Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

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

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

If you folks wouldn’t mind, let’s evaluate per normal, but don’t make it public, so we can at least provide our usual feedback. If it’s a pass, we can at least verify that and potentially work with the artist for a fast-tracked replacement.

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.

Hahahaha! As soon as I started the track, I basically only heard music in one ear. Nope, nope; panning's just too wide for headphones. The volume was too low, IMO, and needs to be raised some. There was a noticeable click/pop at 2:02 that would be nice to have fixed as well. Lovely performances, and the source tune usage checked out as over half of the piece (:00-:31, 1:37-2:41), which made that an easy call. It's melodically straightforward but adapted well for the light ensemble instrumentation. The original section from 32-1:37 fit in very comfortably with the source tune before and after, and easily could have been assumed as also having been arranging something from Golden Sun. The transposing of the source from F to G at 2:09 for the final section was a nice touch as well. Don't make the panning so wide, and fix that one click/pop, and raise the volume. Good work otherwise, George. Just tweak this and send it on back if this doesn't make it as is. NO (resubmit)

The arrangement was melodically straightforward, there was just some extended time without usage of the source, but the latter half of the piece was nearly 3 minutes straight of source usage, so there was no issue there. Good rock expansion of the source, with solid dynamic contrast to keep the piece interesting throughout! The mixing got particularly cluttered in the latter half, especially in the build-up to the music's climax at 4:36 and dropoff at 5:11 due to the backing guitars, but in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a huge deal. The overall levels were low, but when I turned up the volume to what would be a normal listening level, the overall mixing was clean enough to get by, so this would just need a volume bump. Nice job, Kalle and Juha! YES (conditional on volume raise) EDIT (10/9): Nice job on the volume raise; now we're cooking! YES

Sounds like the highs from the strings got cut out, I presume for effect, but I wasn't sure about it working well that way. There's an overall flatness to the performance due to the accordion and I think the percussion as well. The bassline writing was good, though indistinct; IMO the part-writing muddied together, and this needs another pass to clean up the soundscape. This was also dynamically flat because you're either cut-and-pasting sections, e.g. :27 vs. 1:11 (only with added strings), or the percussion and bassline part-writing is always using the same patterns with the same intensity. The ending at 2:04 was a wet blanket, as if the track gave up; didn't seem like there was much thought with this resolution. Good potential here, Reuben, as the arrangement approach was creative and interpretive, but this still needs more variation and dynamic contrast, as well as a mixing clean-up. NO (resubmit)

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

Very minor thing, but I thought the tail of the faux geetar at 1:15 should have been longer. Agreed that the bookend section could have done a little something more, but it was another minor thing, and there was some differentiation from the opening. Melodically straightforward, so no stopwatch needed. Cool interpretive arrangement approach, one that would have made me think this source tune was from the Mega Man X/Zero series rather than Lufia II. It even made me want to fire up melody's MMZ4 ReMix, "resolut(-ion)"; guitar soloing was also a nice similarity to that one as well. Nice work, djsynthwave, welcome aboard! YES

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

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

Interesting arrangement approach here; doesn't sound particularly focused, but let's see where it goes. Flute from :18-:26 was pretty shrill, and had other moments like that (1:08). The beats from 1:08-on felt so tame, but I suppose they shouldn't overpower the rest of the instrumentation; but listen to 1:31-1:38, for example, and you hear how muted they are. An odd fit, but I'll live. Not sure what that snap/pop sound at 1:19 was, but it didn't seem intentional. I just ended up sitting back to go on the ride the track took me on. The track's pretty wild, but it's audacious stuff and I love how unorthodox this whole concept is. Any lack of realism in the instrumentation's offset by the strength of the writing, IMO, and the sounds were pretty capably used here regardless. We come to the sticking point though. The track was 4:38-long, so I needed to hear "Slow Moon" referenced for at least 139 seconds for the source tune usage to be dominant in the arrangement. :03-:20, :41.75-:47, :49.5-:55, :56.75-1:22, 1:31-1:35.75, 1:38.75-1:44, 2:00.5-2:07, 2:38-2:45, 2:47.5-2:51.5, 3:06.5-3:12, 3:14-3:20, 3:21.75-3:29.5, 3:33.5-3:40.5, 4:10.75-4:13 = 109 seconds or 39.20% overt source usage As far as I could tell, this arrangement doesn't reference "Slow Moon" enough for the theme to qualify as "dominant" per the Submissions Standards. Unless I'm missing big swathes of references to the source tune, I think this is too liberal of an arrangement. I know the submission letter also mentions being inspired by the source's bassline, but I muted channels in the "Slow Moon" .VGM to listen to just that, and I didn't hear it explicitly referenced anywhere; I only heard bass work that was stylistically similar (and very quiet and subdued, it was worth noting). For those that want to isolate that part in the source, play it with a player supporting in_vgm, mute all of the SN76496 channels, and all but Channel 4 and DAC channel of the YM2612 side. Nice work here, Mathieu, but as far as I can tell, it falls outside of what we can accept, even though this is a very enjoyable, spirited piece regardless. If you could somehow fit in more references to the theme, e.g. sticking more closely to the source tune's bassline, I could get behind this. NO (resubmit)

Production-wise, it was a bit lo-fi and lacked high-end but was otherwise reasonably produced; beats were laying it on thick and had strong bass presence. Agreed with MW and Rexy on the whole. Not a bad instrumental, but it's very very tough to get a piece on OCR that relies so heavily on sampling the original game audio like this does AND stays so repetitive and underdeveloped; it would have to be extremely transformative. Adding on sampled vocal lines could help break up the repetition of the instrumental and create more dynamic contrast. Read over the Arrangement aspect of the Standards again, David, but if you arranged the theme into a hip hop beat and had more variation to it, that would have a fighting chance. Best example relative to yours would be http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03662. NO

This was cluttered and lacking clarity, and I didn't like how the piano line tended to rest in the same frequency range as other parts, and there were low parts that also served to add mud to the soundscape instead of just padding things out. See 2:34-3:08 for one of the worst offenders, e.g. low hum/drone noise, and cluttered textures (mostly from 2:48-3:08). The mixing and placement attempted to give this a spacious feel, but I didn't really feel much of that from the stereo spread. Arrangement was solid and carries this. Another pass at the production/mixing would be ideal, and I'm actually going to ask for another pass at the production/EQing, even though I could see this passing as is. NO (resubmit)

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.