CHz

Pretty good example of good interpretation while staying within the structure of the original. Could have been more daring in that regard, but no problems with the level of personalization you've already got. Nice performance, recording is good to go. YES

Are you talking about this? Don't have any non-animated shots of that.

SD Snatcher is my joint. Liking the adaptation. Works pretty well in this style, and the middle section at 1:23 was nice. No problem with the arrangement here, good stuff. Productionwise, there's definite room for improvement. Found myself wanting more dynamic contrast, mainly in the big string sections in the beginning and end. Those hits wouldn't all be at the same volume. It feels like the track could really be building up to something big at 0:59 and 2:23 in particular, but it comes off a bit repetitive instead. The piano sequencing could be better, but it blends well with the track and it's not there for very long, so not a big deal. I think with more work this could be better, but none of my production concerns are really holding this track back. 's good. YES

I was listening to this rather loud, and that synth starting at 0:49 is kind of piercing, my ears are hurting a bit now. It's mainly the held notes, 1:15-1:18 for example is just the same tone at the same intensity for three seconds and ow. No one else mentioned this so maybe it's just me. Drop it further back, add some vibrato or decay, change the synth to something less harsh, etc. Production is pretty good aside from that niggle. I feel DS saying the guitars and organ could stand to be softer, but I'm fine with how they are. The take on the source is great, but I'm not hearing enough "Hey, Cid!" to give it a pass. NO (resubmit)

This is all kinds of cool. Development is good, the climax could be bigger but I'm fine with where it does go. Great arrangement ideas. Production is the weak point as a few have said, but nothing too too bad except the big brass sections and the weirdly close solo strings at 2:15 and 2:26. There's definite room for improvement, but I'm fine with this one as is. YES

Didn't really have a problem with emptiness, the bass could be a bit more prominent, though. The drum writing is good, but as zirc said, the sequencing could be better: mixed velocities, switching up samples, etc. Arrangement is pretty conservative with the melody, but the original and additional writing fit in great and there is some variety in the beginning and end. I'm leaning toward yes. The arrangement could be a bit more adventurous, and the production could be a bit better, but what you have here works. YES

Interesting take on the source, I kind of dig it. The writing worked really well sometimes and other times not quite so much, so it seems kind of random overall. The intro and ending are good, but it's the middle where things occasionally get unfocused. Production I think is a bigger problem. Dryness has been mentioned repeatedly, and there's a lot that could be done for more realism. The parts were the samples are exposed, the beginning and 2:58, sound especially bad. Humanization would go a long way, a lot of the runs are pretty stiff. Some very cool arrangement ideas, but they're not good enough to make up for the production. NO (resubmit)

I'm fine with that verbatim intro melody, it is a little bit different sounding and there's a lot of other source usage backing it up. The mix is pretty conservative overall up to 2:21. The arrangement gets better at that point, still a pretty straightforward adaptation but with some personal touches. Production is fine, I didn't think anything got too cluttered. The intro is kind of long, but only because after the meat of the track starts it's only a couple of minutes before it starts winding down. I think it would work great with an extended version of the mix, because right now it seems a bit unbalanced. This could go either way, but it sounds good enough and there's just enough in the arrangement to put it over the bar. YES

The reprise of the Flowers melody is in the crystalline synth starting at about 3:03, it gets a bit buried but it lasts until around 3:25-3:30, right up to the wind-down. Corresponds to the start of the source, first fifteen seconds or so. I think I hear a touch of The Maw in the transition between A Walk in the Woods and that, roughly 2:44 to like, what, 2:56 at most. Really buried, I doubt I would have noticed it all if I weren't told it was there. The two Flowers in Heaven sections are great, and I'm fine with the A Walk in the Woods chord section, since that's probably the most distinctive part of the source and it's pretty recognizable in the mix. There's also a lot of original stuff, including the long intro, and I'm not entirely convinced that The Maw is in there; if so, it's so subtle/unrecognizable that I'd be tentative about counting it anyway. Great expansive take on the sources, and wonderful textures throughout. I'm really borderline on the arrangement, and I've been flipping back and forth on this for a while, but I'm going to go with no. If you don't want to change it, I love it as is, but as far as site standards are concerned, I think it needs a bit more overt source usage for it to be dominant. NO (resubmit)

Yup, Fishy definitely sucks, no question (sorry) Anyway letting this go two months without a closing vote is inordinately embarrassing for myself so let's get this over with. (sorry) Pretty coverish, though the interpretation in the intro and 2:01 section and the additional and original writing are enough arrangement. Production is alright, pops in the intro but I didn't think they were that bad, louder rhythm guitar would give the track a bit more punch but the energy level is good as is. No major issues, here is a vastly overdue final SORRY (yes)

