Jivemaster

Hits full force on the first note. Lots of varied sounds, growls and sfx, although the first minute does become slightly repetitive by the time we hit 0:50. The following break certainly helps with bringing in much needed variation. The change of pacing here is great as well. 1:45 we break again with ‘lil spacey build-up, and back into the main growly hook. 2:19 again departs from the main progression dialling back layers and introducing elements back in slowly for a final build-up. 3:11 picks up the pacing to take us out, which appears to abruptly end on the final second. What you have here is done well, and while each section isn’t as varied as I would’ve expected for this style of music (with some elements being reused a bit too much), you do have a lot of arrangement variation which makes up for it. I think the drums hit well and you don’t overcrowd the sonic space too much with additional elements. The abrupt ending didn’t feel right though, it initially felt like a mistake in rendering or my download didn’t finish properly. Overall a nice take on the original. YES

The big synths in stereo spread add a lot of width and impact, and while they draw a lot of attention, they surprisingly don’t take up as much of the low end as I was expecting. As the mix progresses however the bigness of these synths seem to be the main causality for your mix issues - mixing levels are affected due to the size (volume and sonic space) of some of these synths, needing other parts to be cranked up so they can be heard. Better use of complementary EQ curves would’ve worked better here, and further to this I feel some additional thought should've gone into selecting what should be foreground and background material, because a lot of of what you have going on wants to be both. Some of the lighter drum rolls are overpowered by the strength of the synths. There isn’t any major breathing room issues otherwise, which I also found surprising considering the volume that everything is trying to pump out at. I think the arrangement is a good take on the original - while it follows somewhat of a similar structure, it does bring in a number of lead elements (riffing) which do add to the mixes own identity. Mixing problems aside, I don’t have any major issues here. YES

Intro builds up steadily. Lead melody hits us sparsely at 0:40. The pacing while punchy, carries a calming feel with it. Instrumentation is fairly minimal as we hit the first breakdown at 1:40. A pair of plucky sounds build things back up into a full soundscape from 2:15 and again at 2:41 where the main hook plays. Instrumentation still remains fairly basic but does the job well. The second breakdown at 3:36 changes up the melody and rhythm with mostly familiar backing elements. I found the sound effect at 4:33 a little jarring, it plays a little too long and carries some sharpness. Things close off fairly suddenly after the 5 minute mark and could've been more developed. On the mixing side things are done fairly well - while improvement could be made with some of the separation each part, I feel things are audible and well fit into the sonic space provided to them. The same sound fx were used a little too often for my taste, and I would have preferred to have heard some more varied sounds across the mix in general to make things feel more varied - particularly during extended sections of similar melodic content. Overall, some niggling concerns with SFX and variance in arrangement - but not enough in my opinion to drag this back. A solid interpretation of the original. YES

Good use of stereo space. Synths are crisp, with a nice air to them. Dynamics are punchy, with a solid rhythm driving the mix forward. Separation of the instruments is achieved quite well, with a good amount of low end on the bass instruments that doesn't interfere with the other parts playing along. Arrangement progression does feel a little samey at times, despite featuring a number of transitions to different melodies (or variations thereof). This is mostly due to the underlying elements being relatively static, but thankfully, creative use of glitching and the introduction of different lead sounds add much needed variation to the mix as it progresses. The break starting at 3:25 provided an enjoyable change of pace, which I feel could've occurred earlier. The glitch filled ending sequence was relatively clever but could've been more musical. Overall, while the mix is somewhat predictable given the source material, things are well presented and move along at a solid pace. No major issues. YES

Smooth as. Although we don't get much variation throughout the underlying groove, the lyrics are well constructed and keep the mix moving at a solid pace, making the mix feel like it crams a lot into the relatively short timeframe. Typical dropping in and removal of layers which feel right and we placed well. The bass only break at 1:28, while simple, was a good addition and was timed right. Vocals did seem a little soft in places and could've been more upfront, but I think the blend here works. YES

Sounds good. Well done making this more humanised, it adds to the emotive nature that you were already trying to capture with the original submission. Tone seems good, arrangement felt well paced from start to finish. I don't have any further issues with this one. YES

