MindWanderer

Ditto on the overcrowding, but it isn't problematic for very long. Gario's right that those complex harmonies aren't to everyone's taste, because they aren't to mine, but they're technically correct. I can see what Kris meant by vocoding. 0:57-1:10, for instance, sounds mechanical because of the reverb combined with the harmonization, but I don't think it's technically vocoding. I think I detect a hint of autotuning, but with so much going on, I'm not sure, and there's nothing wrong with that anyway. However, there is a strange quaver at the beginning of that section, and each time it repeats, which doesn't sound intentional. I too would have preferred some variation in the writing to keep things fresh instead of the gating effect. It gets a little repetitive: "How could I give up" is repeated 4 times, and "Whatever we are up against" 3 times, with only small lyrical changes and the gating, and the gating by itself isn't the most effective tool to mitigate this--it just adds gaps and doesn't change the sounds themselves. They're also kind of randomly applied. All the interesting writing is clumped up at the end, which is unfortunate. I think this is really close, but I'm just barely going to come down on the other side of this. I'd like to see the gating replaced by something more interesting and less distracting that makes the repetition more bearable, and that crowding reduced. NO (borderline, resubmit)

I never buy the release version of consoles--too much risk of problems, or gross miscalculations of what the market actually wants--but Nintendo tends to do a better job than Sony and Microsoft in that regard, so maybe. I'm pretty eager for Breath of the Wild, so if the Switch version is markedly better than the Wii U one and is in a bundle with the console, there's a good chance I'll go for it. Splatoon will help make my decision, too, but that'll have to wait until folks get their hands on it. If it just adds pants and hairstyles, but the touch controls are replaced with something not as smooth, then meh, I'll stick with the Wii U version. If there's actually new functional content, then maybe.

Looks like I get to lead off on a Gario mix. *ahem* If you'd asked me to imagine what a Gario take on this source, keeping its original upbeat tone, would sound like, this would be pretty much exactly it. It's got those nice crisp leads, those fun arps, that nice resonant backing, fun original riffs, everything I expect from Gario. Unfortunately, that includes some of the weaknesses, like a very busy high end in places (1:58-2:08, for instance), but it's distinct enough that it's not a major issue. 3:01-3:17, especially from 3:12 on, is an exception; some of the lead gets a little swallowed there. The pumping on the vox pad is a little odd and didn't sound intentional at first, took me a couple of listens to catch on to the pattern and realize that it was intentional. The sine lead is quite piercing. The lead in the source is heading in that direction already, but this takes that and makes it even shinier. While it stands out the most in the intro and the ending where it's most exposed, the peaks in 1:25-2:17 are where it really makes me wince. Edit: It's still a smidgen too shrill for my tastes, but isn't pushing the physical discomfort threshold anymore. Clearly no issues on the arrangement front. The main hook is present throughout, but Gario does a good job keeping it fresh and original--no mean feat considering how short it is. So my only real beefs are with that sine lead being too shrill and the xylophone-like lead at 3:12 being drowned for about 4 seconds. The latter isn't a big deal because it's so brief, and the former is a bit borderline, and I know my ears are more sensitive to the former issue than most. I'd prefer to see those improved, but I'm okay with this otherwise. Edit: Both issues have been improved in the current version, so my qualified YES is now a stronger YES

Deliberately imitating an older style that was originally produced in a way that wouldn't be up to modern standards presents the judges with an interesting challenge. If this were an original surf song produced for a modern audience, or if, for example, it appeared in a modern surf movie, the mixing definitely wouldn't be up to par. But if the conceit is that this was an undiscovered song from yesteryear, it holds up. That could be taken too far--if this were deliberately done as, say, a demo tape recorded in someone's garage, I don't think I'd bite--but this is good enough for me. I'd personally prefer it if that conceit were abandoned and it aimed for a cleaner modern standard, but that's a matter of preference. Arrangement-wise, the surfing elements are well-done and add more than enough to consider this an original arrangement. I too would prefer that the first and second halves weren't quite so distinct, but they're similar enough in style and execution that it's not a dealbreaker. Hang loose, bro. YES (borderline, production improvements above recommended)

