Palpable

Actually, I helped polish up some performed piano pieces for the site, so everything I did was at the mastering stage. Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of suggestions for sequenced solo piano but I do have a couple. That is apart from getting a pianist to play it. If you have a MIDI controller, play in some of the more troublesome sections yourself, even if you're not a pianist. I HAVE done that before in short spurts and it can really help when you're not sure how to click it in but know how it should sound. Yeah, it sucks when you can't do it in one take because you're not a piano player, but I can usually get the barebones of the realistic quality I want in 10 takes, which I can then polish with the mouse. Truth be told, I didn't think the sequencing was awful - probably a borderline NO for me. There's a few runs in a row where the timing is too rigid and staccato, and of course the runs all being in a row really makes it stand out as fake. I think note lengths and damper use would really help those parts, it should sound more connected and have more of a rise and fall. Some of that comes down to personal taste, but if we're all hearing it as fake, something is off. Best of luck to you, I really enjoyed the arrangement. NO (resubmit)

Here we go, #5... Right off the bat, I'm liking the mixing job courtesy of Timaeus. Definitely at a good volume level and clarity; in fact, I think I hear details that I haven't noticed before. Some of the problems are still here, like strangely dry synths and a quiet section that loses a little too much energy, but most of this is as good as it can be. Your vision is finally getting sold - the craziness makes a little more sense, because it sounds more purposeful. I think I hear something coming.... could it be? ...... yes, I think it's a......... YES!

This is the hardest type of arrangement to do well, I believe - subtractive, solo instrument, sparse. As a mostly electronic musician, I'm always bowled over when an arranger can do this right because it just feels so far from the realm of what I can accomplish. It's almost like we have two different hobbies. Personal reflections aside, this is gorgeous, haunting, careful, and definitely well-played. Great piece. YES

Boy, right off the bat I hear some major distortion due to overcompr... oh. It's dubstep. Now I get it. I just voted on a rock submission that was overcompressed and finished my vote saying that I don't mind overcompression as much as I used to - maybe just the way things are going - but this tests that even further. In this sub, the apparent loudness is even greater. That said, I don't think it's a dealbreaker for me. I really dig the arrangement and most of the time the sound degradation is masked decently. There's a lot going on, but I can hear the details still. Yep, gets the ol' thumbs up from Palp. But please people, compress less! YES

I think I'm harsher on this than the other votes so far. I think the arrangement got a bit repetitive, especially the intro and the rock sections where the lead wasn't in play. The same patterns were used too many times (dat arp!) and it didn't feel there was enough attention to detail in those sections. The flute/recorder and string sounds in the beginning and end were on the weak side. The acoustic section in the middle was a lot better and was the only section I felt really happy with. And that's in addition to the transitions, which are pretty big deals. Sorry, not really feeling this one. NO (resubmit)

Gotta side with the NOs. The recording here is definitely a dealbreaker, in a track where the violin is featured so prominently. It's way too muted and Jesse pointed out how strange it is that the piano is brighter than the violin. It almost sounds like the piano is the lead. Love the arrangement, and I sincerely hope we can get a revision on this. NO (resubmit)

I think I've softened a bit on overcompression the past year or two. Maybe overcompression won the loudness war and now I'm just used to it, lol. I can hear the degradation in quality, and yes, I WANT it to be less compressed, but the arrangement is great. Like Dave said, I can still make out everything in this easily, so I don't really see anything preventing a pass. Probably good to ask him if he's willing to make the change though. YES

Great arrangement, but I agree with basically all the issues Chimpa pointed out. I'd even say I understand her NO, because the production issues were distracting to me. The instruments never totally gelled; there was always some element like the hats or the EP that stood apart from the others. BTW sounds like the hats are slowed down and there's some weird artifacts there. The solid but not great mixing also contributed to the lack of gel. Some instruments were too loud or too soft. That said, I didn't hear any dealbreakers and I think it should get passed because the arrangement is stellar. But it wasn't a slam dunk to me - there's room for improvement here. YES

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Emunator. The additions to the song (rhythm guitar, a small solo section at the end) are not substantial enough to make this an arrangement. Rather, it's a pretty standard cover, albeit well-assembled. I think with more changes to the second repetition, this would have a shot of passing, but I should note that the heavily verbed production made the playing a little too distant for my taste. NO

