Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

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.

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

:01-:38.5, :46.5-2:17, 2:37.25-2:47, 2:50.5-3:32.5, 3:42-3:55, 5:10-5:35, 5:36.75-5:57, 6:02.25-6:15 = 237.75 seconds Just sanity checking the source usage for myself so that I can be clear I understood it; this wasn't anywhere near being a borderline call there. Volume's definitely way up there, but it's mixed cleanly, so I'll have to get over it. Lead guitar's 1:27's seemingly off-key; not sure what happened there, but super minor; anyone with theory knowledge can say whether there's a half-truth there, it just seemed like that one note could have been a little higher to match with the chords behind it. Loved this one, another J magnum opus, which feels like everything he makes; no matter the style, he makes the presentation unique. Epic as you'd expect, dayum! Enjoy the ride! YES

Opens with sampling omninous Zelda belltones and then introduces a pretty close cover version of the theme. Some funk drumming and a bassline are brought in at :29; nice genre change there, and a solid groove. The drum writing has a lot of character. Then a ghostly line at :45 that's supposed to contribute to that ominous feel. The bowed strings obviously don't sound real, but are also serving more of a padding function from :30-onward, so I wasn't put off by their sound like MindWanderer was; they're reasonable, IMO. 1:14 seemed like a spot to change up the drum writing, but no huge problem here. I enjoyed the mood that this set, even if I wished the melodic treatment were more interpretive and varied. For some reason, the bassline at 1:56 seemed to lack clarity; again, not a huge problem. The bass fills out the back nicely and is more active at 1:56-2:14 (repeating :33-:51) to vary up the pattern. A change in the lead writing or instrumentation from 2:08 until the end could have sealed this in terms of inarguably having a varied enough arrangement, but instead the repetition made it feel underdeveloped. Without intending to miscast or strawman MindWanderer's POV, it's certainly not fair to say that you've heard everything in the track by :44. This is well in the right direction though and gets more right than wrong in terms of the development. The textures created with the drums, bass, and ghostly line, and the slight tempo increase do help this stand apart from the original; you have the lead line getting more shrill and animated at 1:14, then at 1:56, a) the bass writing gets more active once again, b) there's some wind-style SFX adding a little white noise there, as well as well as c) thicker drum hits and d) different fills. It's a narrower dynamic curve, but things are going on to subtly vary up the feel within it. Our Submissions Standards say: Rrepetition isn't inherently an evil concept that automatically & drastically dings submissions, provided there's enough to deem the arrangement "substantial and original". If this doesn't make it as is, Karim, don't be discouraged; in that case, I'd love to hear another pass at this adding some other arrangement techniques or instrumentation changes to continue developing this further. On balance, there's just enough there for me to be fine with passing it. Not every interpretation needs to be an uber-polished revelation and supremely melodically interpretive. This retains the structure of the original and is a reasonably personalized genre adaptation with mixing that allows me to make out the parts well. It could be more, and I don't mind others voting NO, but it's also OK to declare that this is enough. YES (borderline)

Nice lil inclusion of sound effects, such as wooden floor planks being leaned on, for some extra organic touches during the intro and quieter sections. The lead at :50 had a hopeful quality to it that sets the tone the whole way through. The source tune's basically the foundation throughout, with creative building blocks of writing and ornamentation surrounding it. Excellent sound design and dynamics throughout. Thanks for letting us get a chance to vote on it, Wes. It's a gem of a treatment! YES

Wow, crazy to hear the 5-note "c-shot" jingle make its way into actual game soundtracks, but it wouldn't be the first time. What an old school VG arrangement community meme. Whoa, this definitely sounds very cluttered right off the bat, Jesus; even had to break out listening to a control track to make sure I didn't mess something up on my side. Too crowded. Arrangement-wise, it's a (strong and well performed) guitar cover for the first two minutes, so I was waiting for something to help set this apart from the original. Really not sure why the soundscape is so crammed, but it's already a dealbreaker for me. :'-( 2:09's change in the backing instrumentation finally changed something to sound markedly different from the source tune, then there was some nice freestyling over the foundation of the original at 2:19. Nothing wrong with sampling the original vocals at all; even when they're in play, other instrumentation is always referencing the source tune (so the sampling isn't used as a crutch to count as the source tune usage). The rest of the arrangement works nicely as well in terms of constantly refencing the source tune but also integrating other original writing. IMO, the first two minutes really should involve some other elements to help that stand apart from the source tune more as more personalized, and that would also help undercut the criticisms of feeling/sounding too repetitive. All that said, this mixing is just too flooded and make this needlessly unpleasent. It's almost a practical joke that you hit the final note at 4:47, then everything sounds so clean after the final note before the instrumentation's volume drops to 0. I'm certainly willing to accept something that is somewhat cluttered/compressed, but whatever was done to this was too much and it makes things unpleasant. Take the production advice of the Js who know what they're talking about and tweak this if you're interested. Sorry that you got hurt, but glad you've come so far; this awesome performance quality doesn't sound like you're injured, so that's a testament to your hard work and dedication. Really glad you're still in the game, Dustin! Whether it's another version of this track (the energy & performance are great) or a different submission, we'll see you back on the front page for sure! NO (resubmit)

