MindWanderer

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.

By pure coincidence, I just evaluated a Terra's Theme remix that was much too conservative, and this is nicely liberal, just barely identifiable but definitely so. I love the creativity. 0:15 introduces a pad that's pure white noise, and it's there for almost the entire piece. I'm not sure what purpose it's supposed to serve. It just sounds like tuned static to me. And it's sufficiently loud that it does make some of the mids a smidgen muddy. It also does get a little repetitive. It's mostly loops of your version of the main hook. The groove is constant for long stretches. On the other hand, the whole thing is only 2:47 long, so it doesn't wear out its welcome too badly. I don't know how Christmas-y it is—it does use jingle bells in place of hats, but only one section has a bell (or glockenspiel?) as the lead—but I don't think there are any dealbreaking issues here. If this does get sent back, my #1 request would be to look at that white noise pad again, but even with it, I can give this a YES

It won't be me, either. It's mostly sampled versions of the same instruments as the original track. Most of the ones that aren't are the same as what's used in official orchestral arrangements of this source (example). It's structurally identical, as well, and consists of two very similar loops of the same thing; not exactly identical, but as near as I can tell, the change mostly consists of an extra layer of brass added to it, which brings up my second point: I'm not on board with the production, either. Take a listen to 0:48-0:50, for instance. The lead flute is completely swallowed up there. I won't pick out every example where balance is an issue, because it's an issue throughout---where the lead isn't buried, something else usually is. It's more severe in the second half, because an extra layer or two have been added. I do agree that the realism is above our bar, and that's often the toughest thing to achieve, so kudos there. But the level of interpretation isn't high enough for me, and the levels do really need work as well (although as proph said, sound design can help with this by itself without touching the volume/EQ knobs). NO

Oof, man. Hope you're doing better now. Although you submitted this almost a year ago as of when I'm writing this, so I would really hope so. As proph said, it's conservative, but the genre change, the solo, and the rearrangement of the second half make this interpretive enough for our standards. I would say that the sections where you switch guitars, in 2:20-2:41 and 3:08-end, do get cluttered, and there's some overcompression (really noticeable at 2:39, for instance, with the kicks, and from 3:40-4:22). The climax, where the chant joins back in at 4:00-4:22, is seriously muddy and pumping. 3:50 sounds like a really sour note to me, and there's similar dissonance occasionally for the rest of the track as well. I'm kind of borderline on this one. The first half is produced very well, though by itself it's overly conservative. The second half has the originality we look for but the production is problematic. I'm going to say that the compression and clarity in the sections I mentioned above need another pass before I'll be willing to vote in favor. NO (resubmit) Update 5/16: DusK submitted an updated version, and while it is cleaner, it's still pretty muddy in the busier sections, e.g. from 3:40 on. It's extremely mid-heavy there. There's some mitigation to all my earlier comments, but I still stand by them. And actually, I'll add to that: there's not a lot of presence in the highs throughout the whole arrangement. The lead guitar has a very dark tone to it, and the main synth peaks at the mids as well. When there is a lead that plays the high end (e.g. 2:09), it still sounds filtered and bottom-heavy. Most of what I hear in the trebel range is cymbals. still NO (resubmit)

