Palpable

Was a little weird to start right in the middle of the song. Even a short two-second swell would have been less jarring. Thought the arrangement concept was pretty cool though, if short. As an orchestral version, it's not that far out, but it used more instruments, added dynamism, and wove some good writing through the original. I was surprised when it ended where it did, more on a whimper than a bang. I'd have that 2:03-2:20 section build more. The production wasn't quite there, yeah. What I found to be the biggest problem was the upper frequency ranges. It was indistinct, like Larry said. Without crispness in any instrument, the track had a lack of focus because it was hazy; there's nothing in the foreground. I also wasn't crazy about the snare sound, it was hollow. I wouldn't have minded more low frequencies in general. This is solid work so far, Alex. Let's see another version. NO (resubmit)

Wouldn't mind someone double-checking my math. I should note I add this way: 0:14.5 - 0:19.5 = 6 seconds, giving them the benefit of the rounding. I've also mentioned I don't like going by a strict 50% rule with subs this close, so to me, the math is just a ballpark estimate.

Probably my favorite battle song in the FF series, and you did a number on it. I liked that you took risks with the harmonic and melodic detours instead of going with something easier that just accompanies the original melodies. Combined with the smorgasbord of weird sounds and effects, this has the sound of an haywire haunted carnival. Truly madcap. This is similar to your Banjo sub in style and mood, but hell, if it ain't broke... I think it has its own differences, but I wouldn't mind seeing you tackle something totally new next time around. Production is very good if a little overstuffed, wouldn't expect any less from you at this point. Could have been a DP. YES

I like a lot of the individual components of the song, but like Larry, I didn't think it was cohesive. The original is written like a medley, but the sections flowed together better in that original than this, which does drastic changes at each new section. I'd say this actually suffers from having too many ideas! I also thought you used too much panning, which made it hard to focus. I definitely would have kept the lead more centered, and done less hard panning with the drums. Sound design-wise this is still pretty damn cool like your Tetris Attack sub, but I thought that song was a lot more cohesive and polished. And production-wise, there are parts that are too loud, and in sections the instruments floated over the drums rather than sitting with them. I think you've got a better handle on that stuff now. Sorry, but I wasn't feeling this enough. NO

My thoughts are close to Mattias'. The arrangement was pretty solid, but the way the synths are used feels static. There's not much motion in the leads and they get boring to listen to. I also thought the intro wasn't that great, the song only took off at 0:24. I really didn't like the synth brought in at 1:27. It was grating, and the detuning didn't mesh with the rest of the track. On the plus side, the rest of this is good. Apart from the intro, the writing doesn't need to change (IMO) and sections like 1:06-1:26 are gorgeous. The production is warm, a little too much. You can hear the levels get too high at some points, and there a lot of low-mid range frequencies competing. Turn those ranges down a bit to get a more balanced sound. Please send it back with the criticisms addressed. This is good stuff so far! NO (resubmit)

Ralf Schneider? Get out, there's no way that's your real name. If it is, it's no wonder you like Kraftwerk so much. Apart from the 3:25 section, honestly, I didn't hear that much Kraftwerk influence! It's very full, something you don't hear in Kraftwerk. It sounds more like the bands that were inspired by them. Not that any of that matters, I liked this a lot. You got great mileage out of the squarewave, tweaking it with distortion, envelopes, and effects. It's easy to hear the original in this, but there's a lot of you in it too. Very good work, though the ending would have been better as a fadeout at 3:57. There was a lot of variety in terms of parts and frequency ranges; I disagree with Larry's criticism on the texture being simple or thin. I don't see any reason not to pass this, so... YES

Very nice arrangement. By now, you guys really know your way around weaving new writing into the original and I like the balance struck here, if it's a little on the subtle side. It still felt very personalized. Production was a little upfront for orchestral, more reminiscent of VGM than a symphony hall. I think I like the sound of your previous remixes more, but this is still good, just a small criticism. I too will have to hold you to pushing up the volume levels after 3:16. I had to turn up my volume in order to get the desired effect from that second section. Should be an easy enough fix. Keep doing what you do! YES (conditional)

I like this, there's a good mix of instruments and great partwriting and flow. I wasn't thrown off by the introduction of shakuhachi (?) around 3:40, so that's a sign you know how to make disparate ideas come together. The guitar at 6:10 was a little much, but that was my biggest gripe. This was a good arrangement in need of more realism and better mixing. Some of the instrument quality just won't cut it. The guitars sound fake, and the strings are a step above that. I'd say you did a decent job with articulation and smoothness, except for a couple problem sections; just find some better samples and (nicely) ask someone on the site to play the guitar parts. This is swimming in reverb which really hurts clarity. With better samples, you won't need to rely on reverb to fill it out. I know it's disheartening to spend nine months on something only to have rejected, but it is still usually time well spent, improving your game. If you're up to it, I'd love to hear another version with some more solid production. Pick the brains of the people in the WIP forum; a good arrangement like this will usually inspire others to help you polish it. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, seriously, nothing bad to say on this one. Just second after second of amazing stuff. And man, almost no repetition. I think it's one of the best of its genre we've ever had on this site.

