prophetik music

very fitting stylistic adaptation here, as the emphasis on the diminished fifth really fits the pentatonic scale that a lot of jazz is built around. the beat and bass sound cribbed straight out of various other songs in the style so that's on point. i liked the string machine slide at 0:46, and overall your leads between the ep and guitar sound solid (the guitar lead is a bit stilted but only a little bit). i agree that this is too short as it is. i'm pretty firm about the two-minute unwritten rule usually unless something really blows me away, and the slower tempo here makes that difficult to eclipse. there are a few times it sounds like you explore alternate chords under the melodic material - i'd recommend doing that some more as a method for adding some time on the clock here. similarly, even slightly varying the backing guitar chords could make a real difference in the vibe of a particular section and allow for some more exploration. NO

it's not clear to me why we didn't get the full 16-minute arrangement. the sound at 0:27 is sfx for a cicada, i think. i agree with chimpa that this is whimsical - that's an excellent word to use for this. i'm not going to timestamp this like i usually do because it's so long and it'd just be reductive, but in general i land closer to chimpa's perspective of the realism and approach. i think that the handling of percussion and winds for the most part lifts the string realization enough for it to be fine. i think there's too much panning, especially the rainstick (thanks kris, now i can't unhear it). the tambourine is mixed how i'd expect it to sound in a live orchestra, so actually i think that's OK. i think that the arrangement itself is conservative, but there's more here than just transcribing for an orchestral setting, and the themes flow together really well (far better than i expected given the previous votes) - the only awkward one is at 6:41 in the winds. i also think i like this track much more than recent RET arrangements. there's some more character here than usual that's not just the excellent originals. it's certainly not perfect but is very enjoyable to me. YES

remix appears to be based on the first minute or so of the video linked in the first post. starts with sustained string machine, and the brings in a saw lead that for some reason sets my teeth a bit on edge a bit. beat comes in at 0:35. there's some more original bits, and the lead comes back before an organ section that jams through the chords. there's some more rhythmic elements in the lead at 1:45 - i can hear the animusic comparison in here with some of the interplay elements you mentioned. this builds up through 2:20, and then we have a ritard going into a final chord. doesn't overstay its welcome which is nice. the lead instrument gets used quite a bit in this track. my own reaction to it aside, i think it's probably too much for such a bland lead. there's only a few places where, for example, the lead even cuts out at all - usually it's just playing constantly from when it comes in until it shuts off for a while. that lends itself to a track that is overall shaped the same, and that lack of dynamic contrast throughout is not a positive. similarly, the track appears to be lacking overall compression, which is why it feels so quiet throughout. i would love to hear more attention paid to the lead instrument's synthesis - that is, maybe mixing it up during the track, or allowing some more breaks in what it's saying - as well as fleshing out the mastering more. some more EQ work and adding compression to the track so the snare doesn't pop out of the waveform like a cactus spine would significantly improve the listening experience. the arrangement i think is pretty much great - 2:00 through 2:30 are by far the best part of the track, and there's so many little flourishes and fun elements that are going on in there. leaning into that throughout the track would really result in a superb final product. NO

