The soundscape certainly sounds nice, but it opens up like a straight cover, so we'll see where it goes. OK, there's finally distinction in the instrumentation once the beat comes in at :43. 1:20 further personalized the arrangement approach with the beat & bassline and some lead changes & SFX.
Not sure why the highs sounded too piercing, but that should have been pulled back. Same with the beats that came in at 2:22; there's a piercing aspect of the snaps that's unpleasant as well; though it's not a dealbreaker, I'd argue that beat also plods.
Fadeout at 3:12 was definitely a lamer one, and I'm not inherently anti-fadeout. It's gonna sound like I don't respect Martin and am making a leap in logic -- the fadeout, as it is now, does come off lazy in an "I give up" kind of way. You could have given that final section another 15-30 seconds with a minor variation, IMO, and then went for the fade. I liked the original countermelody brought in at 2:47, so varying that writing more could be the component that allows you to stretch some more time and substance out of the arrangement before the fade.
The way this is mixed isn't as cohesive as it should be, which plays in part to the high end/piercing issues I'm having. I'm also not a musician or producer, so someone else would have to elaborate more on what's not quite working here.
But does it get more right than wrong, and enough to tip it over the line, IMO? Yep. Some arrangement and production revisions ahead of posting this would be nice, but if that weren't possible, I'm fine with this as is; it's a reasonably developed concept.
YES
EDIT (8/29): Can't say I enjoyed the writing of the new resolution, but credit for making it seem off until the VERY last note that resolved it properly; I got a quick laugh out of that one. Still solid.
EDIT 2 (8/30): And a longer version now. There we go, everyone's a winner. Thanks, Martin!