Good use of stereo panning for the synths here, with their movement and bouncing between channels giving the minimal instrumentation the illusion of being bigger than it actually is. The early break to introduce the main theme was a nice and simple departure from the initial build-up. While pacing is slower than expected, the arrangement progressed well, with a variety of synths and changes in lead working to keep things moving. The kick has decent weight to it, and the 8-bit synth and its associated riffing were welcome additions in the second half. Things return to earlier territory to take us out, which is probably the main area I would suggest improvement - I would've liked to have seen some further original ideas over the final bars. Regardless, this is a creative adaption of the original with its own rhythm and personality, a solid effort. YES

The source tunes fit surprisingly well together. Initially I thought the bit crushed instruments may become tiresome as they continue through the track, but their gritty nature really adds an atmospheric element to the production which I highly enjoy, almost like a secondary reverb source. There are a couple of departures from the main pacing in the arrangement across the different sections, but the momentum of the track is mostly the same throughout. Overall track length is about right here, as I feel any longer and things would risk becoming repetitive. That said, the general riffing and articulations in the mix do help in keeping things fresh, as do the tweaking of the effects, which act as a fill in their own right in some cases. Mixing is also handled relatively well, considering the amount of crushed parts playing, things didn't feel squashed or bunched together. Overall this is another interesting one from Eino, continuing in a style that he's certainly enjoying himself in. YES

Quiet yet emotive intro. Performance is strong, with variable pacing throughout. Mixing is serviceable (although overall volume could do with a slight bump), and there is a good amount of air to the notes played. Nothing here feels repeated, even though each section is quite minimal. Due to the slow pacing and minimal nature of the mix, this does feel quite short - leaving the listener with a feeling of wanting more. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I would have liked to hear some further evolution of the source tune. Otherwise, what is here is done well. YES

Happy vibes all round. Solid mix here, nice choice of instruments. I thought the main synth leads were a little loud compared to the other elements. Drums have a nice air to them. The arrangement progression felt a bit static over the first section, but things varied up well as the mix continued. The vocoding portions were a bit loud and could've been dialled back. The guitar solo fit well, nice tone, and fairly emotive, it definitely fit well. I feel the guitar portion at the end accompanying the leads didn't work as well as the other parts of the mix, because the instruments occupied very similar frequency space. The outro wind down was otherwise achieved well. No major issues with this one - certainly not perfect, but you can tell a good amount of care has gone into how this was put together. YES

On the mixing side there's a noticeable bias towards the right channel in a lot of sections which I feel could've been balanced better. The arrangement's progression works well, lots of section changes with timing and other effects used. The early bridge section at 1:15 was an interesting surprise, a complete departure from everything to that point, making good use of guitar tone and accompanying FX for that atmospheric spacey feel. The synths that appear across the mix are basic in nature but surprisingly fit in well with the guitars, although again, panning was a bit of an issue for me across different sections. Overall a very creative take on the original - a mix that drops a bunch of ideas relatively quickly without overstaying its welcome. YES

This one works pretty well now. The regular use of pitch bends is now absent, and there is a good level of clarity in the low end. There are some portions where the main lead synth does get into a range where some piercing can occur, and it is quite loud in volume compared to other parts, but I found these occurrences not frequent enough to count as a significant problem. Further improvements could be made on the instrumental side of things (some synth tweaking for example would've been beneficial as the synths are quite static), and sure some mixing could be improved, but overall I think what is presented here works well. Good job cleaning this up. YES

Solid underlying groove. I felt the guitar during the intro was a bit stiff. The offbeat drums put me off initially but once the listener fit into the groove things felt right. In contrast, the 0:36 vibrato synth didn’t fit IMO - its spooky nature felt out of place with the rest of the soundscape, and clashed with the piano coming in around 0:50. Speaking of which, the underlying chords through the arrangement get quite dissonant at times but aren't overly jarring and do fit the partial jazz focus. The 1:43 chip tune synth was off centre panning wise which made the mix feel off balance in that section, despite this its melody fit in well. I would've liked to have heard some more of this riffing/soloing earlier in the arrangement, especially given its short length and partially repeated bars mid-arrangement. Mix ends quite abruptly and felt rushed, I feel you could've taken a few extra bars to lead us out. Great ideas in this mix, solid production effort, but overall this comes off as needing more polish in the arrangement and instrumentation. I'd like to see you revisit this and rethink some of your choices as mentioned above, you're close with this one, with more refinement you'll have a solid mix on your hands. NO

