Liontamer

I'm surprised a track by Ly's at 2 NOs, but maybe there's some work needed. Good source tune choice. No need to timestamp source tune usage for this one, it's straightforward. Seems to have a lovely, intimate sound to start. Good choice to stick with just the first part of the source's A section. Strings enter at :25 and are in the uncanny valley but sound solid. Laughing a little bit, because the instrumentation and tone felt like I was watching a viral video on perseverance, motivation, or grind, at least until the change-up at :42. Really enjoyed the tension introduced with the transition at :42, including the vocals added at :50. String timing at :59 sounded slightly lagging behind the beats until 1:07; not a big deal. Around 1:16, I started noticing the panning here seemed strange. It sounds imbalanced towards the right side, but I'm not sure what happened; rewinding the track to the beginning confirms it's ongoing. I had to put on a control track to make sure my setup wasn't messed up and my headphones weren't fritzing. Though not a dealbreaker or disorienting, the panning's still too wide, so it would be good if it could be tweaked; we'll see if a musician J can better explain what I heard there. Dulcimer brought in at 1:37, and I'm always game there. Choir also brought in was adding mud, so the mixing was indistinct to some extent, but it creates a decent texture, so I'll live. Regardless, I like the instrumentation ideas. Good escalation of the energy at 2:11 in repeating 1:37 & 1:54's melody; each iteration sounded texturally different, changing from dulcimer to lower strings to higher strings. I really enjoyed those instrumentation changes to create dynamic contrast and keep the presentation fresh all the way from :59 when that section of the source was first used. Then 2:31 repeated the intro as a bookend. I appreciate MindWanderer citing some timing and articulations as "too precise and consistent", which exposes the samples and ostensibly makes things sound more like a mock-up and less organic/humanized. He's not wrong at what he heard, but I disagreed with how negatively those issues shape up relative to our bar. I didn't notice these issues at all until they were pointed out, and the samples are used reasonably well enough that I didn't mind the criticism. I didn't care that the pair of drops, which are more in the background anyway, sounded the same. When you side-by-side this with the source, the arrangement's already majorly transformative and sufficiently developed, presented with more speed and a cinematic palette. The samples sound organic enough that majorly dinging this for not varying already solid-sounding articulations is too far gone for me; as long as the overall structure isn't repetitive, I don't care if various elements occasionally repeat, so the intro/outro, the drops, the drums, none of that's undermining the overall strong dynamics of the arrangement; there's no lengthy wholesale cut-and-paste. The arrangement carries it, and I didn't hear anything about the samples, writing, or mixing that made this feel questionable relative to our bar. It could be tightened up, but this is good enough stuff, no reservations, let's go! YES

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

Though the source tune's in play most of the time, since MindWanderer said he couldn't time out the source usage due to ear slammage, I'll do it. The track was 2:36-long, so the source tune needed to be heard at least 78 seconds for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement. Not even remotely an issue there, just noting it was asked and answered. :00-:02.5, :06-:27.5, :28.75-1:15, 1:37.5-2:21 = 113.75 seconds The saws were abrasive to start, yet actually didn't seem like a big deal. Buuuut, once those notes held for longer starting at :29, it was a lot to handle. For the intro up to :29, I did like the mixing though; loud, but I could hear the parts well. When the beats arrived at :42, they seemed to have effects on them that muddied the soundscape. prophetik mentioned "the full band elements (at 0:43 and 1:52) are just totally crushed by the lead synth", and, boy, he's on the money there. Anything you can do to let those supporting parts be better heard would be nice. It was recommended that you figure out how to not let the soundscape be slammed; I'd also say consider tweaking the lead's sound at :29 to not be so aggressive, or at least vary the lead of these verses somewhere to create more contrast. Things sounded sharp/clean again with the drop at 1:09, and I love the original writing here. The chip lead at 1:37 also sounded needlessly distant, but that may only be a personal taste thing. I hear how it's meant to provide contrast with the cleaner sections, like from 1:51-2:18 when it's joined by the beats. No matter what, great job changing the lead there at 1:37; it was only a few seconds, and I'd argue it could have continued with that sound at 1:51. I didn't mind the ending section at 2:18, but can understand -- especially given how short the track is -- how it can seem like an underwhelming resolution. To me, it's fine, and was given enough time to be digested. It's short, but to me the arrangement's already solid and substantive like this. Yes, it could be developed and varied more (which I'd appreciate), but this is sufficiently transformative, and I don't want to lose sight of that. There's a genre change, it's got a different groove, there's varied textures and dynamic contrast, there's good original writing both integrated with and trading off with the arranged source tune. I'm fine with this arrangement passing as is, and my suggestions about the lead fatigue are more in the nice-to-have category. Great base here, Tobaunta & Fredrik! If you can also rein in the production, count me in. NO (resubmit)

THANK YOU! I just needed another J to say "Yeah, the theme's there enough." HOW it's executed is of course another thing entirely, and we can do this rodeo again if it comes back. I just didn't wanna be alone in the room saying "Yeah, there's the theme!" and seemingly being told "Nah, it's not" when it IS!

