MindWanderer

It's gorgeous overall, even if it's clearly not a real orchestra it's well over the bar. The one thing that's driving me nuts is the men's choir. It's just all over the place. It's far too quiet in 0:37-0:59 and 2:20-2:34. Proph is right about that timing bobble at 1:16, but what I'm hearing more (and again at 1:24) is that the note is pitched too low and the voices turn into reverse chipmunks as they try to sing outside their range. There are also other minor timing issues at 1:19 and 1:27--at first I thought the voices sounded like they were stumbling over the lines and going out of sync, which wouldn't make sense with a synthetic choir, but Proph nails it, they're just polyphony where polyphony should be impossible. The same thing happens when the section repeats at the end, though it's really hard to hear then. Since the choir is such a prominent part of the mix, even though it's only for short sections, I think it's enough to sink the piece as a whole. Clean it up and this will be golden. NO (resubmit)

Proph covers most of what I had to say. It's a massive improvement but still needs more. The percussion is really, really bright--yours has the dubious honor of being the first remix I've heard where the hats are painfully piercing. I do hear kicks but they're exceptionally quiet. The thunderclap in the intro sounds far too fake. 0:33-1:19 still drags, with the same lead and no change in percussion or bass; typically retro synth pieces like this feature more frequent changes in timbre. Same for 1:38-2:17, which also has a lead that's on the piercing side. It's so light in the mids and lows that as an experiment, I actually tried pitch-shifting the entire thing down an octave. The resulting sound quality was awful, and the soundscape was still too thin, but the overall position was better, with thick mids and meatier (though still quiet) bass and kicks. I don't actually recommend such a crude measure, but it gives you an idea of what the issue is, in part. It's a fun arrangement, and I'm still very pro-LMMS, so hopefully we'll see another shot at it from you! NO (resubmit)

And Carroll Spinney (Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch) on the same day. Very sad, but they had good, long lives.

I'm with Sir_NutS on this one. Sure, timestamping comes a little short, but where it's not using the source material directly, it's either non-melodic padding and pacing, or riffing on the source's textures and style. This could appear in an actual Kingdom Hearts game and would be instantly recognizable remix of Roxas's themes, no question. I think that counting the seconds in this case obscures what we're trying to do here. I do think it has some production issues--it's very busy, overcompressed, and even clipping a bit (I see it peaking at a bit over +0.2dB), and actually I was waffling on passing this one for that reason. If this does get sent back, I strongly recommend giving it a bit more breathing room when you resubmit. But I'm coming down on calling it passable. YES

I concur: excellent job distilling the best parts of the original arrangement and playing around with them to make something new with generally improved flow and much less repetition. Cutting down the length while adding new progression to the textures worked wonders. Creative, catchy, and chill. YES

Just want to add my two cents here: You've built up a gorgeous soundscape with a lot of fun textures to it. As a cover, it's quite impressive, so don't get discouraged--you've done the hard part, and done it well. I'm very glad I got a chance to hear it. It just isn't what we look for in terms of transformation and progression. NO (resubmit)

Slick groove on this one. The beats are a little monotonous, and some of the sections drag on a little longer than I'd like, but for EDM it's just fine. 3:00-3:28 is the most problematic section IMO: it's definitely a little too long and the lead e-piano is hard to hear (which is a notable concern since it's necessary to distinguish this section from 1:39-1:52). I think the change in time signature does exactly what you wanted it to, and I feel like it was a highlight. So was the section starting at 1:25, although it did get a little cluttered when the main refrain joined in. Overall it's pretty darn crisp considering the number of layers you have going on here. It's funny when the "subtractive" sections still have like 4-5 layers in them. Mostly I'm nitpicking. Overall this is pretty solid, and a lot of fun. YES

Yeah, I don't know what you did to this exactly, but I'm in complete agreement with proph, and with Larry's crits as well. It's not the sound I usually associate with overcompression (pumping and distortion), but all the life has just been squashed out of it, muffled and mid-heavy indeed. This results in those lifeless beats, as well as a general lack of depth. The arrangement is as good as ever, but I think you've traded one balance issue for another. Keep at it! NO (resubmit)

