Chimpazilla

Remixer: Chimpazilla Game: Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass Themes remixed: Island Life, File Select Name of arrangement: Let Me Be Your Love --------------------------------------------------------------- I still love Phantom Hourglass after all these years, and I play it often. It is like a light version of Wind Waker; it plays on the Nintendo DS and it has a very special feel as the adventure takes place across islands on a vast ocean. I have always loved the Island Life theme in the game. The song plays during the scene when the whole group is on the beach and Ciela rediscovers her lost memories. Ciela is the primary fairy who accompanies Link through the adventure, although two additional fairies join the party during the story. The Island Life theme is essentially the countermelody in the traditional Fairy Fountain theme, with just a bassline added. While almost every Zelda game features the Fairy Fountain theme, Phantom Hourglass has no actual fairy fountains. The Fairy Fountain theme is used instead as the File Select theme, and it appears again in its simplified form as Island Life during Ciela's memory-restoring scene. As for my remix, I started out with no expectations, I simply enjoyed playing around with the motifs and beats. I felt very inspired and the mix came together in just a few days. The end result of my endeavor is a very upbeat Summer House mix with happy, lovey vocals. Hope it makes you smile! --------------------------------------------------------------- Written, arranged, produced, mixed and mastered by Chimpazilla. Vocal collaborators: Mr. S. Plice, and his lovely wife Ms. V. Ocaloops-Plice --------------------------------------------------------------- Source use: (219/276 seconds, 79% source) 0:00-0:07 Original intro 0:08-0:21 Bassline from Island Life (0:00-0:04 in source) 0:23-0:53 Main motif from File Select 0:54-1:24 Lead from Island Life (aka countermelody in File Select) 1:25-1:39 Bassline from Island Life 1:40-2:10 Original 2:11-2:15 Main motif from File Select 2:18-2:23 Main motif from File Select 2:26-2:56 Original lead solo over main motif from File Select 2:57-4:30 Main motif from File Select

The distorted kicks are purposeful and I love these kicks but they are not meant to hit this hard in a mix, they are too loud and as a result they sound like they are overcompressed. Just turn them down. In addition, and especially since you'll be turning the kicks down, I suggest some pretty heavy sidechaining at the very least on your bass and piano. Those kicks will sound superb in a nicely-sidechained soundscape. (I sidechain every element in my mixes in varying amounts, for mixing clarity purposes as well as to add groove) Fadeout ending, boo! Not a dealbreaker, but fadeouts always disappoint me. I prefer some sort of resolution to an arrangement. I love this concept, what a great vibe and feel. Larry is right though, the overall arrangement is too repetitive with the straight copypasta. Make some changes in the second half, either a different groove, instrument changes, some varied writing, additional this or that, etc. to set the sections apart from each other and keep the arrangement interesting and fresh. I really hope to hear this again with those changes, because it is a really nice beat, but as a standalone track for OCR it needs more variation. Do eet! NO (resubmit: add more variation, lower kick volume, do some sidechaining plz)

I love this source tune so much and I have heard it done in many different ways. I love the ambient idea for this mix. The primary lead sound is luscious, but it doesn't sound good when it is used to play the lower notes. That patch is absolutely howling at 300Hz; it was very loud after 1:10. Find another timbre to play the lower octave, along with your other synth playing the higher one. I suggest adding a proper bassline. The drums are way too simplistic and not mixed well. The arrangement and instrumentation are too simplistic overall. However, this is a creative start and a good concept! Everyone starts somewhere. Welcome to OCR. I suggest taking this to our wip forum for further mixing and arrangement help. NO

What an awesome concept! The theme is well represented here, plus some brief cameos from the OG Zelda theme, great idea! I like the instrumentation generally, the drums and bass sound good, backing synth arps and sfx also sound very good. The leads are a weak point in my opinion, they don't do much, no filter movement or anything interesting. The arrangement feels very stagnant once it gets started, as the heavy bass and beat never change throughout the entire piece with the exception of a couple of two-second breaks. There is a transition that feels extremely awkward, it appears twice, at 1:22 and again at 2:32. In the source tune, that transition happens in two beats, but in this arrangement it stretches over four beats and is preceded by a very awkward one-beat pause. The sections of this track seem to be repeated verbatim with no writing, drumbeat/groove or instrument changes and that's too much repetition for me. In addition, this arrangement really needs at least one lengthy breakdown to cool down the energy, 20-30 seconds would get the job done. The mixing sounds adequate to me, although the primary lead timbre has most of its highs panned right, either that or my left ear is failing me. Mastering seems fine. I love this theme and this remix concept, but more arrangement work needs to be done to keep it interesting. NO (resubmit)

