Emunator

Yeah, honestly "additional piano, synth bass" doesn't really capture the scope of how much jnWake's "bullshit" helped sculpt the sound and direction of this piece - it was absolutely integral to the final product and this would not have come together without his contributions. More Wake+Emu collabs in 2025 for SURE

^ what she said 😆 Seriously though, I recall giving some very in-depth feedback on earlier versions of this track, and I am happy to say that this feels much further along in terms of personality and production quality than what I remember! The pace may be slow, but you're almost always moving in the right direction, and I admire the tenacity. I'll address just a few of the most prominent things that I heard to try and give some actionable advice, since others have done a good job giving a comprehensive overview of the song and what needs to happen with it. I actually like the idea of the church organ and the choir in isolation, but there's nothing pinning it to the rest of the song, so it feels tacked on. The jarring transition into the beef of the arrangement makes this intro feel detached, and when it returns at 2:10, the fade-in feels similarly unnatural. I think the idea can totally work, but the intro doesn't have enough time to develop. What I might try is actually extending the length of your intro, and starting with just the choir and organ and then fading your synth arpeggio in gradually over the next few bars before dropping into the EDM section. This can give each of those musical ideas some space to signal the upcoming transitional change to an electronic palette, without throwing too many brand-new ideas at the listener all at once. Chimpazilla did a great job addressing the lead synths so I'm just going to agree 100% with her critique there on what you got right and what needs work. 1:10-1:15 has some squelchy synths that are mixed very loud and sharp, almost like they're clipping unintentionally. Bring those down in volume. The backing synth plucks at 1:48-2:03 cause a similar problem - they are just as loud as everything else in the soundscape, but are clearly not intended to be the main point of focus, but because of how they're mixed, my ear can't help but focus on them. The hi-hat is also very loud and panned off to the right side - it's not playing a very exciting rhythm (not that it needs to be) but the mixing makes it hard to pay attention to anything else. This leaves me feeling everything feels like it's demanding my attention, and as the old adage goes... if everything is urgent, then nothing is. I'll highlight a few things that I liked about this to point out areas where I think you're on the right track. The filter sweep synths and rolling bassline from :13-:28 was great at establishing tension. I love the variety of sounds you used in here, it shows that you're experimenting to create a unique palette of instruments that has something original to offer. Overall, the use of filter sweeps makes the mix feel kinetic and engaging, there's never any points where you're dragging on the same ideas without any variation. I think you could probably stand to develop some of the ideas further and give them room to breathe before moving onto your next idea, but a short, punchy arrangement is definitely preferable to one that drags on too long. I don't feel that this arrangement comes together cohesively yet, but I certainly feel more of your artistic voice here compared to earlier versions, and the execution is leveling up slowly but surely too. This can definitely get there! NO (resubmit)

I can't remember exactly how the previous submission sounded, so I'm also coming into this ostensibly blind. I really like the tension and atmosphere you've created with this intro, and although there's a few things I would have done differently myself, I think this intro serves its purpose capably. I don't have a lot of critiques, even the way you glitched out the string section at :53 was really cool, and signaled a change to come. When the beat drops in, my enthusiasm for the mix diminished slightly. I didn't find the sound design to be nearly as compelling or full-bodied, there's a lot of holes in the frequency spectrum that might not feel as off-putting if the intro wasn't so lush right before it . The strange thing is that, although there are relatively few things going on, it still feels muddy. It feels like you might have a lot of sub buildup from your kick drum that isn't audible, but nevertheless is muddying the soundscape. I can't tell for sure, but it might be worth looking at it through an EQ to see if there's a lot of inaudible rumble from your drums. Another thing that can help is shaping the stereo image of your low-end instruments, and making sure that the low frequencies of your bass are summed to mono. Sometimes, if you have sub frequency content bouncing around between stereo channels, it can lead to a mix that just sounds unstable. Also, check your reverbs to make sure you're cutting out low-frequency content that can clutter up a mix as well. Any of these things can lead to what I'm hearing in this mix, where your elements should feel punchy and immediate and they just don't. Once we progress further with the arrangement and you mix more of the orchestral/sound design elements with the beats, it feels better. I still think the drum programming is underwhelming, but with the strings adding some much-needed texture, it comes together reasonably well. I don't feel like anything quite reaches the highs of the intro, unfortunately, but I don't want to hold that against you as long as the rest of the track is up to the bar, and honestly, I'm borderline on it. There's a lot of great ideas here, the arrangement is dynamic and creative and shows a lot of vision, but just on a gut level, the execution still doesn't feel like it's there yet :( Chimpazilla used the word "disjointed" and, from a processing standpoint, I agree with that. This is very borderline for me, but I think I need to trust my gut here - I absolutely hear what you're going for with the 90's techno-influenced sections, but the production doesn't communicate that to me yet. I'd be happy to 1-on-1 this with you if it ends up not passing, since I'm sure I can give more actionable feedback if I can get into the specifics with you on individual elements. NO (resubmit)