I'm definitely in agreement that the arrangement drags, but I think it's a bigger deal than LT or proph. The hook that first appears at 0:24-0:32 is repeated twenty-six times: fifteen times from 0:24-2:23 (two solid minutes of it!), four times from 3:04-3:35, and seven more times from 4:56-5:52. Three and a half minutes out of a six-minute track is a repetition of eight seconds of melody. Now, to be fair, there are a lot of variations of those eight seconds: a couple of different leads, several changes to the backing, and a few changes to the percussion, but it still wears out its welcome after about a minute, let alone three and a half. I respect trance, especially progressive trance, but it's a hard genre to succeed at without sounding overly repetitive. This isn't trance, and does not. For me, it's a dealbreaker. Production is a mixed bag for me. 1:11-1:28 is an example where it really works (mostly; the guitar is a smidge buried under the pad), going from the subtractive to the sweep to the rich soundscape held up by the pad. Other sections are overly busy, and those vanilla synths Larry mentioned really stand out. I think it's adequate in and of itself, but it makes the repetition issue stand out more than it might otherwise. What I would need to vote YES on a revision of this is a restructuring. You could go deeper into the trance style by taking cues from prog trance, evolving the synths and soundscape in noticeable ways as you go; you did this to some extent already, but it would need to be more. Successful trance also benefits greatly from richer, more interesting synth choices. Or you could cut down on the repetition and lean more into the rest of Chill, which is a long source track, and has a lot of material to work with, that you used only once. Either way could work. Good luck! NO

A pretty conservative arrangement overall, but it does mix things up a little bit. There's that 28-second lead guitar solo in the middle, and then a 10-second rhythm guitar solo near the end. Not a lot, but enough to not be a straight-up standards violation. The guitars are clearly fake, but they're pretty good fakes. I don't think you need to buy a whole new sample kit, but I do think they could be humanized better. The timing and velocity are just too mechanical. Proph is also right that the soundscape is pretty narrow. The wailing guitars and crashes don't have quite as much high end as they should, and the bass guitar is lacking lows. And the ending... there should be one. All that said, I'm hard-pressed to say that there's anything dealbreaking here. It's a lot of notable issues, which taken by themselves are borderline at worst, but taken together I do think it adds up. I'm a little on the fence, but ultimately I have enough concerns that I'm going to give this a NO (resubmit)

Another comically quiet submission here, with over 2dB clear headroom, and about 3dB with nothing more than a very generous limiter applied. Playing the two versions sequentially really exposes the weaknesses in this remix. The samples aren't any better than the Wii version, the soundscape is thinner on top of being quieter, the melody eschewed in favor of the more ambient stuff... it's almost like someone was trying to rip off the original but in a way that wouldn't get them in DMCA trouble. And then there's a fade-out loop with bird songs that lasts nearly 20% of the length of the entire track. So in addition to proph's concerns, I kind of feel like there just isn't much here. It's technically a rearrangement, but only in a subtractive sort of way. It's honestly hard for me to separate my subjective opinions from this one, because I feel like all the good stuff was taken out and the rest sort of patched together around it, without really adding anything. Are the changes made to accommodate this evisceration enough to satisfy our standards? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not enough to satisfy me. I think the production issues are enough to merit sending this back, but I'd have to admit I wouldn't be excited to see it back on the panel without something more... well, exciting. NO

TMNT is awesome, and I love this arrangement. Classic techno 'n' chips. However, I'm actually really surprised Larry passed this one. He's usually a stickler for percussion, and the whole drum kit is problematic. It sounds like they've been aggressively filtered into the mid band. The hats and crashes have no high end, the kicks have no low end, and the snares are thin as well. As a result, the whole track lacks punch. That's not the only EQ issue, either. There's one bass synth that goes into the lows a little, but not very much, and it's only even there about half the time. I switched out to my bassiest headphones to be sure, and nope, the low end is lacking even with those. And the highs are weak as well. The whole soundscape sounds thin and flat. It doesn't sound especially "muddy" per se, because the instruments aren't conflicting with each other very much, but it's because they all take up a really narrow spectrum and not because they use the full range of normal human hearing effectively. 2:05-2:20 and 2:32-2:47 are exceptions, though: it really is muddy there, and the parts really need more separation. I don't think it'll take much work to fix this, as I suspect the main issue is too much filtering going on. But right now I don't think this is passable. NO (resubmit)