Glad our comments helped you last time and encouraged you to resubmit. We really don't get enough resubmits. This was a marked improvement over the last version, and I liked the new energy levels and usages of the source. If I can offer one criticism, it's to try out some more interesting synths and drum samples. You did a good job with what you had, I liked the motion and automation you added, but the sounds themselves are fairly basic. The mixing could still be refined; pulling down some of the backing effects a hair and using EQ to cut out some boominess and give a less cramped sound, but I liked where this was at and I'm cool passing it. Good job, Will! YES

Little known fact: the original name for this website was "Lloyd's 'The Remix'" until early site heroes AmIEvil and Joe Redifer convinced djpretzel that the name should be more universal and not focused on Dave's last name. True story. Great effects on the piano, Joshua. Along with the water effects, it sounds like it's being played underwater. It really is a beautiful piece; nice left-hand alterations in the first section. But the rest of it is a little too similar to the original, and three repetitions of the theme is too much, so I don't think it checks out for OCR. Sorry. Even if you decide not to try another version (which would need some significant changes), I'd stick this in a WIP thread or something so that people can check it out. NO

The arrangement was not bad, though there could have been much more personalization. There were a lot of sections where you were just pulling the written parts from the original without modifying them at all. If the backing elements were more intricate and pronounced, this wouldn't be a huge deal, but all I can hear is the lead for a lot of this so when it plays the original bits, it's a glorified cover. I did like the original sections you added at 2:32-2:39 and 3:10-3:33, more in that vein would help. 3:39-3:46 was a mess; it takes a really good ear to make dissonant parts work, and that one didn't. Transition at 1:54 was awkward, like the start of a new song. There's probably a smoother way to transition, which I'll leave up to you. The production didn't start to gel until 0:55. The intro piano gets covered by the other instruments immediately, and the instrument brought in at 0:38 was plain. Larry mentioned the timing in the 2:02-3:39 section is off, I think a few parts fall behind the beat. I think this will take some work to get it where it needs to be. NO (resubmit)

The intro was alright, but using it for 40 seconds in the beginning and 30 in the end was definitely too long. It's quiet, it pulls straight from the source, and it doesn't go anywhere. I'd reduce that to about 15 fifteen seconds or so before pulling in the meat. After one initial run through the melody unchanged, I really liked how you handled the variations on the theme from 1:00-2:00, cool stuff. Playing is excellent. But that's a minute of a nearly 2:30 song. IMO, reduce the intro, cut the outro, and extend the middle section a little more and that's a rock solid arrangement. Production was good but could be improved. The arrangement felt full sonically, but I felt like the wrong parts filled some of the spaces. The snare could have had more fullness, and the lead guitars could have had more presence. To fit it all in, it might require using more EQ to cut unneeded ranges (this will probably be in the lows). Hope you see the changes through. NO (resubmit)

Arrangement concept is one-of-a-kind, I'm not even sure how to describe what you've put together. Delay and filter effects, harpsichord and strings, rough guitar and drums, disaffected vocals: garage goth psychedelic, maybe? It was very interesting. Cool guitar, especially the weird notes (reminded me of Pavement), and the vocals were delivered well. But like Larry said, it can't repeat as much as you have it. This could have been two minutes and I don't think you'd have lost anything except new lyrics. Consider starting with just guitar and vocals and adding new instruments as the song goes on; I think this song would work well with that structure. Mixing is off, definitely. I heard a lack of low-end and body rather than high-frequencies, but play around with the sound and see what you like. The guitar is a little loud and dry, and the sound picture is cluttered. String sample could stand to be improved, it sounds like you used the original sample. This ain't 1991. I'd love to hear another, more fleshed out version of this, it's a unique take that matches the restlessness of the original. NO (resubmit)

I liked the arrangement overall, good energy. The piano intro was a good start, and the latter parts of this were solid. The lead was more muted than leads usually are, but it wasn't bad, just average. I think something sharper would add more energy to the early sections. The modifications to the melody and rhythm were good for spicing it up, though I liked the later sections more, where there was more going on. The change in the bassline at 3:28-3:34, if it was even intentional, didn't work for me and I think you should fix it. I would have liked to see the snare and hi-hats get more high-end. From 0:45 to 1:56, it sounds like there is a frequency range missing until the gated synth comes in. A crisper snare sample layered on top might be all you need. This is close to passing and I hope you fix up the small problems and send it back, Michael. NO (resubmit)

So Brad, could I get copies of the ToF vocal songs without the vocals, for um, singalong purposes?

I wouldn't call this a lost album because it's fairly critically acclaimed nowadays, but it definitely deserves as many fans as "Whip It".