Totally on Larry's side (twice in one day? What a world we're living in) in terms of the string mix - the writing is great, but the articulations used feel too sluggish and lack the proper transient to really cut through the mix. Once the rest of the instrumentation kicks in, the impact of this issue is mitigated. As I go through this, I think the overall mastering on the track needs some attention. I don't usually comment on mastering in my votes, because usually I can isolate frequency balance issues to specific instruments, but in this case, I think the whole thing is just too bright. You can hear this in the drum kit, the sibilance in the voiceover, and the harsh tone of the strings and guitar that leads me to believe that there are mixing issues being accentuated by a mastering chain that's not ideal for your arrangement. Seconding the crits on the drums, those just don't hit like they should. I don't have any issues with the writing, but the kick has a lot of audible click, the snare lacks presence in the mix and feels like it's scooped out of the midrange too much. The rest of the kit sits alright, though the cymbals are extra harsh due to the issues I mentioned in the last paragraph. The voiceover is a great addition, my only issue is with the mix - for the first half, it feels like it sits too far forward in the mix on certain words, which suggests a lack of compression and volume shaping to get more consistent peaks. Then, when the rhythm guitars enter, they are getting totally lost. I don't envy your job of having to mix that, but the VO noticeably goes from too audible, to not audible enough. I'd do some very selective EQ cuts on the rhythm guitars wherever the fundamental frequency of Chris's voice resides. The arrangement is tremendously dynamic but the mixing and mastering is causing problems. I haven't touched much on the arrangement and performances because those are rock-solid - your high placement in the month should speak to your success on a conceptual level and I absolutely enjoy everything you brought to the table here, but the mixing/mastering needs some TLC in my opinion. NO (resubmit)

Celeste really translates so well to metal in a way you'd never expect by listening to the original source. The way you translated the rapidfire ostinatos (I especially loved the sweeps at :35) to guitar shows that you definitely know your way around your instrument, so the bones of this arrangement are really solid. You've added more than enough personalization through unique writing and expressive performances to clear our bar, but I agree with the gentlemen above that the mixing is not helping this live up to its full potential. Starting with the drums, those are easily the biggest area you should focus on when (hopefully not if) you choose to polish and resubmit this track. The programming feels too locked to the grid and sterile, and it's accentuated by the way that the drums are mixed. The kick comes through with way too much high-end click and not enough low-end oomph, so it feels pasted on top of the track rather than giving it a rhythmic pulse, and really draws attention to how rigid those double-bass kick drum patterns are programmed. Those need some velocity and very subtle timing adjustments to really feel like there's a human being behind the kit. On a similar note, the drum programming issue is compounded during moments like 3:25, where everything is highly rigid in its syncopation. Great work on getting your guitar performance so lined up, but instead of feeling punchy and climactic, it comes across as robotic, so I don't think that hit the mark. Once you've cleaned up the drums, my next area of focus would be on the frequency balance between your individual components. Make sure you're applying a low-cut filter on anything that doesn't need it. Your bass and kick should live in that low region, as well as some of your heavier rhythm guitars, but anything else is probably just contributing mud and reducing clarity in the parts where you really want the low frequencies to hit hard. Hemo also suggested some bus compression and overall glue to the mastering to tie all of the elements together, which is a great suggestion to get this sounding fuller-bodied. Also gotta double up on the critique of the ending - that fadeout didn't need to happen and took the wind out of your sails just as you were reaching the summit of your arrangement! Full send it all the way to the end :) Love this arrangement, you did justice to the source but the mixing needs some work. I highly recommend you take this to our Workshop Office Hours, since @paradiddlesjosh and @pixelseph will absolutely have some guitar/drum-specific techniques that can help you reach the top! NO resubmit (you can do this!)

