MindWanderer

I'm glad you're keeping your hand in, and I'm glad Caustic is seeing some love. It can be a worthy DAW if you use it to its fullest. Unfortunately, I don't think this submission does that. There are a few leads used, but most of them are saws of various types. A lot of the accompanying synths are saws, too. Altogether it's a single-note soundscape for much of its length. It's also quite loud overall. You're smashed up against almost +1dB almost the whole time. It should be a little quieter, but more importantly, there are hardly any dynamics, so it's fatiguing. Arrangement-wise, there's a lot of riffing right out of the gate. Then later in the mix, when you return to the theme, you play it more conservatively. The utility of riffing is to subvert expectations and keep an arrangement from getting stale. With an OC ReMix in particular, you don't want to open with it. It's complicated to begin with, boring to end with, and confusing overall. There are some interesting ideas here: you do switch up the synths frequently, there's some interesting automation, and the general structure is fine. It's a solid foundation. Keep at it! NO

I was a bit concerned with that opening, primitive bass, but then the rich pads come in, and the high-reverb leads and punctuation fill out the soundscape. I'm honestly not hearing any of the issues proph complained about. The "hornet" lead sounds fine to me, and while slightly loud, I can hear all the other parts clearly through it. Sure, the same lines are being played by the same instruments each time, they appear, but it's always in different combinations. There aren't any sections repeated without something significant added, removed, or swapped. No section is long enough that the sounds start to wear out their welcome. The ending feels deliberate to me. So yeah, hard disagree from me. This does a lot with a little, and IMO it's a great illustration of how you don't have to do anything fancy to make a great remix. YES

Yeah, it's weird as heck. I'm only hearing overt source, for a few seconds at a time at 1:36-2:27. I'm hearing more that sounds like it might be vaguely inspired by Hateno Village, but it's generally unrecognizable. I'm also not a huge fan of the abrupt tempo and key changes. They make the arrangement sound terribly disjointed and aimless. I appreciate what went into this, but I just think it's too hard to hear the connections. If I heard this in any other context, I wouldn't imagine it was based on Hateno Village, and I'm very familiar with the song (my daughter spent hours puttering around the town, and not doing much else). NO

Thanks for the source breakdown. None of the three source tracks have a ton of melody, you treated them all liberally, and they're interleaved through the whole thing. So the breakdown saved us a lot of time trying to figure it out. The result is a rich, chill soundscape that checks all the boxes. I'm not sure that it fully tells the story of a sequence that ends in a battle, as it's pretty mellow throughout, but that doesn't matter for our purposes. I'm not crazy about the static section, but I understand the decision. Otherwise I don't have anything to criticize here; it's just a solid job throughout. YES

The arrangement is indeed killer. It's exactly what I love to see in a mashup. The energy is great, and it's hugely creative. However, proph is absolutely right about the production. There's a ton of sub-bass and very little in the highs, and actually not that much in the mid-bass range either. As a result, everything's concentrated in the mids, except for an extremely boomy kick that you feel more than you hear. It's a very thin soundscape overall. I'm also not as happy about the synth choices. To me, everything sounds stock and primitive. The bass in particular has an Ad-Lib sound to it that sounds like it was made by a bedroom producer circa 1999. They would have sounded great for an early OC ReMix, but I don't think they hold up today. I'm loving the hell out of the composition, but the sound quality just isn't doing it for me. I really hope we can post a revision sooner rather than later. NO (resubmit)

I dunno, I think that's a bit harsh. None of the points proph makes are wrong, but I don't think the magnitude of them is all that great. The articulation isn't the greatest, but it's not terrible. The ones that stand out the most are the string ensembles that play like one person, and the dramatically different treatment of the glockenspiel the two times it appears. The clarinet is pretty mechanical, but it only stands out briefly. Everything else is present, but it's fairly subtle. On the other hand, the orchestration is pretty conservative, and large swathes of it are basically sound upgrades. Rebecca's arrangements tend to be conservative, and her approach makes more "modern" (I say of a PS1 title, grump grouch) tracks more challenging to arrange in an expansive way. It does enough, but not by a ton. I don't think anything here falls below our bar. It doesn't clear it by a huge margin, but I also don't have any concerns about it falling short, either. YES

