MindWanderer

Amazing we can still get clever new EDM out of this tune, after all these years and a dozen remixes on OCR alone. And this is definitely clever and new. Even beyond all the glitching and effects, there are neat variations on the melody I've never heard before. I pick out more every time I listen to it--not because there's anything wrong with the balance, but because there's so much going on. Production is clean despite all that. I have no beef with this. YES

I was waiting until the music was pretty much done before looking into visual artists. Most of the music is done, but there are a few key pieces still missing, and I've been kept busy at work lately. A couple of your most polished pieces are along the lines of what I'm looking for--your Andre the Giant, appropriately, is nicely realistic. And I'm hoping to get multiple artists involved--I'd love to have portraits of each of the wrestlers as an "insert." I'll definitely hit you up a little further down the line.

I definitely see both sides of this. The melody is sufficiently progressive, and with the SFX and ornamentation Larry mentioned, I didn't feel like it was repetitive or directionless. I don't feel like the lack of variation in lead or tempo hurt this. On the other hand, that ostinato is relentless, as are the simple strings used as a pad. Ultimately I think it works. It's almost like a series of variations on a theme; the transformations to the melody and the changes to the additional elements almost serve to change the nature of that core ostinato as the arrangement progresses. Sometimes it's a subtle undercurrent you barely hear, sometimes it's a counterpoint that emphasizes the melody, sometimes it hammers hard to emphasize the rhythm, sometimes it introduces dissonance for tension. Most repetitive lines like that get more and more irritating the more times I listen to the remix, but this one actually grows on me as I hear different subtle ways it's played on. I'm on board. YES

I can't argue with any of what DA and LT had to say. It's a good foundation but, between its similarity to the source and its lack of dynamic transformation, it needs to go further. NO

I really like the new section, other than the peaked notes. I do think it's far too long for the piece, though, derailing the mood for too long.

Your first link is condescending. Your second one says it's not possible, and the workaround is just to write in triplets (or whatever) and ignore the time signature.

I'm not familiar with the genre outside of happening across it when playing DDR, but I can clearly tell what it's trying to do, and it's successful at it. It's melodically repetitive but does approach that melody in a few different ways with effects and juxtaposition. It's a little pounding in places, but it's not severe, especially for a rave style. Perfectly adequate, nice job overall. YES

The check-in has passed and the promised cuts have been cut.

The good news is that all of my earlier concerns have been addressed. The fakey strings and the pitch bends are gone. As I'd hoped, addressing the slow attack on the lead makes the syncopation click, and now I like it quite a bit. Good job on all that. That said, in substituting out the string lead, you've introduced balance issues. The bass is too loud in 0:29-0:44, the lead is too quiet in 0:29-1:06 and then jumps jarringly in volume. The replacement synth is also super wet, and the long tails introduce muddiness. Also, with the most severe issues dealt with, smaller ones are easier to pick out. The crowding that Jivemaster mentioned (throughout the whole EDM section, but 1:54-2:27 most severely) is definitely an issue. There are layers that are barely audible and which I only heard at all after multiple listens. I'm close on this one now. My main issue is that the balance is substantially off for the first third of the arrangement--not the bulk of the arrangement but too much to ignore, especially with how it gets suddenly shrill at 1:06. The lack of clarity in the EDM section should be addressed as well, mainly because there's some fun and clever part writing that few people will ever hear with it balanced the way it is right now. I can see this one going either way, and I wouldn't object to it being posted, but I do think it needs to be cleaned up just a little more. NO (borderline, resubmit)

I actually had the comic book this was based on when I was a kid. Had no idea this game existed, though. This is one heck of a track. Sidenote: The title should be "Partons à l'aventure". In French, only the first letter of a title is capitalized, and the first letter of the second word if the first word was an article. Using English capitalization rules, it would be "Partons à l'Aventure." Anyway, this is pretty typical NutS synthwave fare. Some of the sweeps are a little too loud (e.g. 0:25-0:31), but production is otherwise on point. The vocoded speech is completely incomprehensible, but there's nothing wrong with that. No question that it meets our arrangement guidelines--it clearly uses the source throughout but transforms the heck out of it. The conversion to 4/4 makes for some fun little triplets, too. Solid work overall. YES

We've historically passed arrangements where the first half is a close cover but the second half is substantially interpretive, so I'm okay with this on those grounds. The first half isn't quite verbatim, there are some small changes, and the orchestration in the second half is rich and expressive. More than enough to carry the arrangement IMO. But those samples and humanization are well below our bar, as Larry described. The lead strings in particular aren't adequate for what you're trying to do. It's possible to do orchestral with free samples, but not these free samples. There are free samples better than this. I really do like the arrangement, even if it could benefit from some more interpretation in the first half, but I think you need more practice working with orchestral instruments. Try taking this to our workshop forums and see if you can get some more detailed advice there. I do hope you can polish this up, though--I like your style. NO

