Palpable

Honestly, I still hear problems with the violin (viola?) sequencing, but it's improved a bit and everything else is hitting. I also appreciate the little improvements and details across the board, that helps mitigate the issues. The string doesn't feel as much like a lead in this version and maybe that's for the better. Think you guys should have tried to find someone to play it to make this a slam dunk arrangement, but as it stands, you're finally nudged over the bar! YES

Some nice ideas and mood here, I liked what you brought to the table. The execution fell flat primarily because of the washed-out drums and unbalanced mixing. I also agree that the energy level dropped a lot during the middle section but with better production and detailed sequencing, this might not have been an issue. I think you'll need to spend a little more time on refining what you have. NO (resubmit)

Can't add much more to what's been said. I really liked the energy and ideas in the track. But there were some definite distortion and clamping from the compressor, probably due to mixing problems. Really not far off from a pass, but enough of an issue to push this back to you guys. Sorry! NO (resubmit)

Man this is really close to a pass for me, but a couple of problems really hold it back. The weak piano sound and sequencing, and the constant distortion in the low-end caused by the bass and kick occupying the same space are both must-fix issues. Apart from that, I liked a lot of the ideas, balance was good, even the vanilla instruments had some cool processing to spice them up. For me, it just comes down to the two issues I mentioned. NO (resubmit)

Before the 1:09 mark, this was a little too basic. Lot of repetition and not a lot of layers. After that, you did more to fill things out, but the balance still felt a little off and the patterns were still too overused. The leads sounded pretty distinct from the rest of the track, not that well integrated and a bit dry. Definitely some promise here, and the mixing of the two sources worked, but this felt too underdeveloped overall. NO (resubmit)

Beat Master Mode in Super Monkey Ball. My friend and I were trying to figure out how many people even reached Master Mode in this game worldwide, since the game wasn't that popular and is pretty unforgiving even when you're good at it.

If anything needs to be co-signed in the votes so far, it's this. This is way too annoying for the amount of time you've got it going, I literally winced when it started up. That's a dealbreaker right there. There are other parts that are grating but not dealbreakers, and they would be better off fixed. Honestly, I wasn't hearing a lot else that was problematic enough to reject this. More source would have been nice, but the last section (4:20 onward) was awesome and bought you a lot of points IMO. The structure flowed well-enough for a disjointed song - reminds me a little bit of my own posted stuff even - and your production skills are apparent. Remove the annoying synth or make it less annoying and you have my YES. NO (resubmit)

This is very close to good to go, as far as I'm concerned. The arrangement is clever and expressive, the piano is a good enough sound. With a couple fixes, this is an easy YES. One, maybe spend a little more time with rubato and velocity/timing humanizations. There were moments that were too squarely played and only in those moments was the spell broken for me. Two, some light reverb would improve this a lot. Please keep working on this, it's so close! I was even tempted to pass it because of how much you got right. NO (resubmit)

Cute arrangement. Though the snare is one of those classic drum machine sounds, it did have some body to it, and in general, the song balance was good. Maybe a little unusual hearing dubstep elements with such dinky percussion, but this wasn't trying to be a club banger and I thought the percussion worked fine. What was tougher to me was deciding if this was too liberal. There's only a few sections where the source is used explicitly (0:47-0:58, 1:45-2:04, 2:24-2:35, 3:21-3:40) and then some bits and pieces of the melody interspliced with wubs. The chords are used nearly throughout though and I think with pieces of melody sprinkled in, it probably just has enough source to remain dominant. Definitely skirts the edge and I wouldn't be surprised to see someone can this for being too liberal. YES (borderline)

My pal Fishy is dead on here. The compression/EQ is really the only problem I'm hearing, but it's significant enough to want to push for another version. The lack of dynamics really clamps down on your great writing. Shouldn't be a lot of work needed, but depending on your experience in that realm, there might be something you need to learn or get help with. Please send this back to us after looking into that! NO (resubmit)

Not expecting to convince anyone to switch their vote, but the 4-note pattern is the only connection, I believe. The chords are different, the arpeggio is modified. You timestamped it correctly, Larry, but I feel like with such a simple source, changing that much of it alters the essence. Similarly to how I feel like a complex chord progression can be counted as source usage while a simple one shouldn't, a song that is only keeping the top note of what is essentially the chord, is not really using the source. Food for thought.