Gario pretty much nailed it, I think. The connection to "Through the Valleys" is iffy, but it's a minuscule amount of the arrangement. Everything else plays out exactly as Gario said, including the sections of the main theme that appear in Skyrim but not Oblivion. The melodies chosen are clear throughout, which doesn't always happen when working when either the source or the arrangement contains this much other stuff going on. Even being borderline on the 50% stopwatch test, it's very clearly based on at least one of at least 3 sources throughout. And the return to the main theme at the end was a beautiful, effective touch. Strings are a tiny bit mechanical for a few brief moments, with some odd swells especially in the Watchman's Ease section, but it's barely worth mentioning. Otherwise this pretty much nails the production. Great arrangement with some powerful inspiration behind it. I love it. YES

Yeah, me too. Finally picked up an N3DS when they released the discounted Black Friday special Mario edition. 2509-6065-0408 I notice @The Damned doesn't seem to be updating the list anymore, though. Edit: No, I guess he is, he just missed Gario.

This was one of my favorites from the compo, although regarding that version, I did indeed have the same reservations about it that Gario called himself out on and fixed here. I agree with Larry that it's a smidge busy at times (0:38 is an especially cluttered second or so), but as he said, everything is crisp and you can make everything out clearly. Lots of fun, good use of the themes, classic Gario goodness. YES

Have you tried other games? It would make more sense for the hardware to be damaged than the software on a ROM corrupted, specifically in such a specific way.

Interesting soundscape. That grungy synth combined with those crisp wood blocks and the heavily reverbed synths that come in later create a truly layered effect. Usually the discrepant effects would be cause for criticism, but here it's effective in creating a unique feel. There's a little bit of repetition, especially 0:48-1:10 and 1:48-2:10, which other than a key change sound identical. Mostly each repetition of a section has some significantly different treatment that keeps it fresh. Yeah, not a whole lot more to say here. It's a bit strange, but it accomplishes exactly what it's meant to. Nice job. YES

Nice job retaining the feel of the original while definitely creating something new and creative out of it. It's fun, different, and interesting throughout. The divisions between the sections were a little abrupt, but each section was clearly related to the rest of the piece. Mixing definitely could be improved, but I didn't find the progression of it confusing as others did. The lead being less prominent was unusual but I felt like it was an intentional and effective stylistic choice the way it was used in the earlier sections--Part 2 hints at the upcoming lead, quietly but clearly, then Part 3 puts it more up front while holding on to the other elements. I did feel like the lead instruments were too quiet in Part 8, but as a throwback to parts 1-3, I felt this was acceptable. Part 6 was indeed very cluttered, and is the one section I feel is really problematic enough to maybe hold this back. Samples, especially the brass, are definitely mechanical, but no more so than Bluelighter's last mixpost. I'd love to see it improved but I don't think it's enough to hold this back. YES

I've seen metal arrangements of this elsewhere on the internet, but nice to see it here! I didn't play this game as a kid--no comic book fans among my friends--so it was great to discover this tune as an adult. I'm completely in agreement with NutS on his main points. The arrangement is generally conservative but in most places has at least some original accompaniment, and the original section is a lot of fun. Could stand to be a bit more than just looping through the source a few times with a break in the middle, but it's passable on this front. But the mixing needs some substantial work--the lead is heavily buried behind the bass, the overdriven guitar, and the drums throughout most of the mix. It's most severe starting at about 2:58, where everything comes in and just drowns out that lead even though two guitars are playing it. I actually thought the overdriven guitar was the worst offender, even drowning the bass when it was playing. Balance could have been improved but was much better when it wasn't there. I did think the ending was adequate for the style, although the tail Larry mentioned should be fixed if this passes. The strings at 1:10-1:14 were more egregious than the ones at the beginning, but again, they were brief and quiet, and could be overlooked. The production is the only major issue I have, but I feel like it's a substantial one that needs to be addressed before posting. Clean that up and I think this will be an easy pass. NO (resubmit)

