MindWanderer

Ditto on the strange intro (made worse by the fact that the beginning is very slightly cut off) and the strange timing later on. And that oddly-toned arp as well. I also felt like it was a little on the static side. 0:37-1:21 and 2:04-2:45 are very same-y, not just to each other, but I felt like each of those sections dragged a bit. The differences between 1:22-1:44 and 2:49-3:11 are really subtle, too--I hear a sort of siren effect, and that's it. There are some ideas that work, but the arrangement does indeed need a fair bit of tweaking. In addition to the leads and arps, please take a look at 2:04-3:11 to see if you can spice things up and keep the listener engaged more. NO

I'm torn between which of the two versions I like better, actually. The second is indeed significantly more cluttered, but on the other hand, some of the quieter backing elements are much easier to pick up on, and there's a lot of great stuff going on here. I think I'd personally prefer somewhere between the two versions, but I'd pass either one of them anyway. I'm a sucker for interwoven sources regardless, and this is excellently done. The synths did get a little vanilla in places, but those were also the places that were the most complex otherwise--complicating the synths may have been a bit too much. I particularly loved the cameo appearance of the bass line of the classic Final Fantasy battle music at 2:26. Great work! YES

Even if the judges didn't explicitly recommend a resub, you can always do so if you think you can address the issues they had. Not all judges even say "resub," and it's not a formal term. I personally use it when I think the remix is off to a good start and I'm reasonably sure my concerns could be addressed given the amount of skill or experience the remixer seems to have, but that's just me. We have posted remixes that started off as form-letter rejections, much less NO's, so never take anything the judges say to mean that the remix has no hope of passing ever and you should just give up.

I was also part of those two evaluations, and unlike Gario, I had reservations then, and I still have them now. Loud is fine, but the main harmony synth (0:40-1:03 and 1:37-2:02) is quite buried, and the melodic synth introduced at 2:42 steps all over the guitar's spectrum. Also, the synth still jumps up in volume at 3:23 for some reason. Basically, I have the same criticisms that Gario did, I just think they're more severe than he does. All the sections that involve either of the synths I mentioned are overly crowded and need to be separated out. There's plenty enough going on that you can give each of the instruments a little more headroom and still hit "metal loud" as intended. NO (resubmit)

Can't argue with anything Gario said. Even when I have my volume set to where the acoustic sections are far too quiet, those upper-mids in the overdriven sections are indeed painful to the ears. It's also clipping, especially but not only during the crashes. I'll also add that the relentless, even beat of the drums from 3:52-4:30 far overstays its welcome. But as Gario says, there's a cool concept and a great performance lying under here. It mostly just needs a heavy hand at the production to let it shine. NO

The first thing that strikes me is that there seems to be a low pass filter applied to the whole thing. The highs are substantially muted and need to be brightened up a bit. The kettle drum section (2:00-2:38) in particular seems muffled. Probably because of that lack of highs, there were some areas with EQ conflict in the mids and mid-lows. 1:45-1:58 is perhaps the clearest example, with several instruments stepping all over each other, but it's an issue throughout, especially with the piano, and again with that kettle drum. I didn't have a problem with source usage. The source itself plays fast and loose with what's melody and what's accompaniment, and given that, the remix is just fine IMO. I didn't have a problem with the structure, either; I see what Deia meant about the second half lacking impact, but that's a common structure for new age. Her comments about humanizing the piano and flute are well-made, though. I'd add the harp to that list as well, though I thought the sitar was acceptable. I think this is close, it mostly just needs another EQ pass to clean and brighten, and a fresh stab at humanization. NO (resubmit)

Fun fact about Dragon Warrior: Rescuing the princess is technically optional and can be done at any time. You "need" to rescue her to learn where to find an item that lets you reach the final dungeon, but if you already know where it is (from a previous playthrough or a guide), you can skip her. Or you can rescue her and never deliver her back home! So here's a clip of someone doing just that: taking the princess into the final battle and returning home with her in your arms. Someone on Twitter mentioned Little Nemo, the Dream Master, but you actually rescue the king in that one, not the princess. You do return home, though:

What's killing this for me is those transitions. This is filled with transitions that are extremely abrupt. The three different sources aren't treated the same way, with completely different harmony and percussion, and it's jarring and obvious almost every time you switch between them. Even transitions within the same source often lack flow the same way. 1:05, 1:20, 1:35, 1:42, 2:17, 2:32, 2:39, 2:54, 3:09, and 3:46 all felt this way to me. Production-wise, it definitely is loud, but it's not overcompressed that I can hear. Some sections do get a little crowded--I'm losing the bass in 1:44-1:59, 2:25-2:32 gets muddy with the strings, there's something I'm losing at 3:02 I can barely make out, but they're not egregious. I also have trouble with the cymbals, which are buried more often than not, but again it doesn't break the mix. I can see this passing, since I'm more of a curmudgeon about abrupt transitions than most of the other judges, but they're a no-sale for me. NO

I'm still not sure how much I'll be there, but I live in the area so I'll be potentially up for meetups. Won't be much help, though.

