MindWanderer

Great arrangement. Pretty conservative overall, but it takes a lot of dips and twists that keeps it fresh throughout. There is some room for improvement on the performance front. There are off-key notes and squeaks sprinkled throughout. I don't think it's enough to push it below our bar, but it definitely sticks out as a weakness, and I can imagine it bothering listeners with a good sense of pitch. Still a lot of skill on display here. Overall a fun take and an entertaining listen. YES

Is the title "The Lonely Loner" or "The Lonely Lover?" The post has the former but the filename is the latter. Nice little synth-rock ballad from Will. Sounds as good as you'd expect. Nothing to complain about here! YES

Firstly I want shout out to TheVideoGamer for a wonderfully made midi. Wouldn't have made this without it. I've never played this game personally and while I do love racing games, I can't say I have any desire to go back in time and try this out. The song felt like a nice canvas to paint my aesthetic on in a way that is conservative maybe constructively but in atmosphere is transformative (I hope). The original is a lot more gritty and has that hard, club techno vibe you'd hear in Blade or something like that. I think what I ended up making is a lot more ethereal in a way but not too much either. This is flawed in its own way (drums lol) and not for everyone but I think this where I stop with it before I move onto the next one. Was very fun getting outside my comfort zone! Games & Sources: Game: Group S Challenge Track: Cut the Corner

I've come up with a new receipe! Two great tastes that taste great together! donut (Warp Whistles Music): clarinet, arrangement, mixing lobby (Warp Whistles Music): flute endlessrepeat: piano Since everything was recorded, I wouldn't be able to redo anything other than the clarinet parts (I'll own up to my own garbage that may need to be taken out) but there probably is a decent amount of stuff I could fix if need be in the project that wouldn't require rerecording. Games & Sources: Octopath Traveler - Cyrus, The Scholar Final Fantasy XV - Valse di Fantastica

Funny what bugs people in different ways. I never would have picked up on the drum, hat, and arp patterns not lining up—I can barely notice it even when listing for it—and it certainly doesn't bother me. Also funny that we got two submissions for this source in close proximity, when I'd never heard of it before. (Well, I have played Earthbound, but decades ago.) It's a fun, light, dynamic arrangement. Lots of interesting elements, easily enough to keep the listener engaged for the full 5 minutes. Although it's ironic that it fades out, suggesting that the arranger didn't manage to stay engaged themselves! I actually didn't really like 4:05+; it feels like extra ideas that the artist didn't manage to squeeze into the main body of the remix and just tacked on at the end. Otherwise, this is strong stuff. I think structurally it could have been improved, but all the pieces are there. YES

That waveform isn't even sausage links. It's a kielbasa. Just one long sausage. proph has this right on every front. There's not enough interpretive arrangement for what we look for; it's mostly just an instrument swap, with a little bit of complexity added to the percussion. Three loops of the same thing and a fade-out. And the overall sound is washed out and steeped in way too much reverb. I'm afraid this just isn't what we look for in the personalization, instrumentation, or production aspects. NO

Yep, that pad was the major barrier to this getting passed, so swapping it out clears the way. Oddly, I'm still in disagreement with my fellow judges about one point: Since the source consists of a pad, two notes, and a laugh effect, I don't think there's any amount of arrangement that could be considered a remix just using the pad and the two notes. The votes above at most mention the adaptation of the laugh in passing, but it's used as a recurring motif that repeats many times throughout, sometimes worked into the melody, sometimes in the backing, and I think it's a critical part that really helps tie it in. If I hadn't picked up on it, I would have voted NO on this. With it, this is an easy YES

Pretty darn good, especially for a week's (plus) worth of work. It's a clever way of mashing the two themes together, and the overall tone is great. It is a little more subdued than I'd prefer. There's a lot of presence in the sub-base, but not so much in the audible bass range. There's not much in the highs, either; other than some occasional leads, there's a pad in 3:29-3:56 (where there's no bass), and that's about it. It's not uncommon for the genre to go for long stretches with a shallow soundscape, though, so it's not a dealbreaker. Not much to complain about here. Well done. YES

Yeah, I normally hate the lo-fi approach, but it works here. It's deliberate and tasteful. Nice ethereal soundscape, and I agree that the vocals are perfect. I would have preferred an ending that didn't just trickle off like that, but in an arrangement like this, it's not a mortal sin. YES

Nice breezy take on the theme. Great performances, great sound. It sure does sound improvised in places, but I also suspect it's not actually so; it's just a little too coherent. This'll be great on the project. YES

Cute and fun. The tenor sax performance aside, the only thing that really bugs me is how noodly and random it gets in place. 1:22-2:00 in particular is kind of all over the place, and that's a big chunk. Other than that, this is pretty great, and my reservations aren't enough to kick this back over. Nice work. YES