Thanks Rexy for that breakdown! Always helpful to have that for complex arrangements like this. I've been listening to this one for a while and have been on the fence about it. Ultimately I'm in agreement with most what what my fellow judges had to say: the vanilla synths and mechanical instruments are just unpleasant, and there's a lot of crowding in the busier sections that's causing both muddiness and some pumping. On the plus side, I personally thought the arrangement was just fine. It covers a lot of territory but it all seemed coherent, perfectly respectable for a long-form exploration. As for the frequencies, I have better high-end hearing than my colleagues, so for me a melody being carried in the 2.5KHz range is fine, but I understand how many listeners would find it unpleasant, and a low pass at 10KHz will almost always do more good than harm. I'd love to see a revision, but the sound quality for sure need another pass. NO (resubmit)

Definitely an improvement. I'm still not a big fan of the "quack" synth, but at least it's clearly a synth now and not a distortion of the rhythm guitar. Pacing is great now. Lots of fun and energy. There's still a fair bit of room for improvement, though. I think Larry understates the problem with how loud the snare and cymbals are. They're really, really loud. Even though you're breaking up the drum pattern now, it's still a bit headache-inducing. They do still cause a bit of pumping, although not too bad. Conversely, the bass guitar (at least, I think it's a bass guitar) is far too quiet--I didn't even hear it until my second listen, and even still I can barely make it out. As for the drum pattern, I have mixed feelings about it. The syncopated pattern that starts at 1:33 is... unconventional. It's certainly different, and the change is welcome, but I'm not convinced it works. Given the previous vote, I expect this will probably pass, but now that I can tell there's a bass, I really want to actually hear it! And the percussion really could stand to be substantially quieter. So for my part this gets a NO (borderline, please resubmit!)

For the most part, the arrangement, though ambitious, works. There's also a lot of creative interpretation, riffs on the original sources that sound really nice. It's an impressive foundation. However.... Rexy's absolutely right about the panning. It's severe enough that I'd send this back for that alone. It's not a problem throughout--there are many sections where you made some elegant choices that involved hard panning but were still balanced. But there are even more where there's a lead on the right and nothing to balance it on the left. 2:09 hits really hard, and is the point where I knew this would have to be a NO. She's also right about the sub-bass being too much in odd places, but I'll go a step further. I found the arrangement as a whole to be rather thin rather than "pleasantly minimalist." There are parts where this works (solo strings, piano, and flute), but there are also many parts that are meant to be bombastic, with kettle drums, brass, and ensemble strings, where it doesn't. Those sections need a lot more presence in the low ranges in particular. I have mixed feelings about the transitions. They could stand to be smoothed out, and avoiding key changes would certainly help. 3:25 is another point I'd call out; in fact, to me (though I'm not an expert in music theory) it sounds like the two parts are playing in two different keys at the same time. Speaking of which, I heard a lot of dissonance. Again, someone with a stronger theory foundation could probably elaborate, but to my ears there were many times where you either wrote your own harmonies or blended two sources together and ended up with conflicts. There are a lot of things that need some tweaks, but the hardest part is done and is pretty strong. I hope we see a revision! NO (resubmit)

I don't think there's anything "obvious" about how Clanker's Cavern is used here. I hear the similarity, but to my ears it's nothing more than that, a similarity. The transformation is just too drastic to count as a remix IMO. Also, it's also a bit plain and simplistic in places, frequently consisting of just melody, bass, and percussion. Some of the synths are a little vanilla, especially the lead saw and the e-piano. 2:25 sounds dissonant to me, as does the transition around 3:45. And that whole ending is just weird, I have no idea what you were going for there. The Bond section sounds fine to me, I don't hear any overt music from the movies. Lots of cool and entertaining stuff here, and I think the synthwave is fair if borderline, but I personally can't count the main source usage. There's enough of it but it's too different from the original. NO

I think we're all describing the same issue, though we're hearing it in different ways. Sounds more like overcompression than overcrowding to me--I can hear all the parts, but it's pumping like crazy. I also agree with NutS that it wears out its welcome: even though there are a lot of interesting arrangement ideas, the textures are so similar that it comes across as too same-y to justify a 4:30 length. I'd rather see you transform the instrumentation than cut length, personally. There are plenty more sounds you can make even with a restricted synth style. I definitely want to see this come back, but those problematic sections do need some love before we can post this, IMO. NO (resubmit)