Weird/bad/fake sample usage starting off: violin, bagpipes, etc. Arrangement is niiiice, though, emotive and stuff. Transition at 1:37 is kind of weird, but section isn't too bad. Mechanical writing still, though. 2:15 comes and I'm like "wow." Picking up intensity at 3:08 is good, just need to nail the big finish and this one's in the bag. And then the chanting comes in. Maybe if the rest of the mix were immaculate, I could overlook that section (it doesn't bother me as much as it did on the first listen), but there's too much bad with the sample usage and writing to pass this. I'd love a resub to make things sound less fake and more expressive, and very preferable without chanting. Also a little bit of extension of the ending, because it's pretty abrupt. Especially the strings. NO (resubmit)

Neat. 3:54 coming right out of the solo, that section goes on for so long that it sounds like there's supposed to be a melody or something else there but there isn't. Well, technically there is, but it's so buried there that it might as well not be there. Was that intentional? If nothing's really going to happen there then it might as well be shortened up. That's really the only sore spot I have on the mixing, muddiness etc. has been extensively covered but everything is fairly audible. Even the booming at the end, yeah they eat up the track a bit so you can pull them back but it's such an epic way to end the mix. 3:06 is the other main weird part with the drums, that could be fattened up. Vocals could be fixed but this is probably the best possible style for making that not matter. Less crunchy would be greatly appreciated. I feel like I'm trying to nitpick this down into not passing it. There's obvious room for improvement, but the arrangement is way hot enough to just about make up for it. I don't really want to do a conditional yes without giving you a specific thing to change, but honestly fixing any of the things that the other C-YES voters stipulated would put this over the bar for me. YES (conditional on something)

Drack is right in that there really aren't that many Mac bullet hell shmups compared to "normal" ones, AnSo. That list of Kenta Cho ports you linked doesn't have rRootage or Noiz2sa, which I would recommend. You can grab those from here (Coop linked this already). That's all I can come up with off the top of my head right now; I don't play bullet hell very often on account of my sucking righteously hard at them. There is no other game like Guwange.

Audio glitches are clearly there and while I'd like them fixed the only one that struck me as truly bad was the clipping during the last solo. Nothing else of note except for the bass which could be more prominent, but honestly who isn't a sucker for some sick bass. Arrangement rocks the fucking house. There's a difference between a mix being 100% soloing over chords from the source and being like this, where there's explicit source melody flowing in and out throughout with solos grounded with source chords in between. zyko mentioned something about cohesion, which is pretty key because the soloing over the chords never makes this sound like it's anything other than Cyan, so I'm more than comfortable with dropping those sections into the source use column. I went with a YES on Shinesparks, and I'm dropping another one here. YES

Nice expansive approach. Similar to the original in a lot of respects, but I do like the way you've built on it. Maybe a bit plodding, but I'd go more with "deliberate." The production has pretty much been fully covered, so I'll let you go by saying that it could use some work, especially on the drums, but it doesn't drag the track into NO territory. Arrangement works, production checks out, it's been eight months but here is one last YES

sup sluts

Oh, almost forgot. There's a video of the performance: At 0:10, far right, that's Paul with the glasses and cello looking at the camera.

:FURAT: Hey, awesome to see this finally get posted. Making me like the Wild Arms opening theme, pretty fantastic, this is why I listen to remixes. I seriously can't get enough of this arrangement of the theme.

So I thought this mix was pretty cool. Much harder than the original, nice approach. The synths are all pretty dry and there isn't really anything in the start to fill up the space. The emptiness isn't terrible, but a pad back there could be good. The synth riff build is nice, but when the last one comes in at 1:06 we've hit clutterville. The break comes by soon and solves everything, but that section needs some clearing up. Very nice break. Back to the first synth stuff at 3:05, again a bit hollow. And we're building with the synths again, please don't get cluttered again like it did earlier... ugh, 3:29. Everything melts together into a ball of chainsaws. It's short, like the first time, but the damage has already been done. Still, he get the letdown with instruments dropping out, sure, but then BOOT TO THE HEAD at 4:18, why did you do that. And the real ending just abruptly drops out. The arrangement is passable, but there could be more variation in the source usage and a bit more prominent usage of it instead of just one layer that's built upon with tons of original stuff. The cluttered sections at 1:06-1:17 and 3:29-3:42 are dealbreakers, they're just, ow. The abrupt switch at the ending and then abrupt ending aren't helping, and I'd like it if those empty sections were filled up a bit. NO (resubmit)