I'm a little on the fence about this one as well. It's a fun arrangement, but there are oddities about it that hint at being developed by a less than full-fledged tool. It's a weird mix of synths, some of which are meaty, but others are pretty bland and not really up to modern standards. And then there's the sample of the Chinese zither for some reason. The vanilla saws often used for the leads are a particular weak point. I don't feel like it's too short, but I do feel like the ending was pretty abrupt. There's no real build-up, just a transition and then an ending. The mastering seems passable for me, so good job getting that done on a mobile tool. As much as I want to accept something made with Caustic on principle---and I know it's good enough to make a passable mix---I think the simple, old-school lead synths are letting this down. I think it would have been a slam-dunk in 2002, and it's still impressive for having been made on a phone, but that doesn't earn any points in the judging process. Keep at it, though; I know you can make this work, and you're most of the way there. NO (resubmit)

I didn't hear the first version of this, but from what I can tell, this is a vast improvement. Lots of variation to the instrumentation, textures, and beats. It's a really fun arrangement all throughout. However, you also got one critical piece of feedback that you don't seem to have taken advantage of: Balance. Every melody-driven part of the track has a problem with the melody being buried. In 1:05-1:29 the lead is played by a mellow synth that's too quiet compared to the bell and the percussion. In 1:30-1:55 and again at 3:00-3:25, you have the lead and a vamping counterpoint, played by the same saw synth, at the same volume, and they're stepping all over each other. 3:26-3:52 doesn't have the problem of using the same synth, but there's an extra layer or two as well; the warm pad in particular is right in the range where you don't want it. 3:53-4:19 features a bell lead that at least stands on its own, but again it's far too quiet compared to the bass and percussion. I really enjoyed the arrangement. The vamping of the melody was really entertaining, and the energy levels were just right. It's not quite as simple as a balance fix, because some of the synths you chose as leads are softer, more triangle-like waveforms, which have a hard time cutting through a mix, so you might want to choose different leads there, as well as something different to accompany the lead in the two sections where they're the same. (It can be a similar synth, but shape it a little differently and make it a little quieter; stereo separation can also help but is tricky when a lead is involved.) I really do want to see this back. Keep at it! NO (resubmit)

These minimal pieces always bring out the weaknesses in samples, and this is no exception. The piano clearly has round-robin velocities, but the tone often sounds like a toy car horn. As I've said before, I always have a hard time with evaluating source usage in these. There's clearly enough of it, but to me, I'm not hearing a lot of interpretation. Lots of sound upgrades and flourishes, but the arrangement itself seems very straightforward. There also isn't any ending to speak of. I consider that piano sound a dealbreaker, at least. I could waffle about the arrangement for a while, but as it won't affect my vote, I'll just end here with my NO

I personally have a hard time evaluating ambient remixes, because it's hard to tie in the source usage. I feel like there's enough here, though if someone wants to contest that with a timestamp, I'd be all for it. Other than that, it's a nice vaporwave arrangement that I thought succeeded well at what you were trying to create here. Relaxing and dreamy. Excellent choice of synths, very creative extension of the source material. There's a lot to like. However, I have one huge caveat: The kicks. They are loud. More importantly, either they're causing overcompression every time they hit, or the track is heavily sidechained to accommodate them. It pumps on every single hit, and frankly, for me, it's crazy-making. While addressing the kicks shouldn't be too complicated, compression issues aren't usually quite a quick 5-minute fix, which is what CONDITIONAL votes are for. And for me, these kicks are a dealbreaker. So as much as this remix has a lot going for it, I have to vote NO (please resubmit)