opening is bells and drums. i agree the drums sound pretty robotic, lot of high freqs. the keys and bass sound fine when they come in though. jett's entrance is pitchy and it stays pretty pitchy for a while. nat's entrance is notable as much because of how much more in tune her voice is - the first run here sounds heavily pitch-adjusted, but it's a lot more natural in the combined sections and in the second verse. nat, watch your ee vowel - it gets very bright and sticks out pretty regularly vs. the rest of your sung english. the combined sections were notably not sync'd very well also - unisons are the hardest things to sing together both for intonation and for timing, and this is a good example of why. there's some really nice moments with the vocals. the tempo moves a lot, but the parts where the singers sit back on the beat properly (like at 2:18 for example) really pop. similarly, when the vowels line up with the melody line (like at 2:35 or 2:52), it's a really nice feel. the background parts throughout are essentially just piano (sometimes only one or two notes sustaining) and bass, which is too little for a lot of the track. there's no pad work at all which i think is a mistake - as it is, the vocals are so loud that you can't hear anything else, but as soon as they stop singing for even an instant, it's like there's nothing underneath them. a more fleshed-out backing part would make a huge difference. i think that, similarly, the drums don't not work, but they're a missed opportunity. people rag on ballad drums as being paint by number, but percussion in a ballad serves a critical purpose of nailing down the beat so that you can sit back into it and not rush. jett's singing often rushes the beat and feels like they are trying to pull ahead, and a more firm and defined drum part that wasn't just there for the snare may have helped with that. i think this is an arrangement idea that really has some wings. i like the idea of a more minimal backing part and certainly don't think you need a fully-scored orchestra or full band behind the vocals. i do think it needs something more to help carry the harmonic components, thereby allowing the vocals to be a part of the whole rather than most everything you can hear. i also think that pitch-adjusting nat's voice and not jett's (or at least not enough) is tough because not only is it easier to hear intonation issues in lower voices due to range and how physics works, but also jett's voice is the first voice you hear and it scoops right off the bat. this needs some revisions i think, but like i said, i really like the idea, and the original's melody is honestly beautiful. NO

i believe the user id is incorrect for this user, given that user 1149 hasn't visited since 2003 and never posted. fat triple groove right off the bat, no sidechaining that was obvious to me. the groove builds in an additive fashion until 0:22 when it changes entirely to the melodic content from the middle of the original. there's also no sidechaining here so it sounds pretty aggressive, and the use of heavy fm synthesis in the bass gives it a really mean sound which i like. 1:09 is a shift back to the original groove, without the vocoder synth. this goes back to 0:29's melodic content with some different scoring, and then eventually repeats the section at 0:29 outright. 1:53 cranks it up to the same energy level as 0:49, and does a lot of the same things scoring-wise. it goes through these a bit until a sudden sfx ending, which then is clipped before it's actually done fading out. this is a neat start that's got some fun ideas. i like most of the synth choices, and the aggressive style fits the original a lot. there's a surprising amount of repetition for a track that's only 2:16 long, however - i can easily identify roughly 40 seconds of repeated content, which is not quite a third of the track. for something so short, that's too much. there's also a lot going on in the lower-mid range that makes the track sound very dense to me - at least part of this is the choice for some of the lead synths to be pretty low pitch-wise, and that muddies the bottom end for me. i'd love to hear less repetition and less gunky low-end overall. NO

from my original vote. the opening is still a very conservative - almost exact - version of the original. the flute's got a lot of reverb on it, and still is pretty boring in approach - in fact it's hard to tell the difference from the original. the scoring around 0:54 is truly beautiful - however, it's still pretty much the original's scoring and is more a sound upgrade. the flute's sustains don't ever break (give the poor player a break!) and the longer sustains highlight how unrealistic the flute's vibrato is, so that's not a great sound. 1:36 brings in a shift, complete with shakuhachi and a more old-world/ethnic approach to the voices. english horn is still pretty but boring, and not particularly realistic in the realization, and still buried. the strings used here have a very long lead time and so they constantly feel like they're swelling into the chord rather than being there, again not very realistic. the elements around 2:10-2:21 are theatrical and exciting to listen. 2:31 is the B theme in this second orchestral group, and overall this section is also not particularly transformative once you get past the solo instrument on top. 3:11 is still the vocal ensemble, but this time what it's singing is much more related to the original, and there's some fun orchestral elements brought in. i really liked this exploratory section. the fade in the whistle is obviously post since the timbre doesn't change as it gets quieter, which was distracting. i still think there isn't enough arrangement here overall despite that last section. the best elements to this track are still mitsuda, and just putting a whistle over the top of the second section doesn't somehow change that it's still strings, percussion and a wind lead doing the exact original notes in the same places, right down to the flips in the lead and the speed of the flam to end the not-harp's part. compare 1:04 in the original to 2:31 in this one and i'd still rather listen to the original despite the lesser sound quality. 1:50 is still the same plucks as the beginning with a wind lead - adding percussion doesn't make it arranged. it sounds really nice pretty much across the board except for the flute vibrato and the constant swells in the sustained strings pad. i'm just finding it very difficult to point to elements of the track that are transformatively arranged from mitsuda's work. similar to my votes on your things in the past, i don't see putting a solo instrument line over the original to be an arrangement, and especially in the B section here, i feel that way here. NO edit: i think i am probably making perfect the enemy of good. i believe pretty strongly that the actual instrumentation elements add a lot to the mix with how they're handled, but saying that they're a sound upgrade is probably too limiting and reductive. i thought about it after and realized that it would be difficult to articulate what truly needs to change to change my vote, which usually means i am overthinking it. gonna adjust my vote accordingly. YES