Ha, not that obscure. I recognized it immediately, despite not knowing the game at all... because this is the third submission in 2 years that we've gotten for it. (The others were NO's, though.) The source material itself is used pretty conservatively, but it's interspersed with so much original content that it's far from a conservative arrangement overall. And yet there's plenty of source material, no question of that. Production-wise, I have some concerns about clutter. When the main part starts at 0:40, I hear at least two instruments occupying a similar range in the highs. It's hard to make them out, one sounds like an arp with heavy reverb and the other sounds like a pad? But they're largely turning into white noise. When the lead changes at 0:56 and the former lead saw becomes accompaniment, it joins the fray and makes the issue worse. 1:24-1:35 is crazy busy, it sounds like there are 4 or 5 different synths competing for the same frequency there, and they're all turning to shimmery mud. Similar issue at 1:52-2:07; it's better because there are less verb-y/sustained synths involved but there's still a lot of competition that's making it hard to make out the individual sounds. 3:56-4:35 is a rehash of 0:56-1:35, so same issue there again. This is close for me, but all those similar layered notes are really cutting down on the clarity. There's a really good mix in here but there's a good chunk of it that I can't hear because it's turned to mud, and a bigger chunk that I can't really appreciate because it's sitting in that mud. Clean things up, especially where you have a pad and a reverb-heavy synth overlapping frequencies, and I'll be happy with this. But right now I don't think I can sign off on it. NO (resubmit)

Larry's comments about the sequencing surprised me. It didn't sound like a real guitar, but it didn't sound excessively precise either. So I availed myself of the YouTube video, which explained my confusion: it's being played on the keyboard. So the timing is tight but not perfect, but it also lacks the level of humanization that strumming real strings would give you. The main thing making this sound "thin" to my ears is a lack of bass throughout. The bass guitar is extremely quiet, as are the kicks. The high end is also lacking slightly, not as severely as the low end, but adding a bit of "shimmer" to the cymbals especially would be a big help. I was somewhat on the fence about this--the arrangement is great, and there's really just that one issue--but after thinking about it for a while, and also listening to some other music to recalibrate my ears, I have to agree with LT's conclusion, if not his reasoning. Take another look at the levels and construct a fuller soundscape, bring up the bass and the kicks and a little more of the high end, and I think this will be fine. NO (borderline, please resubmit)

I actually thought the soundscape was fine. The beats are fine for this sort of ambient mix, and I didn't think the textures were thin at all. 2:34 wasn't exactly the same as 1:14; the arpeggio added there isn't massively different, but it does serve to differentiate the two sections and add a little bit more energy. I agree with Larry that more could be done with it, though. My one main crit is that the reverb on the piano is cranked up way, way too high. Especially in the ending, it causes painful dissonance and resonance all over the place. There was excessive resonance on the piano elsewhere in the piece as well, which is less bothersome when it isn't so exposed, but it does cause some conflicting notes. I thought I heard some other conflicts in there, but I'll leave that to judges stronger than I in music theory. Sorry that this is a particularly unhelpful pair of reviews to get as the first two! Hopefully subsequent judges will weigh in more on one side or the other. But for my sake, cut down on the reverb and I think this does what it needs to do. I think more development in the second half would be very nice to have, but I don't think it's required. YES/CONDITIONAL (on reducing reverb)

This is one of Rebecca's best arrangements so far, and that's out of a massive library she's produced over the last few years! It doesn't sound a thing like a medley despite using four sources, and the orchestration is delicious. The timing is a smidge mechanical, and 3:37-3:50 is orchestrated weirdly. The bass choir that starts at 2:15 is definitely in the uncanny valley, and I have a hard time believing that the soprano who's been "singing" all along can hit that alto note at 2:21. This is largely nit-picking, though. As for those pops. I don't hear any at 2:06, and if there are ones at 1:49 and 3:56 they hit on the beat and you really have to be listening for them. The one at 1:39 is super quiet. That leaves just two, and while they're clearly there, they're also fairly quiet and I can forgive them. YES

