Liontamer

Dynamically, this was relatively flat, because the textures were so thin, with the beats feeling particularly empty. Big re-build at 2:07 into... more of the same stuff at 2:34 at the same intensity as before at 1:14? What the hell? Yeah, disappointing. There was subtle melodic doubling going on, and a tiny bit more to the textures, but it wasn't a meaningful difference. Beautiful wind-down for the last few seconds at 3:28 though. Flesh out the textures and/or beats more so the track doesn't feel empty overall, and develop or vary the arrangement further for the last minute-and-a-half, and this would be a lot more solid in terms of the overall level of development. Solid base here though. NO (resubmit)

Not to be glib, but this was par for the course with Guillaume, i.e. good orchestration with some sounds in the uncanny valley, but ultimately above our bar. The arrangement felt a little by the numbers melodically, but the supporting writing had subtle differences alongside the different tone of the melodies to help distinguish this from the originals. The brass at its fullest seemed to crowd out other parts, and there were other moments where the textures washed together, but it wasn't enough to hold this back. Mastered too quietly, so I'd like to hear a louder version before we posted it, but when I turned up the volume, the overall mixing seemed good aside from some spots of mud during the fullest parts. YES (conditional on higher volume)

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

Really smart arranging, and nailed the psychedelic rock vibe; loved the sound here. Nice work using a lot of comping, but always keeping the backing patterns of the original, particularly the rising countermelody, to keep the arrangement grounded in the source most of the time. The piercing frequency did stick out but wasn't a factor for me for more than a few seconds, BUT... it would be nice to eliminate that, so I'll also ask for a fix before we post it for that reason. Otherwise, incredible stuff, Lucas, Jared & Grant! YES (conditional) EDIT (8/15): The tweaked version eliminates those piercing frequencies, so I'm fully on board. Thanks, Lucas! YES

The stereo panning's too wide onto the right side. I only realized it once the intro finished at :22 and you heard the beats come in, but it's actually a problem from the very start. I wasn't hearing anything where I was worrying about overcompression, though 1:47-1:58 was crowded. While the core snare beats had some snap to them, I actually though that part sounded lackluster and needed to be even denser/more impactful-sounding AND more varied with the patterns. Arrangement-wise, no issues here though. We just need to the get the mixing/balance addressed, so until then, it's a NO, but just waiting for the tweaks to be turned around into a YES. Nice work so far, Adam!

Cool theme choice, Christopher; maybe they'll make Mighty No. 10 and have a hit game down the line. Very quiet mixing; you'll need to bump the volume up some. The arrangement for the first minute was essentially a quieter, less impactful, super straightforward cover of the source tune with slightly different beats, but basically the same tone. Not much here to distinguish it from the original. I did like the bassline tone, and if you turn the volume up, the instrumentation's pleasant. Hiss got introduced at :42 and lasted all the way until 1:52, though I'm not sure what it was tied to; figure out what part is responsible. Not sure what was going on with the writing/comping from :56-1:24, followed by some glitching/stuttering effects from 1:24-1:53; in a vacuum, there's aren't inherently bad writing ideas, but there's no direction or flow to this at all. Chorus arrived at 2:07, again super soft, with very thin textures and a very lackluster ending. It's like a sandwich of cover-original writing-cover that doesn't flow. Rexy's correct that the sections arranging the Mighty No. 9 theme are way too straightforward and by the numbers for the arrangement/interpretation standards here. You'll have to do more with that, and also give more direction to your original sections. NO

Really good potential here. The main thing holding this back was stuff like the bowed strings and brass having silted timing. It immediately stood out, and so I have to also piggyback on what Sir_NutS said, especially because the issue immediately stood without without having read the other votes first. The second verse at 1:44 sounded at about the same energy level as :31; even though there was more going on, the levels, textures, and writing felt so relatively similar that the contrast doesn't register as much as it should. I think you could probably reduce the impact and bombasticness of the first section to give more oomph to the second iteration, but it's more of an example of a way to create more dynamic contrast, not a recommendation that you employ that specific idea. Otherwise, the arrangement was generally on point and shows off a lot of potential, Alex! Tweak it further and send it on back, it's well in the right direction. NO (resubmit)