Can't argue much with any of the above. I do think the degree of orchestration makes this sufficiently interpretive for our standards, but it is a little repetitive, the ending is lackluster, and that chorus is really problematic, with the slow attack making it sound like it's off key (since the notes don't line up). The strings aren't as big of an issue, IMO, but they do sound like they came from a Playstation game. There is a lot to love here, though. I was really into it up until 0:44, and the woodwind sections were fantastic. I'd really like to see this back with a more expansive arrangement and with the choir samples fixed up or replaced. NO (resubmit)

Deia has this dead-on, I think. Those low-fi sounds are really questionable, IMHO. 1:45-3:06 is especially problematic because the "noise" accompanying some of the synths is creating conflict, especially with the hats, and the effect is sort of a wash of white noise. That section is also pretty long and static; I was ready for it to be over at 2:39, and the additions to it after that point were quite subtle. It could really use a solo or something thrown in there to break up the simple melodic hook. Maybe something from a different source, or some original writing. Sorry, but right now I think both the sounds and the lack of development are holding this back. NO

I was borderline on this remix before, and you've given it a big fat kick in the pants here. The flute synth at 4:02 could stand to pop out just a hair more, IMO, but I still got the goosebumps that come when the B part of a source finally kicks into place. And I still think 0:00-0:17 is too quiet compared to the rest of the mix. Those are nitpicks, though, nowhere near enough to justify keeping this off the front page, so let's put it there. YES

Agreed--the arrangement is really nice, good job keeping it orchestral but approaching it in a very different way. But the production has a number of issues. The clipping DA mentioned is a dealbreaker for me as well, and not just in the places she mentioned, but several others as well. 1:51-2:11 and 2:59-3:21 were also problematic sections to me, being both cluttered and piercingly loud. I like the orchestration and the arrangement, so I hope you can give the production some more loving and send it back out way. NO (resubmit)

Will the world finally learn what happens when anthropomorphic non-bear animals drink Gummi Berry juice?

And a new publisher has already been announced, with releases starting next year. It's IDW, which specializes in cartoon and movie adaptations.

Excellent choice, all yours! Now that I've seen a few drafts, it's worth throwing out a reminder to everyone who hasn't sent anything in get: please reference the sample WWE theme songs for style and structure! In particular, the intros and build-ups are always short when there's any at all. Most are just 10 seconds max before getting into the meat of it, but there's also a common format of 10 seconds intro, 20 seconds build-up. 30 seconds before the main melody starts is definitely the outside limit.

Yeah, you'd never guess the composing artist had any trouble with this one. Really solid arrangement, and of course the performance is excellent. I do have some crits. I could do without the hard-panned rhythm guitar from 0:12-0:19. The lead synth created conflict more often than not, and 1:39-2:08, with that synth plus the lead guitar, was more than just a little muddy. The piano and orchestral elements were buried substantially almost everywhere they appeared, to the point of being nearly inaudible in most cases. While I love orchestral elements in rock personally, they were so far back that they essentially became mud and white noise in all but the quietest sections--even the acoustic sections squashed them quite a bit. None of that is enough to keep us from posting this, though, IMO. I wouldn't mind if this got sent back to get cleaned up a little, and I would love to hear an improved version of this, but I think it's more than good enough as it stands. YES

Nice job taking the judges' crits to heart! It's a much warmer, fuller soundscape than the first iteration, and a vast improvement in that regard. That said, there's definitely still room for improvement. The lead guitar is very wet, and not only is it inconsistent with the sounds of the other instruments, it's causing muddiness in the busier sections. It's also still more stale than I'd like it to be. That long end section (2:17-3:26) does have a few new elements in it, but the bulk of it is still the same drum loop, the same bass, the same lead tone and style. It also exactly echoes the style of 0:38-1:42, which makes for over two minutes of basically the same set of sounds in a four-minute arrangement. It's fatiguing to say the least. I wouldn't be unhappy if this passed, and I think there's a good case to be made for it. But I feel like it's arranged too statically overall right now. The reverb on the lead could stand to be turned down, but it's the lack of dynamic content that's really bringing it down for me. NO (borderline, resubmit)

I'm not sold on the dirty, garage-band style here. Several of the instruments come with background static, and in the busier sections it builds up to quite a bit. The low-fi synths add to the dirty quality of it. I know it's a deliberate stylistic approach, but I find it unpleasant, and it makes it harder to listen to the complex layers that are going on. The cymbals in particular seem to come with an unnecessary amount of grit. It also feels fairly repetitive. The direct repetition is very slight, but the limited variety of synths make even variations sound similar to each other. I keep thinking I've heard what I'm hearing before, even though I can't go back and find it exactly. The fade-out ending also exacerbates the feeling, since it's a loop too. The lack of presence in the bass synths also meant that variations in the bass line didn't help me hear things as different. Sorry, but while there's a lot of fun stuff in the backbone of this arrangement, I think it's being significantly held back by the synth choices. I think swapping the sounds out would help with a lot of my concerns all at once, though. NO

The July check-in has passed! We have two great remixes on the judges' panel at the moment, three more that are shaping up very nicely, and three more in an early stage. Thanks to everyone for all the work you've put in so far, this is showing a heck of a lot of promise so far! Next check-in will be a mandatory one. Those of you with early WIPs, I need to see some more progress from you, and those of you with nothing in yet, I need to see at least a proof-of-concept. I will be dropping claims at those levels if I don't hear from you by the next check-in. Anyone with at least a substantial WIP, please keep working on them, and I'd like to see updates, but basically you're all in good positions right now. I'll try to get judges' feedback on the submitted remixes before then as well. The check-in date is: Saturday, September 30 Thanks again for everyone's help!