i've heard this a few times since it came through last time because i begged connor to redo the vocals, and wound up doing some pitch work on them as well. the section at 2:41 is probably my favorite part, but the key change after the break in the second section is a great idea. i think this is my favorite time's scar remix i've ever heard, and i've made several myself as it's a mt. rushmore VGM tune for me. the groove in the second section is intense but still feels like the original's instrumentation, and the realization of the melody line in connor's voice - that high note is an E! like what the heck! - is so exciting. i still can't understand half the words in the first half, but the overall package is just so good. YES ps: before posting, there's a few audio artifacts in this version (0:39) that i didn't hear last time i heard this, so i think they're export errors. would be nice to get another render.

what a great original. tempo's even faster, i think, and it's cooking with gas right off the bat. initial mix seems pretty heavy in the bass, to the point i can't really hear a kick. adding the electric along the band elements is a great addition, and the violin is really cooking throughout. there's a significant set of solos right off the bat, with the sax solos being the highlight for me. there's a recap around the 2:00 mark, a yodel break, and then the electric gets after it which is awesome. 2:59 is the first time the bass isn't playing sustains, and it is suddenly a lot lighter of a track. there's a big ensemble blow to finish it out with some particularly fresh violin and then it's done. i'm honestly a bit conflicted about this one specifically because the bass presence is so heavy. the performances are excellent and full of fire, the arrangement is fine, and it's got actual yodeling on purpose! i think it's probably one i wouldn't want to keep from the community. YES edit 12/4: new mix is better! EXTRA YES

patient intro, with the ostinado eventually introduced in the harp and bassoon. there's some drums that come in at 0:42, and the articulations in the orchestral elements are really well-handled here. 1:37's bridge is also patient and exploratory - you can hear the remixer playing with the different articulations of the string library like they mentioned. there's a big swell and intense section at 2:31, which again settles back down and lets the piano do the reverse melody thing which is a nice easter egg. there's another build at 3:07 into the melodic material without drums, and this is again detailed in approach. 4:08 feels like the big climax of the piece, i wouldn't have minded hearing more countermelodic work here outside of the picc since we've heard the melody at this point quite a few times. there's a big hit at 4:44, and then it's a very short (almost not worth mentioning) outro featuring the chordal elements from Fallen Down. this is great. there's a lot of patience to the exploration of the melodic content, it's got a nice drive forward at all times, and it sounds excellent. nice work. YES

scintillating original. track opens with a ton of pad noise and distortion, sounding hypercompressed intentionally. the guitar laugh is a really clever way to approach that. there's some noodling around the two chord patterns that initially reminded me a lot of something from Blue Man Group's first album, and eventually it settles down into what i associate with 70s psychedelica around 1:08. this is a great adaptation of the extremely minimal original here - turning the alternating chords into a riff and then soloing around them. there's no concern with source usage in instances like this. it's clearly based around the same chordal elements, and even incorporates (adapted) versions of the sfx used in the track. from a mastering perspective, the pad elements overwhelm everything else most of the track, and i really didn't care for that. the track feels overly blown out, just too loud for it's own good, and it's not a pleasant listening experience. i can see the intro being a huge turnoff, and i would prefer it wasn't so noisy after the 1:00 mark. all that said, this is a clever and fun adaptation of a really weird original that doesn't overstay its welcome. neat idea. YES edit: still a yes from me. track has definitely been improved.

