Jivemaster

The lead does sound off, particularly in the 1:02 and 2:31 sections as Chimpa mentioned. The pad sound is very weak. The mid-point introduces a lighter take on the theme, but it’s not doing anything awfully different. Arrangement is very conservative, with not much in the way of additional material added, placing this quite firmly in cover territory. Production is ok but could do with some clarity. It’s not a bad mix — there are a lot of opportunities here, but in its current state, it feels like it’s in draft form, waiting for retakes. NO

Good choice of source. The opening builds up over the first minute with some blips and atmospheric elements. At the 1:00 mark we’ve got a fairly standard dance beat, where different blippy synths start to enter the fray. Things are fairly minimal but there is enough going on, at least initially. There are some hot piercing frequencies in here however, I’m unsure if that’s due to clipping or some untamed synths. You need to check that. The arrangement takes some breaks here and there across the duration but mainly keeps the same pacing. At 3:50 we get a chorus like section. The synths have a bit of an 80’s feel to them. The next break in the arrangement at 6:00 is quite interesting, though I wish more happened. I feel at this point, things really feel like they’re retreading on previous territory and could end much earlier. The 7:20 break is ok, with some differences to earlier sections. We end just past 8 mins. Production is ok, however the piercing frequencies are still present right up until the end of the mix — above all else, this needs to be fixed. I also think the mix could benefit with being shortened to reduce the repeated feel of some sections. Have a think. NO

Things start off with a nice bass patch — it’s quite a standard bass line, but I appreciate its place in the genre representation here. The synth lead at 1:44 is too soft, which being a lead, should be more upfront. The break at the mid-point was a bit confusing as it didn’t really go anywhere. The chorus portion repeats again at 3:30 and is essentially a repeat of the earlier chorus section. The synth buzz afterwards changes things a little, but doesn’t feel quite like enough. Production is ok. There are some good ideas here across the first half of the arrangement, but creativity seems to dry up by the mid-way point, making things feel generic. I think you have a workable mix here — I recommend giving things a revisit, paying particular attention to the second half to pull it away more from the first, and doing something with that break at the mid-point. NO

Solid moody beginning to start things off. Agree with Larry that things are a bit muddy, starting at 0:45. As more elements are added, the less overall clarity the mix has. This is a shame as you have a good mixture of sounds working cohesively together. The break at the midway point was a nice surprise. I also agree that structurally this is a quite conservative mix, you’ve added a number of layers and breaks to put your mark on things, but it would’ve been nice to hear you go further with your original ideas. In the end, I think this really just needs a production pass to remove some of the unneeded low end from parts to clear the mud and allow the low end to breathe more. NO (please resub)

Straight up, things start quite abruptly, recommend even a small build-up to open the track up. The energy is quite low in this one — dynamics and instrumentation don’t change a whole lot throughout the duration, creating some issues. Synths are interesting, with some good ideas here, but they aren’t tweaked or explored as much as they could be. Production wise, the drums are very weak, without much impact to them. Mixing in general could do with a revisit, as everything is competing for attention at similar volumes. There are some good synth lines, but the core of the mix is quite conservative. Would love to hear some further expansion on the original. Overall, there is a lot to like here, but it feels in draft territory. NO

Sounds like we have a bit of clipping here. This is initially apparent on the SFX during the intro, but occurs throughout the mix. After a brooding intro we’re met with some guitars. I like what you’re going for here, however the guitar lead is not quite hitting notes to time. This issue continues throughout the duration. A tighter, more confident performance would greatly benefit the mix. The 2:17 break is abrupt and doesn’t fit very well, the reverse notes sound a bit off, with continued timing issues. This section abruptly ends at 3:40. The mix ends abruptly not long after. There are some good ideas here as a starting point but I recommend re-takes to construct a tighter performance. As far as production goes, when starting out there is a steep learning curve to get your head around. Your overall production needs attention, there should be no clipping. It’s a bit too much to go into here, but I recommend a YouTube search on clipping, for a solid foundation on what it is — this should then lead you to a range of tips to resolve the issue. Don’t be tempted to layer on a bunch of plugins that claim to be quick fixes to solve the clipping problem. Less is more here — start with a master compressor and limiter and don’t push into it too aggressively. The less in your master bus, the more you’ll get to know how the tools interact with the sound. You’ll come out with a clearer strategy going forward. Good luck. NO

The arrangement here contains some nice drops. Lots of varied growls and breaks which are well sequenced. The break at 2:00 was a good change of pace. The end is a bit abrupt, otherwise progression is handled fairly well. The main issues you have here IMO are production. There is a bit of a hollow sound to your mix, like some frequencies have been scooped out and/or others accentuated unnecessarily. Some levels should also be adjusted so background and foreground parts sit where they need to. In addition, things are very dry — a dab of reverb on select parts would help with the overall atmosphere. Overall a solid effort, I don’t think this is too far away. NO

