MindWanderer

Although I can see the brickwalled waveform, I'm having a hard time hearing most of the problems Brad called out. It's crunchy, for sure, but it sounds to me like it's mostly the synths themselves that are crunchy. Most notably this is the overdriven "guitar," which is a synth I've heard many times before, and it sounds like that no matter what space it's in. Same with the kicks, the pads in 1:13-1:29, and a few other synths. A lot of PC game OSTs from the '80s and '90s sound like this, as do a few Genesis games. So I don't think this is a dealbreaker per se. I do think the mix would sound better if it were cleaner. But I'm on the fence about whether the changes are needed. It's actually the bridge at 1:13-1:29 that's pushing me over the edge. The distortion doesn't sound intentional there, and that calls the whole piece into question. I don't have a problem with the ending at all. It sounds intentional in a way that fade-outs don't. The ending sounds like a proper climax to me, and not at all like you ran out of ideas. I think this is a lot closer than proph gave you credit for. But in the end I agree that it sounds more "dated" than "vintage" and would benefit from cleaner synths and production. NO (borderline, resubmit)

Brad's right on all counts, of course. This just isn't the type of creation we're looking for. I have nothing to add. NO

Really clever idea, which you realized expertly. I had a hard time making out the vocals every time they were sung alongside the overdriven guitar, which is usually after 0:57. I couldn't make out the lyrics at all after that point. It suffers from medley-itis a little bit. The Moon "theme," at a minute and a half long, is very long for a non-musical interlude. After that, it basically transitions into an entirely separate song; it doesn't have any connective tissue with the Deathcard theme that I can identify, other than clearly being done by the same artist. If this were an album, I'd be 100% confident this was a different track. I love everything else about this. The medley-ish-ness of it is my one big hangup. Our standards say, "Medleys must sound like a single song, not multiple songs pasted together." This absolutely sounds like two songs pasted together, if not three. I can buy The Moon as an overly-lengthy transition, but the Leshy part doesn't sound like it's part of the same song as the Deathcard part, at all. That makes it a standards violation. I would pass this in a heartbeat if it were submitted as two different songs. Unfortunately, as-is, I feel like I have to vote NO (please, please, resubmit!)

How did this not place well? I'm immediately checking out that month's DoD results, because it must have been one hell of a competition if this placed poorly. The musicianship is great, the construction and aping of Pink Floyd (without containing overt direct references) is well-conceived, the production is mostly top-notch (though the overdriven guitar makes it gets crunchy and distorted in the climax, 4:08-5:28, and there's an odd spike in volume around 5:00). It's hard to believe you're as inexperienced as you claim. I do think that the vinyl crackle SFX is a little over the top, especially going on for as long as it does. And the voice acting is not the best, but when you're working with FFVIII's cringe-worthy dialogue, there's only so much you can do. You're well-justified in being proud of this one. YES

I'm immediately struck by how much of a better soundscape this is than the previous version, as far as I remember it. Reverb on the pads and chimes is a little over the top, but the percussion is still pretty dry. The snares are a little dry, but the toms are very, very dry and sound out of place. The saw lead that starts at 1:09 is also much drier than the rest of the soundscape. The bass is a hair dry, but it didn't bother me until repetition started becoming a problem. Speaking of which, it's still pretty repetitive. Everything up to 1:10 takes strictly an additive approach, each couple of loops adding an instrument or a few notes. The percussion loop is "complete" at 0:40 and repeats until 2:15. The main hook, which first plays at 0:34, plays an awfully large number of times total, and I personally got very tired of it. at 3:39 it returns to the same concept as the beginning, which is fine conceptually as a bookend, except it doesn't really expand on the theme and goes on for another full minute. There's no climax or anything, it just winds down the same way it built up. Overall, kudos on the substantial improvement, but the same core issues remain: Reverb on the instruments is inconsistent, making them sound like they're not in the same space, with the chimes and pads at opposite extremes; and the overall arrangement is too repetitive, with insufficient variation to retain the listener's interest. I encourage you to keep working at it, though, as this was a massive leap forward. NO

Very pretty. Does a good job of being lo-fi chill without being repetitive. Great sound design and production. No complaints from me! YES