Loved this arrangement when I heard the first WIP back in Workshop Hours, and I love it now. Never would have guessed this was a Sim City arrangement, wonderful choice of source. I have very few gripes until the vocals come in. I love the creative textural addition they add, but man they are LOUD in certain frequency ranges. I think there's a confluence of issues at play here - the panning is very wide, there's a specific frequency where the vocals peak as they're panning, they're rather dry and don't have any sort of reverb/delay trail to blend them in with the rest of the song, and the overall volume is loud on top of that. This is a showstopper for me because of how many times it repeats, it's honestly distracting in a way that has nothing to do with the actual quality of the vocals and everything to do with how they're placed into the song (which is a good thing - this should be easier to fix!) Beyond that, the orchestration quality was solid enough to pass my bar, with some dings for realism on the lead instruments (oboe/bass clarinet specifically.) Those two instruments are also panned right on top of each other, mixed quietly, and drenched in a lot of reverb, so while the writing seems to suggest that they're harmonizing or doing more of a call and response, they feel more like they're stepping on each other more often than not. I think you need to evaluate the volume levels and stereo field placement for those leads specifically to make sure they have their own space in the mix to accommodate what you're doing with the arrangement. Overall, this piece has a strong vibe to it and is easy to get lost in, in a good way. There's some very emotionally impactful moments and a lot of layering to the orchestration that shows how much care went into bringing this to life. There's really just two core elements that aren't clicking, and unfortunately because they're such critical aspects to the song, I can't sign off on this in its current state. I think you could get this up to par without much fuss though! NO (resubmit!)

Yep, exactly what the two gentlemen above me said. I'm not going to muddy the waters by trying to restate it, but this has a SUPER high amount of potential and reflects a really clever arrangement and some enthusiastic performances, but the level of polish makes it feel like a sketch in most regards. There's a lack of separation between the instruments in terms of stereo separation and EQ/frequency masking, the sax performance and volume is inconsistent, and some of the supporting instrumentation has moments where it's exposed and highlights the lack of realism in the programming (see: the low piano notes.) Lots of actionable advice above, hope you're able to bring this up to the bar because there's a killer arrangement in here! NO (resubmit)

Interesting choice to start out with an 8-bit demake - assumed that the original source would also start off in a similar way but I was surprised to hear how different this feels from the original. When listening to your remix first, I immediately thought you were remixing Dedede's theme from the original Kirby's Dreamland, and while I can totally see how you adapted the melody from the source, the subtle changes you made to the phrasing gives it a totally different feel. On the production side, I'm hearing those frequency holes Brad identified and it's preventing this from reaching its full potential. The bass is not pulling its weight in the low-mid frequency part of the spectrum, so I'd consider combining EQ boosts with another layer to either your bassline, or another instrument entirely to fill out the parts of the spectrum that are lacking. The leads are also not cutting through the noise during the busier sections - it sounds like the lead volume level is set the same throughout the track, which leaves your lead perfectly balanced during the quieter sections, but nearly inaudible when the breaks kick in. The breakbeat sections are going to shine so well once you can strike a better overall frequency balance and get the leads to cut through more. I also agree on the repetition - there's so much unique stuff going on within each of your sections, but when you hear it presented nearly identically a second time, it doesn't feel like a resounding climax like I'm sure you intended. Varying up the countermelodies, adding some glitches, and changing up the transitions in and out of the sections to be more distinct are all ways you can approach this problem. Really cool stuff going on here, but it needs a bit more TLC to reach that potential! NO (resubmit)

This is really nifty - I know this source inside and out through Super Smash Bros, like most listeners likely will, and you latched onto the essence of the original in such a great way. This is incredibly satisfying as a listener. It's funny, the other judges mentioned the guitar being too wet, and although your submission comments referred to this as a metal arrangement, my brain heard it and immediately thought "this is mixed like a surf rock track." It's not necessarily something I dislike either, it's just unconventional and doesn't seem like something you may have done intentionally! There's some very strange hard-panned hi-hats in the middle of the mix but that was the only thing that felt truly out of place - the rest was just a little curious and ultimately didn't impact my listening experience in a negative way. There's some great feedback to take into account for your next one, but you rocked this one just fine! YES

I listened back to this and see the argument for the NO more strongly this time. I was obviously very borderline at first, so there's no need to hold this up - let's get this polished up and hopefully the next version will jump over the bar rather than barely eeking over it.

