Liontamer

Didn't like the bad-sounding keyboard sample introing at :13. The wind instrument joining in at :30 was also very flat in tone and poorly done. The strings you had "beneath" those other two instruments actually were too loud rather than in the back (like accompaniment of this nature is meant to be) and managed to crowd the piece. Ack. Really muffled/reverbed/flimsy-sounding drums came in at 1:03 and the wind lead is so so weak, it can't carry the task of being your primary melodic instrument in any way whatsoever. It's weak on one hand, poorly articulated on another, and almost grating on a third hand, which normal people don't have. What was up with the note choices from 2:17 onward? Not dissonance, just poor note choices. 2:45 in, and I'm frankly kinda hurt that this is going on for another 2 minutes. 3:07-3:31, you're just rehashing the same structure you had at 1:03. The sounds practially never change here at all, which is only a negative when they're so poor here. The tempo changes were a good idea wasted on this poor execution of everything else. The ending at 4:46, which should have been a gradual fadeout, abruptly cut off. Bah. Bland as hell on the execution; poor sounds, no energy. It was a chore to listen to this, and I don't say that often. NO

The sounds are generally alright, but this meanders around an awful lot to start off with. 1:40 of the way through and there's basically been some vox along with indiscriminate note sequences. Not good for half of your 4 minute mix. Awesome rain/wind effects, BTW. No sense of direction until 2:15. The shakers that are placed way, WAY in the back sound very gimp, and the drumbeat that fades in at 2:38 doesn't mesh well with flow of this at all, so scrap it. I have no idea why that was in there, and just as I'm typing that, THERE it is again at 3:12. Nah, get rid of it. The beats don't even synch up well. The male vox at 3:14 was atonal or flat or whatever and crudded up some otherwise decent ambiance. Then the vox just cut out abruptly at 3:24 for no real reason; I can't emphasize enough how low-grade that sounded. Figure out a way to give this a stronger ending, and improve the tone & realism some of the vox. Also, I suggest to drop the lousy drumbeats and focus in on bolstering the stronger ambient foundations you have in place. Lots of suggestions you have from the panel that could bring this one over the line, Ravi, but make sure to tie this in more closely to the source material as well as Prot is having reservations about that. You'll get on here sooner rather than later though, I think we all agree on that here. Good potential on this one provided more work is put into it. NO (refine & resubmit)

Binnie's right, 2:42 is just weak and could be substantially improved. Very WIP-level/placeholder/I'll work-on-it-later quality there. I pretty much echo Binnie's comments verbatim. This is a WIP, Kris. Finish it, bro. It started off very well and degraded over time. I'd like to YES this and see you get back in the game. NO (please finish & resubmit)

Hate. Bad. Vox. Doesn't go anywhere until :50 in. Way too much reverb; very washed out. 1:20's a breath of fresh air I suppose, but there's just way too much reverb everywhere. Yeah, I'm totally with Malc on this. It just comes off like the epitome of bland marching music. The triumphant connotations Pretz mentioned are certainly "there," but this is still pretty aimless. Even if the reverb levels were adjusted so that they didn't muck this, this is just some boring arrangement, which was hurt by the lengthy, meandering intro. Hell, that could even be the source tune's fault per se, I have no idea. Really offers nothing special to this site, in any case. I hope someone else has something more constructive and/or insightful to say on this. Really meh, I'm afraid. NO

The electrosynth lead at :27 is just too generic, while the beats are alright. The stayle change at 1:08 was really cool (YAAAAA!), so you should keep that. Very cool sounds. The techno stuff you started with was way too generic, but I loved the return of the bassy electrobeats at 1:28; awesome fusion of your electronic base with some ethnic instruments to really give the source material a different feel. The lead at 1:51 isn't that good, IMO, and suffers from the same lack of fullness Prot mentioned earlier. 2:09, I'm meh on the accompaniment being obscured again, but hot on the arrangement. That was over all to quickly as you moved into 2:40. That kind of ending at 2:40 is REALLY anti-climatic and unoriginal, believe me. Scrap it and work on some rearrangement expansion for this, along with some possible different sound choices that move a little bit away from the extremely exposed saw wave or wuteva that is. Just didn't feel that it worked here, which is why Prot's pointed out the distinct lack of bass or accompany for sections such as :33-1:08 (among other places). You obviously have some accompaniment in place, but it's very obscured, so beef things up there and get the sound balance working more in your favor. Hit the WIP board and some other electronic mixers for advice, Ben. Genuinely looking to a resubmission of this. A little more dedication & development could get this here. Didn't like everything here, but I generally enjoyed so far. NO (resubmit)

