Palpable

Good call on that one. Didn't catch that at all hearing it, but once it's pointed out, it's clear as day. Yeah, this seemed like a pass. I liked the evolution the track had, the proggier elements, while still sounding badass. It's like a math professor you have who is a karate master. Gotta agree with many of the mixing criticisms noted, but this was still very easy to listen to. YES

What the hell is with the pads in the source? So freakin' dissonant. Thought I had two youtubes running when I was listening to it. Thankfully, LuIzA's arrangement mostly ditches that nonsense and provides a much more melodic take. I guess the organ solo was a little off-kilter, but nothing compared to the level of dissonance in the source. It felt jazzy rather than... wrong notes. The core elements of this track are rock solid (drums, guitar, bass, piano) so even though there's some stranger elements that come in (think this is the bagpipe-like instrument Wes referred to) and some areas that aren't as polished (the lack of an ending, for one), the overall impression is very positive. YES

Vanilla is a funny adjective to use in votes, especially since vanilla ice cream is so awesome. I don't think there's anything inherently problematic about simple vanilla synths, but you need to pair it with something that captures the attention more. Instead of comparing a boring song to vanilla ice cream, compare it to a vanilla sundae with vanilla sauce and vanilla sprinkles - that's more accurate. Hmm, no, that actually sounds pretty good too.

While I liked some of the ideas in this, I thought there were some big weaknesses to it. The repeated kicks were amateurish as Justin said. I've heard that kind of thing work, but it didn't work for me in this song. The leads are very raw and that also didn't work in your favor. They felt too plain, especially combined with some generic drums that were used. The balance was good at some points and askew or cramped at others (0:55 e.g.). The arpeggio writing at 0:38 was dissonant and I got the sense that it wasn't intentional. Basically this is a shorter version of Justin's vote. There were several issues adding up to make this a NO. Try focusing on giving the instruments their own space, and compare with professional songs to get the right shapes and balance. NO (resubmit)

Yeah I'm siding with the NO votes here. Larry really hit every problem area well. How the strings can be dissonant AND mechanical is a new one on me - I guess maybe you were trying to humanize it, but going that far out of tune is the last thing you want to do. The drums really don't carry the power that is needed, and sound too dry and a little too thin. Arrangement is sweet, but the execution is still not on the level it needs to be. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, pretty decent production here, but the song is basically a recreation of the original, not much rearrangement. If you've got something you've modified more, send it our way! NO

I was fine with how he source was used in this, there was a lot added in terms of flow and textural elements. The original was a pretty static song, while this has a clear direction. I agree with Justin that it got grating at times, but I can comfortably pass this. YES

I read this comment at the exact moment I hit that part in the song, and had to LOL. Garbage truck. Yeah I fall on the line of solid enough. The compression wasn't bothering me much, but the mixing was more noticeably off. The backing track feels just a bit murky and thin compared to the awesome guitar leads, but not enough to significantly hurt this. I enjoyed it quite a bit, especially the voiceover work, which I don't think is usually this well-integrated in subs we receive. This is fine to go. YES

I'll be even shorter since everything has been said. I can see why OA wanted to pass it, because the second half is quite good. There's a lot to like and admire here, but it sounds way too much like the original for the first half. There's some more minor issues with the non-live parts sounding too rigid/unrealistic too. NO (resubmit)

This is like opposite day or something, me and Jesse on the side of the YESes?? I really was hearing very little here to push for another version. The bass in the intro is slightly awkward and it would have been better mixed with some notes that were held, but it felt clear to me that it was going for a rigid, subby, electronic thing rather than the smooth, full-bodied real bass. Felt very industrial, especially with the electronic drums mixed in. I had no issue with the sound of the bass and felt it was a fine anchor for the track. Also had no issue with the ending or mixing of the track. Not sure why this is causing so much trouble for people. YES

Definitely an improvement but the volume is still low. Think we might want to get a more normalized version with some light compression. But piano sounds quite good now. EDIT: Actually relistening, the volume may be ok as is.

Thanks everyone!

No wonder this has been languishing on the panel. Half the working panel made this. 20 seconds of sampling is a fair amount but I'll leave it to Dave or Larry to override if this is an issue. I think it falls below the level of substantial usage and I think it was used creatively, not just tacked on as an intro or anything. Not much to say here: you guys both brought your A-game to this and the result is creative and highly enjoyable. YES

Argh. I'm gonna be that guy and say that the piano sound just wasn't strong enough for me. It was pretty thin and the volume was low too which didn't help. Everything else seemed above board; the playing and arranging were quite nice. Tempted to just let Dave hear this one and see what he thinks. If he is comfortable with it, I would be too.