Those kicks are certainly overpowering! Lowering the volume on those and reducing the sidechaining a little would definitely make this easier to listen to. The reverb is creating some muddiness, but the soundscape doesn't have too many instruments at competing frequencies, so the issue isn't as problematic as it could be. I don't feel like either issue covers up the lead, they're just distracting. Regarding source usage, I'm not sure I'd give credit for 3:33-4:03, but the rest is fine. I don't feel like spacing the melody's measures out makes it any less identifiable. The arrangement is great, a very creative take on totally different sources. I get a very strong Daft Punk vibe from it. I don't feel like the length of any given section is inappropriate for the genre, and it's constantly switching things up. I'd prefer a version of this with a quieter kick, with the sidechaining either reduced all around or applied more selectively, and with the reverb reduced in the busier sections. But I don't feel like those are dealbreakers even together, especially for the genre. There's a lot to enjoy here. YES (borderline)

The conservative and repetitive nature of this is my biggest concern as well. It stops being a cover at 1:22, past the halfway mark, then returns to being one at 2:08. I strongly disagree with Gario that it takes to the end for the listener to catch on to the repetitions; the first section after the introduction is a repetition right away, just with more instruments, and then it repeats a third time, almost identically to the second. And even 1:22-1:55 is still at its core the melody looped again, even though it has some really gorgeous guitar chords layered over it. Even the ending is just the end of a loop; if it had looped again right after the last note, it wouldn't have sounded out of place. Additionally, there's a sour chord that plays at 0:06, 0:33, 1:00, and 2:13. It's pretty severe and I'm really surprised no one's mentioned it so far. Edit: I'll concede the superior knowledge of my colleagues. It sounds unpleasant to me but I guess it's a matter of taste. Other than that one chord, this is some fantastic playing, and the more arranged section is beautiful. I would love to hear more work in that direction, and it kills me that the rest of this is so conservative and so repetitive. Please send us something with more of that! NO

It's not the most sophisticated synth and beat design, but I feel like both are adequate. And while the high end is a little subdued, that seems to be the intent and I don't feel like it's a substantial issue. From 1:02-1:12, there's some odd pumping in the saw. It seems to be intentional, but it's inconsistent in intensity and duration, so it sounds to me like a compression error. At 1:13, there's a backing instrument that's slightly detuned and it makes the saw sound off-key. Even though there are a number of production issues, I don't feel like they're significant enough to detract from what is otherwise a creative, dynamic arrangement. I wouldn't be sad if this got sent back for some cleanup, but to me this is worth a YES

All right, that leaves us only 7 claims, of which 3 have WIPs. Time to get dangerous. Next check-in will be Saturday, April 15. I need to have some sort of WIP from everyone at that point. Anyone from whom I haven't heard any music at all will be dropped. I will also continue to accept new claims. If you had one and it got dropped, I need a WIP from you to accept your claim back again. If, after that April culling, but with any new additions, there aren't at least 6 claims remaining on the board, I'll suspend the whole project unless folks express an interest again.

Regarding the arrangement, here's the problem I have: The main hook from the source consists of only eight notes. Up until 1:16, I hear only the first two and the last two of those notes. After that, when it does match the source, it continues for only 20 more seconds. The original takes this in several different directions as the piece evolves; this does not, until it returns at 1:55 in a completely different way. At that point, I can hear the connection, but with it slowed down so much and the rhythm changed completely--I initially heard this as four groups of two notes, not two triplets plus two notes--it takes me a lot of imagination and concentration to make that connection. I can't draw any connection between the other aspects of the two pieces, but there's a lot of complicated and subtle stuff going on in both, so I could easily be missing something, if another judge can help identify it. Like Gario, I do hear the connection to the RE5 source, though again it's tenuous, and not to the RE4 one, though either way the section is so short that it doesn't matter. (I actually referenced Wesker's theme from RE1 as well as the one from Umbrella Chronicles linked here, and the arpeggio is completely different. If this does get posted, I would definitely like verification that RE1 is a source for this at all.) I agree with Gario and Deia both about the mixing issues at 2:15 and that it's not enough of a concern to turn this down, but it could certainly be improved. Otherwise, production seems fine. If only that main hook was implemented the same way before 1:16 as after, or better yet if it riffed on the theme the same way the source does (not necessarily the same riffs exactly, but the same style), or if it was implemented more literally after 1:55, I wouldn't have any problem passing this. But for so much of the arrangement it's different enough that I gotta give this a NO (borderline, please resubmit)