A Gario resub? Was not expecting to see that. I'd have remembered a Gario NO if it had happened any time in the last few years. Of course, I recognize it from the project. I never realized it wasn't actually published already. There's lots of complexity, and even though the synths are narrow-spectrum, they do still get cluttered in the mid-highs when everything is firing at once. The pads in particular eat up a lot of bandwidth: 2:49-3:47 is all busy enough that I'm losing stuff. That's my only complaint, though. Happy to help this get up on the front page. YES

Even after the correct source was identified, the source connections still seem loose to me, and would benefit from some timestamping. But the mixing, as Brad and Kris pointed out, is a dealbreaking issue regardless. NO (maybe resubmit with a source breakdown)

Seemed pretty conservative to start off with, similar tone to the original but with some extra layers. Then the throat singing and the drums kick in, and wow, not conservative anymore! The opening cuts in abruptly and should be edited slightly to give it just a fraction of a second of breathing room before the first note hits. Other than that and the throat singing being a bit too loud (which, given that it probably represents the dragon itself, is not surprising), and a bit of muddiness in the original-writing bridge, this sounds unequivocally great. Very clever, and a fascinating direction to take this source. YES

So, this is hitting me with problematic levels right off the bat. It starts off so quiet I had to turn up my volume, which was a mistake, because at 0:22 the guitar hits a deeply resonant note that slams my eardrums hard. It's not that it's super loud or piercing, but it's extremely uncomfortable. I'm not sure if it's the peak at C4 or the harmonic at C8 that's really getting to me. After that, it gets much louder, and I have to turn my volume back down again. The kicks in particular are really loud, and things are frequently so busy that I have a hard time making things out (1:18-1:24 and 4:00-4:15, for instance). The uncomfortable harmonics are never quite as bad, but they do return a few times. I'd love to give you more detailed thoughts about the arrangement, but I literally cannot listen to it another time without the discomfort becoming too much... and indeed I have to take a break from listening/judging for the rest of today, because my ears are now shot and need a rest. NO Update 12/28: The frequency that was stabbing my eardrums has been fixed, so now I can listen to this all the way through repeatedly. I still think the intro is too quiet, but the wide swings in volume have been tuned down. I can listen to it now. I'm actually confused by my colleagues' praise of the dynamic arrangement. What I'm hearing is mainly the scale from Artifact Temple and a main hook (e.g. 0:31-0:47) that I can't place. I do hear snippets of other sources, usually in different keys, but I'm not picking up this huge breadth that others are mentioning. There's certainly enough source, but to me it's actually kind of repetitive. None of those are dealbreaking issues, though. I can give this a YES

Obviously this would need a different title if it were to pass, but... Yeah, those levels are mad. Nothing, then a rapid fade-in to an assault on my eardrums. Even with my volume turned down by almost half, those pounding drums are uncomfortable to listen to. Then we have vanilla, static synths on top of a beat that barely changes at all. I don't hear any deviation from the source material, either; sounds to me like a simple MIDI rip. Sorry, but this isn't what we're looking for in any respect. Arrangement, production, instrumentation, interpretation, and dynamic interest are all out of line with the things we post here. I hate to be so harsh, but I strongly recommend not only hitting up our workshop forum and/or Discord for advice, but listening to more of our library and reviewing our submission standards before submitting again. NO

I don't think the performances are all that bad, though I agree there's plenty of room for improvement. The mixing is more of an issue; there's frequent pumping, some muddiness in the busier sections and transitions, and the kicks cut right through everything. But the arrangement is actually my biggest hangup: There are the tape deck FX and a little bit of riffing here and there, but mostly it's that plodding drum line under a very conservative take on the theme, and I don't think this is interpretive enough for us. NO

Stellar blending of all these sources. Even knowing them well, it didn't register on me that there were 7 different sources here (although two are so subtle I wouldn't have noticed them without the breakdown). It all sounds great; it's an homage, an expansion, and a medley all at once, respecting the tone of the originals while still evolving them into something more. Strong work. YES

This is quite short: The music doesn't really start until 0:41 and basically ends at 3:12, so there's only 2:31 of actual music. However, what's there is solid. Good exploration of the theme, and the production sounds fine to me. I'm not feeling a lack of pads or a dominance of drums, although the bass and kick make a pretty heavy combination, and yeah, the announcer could be a little easier to understand. Highly competent guitar work. I'd prefer a little more development, but there's enough, and it's all good. YES