Strong instrumentation, and a highly varied/detailed arrangement here. Jumping straight to my main gripe - I would've liked to have heard the parts visit the original arrangement more than they do here, as I felt there were so many interludes where it was difficult to relate things back to source. I like what you did with capturing the spirit of the source in things like in portions of the bassline. The general movement of the melody is present in quite a few areas (the intro resembles the original the most), but verbatim source isn't present that often. Melodic variances of course count towards source count, so sections that alter the notes in some way I'm not against here. But when it makes the source tune unrecognisable in a fairly significant way, it raises concerns for me. I'm no expert in Secret of Mana, but I've heard the soundtrack enough to know the music - and I couldn't work out what source tune this was remixing until I visited the original and went back and forth a few times, only then could I make it out. To me, that's an indicator that something isn't quite right with a mix, even if it is technically getting itself over the line in terms of stopwatch usage duration. There's usage and then there's perceivable usage, and this mix, while gorgeous in a lot of ways (sounds, production/mixing, progression) - doesn't pull me towards the source tune much at all, and I wonder if that would be the case for other listeners. I find this one challenging as the other judges don't appear to have any major problems with this, and I don't want to unnecessarily drag the vote out. But I wanted to raise this concern for any mixes you do going forward. You've done a great job here - it is so transformative... but by a bit too much, and I honestly don't think the average person will find the link between this and the source tune as easily as they should be able to. NO (borderline)

This is a very chaotic mix that doesn't stay the same for too long before moving on to the next section. I feel my vote is quite detached from the others here. You do hit the style well for the most part. I must say I wasn't a fan of the intro sounds at the start of the mix - there was a bit of muffle during the build-up, the layers didn't feel like they fit together cohesively, the levels of the different parts felt unbalanced, and the kick based booms took up a good chunk of frequency space on each hit which blocked out the other parts (and continued to do so whenever they were used). There were a few purposefully detuned synths used, including one of the main leads during the "verse" sections. These were interesting initially, but over the course of the mix they became overused - their happy-hardcore vibe being overshadowed by their somewhat static presentation, lacking much in the way of tweaking or note variation. The noise driven trance-ish lead during the chorus sections felt someone flat dynamically, and those sections in general were quite dry with a perceivable drop in volume compared to other sections. The snare was quite weak in comparison to the other percussive elements, and the bass and kick treaded a bit too closely at times. Low end was otherwise mostly decent. There is quite a lot of variety initially in the arrangement, and I appreciate the attention to detail given to each section. By the 2 minute mark however, things began to feel very samey arrangement wise - with the main hooks becoming frequent, predictable and overused without much in the way of major changes or surprises. I would've liked to see a section that was a complete departure from the rest of the mix, and more sparing use of the detuned sections, which incidentally would've given them more impact on each appearance. The abrupt ending while nifty in some respects felt a bit cheap, especially by that point when the listener was hoping for something different to take us out. I think there is some work arrangement wise to be done here. I thought the mix lacked overall direction, with a collection of relatively solid sections used a bit too much, spreading the originality thin over the duration. Along with my mixing and instrumentation concerns, I feel there is a bit too much weighing this down. Good luck with the remaining vote. NO

Finding the source fairly hard to identify here myself. In isolation the piece is quite well done, feels like the backing soundtrack to an old movie. The effects are interesting and provide a way to make the arrangement feel different over the duration while maintaining the slower pacing and minimalism of the instrumentation. I think this one is quite tough to make a call on, my main concerns are nested with the issue of clear source usage. The way its presented makes the track feel so different from the original, which is a great creative achievement in some ways, but also plays a fairly major downside for source clarity. Clear source usage infers that we can tell the track is a remix/arrangement of the selected song, I can only speak for myself - it's not easy for me. I appreciate what's been done here but this may have pushed creative boundaries a little too much. NO Edit 190209: Have revisited the mix on request of the panel. While I don't doubt there's source in there, it's difficult for me to properly discern it. If a track needs a speed increase several times over to help make the connection, I think that's falling short for our purposes. Don't get me wrong, it's a creative mix – just a bit too creative.

