MindWanderer

Thanks for sending over that comparison track. It was really helpful in explaining how the length and repetitiveness of this was an intentional artistic decision. I'm not totally sold on it, since lyrics help make a repetitive piece feel less so, but on the other hand I can't understand anything NIN is saying anyway. The production issues bother me more than they do Larry. I immediately checked to see if the track was clipping when I heard that crackle, and was surprised to see it wasn't. There's also an ultra high frequency noise that needs to be filtered out---it's not super loud, and it's right at the edge of my hearing range, but it's stabbing at my eardrums to the point where I can't listen to anything anymore; I have to be done voting for a bit until I recover. I'm not willing to YES this as it is, but a generous low pass will fix the latter problem in a couple of seconds. I'm not sure if the crackle is as quick a fix, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, and I can't enjoy this piece with it there. YES/CONDITIONAL

This is a lot of fun and sounds great, but I'm going to need some help with identifying source material. I saw that it passed album eval with flying colors, so hopefully one of the judges who weighed in on that thread will be able to help out on that front. Edit 11/02: I'll trust proph's breakdown, so this isn't a tough one. I really enjoyed the variety of textures, but it never sounds like a mess. Just entertaining throughout. YES

That all jives with what I'm hearing. EQ is a persistent issue, and there's a whole lot of not-music here. It's fun and creative, but for all the reasons above, it's not the sort of thing we're looking for. NO

I enjoyed this, and didn't mind the imbalanced sections the way Kris did. The bassy intro was clearly intentional and vibrant; the mid-lows seem fine. However, I'm listening on headphones that don't have much sub-bass to them, and I can see from a spectrum analyzer that there is indeed a lot of presence in the subs. That's a big part of what's causing the pumping Kris mentioned, and I can definitely hear that. Similarly, this peaks at +8 dB; the clipping may not be audible on everyone's setup, but it's there and it's causing distortion. The snare sounded fine to me, though the kicks are lost in the mud in the lows. I don't think there's a ton of work to be done here, but it's not a 5-minute fix, and it's pretty critical. I hope you can send this back to us soon! NO (resubmit)

I enjoyed the hell out of this! This Deadmaus-style glitch-house is one of my favorite styles of remix, and you really nail the genre and the energy that such an arrangement should have. Unfortunately, Kris's criticisms are dead on. Your interpretation of the Underworld theme is a lot of fun but it's not recognizable without either a ton of imagination or a clinical evaluation of the notes used. It's the lynchpin of the whole arrangement, and without it, I don't feel like this meets our standards for source usage. Her comments about the mixing are correct as well. It's muddy more often than it isn't, and some sections (like 2:26-2:33 and 4:04-4:10) are a wall of noise. Loud, hissy sweeps and risers, and tons of competition in the mids and mid-highs, combine to make this difficult to really listen to and appreciate. I'm glad you submitted this---it's a lot of fun, catchy as heck, and supremely original---but I don't think we can post it as-is. I hope for your own sake you clean up the production---and it's certainly something to bear in mind for your next submission---but the source usage is still a problem for us. NO

I don't have a big problem with the production of that one drum, but it is off-beat. Overall I felt like the mix of clean bells and pads with the lo-fi drums worked just fine. I didn't think the "strings" were even trying to be strings, just a synth pad, and I have no problem with that. As an overall package, I felt like it basically worked. The big issue is how nearly the whole thing is overlaid on either a direct sample or a soundalike of the source material. It's just too close. I think that altogether it's just transformative enough to meet our standards of interpretation---although a great deal of it, especially the first half, is not---but the use of the exact same bells makes this not the sort of thing we look for. I think if you replaced that one thing with a reinstrumentation of your choice, even a very similar one, this would probably be acceptable. A bit more reinterpretation in the first half and slightly cleaner timing on the drum would be nice to have as well. NO (resubmit)

Wow, not what I was expecting, for either a SotN mix in general or a mix of this source! What a fantastic little rock ballad. The instrumentals are pretty different from the original, but since the remix is dominated by the vocals, which are melodically identical, there's no problem with source usage. The vocals are very hard to understand. Tera's pitch is excellent, but her enunciaton isn't as strong. The choruses, in particular, when the guitar joins in, are completely indecipherable. I can only make out "dream" and "a different place to"; I wasn't even sure it was still English for a while. The balance also favors the guitar too heavily; even if her enunciation were cleaner, I think she'd be hard to make out. While that is a major criticism, it's my only one. The performances are otherwise stellar; the arrangement is creative without going off the rails; production is otherwise on point. I'd love clearer vocals, but 1) I don't think we're going to be able to get them, and 2) I don't think it's enough to sink this otherwise fantastic submission. Strong work. YES

