Liontamer

Link Download link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/srq5vx7or6vkfra/Ducks%20in%20Space.mp3?dl=0 Contact Information Your ReMixer name: overflow Your real name: Sebastien Skaf Your email address: sebastienskaf@gmail.com Your website: http://sebastienskaf.bandcamp.com/ Your userid: 23598 Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged: Duck Tales Name of arrangement: Ducks in Space Name of individual song(s) arranged: The Moon Link to the original soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_80PQ543rM Source Usage I almost couldn't have picked a more overdone song, but it's just so fun. I was pretty conservative in terms of source usage in this one, I arranged it in a synth rock/dnb style with guitars & synth leads & a healthy amount of drum breaks. There is a guitar solo midway through to add some variety, but beyond that it's essentially the same tune everyone knows. Personally, I've been known for writing primarily soft piano music (and my first 2 OCR submissions represent this), but I've taken the last couple years to branch out and practise my production. I'm still fairly new to this type of music but hopefully I've made something palatable. Thanks!

Is it just me or is the production a dealbreaker here? The arrangement's all sorts of great, but I'm getting a lot of mud and clutter, with the cymbals taking up a lot of frequencies and splashing all over :00-1:04, 1:29-1:39, and 1:50-2:10. A musician J can better speak to what's going wrong, but this was too loud and the cymbals are obscuring other more important parts. 2:00 sounded like a cut-and-paste of the bridge and chorus from the beginning section, then 2:27 sounded like another cut-and-paste of the very start, albeit briefly. A track this short really shouldn't be having anything that sounds like an extended cut-and-paste, even if the arrangement is interpretive like this. Nice new arranged section idea for the close from 2:43; you can hear a lot of crackling/distortion particularly from 2:53-3:02, then a weird last note by a synth string that didn't make sense. Tighten up these smaller details, you should be more mindful of things like this. Rein in the cymbals, tweak the cut-and-paste sections to differentiate them from one another somehow, and eliminate the crackling and messed up string decay for the final section. Good base here, Paul! NO (resubmit)

ReMixer name: MysticGTR Real name: Paul McKenna Email address: Website: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrYAyT0qYzePfmeTMM6qkEQ User ID number: 35604 Street Fighter Ken's Theme Inspired by my love of video games, metal music, guitar and Andrew Aversa's work. YouTube link to the guitar video I made to accompany the audio: I hope I've done this right, I'm new to the website and this is my first submission. Thank you for taking the time to review my track! ^^

The accordion timing feels stilted and doesn't really lock together with the guitar and bassline timing. It's not awful, but the way the parts come together don't have synergy, moreso when the sequenced percussion arrived in the background from 1:49-2:34. After 2:34, the accordion performance still feels sluggish and the backing percussion felt very basic and repetitive. The bassline and electric guitar supporting writing both sounded good though. The percussion and accordion timing sounding stiff ultimately hold this back from sounding cohesive, IMO; that may not bother other Js as much, but it prevents the parts of this track from truly coming together when this was an otherwise promising arrangement that went well in the right direction. I believe this needs to be tightened up before we should post it. NO (resubmit)

Contact Information ReMixer name : Reuben6 Real Name : Reuben Spiers E-mail: Submission Information Game: Pokémon Trading Card Game Name of Arrangement: Oaks and Bills Name of Original Song: Normal Battle

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

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

Success! I was able to reach Monster Iestyn at the Sonic Robo Blast 2 Discord channel today and get his OK to be co-credited for the mix, so the recall vote is a moot point. I've got the file on the site updated and the proper credit added in the database. Sorry for the holdup, folks, and thanks to both artists for being accommodating!

Forgot to follow up on this, but did so yesterday after posting GCJ's JSR mix jogged my memory. Based on the below, I'll attempt to contact the MIDI creator, Monster Iestyn, to see if they'll accept a co-credit. I've reached out on a Discord they use; will update this later with a response. If they'd rather the track were taken down in light of this, we'll have to honor that.

The production isn't how I'd do it, and I could see others rejecting on those lines, but I can make out the parts and nothing's majorly broken, just not ideal. Arrangement-wise, I dug it; pretty experimental new age stuff here. I get MindWanderer's point about the droning bass, but it didn't bother me and there's enough evolving the with soundscape behind the vocals. Light pops at 1:05, 1:07, 1:19, and 1:27; probably other spots I didn't point out; not sure what you can do there, but fix those if possible. It does sound pretty lossy. If the muddy vocals handling the "Song of Healing" melody transitioned into something clearer later as a form of contrast, that would have been better (or at least a way to vary up the vocal production some). As is, the instrumental sounds clear while the vocals sound muddy, so it makes it feel like the two don't really share the same soundscape. Would have liked to have heard more variety with the vocal performance; 3 verses and the performance/tone was the exact same for all 3; even with the soundscape morphing around in the background, it makes the vocals feel static and repetitive in their delivery. That said, my criticisms aren't major negatives to me, just some things I'm questioning while recognizing the overall creativity, uniqueness, and novelty of this arrangement. Cool stuff, Rebecca! See if you can determine the source of the light pops to remove those and boost the volume, but I've got no issue passing this. YES

