No source link, no source comment. I'm not gonna go hunting down the source for every remix. The remixer can supply the link themselves.
But clearly I should play this game at some point. Seems like it's got great music.
I think the middle minute's drum rhythm is a bit repetitive, as the track gets stale towards the middle.. Yes, despite the cool rhythm. The transition to the last part also doesn't quite make sense to me, and should probably be signalled better in the dynamics and writing. I'm not saying it's out of place, it could work, but it currently doesn't.
It currently feels like 2 separate tracks, one after the other. It might be a good idea to let some instruments carry over, a percussion element or the low strings or something. I suggest you try something like that to make the track more cohesive. An intro in the same style as the ending part might also do it. There are many solutions to this problem.
Repetitiveness is a problem in the ending part as well. It shouldn't take much, just a variation to the melody or a change in the overall dynamics, an instrument entering or dropping out. Again, a problem with many solutions.
It also sounds like the lead and drums are too loud compared to everything else. I'm having trouble listening to what's going on in the background. You'd best check this against some other posted remixes in a similar style.
Not yet ready for ocr, but it's a short and sweet track that has potential. Needs work on the mixing and on making the track more cohesive, as well as reducing the repetitiveness.
I hope this hasn't been on eval since the end of January, as that's a bit too long. We've said (haven't we?) that it should take us about two weeks to notice and evaluate your track. If you don't have an eval after two weeks, PM us or something.
MM is one of the first games I have any memory of, along with Battle Chess. Never played enough of it for any of the music to stick, though.
Long piano intro, seems like it's gonna be a piano-centric track. Odd stuff playing, but I don't terribly mind. It's at least interesting, though it's important that those odd parts in particular feel performed, intentional, rather than sequenced. I get the impression that they're imported from a midi in which they were played on a different instrument. The delay and reverb are messing with my impression of the piano. Later parts have a different keyboard instrument handling the arpeggio, but some rather stiff piano stuff on top. The background stuff isn't as important, but the piano needs to sound more human.
Not a fan of the piano+bass sound, but we'll see how it develops. Takes half the track for drums to come in. The track instantly feels a lot better balanced. Drums for the most part are quite straitforward, but there's some nice fills there at times. I don't think drum writing is much of a problem.
Fadeout ending. I don't think that's necessary. It almost sounds like a normal ending, one that works fine, except it also fades at the same time. Consider how you want it to end.
Source is obviously there, and while it sounds rather conservative, I think the genre adaptation and stuff makes it interpreted enough. No problem there.
I can't make sense of the choice of bass. Most of the track, it sounds randomly chosen with little regard for the overall sound of the track. The piano needs to feel more human. During some of the weird writing in the beginning, and when it's playing melody on top of the arpeggio and bass, it doesn't feel performed by a real person. It should feel deliberate and emotive, respectively. And the ending is cheap. You could just drop out the drums and let the guitar stop after a long note. That's an okay ending. There are other ways to end the track, too. But the fadeout doesn't work.
Not yet ready for ocr. Sounds promising tho. And nice choice of source.
This is what I find kind of backwards about the whole thing. Why should the burden of manually compensating for volume fall on music that hasn't been compressed? In the end, I view this as a technological oversight in the sense that proper standards were not developed to account for the fact that our perceived loudness as listeners does not correspond to how recorded/digital audio measures loudness by the peaks. This kind of stuff was simply not a real concern back then when the loudness war was not in effect.
But now we do have technology and standards being gradually implemented across different outlets and services which does pre-adjust gain based on what the calculated average loudness is in order to solve this. It's just a matter of how OCR chooses to stand in relation to that.
Although it's written in the rules that remixes must have normal levels compared to average recordings, we don't have a written rule on how loud or quiet a track needs to be, but there are issues when you go both extremes: if a track is mastered too loudly it will usually get rejected because many times this will cause distortion, lack of dynamics and also obscures details. On tracks mastered too quiet, or with very wide dynamic ranges, this causes some issues with the listener's ability to appreciate the details without cranking up the volume, or in the case of tracks with a very wide dynamic range, it causes the listener to have to change the volume during playback in order to appreciate some sections.
As for myself, I can't tell you if I will accept a -16 RMS track because there are other factors at play such as genre, and well, the nature of the arrangement, but unless the dynamics are interfering with the listener's ability to appreciate the track I don't have an issue with it. Personally, I appreciate tracks with wide dynamic range, but it has to make sense why they are that way, it can't sound like an oversight.