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.

Not my cup of tea, but this is definitely well-made. DragonAvenger nailed it on the need for this to let up at some point, but I'm in her camp where you recognize that but can still look beyond it at the overall arrangement and presentation. No need to be so negative on yourself, Mak. I'm glad you didn't let your own POV on this piece prevent you from submitting it. YES

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.

https://makeupandvanityset.bandcamp.com/album/heart-of-batman

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.

So I was working in the inbox this morning and saw an unhappy resubmission from Lashmush (resubmission comments added into the OP). I hadn't voted on this one, so I wanted to check it out. We never mind checking things again if the artist has complaints on the feedback. I don't agree on tracks being passed by the "inner circle" being the "usual fare", but I appreciate you being candid! I linked the version the panel originally voted on as well as a remastered version that was sent as a resub. I didn't really hear any significant difference between the remastered version and the first one, so I'm just voting off of the original version. BTW, I'm voting on my trusty Sennheiser HD 497s. (Thanks, GrayLightning!) This was a very aggressive yet expansive arrangement that I dug. Great source tune choice and this is beefed up nicely. I definitely understand where the others are coming from on how this was mixed, e.g. :31-1:08, and then 1:28-1:47 with the machine gun drums. Genre staple of production or not, I'd argue the bass creates some mud and obscures the other instrumentation, and that's what other judges hinged on. We certainly don't require crystalline clarity, but I could see dinging it for that reason. That said, that area (:31-1:08) actually didn't bother me, and I felt like it added a kind of rumbling, unsettling undertone with a kind of a surrounding effect that added texture. I didn't agree that the mixing was a dealbreaker and I could make out the instrumentation enough; less so from 1:28-1:47, but IMO things were fine from :31-1:08 and I could make out the critical partwriting just fine. 3:26-3:45 had the bass crowding as well (but, again, it was fine for me), then 3:45-4:03 was another run of machine gun drums towards the finish. I thought the machine gun drums were too heavy, but at the same time, nothing was distorted, so I can get over it. The mixing was super strong for the entire rest of the track, and I'm not feeling like that problem sections pointed out by the others were a significant enough issue, subjective or otherwise, to hold this back. From the sound of it, Rasmus would like the NO votes to offer some further feedback; to some extent, I feel he's right about this not being given a fair shake, inasmuch as there happened to be another judge (me) who didn't feel this was a NO who just hadn't voted. So I'll move this back into the judging queue and add my YES, which splits the vote and re-opens discussion. It's not a table flip, but at the very least, I thought this mixing wasn't ideal, but also doesn't hold it back. Let's get some more votes and see if anyone has further thoughts. YES

I really dug the opening sound and build with the Castlevania 64 focus before the shift into Symphony of the Night. Nice grime underneath the main SotN source melody at 1:25; love the textures. The beat from 1:56-2:10 sounded too treble-heavy, and was crowding out other sounds, but didn't last long. Really enjoying the energy throughout; Andrew just has it clicking all the way through so far with a beefed up sound and lots of additive supporting writing to give the sources a different, more club style. More great grimey sound underneath the piece from 3:21-3:36 coupled with the organ. 3:35-4:40 did rinse and repeat 1:25-2:28 (booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo); the subtle countermelodic stuff going on underneath totally faked me out and made me think it was a slightly different variation at first. The piece was already interpretive enough and structurally varied enough without the copy-pasta, so IMO that doesn't drag it down to a NO, but it was disappointing that some sort of variations weren't employed to keep the closing section from being such a retread. What a horrible night to have a copy-pasta curse... YES

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

Message me a copy of the 160kbps version, if you have it.

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.

I get the problem with the accordion, but it's not a dealbreaker at all for me, and the presentation's cohesively rocked out. Let's go! YES

I love the piece in a vacuum. It's jazzy, it's tightly performed, the treatment of the source tunes (which are variations of the same song) was creative, and I didn't have any problem with the mixing or levels. But I was coming up just a little source-light in terms of identifying where the source tunes were referenced in the arrangement. The track was 5:11-long, so I needed to identify references to the sources for at least 155.5 seconds of the arrangement for the source material to be dominant. :23-:58, 1:01-1:05.5, 1:07.25-1:38.5, 1:48-2:11, 3:36.5-3:59.5, 4:02.5-4:20, 4:26.25-4:44.75 = 152.75 seconds or 49.11% overt source usage. If another judge can point out some source usage I'm overlooking, then please let me know. Since my breakdown is so close, I'll leave it at not making a call yet, but I need >50% for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement, otherwise it's a NO from me. EDIT (10/24): I'll also count :19.25-:21.5 for the 4-notes having a different rhythm as the 4-note patterns in the melody (e.g. :06-:11 of "Ice Mountain"), and 1:41.5-1:43.5 having the final 2 notes from a 4-note pattern (e.g. :08-:11 of "Ice Mountain"). That pushes it up to 157 seconds or 50.48% overt source usage. OK, count me in. YES (borderline)