Liontamer

All set!

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

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

Pretty flooded mixing at :40 when everything filled out. No sharpness to anything, but not sure why. Great energy with the performances though. Brass at 1:35 was completely steamrolled by the guitars and drums; same with the flourishes from 1:46-1:49. Too bad, as this is a metal cover with great energy and performances, but it's just a wall of mud (e.g. 2:17-2:31 & 2:46-3:21 being egregious examples where the individual part-writing all just bleeds/muds together). I'd expect a track to sound blown out like this from some loudspeakers that are far away, not when I'm listening to it on good headphones. It's a great metal adaptation of the source, but y'all have got to substantially improve the mixing on this, or it's a no-go. NO (resubmit)

The arrangement's straightforward but personalized well, so that part isn't in question, and I particularly dug the energy of Jean Marc's guitar work. Psamathes was strong per her usual, and I actually didn't have any problem with her performance. I hear the various odd notes others brought up (e.g. 1:06, 2:09, 2:22). Though I can see where the YESs are coming from on the production being good enough, I thought the mixing wasn't great and needs another pass. Percussion brought in from :19-:26 was too sizzly. I agreed with Jivemaster and Rexy's criticisms on the track being too heavy with the lows; the track felt pretty cluttered. I actually had more of a problem with that than the odd notes. If the mixing's improved, this is good to go. Good work so far, Jean Marc! NO (resubmit) EDIT (12/8/22): New version's in tow with improved mixing. YES, please!

I thought the track ultimately dragged some and that the beats could have used more variation to stay fresh with a little more dynamic contrast throughout. Also agreed with Gario on the ending being too abrupt when it should have breathed more. That said, the ups and downs of this track still worked within a narrower dynamic curve, and the overall presentation was still solid. It's not a risky arrangement of Schala's theme, sure, but the source tune's personalized well. Good adaptation into a laid-back dance style! Welcome aboard, Kris! YES

It's OK that the soundscape is wet, but I'd argue that this should sound sharper. Otherwise, great power and energy throughout and a fun arrangement. The track was 4:59-long, so I needed to make out source tune usage for at least 149.5 seconds for the source tune references to dominate the arrangement. A lot of the intervals aren't as precise as I'd like because the soundscape was really muddy and flooded when I cranked up the volume, so I tried to be as fair as possible when shorter references to the source were used. I also don't count any gaps longer than 1 second, and I didn't read any other judges' breakdowns - in this case, Rexy's - before attempting my own: :22-:25, :27.5-:30.5, :33.5-:37.5, :39-:48.5, :50-:54.25, :55.75-:59.5, 1:01.5-2:02.75, 2:25-2:26, 2:30.5-2:31.5, 2:36-2:37, 2:41.5-2:43.25, 2:52.75-2:54.25, 2:58.5-2:59.75, 3:04-3:05.5, 3:15-3:20.5, 3:26.5-3:27.75, 3:32-4:05.5 = 138 seconds or 46.15% overt source usage Regardless, the track is an easy pass except for being light on the source usage. It would be easy enough to add in more quiet references to the source tune melody elsewhere in the track, particularly after 4:05 when there's no connection to the source for the rest of the track. Good stuff so far, Alexey, and I hope you'll consider adding in more source usage to make this an undebatable pass when it comes to using the source tune enough. NO (resubmit) EDIT (5/2): Given Gario's additonal breakdown, I'm also willing to give a half second of source usage for the piano having that final note from the bassline of the source (2.03.75-2:04.25, 2:06.5-2:07, 2:09.5-2:10, 2:12-2:12.5, 2:14.75-2:15.25, 2:17.5-2:18, 2:20.5-2:21, 2:22.75-2:23.25, 2:34.5-2:35, 2:40-2:40.5, 2:45-2:45.5, 3:10.5-3:11, 3:13-3:13.5, 3:21.5-3:22, 3:24.25-3:24.75, 3:30-3:30.5), which added another 8 seconds, but that's not enough, IMO. I disagreed with it being three notes from a 4-note pattern; if the three notes are actually there every time, it's so quiet that it might as well not be there. Maybe it was the mixing being crowded that obscured the pattern, but I was only making out the final note (not the partial pattern with the third note missing). I can tell where Gario says he hears the connections, but I feel like Gario was hearing ghost notes. It would be so easy to just make the tails of the melodic usages not completely fade out so that there are no gaps and/or more audibly use the source tune patterns during some of the quieter/sublter instances. EDIT (10/23): I'll go ahead and add 6 more seconds of source usage from the stutter-style notes at :28 of the source inspiring the intro from :05.5-:08.5 and :16.5-19.5, which would push this into 152 seconds of source usage or 50.83% source usage. It's also referenced a little more at the very end, albeit extremely quietly. Barely gets by on the source usage, but let's go. YES (borderline)