Hmmmm. I really dig the arrangement and I don't even think the track is too loud or overcompressed. There's just one thing that got me: that saw synth! Man, it is not integrated well, and I'm really not a fan of the sound of it either. It's not the focal point, but it really sticks out. I don't think it's enough of a problem to prevent this from passing, but it's a blemish to me on an otherwise great arrangement. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good though. YES

Yeah source usage sounded ok to me. There are parts where the melody is played with and the chords follow the original instead. It sounds pretty connected to the source, though a bit liberal at times. There was something about the production the rubbed me a little wrong. It sounded like there was an element missing or a frequency range that was not well-covered. The drums are a little weak and maybe that's what I'm hearing. However, the live playing and moody soundscape compensate for it. It's a great take on the source; inspired work. I wouldn't be surprised if this catches some NOs but I think it's above the bar. YES

Really interesting approach, I haven't heard a lot of songs that marry traditional instruments and synth instruments and techniques so directly, let alone remixes. It's a combination that works here, suits the cute melody of the original. I can hear what Emu is saying about repetition though. Some of the patterns here get a lot of use, too much perhaps. Yet still, I listened to it twice in a row and never felt bored. There's enough subtle effects and additions to prevent outright repetition and keep it an interesting listen. Call me a YES

Wow, I'm surprised at the votes so far. This sounded great to me, and I pretty much didn't agree with any of the criticisms that were said, except maybe to a minor degree. I LIKED the busyness of the bass and other instruments, and I thought it had a wistful, unsettled feel. 2:31-3:03 was the only section I might agree with it being too busy. Again, Jive's comments on the mixing - I can see where he's coming from, but that it's so minor that it's barely a problem. I'm a solid YES on this. I feel totally sold on the concept, execution, and writing here. YES

You did a great job making this sound cleaner, but I still want this to sound harder. I'd like to hear more power in the lows, less in the mids. It feels like it's not quite at its full potential, and I almost want to make you take another crack at it, because of how strong the arrangement is. Still, a pass is a pass, and I think now this is barely a pass. All I can say is, keep making arrangements this good, and in the future, keep working on making the production better. YES

Just saw it for a third time today, and I started to look more for this stuff rather than just awe at the amazing action and excellent details. I didn't feel like I was hit over the head with a smashing the patriarchy theme, though I see why others might feel that way. There's a short conversation that the breeders have with the Vuvalini along the lines of "so you all kill people just like everyone else" and the old woman brags about what a good shot she is. Even Furiosa seems like she wants to kill but is held back by the breeders. Both sides are willing to kill with no hesitation to survive, and what separates them is that Joe is willing to enslave. So I saw the anti-slavery theme as a stronger theme, especially since that was the tie between the women, Max, and arguably Nux, who I think treats himself as a slave to Joe. I agree with you that the bag of seeds was heavy-handed and didn't add much except paint the good guys in a better light because they're environmentalists or something. Wasn't even needed in the plot. I like the movie more when the righteousness of the good guys is demonstrated through their teamwork and their ability to outlive the bad guys.

Cool arrangement - to me the only issue is whether it's got dominant source usage. By your own breakdown (which, thank you for that), your song has about 3 minutes of wholly original material. That's definitely NOT having source melody in spades; in fact, it's skirting the line of too liberal. Beyond that, I heard too many places where the material was modified too much to count, where it's not recognizable as Littleroot Town anymore. 4:31 to 5:01 is a fine example. You're using an invented harmony of the melody line, making the notes bend, and changing some notes - after all those modifications, mixed with a bunch of original material, and new chords, it's extremely hard to see that as the same source. I have to do a lot of work to connect those dots. I really like a lot of what's going on here, even the original stuff. You're a talented producer and arranger. I'd love to see this on our site, and I think it could happen if you'd be willing to make some edits to cut out some of the original material, so that the source melody is more dominant. That's on you to decide how willing you are to modify what sounds like a pretty cohesive piece. NO

Definitely enough source usage going on in this. At first, I didn't realize that Game Over has a melody line because it's so buried by the arpeggios, but Brandon uses it a bit during the Game Over sections, as well as the arpeggios later on. Actually, the source usage is pretty straightforward if you know what to listen for. I thought the arrangement was solid and well-executed, as I expect from Brandon nowadays. The soft and hard sections are both performed very well, and the arrangement segues between the two very comfortably (something many remixers struggle with). It's true that this isn't new territory for Brandon, but I hope that doesn't undersell it; Brandon is really good at rock arrangements like this. This one shines. YES

