Palpable

Definitely not bad. When this song reached fullness, it was sounding pretty good. The elements were locking together pretty well. And as far as a trance-ish arrangement of this song goes, not bad. It was lengthy, but never got too repetitive, thanks to some artful filtering and build ups. I think you could trim some of the ending off, but otherwise, good job. Where this falls down for me is in the production, more specifically the individual sounds. The snare is weak, and the bell synth is not compelling enough to be a lead. The bass regions are crowded, and some of these instruments really need the low-end rolled off. There also one synth playing the off-beats which is totally dry, sounds out-of-place. With some of those issues fixed and maybe some mixing tweaks, I could see this passing. NO (resubmit)

The intro needs more subtlety and reverb (IMO), but once the song transitioned to the main section, this was golden. Great details in those leads, interesting instrument set, and a one-of-a-kind arrangement. I pretty much expect that from Vurez and he delivered here. YES

I wouldn't say the drums are the only problem here. The backing guitar is produced in a way that makes it very hard to hear and the lead tone is not that great either. Some of the orchestral elements like the choir and strings don't sound very realistic. Also, the sub bass frequencies are cranked, and there's a lot of muddiness down there. Mixing in general should be cleaned up, there are moments like 4:03 where the strings/pads are much louder than they should be, it drowns out everything else. Arrangement is very cool, but the production has some way to go for a song as elaborate as this. NO (resubmit)

Happy birthday Josh! Looking forward to meeting you at MAGFest.

This is one of those songs I keep coming back to on this album, and I like it even more than when I judged it. I love the Dream Theater-esque part where the rhythm emphasis gets weird, and how nearly every hook from the original is crammed into this. Such a great arrangement.

Since this is on the train to Splitsville, I e-mailed him to ask if he wanted to give us a new version. Edit (12/7): Lee's sending a new version.

My freakin' ears! Sorry to bust out language you'd hear at Denny's, Alex, but the treble is way high on this, and the compression gets out-of-hand. With those two issues resolved, this is an easy pass. The arrangement is awesome, lots of fun FX and moments, and I was hearing source most of the way through this. PM one of us if you're willing to make those fixes and we'll try to fast-track the resubmit. NO (resubmit)

Always a heartbreaker to lose a project file. This isn't in a passable state to me, unfortunately. Even the new kick drum doesn't sound that well integrated, it sounds pasted on top, which it is. As I mentioned last time, the piano is also pretty static. Sorry man, but hopefully you'll whip up something new for us. Or maybe sometime in the future when you're up to it, you'll come back to this one. NO

I like the ideas presented here, even the 70's synth stuff that Rozovian wants to kill you over. It's a little weird transitioning between the opening orchestral stuff and the rock section, and that transition section was the weakest in the song, but it didn't sound like two songs glued together, so kudos. Source was present most everywhere in the latest version, no issue there. I thought the song was too loose, and I didn't dig what the organ and wah-wah guitar were doing most of the song. I like having those instruments in the song, but the parts they are playing are really active but still... dull. The choppy organ thing takes a lot of focus to listen to, you either need to cram that more in the background or simplify the part. In contrast, when the organ started playing block chords later in the song, I thought it worked much better. Close call, but I think the looseness combined with the balancing makes this one weaker than it oughta be. I think it'll take one more version before I would pass this. NO (resubmit)

We definitely need to go sometime during MAG. If it's evening on Thursday, I can make it.

The new version sounds almost identical to me, just a little more high-focused. I couldn't find where the new guitar was. I don't think this will change any votes.

Video is cool, but I actually like the song even more. Great stuff!

I like the drums in a vacuum, Scott, but as has been said, it wasn't a good fit for this song. They sound as if they are in a different sound space than the rest of the instruments. There are a few moments where this sounds too simple, not enough variation to sustain interest. By that I mean that the notes change, there are new melodies, but it feels more like wheel-spinning than progression. By halfway through the song, I feel like I've already heard everything this song has to offer. Pretty nice start, but I think this needs more to it. NO (resubmit)

I had a lot of fun listening to this, but it's way too sloppy in terms of writing, production, and playing. There's too much going on at times, the instruments sound like they're in different spaces, there are some really uneven instrument cut-outs and cut-ins. I would agree with OA that some parts of this work well, and others just don't. Strangely, I liked the way out-of-tune saloon piano, it seemed authentic, and fitting to this style of kitchen-sink song. I can buy the bizarre writing as a Mr. Bungle-type composition, but the production and playing aren't cutting it, if that's your aim. I'd say you're better off boiling this down to what works and building off of that. NO (resubmit)

Pretty gentle song, I liked the jazzy hip-hop treatment. It could have used a little more smoothness, but otherwise, there's not much to pick on here. Some examples of places where the song could have been smoother: The opening piano. I don't know if you were going for some kind of glitchy drop-out sound, but it didn't come across, and sounded like a mistake. The drum sequencing is very even, which isn't a huge deal or even always a problem in hip-hop. In this case, I think a little more variety would have been nice. The hi-hats are also too in-your-face. I do like the washed-out snare sound though. The lead plucked sound is a little too sequenced, and it could have been more in the forefront. Strings at the very end aren't good - if they stood out more, it would be a real problem. I think overall, I'd call this a borderline YES. The song is well-written and enjoyable if a few issues get in the way of total enjoyment. This is a close call and may not muster the final votes it needs, but I wish you luck. YES (borderline)

Definitely not seeing this as a cover. The melody line has a different, way more laidback rhythm, and there are extra notes littered throughout. The backing guitar has some great original lines. The weak spot here is the drums but even then, I thought there was just enough effort put into them that they didn't sound lazy. I'd like a couple tweaks on this: 1) take down that bass a little bit, it cramps the song on certain notes, and 2) center the lead guitar on the first iteration. Neither of these are must-fixes but are two-second fixes that would improve it. YES

Since this is dead split with a conditional, I'll e-mail Michael and give him another chance to fix this up with our comments in mind. I suspect that if he can deliver a version that makes Shariq's conditional into a YES, it may change some other votes.

