata, Hajime Wakai) 3:55 – 4:10 Breath Of The Wild / Tears of The Kingdom – Maze Forest (composed by Manaka Kataoka, Yasuaki Iwata, Hajime Wakai) 4:49 – 5:13 Contact Information Your ReMixer name: Gaspode Your real name: Peter Köller Your email address: Your website: – Your userid: 26608 Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged: »The Legend Of Zelda – Ocarina Of Time« »The Legend Of Zelda – A Link To The Past« »The Legend Of Zelda – Spirit Tracks« »The Legend Of Zelda – The Minish Cap« »The Legend Of Zelda – Twilight Princess« »The Legend Of Zelda – Breath Of The Wild/Tears Of The Kingdom« Name of arrangement: Mysterious Woods Name of individual song(s) arranged: »Forest Temple«, »Forest Theme«, »Lost Woods«, »Finish Woods«, »Faron Woods«, »Kork Forest«, »Maze Forest« Additional information: Composers (see above) Links to the original soundtracks: Ocarina Of Time – Forest Temple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_G7Haf1aOI A Link To The Past – Forest Theme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Lm87Xeoo4 Spirit Tracks – Lost Woods https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwjR4B1A9f0 The Minish Cap – Minish Woods https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZfSXVnHtQ Twilight Princess – Faron Woods https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_6Gcr0o3z8 Breath Of The Wild / Tears of The Kingdom – Korok Forest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXllNPap39A Breath Of The Wild / Tears of The Kingdom – Maze Forest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1OSrVwIAZk Bye, Peter

Very catchy source; thanks for introducing me to it! I think the opening announcer VO's mixed too quietly, but it's not a big deal. Guitars feel dry until the shift at 1:08. I also felt the drums and bassline were too loud compared to the melody; nothing dinging this though, just more a personal taste thing, as the melody's still prominent and the approach provides contrast with the source melody aggressively taking charge at 2:17. The strings at 1:35 were pretty good; I felt the bow movements got exposed as unnatural very briefly at 1:50, but I could be wrong, and it's pretty negligible anyway. Cool concept and strong arrangement, Zack & Sebastian! YES

(WAV version updated 11/4/2023, track did not change) ReMixer Name: ZackParrish Real Name: Zack Parrish Email Address: Website: zackparrish.com User ID: 29013 Other ReMixers: Sebastian Mårtensson Other contributors: Alex Parrish — Voice of Samus Sebastian Mårtensson — Announcer Sebastian Mårtensson and Tove Petersson — Crowd and chants Name of game arranged: Metroid Prime: Federation Force Name of arrangement: Twilight Zone Name of song arranged: Blast Ball Menu Link to original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kBbeUnpVtM Comments... ... from Sebastian: “This, and The Plot Thickens, was the first times Zack Parrish and I collaborated on tracks. Zack and I had the idea to surprise Darren with a track he would’ve never asked for. It would open with something classic Metroid and then just turn into something quite different. Zack made the groundwork on this one and I added guitars. The middle segment was left quite open for me to improvise and create something while the beginning and end had really clear visions from Zack. It wasn’t until we basically had the entire track that we thought about adding the commentator, audience and Samus. I’m so happy that we did, though. Alex Parrish did a great job at voicing Samus and I had a lot of fun being the commentator.” ... from Zack: I don't have much to add since Sebastian summed it up pretty well. Track started out as a joke with no intent of it being on the album... but then we just kept at it and churned out a full experience. Always an honor to collaborate with Sebastian. Super talented musician and the nicest person on the planet. Other info, lyrics, or something: -Script- Intro: Samus: "What?" Commentator: "Welcome to tonight's game between these two rival teams. The visitors are Zebes Space Pirates, and, man, have they been on a roll lately? They're coming into tonight's game with a three game win streak! However, if there's any team performing better right now it's tonight's opponent. The league leading Tallon IV Shinesparkers are the hosts tonight in their loud and passionate arena. Buckle up everyone, 'cause this is gonna be a ride to remember. Outro: Audience: "Let's Go Samus" (repeat) Samus: "I'd rather eat Phazon..."

