prophetik music   Judges ⚖️

boy, do i feel this. some of the stuff i did in high school is far more creative than anything i have done recently. samples in the opening definitely are not as good as most of what we interact with nowadays. i'd argue they're not even as good as what we heard in Chrono Symphonic, and that was almost two decades ago. so that's a concern. there's some heavy panning used as well which is very noticeable on headphones. arrangement of the opening section is cinematic and approachable. i got a little confused with what was going on around 0:38 with the rippling, before i realized what was going on. interesting transition concept! the beat and where it settles is pretty dull-sounding - there isn't much body in the upper ranges like i'd expect to hear - and the strings especially sound so oofy that it's hard to tell what pitches they're playing most of this section. the lead that comes in after this is much more forward and easier to understand. there's a chippy break at 1:55 before we get the spurs again, and the approach for this section is similar to the first. the soaring string line at 2:38 is really nice - this is imo what these strings would be best for, not the active movement that was used earlier where it was tough to hear the pitches. by the 3:00 mark we're back to more traditional orchestra (trad-orch?) for the scoring, and the pitched snare is immediately recognizable from Reason. i like the transition back to more synth elements that comes in over the next minute. 3:49 is a recap of the earlier melodic material with the brass leading the way - the trumpet sample really works well with the gating effects you're using here. there's a fake ending before one last blow, one last bit of chips, and then it's done after a final hit. this is a neat idea, and i definitely see what you're going for around the concept of using electronic techniques with classical framing. and i think there's a lot to like about this track. however - both the orchestral instruments and the beat (kick/snare) sound extremely dated. i'd go so far as to say that we could never pass a track with such extended sections of orchestral instrumentation that's so far below 'free sample' range of what's available today. there are some times it works - like the soaring brass and string lines in the electronic sections, which don't rely on clear attacks - but the rest of the time it's so rough it's hard to hear what it's trying to play. additionally, the kick lacks body and tone and the electronic snare used is just static - there's no verve to the samples used nor the mixing of it. this is probably a lesser concern to me than the quality of the orchestral samples. along those lines, the mix itself (once it gets into the electro sections) has a lot of sub-20hz content that's making it hard to make out the bass instruments most of the time. i recognize that the orchestral instruments aren't dealbreakers across the board, and i also recognize that there's a lot of places that they're not an issue. but i don't see a way for the big blocks from 0:00-0:40, 0:56-1:25 and 2:50-3:20 to be passable given the expectations around classical instrument usage. i love the concept! so this is a bummer. but i think it'd need some real reinforcement before it'd get posted in 2025 as opposed to 2007. NO

opens with some nice electric guitar. keys in the background are pretty far away. lead guitar starts with melodic content around 0:14. it's much louder than the background keys (or are the keys just very soft?), and there's some pitch issues with the B especially. the guitar goes through the melody in a straight line for the first 90s or so, and then we get a textural change at 1:32 which adds some plucks and harmonies. notably there's a harmony line hard panned into the right and left ears all the way, which is a bit confusing on headphones. it goes through the melody again in a straight line. there's a flourish and some strings near the end around 2:35, and then it's done. this is a pretty conservative arrangement overall. it's basically the original twice through with little to no added content outside of that. that can be enough, but i'd expect to hear a more interpretive representation of the original - through melodic additions, countermelodic rhythmic and harmonic elements, and backing elements. there's not a ton here that isn't in the original (in more complex and engaging forms, too). combined with the pitchiness of the guitar (note that the issue is both that the root note is out of tune, and separately that your vibrato is so fast it doesn't always sound intentional) and the hard panning which doesn't need to be so wide to do what you're looking for, and i think this needs a bit more time in the cooker. there's good bones here for sure, but i'd expect to hear either more harmonic complexity or a more personalized melodic component to get away from 'cover' territory. NO

