Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

Your ReMixer name: Lucas Guimaraes Your real name: Lucas Guimaraes Your website: https://twitter.com/Thirdkoopa - knew nothing better to link for this Your userid (number, not name) on our forums, found by viewing your forum profile: http://ocremix.org/community/profile/33965-thirdkoopa/ Name of game(s) arranged: Final Fantasy VIII Name of arrangement: No Shuffle No Boogie Name of individual song(s) arranged: Shuffle or Boogie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84xfVKnb-UA) Other collaborators: Sir Telias: Piano I did the Arrangement Everyone kept joking "What about a last minute Piano arrangement?!" to throw in a week before the deadline. So I decided: what if I took a song so short and flipped it upside down. Sir Telias was incredibly on-board with the idea, so we got to work as fast as we could. Here you go. Shuffle or Boogie. But with No Shuffle or Boogie. Glad this made it onto the album, and hopefully it can become a mixpost now or in the future! (Source breakdown is from most of the source. Will be willing to provide one further if need be)

prophetik mentioned in #judges that, as a non-musician, my suggestion of adjusting the mixing could be viewed as "making light of a very difficult thing" and that I'm pushing this toward either professional mixing standards or mixing that's inauthentic for the genre. This will sound like I'm doubling down and not taking the YES votes and other POVs into account. I can't make a decision based on how easy or difficult addressing an issue would be. If others feel it's a non-issue, I don't mind anyone saying this is strong enough. I still disagree, but I've listened to Emunator's example tracks of pro-level mixing for the genre, essentially as "don't ask for this for OCR's bar, but this is something to reference if revisiting the mixing", which is fair enough. I also fired up Final Fantasy IX "Viking Funeral for the Damned" as our hobbyist-level reference, and don't feel these are comparable enough re: mixing. In the FF9 track, there aren't extended sections where everything is too muddy to make out any details whatsoever, which is my dealbreaker for this piece due to the mixing of 3:33-4:26, intentional or not. I heard areas in the FF9 piece where the drumming pushed down other stuff (e.g. 4:15-4:37), areas which were more limited in length, but I could still parse out some distinct instruments; from 4:37-5:43, when the focus was trading off with the guitar chugs, drums, and strings, if one part was obscured, something else was more upfront and obviously stood out as the foreground element that the listener was supposed to gravitate to and pay the most attention to, despite the mixing not being clean (which is fine and allowed). In 3:33-4:26 here, the guitar work is performed well but mixed like mud and the melodic stuff is so quiet that it's gets lost in that mud, so there's no part-writing that's distinct except 1) the organ-like stabs first used from 3:33-3:35 and 2) the core snare hits. There's even bass drops used at 3:36/3:48/4:01/etc. that are so quiet, they might as well not be there. I also loved the drum writing, but it's buried. There's also a light crackling artifact around 4:47. I can live with 2:29-3:20's mixing. I still enjoy the other 4+ minutes; that may be enough to most to say it's golden. If 3:33-4:26 can't be adjusted, the track's too indistinct for too long, IMO. If making things not as muddy is verboten, then I would hope there's some way to make the "Mako Reactor" theme there more audible for that section; it wouldn't have to be in the foreground, but it's too pushed down as is, which leads to this crammed & slammed section feeling mainly like chugs and snare thumps, with the source tune very quietly sounding out here and there. Or take out the "Mako Reactor" melody parts entirely and let the chugs drive it, since there's more than enough source tune usage elsewhere. Intention and context is always important, so (as I'd say to anyone else) if anything I criticize or suggest is taken by a musician as compromising their artistic vision, they shouldn't compromise it. I appreciate being asked to take another look. This is borderline to me, and I certainly want to keep the bar attainable and permissive with production, but I'm alright with my vote staying the same.

