MindWanderer   Members

An unusually conservative remix for pH, to be sure. I think the extra layers constitute enough interpretation for our standards, though. Some great orchestration here. The levels, however, still need some work. There's some heavy distortion in the louder sections, most notably 2:17-2:42. I'm actually seeing it clipping by 0.35 dB or so. After listening to this looping all afternoon, ultimately I think the distortion is just too much. It's a really great arrangement overall, which is why I didn't mind listening to it so many times, but that crackling really is distracting. Should be an easy enough fix for Pete, so hopefully he can do that and send it back our way quickly. Edit: Yes, yes he did. YES

I have a small but annoying peeve about the new aesthetics: the way the gray gradient background cuts off, it sometimes for me looks almost exactly like the scrollbar. I'm constantly grabbing the wrong thing and trying to drag it.

Oh, man, I really want to love this one. There are some gorgeous soundscapes in some sections, when you have the pads, bubbly arps, and harmony all firing at once. Very Tangerine Dream. That said, those sections are few and far between. There's a lot of subtractive styling going on, where one or more elements are intentionally missing. That's a great technique for emphasis, but it's used to excess here, leaving much of the mix feeling thin and empty. The end of the intro (0:26) is especially jarring because you drop out the kick two beats before the melody starts instead of just one, so it feels less like a riser and more like a disjoin. (And it's a shame that kick never comes back; I rather liked it and wished it made it into the main arrangement.) The saw lead jumps dramatically in volume at 0:53. It's a little too quiet before, but it's much too loud and biting after. And while it's a perfectly appropriate choice for a lead in a retro synth arrangement like this, it really can't be the only lead. Even in a short arrangement, you need to switch it up a little, and at least rotate it with one other lead from time to time. There's a lot I like here, but it feels incomplete. Flesh out your soundscape through more of the piece, watch your balance levels, and vary the lead a little and I think you'll have a winner here. NO (resubmit)

I'm not sure I'd describe this as "disco glam rock," but this is certainly a lot of fun! And it does, as promised, have a lot going on. The e-piano section from 0:45-1:10, especially from 0:58 on, is extremely busy, and the rather thin lead is buried behind all the accompaniment. When the sax comes in, the e-piano sounds unpleasantly distorted, with the warbles in the instrument causing some subtle dissonance with the lead. 2:03-2:16 also has some balance issues, with that one disco-esque synth coming too far forward. The transition at 2:44 is extremely abrupt. I like where you ended up going with it, but a little more lead-in or another transition element would have helped this not sound like a break between songs. The sax that comes in at 3:23 is mixed really, really loud. I had to drop my listening volume by 20% to get it to a comfortable level, and the rest of the song is much too quiet at that level. Overall, I really like this arrangement a lot. Strange, yes, but clever and entertaining. But the volume of that last sax section is a dealbreaker for me, and some work on the balance in the more "disco" sections would be really appreciated as well. NO (resubmit)

Nice, rich soundscape for jazz. I love that powerful, meaty bass and those crisp hats. I thought this was an odd choice of a source for a remix, but it makes perfect sense given your approach here. The kick is maybe a bit too beefy--it's really thick in isolation, and causes a little bit of overcompression when mixed in. There are a few other overcompression moments, too: The riser at 1:29, a little bit with the synth from 1:32-1:47, and the SFX at 2:39-2:49. The chimes at 1:02 and 1:06 and 1:48-2:10 are quite piercing. A few of the notes in the latter section are well into the discomfort range for my ears. The synth at 1:32-1:48 is harmonized strangely with the piano. I'm having a hard time identifying what exactly is clashing, but maybe another judge can point out where the dissonance I'm hearing is coming from. The playing is all quite mechanical. I found it most striking with the piano and the percussion, but I don't hear any instruments with any timing/velocity variation. The percussion especially seems to be on auto-pilot much of the time, which is especially problematic for jazz. I'm a little torn here. The arrangement is neat, and I love the overall feel. The production issues are nontrivial, though. I think this could be an easy pass with some fairly minor improvements to the levels and the humanization, but for now I'm leaning just on the side of NO (borderline, resubmit)

Right up there with Jonathan's other remixes: beautiful playing, great interpretation, just lovely all around, but once again mastered a little too quietly. It's not as severely quiet as some of his other remixes, though, so it should be within tolerance this time as well. The ending is just a little on the abrupt side. Otherwise, fantastic work. YES

Ooh, that opening contrabass sounds super fake, not a great start, and it goes on for a long time. Then it's quite jarring going into the rock section at 0:50, which has very little low presence at all. The highs are uncomfortably shrill, and I had to turn down my volume a lot because my ears were literally hurting. Everything is jammed into the mid-high to high range, making the mix sound very thin as well as sharp. I also had a hard time picking out source usage, partially because the lines carrying the melody were often covered up, but I'm personally just not willing to go through it methodically checking for source, because I find it so uncomfortable to listen to. Besides, the mixing is more than enough to make this a NO