Oof, ProJared. What we've learned about ProJared since this submission came in... Oof. Fuck that guy. Moving on... The opening at :18 after the sampled section sounded like a MIDI-rip, so I was waiting for things to get more interpretive, which arrived with :35's melody on top of the backing writing of the original. Back to the theme cover at 1:06, again, VERY straightforward and not meaningfully different in presentation & tone than the original. Changeup at 1:26 to the Village theme, but trying to make it more jaunty like the Dr. Wright theme; the transition at 1:22 seemed pretty sudden and not smooth enough, but we'll live and move on. Good comping-style approach from 1:50-2:07 over the backing writing of the source, but it was short. 2:07 essentially sounded like a cut-and-paste of :51's section, so not much development there beyond a rehash. I'll be honest, the arrangement doesn't excite me too much, but it's meant to be light and low-key, so I can get behind that. Most of the interpretive value comes from adapting the Village theme to the tone of the Dr. Wright theme. Back to the Dr. Wright theme at 2:39, and AGAIN it's very cover-ish and super straightforward just like :18 and 1:06. Some light additive comping over the top of the theme from 2:55-3:18; where was that before? Regardless, that was very short as well before going to the sampled audio for the close. What's holding me back on this is that the Dr. Wright sections are EXTREMELY straightforward and just retain the overall tone, instrumentation, and presentation of the source tune, so those sections just don't do enough to differentiate themselves from the source. Not much coloring outside of the lines there, and the Village sections and sprinkles of additive writing during the Dr. Wright sections don't present enough interpretation to pass the arrangement bar, IMO. It's a decent base, Toby, but even just changing the instrumentation of the Dr. Wright sections would help this stand apart more from the original. Can't get behind this yet. NO (resubmit)

I thought this went well in the right direction in terms of the arrangement, but the execution's not tight or reasonably polished, which I'm surprised to say on Reuben's work. Though nasally, the vocals aren't the worst, BUT they lack strength and get strained & pitchy at points; some chorusing, further effects beside the delay/thickening, or additional takes could have benefited this. Back when he started, djpretzel's vocals were brutal; there's more effects on this than his old stuff, but they're still very exposed. The instrumental backing was sparse, which wasn't inherently bad, but the mechanical timing of the sequenced drumkit was extremely exposed, and you're left with obvious moments where the timing between the vocals and drums is slightly but noticeably off (e.g. you hear a half-beat drop out of nowhere at :41), as well as spots where the tone of the kit sounds really fake (e.g. :48, 1:19-1:21). The accordion timing also sounded really stilted, even though it sounded live or played in live. Whether it's the guitar or the accordion, neither instrument gels with the drum timing, the combinations just aren't smooth. With the thin textures and the mechanical timing of the drums, the pacing's sluggish and stilted, which undermines the relaxing vibe that's part of this concept. To me it needs another pass to tighten things up; as a WIP to demonstrate proof of concept, I'd get it, but not as a final cut. In any case, don't be discouraged by the criticism of the vocals or performances; let's get another pass at tightening up an otherwise fine arrangement. NO (resubmit)

Excellent personalization per Rebecca's usual arrangement approaches. Some of the lower string sequencing strained for credibility during brief moments, but it wasn't anything that stood out in a huge way, just something small I noticed. Nothing but love here. YES

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

Beautiful arrangement work per Rebecca's usual. The theme's constantly in play from :01-2:46, and the melody/chorus leads were there until 2:13, so MindWanderer's breakdown doesn't make sense in any context, and I'm not sure where his timestamping came from. We don't have a rule that the melody must be in play, just that references to the source material need to be identifiable; for me, as long as they're explicit connections, you can reference a melody, a countermelody, a rhythm, a drum pattern, a droning line, whatever. If a chord progression is explicitly used, I'm OK with referencing that. It's when an overly simplified and implicit chord progression is used that I start to not count that stuff. I didn't have any issues with Rebecca's source usage, and a NO on that level is a mistake. The final section after 2:46 was an extended breakdown and did meander, but it's totally musical and I didn't have any problem with it from a writing perspective. Let's go! YES

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

Not to minimize the presentation here, but this was a nice, straightforward example of holding fairly fast to the melodies of the original but personalizing the instrumentation. Dug it all the way, and Ben's theme is such a great base to work from. Nice job giving this your own spin, Mike! 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.

Rubber stamp so I can move on, but this is excellent. Great energy throughout, and I like following the bassline. The string work was also excellent whether lead or supporting lines. Loved the progressive style of the arrangement. Glad to finally have you officially posted, Lucas; nice work pulling together your team! 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.