Disco Dan

intro was incredibly long, which wouldn't be so bad if it led into a song that seemed to fit the intro. And not to be too picky, but around 1:30, you've mixed the bubble man riffs in their key along with the major keyed intro, which doesn't really sound pretty. I like the intro, but it doesn't really lead into the song you're doing. Sounds like you wanted to include this cool intro in the remix and just fit it in the best you could. The other problem is, as I see it, the main body of the song seems less thought complete than the intro did. It's interesting and jarring. I think we get through the melody once in entirety before it ends though, which seems like not enough compared to the long intro. All in all, I think this one is gonna be a NO from me. On a note that reflects my personal opinion more than objectivity, the style of the main body of this song was so jarring that it was unenjoyable and seemed more like "how many ways can I chop this song up?" than "how can I interpret this song in a cool and aurally pleasing fashion?" D

Ok I'm listening to this and wondering if it's a joke. So I'm going to assume that it is. NO D

If you want a third strike, we can point out the fact that this song is neither metal man nor megaman 2, but is in fact spark man from megaman 3.

I wish one of you had listed the time that the intro ended so I could skip to that. It's not so bad, but it's so subdued and the rain is given the foreground. Ok so it is pretty bad. It's really quite bland and boring. And it goes on for like, ever. I'm wanting to turn this off by 2:00. And it's still building. Using more of the same. Ok well, looking back, the transition from crap to greatness was really nice. So I'll have to submit that it was a majority good song. So we'll give it a yes, but MAN is that intro boring. And Vig's right, the chords used are pretty subpar and not at all very harmonically solid... BUT IT'S OK BECAUSE NO ONE READS THESE ONCE THEY'RE UP ON THE FRONT PAGE! WHEEEEEEEE!!!!!! YES!!! OMG! YES!!!! YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!! wait no, I can do better than that. YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!

Yeah. WAY too short. Granted, that may be all the source material he had to work with, but if I were him, I'd pick a different song from the same game and go with that. This would be cool as the intro to a soundtrack though. But as a standalone, sorry. NO D

If by "touchups" you mean a lot of really strange chords and excess unisons, plus the entire thing being incredibly improvised, which can be good when done well and accurately, (not the case here), and if you're considering the extra distortion on the loud parts to be a touch up, then I'll agree with you. NO D

OK HARDCORE DISTORTION, ALLRIGHT!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! man that's messy though. And the ending is quite disappointing. Very dry. I'm repeating Vigilante. Ok, see his post. NO D

Listen to "Cowgirl" by Underworld. Exact same intro. I can't tell if it's just my ear or if this song is slowly accelerating. Anyway, intro's a bit long. I mean, I can tell what song it is from the melody, but at 2 minutes, still no solid song. It's like getting a hand job and constantly being interrupted just milliseconds from climax. Hmm. I don't know. I honestly don't feel that the release complemented the build up. And the synths are too similar throughout all the parts of the song. I like the fact that at least this is harmonically sound. I like the break at 3:34, though I'm having the strangest feeling like I've heard it somewhere before... Maybe ít reminds me of U2. I don't know. Anyway, the improv section is a nice change though I'm still thinking the piano is a bit over used overall. I don't think many other people are gonna notice the things I would consider flaws, so I'm gonna give it a YES, but it's borderline, in my mind anyway. I still feel this needs work on building up to climaxes. Transitions and chord progressions are rock solid and it's good to hear that, considering the load of rubbish we get usually. And the sad thing is, you could have gotten half of those chords wrong and flubbed 40% of the notes and most people wouldn't have noticed, but it's still nice to see the effort there. D

this is gonna get a sort of borderline NO from me. And here's why. Great arranging skills shown here. Really good stuff. But the sound quality and instrument choice drags it down. I think a little more instrumental variety would be great. Even some light orchestral percussion would add a nice accent to it. The sounds used reminded me of early N64 sounds and very dry too. Also it seems that the first part is repeated verbatim a second time in the latter half of the song, which wouldn't be so bad, except that it's already pretty dry to begin with and then repeating the same thing at the end is sort of a dynamic let down. Anyhow, I've said enough. D