Hmm, can't say I was digging this one as much as the other judges. It definitely had a cohesiveness to it that many medleys we receive don't have, but I wish there had been more dynamic to this, rather than feeling like it was one melody after another. Emunator listed out some ways to change things up, and I think those are good tips. I think this could have used more of a direction. Actually the bigger problem is the leads used, and to a lesser extent, some of the background sounds like the orchestral hits. You picked some very basic sounds to work with here and it gives this a blandness that doesn't have to be there. In particular, I'm thinking of the lead at 0:38 (that sounds very similar to the original) and the one at 0:57. At other times, the sequencing is a little basic even if the lead is a more complex sound. The piano was way too fake to use as a lead. With both of these issues together, I don't see this as a pass. Good job on the mixing, great ideas weaving things together. I think I need to see something more than that though. NO (resubmit)

A surprisingly tough call. It's a good song but there's two sticking points. One: the source is very marginalized in the wubby parts of the song and that leaves the arrangement a little light on source without counting those sections. Personally I would say the source is still dominant, but I can see why others would not. Two: the bass actually gets kind of annoying. Yes, dubstep is supposed to have over-the-top basses, but this gets into the realm of irritating and overused and on that basis, I'm gonna reject it. I realize this borders on making the vote personal, but there is a point at which "troublesome to me" becomes "universally troublesome" and I think I can say this falls a little too far into the latter. I've listened to my fair share of the genre and usually the sounds are not this grating and static. However, I didn't find the same problem OA had regarding the timing though - the delay felt very intentional and tastefully used, like the way rappers sometimes rap behind the beat. It looks like this arrangement is getting rejected for a variety of reasons, which can be discouraging in terms of knowing what to fix, but I don't think this is super far from passing. If you can smooth out the production a little more, I think you can address my concerns, along with the source usage one potentially. NO (resubmit)

Don't feel like rewatching the video but I remember it being corny as hell, and it kind of soured me on the game. Luckily, not enough that I didn't rent it and enjoy the hell out of it. It's a good thing Nintendo made good games that spoke for themselves, because I remember thinking their promotions and ads at the time being really bad.

I didn't put 2 and 2 together that discussion in the Midwest Meetup thread would be about GenCon, but I'm glad I got to meet up with some of you this weekend despite that.

Bumping this.

Cool arrangement, I was digging it. Nothing too out there in terms of how this was approached but lots of new details and additions. Some cool sounds like the distorted synth used in the intro. Source usage wasn't even close to an issue for me given how the chords were used. Unfortunately, the first section which brings in the source was the weakest section of the song, and it always hurts to have a section like that be what kicks your song off, so to speak. The lead was too quiet and got drowned out when other instruments came in (the same lead worked way better in the outro), and the piano sounded like it was in a totally different room - not integrated well at all. After those flubs, the song kept a reasonably high quality, and the integration of chippy FX and the wispy outro were highlights. The drums could have been stronger and the balance was a little too focused on the highs, but both were minor issues that didn't hamper my enjoyment. I think I'll go ahead and give you the last YES on this, but it's a borderline call. I could easily see some other judges rejecting this on the basis of those weaker moments but there was enough strength here for me to overlook it. YES (borderline)

Gotta agree that it's awesome to see you doing something totally outside your comfort zone, especially with this level of skill already. That said, I'm not sure this is quite to the level of other orchestral arrangements on the site. Some of the production issues have already been noted, and in particular I noticed the high levels of reverb and the snare rolls as problems. I also agree with Fishy that the lack of dynamics hurt this, and the climax really didn't hit the way it should have. I feel this is very close to passable, and neither the production or dynamics problems are big enough on their own to sink this, but in conjunction they are. Good luck with the rest of the vote, and if it doesn't go your way, PLEASE PLEASE send us a reworked version. NO (resubmit)

Not sure if a piano sample switch is necessarily what's needed here. I actually thought the piano sample would have been passable, but the song sounds overcompressed (or the sequencing is too static) and too dry as well during the faster parts. When you take those together, there's a definite lack of realism. I also thought the song ended up being too heavy on the left channel acoustically, and some left/right balancing should have been done. I agree that the arrangement and performance are quite nice, and production is what's holding this back (and even then, I think it's close). Derek, feel free to PM me if you need some help with this track, but I suspect you can probably fix this on your own with free tools. NO (resubmit)

