MindWanderer

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)

Epic synth-orchestral, delicious. The addition of Mantis is an unusual choice, but it works really well. Good ear for hearing the potential of mixing it into this. The instruments aren't the most realistic, but they aren't painfully fake, either, for the most part. The staccato horns at 4:03 are pretty bad. Everything is mixed a little quietly; I had to raise my volume to 90% to listen at a comfortable level. But at least it wasn't 100% like several of the last few mixes I voted on. My one notable production concern is that the soundscape is pretty thin. I tried two sets of headphones to be sure, and there's not a lot of low presence at all. The highs aren't very robust, either. Still, these aren't huge issues, and the arrangement is killer. I'd love to hear another mastering pass, but I won't insist on it. YES

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

I don't have any concerns about the overall volume, but I agree that the samples are weak. The melody is carried by a jazz organ, but said organ has a pretty thin, weak sound to it. The drums are pretty thin, too, especially the hats, which sound really artificial. I can't tell if the bass is supposed to be a synth or a sampled electric bass. The arrangement seems okay to me. It's pretty noodly, but I don't have any concerns about source usage. It doesn't even seem close enough for me to merit timestamping. And as long as there's adequate source usage, it's not a standards violation even if there isn't much "explicit declaration of melodic content." 0:59 sounds like a couple of off-key notes, and some of the noodling doesn't sound quite right to me either, but maybe it's just in an unusual key. I think for me this would pass with better samples (or better yet, performances). It's in the uncanny valley between full-on synth and instrumental jazz. I'd prefer it if it leaned towards the jazz more, but it has to get out of that valley one way or the other. NO (resubmit)

I thought it was hilarious that the original track was some fantastic, dynamic metal synthrock, and the remix was lo-fi PC sounds. Definitely not what I was expecting from either. I agree with proph that this is mostly one very long arp with some accompaniment. Balance is consistently putting the wrong elements in the forefront. Even the "melody" (which is pushed to the background) is pretty repetitive; for such a long, dynamic, involved source, you've decided to use only a very small portion of it, over and over. 1:51-2:00 is the weakest part of all. The melody and arps don't sound like they're in the same key. The one thing going for it is that it seems like the only part of the whole thing that has percussion that's not the same kick-hat-snare-hat you have going everywhere else. There are some good ideas here, but I'd go back to the drawing board and write something more engaging and less repetitive. Then make sure the balance is correct, with the melody loudest and the arps and bass quieter. NO

I provided a lot of feedback for this one while it was in the WIP process. I left it still with some reservations about the timbre of the guitars in particular, and I wasn't able to give specific enough advice for Lucas to be able to improve it. And yeah, there are some weird notes that I wasn't able to articulate well enough either, where the instruments don't sound like they're in the same key. Unfortunately, I'm still in the position of being able to tell that it's not quite right at the moment but being out of recommendations for how to fix it. Funny thing is, Lucas has improved quite a bit on his own even in the two years since he put this together (has it really been only two years?!), and I bet if he approached the project files just on his own with fresh ears, he could do a better job. That's assuming he still has them. I still think it's in the gray area of being passable for an album but not for a mixpost. I hope the files for this still exist and that the issues can still be hammered out. NO

Normally I don't come down hard on humanization, but proph is right about the vibrato of the soprano being over the top, as well as the general comment about the instruments not sounding like they're in the same space: some have rich reverb, some have almost none, some are in the middle. And the flute is also an issue, both in terms of inconsistent volume, and that the breath control could use some work and has a couple of squeaky notes. In an ensemble performance I feel like some of these issues could be hand-waved, but they're so exposed here that I don't think this is quite postable. NO

Nice to hear something more traditional from Mike. Nice, solid synthwave. The middle (1:50-2:17) is a little bland and meandering, but overall this is just highly competent. It's an easy YES

It's... fine, I guess. Really, these seem to be be basically plug-and-play for Rebecca at this point. They're all solid, but they all have the same flaws (too quiet, imperfect realism) and they don't do anything she hasn't done dozens of times already. I'm not excited about it, but I see no reason not to give it a YES

Wow! That's some pretty powerful stuff, and certainly nothing like anything we have on the site. That it's all improvised is incredibly impressive, and I'm stoked to have something like this in the library. Arrangement-wise, the only thing I'm critical of is that there's what sounds to me like dissonance in some of the more complex sections, most notably 5:50-6:17. I' m not sure if it's some obscure chord or the fat harmonics of the organ, but it doesn't sound good at all. Given that this performance can't be reproduced, though, it's not a dealbreaker by any means. The one thing I'm going to come down hard on is the levels. The beginning, through 1:44, is extremely quiet, to the point where I had to put my volume at 100% to hear it at all, and even then it was too quiet. It gets better, but even through 3:25 it's far too quiet. Here's the visualizer from the music player I use, Clementine: See that pure black at the beginning? That means that, relative to the peak loudness of the track (the white part, which is the climax), the volume level is basically zero. You shouldn't be seeing that except when there's supposed to be silence. Even the next part, where there are occasional spikes of dim pink and yellow, are far too quiet for actual music. Also, that's just relative loudness, across the piece by itself. Even the climax is about as loud as the quietest part should be. The whole thing needs a volume bump. The good news is that none of this is complicated. You just need a compressor applied. It's a quick fix. However, it is a necessary one. Also, speaking of silence, the last 9 seconds are pure silence and should be cropped out. It's an amazing, unique piece, and I don't want to miss out on this being posted by any means. Please get this tweaked and sent back to us ASAP! YES/CONDITIONAL (on compression) Edit: Here's what Jupiter, that Gario shared, looks like in Clementine, for comparison: Only one short segment in the middle (5:32-5:56) that's completely black, and only a few seconds (2:38-2:48) that's close to white. That's much less dynamic range overall. Moreover, it's mastered much louder: despite having twice as much headroom as this submission, it's comfortable for me to listen to without jacking my volume up all the way. If I had this submission in my playlist as-is, listening to it without looking, I would assume playback had stopped, because it would be completely inaudible at my normal listening volume for three and a half minutes. But the peaks are high enough that you can't just raise the volume much without clipping. To be sure, there would be an element of the performance that would be lost through compression. But there's a usability factor to consider as well.