It's certainly an interesting arrangement; despite very little variation on the theme, there's a lot of different instrumental takes. It's still a little on the conservative side, but the additional backing and the guitar noodling push it over the top in this regard. Production-wise, however, it's extremely quiet overall. And Rexy's completely right about the highs being too quiet in general. There are instruments that should be hitting that range--flutes in the orchestral sections, violins in the orchestral rock sections, and of course the lead guitar in the climax--but they seem filtered. Balance seems mostly okay to me; 1:31-1:42 is losing some details, notably the choir, due to being so busy, and the lead guitar is too quiet at 2:35-2:39 and 2:53-3:00, but those are brief. As for articulation, I generally cut orchestral rock some slack in that regard, since it's generally understood that the orchestras are nearly always synthetic in those, but the attack on the violins is slow for sure. This one's close for me. My biggest concern is that it's just too quiet. The conservative arrangement, the lack of highs, and the other minor issues would normally make this a borderline pass in my book, brought down to a YES/CONDITIONAL based on the volume, but this is a very busy arrangement here. You can't just boost the volume because you're already peaking at about 0dB, and a simple compressor will make it pump in the louder sections and probably drown out some of the parts. I think this is 99% of the way there but it's going to take a little bit more than a 5-minute fix to get it the rest of the way. NO (borderline, please resubmit)

For reference, your earlier rejection (9 years ago!) wasn't because it was too avant-garde (we accept lots of avant-garde remixes), it was because there wasn't enough identifiable use of the source material, and what was used wasn't transformative enough for what we look for. This time, I actually disagree with Rexy about source usage: the main synth harp backing refrain is a slight transformation and simplification of the xylophone part of the source, and it's more than enough to add up to over 50%. (Edit: to clarify, I'm talking about the harp that starts at 0:12 in the remix and the xylophone that starts at 0:17 in the video.) Structurally I think it's misleading to describe this as "slower introduction followed by an energetic finish". The entire first half is slow, and the entire second half is energetic. Cut the first half down so that it really is an intro (maybe end it at 1:16, and cut down some of the repetition before that) and I think this would work better. As it is, it sounds like two arrangements stapled together. Making the structural issue more severe is the fact that production between the two halves is completely different. In the first half, I only have one major concern, which is that the bass is huge and booming compared to the rest of the acoustic space. Also 0:52-0:58 sounds off-key. As for the second half, I largely agree with Rexy. The compression is the major issue; the whole thing is squashed to hell. It doesn't just pump, it sounds muffled. I wouldn't say there's "no" presence in the highs, but a hat and/or clap would have been welcome. There's a snare, but it's quiet and mushy. The timing on the lead doesn't bother me; I can hear that it's loose but I don't think it's problematic. Fortunately, most of your issues can be solved with changes to just one area: percussion. Add some high-end percussion parts, use snappier snare and kick samples, and vary the pattern. That will address three of Rexy's list of five crits right there. Then look at the compression, the bass in the first half, and the overall structure of the two different styles, and you'll be pretty much there. I think you can do it, and it's less work than it sounds. Best of luck! NO (resubmit)

I picked out a bit more source than Rexy did, although I usually hear three tones in the bright synth motif and not two. It's played by the harp between 0:08 and 0:14, by the vibraphone at 0:29-0:33 and 0:46-0:56, by the french horn in 1:14-1:18, then the mellow synth played at increased speed by the glockenspiel from 1:23-1:40 and the vibraphone from 1:40-2:04, and finally the bright motif played far too quietly by the bassoon through the end. I also suspect the strings in 1:18-1:28 are supposed to be referencing either the mellow synth or the bass; it's hard to tell, but even without that, to me it sounds like some part of the source is used nearly everywhere, although often it's notably transformed. It's quiet for sure, especially the ending, but that's an easy fix. You can straight up increase gain by about 5.4dB, although I also recommend compressing at least the bass on that one swell to let you squeeze a little more volume out of it than that. This is a very clever take on the original source, retaining and even augmenting its creepy character while completely transforming the medium. Works for me. YES/CONDITIONAL (on volume increase) Update 03/03/2020: New version sounds good to me. YES