Ha, Rad Racer. Something that the Brothers Chaps can be down with. Not much to say here. Good overall, though I had problems with some of the stronger hits; 1:35 and 1:37 in particular sounded off. 1:40, 1:43. Um, ok. Keeps doing that. 2:07. 2:24-2:29 was a particulary grating/annoying area. Dunno what the story is at all of those points, but they were all jarring and dragged the piece down. Not enthusiastic about the YES even though its sincere; just not an interesting piece to me personally, but it's objectively good enough despite the flaws I heard; too bad you can't just snap your fingers and fix 'em. Though not my cup o' tea, there was good development throughout to keep things moving and tons of ideas were explored. EDIT: Lots of people complaining about those grating areas. Gonna go NO and expediate the process. Fix it up and come back for a YES, Jon.

I be likin' the groove, and I'm a fan of Pro Wrasslin'. 1:07-1:38 is pretty aimless-sounding before you just go into the same deal you had before, only with some added harmonization as Vigilante pointed out. More aimless/unstructured-sounding stuff from 2:17-2:57/end. Dunno who first started using the phrase here, but you just gotta be more. Keep the cool groove intact and hook it up with more arrangement variation along with more coherent structural ideas. NO

Feels like the original fairly simply orchestrated with THUMP THUMP THUMP...THUMP THUMP THUMP 2/3rds of the way, but I've got nothing to compare it with. Sounds like you've got a pretty good base, bro. Not uber-hot orchestral, since THUMP THUMP THUMP ain't really clickin' here with the rest of the sounds, but you're already starting to the hang of some of this, like with these horn velocities. Refinement is needed, but it's pretty solid there, even if the horns are too loud themselves. The strings indeed need more work to sound more natural, and the other percussion is a bit too far in the back, though I can see how you tried to create a certain feel that way. Hope you get some more advice on how to fashion orchestral material like this from other judges and on the WIP forum. You certainly sound like you have some talent, Mario, and the room to get better. Definitely keep at it. Criminal ending. Abrupt and criminal, as if you just gave up trying to think of anything more. 2:26's transition sounded like you were really gonna develop this in a whole new direction with the arrangement and then [sputter], it's over at 2:39. WHAT?!? A cocktease of a submission right there. An ending like that would not N*Gage The Wingless's square-penix, I'm afraid. NO

Not a bad concept. I actually like the effects done on the percussion, and you have a good minimalist-sounding groove here. When the source tune comes in at :28, it's got some decent understated bass action that picks up in volume a little bit moving toward :37. Cool move. Good minimal style going on with 1:12, along with the melody at 1:16. Admittedly, I was put off by the thinness at first, but the choices here are purposeful and seem to click; a lot of the elements seem to come together fairly well. The overall texture isn't great yet, but it's not bad. The style change at 1:31-1:35 was too jarring, if only because it was too high in key compared to the majority of what you've got; also the last note at 1:33/1:34 didn't seem to flow correctly into your next verse. I also felt the countermelody from 1:54-2:09 was too shrill. Might wanna reconsider the sound choice there. Good stuff going from 2:09-2:14. Unfortunately, with such a nice transition type effect on the chorus, I was looking for you to bust out in a new direction to keep things fresh, rather than relying on very minimal countermelodic additions/layering to convey a sense of development. I felt the synth coming in at countermelody at 2:14 actually didn't mesh so well with the other sounds you were using towards the end. It sounded a lot better on its own, like from 1:16-1:30. There's that shrill dealie again from 2:33-2:47. Yeah, that's not working. Good start, Javier. Works pretty well for a sparse, trippy sort of track, so you don't really need to change how sparse the sounds are; just develop the rearrangement aspect a little further. Add some slight variations to your percussion patterns to keep things moving a bit more, and work a few more ideas with the source material's arrangement within your 3 minute timeframe. The nature of the arrangement coverage pretty much stayed the same throughout from 1:35 until 3:00. Prime stuff for a resubmit if you're willing to put a little more effort in. I saw lots of potential, myself. Maybe some others will like it more. NO (refine & resubmit)