It starts off weird, but then gets pretty melodic and---dare I say---normal for a Hudak piece. Takes that 80's PC game sound and turns it into an 80's cyberpunk sound. I don't subjectively see a problem with source here at all. It might be hard to make a case for the first 30 seconds and the last minute---although I think you could make a case for that last minute, see 0:23-0:34 of the source---but there's still 4 minutes left if you take that out. The audio design is both clever and well-executed, and the piece is engaging throughout (which is not always easy for tracks with a lot of space for effects and non-music content). I wish more of Mike's stuff was as easy to wrap my brain around as this. YES

I was actually relieved when I heard this source! Coming from any other remixer, I would have been worried about how they might approach it and turn it into actual music, but Mr. Hudak certainly does not have that problem. He's fully in his wheelhouse here. And for once, I don't have any problem evaluating it, either. It's weird in a sort of "is this really music" way, but not in a "this is unpleasant and I have a hard time listening to it" way. It does what it's supposed to do, and it's clearly a remix of the source material. However, it's not all sunshine and roses. 1:19-1:39 sounded like horrible, horrible clipping. I had to check to see whether or not it really was. It's not; it must just be part of that synth. But it sounds terrible. I can't sign off on it. Take that crackle out of there and I'm happy. YES/CONDITIONAL Update: I listened to the Low reference track, and ultimately it doesn't change my decision. Taking aside the fact that I think the reference material also sounds terrible (subjective), it's also very clearly deliberate, because of the alternation of the clean and distorted lines. Mike's piece makes it sound unintentional, because it isn't consistent, and it rises and falls with the swells the way clipping would. The Low track could never be made that way by accident; Mike's could.

I too was worried when I heard the source material, since it's borderline what I'd call "music." Mostly ambient sounds, with just some slow double bass, three notes at a time, and as Larry said, 12 notes total. But the remix is definitely dominantly arranged around that theme. I'd describe it as 50% source material and 95% original, somehow. "Strong sound design" is an understatement: these are some of the most well-chosen synths I've heard in an arrangement for a long time. There's a ton of them and they're all used expertly. The ending is a little meh, but it would work fine as part of a set. This is hugely creative, with excellent design and production chops on display throughout. Good stuff. YES

Interesting indeed. Short sources lend themselves well to trance, since trance is supposed to be pretty repetitive anyway. For being 8 minutes long, it doesn't outstay its welcome for the genre. What's even more interesting, the 12-second theme serves as the main hook, transformed in a number of different ways (e.g. breathy chanting and bass pads). It is quite liberal in this interpretation, though. I'm not really willing to give credit to the chant as being source material. The frenetic boss music is clearly hard to use, but I can catch motifs from it used periodically. I started to timestamp this loosely, but stopped when I got clearly over the mark. I had to pay close attention, though; some of the connections are pretty subtle. As for the arrangement and production, they're just fine. Without knowing this was a game ReMix, it comes across as perfectly serviceable (if somewhat creepy) trance. I don't have any concerns. YES

I waffled on this one for a while. Tiggs clearly has an amazing voice, but it's true that it's just not being used to its full potential. While her range is indeed impressive, it's not as impressive as this track demands. It swings from contralto to soprano and even then forces her to jump octaves to fit everything in. 2:35 is just egregious. If she can't stay in the same register throughout this section--small wonder, and no fault of hers--the part should be pitched down a couple of notes. Find her high note and write around it. Otherwise, yeah, read everything proph wrote and take it to heart. NO (resubmit)

I'm with proph on this one. That drop at 0:33, with the spike in volume, booming kick, and shrill saw, was a huge turn-off right at the beginning. Nothing I heard for the rest of the piece got me over that. 1:50-2:14 was also tough to get through: there's a really strange melodic progression there that doesn't sound right at all, and is that people screaming used for punctuation? Then 3:12, again with the huge jump in volume; even though I should have expected it, it was jarring. 3:37 also has that powerful hit and weird harmonies that just don't sound right to me. Finally, a disappointing ending that has no melodic resolution. Now, I recognize that some of the things I dislike here are subjective artistic decisions. And I appreciate the creativity. But the dynamic range is definitely a problem; at the very least, those kicks need to come down. I'd also prefer a lead synth in 0:33-1:24 that sat on top of the mix better, and a more conclusive ending, but those are just my preferences. NO