That was a good discussion that shaped the "identifiable and dominant" wording of the Standards that came later. This is easy enough to address by actually adding something there that says how it's used as a guidepost (so I'll take it to the discussion forum), for example: 3. The source material must be identifiable and dominant. * While interpretation and original additions are encouraged, arrangement must not modify the source material beyond recognition. * The amount of arranged source material must be substantial enough to be recognized. We strongly recommend referencing the video game music source material for more than 50% of the duration of the track. * Anything less may be viewed as the source music not being "dominant" within the arrangement. * Sampling original game audio & sound effects, though allowed, is typically not considered arrangement. That's not the context I used that for; when I said "low-hanging fruit", I didn't mean ease of addressing the issue by the artist. I meant we judges would be drawn to the performance problems as the biggest & brightest issue, and thus overlook or ignore the arrangement discussion. In this case, even if the performance is lacking, we do have to make it clear to the artist whether or not the concept itself can pass or whether you're saying they shouldn't bother with a resubmission. I've got a reputation for being the least charitable, or at least most granular, with the timestamping. I don't mind not agreeing with others on how they count rests/silence (for me, any gap larger than a second, I don't count, and anything less than a second, I count). Especially not knowing any music theory, I'm the last person who could badger people to vote against their will, which is dumb in the first place and not how we operate. But sometimes we miss things or see things differently, so it's useful to point it out and discuss. Again, these note sustains weren't a wildly abstract transformation, and the theme's not altered rhythmically or with its time sig, it's just slowed down some, so I'm not out of bounds with counting what I timestamped. What I'm bringing up and working to avoid is just saying "Well, the performance is no good, and the concept's weird... [/throws hands up] I don't hear the source tune enough." I'm saying you'll have to work at it then; there's only 2 instruments to listen to. And if anyone doesn't want to because of the performance being such a larger issue, then the source ID is a potential problem that would come up a second time on a resub. This weirdo concept should -- with a tight, expressive performance -- have a place here, and the source tune being used in the majority of the arrangement isn't a question for me. If we imply that a strong performance of this has no place here due to lack of observable source usage, then that's a mistake. There's always subjectivity with "identifiable and dominant" because different lines are mixed a certain way or are competing to be heard, so I don't mind Shariq making his case that those factors influence it, but I had to push for that clarification. I do wish we weren't sending conflicting messages to Lucas and TSori because we can't agree on that aspect. All I can do is explain where I heard the theme and stand by that. Re: the performance, I didn't mind being the outlier there, but you guys are right, especially on headphones. I fired it up again and just paid attention to the sax. TSori's half is carrying it, and I clearly have a lower, more permissive performance bar. When Lucas and Logan double their lines from :48-1:33, the sax is less of an issue and the parts blend alright (again, I do have a lower bar for it). But much of the time, you definitely hear loads of unsteadiness and wavering in the sax from a lack of control, so I'll bite the bullet and go HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONK for NO.

I hadn't heard the first version, so when I saw this large list of sources, I was worried about a medley-itis structure that lacked flow. Listening through, no cause for medley-itis concerns; smooth, logical transitions and flow between the themes for the most part, so this is fun. Beyond :29, the bass performance almost never cuts through, which is unfortunate. We'll need lyrics for the choir part at 3:37; the choir started off very quiet, and I was wondering if it would ever have a more commanding presense, then we had some growling lyrics at 4:17. At this point, while waiting to see if the choir would start booming (which it didn't), I realized the drums were positioned louder than all of the vocals (choir and metal), which made no sense. The vocal levels are pulled back so much, it's almost as if everyone was singing & growling softly into their mics, careful not to wake a sleeping baby. Same with the guitar soloing at 5:32; it's mixed so quietly relative to the drumming and brass; meanwhile the brass, which has epic writing, doesn't punch through, nor did the overall levels rise for what's clearly the track's crescendo. Compare this area to, say, 3:25; the later section's denser and faster, but no louder, which, again, doesn't make sense. Go back and listen to the rest of this track, and the drums (which are performed well and have good energy) are the main event in terms of how this is mixed. The transition back into "Wilderness" at 6:09 was abrupt, but it was the only theme change that felt so sudden, so it's not a big deal. If the first version had a muddier sound, that's not a problem now, and that's what counts. The mixing of this is not how I would have it, and there's loads of unrealized potential as a result, but the elements (aside from the bass) are distinguishable enough. The arrangement's a load of fun, and though the mixing's not ideal and should hit harder, it's certainly solid enough to me. Let's go! YES

