MindWanderer

DarkSim nails this one. You have some great ideas here, but ultimately this is a sound upgrade and not the kind of transformative rearrangement we look for, plus this has several production issues that need to be resolved. I don't have anything to add to the above. I recommend taking your work over to our workshop forums before submitting next time. You're clearly on the right track here with orchestration, but structure and EQ would benefit from a round or two of input. NO

I'm not feeling it. The orchestration is perfectly serviceable, and for once the volume levels are acceptable, but the instruments are mechanical, especially the tremolo strings. The overall structure isn't much of a departure from the source material. There's no ending whatsoever. Sorry, but I feel like this falls short. NO

Fantastic metal/orchestral arrangement, but I'm in hard disagreement with DarkSim about the mastery. Even though it's hard limited at exactly 0 dB, you can clearly hear crackling when the volume hits that wall, and I'm not just hearing at a handful of spots. Other than 1:32-2:10, this is a real sausage fest. I'm not saying this can't be loud, but it can't be so loud that it's pumping, crackling, and otherwise distorted. And I don't think it's a 5-minute fix. That makes this a NO (resubmit) UPDATE 8/2: Well, I was right that it wasn't a 5-minute fix, because clearly this revision took more than 5 minutes, and it's not fixed. It's much better, but the kicks still pop and the bass still pumps. It's gone from "egregious" to "needs to be better" IMHO. UPDATE 9/13: Now this is produced by someone who knows what they're doing! Still a little tinny and/or crushed at times, but much, much better. See how much nicer this looks? YES

I'm largely in agreement with the above. EQ could be improved, especially in that resonant section everyone else mentioned, but I don't think it crosses over into dealbreaker territory. YES

I don't feel like this is all that bad. I do think that the production has a distant, tinny sound to it, which makes it sound as if it were recorded far away in an open-air venue rather than in a studio or orchestra hall. Combine that with the sample quality — which isn't the worst, but definitely does sound fake — and it gives the impression of being from the score of a PS1 or PS2 game played quietly on a TV. Not great for standalone audio. I echo the comments on this being a little too conservative as well. I don't think either issue is necessarily a dealbreaker on its own, but they're close. Combined, I think this one does need some more work before we can accept it. NO

Right off the bat, this is far too quiet. It can't be more than Conditional based on that alone. I actually think the sample quality, brass included, is well over the bar, although the vocals get a bit uncanny in the high range. And while the arrangement is certainly conservative, I think the added harmony lines, trills, subtractive sections, and (sometimes) changes to leads, as well as the extra energy added by changing the percussion parts do enough to qualify this on transformational grounds. I do think balance is way off, though. When the lead is a woodwind, it's often drowned out by the other instruments, sometimes to the point of being completely inaudible. It's fine when it's brass. So while I don't agree with proph on any given point, I still agree this needs work, specifically in the mastery department. Volumes need to be tweaked across the board, both for individual instruments and the master. Fix that and you'll have my vote, at least. NO (resubmit)

Classic Bluelighter piano work. Great interleaving of the two sources into a seamless arrangement. Gorgeous work all around. YES

I kind of liked the original, and was looking forward to seeing what you did with it. Unfortunately, proph is right: it's simple and underdeveloped. The source isn't super complex, but it is lengthy, and has some solid harmonies, chords, and textures, none of which is true about this remix. It's a very thin soundscape: you've got a lead, a loud, boomy kick, some tiny snares, a pretty quiet ambient pad, and sometimes a counterpoint. Most of the synths are very simple ones with not much in the way of harmonics. The result is an overall sound that comes across as empty and incomplete. I could comment on the arrangement as well, but I'd just be copying proph. NO

Very clean synth jazz. Nothing groundbreaking here, but it's a straightforwardly enjoyable piece. Solid writing, solid production. I can't see any reason not to post this. YES

I'm in agreement with all of the above, plus I feel like the arrangement itself is underdeveloped. It relies on the same supersaw as the lead almost the whole time, making the whole thing seem static and stale. If I skip around through the track, it pretty much all sounds the same. There's also no ending to speak of. So yeah: mastering, instrumentation, and overall structure are all things that need work here. NO

Some prety standard EDM with chiptune elements. It actually surprised me that this was a Pixel Pirates mix, since they're generally more sophisticated than this, so seeing that this was made in 2013 made a lot of sense. As it stands, there's not a whole lot to it. There's a lengthy intro, then a build-up, finally getting into the main meat just before the 1 minute mark. After this, I kind of feel like the rest is on autopilot. There's a breakdown, there's a time signature change (which, IMHO, doesn't really work), but otherwise it's fairly bland and predictable. Sound-wise, the bass synth is set very high in the spectrum, so there's not really anything in the lows except the kick. As a result, the whole soundscape is overly bright and fatiguing. I think we probably would have happily taken this had it been submitted in 2013. But standards have climbed since then, and I think these days we look for richer, more dynamic, more engaging remixes. There's a good foundation here, and it's a fun beat, but I think that, even for a relatively short arrangement, it needs to go more places. NO