there is at least 6db of headroom here. interesting idea for a remix. intro is adapted from the ff4 track right off the back, with some changed chords. the piano intro is odd because it's got no pedal, so it sounds pretty not real, but it's fun what it's playing. the bass is pretty boomy without much attack. vocals come in at 0:44, and they are competently performed. the range is clearly a bit of an issue, and sung french has a lot different than spoken french, but translating it to french does it give some panache that i don't think would have been there in english. the track is mostly ff4's theme, with much less ff9 content woven into it - from what i heard, just the chorus part is ff9's melodic content. from a top-level perspective, the track doesn't really go anywhere in terms of dynamics. it is pretty much the same thing at the beginning as the end - keys and brushes on the drums and a bass and some bells trucking through the melodic content in order, with nothing really changing over time or being added or removed outside of a slightly quieter background for the spoken word section. there's a lot that could have been done to flesh out the arrangement more, including more time without the singer singing to give us a bit of a change there. and then it just ends, without even a repetition of the last phrase in the instruments to close it out. overall this is a competent approach to the tracks. the singing is nice, the style fits the tracks, and the background doesn't get in the way for the most part. there is a lot left on the table that could have made this a really special arrangement, but what's here is probably over the bar. YES

near-constant clipping alongside a wisconsinite's dream waveform. there's not really an intro, as it dives right into the melodic content. after the initial runthrough of that melody, though, we get a much more fleshed-out beat, countermelodic content, and pad work starting at about 0:28. this is a lot more interesting than the intro. right after this, though, at 0:56, we get the B section of the melody with the same backing, similar countermelodic content, and (most egregiously) the same lead. at this point that lead needs to change as it's not only boring on sustains (there's no motion on it at all), it's also heavily focused on the right ear and way, way louder than everything else. the section at 0:28 is repeated 1:1 at 1:49 and 2:46 (and nearly 1:1 at 1:23, but just the kick), and then the following section at 0:56 is repeated 1:1 at 2:18. that's a lot of repetition, even for trance. it's possible there's some very minimal changes in there that i missed, but the performance of the lead, the bass, the countermelodic content, the drum work, and the pads all sounded the same. then there's no ending, not even a fadeout. trance tracks have an easy out for endings - just subtract elements of the background until you're left with a kick - so a lack of an ending is not a positive. from a mastering perspective, the lead's super loud and not centered, and the track clips like mad. i think you've got it so hot to make it sound loud, which is understandable. my suggestion is to roll off the sound content under your kick's pitch. it looks like your kick sits around 55-60hz, which is a bit high but fine, so having a much harder roll off of everything below maybe 45-50hz would add a lot of room to the mix for you to make it feel big outside of that. after that, spending some time with the EQ will help ensure that there's no overlaps that cause things to get lost. the same lead throughout emphasizes the repetition in the backing parts, and the mastering really needs some love. this one isn't there yet. NO

make sure you listen to the entire original track, judges: don't miss the funky section at 1:56. easy to see how an epic orchestral approach would fit this original. starts out with orchestral taikos and E. S. Posthumus-style choir and orchestra elements. the brass samples are a touch behind the beat which is pretty distracting. there's a big drop into the 0:40 hit, and we get some wubs alongside orchestral elements for the 30s or so that this section's going on. the transition between wubulous and the subsequent orchestral section is jarring in the extreme, and the orchestral section appears to be the intro without taikos. it does this for a bit, loads up some kicks for a transition, and then repeats Wub City. this is, as far as i can see, a 1:1 copypasta, so that means about half the track is repeated nearly note for note. then the track ends with no outro or acknowledgement of the change. this is a no from me, dawg, primarily due to the lack of overall content. i think both individual sections you wrote are interesting, but that's not quite 1:15 of music repeated once to make it 2.5 minutes. expansion of the arrangement is needed. NO