Really smooth, enjoyable track. Great lyrics and flow, and I really liked the singing section towards the end - it fit the vibe perfectly. Bass is weird, it sounds like everything is high-passed. I mean, it's high-passed at a low frequency so it's not terrible but it still feels like there is a small gap there. Overall, not a dealbreaker though. I can't figure out how the source is used here at all, and I'm fairly sure it's just not used much. The chords are the same at times, and the chord stab that starts off both songs is very similar and perhaps countable, but used at different rhythms. As the arrangement goes on, the chord stabs are more and more marginalized and I think shouldn't be counted. Disco strings sounded completely different. Even the bassline that Kris pointed out sounds different to me. It wouldn't hurt to get more opinions on this, but I feel fairly confident this is too liberal. Shame too, cause the track is excellent. NO

Great arrangement ideas. There's some creative uses of the source melodies here, and good new partwriting to support that. The mixing was quite solid for an orchestral piece of this nature. I liked the instrument volumes and with a little more reverb, I wouldn't have problems with that aspect of the song. There are some specific instruments that could be better - the piano and the trumpets at 6:00, in particular. Those instruments aren't as realistic as the rest, and when they take center stage, the lack of realism is exposed. What I did have a big problem with was the length. You've got a lot of ideas, but there's so many slow sections here, that you lost me now and then over the 9 minutes. Especially the Lavender Town section in the middle really killed the energy by being so slow and minimal for so long. Solo piano sections were also pretty slow and not as interesting as other moments. This is tough to solve easily and would involve some rewriting. I also think some transitions were weak, but that it wasn't as big a problem as the other judges thought. 3:48 and 4:19 were the two that were worst because they had a full stop. I hope you send us another version of this, because this is really promising. NO (resub)

Interesting source and interesting arrangement approach. I liked the spaciousness and relaxed feel of the first minute or so. There was good use of automation and layering to provide direction while keeping the actual melody content minimal. Tasteful use of FX in the middle section and after. Really, I think this kind of arrangement that doesn't focus much on melody is tough to do. It's very easy to be too aimless or too repetitive, but you successfully avoided that. Production is solid, with room for improvement. The kick/bass was a little flabby, and I think a leaner, clickier kick would have suited this better. The solo also was a little plain and Chimpa's suggestion to add vibrato or more glide would be stellar. What's here works though, so cool beans. YES

Agree with comments that this is a bit repetitive, but the high energy levels and drum change-ups do a lot to hold my interest. It's typical of what I expect of Max now - balls-out rocking, straightforward arrangement that fans are absolutely gonna love. Let's post it. YES

Completely agree with Chimpa's assessment of the lead. It sounds more like it's trying to be a synth than a muted trumpet, but sounds enough like a muted trumpet that it hits the uncanny valley for me. I don't think it's a very strong sound in any case, not enough character to hold interest as a lead. I also didn't like how the song started with everything going, it was abrupt. I LOVED the guitar soloing. Really classy stuff that works well with the chord progression laid out here, and adds a lot of interest to the song. But as a jazz song, it seems strange that you don't return to the main melody, as is usually the case. This would have sounded fantastic if the first lead took turns with the guitar to handle the CT melody again at the end. I don't think genre conventions need always be adhered to, but in this case, it's strange to end it where you did. Production is not perfect, but definitely solid. Good enough to pass on that front. Really tough decision, but I think I will side with the NOs. I'm so tempted to pass it because of how strong some elements of it are, but I think there's a couple flaws that put it right below the passing line. NO (resub)

LOL I was gonna rub this in her face too but I forgot

Thanks for that breakdown, Larry. I was listening for the wrong part of Azure Lake, I hear its usage now. I still think this is just about a borderline vote, because of how modified the elements are, but I have to admit it still has a very funky Marble Garden feel. I feel ok falling on the side of the YESes (possibly tipped that way because the arrangement is so well put-together), but it's just about as liberal as I'm willing to go. YES

Yeah you've got too many instruments fighting in the mids. I can hear the lead nice and clear but the other instruments are difficult to make out, particularly the strings. Try to A-B comparison your song with a song in this style if you haven't already. If you have, maybe ask help from someone who is more familiar with rock arrangements. Arrangement-wise, this was short but sweet. Really liked the new section at 0:47 and especially the outro, which seemed to play with the A-section a little bit. More in the vein of the ending would be cool to hear, rather than it being a conservative take on Wily, then a totally original section. That's just food for thought. The only problem for me is the mixing. NO (resubmit)