MindWanderer

Either way, yes. It's fine to start with the original's sheet music, or even a MIDI. It's good practice to transcribe by ear, and you have to make sure you add enough of your own interpretation, but there's no rule against using that as a starting point.

Yeah, nothing groundbreaking here, but it's transformative enough and the production, at least at this point, is just fine. Very effective reinterpretation. YES

I can't argue with anything Gario said, but I'll also add that the instrumentation felt lacking to me, and not just the vox synth that he mentioned. All the synths--lead, pads, arps, percussion, bass--are extremely bland. To be honest, this sounds like OC ReMix circa 2000 in terms of instrumentation. I know that primitive, quasi-chip synths are your thing, but if you asked me to blindly listen to all your remixes and order them by age, I would have pegged this one as the oldest and not the newest. Your other remixes largely show much more sophisticated sound design. Also, the percussion loops are pretty complex, but I'm not hearing a lot of variation. It sounds like it's basically the same loop in all but that long introductory section. Anyway, yeah, first thing to do is flesh out the main body of this, possibly also shortening that intro. But then I also think the synths, especially the leads, could use some love. NO

During the intro, I was prepared to love this, as it started off with some beautifully emotive piano, accented by some tasteful cello. Then the main orchestration kicked in, and it's just not up to the same standard. The instruments all sound stiff and mechanical, the strings especially. The trumpets are oddly articulated--I'm not an expert on samples specifically, but these have an unpleasant honk to them. The whole soundscape is a bit muted, as well, not only being a bit quiet compared to the intro (a whole orchestra should be much louder than a solo piano, not about the same), but lacking in both low and high end frequencies. That last crash deserves some special attention--not only was it a very strange choice for the arrangement, and I'm not clear what it was supposed to accomplish, but it clips and crackles severely. I did enjoy the arrangement a lot, and the piano segments could stand on their own, but the humanization and production on the full orchestra isn't there yet. Please try taking this over to our workshop forum, as there's a lot here that I think deserves a front page post. NO (resubmit)

As I mentioned in the compo thread, it's pretty neat that you imitated an 80's electronica aesthetic to remix a game designed to imitate 80's video game aesthetics. Funny how synthwave seems positively antique but 8-bit gaming seems like it was mainstream just a few years ago; it never even occurred to me that these were actually contemporary. Anyway, this is pretty by-the-numbers synthwave from an instrumentation and production standpoint, no surprise given that Sir_NutS helped out. It gets a little same-y at points, but they're brief and that's part of the genre. Great, smooth integration of the two sources, a well-deserved win on that front. Nothing substantial lacking that I can tell, so nice job! YES

It's a pretty interesting take, and I like the core of it. But this is really more of a proof-of-concept than a full track. It consists of an intro and two nearly-identical loops of part of the source tune, and then ends at the 1:34 mark (the last 8 seconds are just ocean SFX). It takes a really dense or otherwise special arrangement to merit going under our usual guideline of 2 minutes, and this isn't it. The lead also needs some work in the production department. It's so quiet and so wet that I can't even be sure what instrument it is. That would need to be cleaned up substantially. The soundscape is pretty muddy in general; I catch hints of instruments that are being buried by the wash of reverb and ocean sounds, but I can't make them out. Thanks for submitting, but if you'd like to send us something else, I strongly recommend taking it to our workshop forum first. The main issues with this remix would have been caught quickly there. NO

We have six WIPs in, woot! Won't be canceling the project this month! But the check-in deadline is still just at the end of next week, so if I have nothing from you and you signed up before the last check-in (November), I'll be dropping your claim then. Fortunately, that includes only @WillRock, @DarkDjinn, and @JonnyAtma, but unfortunately all three are great musicians and I'd hate to lose them....

Back in the voting thread, I made the exact same comment on the layered sections being too crowded, although I cited a different standout example (2:18-2:47). It's still true. I'll also repeat my comment that the arrangement is busy in a serial manner as well as a parallel one: sometimes it's so eager to move on that it doesn't fully flesh out what it's doing, such as when 0:24-0:36 and 2:12-2:23 aren't repeated. So... yeah. In some ways this is too much of a good thing. Either do a lot of aggressive EQ work, or swap some layering for some call-and-return, or just simplify in general. I wouldn't hold it back on the other issue--it's more my preference than anything else--but if you're going to spend more time on this anyway, you can at least take a look. NO (resubmit)