Far from overstaying its welcome, it actually feels a little short to me. You got tons of mileage out of this technique. The bell was indeed a highlight, as were the wubs, and even the percussion is impressive. I would have happily listened to even more of it, especially given the weak ending. There's a short Terra's theme reference in the middle there, not sure if it should get credit. It's weird but cool. A better ending would have been nice but it's not a dealbreaker. Checks all the boxes. YES

Well, bossa nova it's not! At first, I was put off by the simple, repetitive approach, which, combined with the short length left this feeling underdeveloped. There's also a lack of highs; the sweeping strings are meant to fill that frequency, but they're too low for it. The mids are pretty cluttered; in the busiest sections, there's a lot of fighting for the same space that results in a lot of the parts being inaudible at times. Even the meaty kicks lose some of their oomph. But what is there is just so rich and catchy! Those harmonies that kick in at 0:50 are tasty as heck, and there's clearly been a lot of thought going into such a short piece. This is going to be stuck in my head for a while. There's a lot of room for improvement in the production here, and I'd completely understand a NO vote. But while I'd love to hear a cleaned up version of this, I think it's just passable as it is. The leads are never buried, mainly because they're simple waveforms, and at least the lows and mids are well-represented. It does the job, IMHO. YES (borderline)

Interesting idea, and good use of the Chinese instruments in an appropriate way. However, as near as I can tell, this is basically a straight instrument swap, almost 1:1 for the instruments used in the original. I catch a couple of other changes, like the runs on the Chinese zither, but not much. Production is dry as a bone. There's no reverb that I can hear, so this sounds like it was recorded in an empty field. The sequencing is pretty mechanical, too; timing sounds snapped to the meter, and articulation sounds all the same to me. I appreciated this for what it was, but I don't think it's what we're looking for in terms of production, and probably not in terms of interpretation either. NO

I started off thinking, "Huh, this is a really conservative approach from Jorito," and then that drop at the half-minute mark hit. Wow. And then the silky sax, and the cello with those almost Asian glides... I have no words. This just oozes with texture and originality. Excellent, classy work from all around. YES

I love this source track, and this is a pretty solid arrangement! I definitely enjoyed it. However, the instrumentation is pretty far from realistic. Mechanical timing and articulation is really bringing this down. The legato string ensembles also use a sample with a really slow attack, which makes them sound behind the beat throughout the whole arrangement. Arrangement-wise, there is some copy-pasta involved: 1:01-1:57 is repeated nearly verbatim immediately after. That's almost a minute out of a 4-minute arrangement, which is a lot. Maybe not too much by itself, but combine that with the fact that the overall arrangement, from beginning to end, consists of renditions of the same source melody, in order, and overall the feeling is of a lot of repetition. It's a solid start, and the orchestration itself is excellent. Since the orchestration was the main reason you did this, I'd say you succeeded on that front. The sample use just needs that extra polish to reach our bar, IMO, and mixing the melody up would help a lot as well. NO

I don't have an issue with the production per se. Highs are a little light, but I think that's more an arrangement issue than a production one. There's no high-end percussion: no hats, no crashes, and the claps sound like they have a low pass filter on them. There are no arps, no sweeps, and no pads that occupy that range. proph was also right in that the arrangement feels underdeveloped. All your vamping is done with the same saw, and the whole thing is very short. It's good that you haven't padded it out unnecessarily, but even in 2 minutes, there's not a ton of development. And the ending... I'm sorry, but a sudden cut to "Fanfare" has been done so, so many times by now that it's not much better than a fade-out. The instrument choice sounds like mostly vanilla presets. From that selection, the choices are fine, but it sounds like audio design circa the year 2000. I like the creativity that is on display here, and it's a solid approach. But it needs more fleshing out, both in terms of ideas and in terms of soundscape. NO

I was going to write almost exactly the same thing, just in fewer words. Artificial instrumentation, too conservative and too little variation, and mastered too quietly. proph goes into more detail, so read his evaluation closely and take it to heart. NO