Opens up super conservatively, though with a meaningfully different sound palette. Initially though it was an awkward transition at :11, but I got used to it as I looped this more. I'm enjoying the tradeoffs and combining of the themes. The drums brought in at :40-1:04 were noticeably weak, IMO; not enough heft to them, and the backing felt too sparse as a result; from 1:36-1:43, the drum mixing helped that part feel better integrated compared to the previous section. Sounded like there was a subtle electric guitar line from :45-1:09 or at least something providing bass activity that was understated but filled out the background well. I liked the overall orchestration and theme interplay throughout; I was pleasantly surprised at how well the strings were produced to give a pretty full sound. At only 2 minutes long though, everything needs to be firing on all cylinders. To me, it's mainly about getting the percussion working correctly to fill out this track. Nah, you know what, the weak drums are only 20 seconds, and I'd love to see them thickened up even if it passed as is, but the overall arrangement is extremely creative with no repetition. prophetik argues it's too short, but it's packing a lot of arrangement substance and textural dynamics in the runtime, so I think it gets the job done and I'd rather not short-change that when it sounds like a complete cue. I thought the mixing was generally strong; it would have been easy to let something like this sound too thin; it's not overall muddy to me, just filled in. YES (borderline)

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

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

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

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

Really cool to be introduced to this theme. For me, it has a lot of PlayStation-era Mega Man X vibes; awesome choice, Nathan, and I'm interested to hear how you approached this. Opens up very conservatively, so we'll see how this breaks off into its own thing. Whoa, the lead at :22 is so piercing and abrasive, so much louder than anything else. The beats behind it sound thin, and there's a chippy-style backing part (not the countermelody) that seems to be filling a kind of bass part, but just sounds like distortion and white noise. The countermelody also sounds slightly off-key from :37-1:06. The fadeout ending after repeating stuff at 2:41 was also anticlimactic. Beyond eliminating the clipping, distortion, and piercing high-end freqs, the textures still feel empty despite the busyness; something's missing here. For contrast, the original has parts that are constantly padding this, whether it's warm backing synth lines in the intro & chorus or the delays on the lead during the verses; see if you can come up with your own ideas to help properly fill in the soundscape. Structurally, this is super conservative. The instrumentation's changed, though it's not texturally cohesive. Even if the mixing of these parts was ideal, this is too conservative of a cover for us to approve. Per what we're looking for from our Submissions Standards, more needs to be done for this version to distinctly stand apart from the original song. We do have plenty of melodically conservative arrangements on OCR that still are more interpretive (see: https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR04414 and all of the tracks linked in that writeup), so also consider listening to those for other ideas on how you can sufficiently personalize your style in this arrangement even more. NO

Was getting a lot of piercing frequencies with the beats here starting at :36, so I'd love to hear that addressed with another render, if possible. Not sure what was layered into to the beats at :36 compared to before, but it's tough to take. From 1:29-1:47, the themes were unpleasantly mudding together without a clear lead or direction, which needs to be fixed up. AFAIK, it was that woodwind-esque line (not the delayed "Mute City" chorus) that seemed to cause the interference and clutter; happy to be corrected by another J. In terms of the clutter, the theme interplay could probably be reduced some by selectively lowering the volume on some of the lines, pulling back on Top Gear sometimes and F-Zero at others. The return of the beats with the piercing high frequencies at 2:05 as well; my ears were getting battered here. 2:59 until the end referenced :49-:55 of "Mute City", but the transition into it was abrupt, and the section sounded off-key, especially that final trailing chord. I probably wouldn't have changed that chord at 3:09. What a weird way to finish it, and done in a way that undercut the rest of the arrangement. (The fadeout also didn't fully go to 0, but stuff like that can always be fixed.) I like the theme interplay in principle, and you've shown you're talented at it with your two previously approved submissions. The themes are creatively arranged, and it was cool hearing the interpretive treatment of both themes combined in a way that generally worked, especially with F-Zero in play the entire time. That said, the mixing on this one isn't clicking during the busiest sections, the piercing frequencies that were baked into the beats also made things needlessly difficult to listen to, and the awkward switch into the janky ending killed the finish. I'm hoping a musician J can identify some straightforward ways to tweak the mixing. This is a solid base, Richard, but it does need another mixing pass and a retooled ending. NO (resubmit)

