MindWanderer

With the opening notes of the Lanayru theme, I could see why you decided to mash up these two themes. They're a natural fit. For a mash-up, though, this is an extremely static and conservative arrangement. The Red Soil triplets, bass, piping vox, and percussion run through the entire piece unchanged. Then there's pretty much just the two melodies, A-B-A, cello-sax-cello (with a brief nod to Kraid's Lair). Also, the attack on the cello is really slow, putting them behind the beat even given how slow it is. I don't think there's enough interpretation here for what we look for. It's little more than a MIDI rip with the Lanayru melody inserted into the middle. We also prefer arrangements that are more dynamic, with some changes in the accompaniment, percussion, something, over the duration of the piece. NO

Well, that was certainly... interesting. I largely think you achieved what you set out to do. It's creative for sure. The one thing I was waffling on was the click sounds. They're quite loud and irritating. I found them far worse than the buzzy "bell" Rexy mentioned. However, your inspiration used nearly the same sound, if slightly quieter. I'm fine accepting this as it is, for what it is. YES

It takes a lot to make a novel Aquatic Ambiance remix these days, but we'll see where this goes. It's bookended by some minor issues: The intro is super quiet, and the ending is a fade-out. The jump in volume from the intro to the first chime at 1:03 is pretty extreme. The rest is well-executed, but somewhat disappointing. There are lots of AA arrangements out there done in exactly this style, and this one in particular is mostly a sound upgrade, very conservative, with most of the parts lifted directly from the source. There are a few minor changes, and the swap from sax to vibraphone as the lead, but that's about it. The piano also seems pretty mechanical to my ear, with only minor and consistent velocity variations and rigid timing. It's a perfectly serviceable cover/upgrade, other than that volume disparity, but I don't think this reaches the level of interpretation we look for. NO

Yes, this is indeed probably what the music would have sounded like on real instruments, for the most part. And therein lies the biggest issue: it's a sound upgrade. There's no reinterpretation going on here, which is what OC ReMix is all about. Also, the tones of the instruments are off. It's supposed to sound like an intimate, jazzy atmosphere, but all the instruments sound like they're in different spaces. They all sound overly clean, either synthetic or in a recording studio and not in a live venue. The reverb on them is inconsistent. The piano especially sounds strange, with its odd detuned warble. Thanks for submitting, but this just isn't what we look for. NO

I'm afraid you overcorrected here. The arrangement came out extremely sparse, especially with the vanilla synths used here. You can make an arrangement this simple, but it needs instruments with rich, interesting timbre. Triangle waves and saws don't cut it. I referenced E=MC2, and I definitely see the influence, but 1) That song has vocals, which add a lot of interest, and 2) I honestly don't think I'd pass it either, even cleaned up to modern standards. I don't think filling up the space with voice clips is necessarily the way to go--it's hard to use a lot of that and have it still be musical--but you do need some more layers here. Add some pads, harmonies, counterpoint, arps, percussion, risers, sweeps, whatever. And maybe switch up or morph the synths you're using as well. Keep at it! NO

Agreed on all points. I was tapping my toes to the first few measures of the opening groove, but then it went on for much longer than necessary., and then again in the second half it repeats the hook a few too many times. And balance is an issue throughout--leads are far too quiet, percussion, bass, and harmonies are too loud. I'll also add that I'm not sold on the instrumentation. It's very simple GM-MIDI stuff, very AdLib-era. I think you can get away with it as an aesthetic choice but it's a bit eyebrow-raising. NO (resubmit)

First of all, starting at 2:08, it's filled with horrible high-pitched spikes that clip by almost +6dB. I had to stop the track after a few seconds of this, it was like knives in my eardrums. I resolved to go back and just do an eval of the first 2 minutes, but even before that, the hats are awfully hot and loud, as are the percussive element that starts at 1:04. The leads are generally really quiet. All really need some volume and EQ work. There may or may not be more issues, but I can't listen to this any more, I'm sorry, my ears are throbbing. NO

That's hilarious. And true to form, Timaeus altered the Chrono Trigger source so much that the connection doesn't leap out at you anyway. But it's clearly Chrono Trigger and not the PMD theme (which I checked just to make sure). The opening is lovely, the vibraphone is an excellent choice for the Radical Dreamers lead. I got one of those goosebumps moments. The piano gets squashed a bit occasionally, but it's still clear despite losing some resonance. Some of the layering gets a little crazy, and results in occasional discordance. Nothing too severe, though. Basically a classic Timaeus mix all around, with a creative mix of themes and some excellent synth work. YES

At first I was in disagreement with Rexy--the percussion sounded a bit distant but serviceable--but then that droning bass synth got louder, and yeah, it's a problem. It covers a lot of the spectrum and squashes pretty much everything else. It's a lovely, warm, rich sound, but it's too much of a good thing. And the fact that the arrangement consists of two nearly-identical loops is also a dealbreaker. This might just be acceptable if you just cut it after the first loop, as it would still be more than 2 minutes long. But adding a bridge or breakdown (ideally without that bass pad) and then a second half that mixes it up would be even better. NO (resubmit)