Seamless mixing of these two themes. Performances are stellar, everything is super cohesive and emotive, mixing is perfection, mastering is appropriate. So many bells, metals, and delicate textures floating in and out of this soundscape, this is beyond lovely. Really nice work! YES

Stellar arrangement! I see how Larry feels the arrangement carries it. But wow this is a dense, crowded mix. Way too many elements in the same frequency range, all competing for position in the soundscape too. The buzzy synth guitar just adds a sheen of distortion over an already flat-sounding, overcrowded mix. I also feel like quite often, the patches used to play fast lines are not keeping up as their attacks are just a bit too slow, making the fast writing feel awkward. The soundscape never changes as the arrangement moves along, the energy and instrumentation don't change, so it feels repetitive and sonically fatiguing. There are so many awesome sounds in this mix, and the writing is great! But the result is a flat/muddy/indistinct relentless wall of sound. The mastering is heavy-handed too, but I think the majority of the issues are on the mixing side. I also agree strongly with Brad that the kick should never be hard panned to either side. I'm not a fan of hard-panning of anything really, but the kick, man that's unforgivable! At a minimum there needs to be some detailed EQ work to separate the instruments from each other. Great arrangement.... but needs to be cleaned up. NO (resubmit)

I really like this interpretation of this source! For me this has more of a nu-disco flavor than any other genre, but it's super creative and fun. The synth guitar sounds good but it is mixed so thin. Likewise the keys solo at 4:07 sounds way too quiet and it is mixed to be so thin. That solo should be loud and proud, it's great! I love the backing funk organ, also mixed too thin. The synth starting at 4:37 is SOOOO thin. It feels like many of these timbres have had too much low end cut off and they lose their fundamental frequencies. By contrast, when the brass plays, it is LOOOOOOUD. At 1:08, the brass and strings combo at that point is ridiculously loud by comparison to the rest of the soundscape, and those timbres have so much more lows that they just whomp everything else into oblivion. The strings/brass comes back at 2:17, and it's just too loud, too up-front, and also seems to be panned slightly to the left which feels very awkward. This arrangement idea is good, but there is definitely some egregious repetition going on. 0:54-2:30 is indeed looped twice. I cut the second playthrough and layered it with the first one, and checking A/B the only addition I hear in the second iteration is a tiny bell layered with the lead, barely noticeable. 4:07-5:38 is unique and the soloing is great. But then the section 5:38-6:46 is another nearly identical playthrough of 1:22-2:29. For that last section of the track, I layered all three iterations together and it all sounded the same other than an extra hat loop and a flutey lead layered on the final iteration. That is too repetitive for me, there needs to be more variation either in instrumentation or writing, or drum groove or something. I think the arrangement could easily be two minutes shorter without losing anything, and that would help cut the repetition down. In addition to reducing the repetition, there needs to be another pass at the mixing. The brass and strings at the big sections need to come down in volume and have lows EQd out of them, and all other elements need to have a lighter EQ touch so as not to sound so thin. NO (resubmit) edit 10/20/23: I have been asked to revisit this one in light of the artist's reply email and Dave's comments. Listening again, I still find the same issues, primarily repetition and instrument balance (mainly brass and strings). I never had an issue with the synth guitar and it still sounds fine to me. I think the orchestral samples are fine also, and used adequately, other than the loudness of the strings and brass in the big sections. I still enjoy the vibe and energy of the piece generally. I remember cutting the sections and lining them up in Cubase so I could A/B. Although they may have been played separately each time, they are still essentially the same exact thing with tiny differences in playing and tiny additions like a bell or similar. It isn't just one section being repeated *almost* wholesale, it is several, and with a seven-minute track, to my ears it becomes exhausting. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the energy in the piece stays consistent all the way through. I revisited this with the hopes that I could change to a YES borderline at least, but I find that I just can't. If Dave wants to do an override or I am outvoted that is fine and dandy! I just can't in good conscience pass this. I can appreciate how much time this took, how many details there are and how it was part of an album, but none of those things should factor into an OCR vote. I have had my own tracks rejected that took me a lot of time and had a tremendous amount of detail, it happens! Not every track is a fit for OCR for various reasons, and the time and effort the track took to make does not factor into it. I am very sorry and I don't wish to be hurtful here, as there are some very excellent qualities to this track. STILL NO