Arrangement opens arranging the original right from the get go, and adapted the rhythms to a club/EDM style the whole way through. The pad-like synth was vanilla but got downplayed by being layered up at :14. Electrosynths arrived at :27 and though the soundscape was muddy, and the levels were loud, I was making out those limited parts well enough. Melody picked up at :47; the bassline resonates, but the beats otherwise felt. I liked the changeup at 1:15. No matter what, I'm digging all the minor shifts in the groove. Saw lead at 1:56 was way too loud, and the other crowd SFX and tambourine stuff was getting steamrolled until 2:26, so it wasn't contributing as much to an already crowded texture. The core groove at 2:25 (along with the lead) was feeling stale by this point, so while the added countermelodic stuff there was good, varying the instrumentation further could help the textures not slide into feeling boring and repetitive. The ending keyboard section cut off before fading to 0, which was sloppy; are you guys double-checking the rendered tracks before submitting? A lot of the same issues as past tracks where the levels are so loud and aggressive coupled with lead fatigue from overuse. I'm with Chimpazilla that this is actually fairly close, but varying the lead (which doesn't have to be changing the synth, it could be varying up the effects on it) would be key and making sure the overall volume isn't too high. For a lot of these submissions of yours that are ~3 minutes or less, it's important to ensure the track stays dynamic most of the way. Good base here! NO (resubmit)

I sent the current feedback to Thennecan, and he's down to revisit this! His comments today: "Hello! Thanks a lot for your input, I'll definitely fix the mastering and resubmit in the next couple of days. And also add a new name as prohpetik suggested." - @Rexy, feel free to vote, but we'll also keep this on standby instead of closing it if you go NO on the current version, since a new version may easily flip some votes. EDIT (8/1): We've received an updated version. EDIT (9/12): We've received a better updated version.

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

I'm the only judge from the original vote still here, so it's very cool to hear this again. Really great to hear from you again, Natalie! If I didn't know any better, this seemed like the same track, just with a time cut rather than any new ideas introduced. I didn't have any qualms at all with this style, and didn't feel that it was too repetitive or samey last time around or this time, so I disagreed with the others. It's produced well and has a clean yet full sound even within this minimalist style, and I appreciate the development and flow of the piece. When the Zeal theme's in play, it's arranged in a creative and transformative way that clearly stands apart from the original, and that helps it bear criticisms of repetition and dynamics without pulling it below our bar, IMO. Still love this in a vacuum, divorced from our Submission Standards. The track was 4:24-long (not 4:48, there was a bunch of silence that could be trimmed), so I needed to identify the source tune being used for at least 132 seconds to consider the source tune usage dominant in the arrangement. :56.5-1:00.5, 1:02-1:06, 1:07.5-1:11.75, 1:13.5-1:15, 1:16.5-1:21 (sounded like a piece of CT's main theme), 1:42.25-1:46.25, 1:59-2:03, 2:04.75-2:08.75, 2:10.5-2:14.5, 2:44.5-2:48.5, 2:50-2:54, 2:55.5-3:05.5, 3:06.75-3:11, 3:12.5-3:16.5, 3:18.25-3:28.5, 3:29.5-3:40.25, 3:41.5-3:50.75, 3:52.75-3:57, 4:09-4:17.25 = 103.25 seconds or 39.10% overt source usage Part 4.3 of the Submission Standards says "The source material must be identifiable and dominant", so to lock in my vote this only needs more overt connection to the source theme, so that the source tune is referenced for at least 50% of the duration of the track, which would have the source tune references dominate the arrangement. even MindWanderer's timestamping didn't identify, but if we're shortchanging you and making a mistake by dismissing some other writing here that does explicity reference the original song, please let us know. Otherwise, if there's a way you can integrate some other aspect of the source tune theme during the intro or elsewhere without compromising your vision, then let's go for it! C'mon! I like your style... THIS CAN"T BE THE END! NO (resubmit)

