MindWanderer

I don't hear much in the way of production issues, other than the fairly minor balance issues both judges already mentioned, but I do agree with prophetik that the overall structure is extremely similar to the original. It's not quite the same, but it goes through the same sequence of variations. The quiet bridge into the brass hits in the source compared with the same in yours, except more drawn out and with orch hits instead of brass is the most obvious example of this, but the same issue is there from beginning to end. It's an elaboration of the original, and a re-instrumentation of it, but it's not really a transformation of it like what we look for. It's not far off, but add that to how repetitive the source is, and therefore how repetitive the remix is, and there's just too much of an issue. The good news is that both components have the same solution: add some more creative interpretation that introduces a change of pace or two. New writing isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, but it's far from the hardest, and I think this can get there. NO (resubmit)

I have a tough time evaluating these sorts of ambient/score-like tracks on a melodic level, but this seems to have adequate source usage. It and the source have similar sci-fi score styles, but are still very different in terms of instrumentation and overall arrangement. This version is much more cinematic. Production seems fine to me on every front; I swapped headphones just to make sure, and I still hear plenty of bass. Other than the ending, which is indeed pretty anticlimactic, I don't have any complaints. Solid stuff. YES

Fun take on an obscure source. It may be a medley, but it flows exceptionally well. 2:52 and 4:00 were a smidge abrupt, but it's nitpicking. Crisp production, tremendous variety without being disjointed. Just delightful throughout. YES

Definitely a fun take and a creative arrangement. Definitely does plenty of interesting things with a short source. I'm not the biggest fan of the vanilla square wave used as a lead. It doesn't really jive with the rest of the instrumentation, which is either sampled instruments or common e-piano synths. Unfortunately, it's used in both the intro and the climax, so both the beginning and the end are what I feel like are the weakest sections. The synths at the end are also too dry for the rest of the soundscape. There's some distinct overcompression in the busier sections, most notably when the electric guitar is playing. You can hear some strong all-band ducking when the kicks hit. Those are some meaty kicks for how otherwise unobtrusive they are. I'm a little on the fence about this one. The pumping bothers me more the more I listen to this. It's the only real issue, but it bugs me a lot and I'm not sure if it's a dealbreaker. Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite a 5-minute fix, either. I'll come back to this one after I see another vote or two. Edit: After an ear break, the pumping doesn't bother me as much. I still really dislike the leads in the intro and conclusion, but that's more a matter of taste than an objective criticism. YES

The intro is the weakest part of this. The good news is that the exposed clarinets sound pretty realistic. The bad news is that they sound poorly played! Otherwise, not much to add. A conservative but thorough orchestration from Rebecca, as always, and as always a little quiet. Works for me. YES

It still has the jungle vibe, with the wood blocks and the deep, open reverb, but otherwise it's a totally different approach from the original. It evolves, too; you can see its trap roots come out about halfway through, after it builds up as an ambient synth-rock piece. There's nothing here that breaks the mold, but it's still creative and unique. No question about source usage; there are some gaps for breakdowns, but they're brief. I will say that production could be a little crisper when the guitar is playing. The electric guitar is a greedy instrument, frequency-wise, and it's pretty common for it to result in some soundscape muffling, which is what happens here. It leaps out because the rest of the soundscape is deep and lush. The pads in the climax have the same effect: there's just so much going on that the space doesn't have room to breathe. Not a dealbreaker, just something to keep an eye on in the future. Overall, really excellent work. YES

Epic orchestral is perhaps my favorite genre, and this definitely delivers. I enjoyed every minute of this. The extra little twists and flourishes add a whole new element to these classic sources; it's an absolutely stellar orchestration and re-arrangement. The samples definitely aren't doing it justice, especially in the intro, but there are some poor samples used sporadically throughout. Balance is all over the place, too; notably, almost everywhere the strings are carrying the lead, they're too quiet, though they have louder spikes. Of greater concern is that this really is a medley. The transitions at 0:55, 3:29, and 4:08 are really abrupt, although the transitions at 1:19-1:30, 2:10-2:24, and 2:53-3:02 are smoother. The jump to piano solo at 4:37 also doesn't work that great; it's very pretty but doesn't go with the rest of the piece as well. The staccato notes at 5:00 really jump out, because they're clearly too dry for a concert hall. I don't think any one issue here is a dealbreaker. We've definitely rejected submissions on realism grounds that were better than the intro here, but it does pick up. And we've definitely rejected submissions for medley-itis that had better transitions than half of the ones here. Combined, the issues add up, making the gestalt borderline. Overall, I would love to see this revised, but I think it's passable--just--as-is. YES