Unfortunately, despite the general better quality of the samples used here, Gario's criticisms from the last submission still hold. If you'll take another look at that, you'll see that while he did criticize the quality of the trumpet sample, but felt like the other samples were adequate, just not humanized well. So now the trumpet (and the snare) are done with better samples, but are still articulated in an extremely artificial way, as are the other instruments. The swells in particular sound like they're just having the gain raised and lowered, in patterns a human wouldn't be able to perform, rather than being played louder and softer. I think you'll have to iterate over this one a few times before you get the humanization down. I see you already have it up in the WIP forum, so hopefully folks will give you some more ongoing feedback as you continue to work on it. It's usually quicker to flag a post as "ready for review" and get feedback from a workshop mod than to wait for the whole judging process, and workshop mods will catch most of what the judges will, and you can keep revising and changing the prefix as many times as you like. NO

There's some good musicianship here, but I don't think this is interpretive enough for our standards. There's a little bit of additional instrumentation thrown in, mostly a bit of percussion, but it's not a lot. The synth orch hits are very similar to the SNES ones, and while the other synths aren't quite as close, they're in the same ballpark and mostly used in the exact same way. The final reprise, until which the general arrangement is identical to the source, just adds a guitar part mirroring and then replacing the square arp. No ending to speak of, it just stops. Production could be cleaned up a little, too. The lead guitar is layered with a square wave panned hard right, which made it sound unbalanced and unclear. The rhythm and bass guitars are fighting for space, conflicting with each other nearly the whole time, and I didn't feel like there was enough separation between the lead and rhythm guitar, either. Some of the cymbals were also panned right without anything to balance them out, although at times there was a separate cymbal panned slightly left, which was an odd effect. There's also a rendering error, where the last 21 seconds of the track are silent. Thanks for submitting, but I really don't think this is quite what we're looking for, both in terms of interpretation and production. NO

Pretty straightforward electronica, but it gets the job done. Switches things up frequently, so even when one section is getting a little bland, it's over soon, so the listener doesn't get fatigued by it, for the most part. The one exception is the main arp, which starts at 0:22, really leaps out when exposed at 0:44-0:54, and starts getting old by the time it lets up at 1:15. It's nice that it gets a makeover in the next section, but then it's back to the same simple loop later on, and even the variants get old. It's easier to count the parts of the track when it's not playing: in 0:00-0:11 it's played by pizzicato strings instead of the synth; then none from 0:11-0:22; back to the strings, staccato this time, at 3:07-3:27, and it stops at 4:34. That means it's playing in some form or another for all but 19 seconds of the track, and using the same synth for 82% of it. Incidentally, 2:11-2:22 is from Undertale; I know it from "Hopes and Dreams;" not sure if it appears more prominently in another track on that OST. That repetition of that one line is my only real beef; I really like the arrangement otherwise, and the production is fine. And while it didn't bother me a ton right off the bat, now that I hear it, I can't un-hear it. Do something a little different with that part and I don't have any major concerns here, but that repetitiveness is killing this for me. NO (resubmit)

Some nice, emotive stuff here. I was dubious about the opening minimalism with that low-fi organ, but it ended up working really well. Those simple harmonies in the intro are really evocative. I have one really big beef: You have some instrumentation that's playing the part of SFX (ethnic flutes and metal sounds) without consideration of the fact that they are in fact notes, and thus need to harmonize with the rest of the music. 1:51 is the most severely dissonant moment, but similar, more minor ones are peppered throughout. Otherwise, I like this a lot. Either nix those erroneous instruments or change them to match the harmonies and this works for me. But they're seriously distracting and I consider them a dealbreaker as this stands. Edit: The revision fixes this issue. The chord at 1:51 is an odd one, but Gario assures me it's not technically discordant. Good enough for me. YES

Well, my saga with the defective left Joy-Con has come to a conclusion. It was actually really painless. I did have to call them, but they emailed me a shipping label right away, and the call only took a few minutes. Put the joy-con in the mail on Monday, arrived at the repair station Wednesday morning, was back in the mail by Wednesday afternoon and back in my hands on Thursday morning. In total it was out of my hands for less than 72 hours. And now it works great, played Zelda for a couple hours from my couch with the entertainment center cabinet closed with no hiccups. Funny thing, though: I managed to order a Pro Controller on Amazon, which arrived Wednesday, but I had no time to play that day. When I configured it on Thursday, both joysticks were miscalibrated (immediately noticeable because of menu cursor drift). I calibrated the left stick using the system tool, no problems. The right one, however, I couldn't--I entered the configuration tool and it would immediately click through the entire config process on its own, and still be off. Fortunately, I hadn't applied the new OS update, thought what the hell, couldn't hurt, and that fixed the issue. I haven't actually tried playing with the controller yet, though, so we'll see.