Interesting lo-fi instrumentation. The arrangement takes a little while to get going but once started keeps the same energy throughout. Production could do with some work. The build up in certain areas could be improved, as the drops don’t have the impact they should. This is in part is due to the lack of compression. There are some good ideas here but instruments and drums are missing the separation and impact they should typically have. I recommend a production pass over the mix to strengthen the parts and add clarity. NO

Agree the brass is a bit basic. It only really pulled me out of the immersion during points where it takes over as a lead, which wasn’t that often. Otherwise I thought the instrumentation was well done, with parts complementing each other well, and different parts taking over one another. The slower pace over the original fit the execution. Twinkly outro was nice indeed. I’m actually ok with this, the brass portion being the main stick out factor. It would be good if this could be updated, but as I don’t have any other problems, I don’t think I’ll hold it back for that. YES

Arrangement seems ok. It would’ve been nice to hear this go somewhere different to the original though, instead of relying predominantly on newer layers for the originality quota. The instrument choice is a good blend, with each taking on complementary roles. Things do move along and unpack quite slowly, but I think just enough changes happen to keep it moving. I didn’t feel much of an issue with notes, but I’m not a detailed theory guy. The production side is ok enough, no concerns from me there. Overall I think this is ok, definitely on the conservative side, but just enough to get by. YES

Production is solid. There is a good spread across channels, instruments have clarity and a great level of separation. Arrangement wise, there is a good mix of complementary parts at play here. The guitar/banjo riffing adds a nice level of additional detail. It would’ve been nice to hear some further variation in the second half to separate it more from the first, but not a major deal breaker. A well executed original take of the source material. YES

Some nice synth choices in the opening minute, with some decent modulation to keep things interesting. The chorus portion seems lacking in impact. The break at 1:10 is nice. As we approach the mid-point, the synth part reuse becomes more apparent, with a similar order twice over. Decent drum samples but sequencing gets a bit samey over time. The charged portion at 2:31 sounds nice and is probably the best part of the mix, but the arrangement doesn’t lead into it well. The added synth line later at 3:12 was ok too, although it had less of reverb feel to it making it feel like it wasn’t part of the same room/space. Things end fairly abruptly. Production is ok, although there could be better balance between the left and right channels. Overall, things still feel in draft form here, with a good set of ideas that aren’t completely fleshed out. Encourage you to look at the suggestions here to strengthen the progression of the arrangement. NO

Good arrangement. Production is decent enough, with enough clarity between parts. I agree with Emunator that the guitar sequencing here is causing you some immersion issues. The lead in particular is too broken up note wise, making it sound very blippy. The bass also seems to be affected by this issue. If you run your notes into each other you might be able to make things feel more natural. Humanising would also help, as things feel rigid and thus add to the robotic feel of the performance. I’d also play with velocity more as this will affect the tone and make things feel more natural. Making things believable is always going to be tough for tracks of this nature. Focusing on the characteristics of these instruments and how they’re played in real life will give an insight as to the approach to take. NO

Nice fake intro. Guitars have a good tone to them, though, but too much low end. This is evident with little in the way of separation from your bass. The synth at 1:05 is quite basic compared to the synth soundscape that follows. The thumping kick and snare work well enough but could do a bit more. The bass synth at 2:00. The solo is done well and has a good tone and nice level of brightness to it compared to the other parts. The strings near the end of the track were nice addition. Arrangement progresses ok, with section changes and once off instruments adding interest. You’re very close here, but ultimately production is too muffled. I suspect shaving some hz off your rhythm guitars low end with a HPF would solve a bunch of these problems, make things sound brighter and bring clarity to the mix. You could also do with brightening up some of your other parts, but the guitar refinement may be enough. NO

Emotive. Things open slow, but start to pick up over the first minute. The stronger velocity at 1:14 could have been built up to better. Cognitively, I had some trouble with the timing in certain sections, things felt a little loose, but nothing to hold it back for. Good quality tone. Production quality is decent. Arrangement changes pacing nicely with a solid mix of light and heavy sections. Nice work overall. YES

Brass at 0:57 was certainly too loud. The saxophone line that played afterwards was interesting. The quality of the instruments here are mixed, I believe the issues are exacerbated by sequencing issues (note lengths, attacks). At times you have your parts working against each other instead of building cohesion. The 2:25 guitar solo, while I understand you were going for a quieter feel, it was too soft compared to the other parts. At 2:47 it was better, but the jump in volume felt unnatural. I would say the mixing here really needs fixing. There are sections with a lot happening, where the levels are all out. The loud brass has some attitude to it, but it's often on the verge of being obnoxious at times. The ending felt like it would've worked best after the first bar at 4:23, the remainder notes didn't wind things down, and felt a bit noodley. There are some good ideas in this, we just really need some cohesion across the mixing and performance here. NO

