Palpable

Definitely like the way you've arranged the individual songs, but as a medley with almost no smoothness between songs, we can't take it. The production also isn't quite on the level it needs to be, though it's not bad. There's a stiffness to many of the instruments in the way they play the same way each note, and during faster runs, the sample quality is exposed. Brass in particular was weak. Not sure I see this as a good resub candidate, but I think some of the individual songs here could be expanded into great single-song arrangements. NO

Can't add much beyond what's been said. Great production, but the song got repetitious and the source wasn't used that interpretively. Most of the time it played straight (sometimes sampled from the original) against the new beat and bass. You did do some cool stuff with the mid-range synth that played off parts of the original. A radio edit would make this a little closer to what we're looking for, but I think you'd need to go beyond that and change how the source is handled a little. NO

That's a very warm piano sound, a little bit too muted. I get that this is a hushed (and very nice!) piece, but the highs only peek out on some of the highest octave notes. I guess I'm ok with it based on the strength of the arrangement, but probably not everyone will like it and might get some NO votes. As far as source usage, wasn't much of a concern to me on this song. On top of counting the short harmony sections, there were some points were the melody deviated but the left-hand kept the chords, and I was fine with counting that too. In all, probably just over the bar - but excellent arrangement. YES

Arrangement was not bad, though retained the feel of the original more than most subs we see. I could tell there were subtle differences in the writing, and I would have liked something more dramatically different. Still, the approach here was fine as far as standards go. Something sounded off to me about the production though, the right-hand notes sound lacking in body and this didn't have the energy I was expecting. Not sure if anyone else agrees with me on that point, but that's gonna be a dealbreaker for me. I'll certainly revisit this if there's strong opposition; I'm not even sure I can articulate exactly what sounds off about this, and I may well be nitpicking. Sometimes the playing of the main melody seemed kind of stiff too, but that was a much smaller issue. Sorry, Casey. NO (resubmit) Maybe the high-end noise OA is hearing is reverb? Seemed a tad high here, to me nothing worth pointing out, but I normally cut those high-frequencies off my reverb.

Happy birthday Matt!

Nice dance mix, this definitely goes beyond your run-of-the-mill adaptation. Lots of little layers and effects, and the source was used a couple different ways. The ambient section with the reverse piano was completely gorgeous. If this has a fault it's with the balance: there was a washed out sound to the synths and bass that made this sound a little hollow. But with such good flow and production otherwise, it's not gonna stop this. YES

Wow, I was really digging this piece. The heavily reverbed atmosphere was executed well (the individual components still had definition), and this was a great slice of dream-pop. The instruments were kind of random but it all came together, which is no small feat. I ended up getting behind the chords at 2:17 that Deia mentioned, though it did throw me at first since it's so different from the original. Finally the balance is a little bit weak but with everything else working for me, I thought it was above the bar. Great work! YES

So what you're saying is I need to write a song about a day of the week

Heh, I was wondering when there would be a thread about this. I think it's awesome that this song is something probably nobody was that invested in or spent a lot of time making yet is a) memorable and quotable, a hit, and c) really not that different from some radio pop. The biggest difference to me is that Rebecca doesn't have that pop star charisma and expressiveness in her singing, but honestly, that's kind of a refreshing change! That said, I don't feel much of an urge to listen to this song again but I hope it goes to #1. And my god, the rap is horrible and the rapper way too old to be in this video.

The overall feel was pretty similar to the original, and a lot of the writing and structure was the same too. What's here sounds good, but I think you needed to make this more your own song beyond the light electronic flavor. Also, the 3:37 section had some pretty bad dissonance going on there in the strings, you should probably change the strings or the backing parts. As far as production, this only had a couple problem spots and the rest was good. The brass is not a good enough sample to be put front and center, it reminds me of N64 Goldeneye. See if you can find a better sample, or get someone to render those brass parts for you. The brass and big wall of synths also sounded too cluttered with the backing track, you may have to tweak with the balance or EQ some more. When the guitar and the brass played, that poor guitar got swallowed up. The flute also sounded disconnected from the rest of the track. A good listen, Irwin, but it needs some work on both ends. NO (resubmit)

Aside from the panning, I thought this was sweet and pretty much a dead ringer for the Doors' style. I can buy Deia's comment about this needing more partwriting - I would have loved an organ solo, even a lick here and there - but the backing instrumentation was new if subtle and contributed to the overall Doors mood. Vocal performance fit like a glove. I'm not sure if other judges will dig this the same way I did, but I think with more centered panning (a two-second fix) this is good to go. YES EDIT: Changing to YES but I think we should ask if he wants to center things.

I do hope we make a lyrics tab for this song. The drums were pretty FL default but used effectively - in a way, charmingly. The balance is good there, the beat was insistent. I like the additional textural variety in this version and even though this stayed in one gear, it was restless and constantly doing new things while maintaining the flow. The ending was a little tacked-on but fine. Cool beans. YES

I thought the drums was neat even though there was some copy/paste. The sound was good, and the fills were cool. The arrangement was also a strength, the source was handled in a multitude of ways and this was a good fit for it. I can't say I was totally behind how the song was mixed together. I can hear the rhythm guitars but they sound kind of gutted and they didn't have that much power. Maybe they were overcompressed, but it felt more like a drone lacking the dynamics a song like this needed. Hard for me to articulate my problem there as I haven't mixed much with rhythm guitars. The timing was also off and that detracted. The organ crackling sounded intentional to me though. Tough call. I liked the arrangement, but I think the rhythm guitars are a prominent enough element that they should be fixed before this can go up. Let's see what others think. NO (resubmit)

