MindWanderer   Members

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

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