Like the others, I enjoyed the direction you took with this one. There was an interesting time signature at play here, but it was extremely difficult to get into, feeling like the instruments a lot of the time were doing their own thing at different rhythms. I could feel timing being held in some ways, but there wasn’t the cohesion there I’d expect from a performance like this. I wasn’t as disappointed with the sounds, I thought the electric piano bouncing pan worked well. The organ on top made things a little messier though, Arrangement wise more variation would be beneficial, and there is no outro to speak of, which needs to be resolved. A good idea overall, but there are a few things here that still need refinement. NO

Interesting take on the originals. The guitar is done well. Early in, I’m a bit confused by that brass/accordion-like sound occupying the left channel, compared to the rest of the soundscape, it’s often drowned out and doesn’t serve much purpose. The mixing is otherwise ok. The drums feel quite rigid, with not much in the way of variance in velocity and tone, which sticks out more due to the mix of real instruments among the samples, it would be good to humanise this a bit. Arrangement wise, while there are breaks, things keep a fairly similar feel throughout, some more changes over time would’ve been appreciated. I think the ideas here are good, but I think there is some refinement to be had. Let’s see where the others take this. NO

Definitely hearing clipping too, a shame as it’s quite piercing. Mixing is a little weird, things are off balance with the heavier bass instruments clouding the left channel, and piercing highs in the right. The beat boxing beat is an interesting idea, but is too sharp in the highs and doesn’t have enough frequency spread/depth to hold up as the primary percussion source. There are some good original ideas throughout the arrangement, with different breaks and riffing, and interesting blends of synths mixed in. This certainly feels in concept territory for me, and definitely needs to be taken away to be refined and polished including a rework of the mixing. NO

You have built an interesting soundscape here, mixing natural and synth tones together. Mixing wise there are some issues with clarity, particularly when you have several layers of various bit-crushing/distortion overlaid with each other. There is a flabby wobble to the distorted snare that reveals there's a bit too much crushing going on there. These kinds of issues are common for distorted material, it can be tough to balance at times. I feel counter EQ'ing key frequencies would've added some much needed separation to parts. The progression of the arrangement is quite straight forward, and doesn't deviate a whole lot from the original material. I think it could've been taken further. There are some good ideas here and I appreciate what you're going for in this style. Balancing the issues stated with this being a resub, I think this can scrape by as passable. I would urge you to push for more clarity in future though. YES (borderline)

Cute take on the original. Interesting choices were made for panning, making good use of the the sound space given the fairly minimal parts. The rhodes could do with being more centred given it’s effectively playing the bass, which would help with overall balance. Instruments are of mixed quality. Emunator has some good points there with regards to expressiveness of each part, I also think there was a lack of cohesion between parts, in that they sometimes felt like they were doing their own thing rather than working together. Minimal pieces are challenging as each part stands out more. I think things could be louder for sure. Arrangement was quite basic, I would’ve like to have seen this expanded upon further. Overall I think there is a good mix of ideas here, and I can see where the approach is going, but it feels like it’s still in draft form. I would like to see this after some refinement. NO

The opening had vibes similar to the original, but things started to go into more original territory pretty quickly. Solid choice of instruments here, the choir portions in particular added some nice backing atmosphere. There were some points where parts stuck out, usually when layers were peeled back (the guitar in particular sounded a little robotic in places) but was otherwise I was ok with the performances. Production here was decent enough, good separation and volume balance. More could certainly be done to strengthen the performances — and I’m happy for these to be updated as needed, however, I’m ok with things as is. YES

Great soundscape. The choice of instrumentation works well, with good complementary textures. Things maintain a similar pace throughout the arrangement. Some more variety would’ve been nice — but things are fine for the given duration. Production is solid with some nice separation between parts and a good spread across the stereo spectrum. I think we’re all good here. YES

The lead guitar does certainly sound out of place. Nothing wrong with using samples, however the blippy nature of the notes dampens the immersion of the performance in comparison to the rhythm parts, giving things a bit of a robotic feel through the majority of the track. Production is otherwise ok. Arrangement could have used some further variety/originality. I think there is promise here. If the execution of the lead could be improved, perhaps by letting notes run into each other naturally, I think we’d be a lot closer. NO

Things start of soft and smooth, and remain fairly minimal throughout the duration, mostly filling out within the first minute or so. There are some changes here and there, although the arrangement remains fairly similar throughout. The changes around 2:30 were welcome. The execution I thought was enough for me here, but I’m one of the most lenient when it comes to orchestral soundscapes. The main issue for me was the lack of overall change in arrangement over time, and was it enough for the duration. I think further personalisation could have been had here, but it wasn’t enough for me to strike out completely. Let’s see what the others think. YES (borderline)