I love this intro, the progression from clean acoustic to distorted and then heavy/dark is amazing. What a lovely arrangement too, the denser sections being broken up by simple, clean synth writing, building back up gently then loudly back into the heavier sections. I can still hear the beautiful synth arp from 2:43's section during the next heavy section starting at 3:47, and the writing is haunting yet hopeful, just beautiful. The guitar work is competent and emotive. The padding fits in very well and the drums are cutting through well. The arrangement comes off quite repetitive but that's a hallmark of this genre. There are just enough variations to keep it fresh as it moves along while being fully immersive. This track is mastered VERY loudly. I don't hear any artifacts and everything is clear mixing-wise. The effect during the densest sections is sort of a wash of sound, heavy on both distortion and reverb, but that is characteristic of the genre. I understand what Larry is saying, that he feels those sections are overdriven. But to quote what Emunator always says about mixing in this genre, it is a feature and not a bug. It is purposeful. I love this. It is luscious and lovely and completely engrossing. The arrangement is giving me all the feels for ten solid minutes without losing my attention. YES please. YES

The reason this mix sounds so crowded and dense is that there are so many elements playing in the same frequency range, and mixed such that they all occupy the same position in the soundscape. The low end sounds fine to me generally. The bass is deep and satisfying. Probably the elements other than kick and bass could use EQ cuts to remove unwanted lows, that would clean things up and let everything sound clearer, but the overall effect is fine in my opinion. Brad is right about the 20Hz content though, it seems to be coming from the keys, most noticeable at 1:15-1:20; when they play alone I can see the 20Hz swell on SPAN. Careful cutting of unneeded lows on everything other than kick or bass will give you a cleaner/tighter low end and more mastering headroom. My bigger issue is what Larry mentioned, that the soundscape, energy, instrumentation and writing all end up being quite repetitive. While there are multiple softer breakdowns, and believe me I appreciate this as it gives the arrangement very good dynamics, the big sections are all essentially identical. The section from 0:04-0:18 repeats verbatim FIVE times. The section from 0:18-0:32 repeats (maybe not verbatim but close) THREE times. That is a LOT of repetitions of the same stuff, played the same way with the same exact instrumentation each time even if there are tiny writing variations. The other sections all seem to have original writing which is great and it does help to break it up, yet the instrumentation and energy are always the same. The ending is.... so disappointing. We get just that tiny synth pattern from the intro, and then that that one final note just seems like a joke, following such big arrangement and ending with very high energy and then just.... bam. Oof. All that said, I really love this! The energy and detail in the mix are very exciting. I love the big bass, huge leads, squelchy synth patterns and pounding kick. You really captured the vibe you were going for! I just think that those sections, most especially the five-times-repeated section, repeat too often in the exact same way. I would ask that a few of those be altered somehow, either with different writing or a different instrument or element added/removed/replaced, for variation. While you're in the file, some EQ work would be a good idea, to make sure to cut unwanted lows out of everything that isn't kick or bass, to keep the low end ultra clean and preserve mastering headroom, and if there's any way to make the laughing details stand out a bit more clearly against the other instrumentation going on at the same time, that would be great (it is obscured by the lead and keys mostly). The EQ stuff is not required for me to pass this, but the repetition has to be addressed. NO (fix repetition of sections and resubmit please)

This is a good metal interpretation of this source, with good performances and good solos, and the arrangement is fine. The drums are on autopilot but there's enough variation to break it up as it moves along. The soundscape and energy never vary as the arrangement progresses though, giving it a repetitive feel. There has been a very harsh high-cut EQ applied starting at 10KHz which makes the mix sound very dull. The mixing is mostly adequate, but I can't imagine why this EQ cut has been applied; it should be removed. The strings starting at 2:11 sound just terrible, there's no nuance to the sample at all and the writing of that part is so simplistic and so exposed. This bad sample does not fit well with the live-played guitars. The ending is very abrupt with no resolution, which is disappointing but not an ultimate dealbreaker for me. I agree with Larry's assessment that the strings/choir need to be humanized or replaced with something more natural sounding, and the mastering needs to be corrected to remove that harsh EQ cut at 10KHz. If there are harsh frequencies in the mix, they should be removed strategically in the mix and not in the mastering stage. Those two changes would add up to a pass from me. NO (resubmit)

