Vig

Talk about making the track your own. I didn't recognize it at first. Having an entirely different feel from the original and being in a minor key, this is the sort of complete reenvisioning that I haven't heard 'round here since Intense Color. I love the degree of creativity on display here. I agree with larry that it could have gone longer and expressed more ideas, but what's here is great. YES

drums are...clumsy at best. why is there a cymbal on 1? You have some reasonable arrangement ideas, but the harmonic composition is too simple at this point. there are lots of segments when there's a doubled melody and nothing else. harmony gives context to the melody. give it a shot. A lot of the harmonic parts are a bit repetitive. aside from that, the drums need to be altered to have more subtlety and variation. NO

i think the sequencing hurts more than the samples. Maybe I take that back. The drums are often not quantized. The brass parts are too fast for the samples. it's manic. Everything is really super fast and really super busy. Needs some dynamics, which we don't get until the abrupt transition to the...second theme, which i forget which boss it is. i think this downtempo section is the best in the song. the composition is still close to the original, but the stylistic interpretation is pretty cool. those "guitars" have got to go, as do the brass samples. aside from that, the arrangement is pretty much a cover with some ornamentation. Medlyitis. NO

Heh. No shit. In spite of that, the guitars don't actually sound bad. They don't sound real, but they don't sound bad. The sequencing here is fantastic. The arrangement, while not a great leap in style from the original, certainly has a degree of complexity and depth that the original lacked. Reharmonizations work really well. YES

Not a straight cover, but a stylistic cover. All the way through, I found myself expecting that the track would suddenly kick up the energy, but it never did. Oh well. The arrangement is straightforward, and this is only passable thanks to performance 'liberties' as it were. The performance is very good though, and the track is very enjoyable. YES

I think the instrumentation is great for the most part, and the vocals are solid. Like larry, i'm confused by the decrescendo at the 2 minute mark. everything loses steam. what's that all about? it works on a certain level to the end of conveying solitude, but i think it could have been pulled off better. i'm right on the border for this one. NO

soundfield is emptyish. Minimalism can be great, if executed with subtlety. This really doesnt have enough going on at the small scale to remain interesting. Beyond that, there are a number of harmonic flubs that really stick out. single notes here and there in the bassline that just don't belong. NO

The arrangement is interesting, if spastic. Unfortunately, most of the way through there are lots of frequencies missing. Where's the low end? Track sounds thin. Got to fill it out. NO

cool ambient pads at the begginning don't make up for straightforward arrangement and harsh samples. Suffers quite a bit from "original w/drums" syndrome. You could also work on making the sequencing less mechanical. NO

Like zircon said, this is executed very well, and the guitar performance is great, but the arrangement just isn't ambitious enough. You need to make it more your own. In this case, the guitar solo just isn't enough. Look forward though to hearing more, cause this is a great and tight track. NO

Jill's hit this one. The vocals sound really throaty, and the arrangement is straightforward and predictable. There's not too much different besides instrumentation. To the mixers' credit, they've turned down the saccharine levels to the point where the mix doesn't quite make me want to puke all over myself like the original did. idunno. If I were you I would just remix a better song. NO

ah the lead guitar is staccato, which sounds bad to me. i would normally assume you are doing that intentionally out of noobishness, but you play the rhythm parts fairly competantly. That's still going to be my guess, cause the rhythm parts are consistently better than the leads. thosee leads could really do with some reverb. You have an interesting vision, as hinted at by some of the countermelodic guitar segments. do more with this, make it more your own arrangement-wise. good start, keep practicing NO

