Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

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

There's a 7-note pattern looped in this mix that 311 briefly used in "Prisoner" for a hot second (1:18-1:21), but is that a common reggae riff in the genre? Could it be a potential Standards issue if it was? ------------------------------------------ Liontamer - if anyone's really familiar with reggae, had a quick question on a riff used a lot in this mix; just want to be sure it's not somehow a case where you could argue there's big usage of "non-VGM" as a source tune; for @djpretzel too, if you have any opinion Rexy- He said he took inspiration from 2 riddims; gonna bring up some reading material Hot milk - http://www.dub-stuy.com/riddimology-20-crucial-versions-of-the-hot-milk-riddim Stalag - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_riddim I’ll go close and see how it relates in use to that one track posted in the thread Liontamer - Thanks for looking Rexy - Okay, that clip in the song you linked used a Stalag riddim - characterised by that 7 note riff https://youtu.be/td1kmHIYv2Y According to Wikipedia, that riff has been around for nearly 70 years Liontamer - Thanks; yeah, I knew I'd heard that rhythm before, so I knew it had some sort of history; I guess I'll look to Dave for Standards guidance djpretzel - ya I mean, reggae has a lot of reused patterns, not surprising listening now, I'd say fine reggae, blues, you've got a ton of common progressions/patterns, gotta allow those or the genres go out the window cool mix

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.

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.

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