MindWanderer

Interesting. It starts off almost like a sound upgrade, especially with the FM lead. I don't think that was an effective choice, since it diminishes how extensive the remix is otherwise, and the sound quality is just so primitive in comparison to the rest of the track. However, other than that, this is firing on all cylinders. It makes effective use of the second source to expand on the first, it has a lot of neat textural elements and a unique soundscape. Great way to make an overall dark tone without neglecting the high end of the sound spectrum. I'm not even sure how it does that, but it does. Nice work. YES

I'm just going to point out that the spoken word element of that remix is just the lyrics of the original song. There's no question that they constitute source material. Also, they only play for 1:07 of a 5:26 arrangement, and are in no way the dominant element.

It's massively better, I'll say that much. Production is excellent, no complaints on that front anymore. The performances are tighter overall. But the timing is still pretty loose, and the singing at the end is still notably pitchy. There's still the larger question of whether a submission in which the dominant component is spoken word can also count as one in which the "source material" is dominant ("source material" being music as defined by our standards). I personally see that as a conflict. So for this to get a YES from me, it would need both cleaner performances and a ruling by djp that this counts; otherwise, I see it as a standards violation. Either way, I still have to give it a NO

Nice juicy bass soundscape to open things up. Transitions into pretty classic EDM fare. The soundscape does drop off sharply at about 10,500 Hz, which I checked because I could tell there's a distinct lack of highs. The lead supersaws have some high presence, but the snares and cymbals are aggressively low-passed, and there's no reason for that. I do think there's a certain amount of running-out-of-ideas, and is basically done at 2:25. You can easily tell in 2:10-2:24 that there's an extra layer compared to 0:40-0:54, and I do hear some extra parts in 2:25-3:10 that weren't in 0:55-1:40, but the mids are really crowded here, and it's hard to make them out. Altogether it's a minute out of a 3:17 mix, about 30%, that's very close to copy-pasta. I don't think this is a bad remix, per se. It's certainly entertaining. But between the lack of highs and the extent of repetition (which is itself made more problematic because of the mixing), I think there's cause enough to send this back for revision. NO

That intro synth is really bright. And yeah, it's odd synth choices throughout, including some that are unpleasantly detuned. They don't go together, either. 0:52-1:08 is a particularly weird example: there are only 3 parts, and they're not coordinated at all. The synth at 1:24 is a bold choice that doesn't pay off; when you have literally only one instrument playing, that instrument had better knock your socks off in terms of sounding interesting and having a rich timbre, and this one does the exact opposite. I hate to come down hard on this, but it's really not nice to listen to. Please consider sending your arrangements through the workshop forums when you're trying something new. NO

The arrangement doesn't excite me, but it's well-realized enough. Great performances overall, though the flute is a little breathless in places. I don't have any particular objections. YES

Eh... I've been listening to this for a while now, and that basic arp is playing nearly the entire time. It gets old really, really fast. The only time it takes a break is in 0:49-1:15. Even if, on paper, 26 seconds of break out of a 2:18 piece were enough, subjectively it's just relentless. There are some cool ideas, and I love the beat, but I do think it's ultimately too much of the same thing. NO

Better! The arrangement is still great. The melody is always audible, and usually sits at or close to the top of the mix. But production still needs some work. 1:01-1:14 is a "great" example of what not to do. It's a mostly-indecipherable wall of sound. There are a dozen instruments playing at once there, all stepping on each others' frequencies, hardly any EQ or separation going on that I can hear, and the dominant sounds are the flute and tambourine, which are absolutely not the leads there. The actual lead, the guitar, sits below them — at least, I think it's a guitar, and not horns or something, because all the timbre is smushed out of it — and then you have a bunch of what seems to be very nice part-writing below that that I can barely make out. That's an example of the worst mixing, but there are smaller issues throughout. The tambourine is nearly always too loud, and whenever you have more than 4 or so instruments playing at once, something's getting buried. Orchestral metal is really, really hard to mix, because it involves multiple instruments that really chew up the frequency spectrum and have really rich timbres. It takes a lot of EQ to let all that get through. This submission definitely shows a lot of progress on that front, but there's a more yet to do. Keep at it! NO (resubmit)

Kris nailed this vote. The detuned sounds and the conflicting frequencies make this not very pleasant to listen to. I'd prefer a more conclusive ending, as well, but otherwise just ditto to the above. NO Edit: The April 2 revision fixes the tuning, which was the biggest problem I had. I do think it's mid-heavy and mushy; in particular, the ending, from 2:25 on, has five or six synths all crowded into the mids, and it's 40 seconds of this, not 20 — about 20% of the track. It's super borderline for me on that front. However, I noticed something this time that I didn't notice before: there's a quiet popping noise that comes up frequently. I hear it pop up occasionally throughout, but it's really noticable in 1:40-1:58. It sounds like clipping, but it's not, unless it was pre-rendered clipping that got saved as an artifact. Now that I hear it, it sounds really awful and I can't abide it. I checked on the old version as well, and it's there, too. My apologies for not catching it then. I'm leaning towards passing this, just, but that popping has got to go. I'd still much prefer the ending be separated out a bit; there's a lot of instrumentation there that just can't be heard. Let us appreciate your work! The arp in particular is absolutely annihilated, and could really stand to be separated out, if not shifted up an octave. CONDITIONAL

