Liontamer

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

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

If anyone has example of sites with lots of content and the kind of interface you like, links are welcome, especially for mobile experiences. EDIT: Because djp will see this... Keep our beloved character mascots!

I'm definitely a dad actually laughing out loud at that arrangement title, shame on me. :'-) Something to be said when the crappy opening & closing piano sample is the worst thing about this track, then nearly everything else is awesome. The levels were definitely too hot, but I won't be voting this down on those grounds, no sir. Can't complain about it being too hot when the shit's fire. (SEE? Dad-level joke! Not even!) A lot of mileage out of a classic jingle, and the extended original section at 2:17 prevented this from descending into any sort of monotony. I actually would have liked to have heard more with the Intermission jingle, not that that's a complaint; this was just such a creative arrangement that I thought there'd be a few more bars of that too. Wild ride, Bortcle, welcome aboard! YES

Cool cover with a richer sound palette. The melodic lead at :38 was too sharp on the high end, so it sounded needlessly piercing; nothing that pulled the track down to NO, but this would be more solid if that were adjusted. The final section at 1:53 provided contrast with the previous parts and offered a haunting close. One of the sounds abruptly cuts out at 2:29, and clearly wasn't intentional, so let's also ask about a fix for that as well. Otherwise, nice, eeire sound design, Alex; good job giving this source tune a lot more heft! YES

Small thing, but the production of the brief vocal cameo was pretty weak; sounded like a bad recording as the base. Conceptually, it was a nice idea, but it didn't sound like it shared the same soundscape the way it was produced. The decay of the final note at 2:36 was too fast as well (also at :55), so it was a regretable ending to an otherwise quick but solid interpretation and blending of the themes. With more attention to detail work, this would be on stronger ground. Nonetheless, a nice reorchestration of already orchestral set of sources! YES

A more accurate source breakdown would have been: 0:00 - 0:33 in source = 4:22 - 5:17 in remix 0:44 - 0:51 in source = 1:39 - 1:47 in remix 1:00 - 2:01 in source = 0:38 - 1:38 in remix 2:19 - 4:11 in source = 2:03 - 3:35 in remix 4:11 - end in source = 3:35 - 4:21 in remix I can't say I recognized any elements of :00-:33 of the source in the ending section, but there was more than enough source usage throughout. But that said, a well-developed and dynamic rendition of the original! YES

I don't hate the track, but there were a lot of criticisms that added up to me going NO. I wasn't a fan of the super fake & exposed choral/vocal sustains brought in at 1:37, they aren't a peak offender (and I realize that there's a similar element in the original), but they just sound awkward throughout and don't properly pad out the track; if these were changed into more of a pad/non-vocal sound, perhaps they'd fit better in the mix, though you have to watch the note-to-note changes not feeling so mechanically timed. Smooth it out. The beats after 2:46 & 3:32, respectively, quickly dragged out after a while, and a core issue was the track feeling dynamically flat over long stretches because the beat continuously plodded; maybe I'm just too drawn to the weak/vanilla-sounding kick. I dig the bassline at 2:47-3:22, which had more character to it. During the brief dropoff at 3:23, there's some volume, but the textures just feel barren, and I think that helped me lock onto what's not working; nearly everything in this piece has very stilted timing. The synth lead at 4:26 is the super robotic with the timing too. I like the arrangement itself, Fraser, but if this doesn't pass, see what you can do to bring some humanization in places, adjust the vox/padding into something that doesn't sound as fake and robotic, and varying up the beats some to prevent plodding. NO (resubmit)

Not my cup of tea at all, but it gets 'er done. Gotta respect the creative constraints employed! (That's Je's thing.) Let's go! YES

The soundscape's needlessly washed out in places (e.g. guitars at :48, piano at 4:16), but I could generally make out distinct elements enough. Super creative handling of the arrangement; Riad & Anthony constantly invoke different elements of the source tune melody with different instrumentation, some lines more prominent, others more understated, plus you have lots of textural changes to create dynamics within a baseline level of high octane energy. The ending cuts off abruptly, but that can be fixed with a fade. Short and sweet, a strong and distinct take that even stands apart from other pro and hobbyist rock takes of this great theme! YES

Feels like I'm hearing a lot of generic FL Studio sounds & effects; that's not an inherent knock against it, but I've heard Rellik do very strong stuff with FL out of the box and this didn't feel like it was maximizing it in a similar way. The note movements of the lead synth at :46 sound too mechanical and behind the beat. Solid percussion writing behind it though; just having some velocity variation with the cymbals was a nice touch. Lesser thing, but the kick at 1:54 is too loud/grating and was getting in the way of the melody; that may have been exacerbated by listening on headphones, but it would be great if whatever's causing that effect was pulled back. Then from 3:11-3:22ish, the warbling effect sounded like it was slightly distorting; again, could just be me hearing it on headphones and conflating the effect with distortion, but it's at different levels in different places, so it felt like it briefly distorted. I didn't have any problems with the arrangement's structure; they come in all shapes and sizes and nothing about the transitions felt abrupt. Nice SFX usage with the scattered seagull calls. I thought the switchup at 2:14 was a sweet idea to vary up the tempo and move back to the source melody with a fresh spin for the finish. Not sure why the mixing is this muddy, Brandon, but the leads could stand out more while still maintaining a vaporware atmosphere, and that's my main hangup. Listen to FM84's Atlas album, particularly the instrumental tracks for example, to hear vaporware with more power & balance to it and you can compare what elements are brighter vs. more subdued. Obviously, OCR's production standards aren't as high, and this may pass as is, but still something worth examining. It's a solid arrangement concept, but the mixing's a mixed bag, IMO. Strong stuff so far, Brandon, and good luck with the rest of the vote. NO (resubmit)