I'm pretty generous when it comes to sequencing, so when I saw that Larry was throwing a fit about everyone else being too generous, I expected to vote YES. But no, I'm not, and I don't think it's even in a gray area. The woodwinds were kind of fake, but the strings... they're practically SNES quality. No humanization, no decay. The left hand piano barely sounds like a piano at times. I don't even agree that the ensemble sections sound better; the sample quality is disguised better, but not the mechanical sequencing. Rebecca, you can and do do much, much better than this. NO

I can't argue with any of the above. The intro to 0:19 was a perfectly good intro. Then the main melody came in and I thought, okay, this is just a really slow build. But by 1:29, multiple opportunities for a drop into the main meat of the mix have passed, and I realized this was all I was going to get. And then, of course, at 2:20 it loops back to 0:20, until there's some more ideas at 4:00; that's 100 seconds of copy-paste out of 298 seconds, almost exactly a third of the arrangement, which is too much (my personal rule of thumb is a maximum of 25% repetition, and that's pushing it). There are good ideas here, and you have the fundamental concepts of a remix down. Depth, transformation, and variety are the three big thing you really need to look for. NO

I think it's important to take a step back here and consider what this arrangement is trying to do, rather than shoehorning it into what we'd expect from an "average" ReMix. This source is incredibly minimal, so I don't think rejecting an arrangement of it based on it being to "too barren" is really warranted. And I feel like an unbalanced soundscape is fine considering the approach. The source consists of basically just two(!) sweeping notes, some sporadic percussion, and a whole lot of silence. Counting the silence as part of the arrangement, I think source usage is obvious from 0:00-1:00, arguable from 1:00-1:40, loose at best from 1:40-3:10 (and there's 9 seconds of silence at the end that can be trimmed). That's just over half. Sure, the sequencing isn't perfect, and the silence exposes every flaw, but I don't think it's all that bad. In fact, for how exposed it is, I actually think it's quite good. We pass worse. This does have the usual Tripp mastering issue, but bump this up by a flat 4.5 dB and I think it's fine. Overall I think this was a tremendous challenge that was, by and large, met. It's not close to what we usually look for, but it isn't trying to be. From a standards perspective, I think this does everything we require, plus it's bold and original. YES (requires a loudness boost)

Normally, I like to form my opinions without reading votes from other judges, so they don't bias me. However, seconds into this, I knew I had to read prophetic's vote because of the weird harmonies, which I knew he'd explain. The pad that starts building at 0:30 is seriously weird harmonically, and the arps in 0:53-1:07 are at a strange interval, too. After that there's a new organ-like pad that's also weird. Proph explained some of these, but not all. Otherwise, I like this a lot. I love the rich, rumbly bass. The performances may not be perfect, but it's the imperfections that make recordings better than samples, and it's played with passion. It does a lot with a very short source, despite still clearly leaning on that source throughout. I'm not quite going to mark this as a YES because I'd really love to hear another opinion regarding those harmonies. They just sound wrong to me. I'll be happy to vote in favor if they check out, though. Edit 11/29: I'm not going to hold this up. The dissonance is unpleasant but it's not a dealbreaker. YES

I can't peg every second of this to source material; I'm not great with orchestral scores as compared to more melodic stuff, but I know the original FFVII soundtrack pretty well. However, there's clearly a preponderance of source material used from A Broken World alone, even more so with Return to the Planet worked in. Gorgeous orchestration. Excellent use of additive and subtractive textures to create a dynamic, engaging, rich soundscape. When the main piano theme kicks in in the middle, wow. I'm not totally convinced that the church organ opening goes with everything else, but that's subjective, and I can't think of anything else to complain about. Just stellar work. YES