I have to admit, that vibraphone really is awfully mechanical. I don't mind some rigidity of the synths, since they're clearly fake anyway (although those could also stand to sound a little more organic), but the vibraphone in particular is an instrument where little changes in timing and velocity make a huge difference in how it feels. Otherwise, this is a great interpretation of the original--faithful to its tone, but still original. I had to turn my volume up quite a bit to hear the cut-off hiss at the end that Larry mentioned, but he's right, it's definitely there and should be fixed. I'm a little more on the fence about this than Larry, since the vibraphone is the only "real" instrument in an otherwise electronic mix, but since it's so prominent and so vibrant (no pun intended), its being so rigid does stand out as an issue. It's not too hard a fix, assuming your soundfont has decent velocity support, so please try to improve that and send this back to us. NO (resubmit)

I tend to think of DLC in terms of value as compared to the content in the original game. For instance, Mario Kart 8 has 16 tracks, and the DLC has 16 more. The DLC characters and car parts are just aesthetic, but the tracks are the main thing, so 100% more content for 20% of MSRP ($12/$60) is a very good value--kind of my gold standard for DLC value. Smash 4, on the other hand, has 51 characters to start with, and each DLC character costs between $4 and $6, effectively ~2% of the base game's content for ~10% of its cost. Really only a good value if you like and play the game a whole heck of a lot, way more than you would play other games. BotW's Season Pass costs $20 (1/3 of MSRP) and gets you an enemy rush mini-dungeon, a harder difficulty mode, a "new feature for the in-game map" (whatever that means), a new dungeon with a new short story, and a couple of random items, one of which is purely cosmetic. Considering the base game has 100 shrines and 4 full dungeons, plus whatever the final area is, this is much more in line with the Smash 4 DLC--good if you're a superfan, not a great value otherwise. I'll probably pass.

Reminder: Next (and potentially last) check-in is in two months from today. There are nine current claims. Out of those, I have three WIPs and two are new claims. Although I'd like to get new WIPs from everyone, that means four people have been on the list for a long time and haven't turned in any music yet. If I don't get any new signups and none of those four people don't turn in a WIP, this whole project will be suspended indefinitely, probably permanently.

Global Test Fires for Splatoon 2 have been announced: 6 one-hour timeslots over 48 hours, March 24-26. Looks like it'll basically be the same weapons and whatnot as the demos so far. I finally managed to snag myself a console preorder (during the brief window Best Buy put them back up), so I should be able to do at least part of the Saturday afternoon one and the evening ones. I really want to find out whether the joy-cons+grip are adequate to play or if I'll need to plunk down the cash for the pro controller. Anyone else planning on being there?

Oh, wow, Jorito and Gario, Farewell to Ballade and Strike the Earth? You guys had better not disappoint!

Ah, The Wand of Gamelon. Along with Link: Faces of Evil and Zelda's Adventure, the only reason anyone's even heard of the CD-i. And this is a suitably ridiculous remix for that ridiculous game. I love how it tries to be anthemic around 1:11, but it's just too goofy to even take itself seriously and quickly falls apart. I don't have much to add either. Lemon has this style down to a routine production-wise, and while this arrangement is a little random and strange at times, that's a big part of its charm. Let's get the CD-i added to the remix database for the very best of reasons. YES

Fantastic instrumental work here. A little of the violin work is on the harsh side, but overall the effect is quite impressive. I do have two major concerns, though. First, the arrangements in each section are extremely conservative. Wherever the original instrument is in the artists' repertoires (piano, bass, woodwind), they use it; most other instruments are substituted 1:1. There are a couple of small additions (e.g. the strings at 0:50), and there's some extra material in the transitions to help them change the energy level and flow better (e.g. the strings at 2:23), and a bit at the end, but otherwise there isn't much in the way of interpretation going on here. Second is the issue of "medley-itis." I feel like the transitions here are borderline at best. They're not completely abrupt; there's definitely an effort being made to try to get the sections to flow together. The first one is maybe OK since you could call it the end of an introduction, but the transitions to Undersea Palace and Corridors of Time are jarring, and it doesn't help that the sections are completely different in energy level. I'd love to see some of your work here on the site, but I really don't think this is the sort of arrangement we look for. NO

I didn't feel like the references to "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" were even noticeable unless one was specifically looking for them, and even then they're subtle. Despite how iconic that theme is, I had to specifically look it up to listen for the tie-ins. The strings were a little mechanical, but there wasn't much of them. The vocals coming in halfway through were a little surprising--that works better in Morricone's work where the vocals are much more in the background--but that's a minor issue. The arrangement does get a little hot and busy in the climax (3:48-4:20, especially 4:04 on), but that's my only major concern. Otherwise, really good stuff, absolutely accomplishes what it sets out to do, and definitely should be part of the album's mixflood. YES