He meant 11494, and in that's case, that's his ID # in the database (rather than the forums); regardless, I know who CJ is. Opens up with a cool rhythmic change, though whatever came in at :06 seemed like a goofy sound. The soundscape got darker at :20 but felt like an abrupt change despite the transition sound; some padding in the opening section would have helped the change at :20 not feel awkward. The textures at :20 feel relatively empty, so at :28 & then :34 as things were building up more, I was waiting for a fuller soundcape, and that was capped off at :49; it was good to hear things gradually more filled out. Back to the opening pattern at 1:10, albeit more filled in. Things repeated, though with more additive writing supporting things the second time around; while the differences aren't negligible, it does sound. Some sort of briefly grating SFX thrown in there at 1:45 that didn't add anything positive. :49's section was repeated wholesale at 1:52 until the finish, then some SFX ended it 2:13 without properly fading to 0. The production/mixing wasn't ideal in some spots, as prophetik noted, but it's also just fine for our bar, and a fully fleshed out arrangement with mixing like this shouldn't have any problem passing, IMO. The instrumentation and beats did have thinner sections, but the overall energy was strong and the instruments had a great deal of power. I don't inherently mind repetition, and the treatment of the theme was interpretive, but I understand where prophetik was coming from with the amount of repetition making this short track (only 2:17-long) feel underdeveloped. It was a disappointing conclusion, not just because of the abrupt cutoff (which can easily be fixed) but the final section at 1:52 being a total retread after prior sections where repeating ideas had been supplemented with new additional writing, only to have the last section not have any variations. Provided you still have the source files, let's see what other ideas and/or variation might be able to be added, Chris. Because your arrangement was very interpretive to begin with, I would just need more meaningful variations (writing or instrumental) from 1:10 until the end, and particularly from 1:52-2:13, and/or adding in more ideas to extend the track. Other judges may need even more development added here, so keep that in mind; no matter what, this is well in the right direction and I really hope we have this posted in some form. Please consider a resubmission on this; I really enjoy where you've taken it so far, and would love to hear some of the unrealized potential actually realized. NO (resubmit)

Opens up pretty thin, and with some fuzz, for the retro sound. Oh boy, the drums at :36 sound so rigidly timed and metronome-like, and then the bass guitar line at :42 also sounds very robotic. The drums should have never been mixed that loudly over the melody and countermelody; the balance just doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, this all sounds so mechanical, which works more with chiptune sounds, but not sampled instruments that are meant to be organic. Some good original writing at 1:10 in the front, albeit thin. Melody returns more upfront at 1:24. Oof, some off-key chord attempt at 1:36. Texture got super empty at 1:50, without adequate padding. In pricinple, I liked the interpretiveness of the writing from 2:20-2:48. The chiptune sounds were the most expressive aspect of the track, which is odd to say. In any case, too rigidly sequenced, too thin, too unexpressive. prophetik also mentioned some of the wholesale cut-and-paste repetition, e.g. 3:31; some further variations in the writing would be a positive but just as a matter of principle, since this isn't anywhere near a state of passing. Your next goals should be properly padding the soundscape and exploring how you can make your instrumentation sound more humanized and expressive. NO

The submission link: Your ReMixer name Kyaku Your real name Richard Westbrook Your email address Your website(s) https://www.youtube.com/@kyaku_ongaku Your userid (number, not name) on our forums, found by viewing your forum profile 38541-kyaku Name of game(s) arranged Top Gear and F-Zero Name of arrangement Top Gear in Mute City Name of individual song(s) arranged Top Gear: Track 1 and F-Zero: Mute City Additional information about game including composer, system, etc. (if it has not yet been added to the site) Both are popular songs for remixes so I imagine I can’t add much more here, though please let me know if I need to. Link to the original soundtrack (if it is not one of the sound archives already available on the site) Top Gear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAMvfv6X8xs F-Zero: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxU0eHnQjo8 Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, how the source material was referenced in the arrangement, etc. I can’t help myself with these two-song combos, it’s kind of a habit at this point, a fun angle to guide remixing for now. Both games are very nostalgic for me and in my minds eye I pictured a Mute City 200 years before F-Zero, where the cars we're much more used to seeing today were racing around. It was fun to spend a little time riffing on guitar samples too for this one.

The mixing's too muddy for my personal tastes, but I'll live, and I'd rather that than the track being too dry. The source is only 1:42-long before it loops, so it goes by quickly at a faster speed. I had to listen to the source tune awhile at 2X and 2.5X speed to better pick up on the patterns and cadence, otherwise it just sounds too abstract, but I agree with MW that the source tune seems to be all over this. What I don't agree with is saying that the source barely qualifies as music and thus the arrangement can't either. Is there a Standards violation somehow? Are we implying that this source tune somehow doesn't qualify to be arranged or simply can't be arranged in a way that would pass OCR? It's a strange thing to say that, even though the source tune seems held fast here, effectively given an expanded and transformative sound palette. But feelings and vibes don't account for me "validating" the arrangement, so I'll attempt to do some A-to-B mapping of the source references to the arrangement, but this isn't melodically transformative, so I'm surprised that no one's attempted a breakdown. These NOs feel like they're coming more from a place of the source tune being abstract and harder to grok than Rebecca going too liberal with the treatment. Not closing this yet, but I shall return with a vote... ? EDIT (4/12/24): I forgot to formally come back to this after Rebecca broke this down for us. Straightforward, I TOLD j00! YES