Not too familiar with the source... I'd say the piano in the intro is very shrill...i'd pull down the highs and balance the mids. Halfway through and there's been relatively little going on in the composition. Glitch effects notwithstanding, there isn't a ton of variation. Just before the 4 minute mark, you're finally doing some interesting things harmonicially, but they are really only hinted at in the cello. More development needed. Piano outro is mechanically sequenced. More interesting rhythms and voicings needed. but yeah, over-reliance on the glitch effects. NO

the piz. string intro is weak. The sample doesnt sound great, and the part isnt strong enough to be a solo. The bass part comes in, and is repetitive and too loud. Some of the other string parts are also written akwardly. I see what larry's saying; the arrangement presents some interesting ideas, especially towards the end, but you really need to polish this track, smooth out the beginning and end, and check the ingredients for...ugh...millipedes. NO

immediately feeling the smooth latin feel and the cheap samples. The arrangement isnt bad at all, but i feel the track would be a million times better with a real guitar. At some points the balance is a little weak, in that the leads arent strong enough, so the track seems to float without going anywhere. the vibes and guitar just dont have enough punch i'd say. not to mention the flute that actually plays the melody. You really need to make that melody stronger, but other than that i'ts a pretty cool track. NO

ah this was a good track. the guitar sequencing is very mechanical. Halfway through and there's really been no direction. just the melody repeated with a somewhat poorly-written flute countermelody line. after that, the piano, flute and guitar all digress into unrelated harmony lines. I think you need to do more to keep the various melodic lines related to each other, and as a whole going in a certain direction. NO

timing aint great on the guitars, and the guitarists miss a lot of the note attacks. the bassing and drumming are pretty good. arrangement is really straightforward, not a lot of interpretation at all. nice start though. bass playing in particular is crisp. NO

zircon nailed it; you need a more liberal arrangement or more varied instrumentation. Repeating the melody just isnt enough, even when you repeat notes here and there. I think you've got a good texture, you just need to change it up a bit. Hope to hear it again. NO

Not bad. Not as strong as these other j's are saying. Sections are recycled, and the less busy sections are just drums and a melody. woah...bad notes at 3:02 caused by modulation in the harmony parts that the countermelody guitar does not pick up on. YES

You fell in love with a song from megaman x5? i dont understand. OOOH okay this song is actually from the original megaman X. if it was in X5, it was a remix. Not bad for what it is: straightforward trance. It works as a trance track, but there's too much repetition and not enough arrangement for an OCReMix. NO

I think the arrangement is great and the performance is good. I think this could be an easy YES if the production were a bit better, so I'm going to request that you fix up the production thusly: -Everything is too quiet. Maximize. -Bass too loud. This is true of both the instrument and the frequency range. This track has a big fat ass. -horns arent bright enough. Need to emphasize key frequencies to make the track brighter. (hi on flute, mid-hi on alto, mid-low on bari.) -Drums are muddy. Don't know how you recorded the drums, but if you separated the drums to different tracks, the kick has too much low, and the snare doesnt have enough mid-hi. like i said, if you fix the production this is an easy YES. NO

the strings are nasal..hi-heavy. Okay...fairly cookie-cutter. Grating high lead. kick on 1-3, bass and hat on 2-4. You've got to give us more depth, and make the instruments less grating. NO

Dont have any issues with the production like larry: my problem is that the track seems to be a series of minimally related 2-bar phrases copied and pasted until you're sick of 'em. Really. Check it out. Skip to any point in the song. You'll hear a 2-bar phrase. then you'll hear it again. many times. then it will change to another 2 bar idea. It's just too choppy, repetitive and directionless. NO

You work with the chiptune instruments very well. Excellent use of non-chiptune production techniques, particularly reverb. On top of that, there's some fantastic harmonic progression and voiceleading. The ending, while clearly intentional, is still an inescapable "WTF" moment. Well above the bar anyway. YES

The velocity of the piano is completely uniform. Got to have the dynamics. The singing sounded really nice when it came in, but it was there for about one second all alone and then it disappeared..very odd. tons of technical problems in this track. besides the mechanical sequencing, there's fuzz in the vocal recording, the piano is mixed way too loud, there's a ton of distortion, the mixing is unbalanced, and on the harmonic side, the strings play a whole bunch of bad notes. lots of things to fix. NO but your voice is super sexy. Thumbs up for sex-appeal.