fm influence is immediately audible. there's a ton of attention going into each individual instrument, which is obvious with the heavy lfo action on each element. melodic elements enter at 0:26, but the main body of it comes in at 0:41. there's an active bass doing interesting things, and a variety of pad work to provide chordal elements. we get a break at 1:11 that's more exploratory, with a big build into 1:38's content. this tones down quickly and noodles through some transformations until we get melodic material again at 2:39 through 3:10. 3:10 switches gears significantly to be more pad work for over a minute, and then we're done. so, from an arrangement side, there's lots of interesting things here. from a synthesis side, i can respect what you're trying for throughout, with all the heavily customized original hardware tones, but it just doesn't sound good to me at all. part of it is the heavy detuning, which i don't care for at all and immediately draws me out of the work several times (like 1:56, it just sounds like an accordion). part is the lack of any real drums, relying heavily on too-small static hits throughout to drive rhythm. part of it is the dullness of the mastering - there simply isn't much over 1khz in any of the synths until we get to the pads at the end, and so it sounds flat and muted for much of the track. and part of it is just that i don't care for the synth sounds you settled on. the bass tones throughout are interesting and enjoyable, and the glittery pad that you use occasionally is nice, but the organ tone that's used around, say, 0:35 is uninspired, the countermelodic lead used a lot around 2:08 is grating, and the lead used for most of the melodic elements i already called out as being street-accordion-like, not a positive correlation. i love the attention to detail and the method by which you approached this arrangement. i just don't care at all for how you realized it. i'm not sure how to tell you to change it, as your methodology was intrinsic to the creation of this track. however, as it is now, it's not passable by me. NO

intro is mostly drums and some ep with some inaudible vox behind it. the melodic material picks up at 0:23 with some frankly inaudible mastering - the drums are super boomy and way heavy in the low end, and as a result crush everything else out. there is also immediately obvious clipping that continues for most of the track. the drum issue is mostly that the kick and snare sound like they have a ton of bass content in them, and it's bullying out other elements of the track. a freq analysis shows what's wrong here - there needs to be a ton of work rolling off sub-bass content (like everything under 40hz) and then everything needs to be turned down by about half. then an EQ pass to get everything out of the 50-150hz range and shelf each instrument into its own slot so it's not stepping on everything else. this is rough enough that it's an immediate rejection, so i'll proceed from the perspective that this needs to be fixed and still look at the rest of the arrangement. note that i'm having issues identifying individual instruments aside from the lead since they're all in the same range and layering on each other. we get the melody right off the bat, and then there's some countermelodic content in there too occasionally. the stuttered ep/chordal elements repeat for a while underneath also. we get a break at about 1:07 that's led by what sounds like a clavinet or ep, and then we're in a recap section driven by the stuttered ep from the first chorus. the second drop of melodic content starts at 1:50 and sounds pretty similar to the first time around. this is a fine time to mix it up so you're not using the same synths doing the same thing for a second time through. after this is an outro (?) section starting at 2:19 with some vox over the intro content, and then it loops and fades instead of a traditional ending. fades can be useful, but i feel like you had a fair shot at a real ending here with how you toned it down - you may want to explore that. this needs significant mastering work before it's viable. please consider the workshop forum or the workshop discord channel for additional assistance. NO

