Liontamer

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

Duck is awesome! Why you so cute, ducky?!?

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

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

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

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

Ryan's going to give this another pass based on the feedback, so just leaving a note that we'll await a potential revision.

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

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

Nice orchestral treatment here. The mixing wasn't ideal and the sequenced instrumentation, particularly the bowed strings, were in the uncanny valley but serviceable. Sour note in the strings at :57 and brass at 2:51 that should be tweaked. As things built up at 1:00, the soundscape became cramped and muddy, all the way until 2:55. 1:58 sounded like a cut-and-paste retread with a touch more oomph & volume to the textures; this would have been a great point to vary up the presentation. You actually could have even shifted 3:12's section to earlier on and then figured out further variation for the rest of the track towards the finish. I liked the slowdown at 3:10 along with the glassy chimes as an accent; nice touch for the transition, Serjo. prophetik and MindWanderer really drilled down with the details on what didn't work with the sequencing, mixing, the repetition, and dynamic contrast, so I'll co-sign with all of that. Strong start, but lots of unrealized potential here. Would love to hear another pass at this to hear how much you can improve it, Serjo. Consult the Workshop area for more feedback and production advice if you haven't already. NO (resubmit)

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

The track was 6:50 long, so I needed to identify the source tune in play for at least 205 seconds for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement. 1:01-1:18, 1:51.5-2:08, 2:15.5-2:19.75, 2:22-2:24, 2:25.5-2:27, 2:28.75-2:32.5, 2:34.5-2:36.5, 2:37.75-2:39.75, 2:53-2:59, 3:05.5-3:20, 3:25-4:06.5, 4:08-5:28.5, 5:31.5-5:47 = 207 seconds or 50.48% overt source usage It's a knowing underestimate of source usage, but I'm just sticking to what I could initially & explicitly match up to the source, more of a sanity check than believing the arrangement was approaching being too liberal. Opens up with a similar vibe to the source due to the piano so we'll see where it goes. Piano felt somewhat stilted but still sounds decent and well mixed in the soundscape. Nice transition at :57 and vox at 1:01. I'm about 1:30 in and wondering how something this solidly produced could get 2 NOs, but we'll see. Piano from 2:16-2:40 was too rigid and locked to grid, but was mixed well, so it wasn't a huge issue. Uh oh. From 3:05-3:15, the bowed strings were super rigid and exposed. From 3:25-4:07, I liked the instrumentation, but the soundscape was muddy and cramped, IMO, and the timing remained mechanical-sounding, particularly the brass from 3:46-4:06. Nice vox and choral backup at 4:27; switching it to brass as the lead at 4:47 wasn't as smoothly executed but again sounded serviceable while being lightly supported by the vox. Plunky piano again at 5:31. It doesn't sound totally robotic, but something felt stiff with the timing; no big deal. Really like the ambient finish after that. For all the issues I had with timing/realism, the mixing and production was able to mitigate the negative impact even if it couldn't fully hide the issues. I'd love to hear another production pass on this before posting it, but there's no reason to hold this back as is. Nice arrangement ideas, Ryan! YES

The interpretiveness of the arrangement was solid, IMO; some parts conservative (but personalized with the instrumentation choices), and other areas more original while referencing the source as the foundation. Love the genteel instrumentation ideas; the bells (or mallet perc) and plucked strings always sound nice when Rebecca uses them. But this is small ensemble stuff, so when parts like the bowed strings and the piano are so exposed as stilted and fake, it kills the whole thing. The strings are the worst offender with fake-sounding note movements from :54-1:09, 1:17-1:23, 1:28-1:57 (and more, but I stopped there, since the point is made). It sounds like a WIP/proof-of-concept in those areas rather than the finished product. What was up at 2:02? The woodwind, which seemingly had some light reverb, just cut off abruptly along with the effect on it, and the texture got super thin/quiet all of a sudden; not a huge deal, just a smaller detail that should have been smoothed out. If you can achieve a more humanized/realistic sound for the bowed strings and piano via your production, this would be good to go! I know Rebecca doesn't do many resubmissions or touch-ups because we take a long time to evaluate things, plus she's productive enough where she moves on and quickly makes other pieces. That said, this is well worth a revisit, and certainly has a home here if she wishes to invest some additional time and energy. I look forward to her work as always! NO (resubmit)

You're in the US as well? It's a really strange error, because I'm in there and can seemingly buy it with no problems.