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

What's this doing here? Git. YES

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

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

The drill SFX cut out abruptly at :36, so watch for sloppy detail work like that. The acoustic guitar handling the "Fear Factory" was nice, and the banjo at :51 brought a smile to my face as soon as it dropped in; very cool idea. There were some minor mixing tweaks that could have been made for a better balance among the parts, but it was a minor thing in the big picture. For example, the backing string line at 1:05 was too loud relative to the banjo, IMO, but that's just a personal taste thing going on; you can also make the case that you just want that string line to stand out more. Vox and electric guitar arrived at 1:26 for the chorus; very cool instrumentation ideas that are disparate and unorthodox, but ultimately click very well. It was around this point that I also noticed how well the bassline functioned as well. 2:13 included some original string writing loosely derived from the source tune to help vary things up. Dug the vox hitting some sustained notes at 3:14 for a nice bit of dynamic contrast. Easily Reuben's best concept piece; a hugely interpretive and personalized sound, a very varied sound palette that came together nicely, and good performances by the collaborators. Never thought I'd hear "Fear Factory" like this. Again, every time you think "this is a cliched source tune choice", people in the VGM arrangement community make you realize there are so many different and creative ways to approach an interpretation. Nice work, Reuben, Natalya, and Sean! YES

Besides the mixing losing some of the high-end and muddying the textures up, this was well performed. However, like the others have said, it's structured like a medley with no meaningful transitions or cohesiveness in the writing/arrangement between the themes. Some good OCR rock medley examples are here: https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01341 https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01515 https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03268 https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03871 Great energy here, Alex and Deep, we just only accept medleys structured to flow like one overall composition. NO

Italo disco, orchestral, same difference.

If you get posted, Nick, keep on submitting stuff. Props either way for having a goal in mind and reaching for it. The arrangement's nicely personalized, so that part was easy enough to discern. Piano sequencing was super rigid/robotic from :53-1:12, but that issue was sidestepped once the plucked leads arrived after 1:13. The piano sequencing fakeness was less of an issue but still one from 2:21-2:42 headed towards the finish. From :53-onward, there's was a pretty pervasive buzzing/distortion effect going on here, and the soundscape very obviously lacked high-end clarity. I'm not sure the production could be tweaked to get this over the line like a typical conditional YES, and I know I'm definitely not in that camp. If you can refine the mixing and also spruce up (or mitigate) the piano sample, I'm on board, Nick. Very nice arrangement that just need some production TLC. NO (resubmit)

I thought the writing of the harp lines arranging Re:Zero should have been altered more, otherwise it sounds like a pretty 1-for-1 adaptation of that writing, which was making it more of a Standards issue of incorporating non-VGM arrangement. Why did the piano have such a drastic drop in volume when it showed up at 3:05? That was an issue long with the big quality disparity in the realism/humanization of that part compared to everything else; let's make sure the 3:05-3:59 section doesn't sound so thin, quiet, and mechanical compared to the rest of the track. The woodwind sequencing also didn't sound as humanized as it could have, but the tone was much better and more realistic than the piano; if you can get the piano at least sounding as capable as the woodwinds, we're having more of a conversation. I like this as a concept piece, the orchestration is beautiful for the most past, and I still need to time it out for source tune usage, but until the harp line and piano quality are addressed, I'm a NO for now. Super strong foundation here, Jeremy, that just needs some production improvements for that one section, and if I'm wrong on the harp line being so close, I await correction. NO (resubmit)

Opened up with some very flat, basic-sounding synths, but we'll see where it goes. Lead at :19 was super flimsy and all of the parts had very basic effects on them; some decent personality to the sounds, but the lines were very thin and the timing was stilted. Picked up more at :59 during the chorus, filling out the soundscape more thanks to the beat, before dropping out the padding/countermelodic stuff (very abruptly at 1:17). It didn't make any sense for instruments to drop out without some sort of fade in this context. Back to the verse with a cut-and-paste repeat at 1:18, only with some more beatwork behind it and an original countermelodic line added at 1:37; the claps and stuttering tick-tick-tick lines were just too sparse, with only light delay effects giving this any body/density at all. Filled out more again with another chorus at 1:56. Another original line was added in at 2:16 along with some cliched trap "AY!" shouts (which later come back at 3:32). Sudden key change at 2:53, with the soundscape getting very murky and indistinct around 3:03. The sustaining string synth lines didn't sound natural at all, so be careful with how you program them to sound. There a good deal of effort given to weaving in original composition alongside the source tune arrangement, so that was a huge positive by Matt and Kerry. But the instrumentation and textures weren't sophisticated; even the densest sections didn't have much richness to them, and when you went into more complex textures at 3:03, the parts mushed together. Based on how this is written, it needs more impactful-sounding everything; that's the crux of this. Once this doesn't sound thin, flat, stilted, and repetitive, the character and creativity of the writing and arrangement will show through more. NO

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

Nice re-instrumentation, beautiful, varied textures, and good expansion of the part-writing behind the melody. Lovely work per your usual, Rebecca! YES

Just noting, I didn't mind that change to create dynamic contrast in and of itself, I just though it wasn't smoothly timed, unlike the 4:04-4:18 section where it went back to the technique but with timing that didn't seem slightly out of step.