Yeah... it still sounds like very old remixes. If that's a compliment to you, feel free to take it as such... There are clearly synths with a lot of potential, but buying synths isn't the solution. You can make great remixes with free synths. It's how you use them that matters. Part of the problem is that there's a wide variety of synths used here, and they don't hang together. Choir, organs, synthwave, dark house... it's a hodgepodge. You can make an arrangement work that way, but it's harder than picking a genre and sticking to it. And there are still a fair number of primitive synths that don't really cut it, chief of which is the drums, especially the snares. And it's all snares and kicks. 0:57-1:09 is the strongest part of the track because it has a pad and bass that go well together, a contrasting but not conflicting lead, and none of those cheap-sounding drums. The synths are also all used in a simplistic way. Take 2:02-2:16 as an example: You have a lead here that's doing the work of at least two instruments (melody, response). That could be two or even three different synths, which could be partially overlapping for more sophisticated interactions. 1:37-1:48 is another example, where the runs could be a different instrument (and the instrument you chose here isn't great to begin with). That's not to say this is the only way to do it, but it's a way that stands out to me where you could make things more interesting and modern. The arps in 0:42-0:57 are a nice touch that show some more complexity, but you also have no bass there... Speaking of which, bass is pretty lacking throughout. There are some pads that help, but the first real bass instrument doesn't come in until 0:57, and it's very high for a bass. And then there's again none until 2:02. You're learning, and that's a good thing. But this does need some more work to bring this into the 21st century. NO

Nice mellow piano & drum. Pleasant and smooth. ...and then the synth hits. It's such an odd choice. You say it was added to reduce repetitiveness, but it plays for the whole piece except the intro and outro, so it only replaces one sort of repetitiveness for another. And it's such a bland synth. However, it's arranged well, and played with humanism, and has some reverb to make it sound like it's more or less in the same space. I don't think it's the greatest choice, but it's not a dealbreaker. Otherwise this is nice. It does take a fair amount of creative license with the source material for extended periods, but I don't have doubts about the source being dominant. It checks all the boxes for me. YES

It's a pretty strange source tune to begin with, but this is a whole other level of weirdness. It's vaguely like a bright Daft Punk in places, and in others reminds me of the soundtrack to Axiom Verge, and then there are the deliberately dissonant sections. There are a lot of ideas packed into this, especially for a single-source remix. It's impressive that it manages to feel cohesive with so many changes. It's almost like a mini-suite. I hardly have anything to criticize. The main lead is a little bland, and on one hand it's unfortunate that it's used throughout almost the entire mix, but on the other hand there are so many changes that it's helpful to have that to hold it all together. Without that, it would sound too disjointed. Some of the dissonant stuff is a little too much so for my tastes, but it's intentional and it works. Production-wise, the soundscape is a smidge light in the lows; the kicks especially are thin and lacking in impact. The drums in general are the weakest synth; if I could pick one thing to fix, it would be that. It's not a dealbreaker for me, though. Nice work overall, and yes, I did enjoy it! YES

Wow... what a crazy concept! An epic orchestral ska death metal medley of Golden Axe, of all things... certainly never saw that coming! Despite the multiple sources and the genre changes, the whole thing hangs together as a cohesive whole, for the most part. The bookending helps, though the transition back to the beginning at 6:10 could be smoother. 3:37 is also pretty abrupt, and 3:37-4:03 really doesn't hang well with anything around it, but that's more for production reasons than arrangement ones... So, production. I don't have as positive things to say about that, unfortunately. The drums and rhythm guitar are extremely loud, to the point of muddying even the melody. In the orchestral sections, the flutes and trumpets join the fight and make the melody even harder to hear---it's nearly inaudible at times. Go to 4:58 for a stark example: those guitar chugs absolutely run roughshod over everything else, except the trumpets riding on top like surfers on a tidal wave. In the choir bridge, the lead guitar drops dramatically in volume, and even though the drums and rhythm guitar are used only for punctuation, they're comically loud in comparison. The choir's performance isn't stellar either. It's hard to hear because of how quiet it is, but it's badly off-key in places. So, mad props for the arrangement. It's clearly a monumental effort, and it paid off nicely. But this does need another pass at production so all your session artists' work can really shine. NO (please resubmit!)