This is a fun arrangement of a track I wasn't familiar with (yeah, I know, I'm just not a Sonic fan). I like the general approach, including the voice samples, and you did a great job with the transcription. But it has a few issues. Right off the bat, this is mixed much too quietly (I had to raise my computer volume to 100% to hear it well), and the instrument selection consists mostly of bland, stock sounds. The former is an easy fix, but the latter, while admittedly on par for very old OC ReMixes, isn't where our standards are now. The transition at 2:08 (with the "skid" sound) is abrupt, and basically divides the track into two halves. It does need the change up, so that's a plus, because otherwise there also isn't a whole lot of variety in the track. There's little if any copy-pasta, which is to your credit, but the entire two minutes before the transition uses a similar groove and tone, as does the entire two minutes after. I wouldn't say there's a lack of ideas here, but those ideas aren't fleshed out enough. When you switch things up, switch things up more. This is a good start, it just needs what are ultimately minor changes to the instrumentation, and a mastering tweak. NO (resubmit)

Haven't heard any good glitch in a while. Fun stuff. This takes a 5-second loop to a whole lot of different places, and I enjoyed it a lot. It does open with a grungy bass synth with a super slow attack that's jarring to listen to. Or maybe it's sidechained to something muted? It works better after the percussion comes in, because it sounds like it's just sidechained to duck the kick. Initially it's really unpleasant. The entire middle section is clearly inspired by your starting point, but it's not Pac-Man at all from 2:17-4:10 and 4:36-4:52. It's only 36% of the entire arrangement, but it's a huge block of time. Even though the weakest part of this is the opening, everything else is pretty great. Also the title is delightful. I approve. YES

Very cool idea. It's hugely transformative, very creative, and has a great sound. I was concerned about source usage, though (as one should be for a 5-second source). While nearly everything is at least inspired by the original jingle, quite a bit is so liberally transformed that it wouldn't necessarily be identifiable if you listened to it by itself. Here's what I came up with: 1:15-1:28 is directly taken from the game, just slowed down and detuned. 0:16-0:47 is almost the same as the source, just slowed down, with a key change, and with a couple of notes omitted. 0:52-0:59, 2:28-2:35, 2:55-3:01 are SFX from the game, not music, so I don't think they count even though they help identify the source game, if not the track. 1:01-1:15 and 1:29-3:18 are very loose interpretations. I'd say they're transformations of the transformation; vaguely reminiscent of the source but really not the same. These sections alone make up 62% of the arrangement, with 1:29-3:18 making up 55%. So really the whole thing hinges on whether that heavily-transformed take counts as source usage. I don't have any other major concerns. The tail is really long, with almost 2 minutes of the same basic groove, but it does change throughout that section and I didn't find myself getting bored with it. The sound design is brilliant. Production is intentionally gritty but clean. I'm really on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I love it as a piece of music inspired by Pac-Man. I love that it exists. Our rules say this: It's easily recognizable that the source material is in use at least to an extent. It helps that some of it is less transformed, which helps the listener draw the connection to the part that's more transformed. And, that connection being made, the transformed source material is dominant throughout the mix. It's not a bulletproof argument, but I'm going with it. YES

Pretty cool concept. I liked how you went from the original acoustic guitar and claps (and a meaty kick) to more and more exotic instruments, ending with chiptunes. It's a journey. However, the arrangement itself is pretty conservative. Except for 1:58-2:13 and 2:30-2:45, it's not much more than a reinstrumentation. Even the ending is just a single note, very unsatisfying. Speaking of 2:30-2:45, it's overcompressed and audibly pumping. You'll want to soften your compressor settings there. The vocals are a nice touch, but they're quite pitchy, especially 1:26-1:40. Since it's just "aah"s, you may just want to autotune them. This was fun to listen to, but I don't feel like it quite meets our standards for interpretation, and the production needs a bit more work. Thanks for submitting it, though! NO

