MindWanderer

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

I listened to this without checking to see who'd voted before me. I immediately hoped it was proph, because I knew he'd do a bang-up job explaining why all those clashing notes were a problem. And even though I don't have his technical background, they immediately leaped out to me. To my less-technical ear, before 2:18, it's mostly the 808 kicks that sound obviously off-key to me. At 2:18, not only is there a strange, abrupt transition, but the notes are clashing a lot, almost constantly, and it's not just a few. Hopefully proph's advice was helpful to you in picking those out and fixing them. If not, please take this over to the workshop for additional help. I also don't agree that this was the only issue, though it was by far the most notable. I found those 808s to be quite loud and penetrating, and the saw pad and saw lead were fighting for space. I did like the structure, though — unlike your first submission, I don't have any concerns on that level. It's a fun concept. NO

I'm with proph on this one. It's very conservative, not really treading any original ground. Sure, the time signature changes, and 4/4 drums are added to give it more of a beat, but that's really about it. The time signature change opened up a lot of space to do interesting things with percussion, riffs, and/or original writing, but the drums are simple and plodding and there's a minimum of new composition here. LT's and proph's comments about the instrumentation are valid as well, but for me it's the writing that's really not the kind of transformation we're looking for. NO

Yeah... I really want to see a Caustic creation pass, but this isn't it. I actually think the constant swapping of instruments works against the arrangement, making it feel random and disorganized. The leads are frequently still bland and don't mesh well with the fairly rich backing. At 0:29, there's a frantic backing effect that doesn't sound good at all. The main thing I think this needs is a coherent vision. Right now it feels like it just randomly swaps synths out for other random synths whenever you felt like it. There's nothing holding it together. I recommend picking an aesthetic and sticking with it, whether it's FM, chiptunes, or whatever. NO

Agreed on all the above. There's more highs but less bass than before, but more importantly most of the arrangement is a wall of overlapping sounds. Everything steps on everything. It doesn't help that there are a lot of parts and a lot of SFX, a lot of which is sitting squarely in the same mid-range frequencies. When you revisit this (which I hope you do, it's a good arrangement at heart), start by muting the SFX entirely. Get everything else sounding cleanly audible first. Then add them back in one at a time, judicously, making sure they don't make any instrument harder to hear. SFX can be fun and add texture, but they're a garnish; don't let them overshadow the entree. NO

There's something about the mixing this time that just doesn't sound right. The whole thing sounds muffled. Most of the instruments sound like formants have been filtered out, making them all thin and flat-sounding. The cymbals, which last time I called out for having all the highs filtered out, now consist of nothing but highs. As a result, some instruments pop better, but some are even more buried. I still like this arrangement, but all the life has been crushed out of every instrument. Please give this another mixing pass. NO

My complaints last time were a thin soundscape due to a lack of highs, a lack of textural elements, and static percussion. The percussion is still a little repetitive, but so was the inspiration for the track. Everything else was improved tenfold. This is great stuff now. YES

I YESed this before, so I figured I would just be listening to this once to rubber-stamp it. But unfortunately, while bringing up the bass some new issues were introduced. The strings that Larry mentioned are definitely an issue, which I don't recall being as obvious before. There are some weird balance issues, especially at the end---starting at 2:22 there are assorted SFX that are way too loud. And the vox is definitely in uncanny valley territory (though I don't think it crossed the line into being overused). For me, this is actually more borderline than it was the first time around. The mechanical violin in the last minute or so in particular is a real turn-off, and I'd be okay seeing this get sent back for a tweak there. But I'm still leaning on the side of YES (borderline)

A very creative and well-performed metal arrangement, but there are some notable issues. It opens with strings with mechanical timing and velocity, sounding very fake. 0:11 introduces a guitar that's hard to hear, mostly buried under those strings and the piano. The flute at 0:20 has the same problem. 0:30 brings in... I can't quite tell, it sounds like a drum roll? It's just bass white noise that's eating up a lot of bandwith and frankly doesn't sound good at all. 0:50 has a brief section played by a terribly fake sax, and 0:55 has just given up and uses a synth. At 1:00, several instruments come in, and the production issues are compounded; the soundscape sounds surprisingly muddy for how few instruments there really are. 1:22 brings in a guitar that sounds 1000% better than any of the other instruments. It's done a disservice by a drum kit that's overpoweringly loud, though. This section is much better than the intro, but the synths are still muddy, and the bass doesn't sound right, either; I can't put my finger on why, but it's very thin and doesn't carry the bass end of the spectrum enough. It's also a little schizophrenic, swapping between different guitars very quickly and often in the middle of a section. Ending at 3:02, which is 48 seconds of very quiet noodling with a whole lot of reverb and no conclusion. The guitar work is great, and the overall structure is mostly good except for the strange and disappointing ending. But the sampled instruments, and more importantly the production throughout the whole thing, aren't up to our standards. I recommend taking this over to our workshop for some help improving the clarity and realism. NO

Bold of you to orchestrate a piece like this! It's not the richest orchestration; most of it has presence in either the mids or the mid-highs but not both, and rarely much in the mid-lows or the highs. It isn't painfully thin, but when you get to a section like 2:42-3:13, which is clearly arranged to be firing on all cylinders and just isn't, it feels unfulfilling and incomplete. Its simplicity also makes the artificiality of the samples stand out---you did a pretty good job with it, but when they're this exposed, every little flaw stands out. Still, the instrumentation isn't badly done, the overall structure is solid, and production of what is there is clean and full. The only thing that needs to be fixed is the beginning: the very first note is cut off, which causes the track to sound like it's skipping or hiccuping. A re-render with a fraction of a second of whitespace in the beginning will fix that right up. I redownloaded to address Larry's concern, below, and I don't hear this issue anymore. However, see below... YES/CONDITIONAL Update 5/22: LT seems to be right about source usage. It does appear to come up about 4 seconds short of 50%. Now, normally Larry and I are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to 50% being a dealbreaker. However, in this case, there are original themes used as consistent motifs that do not appear in the source material. 0:00-0:11 and 1:03-1:33 are, arguably, more fundamental to the composition as a whole than the LotR motifs. And even when the source music is used, it's often just the triplet arps, which I would not count as "dominant." So I'm actually flipping my vote. NO Update 8/16: Eh, I still feel like the original motifs are more dominant than they should be, but I guess it's a borderline issue, and there are little touches that tie back into the source. Sure. YES

Starts off as basically a sound upgrade, but it's quite an upgrade. The vocals add a ton of richness to the palette. A little bit of a breakdown, then some riffing on the soundscape without adding any real melodict writing. Not the most interpretive arrangement, but some gorgeous orchestration all around. You lost me at 3:12, though. Everything from there to the end at 4:15 — a full 25% of the arrangement — is the ending, consisting of unsettling ambient sound. It goes on for quite a bit longer than it needs to. I don't have any other major complaints. It sounds great, and there's enough layering and riffing to it to make it more than a simple sound upgrade. I'd love to hear more creative interpretation in the arrangement, but I won't insist on it. Just needs the 24 seconds of silence trimmed off the end. YES