I'm personally of two minds when it comes to source usage. On one hand, Gario's timestamps seem accurate for overt source usage. On the other hand, there's a lot of material that is clearly derived from the source--the riffing on the motif Gario mentioned for one, but more importantly the funky bass that forms the foundation for the whole thing uses the same chord progression as the bass motif of the source and sounds like it's just a radical transformation thereof. The timestamp is only 9 seconds short, which is a large percentage of a 2:10 arrangement, but for me it's close enough given the subtle connections elsewhere. What I'm not ambivalent about is the sound palette. The guitar and drums are great, even the piano is fine (although it could be mixed more clearly) but most of the lead synths are so bland and thin that I have a hard time listening to them for any period of time. I feel the same way about some of the accompanying synths (like the organ Gario liked), but since they're not center stage, they're passable. Fortunately, I think both are fairly easy fixes. Choose some different synths to carry your leads, with more flavor and resonance, and either add 9 seconds of overt source usage to an existing section, or extend a section to add 18 seconds of overt source to the overall length, and I think this will be good to go. For now, though, NO (resubmit)

It's ground we've seen visited before, but the results are still distinctly unique. There were some novel twists on the melody I certainly enjoyed. I have mixed feelings about the mixing. It's nontraditional, with the Green Hills melody line pushed behind the other elements much of the time, but it comes across as deliberate, and you can still hear it. On the other hand, it clips by almost a dB, and that's an objective problem. You could still achieve the intended effect without clipping. The sidechaining obscures the distortion, so it doesn't sound that bad on my setup, but not everyone may have the same experience. The ending is weak, practically nonexistent. My conclusion is the same as Larry's: Strong arrangement, lots room for improvement in the mixing (and in the ending), but adequate overall. YES (borderline)

There's a lot of clever arranging going on here, but the balance is seriously off. The leads, both guitar and synth, are too quiet everywhere except the intro and outtro, overpowered primarily by the rhythm and bass guitars but even by the synths and percussion in places. Also, I'm not sure about source usage. 1:36-3:17 and 3:55-end don't seem to have any source usage that I can hear, and that's more than half the arrangement. I have to admit that I'm not listening too closely, though, because the mixing is already a dealbreaker. But if there is source usage in those sections, it would facilitate the voting process if you could spell out how the source is used there. It's a good start, and I'd like to hear a revision with the leads in the lead. NO

For such a simple and conservative concept, I loved this way more than I was expecting to. The slaps add such a lively percussive element, it's hard not to feel the groove. Balance is a bit iffy at times. The slaps are great, but they're a little loud throughout. The accordion is a little loud in the bridge (2:21-2:37), and the lead guitar loses volume near the end of the remix (about 3:04-3:42). There's also about six seconds of silence at the beginning that should be cut out. My biggest concern is with how conservative this is. The structure is almost identical to the source, except for the intro and bridge. The rhythm guitar plays the same chords as the source, just with a different beat. However, the accordion does add some texture, especially at the end. It's clearly more than just a cover, so I'm okay giving this a YES

I was holding off on voting on this one because there was something off about it I couldn't put my finger on, but NutS nailed it: slightly more repetitive and less transformative than the usual Gario work, especially the intro, which jumps right in without much preamble. The bright ping-pong arps are on the relentless side, too, and aren't well balanced by the thin bass. Still, none of that is really significant. It's a fun arrangement and clearly achieves what it sets out to do. I can see why Gario was insecure about it but it's still a solid piece of work overall. YES

My biggest concern is that 3:27-4:25 is almost a copy-paste of 0:49-1:48 (just a couple of brief, subtle extra bits thrown in), and 2:05-2:32 is almost a copy of 0:53-1:20, making about 29% of the arrangement a repetition, not counting the fact that each of those main sections are themselves little more than a loop of a simple six-note motif repeated several times. The repetitiveness is emphasized by the palette, especially the percussion, which is pretty relentless. I do hear the crowding as well, plus some pumping which I can't tell if it's intentional or not (0:30-0:42, for instance). I don't think it's a severe issue given the genre, though. I really wish those repeated sections had more to them to distinguish themselves from each other. Some melodic riffs, some different textures, anything to let you know the whole arrangement isn't a loop without paying very close attention. But otherwise the quality is certainly up there. I'll call this a YES (borderline)

Here's a link to the source by itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDsXUvUt11k I personally don't feel the "stagnation" issue DA has, but the lack of low end is a serious one. It detracts from the impact of the whole thing and makes it seem more monotonous than it really is. I suppose the breakdowns DA mentions suffer the most from the lack of lows, since there's briefly no melody either, but really the issue is pervasive. I think the awkwardness of the drum mixing is because you have a really nice, meaty kick that's the only thing occupying the low end. As a result, it sounds particularly dominant. The ending is definitely lackluster as well. It doesn't even fade out at a point that makes sense--it would have been trivial to just draw those last notes out and end that way. Good ideas, fun arrangement. Occupy the low end and end the track more conclusively and I think this will be fine. NO (resubmit)

Let's try this again! Rather than starting with signups, let's just see if there's interest. Let me know. If anyone would rather do a more traditional elimination-style tournament, we can do that too, but as of late the team gauntlets have been more popular.