Really dug the original intro; great fade in and a nice, rich sound. Beats at :31 felt underwhelming though, so I'm hoping it goes somewhere else. OK, cool layering and countermelodic stuff from the source tune at :46. This is playing things by the numbers in terms of being a straightforward genre adaptation, but we'll see where it goes. Back to the cool original writing at 1:25, followed by another new original section from 1:41-2:24. The way the beat here had almost a semi-stuttering type cadence seemed to interrupt the flow of the track, IMO. By this time, the track was also starting to feel sluggish. Played a little with some different ideas via a dropoff before renewing the theme at 2:46, which essentially sounded like a cut-and-paste of :46's section. This track needed to develop or vary more significantly, otherwise it doesn't really justify the length. Then 4:03 was basically and cut-and-paste of 1:25's section before winding it down for the finish. The tempo dragged on after the halfway point; more instrumental textural variation would help this not get too stale, especially if you don't intend to vary the writing itself, though I'd recommend that too. MindWanderer's correct in that it's ultimately a very static presentation. Good start here, Glenn, with tons of potential, but please vary this up further. Production-wise, this was nicely mixed and balanced, so props for a great job there. NO (resubmit)

Very intriguing opening with a nice build into the beats arriving at :21. Theme arrived at :35 with a rhythmic change along with a cool phasing effect on the notes. The mixing's somewhat trebly/sharp, but it's nothing really dinging the track, and I could easily make out all of the parts; I'd much rather have things be sharp than lossy-sounding. The way the beats shifted from 2:15-2:31, I felt the change-up didn't flow with the rest of the writing, but it was a brief bump in the road and was at least executed more smoothly from 4:04-4:18. Great use of stereo, effects, and textural variations to help put a very personalized arrangement stamp on this. Wow, very nice work, Jari, I love it! YES

There was clipping/distortion from :49-:50 that would need to be fixed before this was posted. Aside from the drums, the opening orchestration sounded very flimsy, particularly the brass. The sample quality seemed serviceable but there was a stiff quality to nearly all of the instrumentation and this didn't sound as expressive as it could have. Perhaps my production bar's too high here, so I'd like to hear from other Js on whether they felt the way the samples were used here was solid enough. Since I'm not able to better articulate my reservations, I'll reserve a vote until some other opinions come in. EDIT (10/15): Yeah, just taking some time away from this and revisiting it, this is solid enough orchestral writing, but, boy, if that intro doesn't prove the instrumentation has no body. Very stilted timing. The samples themselves are serviceable, but it neither sounds polished to Rebecca's usual standard nor OCR's. NO

Great source tune choice; even though BoF5 is my favorite soundtrack in the series by a mile, I've been a fan of this source tune ever since Mattias first arranged it for OCR. The arrangement was conservative but personalized per Rebecca's usual skills, and was a relaxing listen. I did however have an issue with the production quality. There was a noticeable lack of humanization in the note-to-note movements and decays of the male choir vox first used quietly at 1:23, then louder at 1:57. The bowed string articulations also stuck out to a lesser degree, e.g. 2:28-2:51. The production's well in the right direction, so I wouldn't fault others for being more permissive and going YES, but IMO, these are such central elements to the track and so integral to the textures, because there's not too much else going on, so this needs another bit of polish and realism before I can get behind it. Good base here though; the arrangement doesn't need to be changed, just some improvements with the sequencing/humanization. NO (resubmit)

Keeping it brief in following up Gario's vote. The arrangement concept, compositional dynamics, and the level of interpretation were solid, Danilo. Gotta agree with Gario though; the sequencing was very mechanical/unrealistic-sounding, and you had crowded moments. For an organ, not as big of a deal; for strings & winds, much bigger deal. Organ was very clearly off-key from :43-49, and again from 2:21-2:23. Flute from 2:34-2:37 was off-key as well. Not much of a resolution to the ending, which felt very abrupt. Humanize the instrumentation and watch for the brief off-key moments. You can also clean up the textures and fashion a genuine ending, but those are more in the nice-to-have category. NO (resubmit)