I don't have as many problems with this as my fellow judges above. There might not be a pad, but by 30 seconds in, there's bass, arps, and rhythm filling out the soundscape, so it doesn't feel empty or incomplete to me. The samples are of course fake, but there's no effort to make realistic instrumentation here. I do think that there's a lack of ideas here. The entire first minute takes its sweet time adding elements in, one or two at a time, then dropping some out and adding them back, before getting to the actual melody. The rest is a fairly minimal expansion of the source material, of which the main hook repeats many, many times. Balance isn't great but isn't horrible. The bass is quite loud, and the leads are inconsistent: the flute is much too quiet, and the strings and steel drums are a little too quiet, but the saw is fine; it doesn't sound like you accounted for how timbre can affect how loud a sound seems to be in a complex soundscape. The master volume doesn't seem too loud, and although I can definitely see the brickwall limiting proph mentioned in the waveform, I don't hear it. There are indeed a lot of little issues here, but to me they don't add up to enough to merit a rejection. There's certainly room for improvement, but there's enough here that it doesn't get in the way of my enjoying the piece. YES

I don't think it's necessarily too short, but the 2-minute guideline is there for a reason: it's very difficult to both respect the additional material and transform it in that short a time. In this case, we have a genre transformation, but it's basically just a slowed-down instrument swap. There's 20 seconds of interpretive material at the end, and that's it. We need more. NO

Also not what I was expecting, but after I got over my initial surprise, it was a pleasant one. The lyrics are great, and the rap performance is fantastic. However, I do have a couple of hangups. That loud, slow 808-style kick is severely detuned and is way off-key to my ears. It doesn't sound good at all, and unfortunately it's a major part of the minimal soundscape. The singing (1:40-1:54 and 2:33-2:47) seems a little pitchy, too. Fortunately it's only two short sections, and one of the things it's clashing with is those kicks (which clash with everything), so it's not that big an issue. There's a ton I like about this, even though I'm not a rap aficionado, but those detuned kicks bug the heck out of me and I can't get past them. NO (please resubmit!)

I actually don't mind the composition here. I do see how it's a bit follow-the-bouncing-ball in that the vocals are usually echoing one of the instruments, but that didn't really leap out at me on first blush. I hate to say it, but Jett's vocals being pitchy is a real issue here. In such a minimal environment, it's hard to ignore, as are the timing inconsistencies. The other problem for me is that the bells have a piercing harmonic to them that hurts my ears and gives me a bit of tinnitus. They could stand to be low-passed a bit, certainly cutting out the 17kHz+ range. Ultimately, this approach needs the vocals to carry the piece, and they don't. Certainly doing more with harmony and percussion would help, but I'd personally vote in favor of this even without that if the vocals were better. NO

It's not often we get a remix that goes less off the rails than the original, but here we are. Quite conservative for a while. When other instruments get added in, it really does get quite heavy; I didn't understand what proph meant by that at first, but now I totally agree that it's the right word. The bass is so loud, so repetitive, and has so much presence that it's crushing everything else. Listen to 2:02-2:17 for a good illustration; the bass is so overwhelming that it's muffling the lead, even though most of the bass presence isn't even where the lead is. The climax (3:10+) is quite dense overall, not leaving the instruments any room to breathe at all. That said, this is quite personalized, the performances are excellent, and it's just generally fun. The production bothers me enough that I wouldn't want to listen to it too many times in a row, but it's not enough to send this back over. YES Update 12/4: The new mix isn't worse. While the bass is not quite so heavy, the overall mix is still quite dense, with the ensemble leads especially sounding quite smushed. Still, it was a YES before and it's a YES now.

Opens with a very loud, rumbling, distorted bass pad. I have to turn down my volume by 25%, and it still sounds really unpleasant to me. Of more concern to me is source usage. The source is a drone in two pitches and two notes. Literally the entire thing consists of a two note "melody," a one-note/two-tone pad, and a "laugh" effect. This remix uses a similar pad (same pitch, different timbre). The original writing here uses the same chord progression as the source, but we have a long-established tradition that chord progression in and of itself does not constitute source usage. And finally, the "laugh" has been broken down into its component parts and remixed into a melody: directly once or twice, then riffed on extensively. It's clever, but it took me literally a half-dozen listens before it dawned on me what was going on here, even with Zach's explanation. I'm extremely borderline on the question of source usage here. The connections exist, but they're in no small part academic, and I think few people will put them together without having it spelled out for them. Most of the melodic writing departs significantly from the inspiration. Fortunately I'm not in a position to have to decide one way or another, because that pad is way too loud and blown-out for me to get my vote. I'm very curious to see how the rest of these votes go. This is extremely clever, well-performed, and demonstrates a lot of proficiency and intuition about music theory. I'm really not sure whether it's too loose and esoteric for the majority of our listeners, but I need that pad adjusted anyway. NO