The trumpet performance here is truly excellent in my opinion, Brad's specific critiques aside, and the reverb on the instrument is just the right way to mix it. I'm not familiar with these sources but it does sound like the themes are mixed and matched into a cohesive arrangement, although MW used the phrase "connective tissue" and that's a great way to describe what is missing, making the source connections and also transitions feel much less solid. I appreciate Brad's knowledge and insight on this arrangement. I don't understand every nuance of music theory the way he does, but I feel like he describes perfectly why this track feels so awkward and why it isn't a good fit for OCR. As I listen to this, I'm struck by the competence of the performance but also by the extreme emptiness of the soundscape and my mind tries to fill sections in with padding or other instruments. It is very hard to obtain dynamics and emotional flavor in a mono-solo-instrument track such as this; at least with a piano there can be chords in addition to lead lines. I think it is a bold undertaking and the performance is amazing, I just think it is too empty to stand as a full arrangement for OCR. NO

This is another one of those amazing source tunes that is super hard to remix due to lack of any real motif (other than random arps coming in and out of the soundscape). That said, this arrangement does a great job of representing those arps! The feeling of foreboding is very present in the arrangement and instrumentation. There is a huge amount of hard-panning here, which I am really not a fan of. Always makes me wonder if my ears are broken. The arrangement is mostly a very empty soundscape. There are cool sounds happening and I appreciate the white space employed here but I feel there are lost opportunities for even more instrument variation, sfx, surprises and ear candy. Not a dealbreaker, just a wishlist item for me. The mixing is adequate although there is occasional 20Hz rumble stealing headroom. The mastering is very quiet and the track spends the bulk of its length 6db below peak. This won't matter for YouTube as they compress/normalize everything, but downloads will cause people to have to turn up the volume. I like this ambient take on the source theme. There's nothing super memorable happening here, but it is certainly a cool listen. YES

The vocal is indeed flat a lot of the time, and the vocal is mixed behind the soundscape rather than in front where it should be. The vocal needs to be louder, and I recommend making an EQ notch in all other instruments wherever that vocal fundamental is, no more than 1.5-2db, but that will help the vocal cut through. I prefer this method rather than boosting the vocal with EQ as sometimes that can make the vocal sound odd, but you can experiment with both methods. As for the pitchy-ness, I agree with Brad that Melodyne or similar could be used to address the most pitchy syllables and that would help a lot. I think Autotune would be too much and would not fit with this soundscape at all! Great arrangement and performances. Mixing and mastering are adequate. The vocals (mostly the softer ones over the acoustic sections) need to be pitch corrected, and mixed so they sit up front a bit more. NO (resubmit)

Drums are mixed very quietly, especially the kick, I can barely hear it. I think the kick just can't cut through the wall of guitars. I hear the snare more clearly but it sounds muted. It's odd, I hear and feel sidechaining, at least on the bass, but when the compressor hits I can't hear the kick that is driving it, I only hear/feel the dip. This is super noticeable to me in the section from 1:50-2:27. I honestly cannot tell if this is purposeful sidechaining or a pumpy effect from a hard-driven master, but either way it feels very unnatural to me. Either way, that section is extremely dense and crowded. All sampled instruments sound uncanny. The guitars sound very rigid and dry and the piano sounds unhumanized with all velocities identical (luckily there isn't too much piano in this arrangement, but 0:13-0:15 is a prime example). I wonder if adding more reverb to each element in the mix would soften the overall effect of the sampled instruments somewhat. The concept and arrangement are excellent! But the samples sound so stiff and dry. The guitars are the biggest offender, with every note sounding identical, and especially because they are so loud and prominent. I agree with Larry that live performances aren't required, but in a mix that features guitar so prominently, there needs to be a bit more nuance in the sequencing. Again I think a touch more reverb on everything (in varying amounts, and with varied pre-delay amounts) would go a long way toward making it all feel more natural overall. NO (resubmit)

