MindWanderer

First of all, starting at 2:08, it's filled with horrible high-pitched spikes that clip by almost +6dB. I had to stop the track after a few seconds of this, it was like knives in my eardrums. I resolved to go back and just do an eval of the first 2 minutes, but even before that, the hats are awfully hot and loud, as are the percussive element that starts at 1:04. The leads are generally really quiet. All really need some volume and EQ work. There may or may not be more issues, but I can't listen to this any more, I'm sorry, my ears are throbbing. NO

That's hilarious. And true to form, Timaeus altered the Chrono Trigger source so much that the connection doesn't leap out at you anyway. But it's clearly Chrono Trigger and not the PMD theme (which I checked just to make sure). The opening is lovely, the vibraphone is an excellent choice for the Radical Dreamers lead. I got one of those goosebumps moments. The piano gets squashed a bit occasionally, but it's still clear despite losing some resonance. Some of the layering gets a little crazy, and results in occasional discordance. Nothing too severe, though. Basically a classic Timaeus mix all around, with a creative mix of themes and some excellent synth work. YES

At first I was in disagreement with Rexy--the percussion sounded a bit distant but serviceable--but then that droning bass synth got louder, and yeah, it's a problem. It covers a lot of the spectrum and squashes pretty much everything else. It's a lovely, warm, rich sound, but it's too much of a good thing. And the fact that the arrangement consists of two nearly-identical loops is also a dealbreaker. This might just be acceptable if you just cut it after the first loop, as it would still be more than 2 minutes long. But adding a bridge or breakdown (ideally without that bass pad) and then a second half that mixes it up would be even better. NO (resubmit)

I listened to the source, first, of course, and was really curious how you were going to make anything out of something so minimal. You certainly approached it creatively. Unfortunately, my first impression is that the sounds you chose are severely irritating. The clicks are what distortion normally sounds like--they're clearly deliberate here but in every other context they're objectively wrong, and they're really unpleasant. 1:45-2:16 also uses an extremely high-pitched whine that's also normally the result of an error. I'm also not sure whether the source usage is overt enough. It seemed questionable to me. I'm not going to timestamp it because I just can't listen to those sounds anymore. My ears are literally ringing. I'm sorry. NO

Fun! Pretty conservative, but there's fun original takes sprinkled throughout. I didn't feel like the sidechaining that started at 1:00 was helpful, and was kind of distracting. Balance is off throughout, with the bass and kicks being too loud and most of the leads (except the piano) being too quiet. I was on the fence about the production here for a while, but after many listens I don't think its issues are dealbreaking. I'll take it. YES

Ah, Hollow Knight. Such an evocative soundtrack for a game about talking bugs. I missed out a little playing it on the Switch in portable mode. Rebecca's arrangement here is no less so. It uses a very similar sound palette: a flute added, the strings taken away, the solo vocalist swapped for a (fake-sounding) choir, but otherwise still driven by the same piano parts. The general pacing and tone are the same as well. My main question is whether it does enough. The changes aren't tremendously subtle, but they aren't transformative either. Play them for me side-by-side in 2 years and I might not be able to say which one was the original and which one was the remix (although the quality of the choir, especially the men's part, is a giveaway). So I'm leaning towards NO

I see that LionTamer recommended this for a direct post in the workshop, but I'm not in agreement with him there. It's a nice, mellow atmosphere, with some extra layers and SFX to add depth. The cellos are a nice touch; not very "beach-y" but they add some needed bass to the space. However, for an arrangement less than 3 minutes long, it feels pretty repetitive. The guitar backing never lets up, and the bongos sound like they're basically on autopilot the entire time. Add that to the ocean waves and there's a lot about the arrangement that's static. I find it grating even after 2 minutes, let alone listening to it multiple times. It's also very quiet. Something like this shouldn't be overly loud, but there's over 5dB of headroom here, and I definitely had to turn up my volume to hear it properly. The melody and harmonies here are superb, a real joy to listen to. It definitely can't be more than a Conditional due to the levels. Given that most people won't be listening to the piece over and over again, I think the short length makes it enough to forgive the repetition. YES (Conditional on levels) (borderline) Update 3/26/2020: The revision definitely fixes the headroom issue, and repetition is indeed an improvement, though a modest one. The changes to the underwater section are more subtle than Juke things, and the strums are a bit slow, with the attack falling a smidge after the beat. But it's a wash at worst, good enough. YES

It does indeed sound like a PS1-era game, but that's not inherently a problem--it's consistent and it's applied well throughout. It wouldn't fool anyone but it isn't unpleasant, either. The arrangement is liberal but clearly identifiable; excellent work indeed for such a short source. It's creative, interesting, and unique. I have no qualms about this one. YES