Pretty straightforward reinstrumentation. Structurally, there's some extra breakdowns, and some sections are extended. Of course, lots of sweeps, wubs, and other textures were added, in addition to the percussion — the original track only has 2 channels. Production is generally pretty good. Everything sounds crisp and clear. Soundscape is lacking in highs, and could definitely use some presence there, if only some EQ changes on the hats and snares. The arrangement as a whole is underwhelming, though. It's pretty static: the percussion is almost unchanged throughout, and there's only one main lead. More importantly, the arrangement is really only 1:31 long; at 1:32 it loops back to the beginning. At 2:32 there's a few changes from the first loop of this section, but it's still clearly still part of the loop. I'm afraid that we need more interpretation that what we have here, and especially we need a more dynamic arrangement that doesn't rely so heavily on copy-pasta. The first half is a pretty good starting point; if the second half were more creative and transformative, this would be in a good place. NO

I agree with proph: the lack of development over the course of a 4-minute track is cause enough to send this back. There are variations in how the loop is presented, but it's still the same loop, and it gets boring quickly. There isn't even an ending to break the monotony, just a fade-out. I'm also not a big fan of some of the glitch effects that play with volume. This wouldn't be a dealbreaker, but, for instance, the cut at 0:38 sounds like my hardware failed and not an intentional texture. This an exceptionally hard track to remix, but it's been done before. You can try listening to some of those to get an idea of the level of development we're generally looking for with a track like this. NO

Cool sort of neo-noir vibe here. Not at all what I was expecting, but I like it. This opens with an exceedingly fake-sounding violin ensemble. It sounds like something I'd expect to hear in a PS1 game. Nice drums. Then at 0:44 (in the middle of a section) comes the theremin. After that, there aren't any new ideas introduced. It's a fairly static groove, basically a theremin & D&B cover, with those 32-bit strings used as a pad. And then it's over. So, while I like the concept here, we're looking for much more development, more transformation, and the string section needs to either be made much more realistic or replaced with a synth pad. NO

Gorgeous orchestration and performances, just great to listen to all around. It opens with 1:45 of "Sword of Doubt," which sort of serves as a very long introduction. I feel like this is longer than it needs to be, considering how repetitive it is. After a minute of "Protecting My Devotion" comes the vocal section, which I'm especially ambivalent about. It's a really strange arrangement decision to introduce a lead singer halfway through a 6-minute piece. The performance is great, but the lyrics aren't very sophisticated and scan oddly in places. There's also no source material in this that I can hear, and the instrumentation and cadence are a total shift, so nothing really ties it to the rest of the piece. And then after 2 minutes of this, it's back to "Protecting My Devotion," a very close recap of the first iteration of the theme. Some of it even seems like copypasta. And then it ends abruptly. I'm torn, honestly. If I say NO to this, it will be by far the best remix from a sound quality perspective that I've ever voted against. But the overall structure is so disjointed. It's a harp arrangement of one piece, then a flute arrangement of a second piece bookending an original vocal piece. The transitions are smooth enough, but there's very little connective tissue here. If it weren't for the fact that Sword of Doubt is itself an arrangement of the main leitmotif of Protecting My Devotion, there wouldn't be anything connecting those sections, either. It really sounds like three different people made three different 2-minute songs, and a fourth person was given the job of sewing them all together. If that was what happened, it's expertly done, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. I'm leaning towards voting YES on the strength of the performances and production, and at least two of the three component sections have an excuse to go together (even if the harp section comes across as a really long intro). But I generally look for a more cohesive package when multiple melodies are used, and this feels more like a medley. I'll come back to this. Edit: Revisiting this 4 months later, I'll go with my original feeling. We don't normally frown on bridges with original content, though usually they're done in a more cohesive way that fits with the rest of the piece both instrumentally and tonally, which this does not. I don't think it's enough to outweigh the strengths of the rest of the piece, though. YES

A simple expansion of the original theme. Not terribly transformation in terms of style or even of instrumentation, but it is re-arranged and there are a lot of riffs on the theme. And there is an original bridge in the middle, which I actually enjoyed a lot. That said, the riffs are... odd. There are some really strange, off-putting chord progressions. They don't sound so much like creative riffs as errors. Some of them sound like half-measure key changes. There are a few novel harmonies that don't sound right, as well. It's a little repetitive, though there are those little changes throughout. There's no change in instrumentation at all, and the instruments are pretty bland. It feels most repetitive at the end, which is sudden and anticlimactic. The percussion is also on rails pretty much the whole time. I'd love to see feedback from a judge who can comment on why those transformations sound weird, and it is the biggest issue to my ear. But the other issues add up to be just enough cause to send this back anyway. I appreciated the creative writing; it just needs more creative instrumentation and percussion to go along with it, as well as less creative key structure. NO (resubmit)

