Liontamer

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

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

Finally achieved 10,000,000 points yesterday. All for a good cause!

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.

One of my finest moments.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness on this info and I'll answer this as best as I can. 1. Have at it. 2. We need to get those added back on the live site, and they are indeed part of the catalog. djp needs to either find the old writeups or just put in some new ones if the original ones are lost to time. 3. That's more of a question for the MusicBrainz community. We use straight quotation marks, but the style on MB doesn't matter to us. Keeping this consistant across many entries is a huge pain, but hopefully something can be scripted. 4. What DarkeSword said is correct. That said, I don't mind the "ReMoved" designation. It's not a naming convention that was official from OCR, sure, but it's a logical fan-made styling for pieces that were previously part of the catalog, and I understand the desire to track that (I have every "ReMoved" track myself). 5. The implication there is that the track in question was somehow stolen, which it wasn't. It was posted, but then we discovered that the source tune originated from a Pokemon anime score rather than the game it was referenced from, so the source tune was deemed ineligible for an OC ReMix. It could be called "ReMoved", sure. If it were a case of literally stealing material w/o attribution (which we've had before in the very early days), then it wouldn't merit an entry. 6. Have at it, and we're just honored that @CyberSkulland others give their time to ensure everything is cataloged!

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.

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