It's a pretty conservative take, but by the halfway point it's clear that the layers have made this much more than a reinstrumentation. It's mellow without still being (quite) a lullaby. I agree that it does overstay its welcome by just a bit, but it's borderline in that respect at worst. I do agree with NutS about the levels, though--there's almost 2dB of headroom and you can get much more out of it by limiting the peaks. YES (conditional on levels)

Well, this was a surprise. Dancing Mad, heard a dozen interpretations, yawn. Piano-only, eh (Edit: I originally called this a "piano solo" but was called out on this actually being an arrangement for 4 pianos--which is very impressive). But this is actually pretty cool! There are a lot of original riffs and rejuxtapositions to bring new life into the arrangement, and the rich minor harmonies starting at 0:19 are lovely. And I loved the twist on Fanfare at the end. Arrangement-wise I think this is on point. Production could use some tweaks, though. It's quite quiet and could use some compression to raise the overall volume. The EQ is weird--you're obviously using the full range of the piano but the bass and high frequencies just aren't coming out. The result is an oddly thin soundscape. There's also 8 seconds of silence at the end that can be trimmed off. I definitely want this posted to the site, but not in its current form. Just needs a few production tweaks. Mostly simple changes, but large and important ones. NO (please resubmit!)

It's a cool concept, but there are a few issues with that will keep it off our front page, unfortunately. Starting right off: I'm normally not that critical of sampled piano, but this is super mechanical and fake-sounding. After that, we have a very thin soundscape with vanilla synths. The section that starts at 1:56, which is supposed to be the result of a huge build-up, has only a couple of synths and nothing in the highs or lows; it's very disappointing. The ending is far too minimal, as well. The breakdowns and voice-sampled sections are mostly adequate, but they aren't supported by anything meatier. Also, the whole thing is pretty quiet. There's no compression or limiting; looks like you just adjusted the master volume to be about 0dB (and it actually clips at +0.4dB--It's hard to hear due to the dirty kettle drums, but it's definitely there). Nothing between 1:15 and 4:45 peaks above about -2.5dB. Structurally, it's a fun arrangement, but the instrumentation--or lack thereof--is really letting this down. NO

There are a few original riffs in there, but mostly this is a short, conservative cover. It's not the sort of reinterpretation we look for here. It's also pretty grungy production-wise. Very light on the highs, nothing but the cymbals and the occasional synth up there. It's a good performance and I'm eager to get some more Faxanadu representation, but more than anything else we look for arrangements that are a little more adventurous. NO Update 03/03/2020: LT asked me to review this again because of how strongly he disagreed with me. The structure and melody line are nearly identical to the source material. The bass usually sticks closely to the source, but does branch out a little. There are added harmonies, and the percussion work is original. Of course, there is the performance element: the lead guitar has the flourishes one would expect from a live guitar performance. There are brief variations--a measure of chiptune here and there, the acoustic bridge--but they're mostly straight instrument swaps. It was perhaps unfair to call this a cover, since there is some original part-writing here. But also calling it "nicely personalized and expanded" is going too far. If this were an orchestral remix, I'd expect a lot more layering and instrument-swapping to call it an orchestration that meets our arrangement standards. But of course that wouldn't be appropriate here, and there is some of that. I'm okay revising my vote, but only just. In the future, adding an entirely original section, mixing in something from a different source, playing around more with part-writing or instrumentation, etc. would make this vote more clear-cut. YES (borderline)

Unfortunately, I completely agree. It's a cool concept, but it's on a very slow burn that doesn't evolve quite as much as it really ought to. It's a good start and I'd love to hear what more you can do with it. NO (resubmit)

An 18-second source, huh? That consists of 6 repetitions of a simple motif as well. It's ambitious to try to spin 3 minutes out of that. ...Too ambitious, I feel. There are a couple of nice original bridges in there to break it up, and of course the whole thing is layered with Rebecca's usual gorgeous orchestration, but unfortunately it still comes across as extremely repetitive. I don't personally feel like the bridges are a great match for the tone of the rest of the piece, either; the second one in particular sounds like another piece of music entirely just stuffed in there. It's a noble effort but I don't think it worked out in the end. NO

I largely agree with Larry. You have a couple of good ideas here regarding riffs and instrumentation, but those ideas play themselves out within the first 1:20 or so. The rest doesn't offer much reason to keep listening. The beats do start sounding generic and repetitive, and we start hearing very similar ideas in slightly different permutations. It's a good start but there need to be more creative ideas presented as it goes along. NO

Pretty typical 80's EDM. Nothing wrong with that, and this is largely done right, arrangement-wise. Bass is a little loud but that's typical of the genre. Lead is a little quiet from 3:53-4:47. What is a problem is the overall loudness, though. It's peaking at over +1dB, which is causing some distortion. It's hard to hear because the sidechaining is already pumping intentionally, but part of it's unintentional as well. The worst parts are the big percussive booms and sweeps, which are needlessly gritty. Also I'm not sure what's going on with the ending. 4:48-5:42 is the same nearly-empty groove for nearly a minute, and then there's 30 seconds of silence at the end. Both are completely unnecessary. The outtro goes on for so long it starts playing auditory tricks on you, which gets pretty unpleasant. Fortunately, I think this is all easy fixes. Bring down your master by about 1.2dB, tweak the volume of that final lead, and end the track at 5:15, and I think this'll be pretty much there. NO (resubmit)