I try to be open-minded about Hudak pieces, but I was reminded in another vote that we need to be careful to judge all submissions on their own merits, not taking the artist under consideration. In that light, the mono-left section is a dealbreaker, but it's not the only thing that concerns me here. If you're going to use a retro FM synth palette, you need to be firing on all cylinders to create something either novel or period-appropriate, and I feel like this falls short. It's promising up through 0:41, but then it starts to ramble, with leads and harmonies that don't match up, and leads that are sometimes buried. 2:05 and onward has this problem as well, with leads and accompaniment that often don't play well together. The breakdown at 1:09-1:30 doesn't work for me, either. It's lengthy, minimal, bland, and doesn't seem to serve a structural purpose. There are a lot of really cool ideas here, as I expect from Michael. The general idea, of an energetic synthwave take on these sources, is sound. When everything is firing on all its '80s-inspired cylinders, it sounds great. When it gets noodly or experimental, it sounds less great. I don't think the creative structure was an experiment that worked well; even if that mono section were shifted to center, I think Brad's and Larry's criticisms about energy and pacing were dead on, and I'm not sure if the dissonance I'm hearing is a result of "detuning" or just mismatched part-writing. I'd want both of those matters to be addressed if we see a revision of this back on the panel. NO

I'm afraid I have to agree with proph. This is a very long burn: it's nearly 2 minutes of intro, 3 minutes of a static loop, and a minute of wind down. The synths are bland and quiet, and the overall sound is flat. I don't really have anything to add that Brad didn't already say, so just read his critique and take it to heart. NO

Opening is really great. The tubular bells and Irish whistle create a great atmosphere with minimal layers. Some mechanical violins at 1:17, but their appearance is brief. Piano joins in to carry the melody; it's a little mechanical but not that noticeable. But then the strings come in full-force: The violins have a length section starting at 1:01, and bass at 1:13, and my immersion is cracked like an egg. By 1:39 the strings are so prevalent and so mechanical that I'm really struggling with it. Then the violins take the lead at 2:02, and man, it's just not working for me. Identical swells every time, no changes in attack or velocity at all. Everything else here sounds so good that it's a real shame, and I'm really surprised that only one vote above even mentions it, and that one brushes it off. There were several moments with notes that sounded clashing, like 2:23, but they don't leap out at me most of the time, I'm honestly pretty close to the fence on this one just because of how egregious that lead violin is. We've rejected remixes in the past for realism that was better than this. I'm voting in favor, because the strengths of literally every other part of this are so strong, but I'm honestly shocked at how many remixers and judges signed off on those strings. YES

It's not often we hear a demake from orchestral to electronica! Started off with some surprisingly retro sounds, but I quickly got into it. There's definitely a "rusty but getting back into it" vibe here: a classic toolkit but used expertly and to modern standards. Sounds great, no complaints. YES

What a gorgeous interpretation. It's very difficult to make a remix using the same instrument and pacing of the original and have it come out so differently, so great job there. Lovely performance. I never would have heard that static on my own, and I can barely hear it even when I'm listening for it. I would vote against messing with it. Fantastic work. YES

Much better mixing this time around. Leads are in the front, bass is in the back. The trombone is still a weird choice, but it's mixed in a way that fits in more smoothly than before. The fake-out ending at 2:39 is a bizarre choice—I don't know why you'd do a hard fade-out in the middle like that, and it just sounds like an error, somehow. Otherwise, I can't find any fault here. It's a very pretty arrangement that suits the source material well. Nice job. YES

Really clever idea. I hated this part of Chrono Cross, so I don't even remember this music despite having played through multiple times, but this is a neat approach to it. The soundscape is pretty cluttered, as proph said. There's some notable pumping with the kicks, and there's a distinct garage band-esque muddiness. Even when it's just bass+piano+drums, everything sounds mushy. I almost didn't notice there was a bass at all. The panning at 3:22 didn't bother me, but listen to what happens with the piano in that section: when the synth lead or electric guitar play, the piano ducks way down to make room for them. That synth lead in particular is loud, piercing, and shoves everything else into the background hard. So does the right-hand piano, to a lesser extent. I'm borderline on this one, too. The arrangement is original and entertaining. But the production, for me, falls just a little short. Humanizing and rebalancing all the instruments will do wonders for making this sound clean, and help the listener enjoy the part-writing that much more. NO (borderline, resubmit)