Time to play the game of "are the sour notes actually sour or just some weird Earthbound shit?" Hmm, yeah I don't love that alteration to the chord progression, I can see why Flexstyle decided it was a hill worth dying on. Things get way too crunchy there. I also felt the first note of that guitar solo at 2:11 in my bones, and not in a good way. The rest of the solo was good, and offered some much-needed expressiveness to the song, but man, that was a jarring start. Aside from that, the lack of groove to the drums and bassline actually bothered me more than the rest of the judges. The hi-hats are incredibly sharp and in-your-face in the mix, and they're playing a VERY static rhythm so the first thing I notice about the song is how rigid it is. That ends up drawing my attention to the fact that the rest of the drum kit, the bassline, even most of the melodic synths, have the same issue. I know that, to a degree, this is a genre convention but there's a lot you can do with simple velocity/micro-timing adjustments or even delay/effects to add some of that rhythmic life back without having to actually change your part writing dramatically. I don't think this is a massive dealbreaker relative to the sour notes mentioned above, but it impacted my listening experience a lot more than the rest of the judges thus far. At the very least, if you're not going to adjust the drum programming, that hi-hat needs to come down in volume. Sorry, but I don't think this is there yet! NO (resubmit)

As a proponent of shamelessly mashing up two extremely popular SNES source tunes myself, I tip my hat to your gumption here. There's certainly a lot about this approach that works - I do think some of that is simply the strength of the original compositions, but the blend of elements on a compositional level is pretty cohesive. I have no nits to pick with the arrangement here, and it doesn't surprise me that this was made for a composition-focused community challenge, because I think that's the strongest aspect of this piece! So the good news is that you've got a solid foundation. I hate to say this, but didn't find the sound design to be very engaging. Everything feels fine and competent, but compared to some of your other submissions where sound choice, I can't help but feel like the sound design component of this track is keeping it from being something greater. I find it very hard to quantify this feeling, so I hope you don't mind me being a little more unfiltered and subjective than I would normally be when voting. Everything feels serviceable, but nothing is really inspiring me. It's hard to say this especially because I can tell that there was a lot of work that went into fleshing out these sounds with different effects and selecting a wide range of patches - it's not like you just loaded up a couple of soundfonts and called it a day. I think this might be a level of personal preference for more unique sound design, so take it for what it's worth. All that said, I will express that I think the drums cross over from a matter of personal preference to a more quantifiable critique - these just sound bland here in terms of creative processing and programming. Trap drums live and die by unique fills and rhythms, and this feels like you leaned way too much on a single loop. It's extra-noticeable in the hi-hats because they poke through the mix so much due to their dryness, but it's basically doing the same short rhythmic pattern ad infinitum. At the very least, I think this aspect of the song needs to be reworked and expanded on in order for me to sign off on this. Brad also touched on some mixing critiques that I'll also cosign, but those never really escalated to the level of a dealbreaker in isolation. I know I'm probably putting off bad vibes with this vote, but I do think there's plenty of potential with this arrangement. If the drums were reworked to introduce more variety/fills and a processing chain that blended better with the rest of the song, I'd probably be able to sign off, but I also felt it was worth expressing the feelings that I came away with that were more subjective too, because you've submitted multiple songs that felt much more inspired and ambitious in terms of the sonic world you created with them and I'd love to see you lean more into those impulses here and on future songs. I hope this comes across in the spirit it was intended! :) NO