Nice resonance during the harp intro; the accompanying bowed strings were super soft in volume, but created a nice undercurrent of tension as things gradually built up in the background. About 1:15 in, and this is just gorgeous. Oh shit, the flourishes at 1:20 made me yell out "Bro!" in amazement and appreciation. Awesome, I love the intro's performance. Gradual and fairly seamless shift over into the orchestration starting at 1:35. Woodwind cover of the "Protecting My Devotion" melody at 2:09. The way the percussion hits was a little odd; almost hits too loudly, while also not sounding sharp; nothing dinging this, just a bit of a strange dynamic. Vocals arrived at 3:09 with a wholly original section; nice tone, though some more de-essing might have taken a little bit of the edge off some of the syllables; some of the highest notes got piercing, but totally not a big deal in the grand scheme. Very nice delivery, and mixed well to give them depth. Solid closing section going back to "Protecting My Devotion" for the finish. All the analysis aside from the other Js, our bar's not that high, so the crits may be on point, but I also didn't feel it was a close call. Props on the live performances, as well as getting reasonably good quality out of more difficult samples like brass. Strong work at all around; a big welcome to Roph, Harpsibored, SableProvidence, and Dawnaria, and always honored to have DoD crossover submissions! EDIT (6/2): I listened 5 more times while I was driving. This isn't even in the realm of questionable vis-a-vis the Standards; the issues feel like a matter of taste, just not anything approaching a discussion on where the bar should be. Structure and flow felt fine, the transitions were smooth, the vocal performance and its purposeful, stylized prosody didn't put me off, nor did the length of the original section, which hit a similar enough energy level & mood relative to everything else. In our chat channel, prophetik brought up that we have plenty of arrangements where the structure sandwich is original composition/arranged VGM/original composition (I'll call that O-V-O), so we shouldn't have a problem with an arranged VGM/original composition/arranged VGM or V-O-V sandwich, which I fully agree with. If an arrangement invokes the VGM for >50% of the duration, the sandbox should be an artist's to play in as far as how everything else is structured. Nothing lacked cohesion, no issues for me. Since djp indicated he'd likely vote YES if it somehow came to a tiebreaker, Gario's 5th YES cements the decision. YES

The references to "Underwater (0'30-1'04)" and "Underwater (1'04-2'00)" felt more fleeting, but otherwise the breakdown was accurate, so the source usage was all over the place. The adaptation of the "Underwater (0'-0'30)" section was easily my favorite aspect of this piece. Beautiful arrangement to piano, including the original accompaniment. Nice job, Guillaume! YES

As long as it’s not extensively referencing/arranging a non-VGM source, it’s all good. If it’s just stylistic, then there’s of course 0 concern. In comparing it, I hear those rhythms being taken from the "Rise" bassline, but it's not exactly the same notes. I'm open to other opinions, but I'm personally OK with it how it's stylistically invoked here.

I wouldn’t say you’re wrong at all. There’s a super-dated example of a repetitive arrangement that the judges passed in 2003, “Snow Motion”, obviously with a lower bar back then. Based on that example, I’ve seen that the Js would allow a repetitive arrangement as long as the interpretation felt substantive enough. That said, the amount of cut-and-paste IS a lot, so anyone thinking it’s too much is right. I happen to feel that the interpretation is creative enough that it can bear it. Happy to be an outlier, but I know it’s tough to argue (otherwise, I wouldn’t have panelled it).

