MindWanderer

It's a weird, frenetic source, and adapting it into anything else that actually flows is certainly a challenge. This effort is a little hit-or-miss; 1:23-1:46 in particular seemed out-of-place. It works well more often than not, though. The kicks are a little loud and throbbing, especially in the quiet sections. They really punch you in the eardrums in 0:35-0:58. They sound like they're causing some ducking there, which is excessive and unnecessary in such a quiet section. The hats also cut through the mix too strongly. After many, many listens, I think I'm basically on board, except that those kicks and hats get more grating the more I listen to them. Tone those down and I think this is good to go. YES/CONDITIONAL (on quieter kicks and hats)

Clearly a huge improvement over the version we originally heard submitted for the album. Production is mostly clear, just a little mushy when the reverb gets up there. The leads are suitably emotive now. Overall it's a creative, engaging approach, and I'm very glad it got another pass. A worthy addition to the album and to our library. YES

Ditto on the sound design, it was definitely vanilla and thin. That's my biggest concern. The source connection seemed roughly reasonable; it does use the melody somewhat, and the source does have a distinct harmony that the remix uses extensively. I'm okay with the structure, just not the instrumentation. NO

Well, this is a lot of fun! Despite the collaboration, it's still just about everything I expect from a Jorito mix. It's a great arrangement, with a very creative approach, and really captures the intended feel. The vocals are a little flat and nasal but serviceable. It's also mixed oddly quietly--I see over 2dB of headroom; I had to turn my volume all the way up to hear it adequately, and even then it was a bit quiet. Otherwise, this is pretty darn good. YES/CONDITIONAL (on volume increase) Update 10/17/19: New render sounds great. Update 6/22/20: Larry makes a good point. I think maybe when I was listening to the revision I didn't pay close enough attention to how much easier it became to hear the issues with the vocals. They are frequently nasal and off-key. There's also a lot of enunciation that sounds more like speech than singing, e.g. hard R's and long A's. I know it's been a year since our initial votes, but I'm going to flip and say that a stronger vocal performance really is called for here. NO

I'm going to lean the other way, I'm afraid. I was listening to the source and the arrangement back and forth, and I frequently found myself not even noticing which one I was listening to. To be sure, it's slower, but the ambience and textures are so very similar. I also agree that it's underdeveloped; take out the slow-burn intro and the underwhelming ending and there's barely two minutes of fully fleshed-out content. I waffled on this a lot, but I'm coming down on this mostly for not being interpretive enough. Add in some exposition and/or change up the textures a bit and I think this is golden. NO (borderline, resubmit)

A nice, mellow, conservative take on the source. I'd say a little too conservative, with a lot of it being basically an ocarina cover with a tiny bit of flavor from bells and whatnot, but there are some extra sections thrown in, and a few more harmonies in the second half of the arrangement, that mix things up a little. The ending is pretty lackluster. My one significant concern is that the ocarina is mixed pretty high. It's shrill to the point of discomfort, and when it's doubled starting at 2:20, it's quite hard to listen to. I do have old man ears, though. I'm not quite as happy with this as I usually am with Tripp mixes, but I think this gets the job done. I might change my mind if others also take issue with that shrill production, though. YES (borderline)

It's definitely an improvement--my ears aren't in pain this time, for starters, and I'm not hearing anything that sounds like an unintentional error. I'll withhold comment on the structure and the static, since I made myself clear on those points before. However, balance is still an issue. There's a lot of conflict, made more severe by the high levels of reverb. The hats are taking up a lot of bandwidth; in the quiet middle section especially, they drown out a lot of the textures and are still a bit grating. There's still a lot going on in the highs and very little in the lows. The mids come and go, from nearly absent to too much (3:20-3:35 in particular). This still isn't quite there yet, IMO, but it's getting there. Improve the clarity in the highs and mids and this'll have my blessing. NO (resubmit)

It's an interesting idea, but it suffers from some serious mixing issues. There's a very loud white noise sweep over the entire thing that interferes with literally everything. The entire soundscape sounds dully and muddy as a result. It's such an issue that I'm finding it hard to evaluate anything else about this. The structure of the arrangement seems fine, but I have to reserve any opinions about the rest of the production until that sweep is cleared up so I can hear everything. NO (resubmit)