Yep, this fixes my main concerns nicely. The instruments sound great and the balance is much better distributed. The attack on the horns is still a bit slow, so I don't know if everyone else will be on board with them, but that was never my complaint, and they don't sound like toys anymore. I'm still not 100% on board with the ending. It just ends in the middle of a phrase. I can see how it might work as part of a real movie score, in context. There's also 13 seconds of silence at the end that could be trimmed. Regarding the timing there, I think I figured it out: the loud kettle drum beats are causing the trumpets to duck slightly, and that's making it sound like the attack on them is even slower than it really is. It's not a big deal, just an odd little quirk that would be nice to address if we were aiming for perfection here. I have no doubts about this being good enough for the front page, though. YES

I'm not sure if any of that narrative was communicated by this retro, almost synthwave remix, but it stands alone just fine, for the most part. There's some solid sound design, even though the leads are fairly vanilla. There are decent amounts of creativity thrown in despite being driven mostly by the source material. I'm not sold on the glitching that starts at 1:33; there's so little of it that it comes across as an artifact and not intentional. And boo fadeout endings. There's also a synth that starts at 1:03 with a very long tail. At first I thought it was conflicting with itself, but then I noticed that there was a quiet pad that had been playing almost the whole time, which I didn't notice, but has a very simlar timbre, and that's what's causing the conflict. It's more prominent when it returns at 2:35, because the pad is louder. None of that is deal-breaking, though. Overall this is a perfectly serviceable arrangement; nothing revolutionary but a fun listen. YES

I can't argue with any of the above. It's a clever idea, but there needs to be more interpretation and better production for us. NO

Remixing 5 different sources isn't as impressive as it sounds when 4 of them are based on the same motif, but this is still a solid rearrangement of the various themes present. They're smoothly but uniquely integrated together, into something clearly derived from but clearly distinct from the originals. There's still the usual 4 dB of headroom we've come to expect from Rebecca, but it doesn't sound inaudibly quiet to me. Realism is adequate, thanks to the rich layering, though there's some especially mechanical tremolo that goes on forever---I'd expect those poor violinists' arms to be just about falling off. It's good enough for me, though. YES

A fun remix of a classic favorite! Energetic and fun, for sure. I like the creative riffs on the theme, although they're brief. But there are some things holding it back. The whole first minute includes a deep bass pad that sounds detuned to the point of being off-key for me. It sounds extremely dissonant to me, to the point where it's unpleasant to listen to. At 1:35 there's an arp that also sounds like it's off-key, or at least it's dissonant with something else playing during that section. The outro starts at 1:52, and re-introduces that dissonant pad, and ends with a fade-out. Fade-out endings are always a bummer, but usually not a dealbreaker, however, the fact that the fade-out ending begins before the 2-minute mark and goes on for 30 seconds is a big deal. The rest of the piece, that isn't intro or outro, is solid, but it's also very conservative. Most of it is a MIDI rip, though there are extra parts added. The only really original part is from 1:30-1:39---fun, but too brief! I don't normally come down this hard on one dissonant synth and a fade-out ending. In most remixes that would be worthy of criticism but not a NO vote. But in this case, that pad is so loud and runs for so much of the mix (about 1:30 out of 2:30), and the fade-out ending comprises so much of the total length of the piece, that it's too much for me. I'd also recommend having more fun with the main body of the arrangement. Those 9 seconds of originality are the best part, and I want more of that. The arrangement as a whole can stand to be much longer, and more of that sort of thing is how you get there. NO

Nothing revolutionary, but clean and competent. I'm not the biggest fan of the fake ending at 1:27, but it's far from a dealbreaker. My one big criticism is that it does get repetitive, mostly because the iconic intro arp rarely lets up, but there's no straight copy-pasta. I'm not as enthusiastic about this as my colleagues, but I also don't see sufficient reason to send this back. Nice work. YES

Interesting approach. The intro is basically a sound upgrade, but from there it trades off between metal, violin solos, and synth work. It's eclectic but for the most part it works. However, the mix still isn't quite there yet. The bass is frequently overpowering, and the leads often struggle to stay on top. There are a lot of parts, and some of them, like pads, arps, and SFX, are much louder than they need to be. Regarding the drums, I don't think that they're too quiet per se. The main problem is the hats, or rather the lack thereof. Drums need to have some high end, usually hats, sometimes claps. Sometimes snares can fill this role, but your snares have no high in them. There are hats, on occasion, but they have their highs filtered out as well. The result is that the whole mix seems lethargic. I'm not great at writing drums myself, but my impression from listening is that this isn't the only reason the drums seem lifeless, and that the drum writing also needs improvement. Hopefully one of my fellow judges can provide some more constructive pointers on this front. There's some great work here, and it's a fun arrangement. It just needs a little more work to get it over the top. NO (resubmit)

Kind of wild how many times I've heard this music and never really "heard" anything past the first part. Salmon Run clearly leaves no room in my brain for anything but "AAAAH!" Crazy, however, is one word that does not describe this remix. It's very repetitive. Most of it consists of short loops of a simple phrase repeated several times. The most problematic is 0:42-2:35, which is nearly two minutes of just a few measures repeated over and over; 3:46-4:21 reprises even more of that same section, then it repeats the beginning again. I'm afraid this comes across as a 2 minute arrangement stretched out to over 5. The performance chops are certainly there, production seems fine to me for the genre, and it's a solid genre conversion of the source material. It just needs to introduce new material or interpretations more often, or else be drastically shortened. NO