Yikes. The vox is a cute idea, but the movement from note-to-note sounds so unnatural, and I could barely grasp the connection to the Armored Armadillo theme until the transition into the MIDI horns at 1:04. Pretty beginner-level MIDI work. The harmonization was pretty awkward sounding as well. Doesn't do much other than MIDIfy the original with poorly executed support/harmonization ideas. The sax at 2:16 was at least something different, if not effective, along with the French horn at 2:35 and the tambourine at 2:53. You obviously tried, but this still doesn't do much to expand on the source material. Prot loves the MMX soundtrack, so we're all sure he'll YES this due to personal bias. Form rejection all the way. NO

I'm gonna rip my comments on this from my WIP:OC post on this. Still have yet to hear the source material. Guess he never checked what I wrote though: The vox is cheese-ing this up, but I wouldn't necessarily get rid of it. If you can change the voice used, it might better accentuate the track. The transition from orchestral to techno at :30 didn't work well the first time (just a subjective opinion; it could grow on me), but it worked more when you transitioned back from techno to orchestral and then merged them together briefy. Orchestral samples don't sound realistically sequenced though. They actually sound like they skip during the intro, which isn't what's literally happening, but that might as well be. Lots of flimsy-sounding electronic synths that could use some effects (even support stuff like the claps). The synth that came in at :44/2:15 sounds fairly lifeless. Good groove from 1:12-1:40 though, and I liked the lead sound there along with the glassy-sounding reverb. Again, the strings here are really poor sounding the way they're used. I'm meh on the sounds, but I'd guess that the arrangement here is alright (though of course I need to hear the source material). Not bad with the structure, though the samples are pretty dry. Not even a borderline NO for me due to the delivery here, BUT that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of potential here that could be explored since you plan to work on this further. Anything you can do to beef up the sounds so that they don't sound flimsy without drastically changing the presentation of the mix would be good. Does need a little variation returning to the techno at 2:06 as you pretty much repeat everything you had before. Try and make some types of changes (addition, subtraction, or arrangement-wise) to not let things become repetitive in a mere 2 minutes. Beef up and/or articulate some of your sounds, and throw some additional ideas in. NO (resubmit)

Was really low in volume until things picked up at :34, but it was smooth sailing after that. Nice work keeping the movement and momentum going with the changeup at 1:45 considering this was only 2:19; really kept new ideas flowing throughout. I had more in-depth comments to Karl that I had saved on the old comp, but since those are KIA, I'll just keep it simple. It's short and sweet. Wish it could have been mic'ed better, because that's a major hit against it. Don't think it's NO-able on those grounds myself, but I'd understand and wouldn't mind anyone here taking a look at the WAV and sprucing it up. YES

LT: A week shy of 3 months, I figure that's close enough.

BAHAHAHAHAHA. No way. Cool intro for the first 5 seconds. Then it goes downhill. The percussion is pretty plain jane, and the faux/quasi/pseudo guitar (:09) is something that'll get eaten alive by the harsher judges. That synth coming in at :25 doesn't work well at all, does it? I think you know the answer. What is going on with those "things" from 1:04 to 1:14? Wow. I'm really sorry, this is just major ROFLz all over. I get the feeling that the only reason we got this one is because DJP might have gotten sexual favors from you if the whole panel got drunk at the same time and managed to YES this. Form rejection all da wayz. NO

I'm all for the liberal mixes. All for 'em. I'd prefer to YES this. But the energy on this was sedate and dry. The whole time. Even if others don't have a problem with it, it pretty much kept this one from coming outta the gate, IMO. Care to bring a bit more oomph/presence into this, Sam? Interesting ideas, definitely. As it is now though, it just kinda chugs along...and keeps on chuggin'...yep. NO (resubmit)