Love the style of the source tune; pure Road Rash vibes. Nice performance. I liked how the 13-second intro had a similar feel to both Chuck Rock and "La Grange" but was original writing that then integrated behind the source melody starting at :14 and stayed pretty much the whole way through. I'm more permissive on the performance side, but this sounded fluid and capable enough, no issues there. I think mixing the bassline to not sit so, so far back would have helped the writing of that part overtly contribute to having this presentation feel more interpretive; right now, it's way too quiet and might as well not even be there, so I'd love to hear that dialed up. Small thing, but I loved hearing the cymbal work from 1:42-1:57, where it stood out just a bit more than other sections. The slowdown into the ending at 2:10 was a nice finish. It's melodically conservative, sure, but I thought the presentation was transformative enough, so I'm kind of surprised to see the differences in the tone, tempo, genre, instrumentation, and structure noted by the other Js, but then saying it's not quite transformative enough... but I'm not entirely surprised. At only 2:25-long, I can understand wanting to hear more melodic interpretation or less falling back to main melody presented in a similar way each time. (That's not helped by the bassline getting invisibilized by how it was mixed even though it's different under the melody every time.) In any case, I'd say the differences noted along with the original introduction's line serving as a foundational background part of the arrangement are enough to put this over the top. The concept could have been extended & developed more, so if it doesn't make it, then it's an easy candidate for adding some more substance and resubmitted. But it's sufficiently personalized for me when you acknowledge all the smaller aspects of arrangement (some of them easier to overlook than others) adding up on the whole. There's lots of low-key redeeming traits; wouldn't it be more fun to be on the YES side? I dig it, Mike. On a dinosaur, we ride. YES

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

Yeah, opens VERY conservatively, so we’ll have to see where this goes. 4:44’s enough room to play with, but that transformative pivot better come through. 1:22 finally has some additive string work/orchestration join in, finally having some arrangement and interaction with the main lead at 1:49. Brief but beautiful string lead at 2:30, followed by nice drums at 2:45, and this is where things take off more in terms of a different intensity and energy from the source, leading to the peak at 4:03. Some people are gonna criticize the fade-out ending, but I’m not one of them, it’s fine. You had me in the first half, not gonna lie, but you came through with substantial expansion and personalized this treatment well after 2:45 (and of course led into that gradually starting at 1:22). Sometimes additional part-writing is the key distinguishing aspect of an arrangement, and that’s cool. There was enough of that together with that part-writing referencing the source and occasionally doubling the melody that the sum total is transformative with the overall composition. Nice work, Alex! YES

Main melody at :38 came in sounding underwhelming despite being doubled, partly because the volume felt too low, and it was being swallowed into the soundscape. Drums are too loud relative to the other stuff, but had a good sound. Nice change in the instrumentation at 1:05; that was unexpected. Some off-key supporting writing from 1:43-1:45 that was pretty quiet but still stood out for me. Cool textures, albeit crowded/muddy. Good drop at 1:52 for some dynamic contrast, then had the guitars get more aggressive at 2:17. Things were particularly cluttered and messy from 2:29-3:20 (really picking up the most from 2:42-on). Varying the articulartions of the string lines from 3:10-3:19 would have been nice; felt cut-and-pasted from 2:51, so don't forget to humamize the performance dynamics. Yipes, 3:33-4:26 was a mixing nightmare. I was borderline on board with this despite the mixing issues... until that section hit. "No, sir, I don't like it." [/Mr. Horse] Perhaps it's not as muddled on monitors, but it sounds poor on headphones, beyond what I'd call my mere personal taste. The mixing's a muddy mess for too long, so I'd love to hear another pass at that. But the personalized arrangement is strong from the bros, Seph and Josh. Let's tighten up the mixing here, give these parts more room to breathe while still retaining this strong intensity. NO (resubmit)