there is not a lot in this original to hang the hat of a remix on. i'm interested to see what RET does with it. the most iconic sound in the original - the zither (?) strikes - have been replaced here, and instead there's similarly separated blobs of chords used. the chord patterns used don't appear to map to the original directly, which is a weird choice when there's so little to relate them. the track noodles through these for not quite two minutes, and then begins repeating chord progressions 0 for example, 1:46 is the first chord, and the following chords are the same as the following chords in the beginning. there's some differences here - namely in the rainstick usage and the bass tremolo - but the chord structure and the lead instrument do the same thing to my ears for some time. i believe the repetition stops at 3:25, and there's a few repeated chords with some new elements (a didgeridoo and some more sustains than we've heard before) to progress to a natural fadeout in the sustains. there's some light distortion that i think is used as an effect in some places that is confusing in an auditory sense - it's not obvious to me if it's intentional or if it's an artifact of the export. a few examples are at 2:43 in the left ear and at 2:57 in both ears for several seconds. i would need a clear definition from the artist of where the original maps to this track. i hear music inspired by the original, but i don't hear enough correlation in the actual musical elements to call this a remix of lightroot specifically vs. just being inspired by that element of the game. NO edit 2/8: "the chord patterns used don't appear to map to the original directly, which is a weird choice when there's so little to relate them." who writes this tripe? hearing them side by side makes a ton more sense. sometimes i am just not good at music at all. this is clearly a solid remix of the original. i just can't use my ears sometimes. YES

original has a chord progression and not a ton else. intro has a similar energy and quickly builds into a bigger rock approach than the original. bass is present but hard to hear under everything else. there's a bit of a break right away for the drum riffs but then it's back to a guitar-led approach. the sustains in the lead guitar that start at 1:16 are similar to the stuff being played in the original, but quickly shift to doing their own thing, and then at 1:50 they switch to the riff in the original (1:17 in YT video) that drops off at 2:17. 2:33 is similar to about 1:49 in the original. the track grooves through a few different iterations of the original tom riff before getting lead guitars again at 3:30 for a solo part and then some harmonized riffs. 4:40 the track drops off a lot, and adds some sfx and pads - this is the section that is most reminiscent of the original. this grinds through a few measures and then fades out. overall, this is mastered fairly well. the bass isn't very present, but the mix never gets muddy or hard to hear what's going on, and the lead parts are handled well. everything is performed at a consistent level. the leads get a little too loud occasionally but that'd be my main critique there. this is not an easy original to remix, in my opinion. there's not a ton of melodic content and it mostly relies on percussive elements to give it the vibe. i think this remix is a pretty good adaptation of the original. it's recognizable and approachable, it's fun to listen to, and it sounds pretty good from a mastering perspective. nice work. YES

intro is definitely cribbed straight from the original. the beat hits right at the 30s mark, and it cycles through some filtered builds until we get the actual melodic content at 0:53. interestingly enough, i don't get a ton of bass content outside the kick, so it sounds like kick/bass and then a bunch of much higher synths. there's some falling action at 1:42 and it noodles through the initial riff quite a bit with other bits thrown in. there's some really fun sound design in this section. at 2:32 the main ensemble is back in, and after a bit it goes through the main melodic content for a while before another dropoff at 3:15, this time with new noodles so no copy - nice work. 4:00 hits with a full ensemble playing the main melodic content from the start and it's a nice payoff. after this section, it cooks through a slow instrumental fade as different elements start to drop over time. i think i would have been fine if it ended at 5:00, but the remaining 23 seconds serve as a fine sendoff. this is an obvious pass. tons of arrangement evident, lots of variety in the approach, it sounds good, and the synths work. nice job. YES

some mega sausage in the waveform. intro is super spiky, i like that. the initial beat is funky too which is fun. the beat drops out at 0:41, and there's an extended build into the first mega hit at 1:08. it's really loud there! totally slammed approach. i can hear everything, at least. there's a dropback after that and it goes back to the same thing as the intro for a few minutes. i don't get why you'd want to repeat the exact same thing wholesale - why not mix it up at least a little? there's some variation at 3:05 like LT said but it's still the same as before. if i wanted to listen to the same track again, i'd just repeat it. OCR used to allow for a lot of repetition in tracks, but that was like fifteen years ago. what's here isn't acceptable based on our current bar =/ unfortunately, i have to evaluate this as being a track that's under two minutes long, since that's all that's here, with the other 50% being copypasta. with that two minutes, what you have is really neat and i think it's a great listen. there's several distinct sections, you've got some fun synth and sfx work going on, the initial beat is really great. i think the part starting at 1:08 is too loud, but at least it's all audible. it's too bad then that half the track is repeated, because if it was another 30s longer with some other content - even original - i'd probably pass it. NO edit 10/11: so 1:56 is the pivot point to the second section. the initial part with the strings is the same, as is the initial filtered element after it. starting at about 2:37, the build is much different, and then the beat under the main synth at 2:51 is different with new breaks and sfx. the following section and outro is the same and it still doesn't really have an ending. i am leaning towards this still not being enough different - if this wasn't jordan, would we be passing it? - so i'm switching to a ?. UNSURE edit 1/8: if this wasn't jordan, i wouldn't be unsure. i'd say no. so i need to say no here. NO