I've heard so... many... remixes of Bloody Tears, and yet people still manage to surprise me. I actually really liked the bass that came in at 0:23. The timing was strange and took me a little while to wrap my head around, but when I got it, it worked for me. I can see why it might not appeal to everyone, though. Otherwise, Gario's crits are well-placed. Those vanilla synths are a serious drawback, and the arrangement of the accompaniment is so good that the balance really does need to give it some more space to shine. I'd love to hear a version of this that better enabled the listener to appreciate the good stuff that's going on here. NO (resubmit)

Not sure how many teenagers or ninjas would appreciate this gorgeous jazz brass, but I certainly do. Joe and Jordan never disappoint when it comes to their playing, and jnWake gave them a great arrangement to work with. Liberal and creative, but definitely recognizable, and smooth as anything. Drags on a little bit towards the middle, but that's typical of the genre. I personally find the ping-pong panning on the Hammond organ to be very distracting, but that's also pretty typical. Ending is a little anticlimactic, but it's not terrible. Great job by all, and a good start to this album. YES

Very interesting, liberal interpretation of this source. Took me a few listens to wrap my head around it, since it turns the original's bass into part of the melody. Definitely agree with Gario's assessment of that bright brass synth; it's quite a bit over the top, especially at the sudden jumps (0:51, 1:48). The fact that it was the lead throughout the bulk of the mix was definitely a drawback, made more problematic by the fact that there is a fair amount of copy-pasting going on: 0:27-1:23 is copied at 1:24-2:20, 3:24-3:51 is a copy of the end of that section, and 0:07-0:27 is identical to 2:07-2:27. Close to two minutes of copy-pasting out of a four-minute mix is quite a bit. There are breaks spaced about at appropriate intervals, which helps, but not enough. The ending was quite abrupt, sounding like it was supposed to go on but was just left unfinished. Coming at the end of a loop as it does, it really leaves the listener hanging. I really do like this approach; it was a creative and lively way of handling a source that really didn't have much to it, but I feel like this needs to be less repetitive, especially considering how much of the repetition features that borderline problematic brass synth. You can use that for some of it--as Gario said, it does help capture the intended Eurobeat style--but this is too much IMHO. Add some more variety and tighten up that ending and I think you'll have a winner here. NO (resubmit)

Ah, I heard this one in the workshop. Note that AngelCityOutlaw collabed on this one (his very short contribution to the blurb made that unclear). I wouldn't have pegged this as Hans Zimmer, but as Hans Zimmer as interpreted by Timaeus, sure! Epic cinematic with some electronic wackiness thrown in, good stuff. Although as I said in the workshop, and other commenters agreed, the glitchiness doesn't always work well--the crackle at 0:21 in particular just sounds like a wiring problem, and elsewhere it doesn't sound like it's in the same sound space as the instrumentation. It never sounds unintentional, but doesn't always blend in with the music. I also mentioned in the workshop that the strings, especially at 1:14-1:42 and 2:20-2:48, are uncomfortably fake. In those particular sections, the identical timing of the swells is especially grating. A string note at 1:20, and where it repeats, also sounds off to me. Otherwise, this is a solid arrangement with solid production. The strings and the glitching do bug me, but the overall arrangement is more than strong enough to forgive them. YES

This actually appears to be from the original game, not the remastered one. Source starts at 0:19: The lead synths are very close to the original ones, although I don't think they're directly sampled (although with a different sound card, I'm not 100% sure). Those synths sound greatly out of place in the rest of the mix, the staccato one especially, since everything else is much more resonant. 0:59-1:34 is very nearly a MIDI rip, with just a couple of small, additional percussive elements added. There's a little bit more added to the rest--the voice clips, the rubato moments, a few additional effects and percussive elements--but I still don't think it's transformative enough for what we look for. If you'd like to revisit this, please look into some different leads and additional accompaniment, especially accompaniment that goes beyond effects and beats--bass, harmony, arpeggio, counterpoint, etc. NO

Well, that was a pleasant surprise! It's a short, repetitive source, so when it started off sounding like a minor 8-bit sound upgrade, I wasn't expecting much. Then it turns epic cinematic dubstep, some real Mass Effect channeling going on there. A really neat interpretation and a clever approach. The arrangement does get slightly repetitive, but I think it does add new elements at a good enough clip that it doesn't get too fatiguing. Production is mostly solid. There are a few crowded moments (e.g. 0:58, 2:56), and the sidechaining is a little stronger than I'd like, but it usually is for the genre. Some of the instruments are a little mechanical, but in such a heavily electronic mix, where the sampled instruments aren't exposed, I don't have a problem with it. I'd be remiss to not mention that this does use the original audio wholesale. It's not even fair to call it "sampled," since it's just the whole thing copied over, with some heavy reverb added, not even chopped up and reordered (although there's a lengthy break in the middle of original content). But the additions are massive and transformative, perfectly adequate for our standards IMHO. YES