OK, grabbed my attention with an original intro that wasn't connected to the source; since the source has such a signature opening, I was expecting it, so just noting it was a pleasent surprise. Warbling synth sounded generic, but the overall opening texture had power, even if it was missing clarity/sharpness, and it was a solid groove to start. Nice touch of original writing at :12 before bringing in the source melody. Arranged melody arrived at :15 with some basic but effective tweaks to the notes, buuuut the soundscape's muddy and lacks clarity/higher frequencies. There's a background synth that functions kind of like a pad, but I could barely hear it; would it be impossible to allow that to come through more? That main snap to the beat right at the start that plays at every measure, you've gotta vary the timing of that sound, because it's making the core of this sound plodding and basic. It's fine for the intro, but once you move into the meat of the track, even just altering that snap on the 3rd and/or 4th beat, or 1st and 3rd beat, would lend some variety. Right now, it undercuts the groove you're aiming to establish with the rest of the writing. The synth starting the chorus from :29-:35 was bland and could be changed to have more contrast with the tone of the lead part before it. I did enjoy the changes in the lead at :35 and :39; cool tradeoff idea. IMO, the beats have basic writing with a solid sound, but they're too loud compared to everything else. Another different lead at :49 that I didn't like, paired with some bass wobbles. Better lead choices at 1:03 and 1:17. There's a bassline/countermelody that was pulled back from 1:17-1:30, which was too much and made the track feel empty. The groove from 1:03-1:30, including the bass writing, feels longer and more plodding than it should; because the timing feels very locked to grid, the writing needs to be more varied and sophisticated to retain interest, otherwise, the loop quickly gets bland and tiring. Nice dropoff at 1:30. Damn, same groove back again at 1:37, but then some niiiiiiiiiiiice synth soloing from 1:44-1:58. Man... where was this kind of stuff ANYWHERE else? THAT was fresh as hell, and had a live/played-in feel instead of feeling locked to grid. Yet it didn't even last 15 seconds. If you can get your sequencing to sound more organic and flowing like that, you'd be absolutely killing it. It'll sound like I'm saying you're not capable of meeting today's standard. Having been a fan here since 2002, this track, as is, would have been accepted here in 2000-2002 when the bar was lower, and it would have been looked at very fondly. When I say that, there's transformation and creativity behind the arrangement, and the production isn't the best, but it's also not bad; despite my criticisms about parts plodding or feeling rigid/locked to grid, it does have a lot of character to it, so you're moving well in the right direction. That said, sometimes prophetik drops lines that are just so quoteable and so on point: "many of the synths sound like drop-in options - that is, there's little manipulation to the envelope or to what they're playing to make them sound like your synths, vs. just default sounds." Bingo. Personalize the production of the default-y sounds however you can, spice up the core beat pattern, restore the missing higher freqs, and get some more organic sounding timing involved as well. Really promising stuff, Eric. I'm unsure if you can spruce up this specific piece past the bar, but as long as you continue your journey and stay curious as you make more music, you'll get to where you want to be in time. NO (resubmit)

Once things got going with the melody at :15, I was certainly intrigued given how different the instrumentation is from the original. Oooh no, at :42, the textures here were super empty, despite the kick sounding so (needlessly) loud. I like the stabby accents that start at :30, but as part of the bigger texture at :42, they sounded anemic & flat in tone and should have sustained longer to help fill things out. :56 changed the textures some, but if this track's going to be empty/hollow like this most of the rest of the way, it's already a dealbreaker. There's amost no synergy with these parts yet. The guitar lead's been an interesting instrument though; it resides in the uncanny valley, but it's got a decent tone, and sounds best during the choruses, e.g. 1:09-1:24. I dug the metal clanging SFX a lot as well, those were effective accents. Robo-vox first used from 1:52-2:05 sounded so out of place, maybe because they were mixed too loudly. Brass samples doubling the melody from 2:07-2:34 were also too flimsy. Warbling/double-timing the faux-guitar strumming from 1:24-1:51 & 3:02-3:16 exposed the sample more, so I wouldn't use that technique so much. [/reads MindWanderer's vote] Oh shit, there was a bassline? Good catch! It was completely buried and might as well not have been there; poor placement, almost 0 presence. No wonder this feels so empty overall. Needs other padding as well, not just bass presence. I agreed with the others that this has some nice and interesting ideas, Roland; I really like how distinct your version is compared to the source tune. More variations of the arrangement would help instead of doing rinse-and-repeat stuff, but you'll have to continue experimenting with how to choose more complimentary & cohesive instrumentation. You may not be at the level yet to be able to revise this into a passable state, yet you clearly show good potential, and it's still worth the journey of seeing what else you could do with this. Definitely take this to the Workshop forum or #workshop Discord channel for more feedback! NO (resubmit)

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.