The delicious sax work immediately caught my attention. Superb piano work, too. The interpretation is simple but effective, an excellent demonstration of how less can be more. I'm with Larry on the sounds of the sax mechanism being a detraction, especially around 1:55-2:05 and 2:23-2:40; the blip at 2:41 actually sounds like one of those rather than a recording issue. There's also some weirdness in 2:10-2:40 where the piano and sax are both improvising timing a little bit, in different ways, and it's resulting in some conflicts. The issues are minor, though. Overall this is delightful. YES

I've said "typical Tripp fare" so many times that it's a cliche, but it's still true. Excellent orchestration, adequate personalization, issues with dynamic range. I do think it's much better in this last than many tracks we've passed, but I will add that, when I listen to this at a volume where I can hear the intro decently well, the glockenspiel is very loud and piercing, and the tambourine is close to it. But I agree with prophetic; in particular, the opening upright is barely audible at a volume where it's overwhelmingly loud at 2:00. It's a little silly that at 2:30, that same upright is pumping out a much, much louder sound. The ending is lackluster as well, basically just trailing off, not even on the tonic. However, the orchestration is superb, there's clearly enough interpretation, and the samples are well over the bar, even the ones proph called out. YES

I have to agree with the above. This is an absolutely killer arrangement that I love to pieces. The brilliantly synthesized guitar, the fascinating synths, the multi-ethnic overtones, the sheer variety of ideas that all mesh together would make this an easy download if it weren't for the production issues. In particular, everything from where the guitar joins is muffled absolutely to death: too quiet, too mushy, too little depth of soundscape and range of frequencies. You're like 95% of the way to an absolutely amazing track, and I really, really hope you get it over the finish line. NO (please resubmit!)

I too don't think there's any issue with source usage. I don't think it's reasonable to count rests at the ends of measures against source usage, the 2:02-3:10 bridge clearly uses the source as its bassline, and in general, as Kris said, at no time am I unsure of what the source material is. If I were to timestamp the sections that are actually original writing, I'd count 0:00-0:22, 3:10-3:32, and 4:28-4:55 and then 2:02-3:10 and 4:05-4:27 (where the bass counts, and there are callbacks in the melody). That's a mere 71 seconds where it's something definitely other than source material. Lots of great stuff has already been said about the arrangement and production, but not so much about the creativity: This is a short, repetitive, unmemorable part of an otherwise stellar soundtrack, so for you to take this and make something 5 minutes long that doesn't sound overly repetitive, and more importantly sounds good, is a coup. Bravo sir. YES

Not quite house, not quite dubstep, pretty subdued for the genres. I agree that the lead from 0:24-1:18 is trying to do a lot of work for a fairly thin, vanilla synth, and I'm also not thrilled with the timing of the vox starting at 1:49 (which is not random, but comes in between beats awkwardly). And it could easily end at 2:42, much less 2:50. But the strengths are strong. The overtly dubstep portions work well, that house supersaw is delicious, and the story you were trying to tell comes across nicely. I look forward to hearing more from you. YES

I'd like to soften that wave of NO's a bit. I genuinely like this. It does have plenty of personalization, IMO, and there are some pretty rich synths in there. I don't think it's as solid or an obvious a NO as my fellow judges have implied. I do agree that the fact that the leads are the simplest, most vanilla synths of all of them is the big thing holding this back. The drums could be stronger, some of the other synths could be varied up a bit more, but I think more transformation/variation on those leads would get you most if not all of the way there. There's lots of good advice above, so I hope you take it and we see a revision back here soon. NO (resubmit)

This is oozing with charm, and I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. The arrangement is subdued but cinematic. It helps to pretend it's like J-Pop: mostly in another language, with a few English words scattered throughout. It might have been stronger that way (i.e. mostly in... I guess your native language is German?), but I'm not going to complain about not being able to understand it, or even about the enunciation; as music, I think it works just fine. The other concerns are plenty valid, though. The vocals are too loud, the instrumentation is too thin, the singing is periodically off-key (though not badly), it lacks a proper climax, and it could stand to be a couple of minutes shorter without really losing anything. I'm excited to hear an improved version of this, because I do like the aspects of it that work. NO (resubmit)