Lots of fun stuff going on with the accompaniment and the general arrangement and aesthetic. There's a lot to like here. I didn't hear either of the last two submissions, but this definitely sounds better than what was described before. The sound of the clap/snare is definitely better, though it's still quite static, as is the bass. Switching from "real" piano to electric piano helps excuse the lack of dynamics in it, but is still pretty stiff. The woodwinds starting at 2:07, however, are really mechanical and fake-sounding, and it doesn't help that it's on a tight, repetitive loop, which exaggerates the problem. Sounds to me like some of those dissonant notes are still there, although some have been fixed. 1:11, 1:21, and 3:20 are some moments that leaped out at me. This is very close, I think. It wouldn't be the worst thing if this passed, and there is a lot that I like about it. But I do think the small issues that remain add up. A little more humanization in some of those instruments, a little more variety in the percussion and bass, and a little less repetitiveness in the woodwind section. Not too bad in light of all the work you've already put into this. Keep at it! NO (resubmit)

Nice arrangement, beautiful soundscape. I definitely like the approach. The guitar work is great, and the original writing works perfectly with the source. Both the lead and backing strings are pretty mechanical. It's most noticeable in the attack of the lead strings in the quicker sections, where they consistently can't quite keep up. Otherwise, I don't have a whole lot to criticize. I can see the strings being a concern, but they're not in the forefront for very long and I think the strengths of the arrangement outweigh that issue. Very nice job overall. YES

Just one, I'd like to hear a remix of Song of Storms that doesn't include rain/weather SFX. That's not a dig against this one specifically, but this does use it throughout nearly the whole track, and it's a little on the loud side. It interferes with the harp's frequencies in particular, 3:14-4:08, being the most significant because of how busy it is. The flute at 0:46-1:22 is pretty muddy, too, covered up by the rain and some of the brass; the tuba also gets drowned by the choir at times. And of course the thunder covers everything, but it's supposed to, although I'd rather hear the music personally. I don't have anything else against this; it's an impressive job with free samples, and the arrangement in the second half is clever. But the balance definitely has a lot of room for improvement. Improve on that and I think this will be good to go. NO (resubmit)

In addition to the main source, this uses the invincibility theme at 2:53-3:17, and the victory fanfare right after. The transitions at 2:53 and 3:19 are really abrupt; the intention was clearly to make this sound sort of like gameplay audio, but the result is very medley-ish. I think this would have been much stronger with that whole section simply cut out. I agree that the use of vocal clips and other SFX is a little on the excessive side, but I wouldn't say they're used "haphazardly," as in the sections where they're used, their frequency of use is consistent (one per 4 measures in one section, one per 16 measures in another, etc). In general, the arrangement is pretty good and the production is fine, but I have severe reservations about that starman section. It effectively divides the song into three sections, where there's nothing but SFX by way of transition and no continuity between the second section and the other two except in some of the instrumentation. To me, this seems like two songs stuck together, which would make this a NO (resubmit)

I'm a little torn on the source usage here. The source's melody isn't used very much here; most of the source usage is the backing arp that's used throughout, and in the chord progressions. I'm not sure whether that arp is enough to constitute source usage--it's very generic and not recognizable as coming from this source particularly. The source melody is only clear from about 0:37 (it fades in here)-1:13 and 2:35-2:52. Also, the leads used in 1:16-1:50 are quite vanilla and, while not loud in an absolute sense, they do drown out the backing instruments. I think that by a literal reading, this isn't a standards violation regarding source usage, but subjectively I don't think the amount of source that is used follows the intent of those standards. If you took out those short sections of overt melody usage, I don't think a listener familiar with this source would be able to identify this as a remix of it unless they listened to both pieces of music side by side. Edit: I'll defer to my senior judges regarding source usage in this case. It also wouldn't be the first time Jake has eschewed the melody of a source in favor of writing his own melody over its backing elements. I don't think any but the most meticulous listener would pick up on those connections, but if the only question here is, "Is this a standards violation," then indeed the answer is no. And the leads I disliked, by themselves, aren't a dealbreaker. So I'll change my vote to YES

I had almost exactly the same feeling as Gario. This is incredibly clever, and the guitar adds a bit of depth that straight chiptunes wouldn't have had, but since that guitar is so important in elevating this to that level, the fact that the guitar is so simple, and panned, really is more significant than it sounds. A couple of other really minor crits: The lack of bass in the intro makes it feel a little hollow compared to the rest of the mix. The "hurry up" at 1:48, followed by a sped-up version of the first part, is kind of a cop-out; if you're going to make a whole extra section out of that, you should do something a little different with it. And I think the very end could have used a brief moment of silence, perhaps even an SFX, to queue the listener that the boss/stage has been beaten and it's time for the victory music. Still, it's the guitar that's the real killer here. Balance and spice it up and I think you'll have a pass here. NO (please resubmit!)