I certainly never would have guessed that this source was from a Superman game! Then again, the superhero games back then were really all over the place. Anyway, the first thing that stands out to be about this arrangement is how repetitive it is. 0:18-0:47, 0:47-1:16, and 1:30-1:59 are all identical. Then there's an additional half-loop from 1:59-2:13, with the last section of the song riffing on what would have been the second half of the loop. That last section from 2:13- is also extremely busy. Lots of conflicting instruments playing at once, all drowning each other out. Sections like this need to have very careful EQ applied, especially when so many of the instruments share a similar spectrum (mostly in the mid-highs here). The arrangement is also very conservative. Up until 0:47, it's basically a cover of the original. The bass is original (though very simple), but the melody, harmony, and percussion are all identical to the source. The only original parts of this arrangement are a brief solo at 1:16-1:30 and the extra (busy) accompaniment from 2:13 on. I'm sorry, but this really isn't the sort of thing we're looking for. Try posting your remixes to our workshop forums for some advice on how to make them more interpretive and dynamic. Good luck! NO

There's some great guitar work here, but this is really more conservative than than what we look for. Other than the introduction and a few minor elements, this is nearly identical to the source, just with the instruments changed. There are a couple of neat additions, like the arp at 0:58-1:14, but otherwise it's basically just a cover. There are some substantial balance issues that need to be dealt with, as well. The drums are far too prominent, with the snare and hats drowning out nearly everything else, and the lead and bass guitars are much too quiet. Take a look at the levels and EQ, and see if you can bring the melody into the forefront while still letting everything else be audible. Please try hitting up our workshop forums for some additional advice. Hope to see you there! NO

(Not sure why this is filed under Super Metroid--I don't hear anything in this specifically from SM that isn't also in MP2.) I've always wanted to try out LMMS. Clearly it's quite possible to make a capable remix using it! Much better than my own attempts using open source DAWs, that's for sure. I really like the approach--I like the Red Brinstar melody, but the original is mostly atmospheric, so this is a fun, energetic take on it. Simple but effective. Mostly nice clean production and sound design, although I do hear a hint of overcompression. That said, the arrangement does get pretty monotonous. The main celesta-like lead is used almost throughout, doing mostly the same thing. The percussion is very simple and hardly varies at all. 2:45-3:07 is a straight copy-paste of 1:39-2:01, and the next section after it is the same thing again, with the whistle lead added. At 3:15 there's a random off-key note, sounds like an accident of some sort. I'm on the fence about this one. At about a minute from the end, I was solidly on board, but that whole last minute--over 1/4 of the mix--retreads old ground, at the same energy level, and with that slight overcompression to boot. The ending's a little unsatisfying, too. I like a lot about this, but I think it needs some more sophisticated writing to hold the listener's interest all the way through to the end. NO (borderline, resubmit)

I admire how ambitious this is, and there are definitely parts that work, but ultimately I think it tries to do too much. The transitions at 2:14 and 3:15 are a little awkward, but from 3:35 on it turns full-on medley. The operatic section from 4:16 comes out of nowhere--we hadn't had vocals for 3 minutes, since the quiet intro, so it's quite jarring here, and rather loud, especially from 4:50 on. The Nightwish-esque chant at 5:00 is similarly out-of-place. At several points, such as 2:02 and 4:16, the accompaniment doesn't go along with what the melody is doing. I don't think they're clashing notes per se, but they're sort of oblivious to one another, with mismatching patterns and energy levels. The vocals are off-key in many places, e.g. 0:53, 4:39, 4:43, 5:03. There's a lack of highs in 1:55-2:24 and 2:33-2:42 that make the mix sound empty. On the flip side, the highs at 2:24-2:33 and 2:52-3:30 are quite muffled and muddy. The female vocal is also somewhat buried. There also seems to be a rendering error--the file's metadata says it's 5:21 long, but it cuts off suddenly at 5:07. Edit: Using the original link, there's still a small error--it cuts off at 5:17 but still thinks it's 5:21 long. The last 5 seconds are just a super-long, super-quiet fade-out, though, so there's nothing missing. Doesn't change anything else I said, though. If you'd still like to submit this, I'd recommend redoing the arrangement and simplifying. This still sounds like you were forced to use a bunch of sources you didn't know what to do with (which is true, but you don't want it to sound like that). If you want to do operatic rock with a growling chorus, do it soon after the introduction, not four minutes in with two new sources, or don't do it at all. I especially enjoyed 0:57-1:54 and 2:43-3:12, so I'd personally like to hear more like that, but the important thing is that it be more consistent. NO