There's a reason this game is overlooked--it was developed by Konami's Nagoya studio, so their usual music team had nothing to do with it (nor was the storyline of their creation, so it wasn't so much banished as never included to begin with). As near as I can tell, its composers (Kaoru Okada and Youichi Iwata) have nothing else to their credit, and certainly nothing on OC ReMix. I like how you cleaned this up as compared to the original. The original has a problem where it has two lines trying to be the lead at the same time and stepping all over each other. This is much more enjoyable in that respect. And the riffs on the original melody are fun and creative. I'm having a rough time with the clashing notes, as other have mentioned. 0:32, 1:46, 2:06, 2:08, and 2:29 are the ones my ears catch without careful listening. But they are indeed there in the source as well, where they're even more noticeable, so yay, I guess? I see where Larry's coming from about the arrangement being a little plodding, and I definitely do feel it could benefit from changing things up a little more. In particular, 0:28-1:11 and 2:12-2:54 are virtually if not actually identical, about 42 seconds, nearly 20% of the mix. I don't feel like that beat quite wears out its welcome, but it does get awfully close. Overall, not Mike's finest work, and I'd certainly say more power to him if he wanted to make it a little more interesting in the repetitive places and see if there's anything that could be done about those off notes. But I have no problems giving this a YES

While the transition in itself isn't overly abrupt to me, I did feel like there was too much of a disconnect between the two halves of the mix. A lot of this is due to the guitar: it's only present in 11 seconds of the Shieldner Sheldon section (which is otherwise very close to the source in style), but it's there throughout the whole of the X-Hunter section, and then drops out again for most of the last section (the Sir_NutS section, I gather) until close to the end. So it's not quite a first half/second half thing; omitting the X-Hunter section specifically makes it much more cohesive. If that guitar were spaced out more evenly, or even just if that 11-second guitar bit from the first half were reprised later on, I think the whole thing would be tied together nicely. Heck, even without the guitar, if Shieldner Sheldon came back to bookend the arrangement, it would help quite a bit. Of course, a more thorough integration would be even better, and I think these sources could lend themselves to that. I completely agree that the first half is too conservative, but I do love that guitar section, and it's only half the mix, so it's not a dealbreaker. I do agree with all the positive feedback as well, though. There's great stuff here, especially from 2:06 on, and the soundscape is solid. I like that it's not mixed as loudly as one would expect from something like this--you're only sporadically hitting the limiter, and the dynamics are nicely preserved. I'd love to see this back on the panel after tying it together a little more tightly. NO (resubmit)

I'm leaning toward Larry's take on the interpretation. Aside from the sampling issue (I'm also not sure how much is sampled and how much, like the 808, is a similar sound synthesized independently), the structure is extremely similar, basically just taking the first and third sections of the source and changing the effects, with small changes to the instrumentation. I think if a similar amount of transformation were applied to a more traditional piece of music, it would be a very clear rejection. In addition, it is repetitive. It certainly should be repetitive to a certain extent for this style of music, but this is above and beyond. The source was really repetitive as well, but it took fewer measures to go through more substantial transformations. I also agree with Emu about that 808 being excessively loud and resonant, but that's on top of the fundamental arrangement issue. NO

I definitely have to agree that the strings and woodwinds sound fake and mechanical in most places, and as up-front as they are, it's a pretty strong detractor. I felt the choir was passable. The section that starts at 3:54 gets very busy; to me it sounds like a guitar, drums, and then a bunch of indecipherable noise. It's a short section, though, and I can live with it. Gario's right about that one off note, of course. And to my ears, the choir at 3:42 hits a super low note that doesn't sound human--a human could hit that note, but this is like reverse-chipmunk effect. Overall, this really is an amazing, exciting arrangement, and the musicianship on the guitars takes this to a totally different level. I loved the Wicked Child cameo, and the interesting harmony work throughout. The late additions of the choir and synth took me by surprise at first, and I didn't feel like they belonged, but they grew on me. It's really just those strings, both the ensemble and the solo violin, that give me significant pause in passing this. They're really not the worst strings, though, and there's just so much good going on here. I wouldn't mind at all if this got sent back for tweaks, but for my part I'm OK giving this a YES (borderline)