opens with light strings and some winds for the melodic movement. the original's tempo feels a touch slower and definitely has more push-pull than this one does - the couplets here are closer, which condenses the piece's feel more than i'd expect. dynamics on a per-instrument basis are very good early on. the light gong usage at 0:33 is really nice, very subtle yet expansive. 0:51 is the shift from the early couplets to the block chords in the original. i did not particularly care for the scoring of these chords, especially the high violins. this is very uncanny valley (violin harmonics usually wouldn't move in chromatic patterns like this, especially back and forth) and the spacing of the chords is very wide and unsupportive of most of the middle ranges. the original's blocks are very effective at increasing intensity through simplicity, and i don't feel that the representation here does the same thing as well beyond just playing louder. 1:07's where the 'melody' comes back in. this is a lot of block chords with the main movement being in the melody line and in the countermelody in the winds and harp (a synth in the original). the big, uniform block chords serve to metastasize the energy somewhat instead of either leading somewhere or establishing a drone like the buzz in the original. the addition of brass at 1:32 is a great payoff cadence, albeit very sudden and unexpected based on the scoring to this point. there's some echoes of this idea, and a final chord. this is a difficult vote for me. i feel strongly that it's pretty hard to represent a track in a similar genre and feel, and if you're going to do so, you need to add something truly significant that doesn't exist in the original. i don't feel that's what's going on here. if anything, i'd argue that the opening section especially does not have near the same nuance and subtle character that the original's opening does, and separately that there's little outside of the ending echo section that doesn't exist in the original. lastly, this is essentially 95s of music, which condenses the original's spacing - which you called out as being a key thing you liked about it - down quite a bit. i think that's in conflict with your stated goal. a yes vote here is a tough definition (like i said, i found this one very difficult to put into words). as it is, reducing a ~3 minute original to roughly 1:30 with some falling action at the end is a tough sell. finding ways to add some extra breadth (and breath!) to the work would help a lot, and separately approaching it with a more interpolative eye for countermelodic, harmonic, and rhythmic material would really help to expand the perspective and body of the work. it's definitely possible i'm too in the weeds here. it's a beautiful piece to listen to. some of the scoring decisions are fantastic - the brass fanfare, the addition of harp to the winds at 1:07, the scoring of the final chord with the brass where it is, the gong usage at 0:33. i just don't think there's much pipko in it right now from an arrangement perspective. i don't even think there's as much 65daysofstatic in it right now as the original. NO

~3db headroom. big bass blats to start, and we some melody right away at 0:13. there's a big build into 12/8 and another restating of melodic material at 0:48. this is pretty banging to start, so the break at 1:15 is nicely timed and fitting for the song form. i liked the arp that was in this section, it's really uplifting. there's a big build into 2:03, when the kick returns. most of this section i didn't map to the source, but i did catch some at 2:30 for a bit. there's another riser build into 3:01's melody blurb again, and after two play-throughs of that, this is done. this is a pretty straightforward festival/club approach to the melodic material. there's a lot of stutter synths, a lot of time spent on the riser builds, and tbh not much spent on the source itself. i heard overt source references from 0:13-0:27, 0:48-1:15, 2:30-2:38, and 3:01-3:28. that's 76/212 seconds, for about 38% source. and that feels right too - most of the track isn't referring to the source material. please refer to the submission standards for info around source usage. unfortunately that isn't enough source overall. i'll check with the remixer to confirm i'm not missing anything, but barring any changes this doesn't meet our criteria for the site, unfortunately. NO edit 9/23: remixer confirmed that the source listed above is correct. so there's not enough source to my ears.

my vote last time centered around issues with mastering, specifically the vocal effects chain and the drums. opening still is intense and a cool idea to intensify over time. lead guitar in the intro is very loud, and stays loud - for example, at 0:40 it's louder than EK, and at 0:50 it's louder than the drums (in fact i can hardly hear the drums there). this is the case for the whole song to my ears. separately there's still a ton of pressure in the mids. it feels to me like there's a lot of mid content in every part and it's all conflicting. compared to some reference tracks and the original, i think this is primarily the guitar being too present in the range that the vocal fundamental is, and not below it. the unison part is a lot better, that went from being a lowlight to a highlight for me. and to be honest, this is a lot better. it's not perfect when compared to pro-level stuff in this genre (of course!), and we are a hobbyist community. so i'm not sure right now where i settle. i'm gonna come back in a few days and listen again. ? edit 9/27: it seems like my initial impression, which was that the mix isn't there, is where i am gonna land. NO