I gave the first version of this a CONDITIONAL, so I'm optimistic about this one. It's still not perfect. The bass tuning sounds better, I think, but it suffers from thin and vanilla sound design; it sounds like an ancient FM MIDI among all these ethereal instruments. The piano in 1:06-1:49 is both too quiet and has too much of its timbre flattened out because that section is mid-heavy, and it's a shame because the writing there is great but not sitting in the foreground like it should be. The music box sounds in the end are super, absurdly quiet for some reason; they're not really necessary, but it's weird that they be there at all when they're nearly inaudble. Like a lot of VQ's stuff, there's some really creative, intricate, enjoyable writing that's let down by weaker production and sound design. But while there's stuff that could definitely stand to be improved, I don't think any of it is dealbreaking. YES

I love DarkeSword's competitions because of mixes exactly like this. Compression of Time? A meh track on a stellar OST, never gave it any thought. Using it in a supporting role for a Red Wings remix? Works perfectly. Fantastic job here of mixing the two sources together. I could pick some nits. Nearly every "lead" instrument is muted or flattened and lacks the oomph expected of that role. There isn't a real meaty lead except for a few moments, like the opening violin and 2:23's trumpet. As a result, the track doesn't seem to have any "hooks" or have anything catchy about it. Even the vocals have a soft quality to them, and don't sing a melody, despite occupying the space normally filled by a lead. This isn't objectively wrong, but it does make this hard for me to really sink my teeth into. But as I said, that's more a matter of personal preference, and it's the only criticism I can come up with. For what this tries to do, it's a triumph. YES

I have to say, I'm struggling with this one. The main hook is clearly those 2 measures from Shinobi, which repeat over and over: 8 times from 0:14-0:58, another 8 from 1:10-1:54, 4 more from 2:06-2:28 (which are finally varied up a bit), and finally 4 more with a key change at 3:25-3:48. 24 times altogether, and I'd had enough by the end of the first set of 8. Basslines can afford to be this repetitive; main melodic hooks cannot. Speaking of bass, there isn't really any here. There's a sporadic kick, and that's about it until 0:59. The highs have very little as well: There's a really quiet flute, which only occasionally gets loud and high enough to fill that role. It's not until 2:11 that we get a synth that emphatically sits in that space. It's a very thin soundscape all around, with usually only about 3 instruments + drums playing at any given time, and the simplicity of most of the synths makes it feel even thinner. There are plenty of lengthy subtractive sections that have even less. 2:50-3:01 has some crackling sounds that sound like artifacts. And I agree with proph about 3:26+ having way too much fuzz tied to the "bass" synth (which is awfully high-pitched for a bass, but it's trying), which not only sounds like cluttering white noise, but sounds off-key. 3:48+ all sounds very off-key. Even though there are a lot of interesting, fun riffs that dance around the core themes, I personally found the overall effect to be repetitive, sparse, and unpolished. I hate to be discouraging, because there are a lot of cool ideas here, but I think the execution falls short. NO

Real classic FM bass to start off with. Still very basic FM midi stuff, surprisingly so, until the guitar kicks in over a minute in. Even though there's generally something in low-mid-high unless it's a subtractive section, the soundscape feels a little light to me. The arrangement is certainly fun, though I find some of the transitions a little abrupt, especially 2:36. It kind of comes out of nowhere, plus it's a little weird to have this elaborate solo on synthesizer when you have a guitarist. The ending is a little abrupt, too. The sound design doesn't wow me, but I'm not seeing anything here that's a dealbreaker. It's fun and does the job. YES

While breakdowns are always nice to have, I don't think I needed it. The source is distilled to mostly the melody, but that melody is prevalent in the remix. It's a very cool and original take, and I think the arrangement portion works well. I do see where Chimpazilla is coming from, though. The snares and hats are clear to me, but the kicks are a little quiet. I don't think the leads (either the guitar or the sax) are too loud at all; the guitar is muffling the flutes a bit (to the point where it's a bit hard to tell what they are, but not what notes they're playing), but otherwise everything is coming through clearly. If anything, I think the bass is the light end of the soundscape, but not so much that I think it's a problem. If this were to get sent back, the only thing I'd ask for is some separation between the guitar and flute, but even just stereo separation might be enough. Strong work. Creative, catchy, and makes something great out of very little. Let's get this posted. YES