Neat tempo shifting intro. The thing that struck me is that despite the amount of low end here, the bass has a lot of clarity. The synths are fairly standard fare, with not much in the way of innovative sounds. That said the chosen instruments work well together, creating a cohesive and complementary soundscape. Arrangement wise things feel good for the first 2 and a half minutes or so, but with not much in the way of a change in pace, things start to feel quite samey as we push forward into the second half. It's certainly noticeable, particularly when some fills and effects that were used earlier in the track are reused during the final third (or at least, sound similar enough to feel like they're reused). The mix really could have done with something in the arrangement to change things up, a breakdown perhaps, which could've utilised some of the intro's tempo switching to slow things down and build up again. As it stands, I would've ended things around the 3:30 mark. Clearly the lack of content to sustain duration is my main concern here, and seeing as the production is otherwise mostly decent, I don't feel this shortfall carries enough weight to hold this back for me. Let's see where this goes. YES

Going in fresh. The breakbeats and glitching are well done. Instrumentation is fairly simple, but works for the most part. The lead in the centre is nice and clear with a lot of breathing room. The accompanying parts don't draw attention. I understand where Larry is coming from in his vote. The track doesn't overly evolve once it's up and running. The breakbeats do change around quite a bit from bar to bar, but because they play almost continuously and don't let up, their patterns begin to feel very samey across the arrangement, even when they are doing different fills. The slight break at 2:05 provided a brief change of pace but by a few bars things were back to busy again. I thought the outro was well done. Overall I don't think things here are too bad, the production is slightly muffled IMO but still decent with a good amount of space between the parts. If the arrangement was much longer with similar pacing it might have caused issues, but at the given duration I think it's ok. YES

Good pumping groove to start things off. There was a distinct lack of high-end initially, but this was built in over time by the leads and percussion so was obviously a design choice. The snare is awfully quiet. I share Liontamer's concern that it is difficult to make out what the lead instrument is at points, with most things sitting at a similar level. In fact backing instruments seem to take more of a front seat here than than lead. Arrangement progression is pretty basic, with the usual break downs and build-ups of layers, but was mostly enjoyable and ended before anything become too repetitive. I think I'm with Larry about needing another production pass on this one - things feel flattened too much here, with most instruments sounding like they're at a similar level. Coupled with the amount of reverb you have going on, it was challenging at times to understand what was leading and what was supporting. I'm sure a quick revisit could solve this issue. NO

This one is mixed quite loud, had to turn down my volume from its usual place. Based on the instrumentation, the intro initially left me worried this would be a straight cover, until the vocals are introduced. There's a Bowie feel to the vocals which is quite creative, but I feel the verse parts are mixed too loud. The change in timing/pace at 1:14 worked surprisingly well and things transitioned back to the main theme without any jarring changes. Good job there. The guitar lead portion in the verses' second play through was good for changing things up. The arrangement ends fairly quickly, but not suddenly. While there arrangement is fairly straight forward, I thought this almost brought enough original elements to the table with its vocals, transitions and additional backing parts (which play around with the main melody) to constitute a remix under the standards. I do see where the others are coming from though, as your arrangement relies heavily on the original song's structure and instrumentation and doesn't depart greatly from the original. Personally, I believe there is room for improvement on the mixing side - if the track wasn't mixed quite as hot into the master bus, and the vocals in the verses were dialled back a bit to sit with the instruments more in the verse sections, things would be working really well here. I'm sure this could pass if revisited. NO

Grindy noise stuff to start us off. Snare is a bit weak. The next section with the solo synth shows promise. Things fall apart when the drop hits - drums become lost, bass overwhelms other parts, and a low end muffle becomes present. 1:37 brings us back to the synth lead playing alone, with some percussive elements and accompanying synths are introduced. The parts here while right in some ways, don't feel like they fit together in the melodies they're playing. At this point the main arp theme has repeated with change for some time. 3:20 again introduces us to the wubs. Some nice sound design here, better than the first round. Muffle is still present but not as much. The balance is off a bit with the wubs being quite heavy but mostly occupying one stereo channel over the other. Otherwise the section while chaotic worked ok. We then fade out with more grindy noise. I appreciate the work that has gone into trying to paint the melody in a different light over the course of the duration. I think the mix would've done a lot better if some changes to the main arp melody were made over time, or at the very least, the synths playing it were tweaked over time in some way. Sadly, most times where these sections are playing things are fairly static. Conversely the chorus sections are quite busy with a number of changes happening each bar (almost too much in some circumstances). Ultimately I think the mixing on this one holds this back - when many instruments are playing things sound crowded and lack breathing room, and the drums while trying to be impactful are very weak due to being drowned out by the layers taking their sonic space. I feel there are parts playing in the busy sections that could at the very least have their low end dialled back so the growls have space to wub in. This would bring much needed clarity to the piece. NO