This is pretty but really, really conservative. It seems to consist of: The basic Fairy's Fountain harp motif Percussion A simple, repetitive counterpoint Some random sounds and SFX from Link To the Past. We're looking for ReMixes that are much more transformative than this; we've only passed a couple of mixes that layer additional sounds on top of the original source, and those had a whole lot else going on. This arrangement is also very static. After the counterpoint kicks in, everything is basically on autopilot. The SFX is about the only thing that isn't on a simple loop, and it's just sort of randomly scattered throughout. The soundscape, textures, and rhythm remain unaltered throughout the vast bulk of the piece. It's nice but it's not at all the sort of thing we look for. NO

This opens a little loud but has a really nice groove. However, it's all the same groove--it's very static over its 3-minute length. (Although the VBR encoding is weird--Clementine thinks it's 5:27 long.) The melody changes, and there are breakdowns, but, after the modulation in the intro, the textures remain the same throughout. I found it hard to maintain interest. As a background track, I think this is perfectly enjoyable. But as a standalone piece of music, it needs some more variety. NO

Unfortunately, you're right, it's not as high quality as your newer work. It's extremely quiet throughout, and quite conservative and static until almost the 3-minute mark. A lot of the instrumentation is mechanical, and the ensembles are a wall of mushy sound. I'm glad you sent it in anyway--you never know--but I don't think this one passes muster. NO

I like the idea behind this. There are a lot of high-energy Green Hill remixes out there, so it's nice to hear something more pastoral. I didn't realize that Irish-Americans have been integrating the banjo into their own folk music for nearly a century--it came across as more American old-time with Celtic influence to me, especially since the melodica sounds a lot like a harmonica. The performance quality is definitely solid, if a bit rigid. At first I actually thought some of it was sequenced and not performed live, your timing and velocity are so consistent. My one big concern is that this isn't very fully developed as an arrangement. It's very well "orchestrated" (if that's the word) for the parts you chose to use, with excellent instrumentation and accompaniment throughout. But the overall structure is basically a cover. It's very short, with extremely minimal introduction and ending, otherwise consisting of two loops of the source. We've historically accepted arrangements done much like this--structurally conservative but thoroughly reorchestrated--but they tend to be longer and with more parts. This is very well done for what it is, though. I'm going to think about this one some more, and see what other judges have to say. Update 7/8/19: While I wouldn't go so far as to call this a transcription--there are some differences, especially in the second half--the bulk of the accompaniment is lifted straight from the source. It's executed well but not enough is added or changed for our purposes. NO

I've been watching VOD's of the Kusogrande tournaments, which is a contest to see which competitor can get the furthest in a bad video game they've never seen before in an hour. And the games are really bad, but sometimes the music is really good, and none of the games are represented on here. I'm watching Golgo 13: The Mafat Conspiracy right now; other gems I recall offhand are The Flash, Time Lord, ALF, Amagon, and Flying Dragon: The Secret Scroll. I have my hands full just trying to get one short album completed, but maybe someone else would like to run with this idea. It's a semiregular event, so I'm sure Brossentia (the organizer) would love an official partnership.

I certainly wouldn't call this "ambient!" For the most part, it's much more exciting and engaging than the source material. It takes its time but it's never passive background noise. However, regarding the source material, this arrangement doesn't make a whole lot of use of it. It uses the chord progressions, but that's about it except for 2:08-3:12 and 4:16-5:20 (which sounds like almost a repeat, with just an extra arp layer differentiating it). That's only 38% of the arrangement. The synths are an interesting choice. Some of them, notably the main pad and bass, are quite gritty, and when layered, the mix sounds low-fi. 2:24-3:12 is the most extreme example of this; that section also sounds muffled, with the pad and bass too loud in comparison to the lead. It also clips by almost 1dB, and it's causing a lot of distortion and pumping. I'm sorry, but while I was mostly into this, I just can't make enough of a source connection. The production also really needs to be cleaned up--at the very least, there's just no reason to clip like that. I enjoyed the creative expansion of the source and the groove you built up, but I can't ignore those issues. NO