Yeah, those loud, muffled snares in the intro are an instant turnoff. They drive out everything else, from the "lead" violins to the vox choir. It immediately gets better than that, but there are still some issues. The iconic arp becomes the loudest element, again dominating the lead. You've got this four-on-the-floor beat, and some sweeps, but none of the other EDM elements one expects from that approach. It sounds incomplete. Adding to that feeling, it's basically done at 1:32. The rest is a loop into a fadeout. As my fellow judges said, it's a good fadeout, but it comes far too early to showcase a completed arrangement. You've got a good start here, but it's just a good start. Feel free to add to it and send it back our way. NO

Source is definitely a concern, but it's easy to check since the source is nearly all melody and bongos. The remix has the same chord progressions throughout, but that's not enough to count. Here's my timestamping: 0:14-0:26 2:54-3:20 4:44-5:34 ...and that's it. That's all I got. Other sections are clearly inspired by the source material, and flow well, but I don't actually hear source in them besides chord progressions. That's a mere 88 seconds out of 400, or 22%. I'm also in agreement with Kris about the entire mix being too hot and bright. It's less of an issue than the source usage, but it leapt out at me immediately and would also be enough reason to send this back. Unfortunately, since it's already on the album, I don't expect a revision. It's still a ton of fun, though, and I did enjoy it immensely. NO

Some nice chillwave going on here. Nice tones, good soundscape. Not too many sources can be sped up and still be mellow, but this sure works out that way. You picked two tough sources to use, but it sounds like they're pretty well present. I don't see a need to timestamp. Checks all the boxes for me. Nice work. YES

Pretty straightforward metal take on the Cascade Kingdom theme. It's pretty close to a cover for everything but the first 34 and the last 22 seconds, but there are a few little twists, as well as an original intro and outtro, and original, if simple, part writing for the accompanying instruments. I'm concerned with production a bit on this one. The lead guitars sit pretty quiet in the mix, and get partially drowned out by the rhythm and harmony guitars. The bass guitar is really quiet, too; I took several listens before I even realized it was there. Most of what I'm hearing is chugs. I'm a little on the fence about whether this is interpretive enough — leaning towards yes on that front, but borderline — but I don't think the production is where we need it. Please give this another pass where the lead sits properly on top and the bass is audible. That shouldn't take much work, but if you could add more original transformation above and beyond the source material, it would make this a much stronger submission. NO

Solid trance. Nothing really surprising here in terms of style or content; it does exactly what it says on the tin. Everything comes together exactly as it should. I was slightly concerned about source usage, but I started to timestamp it, and listening closely, some sort of source is always present between 1:15 and 6:07, so it's fine on that front. I have nothing else to add. Simple approach, simple vote. YES

Nice classic EDM, for the most part. The supersaws are a little lo-fi, but otherwise this hits all the beats. There's something about the production that's bugging me, but I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps another judge will. Those bongos crack me up. They're so clean, and cut through the mix so much. I mean, it's DKC, so bongos make sense, but still, these are very silly bongos. My biggest concern is that it's really short. EDM tends to be a little repetitive, but good EDM is progressive, transformational. This has a great hook, then a breakdown, then a return to the hook, and then it ends out of nowhere. The phrase in particular not ending on the tonic is really unsatisfying. I'm on the fence about this one. What's there is pretty good, but that ending is such a letdown, it makes the whole thing feel incomplete. I'm coming down on the side of it not being a dealbreaker, but only just. I may revisit this vote. YES (borderline)

Yeah, I'm not getting "dubstep" out of this at all. Nary a wub to be heard. The sound quality sounds really poor all around. The leads, kicks, and snares are all extremely staticky and distoried The fade-out transitions don't work at all for me. It just sounds like the track is ending, plus it's a drop in energy when there should be an increase. The drum patterns do get increasingly frenetic in these sections, which is house-like, and there is a rise, but then the rise doesn't have a drop. The energy levels just sort of fall apart instead of exploding. I hate to be a downer on this, and I'm glad you're getting out of your comfort zone, but you really need cleaner sounds for any time of music, and you need to study EDM a bit more if you want to emulate that genre. NO

The crackle is fixed, but that ultra-high frequency noise is still there. It's hard to pinpoint because it's quiet, but damages my hearing something fierce and now my ears are just ringing. I wouldn't be surprised if most people can't even hear it at all, though. I'll let my ears rest and come back to it later. Edit: 24 hours later and my ears sre still ringing a little, but they're recovered enough to hear what's going on with this track. The noise kicks in at about 0:46.75. It's in the middle of a phrase, so I don't know why it starts right there. I can see it clearly on Clementine's visualizer, though: I have to stop now or I'm going to mess up my ears even worse than they already are. I wouldn't be surprised if this passes, since I seem to be the only judge who can hear it (though maybe proph's wife can take a listen). If it does get posted as-is, it needs to come with a warning label.