There's some really clever arrangement. Absolutely nails the '80's synth aesthetic. However, it nails that aesthetic maybe a bit too much. The sound is very reminiscent of what you'd get from audio cassettes: not a lot of presence in the highs and highly saturated throughout. It's very believable if you were selling this as a rip from an old tape deck, but the sound quality isn't where we expect it in this decade. Even beyond that issue, there's a general lack of clarity. It's muddy enough that it took me multiple listens to even notice all the parts. The growling bass that starts at 3:22, in particular, drowns out everything else except the kick. Leads in general are too quiet. Arrangement-wise, this is a lot of fun, but it's also really disjointed. The first minute and a half is really well done, interleaving the multiple sources into a cohesive whole. However, the transition to Those Who Fight is abrupt, and so are most of the transitions thereafter. There's the one callback to the first section, and 3:22-4:18 is a pretty good blend, but otherwise it's pretty much a straight medley. We frown on those; medleys have to have a cohesive structure to tie the whole thing together, and this sounds like at least 3 different arrangements stapled together. Also, personal note: if I ever hear another Final Fantasy remix that ends with "Fanfare," it will be too soon. Not a dealbreaker, but the days when that was a fun and original ending are long past. I don't mean to sound too harsh here, because I really did love the creative work that went into this. It just needs cleaner production and to be wrapped up into a more coherent overall package. NO

? Not sure how I feel about you voting on a mix you mastered, Kris... But in any event, the issues I had with the previous version are absolutely fixed. It was just the soundscape, really, and now that's nicely rich and fills the spectrum. YES

It's true that there aren't a whole lot of different ideas here. But there's also very little copy-pasta, either. There are a few short sections that are repeated verbatim, but mostly things do get changed around at least somewhat. This is definitely too static for my personal tastes, but it's a valid representation of the genre. The name of this specific subgenre of EDM is slipping my mind at the moment, but I've heard plenty of it. and these long tracks with slight permutations of retreaded themes are common. Production, source usage, yadda yadda, all clearly above the bar. It would certainly be more engaging to more people with some more variety, but this succeeds for what it is. I can't see rejecting it on any sort of objective standard. YES

The lo-fi instrumentation here certainly is... something. I don't think it's even PS1-quality; I think it's more similar to 90's Sound Blaster audio. "Charming" isn't the word I'd use. The cymbals aren't great, but they're fine IMO. The gongs do have a problem in that they have enormous tails---so long that they're still going 10 seconds later when the next gong hits. Given that it's clearly, obviously fake, I don't see how niggling with humanization is meaningful. It's not like robotic timing breaks verisimilitude. I also don't have a problem with the mastering, for the most part. Everything can be heard comfortably at one volume level. Things do get a smidge mushy at the crashes. That said, my setup doesn't has as much sub as proph's does, but I can see in a spectrum analyzer that yeah, there's no rolloff at those frequencies. And I can hear enough of the sub to know that's why Larry had a problem with 0:42-1:04. That's an issue that will clearly need to be addressed, making this a Conditional at best. And there is indeed a long tail that needs to be trimmed by about 7 seconds. Proph's also right in that there are no highs here. I didn't even notice at first because the crude PC music this is imitating usually had the same problem, but it's still true. There's enough reason there to send this back, but in closing I'm going to add that I'm just not a fan of the aesthetic choice here. I don't think it's close enough to a specific chipset to work as an homage. To me it just sounds like you're trying to remix on a 386. I can't even tell how much of it is intentional. If this is resubmitted, even with all of the above issues fixed, I'm personally going to have a hard time YES'ing it because I just think the palette sounds bad. It doesn't mean I wouldn't, and it's not a dealbreaker, but it'll be harder to hear the strengths of the arrangement despite it. NO

This does an impressive job of using only the original samples and creating a new arrangement that closely apes the style of the source tune. It sounds great and is fun to listen to. Unfortunately, it's entirely too successful at its mimicry. Since the genre is the same, and the vocals are lifted straight from the source, this comes across as being minimally transformative. There are certainly structural changes, and overall this is a notably more complex take on the original (which is only 1:21 long---but see below), but it's still not a ton. As for the length, at the 1:32 mark, the track loops again from the beginning. It starts off a little different, but 1:41 begins what sounds like a carbon copy of 1:17, and from there it stays exactly the same until it fades out. The track is over 50% copypasta, and that's not the kind of arrangement we look for. As a sidenote, I'm not sure exactly what our agreement with Square Enix is, but the PS2 version was distributed by them in Europe. They're not the developer and presumably don't have any copyright over the samples used, but I want to make sure that this won't run afoul of them. NO

I was a borderline YES on this the first time around, so it's an easy vote for me. I don't totally care for the mushy lo-fi intro, but otherwise this is a rubber stamp. YES