The intro ocean sound gives what could/should be a super-clean soundscape a lossy/hissy sound, and this goes on for nearly half of this super-short track. The ocean feels like it is right up front in the soundscape. It would feel more natural if it were mixed more softly and cleanly such that it sounds like it is in the back of the music, not in front of it. The brass sample used in the intro is extremely uncanny. The delayed pluck is nice although quite plain. The supersaw lead is very vanilla, and lacks clarity and is overtaken by distortion. This huge saw covers up everything else happening in the piece other than the kicks. The kicks are great, as is the bass; low end of this mix sounds great. Everything happening above the lows feels smooshed together and lacks distinction. I like this arrangement generally, but it is too short, and both drop sections are identical in every way with nothing added or replaced. The mix drops off abruptly at 2:49 without resolution, with only one portion of the pluck phrase from before being repeated solo. This is a very lazy outro, given that the arrangement is so short and repetitive, and feels very awkward since the fullest section just dropped off a second before. This sounds like a wip and not a completed arrangement. More work is needed to make this arrangement solid, and the mixing needs another pass to clear up the soundscape. NO

Lovely intro. The rain is too loud and prominent, feels like it has too much lows and oddly sounds... dry. The intro goes on a bit long as MW said, there are additions such as the pad as it moves along but it feels repetitive, especially since the rain is so consistent, with no variation in it at all. The heavy section at 2:35 is not signaled in the slightest, so even though I was looking at the upcoming wave sausage on Cubase, I jumped out of my chair when it hit. Give a girl a transition please! Into the breakdown at 3:21 and the rain is still going, do I hear some thunder? I can't really tell if it is thunder or a stray low, it is just indistinct and muddy. This breakdown section is simple but lovely... but simple. Same guitar and pad from the intro, but the pluck addition is nice. At 4:29 you made me jump again. Those drops are jarring instead of impactful, since there is literally zero transition or signaling what is coming. I can cheat with Cubase since I can see it coming, but people on YouTube or downloading for casual listening are going to jump hard. That second drop section feels really long since the energy never relents from 4:29 until 6:45. Over two minutes of balls-to-the-walls. Then, fadeout ending. (not a dealbreaker, just a lost opportunity for resolution, in my opinion) The mixing is adequate, especially for this genre, although during the heavy sections, everything is playing including that lovely little pluck and it is buried so deeply that it adds to the wall of sound rather than provides contrast (which it could, and should). The drums sound very good overall to me, although the snare sounds a little muted. This is a lot of little issues that are adding up to a resub for me. I don't believe everything on my punch list needs to change, but my primary request is to please signal the drops with something. Either a sfx or some sort, or guitar glissando or other melodic element, reverse-cymbal riser, or even half a bar of silence, just something! Additionally, the rain sfx should be turned down a bit, and perhaps remove some high-mids out of it so it doesn't sound so crisp (I believe that is what is making it sound "dry" to me which is so ironic). That all sounded negative but honestly this is a great track fully of dynamics and excellent performances. If it passes like this I won't be upset, but I think it can be improved and it will be more memorable, exciting-rather-than-shocking that way. If I am being an old fuddy-duddy about the jarring drops, I can own that, too. NO (please signal transitions, and turn down and EQ rain sfx)

I put an instance of Cubase's multiband imager on the track, and Larry is hearing it as too wide because everything is panned super wide, especially noticeable at the fullest sections, such as at 1:16 as Larry mentioned. That's when the low brass begins. The low brass sits wide, which can be disorienting. The range between 150Hz and 1500Hz seems to be panned the widest according to my imager, and yeah that doesn't feel quite right. Dialing that whole range down from 100% (as mixed) to about 40% (on my imager) makes it feel more natural. Even the lowest lows (sub-150Hz) occasionally go wide. The wideness of the mid-lows/low-mids also makes the piano, when it is exposed in the intro and outro, sound much less intimate than it would if it were slightly more centered, since it can't really be located in the stereo field, it's everywhere. (of course, fixing this would be done on an instrument basis, never with an imager, I'm just using that to check) Other than the stereo field issues, I really like this beautiful track. The instrumentation is rich and full and emotive, the dynamics and energy are exciting and engaging, and the arrangement is beautiful. The samples are used well enough; a tad uncanny but not enough to detract from the piece at all. Like Larry, I would not have noticed that if it hadn't been pointed out since it is not egregious. The mixing and balancing are fine, as is the overall master. Lovely track. My only other issue is that the render cuts off the final tail. Is this conditional-worthy, anyone think? We could ask for another render, or one of us could simply fade the end out, or we can leave it alone. YES (should we ask for render with complete reverb tail?)