Two* Many Trevors Though why stop there? https://ocremix.org/artist/15564/freezetag https://ocremix.org/artist/4307/chako https://ocremix.org/artist/8363/eon-blue https://ocremix.org/artist/18593/facemelting-solos Or "Too Many Trevs" and you can further open it up! https://ocremix.org/artist/15682/trev-wignall https://ocremix.org/artist/4728/jredd https://ocremix.org/artist/4589/destiny

Opens up pretty grimy. Distorted beats at :15 aren't my thing at all and are teetering on dealbreaker, at least initially, but let's see how prevalent they are. Yes, I get the "Dxrk" reference, and the beats stink there too. The arrangement's melodically conservative but well personalized. The distorted beats finally stopped at 1:14, replaced by something else from 1:24-1:29; ah booooooooooo, they're back at 1:47, why? Too dry and just creating an ugly, crackly, ill-fitting quality disparity because they're so loud and upfront, both louder and drier than anything else. Nice job altering the source's rhythms from 1:31-1:46; combined the with dropoff of the beats, a good way to create dynamic contrast. If the source files disappeared, I'd squeak this by. The arrangement's solid, with an expanded sound palette, it's just the honorific production choice of rolling with this dry, distorted beat being so loud that's debateable for me. If others aren't wowed by that choice just because it's purposeful, I could see some conditional YESes as a result. Just because I think it sounds awful doesn't mean I can't past that singular element though. Solid theme treatment, Trevors! YES

Hello folks, I would like to submit my remix "Medusa Tower" to you. Remixer Name: Marillion Asturia Real Name: Peter Gotthardt Email: Submission Information: Origin: The origin track is the track "Tower" from the game Phantasy Star, released in 1988 on the Sega Master System. Composed by Tokuhiko Uwabo, 1987, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7MwSs7DpQQ The name of my remix is "Medusa Tower". I made this on my own. The remix came about because I am a big fan of this game and had now familiarised myself well enough with DAW Rytmik to give it a try. I always imagined how I would arrange this track. This is now my humble attempt. I Hope you will like it, and i am looking forward to read from you Best regards Peter (Marillion) Gotthardt

The sequencing's too rigid, and the drum writing's too basic, tepid, and plodding despite the intended variations, so that prevents this otherwise personalized arrangement approach from lifting off the ground. The synth's lead first used at :10 is alright, but IMO it's too thin as is to serve as the lead, especially if the surrounding instrumentation doesn't adequately fill up the soundfield. The sampled piano first used at :41 sounds too blocky. 1:06's texture during the organ section was too thin and empty; something else should have been going on earlier than around 1:18 to fill things out, and you still could have switched to that backing line at 1:18. Eino Keskitalo's got a lot of strong examples, Tony, of arrangements with deliberate pacing that nonetheless has energy and flow rather than feeling stilted. Fleshing out the textures more and humanizing and/or adding verve to the sequencing are what this needed the most. NO

I've never heard this before, so I'm listening to this version fresh. Opening string sustains sound thin and exposed, but not awful. Flute sounds so weird with these faux-breath noises from :11-:18; I don't think I've ever heard that effect before, but it's awkward because that's not how the breath noises should sound. Sequenced electric guitar at :37 sounds super rigid and mechanical, with 0 body or realism to it; it's a difficult sample to use effectively. I've heard it pulled off by jnWake before, but it's tough and puts things as a disadvantage that has to be climbed out of. As soon as the drums are in there at :18, they sound static and locked to grid despite all the activity going on, and the core pattern is boring, creating a plodding pace. Same issue at 1:16; it doesn't matter how humanized everything else attempts to be, because the core beats make this feel super basic and static. Surprised it didn't explicitly come up in prophetik's vote, though he did say the drum writing was bog-standard. The ending section at 2:42 was the most humanized section there and that's saying something; the intro and outro (notably sans percussion) don't have the same rigid feeling that most of the rest of the presentation does. Yeah, there's not enough flow or cohesion to the sequencing yet, so until that changes, it would be a very tough sell. Once you get those timing fundamentals in place, your stuff will hang together better. NO