I listened to the source, first, of course, and was really curious how you were going to make anything out of something so minimal. You certainly approached it creatively. Unfortunately, my first impression is that the sounds you chose are severely irritating. The clicks are what distortion normally sounds like--they're clearly deliberate here but in every other context they're objectively wrong, and they're really unpleasant. 1:45-2:16 also uses an extremely high-pitched whine that's also normally the result of an error. I'm also not sure whether the source usage is overt enough. It seemed questionable to me. I'm not going to timestamp it because I just can't listen to those sounds anymore. My ears are literally ringing. I'm sorry. NO

Fun! Pretty conservative, but there's fun original takes sprinkled throughout. I didn't feel like the sidechaining that started at 1:00 was helpful, and was kind of distracting. Balance is off throughout, with the bass and kicks being too loud and most of the leads (except the piano) being too quiet. I was on the fence about the production here for a while, but after many listens I don't think its issues are dealbreaking. I'll take it. YES

Ah, Hollow Knight. Such an evocative soundtrack for a game about talking bugs. I missed out a little playing it on the Switch in portable mode. Rebecca's arrangement here is no less so. It uses a very similar sound palette: a flute added, the strings taken away, the solo vocalist swapped for a (fake-sounding) choir, but otherwise still driven by the same piano parts. The general pacing and tone are the same as well. My main question is whether it does enough. The changes aren't tremendously subtle, but they aren't transformative either. Play them for me side-by-side in 2 years and I might not be able to say which one was the original and which one was the remix (although the quality of the choir, especially the men's part, is a giveaway). So I'm leaning towards NO

I see that LionTamer recommended this for a direct post in the workshop, but I'm not in agreement with him there. It's a nice, mellow atmosphere, with some extra layers and SFX to add depth. The cellos are a nice touch; not very "beach-y" but they add some needed bass to the space. However, for an arrangement less than 3 minutes long, it feels pretty repetitive. The guitar backing never lets up, and the bongos sound like they're basically on autopilot the entire time. Add that to the ocean waves and there's a lot about the arrangement that's static. I find it grating even after 2 minutes, let alone listening to it multiple times. It's also very quiet. Something like this shouldn't be overly loud, but there's over 5dB of headroom here, and I definitely had to turn up my volume to hear it properly. The melody and harmonies here are superb, a real joy to listen to. It definitely can't be more than a Conditional due to the levels. Given that most people won't be listening to the piece over and over again, I think the short length makes it enough to forgive the repetition. YES (Conditional on levels) (borderline) Update 3/26/2020: The revision definitely fixes the headroom issue, and repetition is indeed an improvement, though a modest one. The changes to the underwater section are more subtle than Juke things, and the strums are a bit slow, with the attack falling a smidge after the beat. But it's a wash at worst, good enough. YES

It does indeed sound like a PS1-era game, but that's not inherently a problem--it's consistent and it's applied well throughout. It wouldn't fool anyone but it isn't unpleasant, either. The arrangement is liberal but clearly identifiable; excellent work indeed for such a short source. It's creative, interesting, and unique. I have no qualms about this one. YES

It's a pretty conservative take, but by the halfway point it's clear that the layers have made this much more than a reinstrumentation. It's mellow without still being (quite) a lullaby. I agree that it does overstay its welcome by just a bit, but it's borderline in that respect at worst. I do agree with NutS about the levels, though--there's almost 2dB of headroom and you can get much more out of it by limiting the peaks. YES (conditional on levels)

Well, this was a surprise. Dancing Mad, heard a dozen interpretations, yawn. Piano-only, eh (Edit: I originally called this a "piano solo" but was called out on this actually being an arrangement for 4 pianos--which is very impressive). But this is actually pretty cool! There are a lot of original riffs and rejuxtapositions to bring new life into the arrangement, and the rich minor harmonies starting at 0:19 are lovely. And I loved the twist on Fanfare at the end. Arrangement-wise I think this is on point. Production could use some tweaks, though. It's quite quiet and could use some compression to raise the overall volume. The EQ is weird--you're obviously using the full range of the piano but the bass and high frequencies just aren't coming out. The result is an oddly thin soundscape. There's also 8 seconds of silence at the end that can be trimmed off. I definitely want this posted to the site, but not in its current form. Just needs a few production tweaks. Mostly simple changes, but large and important ones. NO (please resubmit!)