Liked the arrangement here. There was a bit of repetition, but it was more a mix and match of patterns rather than any straight repeating. I agree with OA that the production was the weak point. When the first lead enters around 0:23, it gets pretty piercing, maybe because the compression is so high. Later at 2:01 when more instruments come in, it's tamed. Overall, I thought the mixing could have been cleaner and better balanced, and that probably would have solved issues like the piercing quality. The lead could have been interesting texturally, but there was a charm in having it be so simple - not a major problem for me, but was for OA and could be for others. With some of those issues resolved, this would have a strong chance to pass. NO (resubmit)

Stop reading my mind, man. OA hit every criticism and praise I had, and I agree that the song is definitely a pass. I'll just add that the ambient arrangement was a great match for the original, which is a less melodic take on the NiGHTS melody than many of the other songs in the game. This arrangement had a strong soundtrack feel, and the strings and piano floated beautifully atop the warm pads, like whispers in the wind. YES

Sure! Love your show format.

This had your own spin on the rhythm and feel, which was cool. Reminded me of Steely Dan and Santana, that 70's jazz-rock feel. The bass sounded ok to me actually, but maybe on monitors it's more of a problem. The major problem was just getting the guitars to sit right in the soundscape, they were way too dry. Some reverb or delay, maybe some balance adjustment, is all it needs. This is a simple fix that would turn this from a NO to a YES, so make sure you send it back to us! NO (resubmit)

No frills, but a solidly put together metal cover of Spark Mandrill. It's one of those subs I hate to judge because while the departures in this sound great, and flow well from the VG material, they make this song very liberal. Besides what Deia already pointed out, I'd count 1:22-1:43 as source usage, but I'd also take 5 seconds out of the ending for a drum solo. Suffice to say, this is at best close to the line of source dominance. I also heard that gap in the mids that the rhythm guitars could have filled in, and those two issues in conjunction make me want to push for another version. If not, I think this is fine for a project track, where the standards are a little laxer. I hope you send more our way! NO (resubmit)

Love this arrangement, it's so relaxing and groovy. It's a great fit for the source material and a great mix of instruments. Enjoyable start to finish. Pretty much the only problem I was seeing here was the bass regions being overcrowded and muddy. It's a fairly sizable problem because the piano gets hard to hear when it is the lead. I would definitely take down the conflicting regions of the bass, and makes tweaks with that whole area. Think I gotta go with Deia with wanting a new version, but it's a really close call. Could see votes going your way on this, so best of luck. NO (resubmit)

Contrary to what Deia said, 1:33 was a weak section for me - the drum pattern was too random, and the piano was covered by the other instruments and didn't make for a good lead because of it. The mixing isn't that great overall and you've got conflicting frequencies (Mellotron strings and piano), dryness, and volume imbalance. Nothing major individually, but a lot of things that add up. Apart from that, I was liking this a lot. The timing is a slight issue here, like it has been on some of your other subs, but the looseness was a little bit charming and made this feel kind of folky. Yeah, I'll go ahead and pass this, but it's a very close call and I wouldn't be surprised if you get some NO votes on this. YES (borderline)

A harder call than last time, but there's a lot of little things that are still holding this back for me, some that were issues last time too. First, though the lead is better than a bell lead, the filtering on it makes it weak, it just never sounds like the strong full-bodied lead that this song needs. What really needed to be filtered down instead was that off-beat synth, which was more prominent than the lead at times. Snare was still not a very nice sound, though OK. The high-end also felt a little hot overall, and on the crashes, sometimes there was distortion. The glitch gating stuff never sounded right to me - the timing seemed off, and the full volume drop-out was too distracting. The 3:15 section was strange too, something you were doing there was causing compression to cramp down on everything. You might need to check if you have some frequency conflicts there or something, it hurt the flow. The countdown was too loud. I hate when I'm just listing a bunch of nitpicks but it takes its toll when there are so many. Sorry, gotta push for another version of this. NO (resubmit)

I liked this arrangement, it was vivid and cartoony. Though I appreciate the risk taken with using synths in an orchestral setting, they didn't fit in. 1:31 was especially bad because on top of the synths not fitting, the writing sounded really dissonant and random. At 2:32, the instrument going up and down also sounded very dissonant. The song's sequencing was alright - not the weakest part of the mix, but there was room for improvement. Overall, the issues I've laid out add up and I'm gonna go NO as well. 80% of this doesn't need to change at all; the other 20% is holding it back. NO (resubmit)

Updated the thread. We had it marked correctly internally.

2:53 makes this song Blake's In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida. Don't you hate it when artists just feel the need to jam on and on... Pretty neat arrangement, lot of interesting chord changes and soloing. The sound design was... ok. The Sonic drums and synths and the (intentionally?) fake guitar both left me a little underwhelmed, though got the job done. The vibe lead was expressive and helped to make up for shortcomings on the sound design front. Not my favorite ProtoDome song but over the bar. YES

The timing just got looser and looser as the song went on; maybe there was someone funneling these guys moonshine as they played. It was a pretty big hinderance to what is otherwise a really awesome take on the songs of Mario 2. I have given some lenience to performed tracks before, but this is too much to overlook. I think using Melodyne or a similar program to fix up the timing might be all this needs (or re-recording of course). The drums sounded alright to me, definitely not a dealbreaker. Hope this sees another version. NO (resubmit)