Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)


  • Twitter Username
  • Steam ID

Recent Profile Visitors

13,912 profile views

MindWanderer's Achievements

  1. I don't think the mixing is as problematic as all that, but I did have to turn my volume down a lot. 1:47 - 2:58 isn't too bad, but 4:45+ is indeed way too loud, and distorted. The hits at 4:00-4:20 are pretty crunchy, too. Address the levels and I think this will be in good shape. NO
  2. I concur with all of the above. I'd even emphasize the production issues here: the big boomy drums are introducing some audible pumping and distortion, to a point where even if the arrangement were transformative enough for our standards, I'd send this back for production alone. NO
  3. It's a nice chill mix. The problem is that it's repetitive as heck. The main hook is 0:18-0:26, and it repeats 8 times unchanged, not counting the fadeout. After 1:35, there's no original content, it's just a loop of most of the first half. The sound quality is fine for what it is, it's just that this arrangement is effectively only a minute and a half long. Add some more content to hold the listener's interest and I think this will be in good shape. NO
  4. This is mastered very quietly, with 6.66 dB of headroom for some reason. Easy enough fix but an odd decision. I have to turn my volume to almost maximum to hear it clearly. Better than clipping, I suppose. Otherwise, this is definitely an improvement. It's been lengthened, and the new material isn't just padding. However, the instrumentation doesn't change much throughout, other than the faux-instrumental intro and bridge, and 2:24-2:38. And then the last section is just the same thing, speeding up, with "hey" effects. For me, the overall presentation still falls short. The sound palette is basic and static, and there's still not enough dynamic interest to hold my attention. Still, strong work improving on the initial submission! NO
  5. I have to agree. It's very conservative, basically swapping the chiptunes for some basic synths and adding a beat. The two loops are identical after a few seconds in. You've added some fun energy to the source material, but we're looking for remixes that are more transformative and sophisticated. NO
  6. I'm afraid I'm also a NO mere seconds in. This is more heavily crushed and distorted than anything I've heard in recent memory. And as far as the arrangement goes, I'm in agreement with proph as well: I was itching for a change from that shrill, vanilla lead less than a minute in, and it didn't let up for the entire piece. This needs quite a lot of work in production, dynamic interest, and synth selection for starters. There are interesting riff ideas, but they need fundamentals to hold them up. NO
  7. I can't remember hearing a better love letter to classic video game music. This was clearly made by someone with a real passion. I could listen to it over and over. I've been in a bit of a funk lately and took a break from judging because I found myself being too negative about everything. Listening to something steeped so much in positivity helped a lot with that, so thanks!
  8. You called it the "Nanotech Upgrade Remix," and you weren't wrong about the "upgrade" part. This is a sound upgrade, and not a particularly dramatic one except for one or two brief sections. It sounds very good for what it is, but we're looking for something much more transformative. NO
  9. This is a great performance with a great sound, but it's a cover. The entire structure is replicated almost 1:1, and while there are small differences in, e.g. percussion, it's mostly just an instrument swap. We can accept "genre transformations," but they have to be more substantial than just swapping in rock instruments for the originals, and that seems to be pretty much all that was done here. It's a fun enough listen, but we're looking for something more transformational. NO
  10. Well, I wasn't here 17 years ago, so I can't comment on how much you've improved, but production quality is pretty good, and there are a lot of good arrangement ideas. Where I have a concern is that development is very slow. The intro is a full two minutes long, with changes to the soundscape introduced glacially. The rest proceeds about the same pace, looping through the source material about once a minute and making notable changes once every couple of loops. You don't need to play an entire loop with one sound palette for the listener to get the idea, and that's especially so when the differences between two loops aren't massive, and you don't need to play through an entire loop verbatim every time. You have spans of several minutes where the drum loops or piano arps are unchanged, which causes a lot of listener fatigue. And then after all that, the ending is quite abrupt. Overall I think that's the main issue here. If you can condense this down so that you can present more ideas in a shorter period of time, and maybe mix up the composition so that it's not full loop after full loop, I think it will do wonders for listener engagement. NO
  11. I have to agree. The timbre of the synth choices here are pretty similar to the original, so I'm looking for ways in which the remix stands out from the original. There are a lot of little flourishes and twists, but they're not significantly transformative. The breakdown at the halfway mark is pretty good, despite still keeping to the original FM palette. On the other hand, it speaks to the length of the piece that the breakdown, which is normally a short bridge, is nearly half the length of the entire piece! After it, there's only 18 seconds left, which is a brief recap and an abrupt ending. Overall I think this needs more development and more deviation from the source material. NO
  12. Pretty good! I agree with Kris about the 1:19 synth sounding really dry and piercing, and really doesn't belong in this jazz mix. I'm not that crazy about the 2:04 one, either. On the flip side, it sounds like the brass is sometimes smushed or filtered too aggressively; the exposed trumpet at 2:29-2:52 sounds great, but the French horn, especially when "ensemble-ized," just doesn't have a good tone. Overall servicable, but I would have liked it more as a straight jazz piece without the synths, and with more open EQ work on the French horn. YES
  13. Agreed on all points. There's definitely stuff that sounds good. The intro did grab me, despite the dry, vanilla, repetitive percussion, but it's a letdown after that for all the reasons Emu stated. You have the creative chops, but you need to learn some production techniques to showcase your vision. Please hit up our workshop forum for some more targeted advice. NO
  14. It's as pretty as any RET mix, but I'm not hearing the connections to the source. The main identifiable theme is the opening 3-note stanza, and this arrangement changes that to the point of being unrecognizable without knowing in advance what it was supposed to be a remix of. There's not enough of the rest to hold it together. So I have to say NO
  15. Starts off with a nice simple choir backing. At 0:35 a celesta joins, but it's kind of thin and thwacky, and seems to change key at random on occasion. At 1:12 we get a flute, which is extremely thin and doesn't always seem to be in the same key as everything else. 1:30 introduces a weird synth which is just kind of doing its own thing. The rest of the remix is pretty much the same thing. Thin instruments, a thin soundscape, instruments that aren't in the same key and don't mesh with each other. No ending to speak of. I'm afraid we're looking for something richer and more cohesive. NO
  • Create New...