It's a cool concept, but there are a few issues with that will keep it off our front page, unfortunately. Starting right off: I'm normally not that critical of sampled piano, but this is super mechanical and fake-sounding. After that, we have a very thin soundscape with vanilla synths. The section that starts at 1:56, which is supposed to be the result of a huge build-up, has only a couple of synths and nothing in the highs or lows; it's very disappointing. The ending is far too minimal, as well. The breakdowns and voice-sampled sections are mostly adequate, but they aren't supported by anything meatier. Also, the whole thing is pretty quiet. There's no compression or limiting; looks like you just adjusted the master volume to be about 0dB (and it actually clips at +0.4dB--It's hard to hear due to the dirty kettle drums, but it's definitely there). Nothing between 1:15 and 4:45 peaks above about -2.5dB. Structurally, it's a fun arrangement, but the instrumentation--or lack thereof--is really letting this down. NO

There are a few original riffs in there, but mostly this is a short, conservative cover. It's not the sort of reinterpretation we look for here. It's also pretty grungy production-wise. Very light on the highs, nothing but the cymbals and the occasional synth up there. It's a good performance and I'm eager to get some more Faxanadu representation, but more than anything else we look for arrangements that are a little more adventurous. NO Update 03/03/2020: LT asked me to review this again because of how strongly he disagreed with me. The structure and melody line are nearly identical to the source material. The bass usually sticks closely to the source, but does branch out a little. There are added harmonies, and the percussion work is original. Of course, there is the performance element: the lead guitar has the flourishes one would expect from a live guitar performance. There are brief variations--a measure of chiptune here and there, the acoustic bridge--but they're mostly straight instrument swaps. It was perhaps unfair to call this a cover, since there is some original part-writing here. But also calling it "nicely personalized and expanded" is going too far. If this were an orchestral remix, I'd expect a lot more layering and instrument-swapping to call it an orchestration that meets our arrangement standards. But of course that wouldn't be appropriate here, and there is some of that. I'm okay revising my vote, but only just. In the future, adding an entirely original section, mixing in something from a different source, playing around more with part-writing or instrumentation, etc. would make this vote more clear-cut. YES (borderline)

Unfortunately, I completely agree. It's a cool concept, but it's on a very slow burn that doesn't evolve quite as much as it really ought to. It's a good start and I'd love to hear what more you can do with it. NO (resubmit)

An 18-second source, huh? That consists of 6 repetitions of a simple motif as well. It's ambitious to try to spin 3 minutes out of that. ...Too ambitious, I feel. There are a couple of nice original bridges in there to break it up, and of course the whole thing is layered with Rebecca's usual gorgeous orchestration, but unfortunately it still comes across as extremely repetitive. I don't personally feel like the bridges are a great match for the tone of the rest of the piece, either; the second one in particular sounds like another piece of music entirely just stuffed in there. It's a noble effort but I don't think it worked out in the end. NO

I largely agree with Larry. You have a couple of good ideas here regarding riffs and instrumentation, but those ideas play themselves out within the first 1:20 or so. The rest doesn't offer much reason to keep listening. The beats do start sounding generic and repetitive, and we start hearing very similar ideas in slightly different permutations. It's a good start but there need to be more creative ideas presented as it goes along. NO

Pretty typical 80's EDM. Nothing wrong with that, and this is largely done right, arrangement-wise. Bass is a little loud but that's typical of the genre. Lead is a little quiet from 3:53-4:47. What is a problem is the overall loudness, though. It's peaking at over +1dB, which is causing some distortion. It's hard to hear because the sidechaining is already pumping intentionally, but part of it's unintentional as well. The worst parts are the big percussive booms and sweeps, which are needlessly gritty. Also I'm not sure what's going on with the ending. 4:48-5:42 is the same nearly-empty groove for nearly a minute, and then there's 30 seconds of silence at the end. Both are completely unnecessary. The outtro goes on for so long it starts playing auditory tricks on you, which gets pretty unpleasant. Fortunately, I think this is all easy fixes. Bring down your master by about 1.2dB, tweak the volume of that final lead, and end the track at 5:15, and I think this'll be pretty much there. NO (resubmit)

Pretty good synthwave. Putting Metal Gear into this genre exposes the similarities between it and Castlevania. The crash cymbals in the intro are used excessively--crashes are used for emphasis and you can't emphasize everything. Balance is a bit heavy in the lows and highs when all the parts are going, and the pads are loud enough that they're adding a fair bit of wash to the spectrum. Those pads also go slightly out of key on occasion, which bothers me more the more I listen to this. Bah, fadeout ending. Overall, though, production is adequate and the arrangement is fun. Could be tweaked but I don't think any of the issues are enough to send this back over (although those pads are getting close). YES (borderline)

Sweet and simple, yet with a rich and varied soundscape. This strikes an excellent balance between the melodies of Skyward Sword and the ambiance of BotW. Nails it. YES

I appreciate the energy, and that's pretty darn good work for a VST electric guitar, but there are a lot of issues. Timing is all over the place, including places where it's obvious you're using VST's because the tail of one note is overlapping the attack of the next. There are several wrong notes, many of which are caused by parts playing in different keys at the same time. Production could be improved in a few ways as well, but first things first. I recommend you hit up the workshop forums and go through a few drafts there. NO