i like the initial synth used. the beat drops around 0:30 and has a real 2001 OCR vibe to it, right down to the spit snare used. there's a break at 1:28, showing off more of the verby pads used along the chippy arpeggiator that's going for most of the track. 2:19 really starts the build, and the melodic content shows back up at 2:34. finally, after almost a quarter of the track (maybe a bit of that could have been trimmed?), the whole thing's together again at 3:04. the beat and synth work isn't anything crazy here but the payoff sounds great. i liked the consistent usage of dropping the beat for a beat here and there to emphasize specific melodic elements. from a mastering perspective, this isn't anything super advanced, like i said before, which gives it a real oldschool sound. it certainly doesn't get in the way of the arrangement which is good enough for me. this was a fun track! i really enjoyed the payoff chorus especially. YES

this soundtrack was always so confusing to me. i love the jazz but it's all played so ahead of the beat, really never sat right to me. some sfx to get it going. initial vibe is primarily piano and bass, with various other instruments layering in over time. once the drums get going around the 1 minute mark, this track starts to feel more cohesive. the guitar part is pretty quiet throughout and the bass is very present, which is an odd mixing choice. for example, in the big section at 1:42, i can barely hear the guitar the entire time, but the bass is clearly audible. there are also several times where the aforementioned bass isn't quite 100% on with the piano - it'll move to a new chord a half-beat before the keys do (like at 0:28 or 0:34). 2:42 is the first real break in the groove, with some big swells. 2:57 the beat comes back, and the guitar here is so noisy that it's hard to hear what's going on outside of the lead string part. the bass solo is great as expected, and the guitar solo sounds good too. 3:53 the melodic content comes back and then we get a...theremin solo? i can dig it! melodic content comes back and it blows through to the end. from a mastering perspective, the mix is very dense between about 50hz and 250hz - there's a ton of presence there from a lot of instruments, and it makes the mix sound very tiring and heavy despite the light, forward-driving approach the beat has. i think there's a ton of room for more active EQing of individual parts here, as well as trimming the fat on the freq-expensive instruments like the rhythm guitar and the bass. i have mentioned a lot of critiques of this mix, mostly from a mastering perspective. i think the arrangement is fine but not anything really transcendent, and i think the mastering overall is not great but not terrible. so i'm pretty ambivalent about it. overall it's played well and it's a fun track idea, so i think i'd lean towards the side of posting it. YES

interesting idea for this. kalimba is uniquely suited to the original's approach. i like the hybrid electro/organic approach too. combining traditionally electronic elements like the spit snare, hard volume cuts, and the synth bass with super-organic instruments like a kora and kalimba is great. there are a few obvious loops in the percussion that were overused (the timbale loop at 0:56 for example). the iconic arpeggio is only used occasionally, which is a fine idea to have it weave in and out, but there's not much nuance in how it's used (similar to the aforementioned loop). either it's playing or not, with no dynamics around how it's brought in and out. it's like flipping a switch or pressing a button to get something to play. it doesn't help that the timbale loop has more verb than the very low-reverb rest of the track, so it sounds distinctly like it's in a different space. the melody finally comes in at 1:45, and at this point the background's been the same for almost two minutes. it's nice to get the melodic content in, but i'd have expected some variance at this point in the track beyond turning on and off percussion loops. there's some variance to the melody at 2:30 to fit the instrument, which i think is fine. the melody is done at roughly 3:03, and the track just loops through the backing percussion for another 20 seconds until it's done. AA is a patient original, with the melodic material not coming in until about a third of the way through the piece. you do a similar thing here where you wait pretty long to bring in the melody, allowing the chord progression and arpeggiated elements carry the work until then. i'd say though that this exposes both the heavy use of looping material (and machine-gun repeated notes in your sampler) as well as the lack of overall delta in your track. it doesn't go anywhere. the groove initially is neat, but it is the same throughout, and your variances are exclusively with very prominent elements turning on and off with no volumization to make their swell and fade an actual swell and fade. i think this is a neat tech demo. i don't think it's ready for the site yet. NO