Very nice mood building and production, but I gotta agree with OA's comment about the same patterns being too overused. I really like the vertical building you do (not everyone has a talent for that), but it's too much of the same gear for the song. An original section with some chord changes or a dropout section would do wonders to keeping the listener's interest. A more conclusive ending would help too. I would also try to highlight the string-like instruments a little more because in the sections where they are used, they sound like a lead but they are tucked way into the background. Instead, the piano is much more forward but it's written like a background instrument. I hope that makes sense? I see promise in this arrangement and I'd love for you to send us another version. NO (resubmit)

Like Andrew, I thought the heavy verb didn't suit a song with this much damper usage, but I think it goes past personal preference. The overall sound was a little cloudy and the quieter notes weren't that easy to hear. The timing problems were more troublesome to me than the other two judges I guess, because I kept hearing them and felt like they were taking me out of the flow. As usual, I like the way you approach arranging, Bev - your solo piano mixes are quite enjoyable. I think the couple issues I mentioned push this one below the bar though, and I'd like to see another version. NO (resubmit)

I think you're giving yourself a lot more credit for source usage than I would, but what I counted still made this acceptable. The bells during 1:29-2:07 and the melody used from 2:47-4:03 put you at 47%, and there were enough reminiscent parts like 2:08-2:20 to nudge that over my bar. I don't know whether that will fly for everyone, but I think it's ok. Certainly an interesting approach to this song and I thought it worked splendidly. I didn't hear the same production problems that Deia and Andrew did, and maybe it's possible we're hearing different versions? I actually thought you did quite a nice job on the production in terms of balance and clarity, and the effects you used were ear candy. The distorted string instruments in particular were really nice, moody sounds. You earned my YES, though at 2:31 it sounds like there's some light unintentional distortion that you may want to fix. YES

Wasn't feeling this one for a few reasons. The mixing was a little off-kilter and the drums were lacking power. It felt like there were gaps in the soundscape during some of the rock sections, which made it sound thin. The sequencing was also a bit rigid in the orchestral sections, most prominent on repeated notes. The 1:32 section was a lot more quiet and when it led into the heavier section again, the flute was almost inaudible. The part that worked best was when the guitar lead took over, but even there, the mixing was a bit off. But equally important to consider is the arrangement. A short source lends itself to expansion, but this takes it too far off the rails. You're using a similar chord pattern in a minor key, and most of the time the bell arpeggio pattern from the original is changed a lot or isn't used. That's way too far off in my book. I also think the song lacked focus for a long time (before the flute lead started) and could have used a more traditional structure. The genre shifts were also a bit awkward and didn't add much for me. I don't say this a lot but I think it would be a mistake to pass this. Don't get me wrong: it sounds well put-together at times, and clearly Max demonstrates talent as a producer, arranger, and performer here. The arrangement is more problematic than the production but I think especially when you take the two together, it's not up to the level of what we pass. I think it's fixable for sure and I hope Max takes another crack at it should it get rejected. NO (resubmit)

Dunno Larry, I won't say most of the transitions were awkward, but it felt like there was way too much focus switching, places where one melody picked up after another with not enough flow to it, or where there was basically a full restart of the track. And there were some transitions that were just plain awkward to me, not just the ones you mentioned. The production was definitely over the bar if not perfect. I don't mind leaving this one open a little bit longer to get more opinions, but this felt very much like a medley and not a cohesive piece. Nick, your stuff is awesome so don't get the wrong impression here. I loved the ideas you brought to the table here and I hope you keep sending us more stuff that fits what we're going for more. NO

It kind of feels like this was mixed to obtain clarity at the expense of a nice well-rounded mix. It's easy to hear the parts (and in a well-performed song like this, that's certainly an asset), but the overall soundscape is light on the low-end. You lose the steadiness that is implied by the bass. Thought the ending was fine though, no real problem there. Pretty close to me, but given the strength of the performances and writing, I'm willing to sign off on it. Definitely some room for improvement but this just gets by. YES (borderline)