Sorry I don't have the original on me, but I'm familiar with the original (GGX version). These electro-support chords are different, but the melody is verbatim, so I'm not really feeling this. Certainly hearing some slight rearrangement ideas on the lead (:47, 1:45-1:50). Some bad notes at 1:06-1:07. The lead synths are either really high-pitched or bubbly; it really puts me off. By 2:11 & especially 2:27 this is just retreading the same territory with some very minor additions. Honestly gets boring after a while like this. Some harmonization joins in at 3:06, but it didn't mesh well at all to me. There's not much development/progression with the support elements here, which isn't gonna work when that's where the majority of the rearrangement changes you've made are at (beyond the genre change). Go for more, please. NO

Yeah, the lead is way too soft and it's so high on the scale that it contrasts extremely poorly with these thick beats. Fixer'up. The groove's decent, but the delivery is pretty bleh and plodding overall. Like Vig was saying, punch things up and so forth. The energy level just isn't there. Also felt this didn't have much going on the development side either. 3:24 has some really basic panning effects going on, but was otherwise a very repetitive and flat way to finish it up. Just needs more creativity thrown its way. NO

I don't recognize the first part, and I'm pissed I don't have my own MP3s on hand to absolutely confirm the NO Override, but once it "transitioned" into 2:05, whoever's theme that is, it's just an MP3 of the original with a crappier bitrate. Hell the fuck NO. Nice lack of a transition at 4:21 too. What the fuck??? 5:51-5:56 has a vox rip from another Guilty Gear theme I recognize cheaply stapled in. Gimme a fucking break. If it isn't an outright rip the whole way, then it's not even a substantial style upgrade. Actually, forget it, I don't recognize the first or the third theme used here as they may be GGXX-only, but this is flat out ripped from 2:05 to 4:21 and you can be sure the rest is. You can't just patch together MP3s of the original material and call it a ReMix. "hope this makes the cut =)", my ass. NO OVERRIDE

Yeah, I remember NoWave throwing this my way a little while ago, and I told him I wasn't feeling this one at all. Ironically enough, Big Giant Circles came out with his own mix of the same source material, so I'm more familiar with it now. The opening synth (:03-:16) is so shrill, the lead synth for the melody is absolutely grating (starting at :16), and the reverbed support strings (also :16) don't particularly work well either. The Stephen Hawking voice sample at 2:29 is so obscured that you're not able to understand it at all. Transposing the melody up a few steps at 2:56 wasn't particularly dynamic in terms of development. You could hear some brief new ideas going on with the synth work (3:30-3:44), but there's such a distinct lack of clarity with the lead that you can't really tell what was going on anyway. Too much reliance on addition and subtraction of elements to create development. The note pattern of the support strings was always the same, the breatbeaks were always the same. Then we retread the beginning at 4:25 moving towards the end. The structural formula here is just all wrong for an aspiring ReMix, and the sounds don't function well separately or in tandem. Back to the drawing board, bro. NO

Production-wise, I think there wasn't nearly enough separation in the sounds. Couldn't hear the bass guitar much (unfortunate, given that I liked the activity I could hear) and the metal geetars created a sort of wall of sound that I liked on some levels but obscured some other elements. The key change into the strumming around 1:36 was pretty awkward and needs a more natural transition. For this section, the lack of sharpness in the production was all the more evident. Really have to pick it up here in the mixdown when possible and not leave it so rough. Nonetheless, this was some good-sounding arrangement during this less intense area. The little drum break at 2:33 didn't work at all as a transition. Really awkward/bleh. Good stuff afterwards though, with some groovable work into and beyond the 3-minute mark, though them crazy hats from 3:11 until 3:24 really detracted from things. Fairly cool feel throughout, relying on the arrangement strength of the support elements most of the way, though there were some great original ideas present as well. The ending cut out abruptly at 4:09. The arrangement is above my bar, the production is not so hot. Unless the VGMix link is just messed up, is there any way to get a copy where the ending doesn't cut out like that, James? Otherwise, it's a very borderline NO, I'm afraid. Any track that's posted like that is there permanently, and an abrupt cutoff just sounds bad in that kind of situation. Someone else can choose to YES in spite of that, but I certainly won't. In any case, just take a look at the mixdown to try and sharpen things up and create some more separation/clarity of sounds. If a copy turns up that doesn't have the cutoff ending though, that's honestly all I need to be willing to YES, because this was overall good work.