mix is a sausage from the looks of it. it's a super aggressive opening, and there is zero bass presence. it peaks at about 130hz , there's much less between there and 40hz, and then it falls off. i can't hear the bass or the bass element of the kick at all. it's like it was hard cut - the bass shows up when the fundamental's above 130hz and disappears below that. so this is a hard no, there's something wrong with the mastering that needs to be fixed. probably need to listen on less bass-amplifying headphones. intro is immediately fear factory, and reminds me of magfest performances with the rolling gait of the track and the high-energy style. the melodic content comes in after a quick drop at 0:42, and the dual guitars with melody and harmony sound good (although harmony part is a bit louder than lead). i wouldn't mind hearing more stereo separation between those two parts. there's a drop at 1:23 to give some space, and after a few ensemble elements we're into a solo section at 1:43 or so. the melody's back at 2:20, and this is roughly the same as the first time through the melodic content at 0:42. i'd prefer there wasn't the same level of copypasta for this section. it rolls through the melodic content and then just kind of ends. after the extended intro, i'd have expected more on the end of this track. the mastering is definitely a hard no for me, but the arrangement probably needs some work still. i like the first few minutes, but repeating the same melodic approach was a let-down as was the ending. i'd love to see more interpretation there. NO

outside of a few tiny spikes, this has 4-5db of headroom. extended fade-in, as expected based on the description. the pad used has a very long tail, at least six seconds based on the duration of chord change overlap. around 1:15 i start to hear some monophonic elements under the pad but they're very quiet. the chord patterns may indeed mirror freya's theme, but they aren't particularly apparent if so. the chord at roughly 3:00 is pretty aggressively discordant. this goes on through obtuse chord changes until the 6 minute mark when it starts to fade out. interesting that the only rhythmic element in the entire piece shows up at the end there. there is nothing here that ties to freya's theme in a fashion i can identify without a breakdown from the artist. this is just a pile of (pretty heavily filtered) pads playing various chords. maybe i need a planetarium to grasp it further. edit: it's not obvious with my initial writeup, but i want to call out that i actually really enjoy the track as a conceptual backing work to something else. ultimately though we're a remix site, so if i can't tie it to freya's theme, i can't vote yes ultimately. if there's something i'm missing, i'm happy to reconsider. NO

headdy's soundtrack is so bonkers. this is an excellent genre to use for it. high-speed intro complete with sfx, and a very fast BPM on the main track when it gets cooking. breakcore influence is super obvious right off the bat. drums regularly are way louder than the melodic material, which is somewhat a genre element but also is objectively bad for a video game soundtrack arrange community. specifically the bitcrushing and timestop elements wind up totally annihilating everything else. there's a break at 1:52, and this features some very batty timing elements in the drums. the second half of the original is clearly at play here. 2:30 gives us a downbeat again occasionally, and this progresses through another drop and pump at 3:06. it goofs around a bit until we hit the actual last blow at 3:48, which is at truly mind-melting speed. despite the waveform being fatter than a wisconsin bratwurst, this is actually way more balanced than the first part. there's a final hit and then like fifteen seconds of fadeout sfx, and it's time to breathe again. i was not sold in the first section and really got into it by the end. i think that if this goes back the balance in the first minute and a half needs to be redone, but other than that there's a really fun arrangement with absolutely bonkers drum work going on here. nice job creating a convert. YES