Well, the arrangement is certainly a lot of fun, and HeavenWraith's guitar work is a coup. Mixing still isn't flawless, especially in the guitar section, where the saw is crowded by the guitar from one direction and the chimes from the other. In general the highs are quite crowded and busy. Like some other Jorito mixes, it could probably do without a part or even two in a lot of places. Which is painful to say, because each part is great, but sometimes less is more. I didn't even hear the arp in the guitar section until my fourth listen or so. Still, I think this is well above our bar. A good addition to any album. YES

What leaps out to me immediately is the EQ balance. Most of the instruments are clustered in the mid to mid-low range, and there's a whole lot of conflict. Bass, arps, SFX, percussion, and about half the range of the leads all occupy the same space. The buzzy bass is responsible for a lot of this. As a result, a lot of the complex interplay is nearly inaudible. The arrangement itself is pretty conservative, but there is some structural rearrangement. It would be easier to evaluate if I could hear the accompaniment more clearly, but I'm inclined to think it's OK on this front. It just needs a lot of work in the EQ department. Filter out some of those buzzing frequencies, give the leads, arps, and counterpoint more presence in the high end, and maybe rethink the use of piano (which is a very tricky instrument to work with in a crowded soundscape). I think that'll get you most of the way there. NO (resubmit)

I can't argue with anything Gario said. The piano is thin, the soundscape is thin, the synths are plain, the two vox effects Gario mentioned are too loud. It's much better where you're using the full frequency spectrum (0:29-0:51, 2:42-3:40), but those sections have some balance issues. I'd also have preferred it be a little less repetitive, but it's not too bad on that front, especially considering the source. Try taking this to the workshop forum for some more detailed feedback and I think this could work out to something pretty cool, but it's not there yet. NO (resubmit)

Man, I miss the music of Splatoon 1. The sequel's music just isn't as catchy. Unfortunately, Gario's totally right. The balance is just wacked, with the leads squelched under the bass and kick nearly the whole time. It's a really cool and fun arrangement, but it's really hard to appreciate in its current state. Since OA is on record as saying that this is not a "conditional" level fix for him, I have to go either Yes or No, and ultimately I don't think this kind of severe balance issue is something we can let slide. I still really hope he can find a way to fix it, though. Edit: Seeing three YES votes made me come back and revisit this. The saw is still way too loud, but there's little overlap between it and the leads and the leads are rarely hard to make out. The kick definitely sounds like it's causing pumping, but it isn't severe and really only stands out when you listen closely. I still think there's a lot of improvement but I'm willing to push it over. YES (borderline)

Well, this is certainly a novel approach. It took me 2 1/2 listens before the SMB melody finally popped out at me. In most of the arrangement, it's pushed below the counterpoint, so it's hard to pick out even knowing what you're supposed to be listening for. The source is unnecessarily hard to identify because of the balance choices here--it's a moderate problem that causes a more severe one as a side effect. In a more "normal" arrangement I think a lead that's buried like this would make my vote borderline at best, but in this, it takes away from the whole conceit. It would be a rare casual listener that would ever make the connection on their own. I agree with Gario that the effects are also a bit of a problem, especially the white noise wash, which really doesn't add anything. Cutting down on that will also help with the balance issue, so I encourage you to look into it. I don't think you need to eliminate the effects altogether, though; in many places they work just fine IMO. I love the idea, and the performance is great, but I think the lead needs to pop out more for the whole concept to click. NO (please resubmit)

This opened up with some SNES-style synths, so I was optimistic I'd be able to get behind some 16-bit chiptunes here. Unfortunately, there's a lot here that's holding the mix back. First, it's quite repetitive, with the same motifs played with the same synths many times over. As near as I can tell, the entire second half is a copy-paste of the first half (minus the intro and ending), and each of those halves consists mostly of the same melody repeated twice with an intro and a bridge, meaning that the main melody is copy-pasted four times. The percussion is even more repetitive, maintaining the exact same pattern for the vast majority of the piece. The energy level is also largely unvarying and fatigue-inducing. Second, the parts don't line up well together. Melody, pads, bass, etc. are all doing their own thing. There's no harmony, there's no call-and-return, there's basically nothing to indicate that any of the parts were written with the other parts in mind other than that the major sections change at the same points. To be fair, the source isn't great in this regard either, but that raises another point: The arrangement is very conservative. The bulk of the part writing is lifted directly from the source. I'm picking out only very small portions that are sufficiently transformative for our standards. Balance also needs some improvement. In many places the melody is too quiet, in other places it's the bass that can barely be heard. The ending is lacking, too. There's just a quick riff at the end of a loop. So, sorry, but I think this still has a long way to go. I'd take it over to the workshop forum to get some more detailed advice before submitting again. NO