Quirky and cool source tune, and I love this arrangement, which is easily Geoff's most engaging, enveloping piece yet, mixing mellowness with just the right amount of tension. I really appreciated him having the bassline rhythm from the original adapted to and ever-present in this piece to pretty much always keep the arrangement connected to the source even while some vamping was going on. As long as longer pieces evolve and develop, I'm all about just sitting back and enjoying the twists and turns. I've always enjoyed Dj Orange's work, and he's stepped his game up on this one, with an amazing and inspired mood here. Skip OC ReMixes of lesser-known soundtracks at your peril, this is a great one! YES

No idea at all what this is referencing from the sources: 5:41 - 6:34 = accordion solo over the repeated first 4 bars from Stella 2 chorus I couldn't find anything at all in Stella 2 matching up with that repeating pattern. The claps at the very end were so out of place; why even do that when they weren't anywhere in the track before and sound dry? Anyway, a needlessly poor finish, but a strong arrangement otherwise! YES

I dig flexing some new instrumentation approaches here, and I hear the obvious influence of zircon with "Ragol Weather". The drums feel tepid relative to the energy of the rest of the track, so IMO the synergy's not there, but I still dig this. The pervasive fuzziness around 2:55 is intentional, but doesn't come off that way until the very, very end; not sure how the effect could be tweaked to not sound like an accident. Otherwise, solid; I dig it! Does timaeus ever NOT bring the goods? C'mon. YES

Lead at 1:11's effected, but still has a generic sound to it. Wish the core beats weren't louder than the other instrumentation, for example from 1:39-2:23. Texturally, there almost always feels like there's some sort of audio glue missing to truly make the textures feel cohesive. You'll have loud sections where the rigid, vanilla leads and basic beats don't fill things out enough, so even busy areas somehow feel empty and incomplete, e.g. :55, 1:12, 1:39, 3:02, 3:30, 3:57, 4:19. Something also sounded dissonant from 3:07-3:13; it seems to be on purpose, but caught my attention. Breakbeats at 3:30 were plodding; you can barely hear the breaks, just the main beats. The interpretive treatment of the theme and textural variations may carry the day here. To me, something feels very unfinished with this, and it could just be a polish thing that I'm hung up on. Since I'm not as articulate as the musicians, I'm actually going to reserve judgement until I see some other opinions. EDIT (1/24): Yeah, I'm listening through again now that prophetik has voted. I still like the variation in styles of the instrumentation. The beats plod a LOT; that's in part due to the mixing obscuring the detail work in the breakbeats, so the track’s energy feels flatter than it should. 3:30 would have been such a great point to vary things up; instead the last third dragged on the entire way for me. The lead at 3:30 was also the same as 1:11 & 1:39, but it lacked the pitch effects that gave it more personality and made the lead's sound design more creative earlier on. For the final 1 1/4 minutes, you had great bass and thick beats, but this somehow still dragged on. This'll likely pass as is, Roch, but I'd love to hear some more TLC with the mixing of the beat pattern as well as the lead's sound design from 3:30 until the end before I can get on board. Great concept overall, but listening through again crystallized where the biggest shortcomings were for me. NO (resubmit)

Haha, cool chant opening; now that's a cool interpretive approach. But yeah, MindWanderer's got this right, it's basically a close cover from :24 afterwards, where the instrumentation is fairly close to the original music, so this doesn't stand apart from it enough in terms of the level of interpretation. The effects do wash it out, I agree there, then at 2:15, the levels get way too loud and things only get more crowded until 2:50. Finally pulled back in the density at 2:50 with a throwaway sample of dial-up internet noises; not sure it thematically fits here, since there's no other sounds or imagery making me think of the whole "cyber" aspect of this maverick, but it is what it is. Too loud again at 3:13, worth noting. As long as you have more of an intentional direction of interpreting the source tune, Andre, it'll have more of a shot of making it here on OCR. It's certainly not a waste of time to submit; it's a great source tune choice, and a fun effort in attempting to beef up the sound. IMO, it doesn't need to be this bright, so just watch your levels and make sure your textures aren't too muddy. Please keep at it and keep making music! NO

Certainly a weird source, and I recall the lead synths at :20 being a big headscratcher when I first heard this. I guess the synth lead's mechanical sequencing and dissonant chorusing are features not bugs, but it's not clicking, especially alongside these tepid beats, IMO. Interesting changeup at 2:10; I like that initial instrument, but that lead synth again at 2:25 is the antithesis of smooth and polished. Nice textures at 3:05 for the finish, including that last set of notes at 3:25; beautiful writing there. Mixing criticism from others aside, what this really needs is a lead that has a humanized sound. When prophetik says "right now it is really lacking verve", that's the main culprit causing it. :'-( There's a ton of other positives with the instrumentation and arrangement. NO (resubmit)