This is surprisingly rough. The arrangement is great, very entertaining, if slightly repetitive, and source usage seems fine, but production isn't what I expect from J. The samples are not only fake to the point where they've gone through the uncanny valley and out the other side, but they're also very bright. There's a strong bass, but everything else is in the high registers. I'm hearing a lot of crackle as well, especially after the 5-minute mark; unsurprising, since the volume peaks at almost +2.3dB. It's so egregious that I wonder if jdamashii!! even sent us the right file — I know he can do better than this, so maybe it's a rough draft by mistake? Sorry, but this needs better balance, better instrumentation, and better mastering, IMO. NO (resubmit)

Great house sound. Hits you hard right out of the gate and never lets up. A great adaptation of a source I would have overlooked. Production is excellent, top tier work like I expect from Black Ace. I didn't find it mastered too loud at all — in fact, I A/B'ed it to a couple of other tracks in my judging playlist, and it was quieter than them. Arrangement is indeed a little repetitive, but that's the genre for you. The amount of actual copypasta is pretty low, it's just that each section loops a whole lot, and several elements are reused a lot. I'd prefer something more progressive, but it gets the job done. Not having any trouble with source usage; it's clearly used throughout, almost to a fault. YES

This is a ton of fun throughout! I never expected where it was going to go next, and yet everything flows smoothly from transition to transition. Such great sounds and performances. I have only two teeny nitpicks. First, the samples and instruments have different amounts of clarity and reverb. The flute, piano, and claps in particular jump out as aseptic. Second, at 5:42, there's a sound effect that just sounds like something being wiped with a rough cloth; it sounds really out of place, especially since it's again really clean, and every time that section comes up, I look around to see if someone's sweeping the floor or dragging something nearby me. Neither issue is anywhere close to a dealbreaker, though. You earned your second place rightfully (and I'm going to go look up the winner right now, it must have been stupendous!). YES

I'm not as stoked about this as proph. To me, the synth selection is a little bit outdated. The soundscape, while full, is high-heavy for me; the lead guitar in particular is very bright, and I'd love some more presence in the mids and mid-lows. Still, I don't think there's any question about whether this is passable. The guitar performance is exceptional, and the seamless arrangement of the four sources is superb. YES

Larry's comments are on point. The piano seems like it's missing harmonics, and doesn't sound quite right. Also, some of the harmonies seem off to me, but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's just unusual chords. Hopefully another judge can comment. That said, I don't think either issue is major. There's a good deal of humanism there, and even though there's an odd tone to it, it's a solid arrangement. Room for improvement, but passable IMHO. YES

Takes a while to warm up, during which period it leans on some pretty weak brass samples, but at 0:37 it starts into some fun balletic stuff. I could see it being choreographed. (The brass does get even worse when it overlaps frequencies with something else, but at least it's less exposed.) Good enough. YES

I've been mulling over this one for several months now. I don't buy the argument that this isn't transformative enough. It's simple, and a lot less dynamic than the original, but less isn't necessarily "less" per se. The tremolo on the strings isn't as strong as it could be, but I think it's adequate, just. The samples everywhere else are even better. The plaintive violin returns are a highlight. I think sending this back would be making perfect the enemy of good. YES

This has a great tone to it, and I found myself struck with a lot of great sections with catchy riffs or rich harmonies. But just as often, there were weird arrangement decisions that took me out of the flow. The moments that disrupted my enjoyment were: 1:16: This is a subtractive section, but there's so much resonance that it doesn't sound clean and pure like a solo should, it just sounds incomplete. 1:30: Just a missing note for some reason? 1:38: Momentary genre change. It's supposed to sound striking, but just sounds strange. 2:08: Sounds like a wrong note in this brief scale. 2:59: A riff that just doesn't sit right with me. 3:28: Same, this just doesn't sound right to me. An inappropriate key change, maybe? Maybe another judge can articulate better. 3:44: There's that odd-sounding scale again. I'm on the fence about this. There's a lot here that I really love, but there are so many sections that either don't sound right to me or that just break the flow of the piece in jarring ways. I'm hard-pressed to say whether those moments are objectively incorrect, though, or just personal preference. I'm going to hold off to see what other judges have to say. Maybe one of them can articulate the problems I have in a more precise way. Edit: With proph's analysis, below, I'll chalk up my dislike to personal preference and give this my YES

Mmm, delicious. Going through the trouble of getting a live violinist was absolutely worth it. I was expecting a pretty mellow synth piece up until 1:20 when the violin joined in with the Maridia theme, but then, wham. On one hand, I don't like how you have to wait so long for the best part, but on the other hand, you generate a lovely tension while it builds up to that point. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that 1:49-2:59 is mostly repeated from earlier in the piece. Normally a whole minute of repetition out of less than 4 minutes would be objectionable, but the stuff it's repeating is so good that I don't have a problem with it. And it's not precisely repeated, anyway. Let's get this posted, please. YES