An arrangement of "Terra" doesn't need to have any "fanciful, dancing quality" to be accepted, and I know you're not claiming it has to. Saying that this "lost" something the original had without clarifying it's not part of the grounds for rejection creates a great opportunity for you (and the Standards) to be misinterpreted. At best, I'm taking this above to mean that even though the source usage may be there, it doesn't have enough of the same energy/feeling as the iconic source for you, and it's a smaller part of the reason you're rejecting this. That would be in stark contrast to other transformative arrangements we've posted, including ones by you. So I'm pushing back because I don't believe that's what you're intending to say, yet I think most would interpret it that way. This is going to sound testy and confrontational when instead I'm curious, because my tone can't be conveyed in text. Do you recognize the source usage as being dominant here or not? Not knowing yet because the performances didn't justify checking it closely is understandable, but it has to be acknowledged if it's the case. This is sidestepping the source recognition issue because the performance isn't up to par. As said, that would be understandable, but I also don't want to repeat the resub scenario of "The Little Girl and the Star" -- low-hanging production issues in the first vote stopping the more important convo about the arrangement/source dominance. The same dynamic is now happening with this track -- low-hanging performance issues stopping the more important convo about source recognition & transformation. If this were resubbed, the arrangement likely wouldn't change, only the performance. Even if you're saying you yourself recognize the source, it's a problem two judges appear to be saying they don't recognize the source when it's used plain as day. It needs to be discussed now so that, if this is rejected, Lucas understands if he's being told this concept -- even redone with impeccable performances -- would be rejected on source recognition grounds.

Brass lead at :12 sounded too muffly, but I'll live. Good interplay with the woodwind at :28, followed by the arriving percussion at :39. The arrangement structure's conservative, but the performance is nicely personalized. Nice textural shift around 1:34; love the way the drumming and its timing lent movement and verve to the piece until 2:27 (and again at 2:39). Sweet finish at 3:09 as well, where the ending felt like it resolved and then resolved two more times with what felt like the final note or flourish. Though I chuckled at the quasi-fakeouts, there was nothing wrong with it. Wonderful job by Bluelighter, Bowlerhat, Dewey & Ian in bringing this to life! Super easy call. YES

Criticize the performances, that's fine. The source tune being in play enough isn't in question though. There's only two instruments going on, the tempo's slow, and when the melody's referenced, it's very straightforward segments of the source's intro, verse, or chorus. (Also, the sustained notes for the melody are about 3 to 4 seconds when they happen, which isn't that long at this tempo, so MW's POV that you wouldn't count sustained notes within a melody doesn't make sense to me.) I clipped the track (attached) to just the sections invoking Terra's theme. I didn't think it was difficult to make out, but it you hear something that doesn't sound like "Terra", focus on the other instrument.

Literal LOL at that one. You WOULD do that. Thanks for the source breakdown! I'm not hot on lots of key clacking, but it's not a huge deal. Solid performances, with good variations in terms of presenting the different sections on multiple occasions. Let's go! YES

The track was 3:12-long, so I needed to overtly hear the source in play for at least 96 seconds for it to be dominant in the arrangement. :12.25-:33, :34.75-:38.5, :40.5-:49.25, :51.5-:55.75, :57-1:15, 2:16-2:20, 2:22-2:26, 2:27.75-2:31, 2:33-2:42, 2:44.5-3:08 = 99.25 seconds or 51.69% overt source usage Thanks a lot to Trevor for the "2-steps-removed-from-a-shitpost" explainer video! I didn't count some of the most liberal moments in my breakdown, but I wanted to stick with what stood out in a plain check first and would then dig around more if I needed to find more time after a first pass of what was more obvious. It all sounds good and with the mixing cleaned up, we're definitely in business! YES

Good fluidity, this was fun!

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

Arrangement-wise, it's melodically conservative and stays with a chiptune style, but beats and other surrounding instrumentation are plenty expansive enough, so it's a solid sound upgrade and golden on that front. The clashing notes thing MW mentioned from 1:02-1:03 was caused by a sound effect; wasn't a big deal to me just because it was so brief/fleeting, but it indeed clashed. I see why MW was saying that it's a messier sound; taking :44-1:40 as an example, there's a ton of bouncing around the stereo field, and there's lots of shrill moments with the sounds that should be toned down. 2:07-2:21's another example of how the soundscape's all over the place. There's probably selective EQing of the parts that should be happening to give the instrumentation more breathing room. Unsure if any mixing revisions are still doable given the age of the track, but it sounds like Jari had made some adjustments before submitting this. I apologize for being unable to give you targeted production advice here, Jari. I'd actually love to hear Gario's take, because he's been very successful with very busy, high-energy arrangements (e.g. Castlevania: Bloodlines "Satanic Spire") that nonetheless don't sound unwieldy like this. The arrangement side is good, now it's just a matter of reining in the mixing. If you resubmit this, we'll make sure to expedite it, and also be communicative much more quickly to you on any issues if it somehow splits the panel. NO (resubmit)