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

Nicely personalized arrangement, and beautiful work. Didn't have any qualms with the production/mixing choices. I wish there had been more variation to the last verse at 2:10 to provide more contrast with what came before, but it doesn't hold this back. Short and sweet! YES

Smaller issue, but very thin/flat brass samples from :32-:49. I thought this was structurally and tonally extremely close to the original until 1:13, which was practically half of the track, and even after that it's (well-performed) supplementary writing over the top of what remains a super-close cover. It could even be a glorified MIDI rip. Super flat ending for such a brief, slow-tempo'ed piece as well. I'm legit shocked this closely structured cover is getting all these YES votes. It's enjoyable, but not nearly personalized enough of an arrangement to distinctly stand apart from the source tune, particularly when the first half is so, so close to the sound, tempo, and original feel of the source. It's not inherently substantive and personalized enough to merely add some things. Needs further personalization in the writing and/or instrumentation. NO

Truly bizarre mixing here. The arrangement and performance are fine, but the panning's obviously too wide, so this frankly sounds like mud when listening on headphones; everything either sounds hard-panned to one side or distant (except for the winds) despite the power and intensity here. I agreed on the wind instrument being too piercing as well. Address all that, and let's see if a properly panned/mixed version sounds solid. Karlyn always comes through with the goods, so I'm confident she can address this. Actually going to go NO (resubmit) on it instead of YES (conditional), because we can't just guarantee that a revision would be properly mixed or need other major production revisions. But hell, maybe the rendering just had a mistake and this is a straightforward fix. Send it on back, and let's get this posted in some form!

The guitar chugs and mouth percussion still sounded so lossy, some of the other low-end stuff just filled up frequencies but I couldn't pick out any distinct part-writing, and the mixing's just not clear/clean enough. A great example where it all just mushes together is the chorus section from :51-1:04, though I'd argue it's all still cluttered for basically the rest of the track. Not trying to be harsh, but I'm not sure how this happened when the textures aren't too complex. Unfortunately, I'm still with the same verdict in that the arrangement's a pass, but the mixing drags the production side of the equation below the bar. I know Emunator had a bunch of more specific feedback last time around, but this could use other musicians' ears who could better speak to what exactly is hurting the overall sound of this. The potential is still here, so I hate to push back again, but here we be. NO (resubmit)

Oof, very blocky mechanical-sounding piano to open things up, then the vox at :10 also sounded pretty fake. Synths at :19 also sounded generic while the brass handling the melodic lead should have cut through more (IMO). Nice energy change at :37 with some intense guitar work, but it's seemingly mixed in without any real highs. The mixing overall is far from ideal; for example, the brief machine gun drumming section (1:40-1:49) and the big finish (3:25-3:34) were just walls of mud, and when it's not like that, the overall sound is powerful but never clean. And of course, let me be clear that the mixing doesn't have to be squeaky clean, just that the intensity of the presentation was actually dulled by the mixing here. As far as I can tell, the musicianship and power from the live instrumentation is what carried this over the line, while the sampled instrumentation hurts it. The mixing should be sharper, but is serviceable. I'd love to get another production pass at this, but I'm fine approving this as is. Let's go! YES

I reached out to Adam on Discord with the Js' feedback and he said the following. theStyg Today at 1:09 PM Hey thanks so much for reaching out! Have to agree with a lot of the feedback - even I feel my mix was underwhelming and I REALLY should spend more time with the mixing on these types of tracks. This track pretty complex and dense compared to what I usually make and I bit off a bit more than I could chew. I'd love to go in and clean things up a bit! Been a good 6 months since I last touched the project and I have some ideas on how to amend at least the mixing problems. I'll try to get another mix over in a week's time! Once again, thanks for the message and the feedback! We'll keep an eye out for a future update! EDIT (2/6): theStyg Today at 2:58 AM Hey hey! Thanks again for the opportunity and the great advice all around! I ended up sorta revamping my mixing/mastering workflow a bit to accommodate larger tracks like this one so hopefully it paid off! Here's an update WAV. It's a good deal cleaner than the previous mix, not nearly as mushy sounding. Let me know what you think! The new version's excellent! Thanks again to Adam for being willing to tweak the mixing based on the feedback for an even stronger result that makes for a great debut!