The approach is pretty cool, but I do have a couple of major concerns. First, I'm not sold on the production. The nice clean guitar up through 0:57 works nicely as an opener, the next part with the distortion guitar is OK, but then starting at 1:25, it's heavily loaded in the mids and gets very muddy. It never does open up to include sounds outside the middle frequencies. The climax, starting at 4:14, is even more severe, with multiple guitars stepping on each others' toes and turning everything to mud. The original content in the middle (2:47-3:15) is very dissatisfying because it's just the two guitars fighting with each other over the same space, with some bland bass and percussion. Second, the arrangement is pretty repetitive. 1:53-2:47 is a repetition of 0:31-1:25. 3:16-3:43 is very similar to 1:25-1:53, with just some different flourishes on the lead guitar, which then repeats with more flourishes but the same accompaniment. I think either of those issues is enough to send this back. The general concept and the musicianship are solid, though, so I hope to hear more from you! NO

A tricky source to work with, not a whole lot there. And this arrangement is definitely on the repetitive side as a result. But it never quite repeats exactly, with different, creative accompaniment each time, and there's lots of extra padding to break up the repetitions. I definitely think Rebecca could have erred more on the side of originality here, transforming the lead more and doing more with the other parts of the source, but I think it's adequate as it is. Production is up to her usual standards, so I'm good giving this a YES

Yeah, unfortunately, Gario's right. I scoured this for any other source usage, using two different headphone sets in case there was a subtle line I couldn't hear in one, but other than being a bit more generous with the ends of phrases, I can't come up with anything Gario didn't. 3:00-3:28 and 3:56-4:24 are clearly inspired by the source, but they're not identifiable as such without context. I like this a lot but I don't think it meets our source usage criteria. I'd love to see it back here with even a few more subtle uses of the source (like you did in 2:05-2:32). NO (resubmit)

Both the pad synth that acts at the lead in the the first 12 seconds and the chime-like synth that takes the lead after that are seriously wet--the former with reverb and the latter with reverb and delay--which is causing a lot of mud and clashing notes. The main lead that starts at 0:38 is better but still a little problematic. Listen to the ending (3:04 on) for a particularly glaring example of the "wall of sound" issue, where there's a ton of conflict and you can't hear anything clearly. The cymbals in 1:46-1:57 could also use improvement, they're very sharp and dominating. What's with the fake ending at 1:30? It's just jarring, and I don't see the payoff for the gimmick. 1:57-2:49 is a pretty close copy of 0:49-1:29. The lead isn't exactly the same one, but it's similar (although better), and the other differences are pretty subtle. I like the general approach here, the 80's synth aesthetic works really well here, and I think 1:59-3:02 is pretty darn good the way it is, but I think cleaning up those instruments and making that second loop a little more distinct from the first (or the first from the second) are necessary to get this where it needs to be. NO (resubmit)

Lufia 2 is a big weakness for me as well, and this certainly delivers. Plenty of original work and twists on the source, so I don't think it's particularly conservative at all. There are a few odd note combinations (1:39-1:41 especially stuck out to me), and Gario's crits about the production are on point, but the arrangement is golden and the performance is tight. YES

Starting off, that's a pretty lengthy clip of game audio serving as an intro. The lead synth that starts at 0:45 is mixed pretty far back--it's quiet and very wet, and those long distorted tails are causing some clashing notes. The lead guitar starting at 2:01 is pretty quiet, too, very hard to hear under the rhythm guitar and drums. 1:25-2:01 is a verbatim repeat of 0:45-1:21, including an odd volume spike at 1:34. 3:22-3:58 repeats this again, not quite verbatim, but the minor additional elements are little more than mud in most places. That ending leaves a lot to be desired. 3:59 starts off the repeating chugs with some SFX (tasteful), but that more or less repeats for the last 58 seconds of the track as it fades out very, very slowly. I think it would have worked better if it had just ended at 3:21 with something simple and quick. There's a lot here that works--chop out 1:25-2:01 and 3:21+ and tweak the leads a little and I'd not have much to complain about here. But as it stands, I have to give this a NO (resubmit)