starts with original audio and some new, updated bass and drums from the sound of it. there's a unique melodic line added the second time through which unfortunately is out of tune from whatever intonation the original is at, a solo the third time through the chord pattern, a repeat of the out-of-tune section, and it's done. there's no ending to speak of, just an end of the loop. this unfortunately isn't enough arrangement to pass our submission standards. most of what's here is what was in the original track. i liked the concept of adding the big arena drums and a fat, aggressive bass to the theme, but you'd need to do a lot more to make this less what Uwabo did and more what you're making. getting away from sampled audio is a good first step, and then personalizing it more beyond just repeating the original several times in a row is another. i'd encourage you to visit our workshop forum or the workshop channel on the discord for some more direct feedback. NO

i suspect this may be using suno. i will ask before listening to a 12 minute piece. edit 9/15: sure looks like it. NO

opens with a swoopy sfx into some big orchestral elements led by trumpets. this is pretty straightforward to my ears - it's the original midi with a few modifications (mostly in the percussion), with acoustic instruments instead of the original synths. it's slowed down a bit, but that's the only interpretation i can hear. the whole track is pretty blown out too - it's very loud and the instruments don't really have any volumization or velocitization done to them. this doesn't fulfill our submission standards for arrangement unfortunately - it's more of a cover. please consider visiting the workshop discord channel or the workshop forum here on the site to get some more feedback. NO

lol, what the heck opens with a pretty standard transcription method - brass for fanfares, winds for accents, low strings for chords. the brass articulation is surprisingly good for this - i really expected it to sound like machine guns. and the flute articulations are nice too. the solo violin that comes in around 0:16, doesn't sound very realistic initially - it needs more vibrato, if you can add it - but the schmears that come in right after sound pretty good. the cymbals in the backing in the quiet section at 0:29 are a bit much. this picks up with more well-articulated strings around 0:35 - the marcato is almost overstated there - and it comes back around into a similar scoring as the opening. trumpet note at the end of the run at 0:46 doesn't sound right. i liked shifting the melody to the brass right there though, and then letting the winds take the melody for a bit. we start to hear the crossfade at 1:11, i think - the lead instrument there sounds pretty buzzy, and even more at 1:24 the buzzy nature of the lead starts to cut through. the backing elements are very close to the opening section, which is highlighting an underlying issue with this arrangement - it's short but there's a lot of repetition in how things are scored and represented. on cue, 1:35 has the same crescendoing violin line as earlier. we do finally get some new material at 1:57 - i liked the interplay between the trombone and winds. soon after around the 2:05 mark we get more of the backing original synth tones. by 2:31 it's the original for 30s (or close enough it doesn't matter), and then there's a fadeout. from a conceptual standpoint, this is a really clever idea. i love the idea of a crossfade into the original synths as part of a classical work - easily the farthest from those tones we can get despite having a lot of similarities (non-vibrato violin or flute vs. sine wave, for example). in terms of execution, the instrumental realization is pretty solid in most places too, with uncanny valley elements really only popping on some of the overly-marcato strings and the solo violin. my issue though is that the arrangement uses a lot of repetition of the same short blocks of harmonic content over and over. for a track that only has original material for 2:10 out of 3:05, we shouldn't only get eighty seconds of original material before there's repeats. i will note as well that the crossfade idea is neat, but it should be more obvious when it starts to show up, and then slowly ramp up from there (that is, start slow, speed up in middle, end slow - logarithmic fade). i really only hear it in the lead initially, and then suddenly everything gets replaced. separately, having 20% of your piece being original audio isn't a positive - i understand referencing it for maybe 10s, but not so long. taking another crack at the arrangement so it doesn't repeat itself so much and then separately cutting down the original audio at the end would be enough for me. as it is, there's too much repetition. NO