This is closer than I thought it would be based on the previous votes. You've got a good skill for rearrangement - the song had some very nice variations on the theme. There was repetition, but nothing horrible IMO. It might start to get old after the first listen, but it kept me interested through that first listen. I do think the blandness of the synths and the quality of the drums (which sound worse than the source's) is a big issue, and the lack of an ending is sloppy. I'll have to push for another version too. A lot of this song is working. Try to vary individual sections a little more and use more detailed sequencing and automation to make the leads sound less stiff. NO (resubmit)

Oh I never actually made that full vote. I've listened to this song a lot and helped Mike a bit with critique, and he rose to the occasion each time. This is a marked improvement over previous submissions and I'm happy to pass it. I just see Mike getting better and better at what he does and I'm looking forward to more of his work. YES

I wasn't wowed by this, but was able to appreciate the variety in writing, and the solid production. I got the sense this mix came about more from playing around with the melodies rather than having a clear idea ahead of time of what the mix should sound like. It feels a little directionless, but I still enjoyed it, and the flow was decent. The thing I'm most concerned about is the balance, which gets a little out-of-whack sometimes. The lead at 0:31 is really in-your-face, and should have been brought down a bit. Same with the piano later. We're not talking dealbreaker, but while we're getting him to chop off ten seconds of silence, I'll ask him if he wants to fix the balance issues. YES

Sent you a PM.

Gotta side with the NO votes on this one. The articulations and sample quality are not strong enough for what is supposed to be a mostly acoustic mix. The mixing is also a little off, as has been said. The mix of rock drumkit and traditional instruments is pretty sweet, I can really hear that working out with improved production. NO (resubmit)

Great mood, and some excellent original writing. I thought this had some wonderful ideas, but was problematic for the reasons already stated. I don't have a lot to suggest beyond what has been said already, but Dave's suggestion of bumping the BPM is a very good one. This feels just a little too slow for the amount of writing going on. NO (resubmit)

I'm gonna suggest we close this one up after a week since most of us have voted on it by now.

Big variety of opinions here, but I'm feeling closest to Justin's and Lee's. Source usage was fine and pretty clear well through the middle of the song, to the point where I almost thought it was going too conservative. But the rhythm changes and additional instruments were enough to give it a unique spin. For the most part, I loved the mood built here. Great balance between the bass, pads, and drums. The introduction of the piano was an early falter, it's too cramped and not the best sound, and doesn't complement what's going on as much as it could have. I can picture a nice, full piano sound in my head working perfectly in this soundscape, but this wasn't that. Luckily it drops out and when the Secret of the Forest arpeggios enter, it sounds beautiful. 1:53... this is where you lost me. Not only does the piano come back, but the sitar really can't carry as a lead. Even giving you some leeway on the lack of realism because a similar sitar sound was used in the CT soundtrack, the notes are always the same length, which is really awkward, and the bends sound cheesy. Lee had some great ideas for making the sitar work, but I think I would preferred a simpler synth sound altogether. The outro felt tacked on, but it was ok. It's close for sure, and I can see why it's so split. There's a lot of good stuff happening, but the lead is the dealbreaker. I'm going to push for another version, this feels just below the line for me. NO (resubmit)

Argh this is just on the line for me. You managed to get a better piano sound and the mixing is a little better this time around but both are still problematic. The lack of realism in the piano and bouzouki sequencing and samples just have too big an impact. The mixing is a problem in the sections where multiple instruments are vying for your attention, but aren't given a separate enough space. The way it's mixed, sometimes you can't tell what the lead is and that gets distracting. Sorry to push back on this one, especially since it's close to the level of your passed songs, but it needs a little more polish. NO (resubmit)

The first two votes covered the issues here well. The low-end is largely absent and the drums aren't providing enough power to anchor the track. This also feels pretty simplistic, not much detail or nuance going on in the writing, and too much repetition. In the Submerged Temple section, you pound on that riff way too long - it starts to get irritating. All that said, in the fullest sections like 2:20, things sound really good, and hopefully you can parlay that section into a more polished song. NO (resubmit)

Gotta agree that the way the gating is used here is pretty bludgeoning. I'd recommend toning it down a little bit and only using on some instruments rather than the whole track (at least, that's what it sounds like you're doing). It's a cool effect but way overused. I think you have a pretty decent track in here somewhere, but the mixing could use some work and the drums are pretty bland. I also think it could use more variation from the original, though the gating approach itself lends this some rearrangement. NO (resubmit)