What a delightful, clever idea! The arrangement is pretty much perfect, with the key and genre change executed exactly the way they should be. There's no question about source usage, timestamping aside. Which leaves the issues of realism and percussion. Like the other judges, I'm generally willing to forgive the realism issue, though I think this would be much, much stronger with live performances or at least the illusion of them. The drums... they should be pretty static, that's part of the genre. And given the lack of realism of the other instruments, I don't think they need to be humanized any better. I did some comps to actual polka music, and it's not uncommon to lack hi-hats, though most often when there are no hats, there's another layer of instrumental accompaniment to compensate. I do agree that they are too loud. I don't think the drums are a dealbreaker, and since they're really the only thing here that could be, this earns from me a YES

The fact that this was originally done for a compo shows, because the two sources aren't blended together very well. This led to the awkward transitions called out above. The lazy copy-pasta was probably also due to the original being on a deadline. However, the repetition isn't too much, and the transitions are adequate. My bigger issue is that the main SotM theme is done with a rich, gritty bass, fun arps and accents, killer beats... and a melody carried by a thin-ass square wave. The fact that this is the part that was copied and pasted is really disappointing. Like the others said, not OA's best work, but only because OA's work is usually so damn good. There's a reason he won the compo. This is plenty good enough for our standards. YES

Holy sidechaining, Batman! This opens up with some pounding beats, which fortunately mellow out somewhat, but early on, I found it hard to listen to. It does have an awful lot of voice clips, to the point that I'm a little worried about fair use and if the copyright owners would have a problem with it. And yeah, that ending... between the drastic, abrupt change at 4:01 and the cutoff, it's a real letdown. There are so many great sweeps and build-ups that to have the most drastic transition not have one is just bizarre However, the arrangement is overall a lot of fun. Trance-ish, but not with the over-repetitiveness characteristic of that genre. Lots of rich synths that are a joy to listen to. Solid production overall, other than that sidechaining. If the project file weren't lost, I'd be pretty eager to send this back for some changes, especially to 4:01. It does need to be faded out properly, but as LT said, that's a touch-up. It'll do. YES (needs new title)

I like the sound of this a lot, sort of neo-grunge. It reminds me a lot of some recent dark/horror games, struggling to put a finger on which ones it's bringing to mind specifically. Transistor, a little bit. I don't have any issues with the tone or transitions. They both sound exactly like what I would expect from the genre. Balance and loudness both seemed fine to me. There is room for improvement structurally, though. The repeated section from 1:30-1:47 is simpler than the original from 0:30-0:47, with the effect of making it sound more repetitive than it really is. Similarly, with 2:40-end repeating 1:04-1:22, because it just cuts off at the end of a repetition, it feels less satisfying and more incomplete, more part of a loop that wasn't properly closed out. That ending in particular is a real bummer, but overall I like this. YES

Great arrangement, great performances, great expansion of a short source tune. All of that is fantastic. Metal with orchestral elements is one of my favorite things, so I'm really digging this. The one big imperfection is the machine-gun drums from 0:24-0:40 are loud on top of being frenetic and off-beat, and drown out everything else; this is particularly unfortunate because it's the weakest part of the whole arrangement, and it's nearly at the beginning. Same deal at 3:29 and 3:37, briefly. The production is also just a smidge muddy in general, especially in the busiest sections, but orchestral metal does so damn much that getting this perfect is extremely challenging, and I won't ask for perfection. While I strongly dislike those sections, they're not enough for me to send this back over. I'd love to see a version of this with better drums in those parts, but otherwise this is very well done. YES

What a fun, original take on such a simple source! It's an exemplary jazz arrangement and performance. I'm willing to give the main piano bassline credit as source material. It's a bit of a stretch, but it's clearly derived from at least the chord progression, at least. Sounds to me like sort of a jazzed-up fusion of the arp and ideophone lines of the original. Also, 2:38 starts a heavily jazzed-up version of the main theme. Even if those didn't count, I personally don't see the need to omit 2 seconds of flair here and there, literally 3 notes in some cases, from the count. It's fine by me on this front. Production is strong, and I appreciate not going to extremes on the panning of the Hammond organ. This is great stuff. YES