Reminder: Splatoon 2 Splatfest premier/demo is tomorrow. The Americas region game is 3pm Pacific / 6pm Eastern until 7pm Pacific / 10pm Eastern, and Europe is 5pm UK / 6pm CEST until 9pm UK / 10pm CEST. I'll be on for just the first couple of hours on Team Cake. Not sure if the ability to play with friends is enabled for the demo, but if anyone wants to try, my Friend Code is 5961-6763-3987. They actually patched the demo download, so if you downloaded it before a couple of days ago, you'll need to update it before the event.

This is an excellent example of a static arrangement. The rhythm guitar and percussion hold the same simple pattern almost throughout the whole piece, and there are virtually no dynamics in terms of volume or energy. It's even directly repetitive--at 1:35 it goes back to the beginning and repeats almost verbatim (I hear some very quiet additions to the background noises, but they're super subtle). The source is pretty simple, repetitive and dreamy, but it's much less repetitive than this. The production is also problematic: it's very quiet overall but still has a problem with clipping and pumping. Looking at the waveform, I'm not sure any compression or limiting was done at all, so please look into that next time. NO

Nice xylophone work, and an interesting and effective choice to use that as the anchor of the remix instead of the melody. I was a little iffy on it at first, but ultimately I think it's justifiable as source usage. However, the remix is on the long side for having such a simple hook. There are lengthy sections where there isn't much else going on (1:48-2:30, for instance). More importantly, the balance here needs a fair bit of work. The organ is quite loud and a little shrill (especially in 3:50-4:11), and in 0:43-1:14 it totally overpowers the steel drum lead. I'm also not sold on 2:30-2:51, where the two organ lines conflict with each other a little. 3:29-3:46 also has a lot of conflict, and the timing of the steel drums there is just bizarre and to me doesn't sound like the notes are right. I also found the percussion claps to be a bit piercing and dominating. One plus I haven't mentioned yet is the ending (3:50-4:36). Other than the shrillness of the organ, I really loved the original riffing there, especially the woodwinds. I'd definitely like to see a version of this get posted that has that intact. I can live with the long nonmelodic sections, there's plenty of content to make up for it. But I can't listen to that organ for long, EQ'ed the way it currently is, and the levels could use a few other tweaks as well. NO (resubmit)

It's less repetitive than the source, with some very nice solos added in that don't detract at all from being faithful to it. I can hardly imagine this adaptation being done better, except that synth Deia correctly pointed out (starting at 3:06). Otherwise, this gets my very enthusiastic thumbs up. YES

Well, last time I mentioned that there might be issues I wasn't noticing because of the balance/EQ issues, and Larry has certainly picked up on a big one. The changes meant to hold the listener's interest are fairly small. They're definitely there--each of the breaks at 0:16, 0:48, 1:28, 2:00, 2:17, 2:32, 2:48, 3:12, and 3:28 are clearly noticeable, and the style never quite retreads itself--but those changes are primarily subtle ones to percussion. Sometimes one or both guitars drop out, but when they're there, they're playing in the same style and with the same energy level. 1:28 stood out because of the key change, which is the most exciting thing the guitars do. At least as importantly, the organ almost never lets up and does almost the same thing except for 2:48-3:28, and that makes a huge difference since it's the primary textural element. I actually took some time to research classic 60's surf instrumentals to see if they had the same problem. Mostly they were just shorter. Several insert novelty riffs, playing instruments in unusual ways or adding percussive effects. Many switch between two or three lead instruments (brass, acoustic guitar, organ). I think what you have here with the organ for 2:48-3:12 was a good start in that direction, but it's such a sleepy, quiet organ that gets drowned out by the rhythm guitar, and 24 seconds of it isn't enough out of a nearly 4 minute arrangement. That being said, calm surf rock is a really unusual genre, and there aren't a ton of examples out there. And calm arrangements are by their nature more static than energetic ones. It's not like this arrangement goes on for long periods without changing things up at all, but those changes lack impact. I understand going in this direction, I'm just not sure that it really works without a lot of active effort on the part of the listener to pay attention to the variations. Gario's points about the lead guitar being "underwhelming" are well-made, as well. I'm definitely of two minds about this one, and I'll also be sure to keep an eye on this thread and review up until the vote is finalized, but right now I'm coming down slightly more on LT's side than Gario's. NO (borderline, resubmit)