You make me cry. D

I have no problem with your concept of build and layout. I do have a problem with taking a song that is already so simple and making it even more simple. To the point of being musically boring. The bass switches between two notes throughout the entirety of the song. The accompaniment does the same two arpeggiated triads repeatedly. There's so little in the original, and I honestly feel you could have played with the source material SO much more. I'm usually a stickler for chord progression but with something this simple, I generally encourage trying new things (so long as they fit and are aurally pleasing. The solo section that starts just a bit before 4:00 sounds like randomly selected notes. I'm not a big fan of the builds and decays that have been used as I feel they don't really satisfy the listener once the builds have reached their climax, but that may border on subjective. The rest, though, is way more than I would require to reject, so: NO D

Probably sequenced, actually, as it sounds VERY mechanical with little to no sustain on the notes. Makes it sound very artificial. Lose the player-piano sound and add some realistic sustain, and we've got a winner. For now: NO D

hard to tell if this is intentional or just ignorant. Sounds like the artists didn't quite know the pitches here. The sounds are nice and the quality isn't bad. But the joint is all out of tune and I can not abide by that. NO D

OK FINE I'LL JUST GET IT FROM THE MIRROR. I'll judge this tomorrow when the download is finished. D

YOU KNOW WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE? A LINK THAT WORKS. D

I don't like it when Vigilante posts ahead of me because I almost always end up having to repeat most of what he said or just say "yeah what he said." And in this case, it's not much of an exception. The overall quality is great. The piano really does seem incredibly dry when juxtaposed with the rest of the song. And I'm going to have to agree with the others about that lead synth. I don't really know what would have sounded better, honestly, but the chirpy (I don't know the descriptive terms for synths these days) lead sounds pretty wimpy. And there's a realllllly bad chord at 3:32. It maketh me to lay down and cringe. I don't know about the ending being half-assed, but I know I feel ripped off. Ok, not really. Ok my only beefs are the lead synth and the dry piano. And the crappy chord at 3:32. And with the guitar playing abilities that I know you have, I'm surprised at the guitar solo at the end. Kind of weak. Other than that, I think this is a pretty solid piece, and I kind of hate to not pass it because it has so many positive points to it, but for me personally, the negatives ruin it for me. So for now: NO See? I didn't even use the full sized no. D

Man I hope Dave overrides this. I don't feel like getting crap about letting something of this calibre pass, but rejecting others which probably had a better listenable sound to them. D

We all know that your YES is worthless after inflation. I think this needs some sonic cleaning. The volume seems to be outside of the spectrum continuously. Considering what carries this song is the beat and the chords from the original, it's hard to justify a Yes with this. though at 2:06 it reminds me of DKC. And that bell IS awful sounding along with those chords. Hmm. I'm gonna abstain from this one for a while because I'm biased towards the song. And while I'd like to hear a version of this track on the main page, I think I'd like to hear a LOT of creativity with it, since there's so little to work with to begin with. So. Without further ado: The NO D

YOU ARE BIASED BY YOUR LOVE FOR THE ORIGINAL AND YOUR FLEETING DESIRES TO HEAR IT UNCHANGED! ALL OF YOUR STATEMENTS ARE NULL AND VOID! I HEREBY DECLARE THIS THREAD FOR VARIETY! but seriously, folks, NO D

Hmm. This one sort of passed by. The synths all have a similar sound with the quacking brass getting on my nerves pretty quickly and reminding me of the original Sega brass sound. The drums are decent, but fairly repetitive, which would be fine if there were more variation elsewhere. This just sort of keeps going and going without anything that really grabs my attention as a listener. I don't know the original, so this is just my analysis of the song standing on its own. NO D

some interesting stuff. Some disjointed and weird stuff. Some stuff that makes you go "why here and now??" I think the problem is there is some really neat material here and then there is some stuff in between that just seems like an excuse to take up space and make the song longer but with no real function as actual song material. That seems to be the major problem. Some of the material is catchy though. Maybe weed out some of the other stuff? I dunno. For now, my gut says: NO D

Yeah and they got rid of the funky swing feel from the original. See my tears?? Yes. The sadness. D

The clicks are there. I just figured it was an encoding issue. But it's not just you.

Short. boring. Low on the EQ scale. Repetitive. I think that'll do. NO D

yup. Sloppy to all hell. And at 1:40, I could swear I was shopping for groceries. NO D