Definitely a boomy sound, duly noted. Haha, I like how the Volt Kraken bassline reminds me of Double Dragon II's "Mission 2" music. Not a fan of this piano at :30, no sir. Very thin and mechanical sound, but it thankfully only lasted a few seconds. Wack claps too from 1:33-2:03, booooooooooooo. Never a fan of parts that present a quality disparity. Track got way beefier with the beats after that though. The levels are too bright, but not gonna hold it back for that. Arrangement is strong with nice tradeoffs and interplay between the themes, and the production's loud but reasonable, so get outta here. YES

Some odd changing of the notes, but we'll see where it goes; sometimes you hear changes that sound like changes for changes sake but don't feel entirely melodious, and that's where I'm falling here. The high end sounds like it's cutting through too much, so it should be pulled back. The percussion patterns were also feeling too basic, at least the core beat, which would sound better with some round robin action so it wasn't the same velocity and intensity practically every time. Agreed on the ending being very flat; the last note could be doubled or effected to hit stronger for the finish. At only 2 and 1/2 minutes-long, if the structure's going to be melodically conservative, there should be more creativity with the writing and/or sound design in other places, and I don't believe it's gotten all the way there (though the break from 1:09-1:43 was a fun touch.) More instrumental variation with the leads or percussion may be all that's needed. This is developed some, and it could pass as is; to me, it feels like it's still missing some further polish and/or interpretation to help this better stand apart from the original track. It's in the right direction though, no doubt, Martin! NO (resubmit) EDIT (6/5): I'm revisting this off the strength of Gario's vote, but my vote remains the same. The core beat is so bland & repetitive over essentially the entire duration that I'm still in favor of sprucing up that writing to not allow the track to repeat & plod so much, which is undermining the energy of the rest of the writing.

Arrangement-wise, MindWanderer's hung up too much on the melody being the same when the overall instrumentation and energy of the theme are completely different than the source tune. Again, there are plenty of other ways to personalize an arrangement, and that's more than accomplished here. The handling of the melody doesn't have to be transformative as long as enough other areas are. Love the energy of the opening, with faux geetars that sound expressive and reasonably good in tone. Once the beats come in at :20, there's something about those kicks in particular that feels underwhelming. The pattern's also pretty plain, though I liked the lil' fill from :43-:46. The drum tone also fit the texture a lot better during the chorus areas from :53-:59 & 1:06-1:11. It's odd that you have moments where the instrumentation has more synergy, then others where the percussion tone feels thinner and out of place. Watch the machine gun effect on the four drum hits at 1:44; making the hits all have the exact same sound needlessly exposed the samples. IMO, the percussion writing and mixing's the weaker link for an otherwise solid piece. Very nice fakeout change in style from 1:40-1:44, as well as the track essentially having the power switch shutting off for the finish right after going lo-fi; that was a creative way to escape not having a more fleshed out resolution. This is definitely substantive enough of an arrangement, and I'm on the bubble. Would love to hear a strong musician judge go after what's lacking on the production side, but I'd say this is 85% of the way there. I wouldn't change a thing with the structure, Trevor; this is an awesome start. NO (resubmit)

Very interesting rhythm for the source tune; I appreciate the unexpected direction. When the added instrumentation picks up around :27, the source tune was feeling obscured, but the brass took the melody at :50, and then there was no question the source tune usage remains front and center for the rest of the track. I can halfway understand a NO in the sense that there's a looseness in the performances and there's not a full synergy here in the instrumentation and mixing, especially because the tone of the beats feels somewhat out of place. At 2:30, I wish the piano line cut through a shade more. Literal LOL at the flatness of the ending percussion shot at 4:10; what in the hell??? Flatter than a plateful of piss. It felt like you gave up?? All that first blush criticism aside, this is cohesive enough, even if I have issues here and there. Nothing added up to a reason to hold this back. The arrangement's creative, the performances solid. Very fun concept from Logan and crew with a looser feel that embraces the change in mood. Let's goooooooooooooooo! YES

I've probably listened to this 50 times at this point. Even putting the heartbeat gimmick aside, I'm not put off by the volume or mixing, and can hear everything well. Love this, including the sidechaining. Put another way, let's say the source files are kaput, there's no way I'd reject this either. Lots of character in this one. A hex on these production NOs! (Note to any readers that I've often been the production NO deserving a hex.)

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