Yeah, tone down the sharpness of the banjo notes if possible. It sounds cool at first but becomes too harsh over time, like from 1:11-1:48. No, it doesn't sound authentic, but it also doesn't sound too bad. The strings plucks at 2:02 indeed have too much delay on 'em and it manages to throw off the timing for me. The horns at 2:17 sound pretty bad/unrealistic. Take a look at refining the sound on those. Cool change of sounds at 2:37. The mix really does a good job of providing variation in those respects. Production becomes more of an issue at 3:10 when the horns comes back in and sound buried and muffled. Same with the drums and piano. What happened there????? Continuing into 3:40 everything continues to sound very muffled & rough. I had to check earlier in the track just to make sure it was the same one given how the sharpness/sound quality dropped off so dramatically. Nonetheless, still very interesting instrument changes and development moving into 4:37. Arrangement is still commendable. Not my cup of tea personally and I feel a lot of people will be put off by this, but that doesn't matter. The warbly synth you focus on for this next section at 4:37, yeah definitely scale it down and bring up the piano notes/other sounds instead. The synth really works much more effectively in a supporting role like you had earlier (4:14-4:36) and like you use from 5:17 until 5:41. Cool stuff the whole way through, but the production starting off decent and then noticeably crudding up halfway through really hurt this. Refine some of the sample work for the instruments that have been pointed out, and really get this production back up to par for the second half in particular. This was too dynamic & too interesting of an arrangement for me not to make it if you can just get these fixes going. NO (resubmit soon)

Couldn't be more in agreement. Heard this back when it was released on VGMix in late August and thought the exactly same thing. Was going borderline, because, if anything, the generic techno percussion was holding this down. For a fair amount of time, the electronic and orchestral mixture felt either conflicting or stapled together; that's really something that becomes less of a problem upon repeated listening which is one reason why it wasn't enough to dip this down into NO territory, but it was a problem for me nonetheless. The rearrangement of the source material saved this though. 3:42 felt like a much, much better marriage of sorts of the two styles and the big finish at 4:30-5:00 was exactly the complementary fusion I was looking for. Looking at the delivery overall, the strength of the arrangement was up there and whatever problems I had with the electro-percussion could only hold this back so much. YES

The choice of sounds really didn't bother me much; I actually thought everything sounded pretty cool regardless. The little break at 2:25 seemed like it was going somewhere, but then by 2:37 it wasn't anything dramatically different from what we had before. Though I certainly heard a measure of development and progression, DarkeSword's vouched for it needing to do more with the structure of the original, and that's more than enough for me to NO. Keep working on this by trying to bring a little bit more variety/depth to the sound choices, and go for further rearrangement ideas to expand upon the source tune more. I'd love to see this back here, and I genuinely like the groove so far, Mike. ravon, Ayako & half the users over at Ormgas.com would love to see an RO mix make it, and the foundations here were strong. NO (refine & resubmit)

O snap, birdcussion get da YES! Holy shit is this mastered loudly. Nah, this is way too loud, so scale everything down please. 2:04 & 2:10 had some serious sour notes. Fix 'em or die. I thought the sounds/atmosphere were awesome, but this was indeed repetitive as anything. No excuse for not presenting some additional ideas to provide some development. I heard a couple of subtractions done, like getting rid of the ambiance at 1:58, but that's not enough. Also think about some more variation on the tambourine in particular since that was fairly prominent-sounding as a support instrument. Don't get lazy with this one and really flesh out some more ideas for rearrangement. Provided this isn't a rip/cover, this is a cool start certainly. Keep at it, Li. NO

Yeah, the instruments are pretty flat the whole way through unfortunately, which I suppose would work as something melancholy if the flatness didn't come across as so unemotive. Drier than school cafeteria turkey. Everything from :54 to 1:37 sounds incredibly aimless. No apparent direction, I'm afraid. Do anything you can to bring the sound auntheticity up and give this some tangible direction/development. NO