loads of sound design and sfx clips to start. a beat starts to surface at 0:27, and the rhythmic foundation for the original N64 track can be heard in the patterns being played here - an interesting idea. there are steadily more melodic elements added in until we get to the break at ~1:02, and then 1:21 is where we start hearing more of the melodic material again. there's some alternations in here, and notably the choice of notes at 1:40 and 1:47.5 are a half-step off of the key (should prob be Eb-F instead of D-E to avoid the D-Ab tritone)). this is real intense for the most part and a toe-tapper of a section. i really like the super-heavy electro bass through all this. a mid-range element is added around 2:04 that feels a little too much and makes it a touch too dense, but overall this is a neat section. the melody coming in as a break near the end of it is a good glue section. between that initial part and the deconstruction that happens after, around 2:30. we get a wildly unexpected stylistic transition at 2:58 into...i guess hindi trap? the bassline here is really fun. this noodles quite a bit but is recognizable. there's another unexpected break before a short exploration of the opening few bars of the venom stabs, which morphs into a more brickwalled intense section of venom's stab section. there's way too much going on here and it's hard to hear any one thing, but i guess that's fitting for the style. the ending's a bit of a letdown after that level of intensity, but it's a fine ending and wraps the track. this is a surprisingly straightforward arrangement of the venom theme, for the most part. there's some really wild exploratory sections that probably could have been integrated better with more patience applied to the transitions, but what's here is interesting and approachable. YES edit 9/15: listening again with some of the context from subsequent votes. wake and chimpa are right - this is so very hot when compared to other edm. i didn't notice how much the high mids especially were pushing on my ears until i came in fresh. cosigning their votes. NO

opens with light instrumentation. the bass is notably boomy, almost to the point of being distorted, and it's heavily in the left ear so it feels unbalanced. guitars and voice feel suuuuper organic - like they're right there next to you, and the intentionally not-perfect vocal approach is so good, right out of a cafe. drums are probably too complex throughout this entire opening section for the style. 1:17's section is a significant transition, and IMO it isn't prepped as well as it could have been - it feels very sudden, and it stays in this lighter, simpler feel for a while so it's surprising. the vocal work here is way more involved than i anticipated as well - 1:41's got a zillion parts, i'd love to know just how many recordings that is! - and although i don't understand a thing that's being sung, i still got a smile on my face during it. there's a short solo, a recap with some source and an interesting reharmonization in the end of it, and one more solo to cap it off. there's a neat riff at the end of it. so the song itself is overall pretty cool, and feels very real and present to me (outside the panned bass being so heavy in the left ear). but my issue is source content and non-VGM content. for the source element, if i'm not mistaken, there's 59s of source to start, 17s at 2:22, and that's it. the chord progression at 2:06 is imo too generic to count, but the last chord progression has some more of the characteristics of the source and so i'd count that, which would be 25s more. that does get over the 50% guideline, barely. for the non-vgm content, almost a third of the song is directly from a non-vgm track. we rejected a nine-minute track for having a minute of non-vgm content in the past. based on that example, i think this breaks the rule stated in 3.3. in the submission standards. which is a bummer because this is a neat idea! if this was the main theme from Zelda arranged in a style reminiscent to waters of march, then i'd be fine with it. but as it is, i don't hear any of the main theme in that 50ish-second section at all, so it's just a cameo which unfortunately we specifically try to avoid. bummer! but a fun track. thank you for sharing. NO

This started as an idea in my head for the DoD Brevity Month before the theme was announced and then i saw my idea was not eligible. When Koji Kondo month was announced i knew i might try to do this, but the whole thing got fast tracked when Matt mentioned wanting to sing more in portuguese. That was my cue to get the ball rolling. / So, what is this? This is the Zelda overworld theme, in brazilian bossa style, and the lyrics are translated from the classic "Rabbit Joint" cover from way back in the day. The lyrics were translated by me and its a localization not a literal translation, however, if you throw then in google translate its wasy to see the origin. During the arrangement process Matt mentioned how much he loves Tom Jobim's Águas de Março, and that it wasn't that different from the Zelda theme. So we got to work and managed to sneak a bit of Águas there, this time, the lyrics are completely original and created by me, as a hyrule-parody of the Jobim original. Sprinkle some solos here and there, and this is the result: Águas de Link. a cover of a cover that is not really a straight cover. Hope you like it aswell. Credits: tibonev: arrangement, guitars, bass, drum programming, lyrics Mattmatatt: arrangement, guitars, vocals, mixing. Lyrics: Link, ele vem para a cidade ele vem salvar a Princesa Zelda Ganon a raptou a alegria roubou mas volta quando Link salva o dia Link, encha seu coração para usar a espada do poder e quando estiver mal uma fada virá ajudar então seja corajoso e não seja um covarde É pote, é gema, é um belo rupee é uma galinha assassina, um link sozinho é um arbustro cortado, é o link olha só é a zelda, é o leever, é lynel e armos é o dungeon de água e a fada maneira ganon chefão, vai acabar com a zueira. É pote, é gema, é um belo rupee é uma galinha assassina, um link sozinho é um arbustro cortado, é o link olha só é a zelda, é o leever, é lynel e armos é o dungeon de água e a fada maneira ganon chefão, vai acabar com a zueira. Link salvou o dia Ganon está morto A Zelda está livre e o nosso herói é o Link! e o seu nome entrará para a história! Source breakdown: 0:00 - 0:10 - Intro Chords (Source) 0:10 - 0:17 - Intro Melody (Source) 0:17 - 0:59 - Main Melody (Source w/ re-harmonization on the first verse) 1:00 - 1:17 - Original Transition Part 1:17 - 2:05 - Águas Part (Jobim Parody) 2:06 - 2:22 - Solo 1 - tibonev 2:22 - 2:39 - Main Melody (Source) 2:40 - End - Solo 2 - Mattmatatt Games & Sources The Legend of Zelda - Overworld - Koji Kondo prophetik note: found this version of the song mentioned above:

opens with expected drums and associated fills and sfx elements. the arpeggiated bells come in pretty early, and at 0:29 we get the short melody snippet from the original that is in the background at 0:07. there's a kind-of-breakdown right after this with the long strings, and this builds up elements until the actual breakdown at 1:19. 1:19 sounds like original audio to me for a bit before we get real instruments again in an extended sidechain section going over the same strings as before - this is copy/paste. 2:30's again the same strings snippets in a build alongside some sfx, and then a section that's the same as at 0:15. this is followed by the same thing that happened at 0:29, then the same thing that happened at 1:32 (but just the first measure, repeated) for a long time, then an outro on this same section. this is overall a pretty straightforward concept. my concern is that about half the track is repeated material that, if it isn't copy/paste, is really close. there's no concern about volume of source usage - it's just that i don't hear why i'd listen to the second half of the track if i've heard it all already. i think the shape of the piece is fine, the track isn't particularly sparkling in the mix but it's not bad by any means, and i think that the initial adaptation is a good idea. i'd want you to either trim the copy/paste sections or add other elements to them to make them more unique - new instrumentation, new countermelodic elements, or more personalized approaches, for example. NO

It's sort-of house mixed with deep trance, electro. Games & Sources This is the ''Mission Control'' theme, from Gex 3: Deep Cover Gecko on Playstation 1.

fun original. opens with some big, effected synths right in the front of the stereo field. drums are very treble-heavy initially (outside the kick of course) - there's a lot of 10khz+ content in those hats and snare. the beat kicks at 0:42 alongside some sfx. there's not a lot going on initially outside the kit - just bass and an arpeggio stab, and we get a 303 added in after a bit. this section goes on a touch longer than i'd expect given how little's there. we do get a transition into a more chippy, distorted sound around 1:27, and this functions as a break until the drums come out of the closet again at 1:52. there's some pretty hyper bass work initially and then we get a recap of the earlier fairly-thin section from 0:42 (which is the A material from the track). there's another break at 2:35 with the B material, and some sonic theme-adjacent material at 3:00. this builds up and is eventually The Big Chorus at 3:20. i still don't feel there's enough going on in the backing elements for this section - there's nowhere near the intensity or beef of some of your reference tracks for the backing elements. they're very bland and smooth, and that contrasts negatively with the angular lead and aggressive drums. the lead rises to a sustained peak, and then it's done. i think what you have here is a really neat idea. the original's two-phase approach and intense, slow melodic line fits a dnb approach really well, and you've got a pretty solid overall shape for the track with a good amount of breaks and intense sections. what i don't feel is in place yet is the actual payoff sections - almost every section of this track feels like it's missing something. the opening big section at 0:42, like i said earlier, is just kit/stabs/bass, with nothing in the middle of that. similarly, the big hit at 1:40 is the same instrumentation and has nothing in the in-between area until 2:15 - and that instrument is both hard to hear clearly due to modulation on it and is pretty low in itself. last example is the big payoff chorus at the end, at 3:30 - the backing material are these big, bland block chords in pads. this should be the most intense, invigorating section of the song, and most of what i can hear are overly-loud pads. so i think that you need to take another look at each section and find something to make it interesting and compelling. listening again to Hold your Colour and In Silico, each big payoff section that they have in their songs has simple instrumentation (like you have), but each element is uniquely compelling in their own right. finding a way to hit that balance here is what you're missing right now. NO