Well, the track's enjoyable, but this is a VERY liberal take that relies more on rhythmic similarities than actually following the source melody. It'd be perfect for something like Turtles in Time: ReShelled if the aim was to have a "soundalike" where permission wasn't given to use the original music.
It's like hearing a commercial using a knockoff James Bond theme where the timing's the same but the notes are different to avoid legal problems.
Example - "Agent 070" James Bond soundalike: http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/summary/play.cfm/crumb.1/crumc.0/sound_iid.659939
Flat out, THAT was the vibe I got hearing the "straightforward usage" of the Genesis source.
For example, the main verses of both tracks, leaving out the first 5 notes of the source that were left out of the arrangement:
Source: C#-B-A-Ab-A-B-E (:01-:03), C#-B-A-A-Ab-F#-Ab-Ab-E (:06-:09)
Arrange: E-D-C#-A-B-C#-B (19-:22), E-D-C#-B-A-Ab-B (:24-:27)
Hell, I dunno music theory, but I DO know when I don't hear a similar enough melodic treatment and the intervals aren't the same even when the timing is. It's like this the whole time, I'm getting a pure "soundalike" vibe, and I can barely give any credit to this track.
About the only times I felt I could give the arrangement credit on were portions like :39-:48, 1:12-1:21, 2:49-2:58, where the bassline from the original is more explicity referenced as a background part.
Even at 1:41 at the seeming shift to the "Warming Up" SNES theme, the way the notes are changed sounds like it has jack to do with the source material beyond a minor resmblance. 2:00-2:15 vaguely sounds like "Warming Up" and not in any overt sense.
This vote so far is giving this track a HUGE benefit of the doubt over sounding well-executed rather than sounding like an identifiable arrangement of these two themes, and it's a drastic mistake.
Vinnie, Kris, Justin: Someone here please demonstrate how the notes of the melody or any other part of the Genesis source OR the SNES source are being used with clear A-to-B connections. I need to be shown where the substance is first, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a very uphill battle to call this anything but a copyright-circumventing "soundalike."
In the serious business world of judging, I'm fighting this all the way. This is an awesome piece of standalone music, that's essentially a wholly original track, and I think we've fallen VERY far off the mark on analyzing arrangement if this somehow passes.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but this kind of inadvertant, benefit-of-the-doubt, sounds-kind-of-like-it vote has definitely happened before and I've had to flip a table. And I'm definitely flipping a table right now. Absolutely not.
NO