Opened up with the soundscape sounding needlessly flooded/muddy. The lead at :43 was IMO too quiet, with the supporting warbles and beats being louder than the lead, which wasn't making sense to me, but I've heard it done before in this genre, so I'll get over it. The beat-writing plodded; it has a thick sound that fills out the texture, though by 3:46 I was definitely tired of it, because it felt like the track wasn't evolving and didn't have enough dynamic contrast. The gradual additions and subtractions are OK, but not enough to retain interest for 5 minutes. I didn't mind any of the times the parts dropped out; I'm judging on headphones as well; the track never went to 0, and it didn't feel like anything was fritzing. Key changes at 2:02 & 4:04 took place, but it's essentially the same writing and groove aside from the key changes, so I was left wondering when something else would happen on some subtle levels to change the overall sound. Even just changing some of the instrumentation or effects could be a subtle but distinct enough difference to feel more substantive and not overstay the length. Source usage-wise, this is of course fine, and although I'm taking issue with the groove plodding, there's some grace from me on this, as the treatment of the "Last Wave" theme was expansive with this new part-writing. That said, the mixing should be adjusted to sharpen this up some. I know it's going for a synthwave/'80s aesthetic, and I've heard plenty of modern synthwave from The Midnight and FM-84 achieve a wash to their music that doesn't sound like all the highs got cut. It'll sound like I'm saying our bar is where those acts are; I'd say check out FM-84's "Everything" for an example of the leads competing/washing together with the supporting writing, and coasting on a beat pattern, yet how it's produced with a sharper sound. I'd say this is 80-85% of the way there and just needs some additional variation and/or sharper mixing (not super sharp, just more highs) to move over the bar. It's a strong base, Ruku! NO (resubmit)

Cool stuff, with the theme everpresent and lots of cool expansion and variations. The mixing of the supporting brass lines from 1:04-2:21 was odd in that it seemed too downplayed, but nothing bothering me in a huge way. Good performances, good energy! YES

:08.5-1:37.25 (:16 of source), 1:55-2:35 (:50 of source), 2:48.75-3:06 (:16 of source) Source usage was there in spades, I just timed it out (not exhaustively, mind you) to not make assumptions. Interesting choice building original writing on top of the source tune arrangement from 1:02-1:37. The overall flow's a lot like the original in terms of different lines weaving in and out, only, in the case of this track, you have wholly original compositional ideas as well that were part of those weaving parts. It all clicks nicely here while presenting a different, more active flavor; nice work, Peter! YES

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

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

Aside from some overt, yet fleeting references, I wasn’t making out the source tune for most of this. I’ll come back to this later and attempt to timestamp, but I barely recognize “The Beep”. I’ll email the artist asking for more info. MW or anyone else, can you break this down?

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

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

OK, you caught me off guard, Gabriel; cool approach, cinematic orchestral. Not the most realistic-sounding sample set, but it's more than capable of providing the level of sound quality and relative realism to pass our production bar. From 1:19-1:47, the bass did have purposeful, deliberate pacing, but the textures there seemed on the static and relatively thin side. At only 2:11-long, it was very important that the arrangement ideas didn't repeat anything in a cut-and-paste way, so I'm good here. For me, what's here is transformative enough and just over my line of fleshed out enough. The production side of this is also just enough to squeak by as well, with effective enough usage of these instruments. There's definitely ways to increase the flow and cohesion here that other Js would better be able to speak to, and the argument could also be made that it could use 30-to-60 seconds' more development, so let's see how we fare. YES (borderline)

Man, that's a cool source; never heard it before, but one of the more foreboding Zelda themes for sure. Interesting to hear Rebecca adapt this in her reserved yet evolving style, which you knew would be darker when applied to this theme. Nice instrumentation choices and an enjoyable sound design & texture tour! YES

The instrumentation and writing reminded me a bit of Ben Prunty's "Hot Machine, Cold Surface". The intro was pretty long, and just had brief repeating pieces of the "Chemical Plant" theme I recognized. Once :50 brought in the full "Chemical Plant" melody, it also had the Brinstar theme creatively used as backing writing (from :50.5-1:42 & louder from 2:58.5-3:50 with the inclusion of that countermelody as well); agreed with Emu that it was a clever idea with subtle interplay. Then at 1:42, pieces of the "Brinstar" theme very quietly were the only VGM going on until "Chemical Plant" returned at 2:07. One of the lines cut out abruptly at 1:50 & 2:03, but it may have been intentional and wasn't a big deal anyway. By 2:33, one could argue more variation needed to be going on, but the arrangement was so interpretive with the treatment that it could bear the repetition, IMO. Good stuff, Richard! YES