Liontamer

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.

The negatives first. The opening synths felt pretty stiff. The bell riff from the source is actually kept with some quiet, tingly instrumentation in the background, which was a nice touch although the part got buried most of the time (you hear it more audibly from :42-:45, for example, when the drums dropped out). During the chorus (e.g. 1:02-1:27), the vocals were getting pushed behind the instrumental, so the mixing wasn't the best, but it gets by. Not feeling the effects on the vocals from 1:35-2:21; I hear how it's meant to thicken up the vocals, but it was a grating effect IMO, so it could have been shorter in duration. It felt like a really basic/default effect was just put onto the vocals without much work, but that's just my reaction from feeling it wasn't used well. Structurally it was pretty conservative, but that's Alex's pocket, and he does better when he works within that space. He did a good job giving the track a denser and more driving sound, and the vocals further fleshed things out. (I hope Dom and you worked things out; I've generally liked his POV on politics, so he's always cool in my book.) I'm with Gario that the piece isn't as polished and well-mixed as it could be, but it's still solid and the interpretation & beefed up sound were above the line. Keep working on your production, Alex, but the pieces are in place here. YES

The source usage being dominant easily checked out from the primary source tune alone, so there was no need to timestamp this. Good rise in the energy level returning back to the main source after the second theme interlude was done. Not much to say beyond "nice work" in terms of fleshing out these original songs. Nice job to Jorrith and the entire 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.

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.

I don't have my headphones on me at the moment, so I'm not able to size up the differences in the instrumental vs. the source tune, and I'm not hearing the production quality (it's likely solid; trust but verify). That said, there's nothing inherently wrong with this arrangement approach; it keeps the source tune's melody and does something different with the lyrics; it would just be a matter of the instrumental parts standing apart enough from the original. The lyrics being comedic and risque aren't relevant. Other than all that, maybe you can clarify what's making you question it being something that would be "okay" for OCR's standards.

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.

The bassline turned into mud, but de-emphasizing it does help to give this a different character from the original, so I can appreciate the difference. Agreed with MindWanderer on some of the instrumentation feeling stilted; it was mostly the string sustains, but they weren't a big part and didn't stand out in a huge way. By the halfway mark, I was wanting to hear this go in a more different direction with the instrumentation and textures, and that finally came around the 2:30 mark with the next iteration of the chorus. The timing of the bassline felt behind there as well, but no big deal. I'm with MW that this was a conservative take but well-personalized with the instrumentation. Rebecca brings it yet again. Good energy here! YES

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

I second that!

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

Thanks! Should be fixed within the next hour.

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

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

I've been on the panel for nearly 14 years at this point, so I've seen a lot and done a lot to guide this process. I can't vote on everything, so it has happened where I run into a case like this where a track gets rejected and I'm strongly against it. This is one of those times. A word of caution to any current or future Js reading this; provided you really think a submission is good, yet you're thinking the Standards are somehow against it, then the best way to make your case is to refer to and quote the Submissions Standards. That wasn't done here, and it seemed like the initial feelings questioning the dynamics and level of substance led the day, while missing the bigger picture of this arrangement's strengths. Before I get to a vote, let me say that I'll be updating the Judges Panel Wiki/FAQ page to note that we welcome artists telling us if they think we're substantially off-base and appealing a decision, because that's always been our policy even if we haven't spelled that out. If someone gripes in a different way than coming to us, we also will treat that as an appeal, because whenever we're challenged about a decision, we're always willing to revisit it. It doesn't matter whether the artist is calm or upset, and it isn't influenced by whether an artist will submit music in the future. That said, we do take the integrity and consistency of the process seriously. Situations like these can't 100% be avoided, but provided I see another posted ReMixer 3N'ed like this, I'll be more likely to check the track before moving out the decision thread. In this case, the original decision was in 2015, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be reassessed, either due to stubbornness or how much time has elapsed since the decision. --------------------------------------- Onto the track itself... The track was 2:14-long, so I needed to hear the source tune used for at least 67 seconds for the VGM to be dominant within the arrangement. :20-:26, :29-:34, :36-1:07, 1:15-1:21, 1:23.5-1:28, 1:31-1:37, 1:39-1:54, 1:57.5-2:10 = 73.5 seconds or 54.8% overt source usage I'm likely shortchanging it, but I'm just timing it out to establish that I heard the Tornado Man theme in play for most of the performance. My rebuttal to the initial 3 NO votes: This is not too short. This is not too quiet or sparse. This is not lacking dynamics. I'm not sure how labeling this as quiet and sparse is justified; it's a solo piano piece with a pretty normal volume. Arrangement & interpretation-wise, you have a fast & upbeat 8-bit source tune adapted to solo piano, slowed down, switched to 3/4 time, given a genteel presentation with subtle tempo changes and, IMO, strong performance dynamics. The overall dynamic curve of this piece may be narrower, but there are clearly noticeably fuller (e.g. :21, 1:11) and softer sections (e.g. :00, 1:48) that show off this arrangement as an intimate piano performance. How is this piece not substantial enough when it comes to interpretation of the source tune? It's only 2:15-long, but there's 0 repetition as far as the presentation & performance dynamics, and we have plenty of sub-2:30-long arrangements, including 8 in the past 4 years. It could be longer, but it's not underdeveloped; saying it wasn't a substantive enough approach given what in fact was done is not cut-and-dry, so I'm pulling this back to the panel for more votes. I'm not saying anyone has to vote with me; this isn't me trying to browbeat a change in this vote. However, after hearing this piece, I feel like the panel made a mistake with this original vote and that the Standards weren't properly applied, so, once again, I'm flipping a table. While the original votes will stand, I am calling for the current panelists to weigh in, and requesting a full majority vote of 6 YESs or NOs (i.e. 9 current judges, factoring in the votes here of 2 past judges). YES

The mixing was a little cluttered, and there was some dullness to the sound that made it seem like some high-end frequencies got cut somehow, but those were nitpicks about an overall creative, fun, and spirited arrangement. At 2:57, the original writing felt aimless and wasn't melodious, but it didn't necessarily have to be and it did change things up relative to the source tune before going back to it at 3:25. Generally speaking, no meaningful issues here. Rubber stamp. YES

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