The source tune's the epitome of basic, which allows a LOT of flexibility and additive composition to supplement the source tune here. Loads of dynamic contrast here within a higher energy approach, and the source melody and/or backing chords are practically always in play. The vocal sampling was pretty simple; one could argue it needed more variation, but as a non-lyrical sample, it added some character to the piece. At 4:52 & 5:25, the arrangement was noticeably retreading some things; nothing that was hugely harming this as an overall listening experience, but it could have used some additional ideas or variations to stay fresh. Sure, you can go after cut-and-paste stuff here, but I wasn't bothered by it enough to timestamp when the overall approach is so expansive, personalized, and substantial. Man, nothing but a textbook example of making a barebones original into your own. Nice work, Alexey! YES

Negatives first: I feel the drumming doesn't always have synergy with the other instrumentation and should also be pulled back. The opening with the dull-to-sharp transition from :07-:09 didn't work as intended; it seemed too fast/sudden. Regardless, the overall lift here is impossible to deny. More dynamic and more cohesive for sure. Nice work, gents! YES

:10 opens with a pretty upfront electro lead, and the soundscape's already cramped, so the backing chords are getting drowned out; pull the lead back. Takes until 1:11 to get the main melody; not inherently a problem, just noting it, but you've essentially just got 60 seconds of melody for this brief piece. The ending also doesn't resolve in any meaningful way. I think the sound design's sufficiently personalized, so I could actually live with the arrangement being this short. It's on the edge of what I'd consider fully developed, but it's there. That said, you definitely could get another 30-90 seconds of exploring some additional ideas from the source or just variations of the existing arrangement ideas. But I wouldn't say there's not enough substance just because it works with the main melody briefly; all types of arrangement approaches are welcome. Production-wise, yeah, I'm not sure why the mixing's so grating/abrasive, but this could be toned down without undermining the sound. This is loud, but texturally this still feels thin. I don't think you need to change the arrangement, but the production/mixing could use another pass with all of the feedback in mind. Really cool source tune choice, and you know I dig your stuff, bsolmaz. Don't be discouraged from resubmitting this one just like you did with the Mega Man 4 piece; you're an extremely capable and talented contributor. NO (resubmit)

2 NOs from a Lucas track, eh? Hmm, proph and MindWanderer are pretty tough; let's see if I agree. I dig the acoustic guitar opening. Synth lead at :28 definitely feels out of place, and the soundscape for this metal section until 1:06 feels both thin and imbalanced; both the guitar and lead synth have energy but lack a depth to the sound. It's not poor, just not ideal. I'm also getting tired of the drums pretty quickly, but they have energy, so I'll live. Change-up of the energy at 1:27 was interesting. The woodwind at 1:35 was panned too far to the right, which was definitely bothering me on headphones; good performance though. The drum rhythm was odd until 2:00, but I wrapped my head around it and it adds character. Yeah, the overall execution isn't the smoothest, but I'm not hearing anything broken about the arrangement, just some production deficiencies and some unorthdox notes/moments that are worth noting. But they don't pull down an otherwise spirited and creative collab to a point where I feel this needs another version. The bar ain't THAT high, this is a pass for me. YES

Really looking forward to hearing this, as I'd never heard of the game or soundtrack before. The way the backing instrumentation was mixed from :42-1:04 was muddy/indistinct, but I'm not sure why. The layered synth leads from 1:03-1:17 were pretty vanilla-sounding. Then from 1:17-1:59, you don't have a good sound to the lead because the levels essentially remain fixed at the same volume throughout AND the timing's too mechanical-sounding. Shifts over to a brass lead at 1:59 that sounds extremely fake and exposed; same with the string synths doubling the melody underneath, so you've got lots of parts in the uncanny valley that also sound relatively thin. Yeah, it's a pretty solid sound palette, especially the backing instrumentation, but the writing doesn't work sounding so robotic like this. As electronic as the original sounds, it doesn't sound so rigid in terms of the timing. I like the tempo, pacing, and overall sound palette, so IMO you don't need to redo the arrangement itself, but humanizing the the timing and employing more layering underneath the leads would help mask some realism issues with these sounds. Very promising stuff, Charles; even if you've moved on from this one, I hope you continue submitting and would love to see you posted on the front page! NO (resubmit)