I'm actually on board with the instrumentation, because it's going for a specific aesthetic, which I think it nails. In fact, without being familiar with the source and without looking at my playlist, I initially thought it might be an overly-conservative remix of an Axiom Verge track. I will come down on it for repetition, though. 1:38-2:55 is a repeat of 0:00-1:33, and then 3:21-4:00 and 4:27-end are repeats of the second half of that section. Altogether, over half the track is direct repetition, and some of the rest is variations on the same elements. It's far too much. I'm not going to go too far in depth on production, because I think that's close at worst, but the arrangement needs more development. NO

I think I'm going have to explicitly not vote on this one. Production is easily over the bar. Source usage is fine. But this arrangement... I just don't even know how to judge it. How do you judge transitions when the vision is that it's all chopped up and pasted together haphazardly? Or the voice clips, especially "This is even worse than the first one..." what are they even doing there? It's clearly all some sort of artistic vision, but I can't even understand it enough to judge it. Subjectively, I... well, frankly, I hate it. But it's not for me. But between my dislike and my lack of understanding of what it's trying to do, I don't feel like I can judge this in any sort of helpful way. So, it's a cop-out, but I'm not even going to give this one a ?. I'm just making my mark here to let everyone know I'm not just ignoring this one.

Caustic3 actually is a DAW, and it's not a horrible one, for fighting with the touchscreen interface. I haven't tried to do anything really powerful with it, but calling it a not-DAW isn't really fair. Still, it might be better to export each track individually and import them into a desktop DAW, or even Audacity, for mastering. That wouldn't really help with the synth selection, though. The bass in particular doesn't really change, or let up for more than a few seconds. The ending loop, with its sort of call-and-response flair, might also work better with additional instrumentation instead of the same track responding to itself. I'm basically in agreement with proph on both points. It does need cleaner production, and it could really use some more instrumental variety. NO

Thanks for sharing this source! I've heard the name but had no idea it had an actual jazz band behind it. It's really good. This is a very creative take, and I love the interplay between the two themes. I do feel like there's something off with the mixing, though. A lot of the important accompaniment is carried by the marimba, and it's frequently buried in the mix. It's also consistently a hair slow on the beat. I'm actually less happy with the mixing from 0:58-1:15 than 1:15-1:50; there's a lot going on in the bass range that's getting muddy there. I do hear some long tails on the delay/reverb in 1:15-1:50, but I can pick it out of the mix, and it doesn't bother me at all. 2:06-2:21 also has some problematic mixing. The bass is loud, and here the long reverb on the glockenspiel does result in some muddiness in the mid-highs. Speaking of the mid-highs, that's almost where the soundscape peaks. There's very little presence in the highs throughout. The cymbals in particular are strangely smushed. As a result, the soundscape is thinner than it really ought to be. This is a really good arrangement overall, just needs some cleanup. I hope we'll see it back soon! NO (resubmit)

Opens up with a fantastic folk/grunge interpretation, with stellar performances all around. I'm instantly drawn into the vocals and perfectly-calculated, minimal backing. Not liking it quite so much at 1:51. The arrangement is still great in isolation, but the fact that it's repeating the lyrics all over again is a bit wearying, considering the narrative/comedy nature of the lyrics. And the mixing is definitely not quite right; the baritone sax in particular is very loud. I do like the more "acoustic" interpretation of GLaDOS's glitchy voice effects. The "Still Alive" portion is... strange. Cramming it into "Want You Gone"'s chord progression results in some weird interactions. Not quite dissonance, just... unsettling, I guess? It took me several listens to get used to, and I'm still not totally. I'd love to get a rebalanced version, mainly for that sax, but it's not worth sending this back over. And I can't think of anything objectively wrong with the treatment of "Still Alive." If I were being a perfectionist, I'd suggest it might be worthwhile to write original lyrics so that it doesn't repeat them, but that's a tough ask on several levels and I can't see requiring that. Despite my criticisms, this is an amazing piece overall, absolutely worth sharing. Edit 11/11: Unfortunately, Larry is 100% correct. I wasn't familiar with the songs you and he referenced, but it's clearly neither accidental nor incidental. It's cool, but I'm afraid we just can't allow it. NO