Yeah, I'm afraid that while the beginning and ending are clearly derived from Kokiri Forest, 1:10-2:33 definitely is not (and I personally wouldn't count it until 3:08, although 3:28-3:38 is close enough for me). The original content in the middle is very high-quality and goes with the rest of the arrangement very well, but there is indeed a lot of it. That said... The 50% source we look for is a guideline, not a hard rule. Being 11 seconds short (or even 16 seconds, which is what I'd count) out of a 4:18 arrangement doesn't have to be a dealbreaker. IMHO, the source material is still what I'd call "dominant". The interlude, while somewhat lengthy, doesn't obscure the fact that this is a Kokiri Forest arrangement. I'd rather not miss the forest for the trees here (nyuk nyuk). This is fine by me. YES

It's a solid orchestration, deep and full. Most of the instruments are pretty good quality (the reeds in particular are lovely), though the brass edges into the uncanny valley a bit, notably the swells in 2:07-3:00. My one substantial gripe is that it's fairly short and ends abruptly and anticlimactically. As a result, it strongly feels incomplete. However, what's there is very good and substantial, easily enough for a YES

I'm afraid I agree with the above 100%. The sax parts are really good, but everything else, including the backing during the sax parts, is way too conservative, too repetitive, and too static. NO

There's a lot of this that is fun--as Sir_NutS said, the structure is solid, your risers get the job done, and you make good use of empty space--but I agree that there are a number of things holding it back. NutS has given you a great rundown on the EDM aspects of it in particular, so take careful note of all that. The soundscape in general is overly simplistic; good EDM not only has more dynamic synths, but there are more layers that hit more of the sound spectrum. Your bass is too quiet most of the time and entirely absent half the time. Also, those exposed arps in the intro, starting at 0:16 in particular, are painfully shrill. The ending is a bit anticlimactic, too; the lack of any sort of filter or modulation there really stands out. It's actually a really good start. The bones are there, they just need some more flesh on them. Keep at it! NO (resubmit)

I've been mulling over this one for some time. The balance and the dissonance were my main hangups with it, and I have to agree that the latter is a subjective complaint, not an objective one. It's unique and well-executed, and we should post it. YES

I have very little to add to Larry's vote. The bland synth instrumentation, repetitive backing, and sour notes are all problematic. There are some fun original riffs but every one of them is spoiled by clashing notes. There's a lot of creativity here but the execution needs to back it up. NO

Yeah, it's a decent background track but it's basically on autopilot. I was expecting it to build to something, but then it just ends. The soundscape makes it sound more repetitive than it really is. Larry's crits are dead-on. NO

I've been mulling over this one for a while. A lot of the arrangement is on the conservative side, but what's really bugging me is the production. First, the soundscape is pretty thin. There are tubas and kettle drums but they lack low end. There's not much in the high end either, just snares and the occasional triangle, bell, or flute. Second, the performances are mechanical. Same timing, same attack, for the most part. There's some variation but it's minor. The fast string runs are the strongest example Third, you're doing a weird thing with compression. A section sounded both quiet and pumping, which is unusual, so I took a look at the waveform. You see how that section from 1:34-2:07 has a completely flat top? You've got a hard limiter there, at about -3.8 dB. The result is that the individual sounds are muffled and are causing each other to duck unnecessarily. There's pumping to a degree elsewhere in the arrangement; this is just a severe example that leapt out at me. I enjoyed many of the original transitions, and there are a lot of great ideas. Work on the production, maybe take this to the Workshop forum and get some advice, and I'd love to hear a revision of this. NO (resubmit)

Very nice doom metal, indeed. It doesn't try to do as much as your Cat Lady arrangement, and as a result it's cleaner and more coherent. You continue to improve, and this is well worth a post. YES

This is a nice little folk number. It's sloppy but that's suitable for the style. The structure is repetitive, but the lyrics aren't, and that makes all the difference in a piece like this. Other than a painful half-rhyme near the end, I don't have any major concerns; this is simple but effective. YES

It's impressive how slowing it down makes room for the different instruments to really shine. A beautiful but faithful reinterpretation. I also don't really agree with the choice of the electric guitar, but in my case it's more because it devours too much of the frequency spectrum and smothers the delicate interplay between the flute and guitar. But as with Larry, it's more a subjective preference. YES