I do like that intro a lot! The arrangement on the whole is a lot of fun, with good energy. I enjoyed it. However, production does need some work. The leads are too thin and quiet, dominated by the percussion in particular. There's not a lot of presence in the bass registers except the kicks. Otherwise, this is pretty solid. A lot of care went into the composition, and there's elements of interest throughout. The synth choices are a little vanilla, but they're consistently so, and can mostly pass for '80s synth-pop. Improve the balance and EQ, and use some leads and bass with more vibrant timbre, and I think this will be in really good shape. NO (resubmit)

The rain stick at the very beginning sounded like static to me until it ended. Otherwise, the instrumentation sounds great. Speaking of the instrumentation, it's typical Tripp orchestration, which is to say it's really good. It is quite short, but it's long enough to get the point across, even though it ends a little abruptly. I wish it resolved in a more interesting way, but it's sufficient as it is. YES

That soprano sample sure is uncanny. But it's so uncanny that it's obviously not even trying to be real. And that's fine for an obviously sci-fi-inspired piece. The piece definitely has more musical direction to it than the source material. There are a few moments where some sounds clash or are distorted, but there aren't many, and some can be written off as maybe intentional. It's a nice approach and a good soundscape. YES

Nice gradual transition fron industral synth to more traditional '80s synth pop. Textures are a bit vanilla, but they're clearly intentionally and consistently so. The arrangement does a great job of taking the catchy hooks from the original and building on them, including blending the two themes together. The climax is a little mushy, and the leads could sit a little louder in the mix, but otherwise this is solid stuff. YES

The mechanical performances and thin soundscape leap out at me, followed quickly by a handful of clashing notes in the riffs; these sound like the melody was tweaked but the harmonies left alone, creating dissonance. Even though I know this is all technically from one source, 1:23 is an abrupt transition in style and turns this remix into two pieces that don't sound related at all. And then, as Larry said, the second section isn't really developed at all. It's absolutely begging for a bookend that guides that back into the theme from the first half to both tie it all together and wrap it up. There are some really creative, fun ideas here which I did enjoy. However, what we have here is basically a proof-of-concept. The instruments need to be more realistically realized, and the arrangement needs to be smoothed together and filled out. NO

It's an adorable idea, to turn this into a nursery story. Memorable and unique. I also have some mixed feelings about the concept, though. It's storytelling with accompaniment, not music with spoken word. As a submission that isn't dominantly music, let alone source material, I'm not sure it's not a standards violation. (Now, those spoken words are "source," in that they're taken from the in-game text, but that's a question I don't know that we've considered before.) I'm sadly in agreement with Chimpz about the performances here. The recitation has odd emphasis in places, and goes a little too quickly, with a lack of pauses between ideas. The performances, especially the singing at the end, are loose indeed, with problematic timing and occasionally off-key. The balance is sometimes off, with instruments frequently stepping on each other. I don't want to sound like I'm coming down too hard on this. It's obviously a passion project, and I love the enthusiasm and ingenuity that went into this. I don't think the production is a huge barrier to getting this passed. But I think the performances are not quite where they need to be. NO

First thing I hear is a bunch of quiet crackling and distortion among the silence, and it's definitely mastered far too quietly, so this can't be more than a CONDITIONAL right off the bat. But continuing to listen... well, it does take 26 seconds to get to actual music, not a good start... There's definitely some improvement here, though not as much as I was hoping for. 2:13 begins a 1-minute section of original writing, which is a vast improvement over the original continuing to loop. It still feels a little long in the tooth by 1:53, but that's only for another 20 seconds. I do like the key change and the melancholy little riffs. I'm not enthusiastic about it, but I do think there's just enough dynamism to justify the arrangement. Gate those artifacts out and master this a little louder and I'm okay with it. CONDITIONAL

The arrangement is lots of fun, but sadly, I'm in immediate agreement with proph. The mixing is so thin that I initially wondered if there was something wrong with my setup. Everything's crammed into the tenor range. I'm feeling no bass (though maybe there's sub; my setup has weak sub), mids are weak, highs are weak except for a shrill range that makes the whistles and harmonica cut through like a knife. Even the Hammond solo is weirdly flat and high-pitched. It sounds like a cassette recording played on a cheap stereo, just without the saturation. I enjoyed the arrangement a lot, the cameos were cool, but I need another mastering pass before I can vote in its favor. NO