I get the page where you can click "Pay with USD". I'm assuming you're able to get that far as well? Then when you click to pay, you get the error page?

Looks like everything's working here. Can you screenshot what you're seeing?

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

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

Opens up with some pretty tepid instrumentation, but we'll see where it goes. A minute and a half in, the arrangement side of things sounds creative, but the sounds lack body and oomph, so the sounds & textures fall flat, particularly with the bass and the percussion elements (e.g. snare, drum machine, metallic pieces). 2:02 changes up the textures some into a darker soundscape, but everything's still sounding very flat & relatively empty. That could have worked if it were a contrast to a fuller section right before it. At no point does the bass work have presense or fill in the track. Vox from 2:47-3:01 sounded super cheap; it's a purposeful, stylistic thing, duly noted, but the way the voices suddenly started & stopped in that robotic way wasn't a plus regardless. I agreed with the others that this should use more explicit references to the source tune rather than having some sections just based off of chord progressions. I don't treat the bassline focus as noodling myself, but the production and placement of it prevent it from actually anchoring the piece, so it can create an impression of it being unfocused when busier parts of the track make you pay attention to other elements. I don't inherently mind subtle dynamics within a narrower range of energy, but the weaker parts of the instrumentation undermine the attempted dynamic contrast that's there. Good foundation here nonetheless, Geoff, and happy to hear something from you again in the inbox. I'll be honest that I'm not sure what can be done to rebalance this, but you're very talented and I know you can get this revised in a way that doesn't compromise your vision and style while also giving this more direction and a richer sound. NO (resubmit)

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

Thanks a lot for posting this, Lee. He was extremely talented and I felt lucky getting to listen to and enjoy his music over the years. Like others from the community who have passed, I only wish they had the chance to share more of their talents with the world, but I'm appreciative for what we got to hear.

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

I can raise the volume myself, but sounds like the levels are too quiet. After the build, the energy at :51 was too low. Same at 1:04, I still had problems with the core boom-tss beats feeling very vanilla & metronome-y and the soundscape not sounding properly filled in. The synth brought in at 1:29 was too loud compared to the melody, IMO; it's clearly purposeful, but I didn't feel like that balance worked. Dug the 8-bit breakdown at 1:56 and enjoyed how the beats returned underneath it at 2:09. Back to the repetitive core beats at 2:35; same issues as before where the super-plain timing and rhythms (without meaningful variation) dragged down the energy levels. Still enjoyed the chiptune-y countermelody at 3:01. Not sure how you can create more motion and movement to this piece when the beats feel so locked to grid and don't feel energetic. I hate to come across so negatively, but I didn't hear any meaningful improvements to the main things holding this back, i.e. plodding beats, thin textures, and a lack of movement, all of which undermined the energy of your presentation. I hate to be so on the nose with a comparison, but former judge DaMonz also tackled this source (along with Mario 64), so that's a good example of an approach to the same source where there's more compositional & production techniques to vary the sounds (e.g. filtering, tempo), the beats snap and have evergy, and the track sounds full. Still a promising base, but the core issues aren't addressed yet. Keep at it! NO (resubmit)

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

Will keep it short and sweet. From a judging perspective, I didn't enjoy the 1:28 section as much because it was arguably too transformative; I actually would have liked it to keep the melody somewhat more straightforward, but of course I have to respect altering the rhythms. As long as the connection's direct and clear to me, which it was, I'm OK with it. From a production respective, somewhat cramped/muddy in brief spots, but otherwise fairly clear and purposeful sound to things. Super creative approach to the arrangement, and I didn't have any significant problem with clipping, balance, or anything else on the mixing side. Nice job, Chris! YES