This is definitely a case of a remix that's mostly there, but has a whole lot of niggling issues. There are indeed some brief sections where one or two instruments are almost completely buried; the bass is usually the victim here, which is unfortunate because when I can hear it, there's some interesting bass writing going on. The 22-second section that gets repeated is perhaps the weakest section, with no interpretation to speak of. I definitely see where Jive is coming from about the break being a little empty. There's also a sour note at 1:03-1:05 that no one else has mentioned yet. While I don't think it would be bad if this passed, I do think this could be worlds better with the touchups that everyone's mentioned so far. Despite the vanilla synths, there's a lot of creative arrangement work that would really shine if you could just bring it out a little more. Please go through all the advice above and send this back to us! NO (borderline, please resubmit)

Oh, my ears. That shrill synth at 0:36 is actually past the pain threshold for me, and that bright piano is actually really close to that line as well. I also agree with Gario that the volume tends to jump dramatically in places, which really stands out due to the schizophrenic nature of this arrangement. I'm not sold on all those sudden twists--some of them work, but with so many, this is almost not a coherent arrangement at all. It's certainly interesting. I didn't hear an excessive amount of compression until about 3:47, but it's pretty strong there. I definitely agree with the other judges about the piano being too stiff. The guitar didn't bother me, though. Ultimately, it's all fairly minor stuff, but it adds up. I think you can get this back to us and over the bar, and for a first effort, that's pretty darn good. NO (resubmit)

Short and sweet, I felt like the arrangement did everything it needed to. As an introduction to a greater body (a game or longer performance), I felt like the absence of high-frequency instruments was as aesthetic decision that worked fine. But in such a stark arrangement, the lack of humanization really hits you. Those abrupt cutoffs over and over again are jarring, and the mid-phrase attacks on the strings, as Gario described, aren't realistic. With such a minimalist piece, what is there really needs to nail it, and I feel like this just barely isn't there. Please clean it up and send it back our way! NO (borderline)

I was actually surprised to learn that the other judges had a hard time hearing the sources here. The timing is slightly altered and the harmonies changed completely, but the progression of the notes in the melody is basically identical and up-front. I'll echo Deia's criticism of the strings, and I wasn't the biggest fan of the humanization of the brass, either, but they're certainly good enough. If I had one major criticism, it's that the section from 0:58-1:22 is really disparate with the rest of the piece. I get that in this "flight," that's supposed to represent flying through a storm or something, but the transition into that section was a little too abrupt to really sell it. I kind of get the transition out of it, though; I can imagine this peacock getting driven underwater or something, and emerging into the light at 1:34, but again that could have been a little clearer, if that was indeed the intent. Anyway, great stuff, wonderful integration of the two completely disparate themes, and an easy YES

Most of my thoughts are echoed above. The instruments wouldn't fool anyone into thinking they're real, but it's sufficient to be enjoyable. I had no issues with the arrangement--as other judges mentioned, the brief leitmotifs from other themes in the beginning were a high point that would have been great to see more of, but switching the instrumentation regularly kept the arrangement feeling fresh. I thought the ending was fine--the leitmotifs at the beginning suggest that this is actually one movement of a larger work, and this ending would be perfectly appropriate in that context. And even though lots of other artists have used various gimmicks to give this source an industrial feel, you've succeeded in doing it entirely using normal orchestra instruments, and that's a real coup. There are a couple of minor things I'd add. First, this did seem mixed a little quiet to me, even for an orchestral mix--it can be raised by about 0.6dB without clipping, and I see no reason not to do that at least. Second, it sounds like you've used some unusual reverb settings here. The result is less "concert hall" and more "open-air auditorium." That's not necessarily wrong, since that's a perfectly valid venue for a live orchestral performance, but studio-style recordings don't usually sound like that, so it struck me as odd. So while there's room for improvement, I liked this a lot, and I have no problem giving it a YES