I like this treatment a lot. The dynamics and the atmospheric background writing are great and the section with the fifths adds a layer to this I've never heard done. Though it was short, what was there was really well done. But production was the downfall here. OA's first comment hits the mark: there's not nearly enough subtlety in the sequencing of the ocarina. Compared to the beautiful flute that concludes the song, I was left wondering why the sequencing wasn't that intricate throughout. There's also a problem with the mixing, starting at 1:07, possibly an overcompression problem. There is some range where you've got too many frequencies competing and as a result everything is cramped down. A very good start, but there issues are holding it back. NO (resubmit)

Good concept, this source works well given this kind of treatment. The arrangement is pretty good here, but something about the production is definitely off. Overcompressed for sure, but also the mixing is messy. The lead is shaped strangely, it doesn't cut that well and sounds like some drastic EQ was applied. At 0:42, another instrument is added and the combination of that and the lead makes it hard to make out either. At 1:41 one of the background synths pokes its head out and sounds in your face, when it should be more pushed back. On top of that, the instruments largely sound like they are in separate spaces - that's the reverb thing OA mentioned. Sorry guys, it just didn't sit right with me. Sometimes my songs start to sound like this when I have too many effects on the track, e.g. sometimes I cut one instrument on the highs, only to boost it later down the chain instead of removing the first EQ. I would suggest starting from scratch with some of these tracks. Take off all the effects - EQ, filtering, reverb - and try to make the instruments sound more natural. NO (resubmit)

I liked the intro to this, it had a promising build-up. But the main song didn't do that much to follow through on that lead - it was too sparse and lost the energy. The drums should have been way more hard hitting. Though the lead has some movement it gets dull to listen to on the longer notes. Some delay or distortion might have been nice. The writing here is pretty good, but the devil is in the details. Get those instruments sounding as good as they can, and keep the energy level up. NO (resubmit)

This song was neat. I tried my own hand at Baddies on Parade briefly before giving up on it, because I couldn't get a good groove for the melody. This was a good fit for the source. Production wasn't totally clean and I think sometimes the parts stepped on each other, but it was over the bar. However. The source seemed really marginalized in this compared to the new writing. Here's what I heard: 1:26-1:32 1:59-2:04 2:44-3:02 3:27-3:44 4:19-4:24 I'm sure that's not everything, but unless I missed something major (a possibility), that's way short of dominant source usage, less than 20%. There was some chord usage too, but nothing strong enough that I would count it. Even with your breakdown mentioning a section where you riff off the Baddies on Parade bassline, it only has a vague similarity to me. Actually, it seemed like one of those mixes where a few parts have a similarity to the original, but because those parts were modified in some way, it lost the connection. We'll see what others think, I'd like to see someone take another shot at a breakdown. Til then, NO

Gorgeous and moody track, I was really feeling it. I could see this getting criticized as being too backgroundy - that's a complaint I've made about songs similar to this. However I think the leads are present enough that it wasn't an issue. The fake background guitar suits this, it's a staple of a lot of R&B songs. It's one of those instances where I don't think a real guitar would have been better. The weakest part by far was the piano, which should have been used more subtly, but it's there only a short amount of time and isn't horrible. The synth strings play the same way each time, which is a little lazy for a lead. Some minor melody changes might have been nice. And the snare switch at 1:20 was not great - you should have gone thicker, not thinner. I'm not positive this will clear the panel with ease, but I did enjoy it and it seems good enough to me, despite some weak areas. YES

Ugh 96kbps. It's pretty rare to get a submission this good at that bitrate. It noticeably decreases the quality of the high end, and usually people who can make a song this good know better. That needs to be fixed if this gets accepted. I think the balance also sounds skewed to the low end, but hard to tell at this bitrate. Loving the treatment here, the martial drumming and chugging suits this song very well. The last half minute of this is excellent, fantastic energy. But I was disappointed at the copy/paste in the middle and to a lesser extent how straight the melodies were played. Some little melodic flourishes would have been perfect for solving both those problems. It's a close call, but the level of repetition makes me think it needs some more work. NO (resubmit)

Amazing track. Nothing off the beaten path as far as trance goes, but perfect beats, flow, melody. It's gorgeous. Unfortunately, I heard less than two minutes of source in this nearly six minute song, and nothing after 3:11. There's no way that can be considered dominant source usage. I hate telling someone who has created a track this good to change it, but for this to pass, it needs more source. NO

A pretty clear improvement over the last version. It's so much easier to hear what the guitars are playing now. This song will have its fans. YES