Oof. There are some really good ideas here, and the accordion-playing is on point, but it's true that the drummer doesn't seem to have the same thing in mind as the rest of the performers. And yeah, it sounds like you ran out of ideas halfway through. It loops through the melody twice, and then there's no real ending. Production-wise, the violin... is it just me, or is it out of tune? It definitely sounds excessively filtered, and the volume of it is inconsistent. And the harp is both far too quiet and again overly-filtered; I didn't hear it at all on the first listen, and even on subsequent listens I didn't realize it was a harp until I noticed that Earth Kid was credited. There's a good foundation here, but it does indeed need more ideas represented, as well as some production work, especially to make that violin and harp shine. NO

I agree with the above, for the most part. I would suggest that, in general, conservative sections punctuated by original material are fine as far as our interpretation standards go. However, this is pushing it, partly because of how simple and minimal the source treatment is, and partially because, as Larry said, there's a lack of flow between the source material and your original writing. A big part of that is that the original writing is very avant-garde; it comes across as directionless, which can be pulled off but everything else has to be in place. Otherwise, ditto to the above. NO

Historical note: the whole situation Minnie alluded to has gotten even more complicated. I'm not sure if that changes her decision, but once this reaches a full YES or NO, we should check in with her just to make sure. As I said before, I love this arrangement, and it would be a shame to toss it, even though I fully sympathize with and respect Minnie's decision either way. Each section is a fairly conservative take on the original, so despite the plethora of sources, it easily checks out on that front. But it's beautifully orchestrated, with lush textures throughout, and judicious use of synth elements. Production is on point, with everything clearly audible despite the often-complex layers. The one exception is 6:42-7:08, which is excessively busy, and where the synth arp gets far too loud and the lead too quiet. It also does get a little shrill in 6:17-6:42. The realism of the orchestral instruments won't be fooling anyone. The brass in particular is quite fake and the strings, when they lead, have varying velocity but consistent timing, attack, and decay. 4:04-4:24 is particularly weak on this front, and 6:17-6:42 isn't great either. However, the problematic sections are short and I can forgive them. There's room for improvement for sure, but overall I think this is great, and well over our bar. Either way I'm definitely looking forward to more from Minnie. YES

Rexy has it right, I think. The mixing is all over the place here. The drums are wet, the rhythm guitar covers too much of the spectrum, the bass guitar and lead synths are quiet, and everything in general sounds muddy and distant. However, regarding those synth strings, I'd hold off on looking at those until everything else has been addressed. Because of the balance of everything else, they're simultaneously too quiet and too loud: too quiet compared to the rhythm guitar and drums, too loud compared to the lead guitar. I think in orchestral rock, they should sit just behind the lead guitar in terms of loudness, but right now there's just no room for them. I suggest dealing with those last. Also, the ending (3:13 on) is a little odd, since most of the arrangement was traditional rock with a bit of orchestral synth, and now you're adding new synth elements. 3:38 on especially introduces a new, unique instrument, as well as a different texture to the rhythm guitar. This is when you want to tie things up, not introduce new ideas. I think it would go nicely as a bookend, if you'd opened with the same stuff, but as it is it's a bit of a curveball. It's a fun, if straightforward, arrangement of a great source I'd never heard of. Please fix it up and send it back our way. NO (resubmit) Revision 9/4: Much better. The percussion sounds great, if a bit loud, and the bass is clearly audible. The rhythm guitar is still wet and mushy but it's less problematic. I don't know what's going on in 2:07-2:25, but it lacks clarity severely. When the synth pads are playing, the lead guitar is too quiet; it's muffled when it's playing by itself (e.g. 0:49-1:00) and swallowed by the harmony part when it joins (e.g. 1:00-1:12). The lead is also too quiet in 3:12-3:35. I'm still not thrilled with the ending's structure, but that's more of a subjective thing. It's almost there, but not quite, IMO. Still too many sections where the lead is muffled--basically, everywhere there's a synth presence, plus that breakdown. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, it's a very simple instrumentation compared to most of Rebecca's mixes, but I think that only adds to its strength. It's well-mixed, clean, and crisp, but still has a rich soundscape, which is hard to achieve with so few instruments (although I would suggest that the last section is a little bass-light). I was a little worried when the title mentioned a specific instrument, given that Rebecca sometimes struggles with humanization with exposed instruments, but this exceeded my fears. A great remix of a little-known soundtrack, and an excellent addition to the site. YES