Pretty good synthwave. Putting Metal Gear into this genre exposes the similarities between it and Castlevania. The crash cymbals in the intro are used excessively--crashes are used for emphasis and you can't emphasize everything. Balance is a bit heavy in the lows and highs when all the parts are going, and the pads are loud enough that they're adding a fair bit of wash to the spectrum. Those pads also go slightly out of key on occasion, which bothers me more the more I listen to this. Bah, fadeout ending. Overall, though, production is adequate and the arrangement is fun. Could be tweaked but I don't think any of the issues are enough to send this back over (although those pads are getting close). YES (borderline)

Sweet and simple, yet with a rich and varied soundscape. This strikes an excellent balance between the melodies of Skyward Sword and the ambiance of BotW. Nails it. YES

I appreciate the energy, and that's pretty darn good work for a VST electric guitar, but there are a lot of issues. Timing is all over the place, including places where it's obvious you're using VST's because the tail of one note is overlapping the attack of the next. There are several wrong notes, many of which are caused by parts playing in different keys at the same time. Production could be improved in a few ways as well, but first things first. I recommend you hit up the workshop forums and go through a few drafts there. NO

I love this source tune, highly underappreciated, and one of my favorites from FFIX. At first I was in agreement with proph and NutS: it is very conservative for large sections, with 1:1 instrument substitutions for the most part, many of which are just sound upgrades of the original instrumentation. But the more I listened to it, the more the differences stood out to me. The quirky instruments and effects add a fair amount of character, there's a nice arp added at one part, and the bridge is original while maintaining the tone of the rest of the arrangement. The samples aren't exactly a highlight, but they're serviceable, and with the wacky samples you don't expect too much realism. Balance, too, could be tweaked, and it's definitely mastered more quietly than necessary, but it's not egregious. There's certainly room for improvement, and all of my fellow judges' criticisms are helpful and appropriate. But I think this does enough to squeak by. YES (borderline)

I'm a bit torn on this one. On one hand, it does a nice job of mimicking the minimalistic style of the source material and expanding upon it with some different instrumentation and substantial riffing. On the other hand, it's five and a half minutes that don't have a whole lot of variation. In particular there are a couple of simple motifs that are repeated over and over again, and they really start to grate by about the 3:35 mark. I keep going back and forth on this one. Sometimes I find myself paying close attention to some clever interplay, other times I'm tuning out or getting actively irritated by the repetitive elements. I'll come back to it later.

Yep, I have nothing to add. This is one of Bluelighter's best, IMO. Not too conservative, not too liberal, both of which are easy traps when doing a piano arrangement. Lovely choices throughout. YES

Being an orchestral take on an orchestral source, I was worried at first that this would be more of a sound upgrade than a ReMix. It's definitely more than that, more like an expansion of the original. Not quite a "reinterpretation" but there's definitely a lot of material added that makes it more than an upgrade or a cover. It would fit in great as the title theme of World of Warcraft 2. The performances are a little mechanical at times, especially the runs of staccato violins, but it's well outside the uncanny valley. Production is beautifully rich and clear. This will thrill WoW fans, I'm sure. Let's get it up there. YES

Just rubber-stamping this one. I hear the timing issue Rexy mentioned, but for jazz that's perfectly acceptable, normal even, and it's minor besides. Excellent arrangement and production, and very impressive given the timeframe involved. YES

Source-wise, I'm inclined to give this a pass. The source's arp runs through pretty much the entire arrangement, twisted sometimes but recognizable. Arrangement-wise... wow, this is weird. I listen to music in Clementine, and I've attached what the moodbar in it looks like. A "normal" piece will have a pattern that has some black (quiet), some white (full spectrum), and the rest some dull colors where one part or another of the spectrum dominates. A poorly-mixed one will be mostly gray. I've never seen a piece with such a vibrant, clear pattern, which reflects exactly the avant-garde approach taken here. To me it goes beyond "experimental" and into "unpleasant." The transition at 1:10-1:13 was actually painful. 1:35-2:32 or so--generously--was too static for my tastes. That said, I generally cut arrangements a lot of slack if what they're trying to do is a legitimate, if unconventional, approach. Which this is, and does. I'd like to see what other judges have to say, for sure. I'm going to give it a vote I've never used before, because it's for sure not a YES to me. ???/Conditional (on removal of harsh frequencies in 1:10-1:13) Edit 10/1: Since it's for sure not a YES to me and no one else YES'ed it either, let's just call it a NO