What a delicious, eclectic choice of instruments! The bottom of it is these dark, almost ethnic pads, then the mid is electric guitar bookended by piano, and the top is synth tuned percussion, similar to a marimba or glockenspiel, heavy on the reverb. Altogether it's a marvelous, rich soundscape. Source use is mostly limited to the arp, but it's used more or less everywhere, and there is a liberal treatment of the bridge as well. It seems fine to me, though it might be interesting to timestamp. It might be close if timestamped aggressively, but I'm confident it would check out anyway. The ending is a little weak: there's a tail at 4:00 into a fake ending which is quite nice, but then the actual ending is a fadeout that doesn't even end on the tonic. It's pretty unsatisfying. That's my only complaint, though. Otherwise, I love it. YES

Epic orchestral is probably my favorite genre, although it's not my favorite title. This would need a new one for us to accept it. I love this arrangement, unsurprisingly. Powerful, sweeping, checks pretty much all the boxes. I do think the kettle drums are a little relentless, unvarying for long periods of time, and I'm not crazy about the last half-minute: 2:57-3:30 is a near copy of 1:21-1:54, and then it fades out. It's not a dealbreaker, though the fade-out in particular is disappointing. However, I do think the realism needs improvement. The intro starts off quiet and builds up, but it sounds like only the volume is being adjusted, not the velocities. A live orchestra wouldn't sound like that when playing quietly. Then the instrumentation in general has mechanical timing and articulation throughout. The solo instruments, like the single string notes that start at 1:40, sound particularly fake, as well as being too loud. Speaking of supporting elements being too loud: The melody in the main hook, from 1:05-1:35, and again from 2:41-3:08, is buried, especially under the drums, and is inconsistently audible. The issue is present in other places as well, but is most dramatic there. This is a great start, and you have good ideas for orchestration and impact. It just needs that extra work to make it sound more realistic and crisp. I'd love a better ending, as well. NO (resubmit)

Nice traditional house-style EDM here. Checks all the boxes as far as that goes. It's a fun arrangement that I definitely enjoyed. However, it's not without its issues. First of all, it's loud! I had to turn my volume down. Looks like it's clipping by about 1.2 dB at peak. Also, there's a lot going on. In the loudest, busiest sections it gets pretty muddy; on my third listen I was still picking out parts I hadn't heard earlier. Pads, sweeps, and arp are all competing for the same space. It's not as bad as it could be, since most of the instruments are clean, low-bandwidth synths, but it's still an issue. At 2:09, it's a very short remix. It does do a lot with the time it's given, though. 0:23-0:50 is duplicated at 1:32-1:59, and the 11 seconds leading up to those sections are very similar as well. 38 repeated seconds out of a 2:09 remix is 20%---a lot, but not too much. Finishing the track on a repeat does have the effect of making the already composition a little unsatisfying, because there's no real climax. Also, as a final note, this needs a different title for us to post it. I think the arrangement is passable, but for us, I think the production needs a bit more work. Clean things up a little when all cylinders are firing. After that, it may not be necessary to bring down the peak volume, but you should check. I don't mean to come across as a downer on this, as it's a really good arrangement, and I see why you've gotten so many listens and so much publicity and use. It's more than fine for a noisy venue. But we just need those little tweaks to release as a standalone track. NO (resubmit) Revision 7/19/23: The new version is still louder than I'd like — I had to turn my volume down again — but it's not clipping anymore. And there are still a lot of little textural elements that are 95% buried and took me several listens to hear. I think it works well enough, but for future work I'd encourage you to balance this stuff a little better. You put work into writing that, and it sounds good when I can hear it, so help your listeners appreciate it! And you have an actual title now, too. Still could be cleaner, but I think we can take it now. YES

What a nice, chill arrangement. Nails the choice of genre, excellent choices of synths throughout. The "weird" panning seemed intentional to me; it's a call-and-response from one ear to the other. The break at 2:15 was indeed pretty abrupt, as was the ending. That's my only major criticism, though. Otherwise I like everything about this. YES