Feels like a slower paced, film focused version of the original tune. Agree with the others that there is some nice chord usage here across the arrangement, altering the feel and emotion of the original. Brass patch sounds quite basic however, which really dragged down the overall orchestral illusion. The stronger brass sections were also very crowded sonically, with a lot of frequency overlap between the instruments, with cloudiness as a consequence. This would've been a lesser issue for me if the sections weren't revisited several times, more care should've been taken here when mixing. Otherwise I found the sound quality and mixing mostly passable. As the others here don't have any major problems with the mix, I am ok to let this through, but the presentation would be far stronger if the brass were corrected. You've brought a new angle to the original tune with your arrangement, with a soundtrack vibe making it feel suitable for a DK animated short. YES

Very funky, retro instrumentation melded with a modern soundscape. A lot of nice articulations in the background instruments, which add a professional flavour. The piano solo at 2:17 sounded somewhat robotic, but had a good melody to it. The instruments complement each other well. I hold the same opinion as Chimpa and NutS, the vocals float above the mix far too much, and the outro fadeout is insanely short - I know tracks on the game did this but I don't think it needs to be done as aggressively, it didn't suit in this case IMO. I would appreciate a revision of the outro to fade things out over a slightly longer timeframe, and have those vocals descended into the mix more, so they feel a part of the presentation. I'm not sure how rapidly this can be achieved. I'll NO for this moment but happy to Yes if I can hear the improvements. NO (conditional on vocal mix and ending) Vote updated on 180224, based on new mix: I like the vocals more now than before, especially, during the chorus portions. I do feel they have become too dry during the verse sections, but overall a solid improvement - they no longer feel like they've been dropped on top of everything and no longer overpower other portions of the mix anymore. I can also make out a lot more of your vocal articulations in this mix, which make your vocals easier to appreciate. You have a great voice, one which doesn't need to be buried in effects to be appreciated, which is trait many would kill for. The outro was serviceable. Of course this could be pushed even further, but this passes for me. Good job. YES

Nice tidy arrangement. Your melding of different sources was quite impressive here, with no real points in time where I found the transitions jarring or overly noticeable. I somewhat agree with Larry regarding the piano in this piece. Being a solo piece, it was certainly noticeable that the piano lacked body and weight in its notes. When notes were struck with more velocity the patch felt better, while softer portions were a bit weaker and underperforming in comparison. If there were other production issues present here as well (eg: strong compression of dynamics, narrow stereo width, sharp EQ), this would have certainly caused my vote to go elsewhere, however I didn't find the piano lacking so much that its lack of weight dragged it under. Pacing and articulations across the arrangement feel well done, and while not overly complex, there was a good level of variety to be heard here - which certainly helped take the attention away from the patch being fairly average. YES

Relaxed and atmospheric. The 16-bit flute sounds were ok but I found them slightly out of place amongst the synths/sting/pads during the intro. When the piano arrives around the 1 minute mark, you can feel the master bus compression/limiting is quite strong, with some noticeable “heat” on the piano notes,which I felt was worth mentioning. Things continue on at a relaxed pace, with the flute returning as lead around 2:50. At this point of the mix it is quite buried in the sea of atmosphere synths/strings/pads, and being the only melody playing at the time, I felt it really should’ve been louder. 3:40 introduces a nice breakdown with layering back up over time - even though the song’s pacing didn’t require it, it was a welcome introduction. 4:50 returns to the main theme, flute is again too soft for being the main lead here. The main groove marks the final portion, I found the outro somewhat lacking, with the song kind of just ending on a few notes instead of winding down and closing us out properly. Apart from the outro I don’t think the track here is too bad arrangement wise, but it does have some mixing issues that hold it back - such as the flute not being loud enough for lead duties, and some sections feeling a bit too hot compression and/or limiting wise (which was more apparent due to track’s overall softer vibe). If it was me I’d want another crack at this for fine tuning, as these issues would be quick to fix and would strengthen the presentation here. NO