I see exactly how you were inspired to make this. I could easily imagine the OoT theme interleaved within See You At the Top exactly the way you did it. I came to the same conclusion as proph within the first 30 seconds. The Short Hike saw is loud and thick and overpowers the entire soundscape, and the kick causes the whole thing to pump. As a secondary concern, this is quite short. Other than the obvious inspiration of interleaving the two sources together, it doesn't really do much. It feels more like a proof-of-concept than a full song. See You At the Top is a long, complex tune, and you only made use of the intro. That's not to say we have any rule against using only part of a source, but it's unusual to take a source that has this much to it and use it to make something simple and just over 2 minutes long. You have a lot more to draw on here to flesh your arrangement out, and I think you could make a more interesting, engaging remix if you did that. But the important factor is the lack of clarity and balance. Take a look at that first and foremost. NO

Very interesting. I was pretty worried when I saw the source, since these minimalist BotW/TotK tracks are really hard to do anything with, but I think you pulled it off. It might be hard for a casual listener to identify if they haven't played TotK recently, but the connecting material is all there, and it's not hard to put together. The arrangement itself is also pretty minimal, but it's filled with fun, energetic beats. Sounds great for what it is. There's still that feeling of emptiness, but with urgency. Nice work. YES

Really fun arrangement, and equally fun lyrics. I'm not into growls and can't understand them (is pronouncing short E like long I a thing? Never heard it before. Lots of weird vowels), but I like everything else about the composition. Production might have been one of the things DoD voters dinged you for, though. The instruments are inconsistently produced, with most of them sounding like they were recorded in pristine studio sound booths, but the drums sound more open-air. And of course the overdriven guitars being full-panned is a tell. EQ is light in the highs; the cymbals sound filtered, and there's not much else in that range. The female vocals seem quiet at 0:36 and 3:04 because they conflict with the saw synth there. Definitely room for improvements; most notably I'd prefer a mix that sounds a little less canned, a little more organic. But overall this does a lot more right than wrong. YES

Retro sound palette, but it fills the soundscape. I could have stood for a more sophisticated lead especially, but it does the job. Really fun approach to this strangely iconic track. Unfortunately, I think proph undersold the repetition problem. It's nearly wholesale copy-pasta from 2:15-3:25, 70 seconds of a 228 second mix, over 30%. I think I pick up on some tiny differences between the first and second loops—an extra harmonic layer in the last section, maybe?—but they're so small I'm not sure I'm not imagining it. And that's just too much. I'd love to hear this revisited with a more different second half. More modern sound design wouldn't go amiss either, but that's not the dealbreaking issue for me. NO (resubmit)

Love me some Lufia 2. One of the few OSTs out there where I'm legitimately happy to a remix of literally any track on there. And it's a huge OST. Really fun idea. I definitely grok that trauma of resetting the puzzle over and over again. Although not sure about the "pro gamer move" reference. This is a long track, but varied to an impressive extent; no danger of this wearing out its welcome. I agree with proph that both the individual synths and the track as a whole are missing some soundscape. Bass presence is ridiculously weak, like cheap audio cassette player quality. Those poor kicks are trying to hard to break through, when they're there at all, and there often isn't an instrument at all that I would label "bass." And the sound design is very late '90s/early-2000s; synths these days generally have more complex timbre. I'm extremely ambivalent about this. On one hand, the production is not at the level we normally look for. I can't remember the last time I've even considered YESing a track with this little low end. But the arrangement is so much fun and filled with so much obvious passion. I'm 100% with proph that in a perfect world, we'd get a version of this that was EQed properly and had more sophisticated sound design. Such a track would be one of my favorites on the whole site. But if it's a question of having this version on the site or not, I'm still going to lean on the side of YES (borderline)

Death on the Snowfield is a great comparison. Superficially similar to the original, but with changed pacing and instrumentation that alter the entire mood. Sometimes less is more. A lead, an arp, and some tasteful pads and sfx are plenty to convey a mood and transform a theme. It's a little short, but I don't know how you'd lengthen it without it wearing out its welcome. This absolutely does everything it needs to. YES

Well, here's another genre I had to research in order to evaluate a submission fairly. Although I learned that rāga is more of a framework than a genre, so there's a lot of wiggle room there. But I still tried to approach my listening from the perspective of Indian classical music, which is can be quite minimalist, even moreso than this. From that perspective, this does everything it needs to do, in spades. It's a clever and complete genre transformation, well-realized. (I'm not as surprised as Emu by the direction—I'm sure I've heard Koopa's Road on sitar before, but I can't place it.) Nice original writing that fits right in, and fun riffs on the theme that keep it fresh despite the repetitive structure. Great job. YES