The textures are pretty sparse overall, and I'd like to seem them beefed up a bit, but there are plenty of them in the mix with all the different arrangement ideas between the HH FEVER DO YOU HAVE IT, so it's not like we're hearing the same lame sound throughout. The accompaniment and drums are mixed up throughout, even though the melody isn't really changed up. The original melody fits in well with it as well. Sounds are obviously pretty cheap, but I think the arrangement just barely outweighs the bad side, because there's nothing really outright terrible (except maybe the claps). I also agree with the folks who don't think the Beethoven similarity is an issue because of the different chords and way different melody. YES (borderline)

Windmill Hut's melody is one of my favorites of the entire Zelda series, and I like seeing what other people can do with it because chances are pretty good it'll turn out better than Windmill Hut did. Okay, yeah, first the intro. I get the slow, soft buildup into the phatness and so forth, but this is both too slow and too soft. The arrangement is, well, it's a couple of licks from the melody repeated ad nauseam on top of the boom tiss, which isn't particularly special, to begin with as others have pointed out. It seems like this is what you were going for, and I'm not knocking you at all for doing it, but as far as OCR goes, I would like to see more done on the arrangement side. Better counterpoint (including beefing up what you've already got), varying the riffs more, bigger breaks that play more with the source, anything. Production is a'ight. Generic sounds, sure, but you're not using them poorly or anything. I'd love things to be more distinctive in that area, but that's not really my problem here. NO (resubmit)

I am dying.

Okay, so right off the bat, the production needs some work. Too much reverb and the balance is way off as the other J's have said. Pretty much everything could be clearer, and the leads needs to stand out more from the accompaniment. Sample usage and sequencing aren't too bad for the most part; biggest offenders for me are that part at 2:54 Larry mentioned and the strings at the end that DS mentioned that are really straining to hit those high notes. The writing seems, I dunno, a bit underwhelming. It's interpretive, but it feels like it should be building into something more than it actually does. The texture is pretty much the same from start to finish, and the climax sounds pretty weak because of the mixing and samples. The production pulling the track down is a part of that, and just fixing that might actually be good enough to give it some definition. DS's suggestion of another lead instrument could also help. Really, though, production is the biggest problem, as I'm sure you've gleaned from the other votes by now. NO (resubmit)

0:32-1:38 and 1:52-3:12 are reasonably okay takes on the Gusty Garden theme. The piano volume in the first part isn't so soft that it can't be heard, but the countermelodies are both louder than it, and I think just a small boost to bring it over the top would be great. The woodwind lead that comes it at 1:05 could stand out a bit more against the percussion and strings. The rest of the sound quality in those parts was good enough. Which brings me to the other parts, and the transitions between them. I don't have a problem at 0:03 with the intro like Larry does, but I do with 0:16, which seems out of the blue. The balance in that section seems a bit off: the drums overpower everything else and the strings are way in the back. The string sample is kind of weak also. That section from 0:16 to 0:32 sounds like it's building into something, but then all of a sudden there's this soft piano playing a melody, so all the motion seems wasted. The short section at 1:38 is really awkward in comparison with what came before, and after fourteen seconds you've moved onto something else without developing it, so it screws with the flow and majorly sticks out. The drums starting at 3:00 really don't do anything to help the abrupt transition at 3:12, and then the track just dies at 3:29 without feeling concluded, again a flow problem. All of a sudden we've got something new, and then just as soon as it came in it's over. This is really good for a first sub, but the structural problems are holding it too far back. There are some good arrangement ideas, but the overall execution is just not clicking. The production is pretty good overall; I'd love if you'd fix some of the things I mentioned, but they're not dealbreakers. NO (resubmit)

Pretty cool arrangement to a piano duet here. Nice development and some good interplay between the parts; it's six minutes long, but I never thought "why is this still going." Sequencing is good too. Production is my main beef here, because I would really like the piano parts to be better defined. There's a bit of bleeding, and they have the same sample, so the sounds blend into each other a bit too much. Vinnie had a really good idea with making one of the pianos a bit brighter; you could go with another piano sample entirely, or just do something to give one of them a bit different character, so that they stand out against each other more. Or just move them a bit farther apart in the soundscape. I think the production does bring this one down a bit too much, so I'm with Larry here. I won't yell if this passes as is, but I think it could be so much better with just a little bit more work. YES conditional on fixing up the piano contrast