Yeah I think this is arcade-only. I don't remember this level from the SNES version. But then again, I wasn't that good at the game. It started off very similar to the original, with some slight mods to the guitar melody. I didn't like that the supporting parts and structure followed the original so closely. After the second half, you added a lot more originality to it, which made up for the first half. There was some cool soloing, and new chords. It would have still been nice to see some changes to the bass once in a while, but arrangement-wise I like it. The production is really muddy and has to be fixed before we can pass this. Use EQ to cut down the low regions on everything but the bass and kick. You should hear some some presence there in the other instruments but not as much as you've got going. You also need to let some of those high frequencies back in, because everything sounds muffled. It will help your lead pierce through and overall give a more balanced picture. I like what you've got so far. If you can fix the production, I think this could go up. NO (resubmit)

Larry's got this pretty covered. While I did like the mix of instruments and general approach, the execution needed a lot of work. After the intro, the piano really lost its realism - the long runs and slides used in the Latin sections took me out of the song, and I thought you used them too frequently. It needs smoother sequencing. The pad at 0:29 sounded like it came from a totally different song, notes clashed badly with the piano. 1:30 had too much going on and sounded disjointed, while 1:49 was too empty and exposed the thin higher notes of your piano sample. I also thought the transition between keys were awkward sometimes, like 3:09. But the biggest criticism I can offer is, well, back to Larry: "there was nothing to focus on". This can be applied to a lot of this song. The parts of this that work best are when the piano takes the focus and doesn't try to do too much (e.g. the intro and outro). These parts actually sound pretty nice. Keep the supporting instrumentation out of the way of your lead (use your ears and sometimes EQ) and make the lead simpler like you do in those sections, and I think the result will be better. NO

Very nice mood here - lots of motion, good sound, smooth flow. Just like Larry, up until 1:50, I was really liking this. The introduction of a more arpeggiated melody seemed promising, but it didn't lead anywhere, and for the rest of the piece, it was on autopilot. More variation is key. It needed to evolve more beyond the same textures if you wanted to keep it 4:28. It would be nice to hear some additional subtle pads drift in, and of course, using more source melody would be great. Keep working on it! NO (resubmit)

Sort of sad how many of these albums I own and haven't listened to in years. In the late 90's I started picking up albums whenever they had even one song I liked. Thank God for the days of youtube and iTunes now. Yeah, I have the Smash Mouth album and I was really surprised hearing it when I first got it. I do think it's not bad, but it was totally not what I was expecting. Tubthumper has a few really catchy songs outside of the big single. "Amnesia" is pretty awesome, I think it was a single too. I'll offer up Third Eye Blind's first album as a lost one. They're what I like to call a one-album wonder - had a few big hits off the first album, one minor hit off the second album, and then nothing. People only remember the hits. Their first album is pretty good though (and you can probably find it used pretty easily), and a handful of the album tracks match the quality of the singles.

Got through discs 1 & 2 - great stuff so far. There was much more cohesiveness than I was expecting in terms of arrangement, a lot of guitars, piano, and strings. (On a related note, I couldn't see any song I've made fitting into this album at all! But maybe discs 3 & 4 hold more songs of my style.) So nice sequencing thus far. I might do a track-by-track review in this thread when I'm done.

Niiiice groove. When I think a minimal remix has been going on for 3-4 minutes and it's actually been going on for 6, that's a good beat. You almost got a groove bias YES, but like Mattias, I wasn't a fan of the source usage in this. The descending melody is a background piece of the original, a very simple one at that, and it's a background piece in this. That's a weak tie. I was a bigger fan of the use of the main melody and the synth which plays the first six notes of that melody, but together, those parts make up only about 2.5 minutes. In a song this long, it feels too liberal to rely on the descending melody for so much of it. And pretty much that's my only complaint. There was just enough detail and head-nodding to keep this interesting for 6.5 minutes and I enjoyed it (though I can see why Larry or anyone else would want more. There's still a lot of repetition, and more you could do.) That's cool if you're happy with this where it is, but wrapping the melodies into this more would be awesome, if you're up for it. NO (resubmit)

I was digging the energy in this. It keeps the hard-hitting style of SoR, while adding a lot more in terms of depth. I liked the different styles you took this through, especially the stuttery 1:30 section and the trip-hop beat at 2:24. Would have been nice for the more realistic lead instruments to sound more natural, and the transitions too, but the writing in this was good. There was definitely a lot of audio deformations going on, where it sounded like there was too much clashing. The opening gets it worst - much too loud and very little bass - but it continues throughout. Using EQ to cut the conflicts would help you out doubly here; it'll reduce the distracting compressor pumping, and give the instruments more clarity. I realize you're not a fan of resubmits, but I think it'd be awesome to see you fix this one up. All my concerns are production ones, so it would really just make this song sound better, wouldn't be changing what you have. At least think about it. NO (resubmit)

Good breakdown from Mattias, I'd agree with that. A few of the original sections also use the chord progression so I'm comfortable with the liberalness. Great use of texture in this, you constantly go from one soundscape to another (soundscape). Even though the 1-1 melody is used a bunch of times, the track still evolves through the use of different drums and synths. Mattias's comment about the mixing being off is fair, but I didn't think it was as big a deal as he did. It was a little subtle at times, but never too background-y. Pushing the leads a little higher and certain drums a little lower would have helped. I'm ok with it as it is. Nice work, sirs. YES