OK, this is sounding remarkably improved from the last version I recall hearing. I think you've gotten to a point where the arrangement and creative production decisions are good to go, so I'll focus just on mixing here. I'll start by saying that I don't think this is at OCR level quite yet, and this is based on a gut feeling before I dove into any of the analysis I'm about to go into. It's close, and certainly as close as you've ever gotten with this arrangement so far, but there's a few distinct qualities that, when compared to other tracks that we've posted, sound noticeably strange and unpolished. The other judges have rightly called out the fact that everything sounds muffled, like it's coming from inside of a pillow. I'm guessing that this was done in response to previous feedback about the high end being too harsh. I think this was an overcorrection, and although it's objectively more pleasant to listen to, it leaves the clarity and crispness out of the equation that is essential for a well-balanced mix. It sounds like you might have just put a filter over the entire track, which is only very rarely a wise suggestion. I'd recommend dialing back some of those corrections and meet in the middle between this and your last mix. There is also a big dip around 200-300hz which might not seem like a big deal, but it's a very critical frequency range for giving your mix warmth and body. I found myself leaving a lot of holes in my mixes because I frequently heard advice like "cut the low end out of your non-bass/kick instruments" and applied it too broadly. If this is something you did on your mix, I'd encourage you to use a less steep slope on your filter cut, or consider layering in an instrument that plays within that frequency range to fill it out - it will have a huge impact on how the song feels. Conversely, I still think you have too much bias to the 400-1kHz range, where you have a lot of overlapping melodic elements that occupy the same frequency range. Some very subtle EQ cuts (I'm talking 1-3dB maximum) will help clean this up. Here's a screenshot from part of your track viewed through SPAN - while this is just a segment of the track, it looks like this for nearly all of the song so this should give you a nice visual idea of why the track is feeling lopsided. Moving on from EQ balance, I also agree with Larry about the stereo width of the track. I will give you credit for keeping your low-end focused and mono, which helps with stability, and there's definitely a nice wide stereo image on the rest of the track, which helps it feel lively. However, the L/R panning on certain instruments presents some curious choices - the most notable instance of this is the snare drum, which sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the drum kit because of the panning. Sometimes I'll do a ping-pong panning effect on my snare fills, but when you have it only panned to the left side, it leaves things feeling imbalanced. Overall, I think you could reduce the stereo width of many of your elements to bring some presence back to your mid-range - I tried this in my DAW by reducing the stereo image on everything above 200hz by about 25%, and it already had a notable impact. Lastly, the mastering is sounding better than previous versions, but there's still a lot of dynamic range here that is making large chunks of your song unnecessarily quiet. Again, to illustrate what I mean, I'm going to show a screenshot of your waveform: See how there's a bunch of very sharp peaks that are going way above the average loudness of the rest of the waveform? These can add a lot of unnecessary headroom during most of your track and limit the amount of loudness you can get during mastering if you're just normalizing your song's volume so that it reaches 0.0dB loudness. To counteract this, you'll want to shave off those peaks, either by reducing the volume of specific elements that might be causing those peaks (frequently, this is the result of sound effects/transitions that are too loud, or a kick drum/snare that's mixed much louder than the rest of your song, or in your case, likely both) or by applying compression/limiting to your overall song. This should usually be a pretty transparent process, so you'll want to set the ceiling of your limiter/compressor so that it's just grabbing onto those waveform peaks and reducing them, without having a noticeable effect on the overall character of the song. Once you've done that, you'll see that your waveform looks a lot "cleaner", which will give you more room to increase the loudness of the entire song without clipping. To demonstrate this, I ran your track through a limiter and set the input gain to +3dB, and this is what it looks like running through Fruity Limiter: The dips in the purple line show where volume is being reduced when it reaches above a certain threshold.There's very little being done, but if I bounce your song down with this effect applied, this is now what your waveform looks like comparatively (your original is on top, and with 3dB of limiting is on the bottom.) This is a very simplified example; in practice, it's better to do this on an individual track, or group level during the mix so that you're avoiding these peaks earlier on, but even doing this to your master track allows the volume of your song to be more consistent and bring up breakdown/outro so they're not so quiet by comparison. I think if you were to address these three issues - fine-tuning your EQ balance, reducing your stereo width, and properly mastering the track so that you don't have such a wide dynamic range - this would be good to go. Even dealing with 1 or 2 of these would probably be enough to push it over the bar, but since you're clearly willing to work through revisions and take feedback to heart, I thought I'd go into detail about each of the points. You're in the home stretch! NO (resubmit!)

Oooohhh, this is so cool! It's immediately recognizable what source you're covering, but that makes all the changes to the chord progression and harmonies feel all the more engaging. I don't know enough to break this down from a theory standpoint, but it all goes down smooth all the same. Everything finally breaks wide open at 1:49, and I agree that it couldn't have come at a more perfect time. The first 1:45 is just enough to lull you into a sense of security before hitting the listener with some much more powerful beats and more of a rhythmically-charged focus. It's all paced wonderfully, even if it feels unconventional. Love this so much, great stuff! YES