Liontamer

OK, I've figured out the issue, solution is here. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7846590 Apple changed the function of the Grouping tags (all the way back in 2017), so now they don't behave the way they used to and cause the confusing display issue. Going forward, I'll keep the Grouping field blank.

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

My fault! Done, and happy to have it corrected.

Perhaps it's just my personal taste, but the sound/synth design still isn't great, IMO, and I think Michael will look back on this one in 5 years and hear a lot more things he could have done with it. The production isn't poor though, and the sound design was definitely improved vs. the previous version. Now with the off-key writing fixed, and the interwoven usage of the various source tunes from before along with a few new source tune nods, this now works works well in terms of the arrangement. Count 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.

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

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

Man, those opening beats sound really hollow; they REALLY don't lend any movement or energy to this. And the way the different lines are mixed sounds really imbalanced. I mean, I know to focus on the melody, but all of the parts seem to be sharing the same frequency range, so nothing really stands out. Pretty melodically conservative piece overall, not really breaking from that path until a little more interpretation starting at 1:44, but the structure's pretty close throughout. It may have been reconstructed from scratch, I don't know, but it feels MIDI-rip-ish, which isn't the best look in terms of having your rendition stand apart as a distinct interpretation of the original. For something that's more of a cover, Robert, you have a decent take on a catchy original, but it lacks sophistication with the drum writing and polish with the mixing. This can't really realize its potential until you get those two things addressed. Consider other aspects of arrangement (key changes, tempo, rhythms) to help your take stand apart even more from the original as well. NO

The beats have good intensity, but the genre adaptation of the source tune itself feels very by-the-numbers. I dug the instrumentation for the post-chorus bridge at 2:09. I liked the chiptune stuff introduced at 1:43 to add some original writing underneath the source melodies, but that also felt like a one-trick pony as the concept was brought back later as a cut-and-paste as the only real supplement underneath the melody at 3:26. Some new writing ideas there would have been better. Beats dropped out at 2:09 only to return at 2:23 and again at 3:14 with exactly the same writing and production as before, which became boring over the long haul. The leads from 3:01-3:14 were behind the beat, so watch that. The track also didn't fade to 0 at the end, so watch for small details like that. Dynamically, this was feeling flatter than intended. Once you get to 1:17, the beats essentially just coast on auto-play with the same patterns and energy, so even when things pick up more towards the finish (3:27, 3:40, 3:54, 4:06) with what's supposed to be escalating intensity, the overall dynamics feel very static as a result. See what you can do to be more interpretive and/or additive and/or more varied with this presentation. Whether it's the melody, the chiptune writing, or the beats, you have areas where more development is possible. Decent base here, but lots of unrealized potential. NO

Definitely co-signing with the fellow musician Js on the off-key stuff referencing "I'm a Spy" (which sounded awful), and then Emunator's comment on the dry synth stacks, which also stood out a lot as well. Good energy otherwise, and some creative weaving the various source themes. IMO, just fix the wrong key for the "I'm a Spy" usage and get those dry synths to not so vanilla, thin, and generic and this would be in more, better shape. Good work so far, Michael, this definitely has a place waiting for you on OCR. NO (resubmit)

Drumming plodded during some simpler sections, but otherwise sounded pretty solid and was a good foundation for the track. Accordion at 1:00 was rigid, and that's not a new criticism from me. I liked Gregory and Eric joining in at 1:22, because the flute was lively and the cello added more depth. Greg and Eric's performances pulled this over the bar in terms of the energy level, and I usually have a problem with the pacing of Reu's similar pieces feeling stilted. I won't make the perfect the enemy of the good here, but I'm waiting for the day when Reuben has that blowaway accordion performance that makes the track come alive; accordion doesn't have to sound stiff. Good stuff all around though with a laid-back version of the source here. YES

Good intensity to open things up; a bit muddy, but seems OK to start. Good build at :34 with the little tick beats. OK, at :45, you have the big rise in volume and things are so flooded until :54; need to double-check the mixing there. I could see others voting NO on a lack of melodic interpretation, but that isn't the end-all-be-all of interpretation. This was structurally conservative but focusing on instrumentation, additive writing, and sound design to provide the personalization, which is a route others have exploited well. The big booming at 2:38 was a bit much. It didn't make sense to go back to the old rhythms back at 2:48 after you briefly had some new ideas; if anything, it seemed like the intensity was ramping up for the finish, but then you decided against it. I didn't think the trade-offs with the beat patterns worked that well, even though they weren't a big negative. Overall, the arrangement's over the line, IMO, but the mixing needs to be tweaked so that the densest sections aren't so muddy and indistinct. Once that's addressed, this would be good to go. I could see others thinking I'm too harsh, and I'm also interested in other POVs on the level of interpretation of arrangement. This one's close, maybe 95% of the way for me, it just needs one more pass at the mixing, and hopefully a musician J can better articulate the lack of clarity I was hearing in the thickest sections. Very nice so far, Billy, I'm really glad I got to hear this. NO (resubmit)

The track was 3:18-long, so I needed to make out the Funky Kong theme for at least 99 seconds for the source material to be considered dominant: :00-:53, :55-1:08, 1:22-1:34.5, 1:36.5-1:39.5, 1:43.75-1:48, 2:03.75-2:15.5, 2:34-2:36, 2:42-2:43, 2:59-3:00 = 101.5 seconds or 51.26% overt source usage There was more in the latter half, but because the uses of the source melody were so low in volume, it was difficult to make out. No worries though, as the point of me timing this out was ensuring the source usage dominated the arrangement, which it did. Arrangement-wise this approach is mostly solid, and I like how you've changed the emphasis on certain parts of the theme along with your instrumentation ideas. I'd argue though that after 2:18, the references to the Funky Kong theme need to stay in play more consistently, otherwise this starts veering away from arranging the VGM, but when I timed things out, you still clearly invoked the theme for more than 50% of the duration of the track, so I'm fine with what's there. BUT, and that's a big "but", the sound is washed out, with the line that came in at :07 sounding really muddy; I liked the intensity at :27, but right from the jump, this mixing's a huge dealbreaker because none of the part-writing is properly separated. Emu also had great point on how there's dryness and clipping that need to be addressed. IMO, the arrangement doesn't need to be touched, and I agree that this needs another pass at the production before we could post this. If you can improve the mixing here, Alexander, this has a spot waiting here for you. I hope you'll take Emunator and Jivemaster's critique in mind, use the Workshop forums here for any further feedback and definitely please resubmit this. NO (resubmit)

I like the arrangement, and it gets it done with no problem as far as the interpretation. Oof, hated the brass from :31-:36 & 1:04-1:26 (not as bad elsewhere); very exposed attacks and no depth/richness to the sound, especially when it's placed so prominently. Beautiful ending section at 2:15. It's a solid arrangement, but the brass samples need a step up. It seems like small potatoes, but it's a sub-3-minute arrangement and I'd argue there was a needlessly big quality disparity in those brass sections. Let's get one more pass at this one to better realize the potential of the writing there. NO (resubmit)

The sustained strings strained for credibility but were serviceable. Maybe I'm just an oldhead, but the arrangement was fine despite being conservative. I'd definitely prefer something more distinct with the instrumentation, but this was a perfectly valid structurally conservative take that relied more on additional part-writing and ornamentation to put more meat on the bones. I don't mind the cases for voting NO, because there's a range of acceptability, but you don't need to reinvent the wheel, just reasonably put your own stamp on it. More could have been done in that respect, yes, but I still feel enough was done. YES (borderline)

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.

AFAIK, it did not have any album projects.