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

Great formula of a spirited and personalized cover (:06) interspersed with a wholly original section (:54) before moving back to the treatment of the source tune for the rest of the way (1:42). I loved focusing in on the drumwork. Wish the bassline cut through a little more with a sharper and more distinct sound, because I dug the writing so much. Awesome, polished stuff, Ricardo; welcome aboard! YES

Many thanks for the helpful source tune breakdown; the source themes were apparent, but it's always nice to have easy reference for how a multi-source arrangement is constructed, so I appreciate it. I thought the mixing should have been sharper, but it's certainly nothing dinging this. Great intervweaving of the various themes. Epic results. Dunno how you wound up in this place, but you can't stay here. YES

I definitely like the track in a vacuum. It's got strong sound design and a great flow, but I'm only making out limited connections with the Route 209 source tune: The track's 3:52.5 long, so I needed to identify the source tune being overtly referenced for at least 116.25 seconds within the track to consider the source usage "dominant" according the Submission Standards. :44-1:16 (:03-:18 of source), 1:54-2:23 (:58-1:14 of source), 3:19-3:47.75 (:03-:18 of source) = 89.75 seconds or 38.60% source usage Making a stretch, you could argue the last 4 notes as the section changes in :39-:41 of source are referenced in the beat pattern from 1:40-1:54, but that's more of a case where the timing of the 4 notes in the arrangements is the same, even if the notes are different. I'd be willing to count it, but it's still grasping at straws unless I'm overlooking some more overt connections. The 4-note pattern first used from :01-:03 didn't sound like it was simplified or otherwise derived from the source, and neither did the stuttering pattern first added at :15. What about other sections of the song, am I missing some of the connections? If not, it sounds like it needs more references to the source because source usage doesn't dominate the arrangement. Love the track, but unless there's a compelling case illustrating A-to-B connections from the source tune to the ideas in this arrangement, I have to go NO (resubmit) on the source references being too limited here. EDIT (1/25): Thanks to proph for the catch in the judge chat; I was listening to the wrong area of the source trying to make the connection of the main beat/stutter pattern, yet there it was right at :00 for only about a second a half. Alright, I'm with you now. New breakdown: :15-:41.5 (from :00-:01 of the source), :44-1:16 (:03-:18 of source), 1:26-1:40 (continues in background until 1:54, from :00-:01 of the source), 1:40-1:54 (from :00-:01 of the source), 1:54-2:23 (:58-1:14 of source), 2:22-2:50 (much fainter, from :00-:01 of the source), 3:19-3:47.75 (:03-:18 of source) = 171.25 seconds or 73.65% source usage YES

I didn't like how the melodic line was pushed down at :13, but it took the foreground at :27, so it's no big deal. The mixing's definitely off, though I can't put my finger on it. Seems like the parts are bleeding together; it all sounds serviceable -- and, IMO, above our bar, to be clear -- but the different instrumentation (e.g. vox accents, backing percussion, brass) doesn't sound as distinct as it should. This could have used some more EQ work. On the arrangement side though, this was a very nicely personalized approach with a unique flavor I've never heard with this theme before, so I dig it. The instrumentation choices worked together well, and this had good energy and dynamic contrast throughout. Fun stuff, and welcome aboard, Adam! Looking forward to healing more from you! My vote isn't conditional, but let's still reach out to Adam with our feedback to see if he's interested in any production tweaks before posting. YES

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

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

Hey, sorry that I missed your thread with this request. You'll need to reset your password, as it's whatever's tied to your old account.

You should manually change your password or do a password reset, but you're back in business under the old account.

Opens up with the pump in full effect. Definitely liking the sound of this right off the bat. Small criticism, but the bass kick that came in at :34 felt both hollow and too loud; would have liked a thicker sound to give this more punch, but no big deal. Nice instrumentation at 1:25 and 2:00; I always enjoy hearing Undertale music using sounds I've not heard in other arrangements (given how many of them are out there). Solid sounds & textures as well as good dynamic contrast throughout to keep things fresh. I see Jivemaster's point on the melodic repetition, but like him wasn't bothered by it enough to feel this wasn't developed enough or wouldn't be a pass here. It could have been more energetic, but that's just a personal preference thing and a contrast with the energy of the source. This is a nice take on it; welcome, Deion! YES

I wasn't sure if the basis of this piece were isolated channels of the original audio, but reading the sub letter, that's not the case. Even if it was, it's manipulated and presented in a way that's definitely different enough where it doesn't come off like a Standards violation to me. The lead line that came in at :14 was realy garbled-sounding, but it cleared up some when the notes changed at :29. Can't say I like the sound of it, as I felt the first 1:43 sounded less sharp than it should have, but it was still serviceable. For the arrangement, it's more about changing the textures and overall feeling of the boss theme; a relatively simple premise and it works well. The lack of an ending was a letdown, but not enough to drag down an otherwise worthy interpretation. Cool concept, Parker! YES