The mastering is indeed on the gentle side for a track like this, with 1.3db of headroom and -13db RMS, and the lowest lows could stand to be a hair louder, but dang, it does not need to be pushed harder, especially since YouTube is going to compress and normalize it anyway, so overall volume is really not an issue. WOW what a track, starts out gentle and then shows its teeth hard, with all of the distortion and bitcrushing, all while a gorgeous glassy synth plays the melody. I love this arrangement. I don't know these sources, I feel like there is plenty of source in this mix but I'm not timestamping. I really love all the delicate bell tones and softness, contrasted with some of the heaviest EDM sounds possible. This one melts my face! YES

Resub from 2015, wow. I don't know what was wrong with the original submission, but this one sounds amazing. Kicks are supposed to be loud, it's psytrance! It's a super busy soundscape, but I hear everything clearly, the bass and all synths are audible. I have no problem with the balances. Lovely deep sidechaining. Some of the sounds are definitely on the sharp side, nearly abrasive, especially at the fullest sections, but I can move past it just as Larry can. I love the detail in this mix, lots of ear candy, unique writing and fun transitions. Love it. YES

Ooooh I love those little chiptune interludes! I agree with Larry, very un-Western source. This arrangement is so varied in writing and in instrumentation: badass guitar work, plucky chiptune, groovy synths and keys, killer drums. Everything is mixed extremely well and cleanly, and the master is done just right too. Larry may have been caught off guard, and nothing may be making sense around here, but in the best possible way. This is a truly excellent remix. And I am so pleased that Larry chose not to lie, that's important too. Great work guys, let's go! YES

Orchestration sounds amazing to me right away. "Late attacks" well maybe, but barely noticeable (not like sudden attacks!). Soundscape sounds lush and full. I love the transition at 0:53 with the bells and sfx. The deep brass sounds terrific, these samples are used extremely well. What an emotive mix of sounds in this piece. Oooh the piano sounds nice as it enters in the background. This arrangement has amazing dynamics and energy. I love the various bass sounds and sfx combined with the orchestral elements. The transition at 4:05 is too loud, same at 4:37. The reverse cymbal transitions are so loud and they go into compression-artifact territory. That whole section is too loud. Of course it is purposeful and provides an awesome climax but it wouldn't feel so oppressive if those cymbal transitions were not SOOOO overdriven. This is my only complaint, and not enough to ask for a resub but just a note for next time. Really nice job on this one. Beautiful arrangement, full of feels. YES

This. Why oh why can't EVERYONE do that!!! Thanks Big T! I love the djembe-groove opening. Lows/bass feel a tad heavy for this type of arrangement, and the reverse-cymbal transitions are indeed on the bright side, and there are too many of them for my taste. Other than that, mixing and mastering are solid. Cute little arrangement, lots of variation in sounds and unique writing. I love mixed time signature arrangements and this one is done really well. Fun listen! YES

I see a waveform sausage, let's see what we've got here. Cool intro. Oh ok, that drop is mega cool! I wasn't expecting that. I love the energy at 1:07. WOW THIS MIX IS LOWD. -6.3db RMS is very very loud. With a ceiling of 0db, SPAN shows me there are billions of "true peak clippings." I don't hear artifacts, but there are not a lot of dynamics in this piece. "Animal test 63" came through super dry. I love the drop that follows, that growly bass is awesome. But the mastering is so hardcore that the lack of dynamics really sticks out to me, and the section that should be the most impactful sounds very flat. I'm not feeling that deep bass although it is clearly there, because everything else is playing equally loudly. SPAN looks like a straight line at that point, everything screaming at once. That said, I love the energy, creativity and the fun sound choices in this arrangement. YES

I'm glad Larry did the timestamp so I am not going to worry about source, but I hear it as MW does, tons of source played very uniquely and differently. The playing is luscious, competent and emotive. The piano sample used could be better, especially considering this is a solo piece, but this doesn't detract for me; it is certainly a good enough sample for this purpose. The arrangement has great dynamics all the way through. Fabulous reimagining of this source tune. YES

My son Tom played hours and hours of Minecraft and I always felt this song was simplistic almost to the point of silliness, but it does set a calm vibe that really works in context. It really is a perfect source for Wes to do his luscious ambient magic on, and I daresay his version would be so much more preferable in-game in my opinion. It's a very repetitive source motif loop but Wes has decorated it with so many beautiful and varied elements and gave it infinitely more feels. Love it. Fadeout. Boo! I'll let it slide.... THIS time. Mixing and mastering are just right. And no, (checks files on computer) I'm pretty sure I never mastered this one. Wes did a beautiful job. YES