MindWanderer

I have to agree. The timbre of the synth choices here are pretty similar to the original, so I'm looking for ways in which the remix stands out from the original. There are a lot of little flourishes and twists, but they're not significantly transformative. The breakdown at the halfway mark is pretty good, despite still keeping to the original FM palette. On the other hand, it speaks to the length of the piece that the breakdown, which is normally a short bridge, is nearly half the length of the entire piece! After it, there's only 18 seconds left, which is a brief recap and an abrupt ending. Overall I think this needs more development and more deviation from the source material. NO

Dang, that source track sounds great for Amiga. It's a really fun, energetic arrangement as well, but production needs some work. The lead that kicks in at 0:33 is notably quiet compared to the drums and car engine noises. It's better when it returns at 1:10 because the car noise is gone, but it's still sitting too far in the back. 1:39 has the same problem: even though it's a quieter section overall, the lead doesn't cut through very well and the bass and kicks are knocking the clarity out of it. The third lead (which starts at 0:47) is better, but listen at 0:57 for an example of where you can't hear it very well at all. I'm a bit borderline about this overall, but the fact that the most unclear part is where the main melody starts really take the wind of of the remix's sails. I really love the arrangement and the energy, and I'm enjoying listening to it overall, but I think it needs that little tweak to the leads to get over the bar. NO (resubmit)

I don't have much to add to that. Great tone, really original arrangement. I'd have to timestamp to know for sure how much is derived specifically from source material, but it passes the sniff test. Excellent work. YES

Pretty good! I agree with Kris about the 1:19 synth sounding really dry and piercing, and really doesn't belong in this jazz mix. I'm not that crazy about the 2:04 one, either. On the flip side, it sounds like the brass is sometimes smushed or filtered too aggressively; the exposed trumpet at 2:29-2:52 sounds great, but the French horn, especially when "ensemble-ized," just doesn't have a good tone. Overall servicable, but I would have liked it more as a straight jazz piece without the synths, and with more open EQ work on the French horn. YES

Thanks for the comparison track. I needed it to know whether the radical swells in the sustained notes were an intentional homage to something. It seems they are not, which is an issue, because they're really unpleasant to listen to. They're also too quiet for a lead; the percussion, bass, and effects are all sitting on top of it. When the leads are in their long, quiet attack or decay phases, I sometimes can't hear them at all. The arrangement is otherwise really cool, and I really enjoyed the approach. Feels weird to be NOing a Mazedude remix, but here we are. Flatten the envelope on those leads out and push them farther into the front of the mix and this'll be in a great place. NO (resubmit)

Agreed on all points. There's definitely stuff that sounds good. The intro did grab me, despite the dry, vanilla, repetitive percussion, but it's a letdown after that for all the reasons Emu stated. You have the creative chops, but you need to learn some production techniques to showcase your vision. Please hit up our workshop forum for some more targeted advice. NO

It's as pretty as any RET mix, but I'm not hearing the connections to the source. The main identifiable theme is the opening 3-note stanza, and this arrangement changes that to the point of being unrecognizable without knowing in advance what it was supposed to be a remix of. There's not enough of the rest to hold it together. So I have to say NO

Opens up with some etherial sounds that I definitely wouldn't have pegged as "piano" if it weren't in the description. Then we get choir and snare drum, and a synth of some sort; I don't hear anything that sounds like an organ until 2:27. The big challenge with any Poison Mind remix is that it's an extremely short, repetitive tune. It's hard to make something substantial out of that. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a success on that front. The piano never lets up, and the choir rarely does. The snare dropping in and out is the only really dynamic element; otherwise it's pretty much all just that piano, usually on top of a pad of some sort. I think the tone is great, there's just not enough going on to retain the listener's interest for four and a half minutes. NO

That last section isn't quite copy-pasta, and even if the backing wasn't different across the four loops, they're short enough that it could be forgiven anyway. It's a bit mid-light there, but otherwise it sounds great. The only thing I really dislike is the ending, because there isn't one. The last sounds are literally cut off. It does wind down, so you can tell an ending is coming, but it's still too sudden. Some of the transitions are also a little sudden and substantial, but they're clearly intentional and work for what they are, I have no problems giving this a YES

Starts off with a nice simple choir backing. At 0:35 a celesta joins, but it's kind of thin and thwacky, and seems to change key at random on occasion. At 1:12 we get a flute, which is extremely thin and doesn't always seem to be in the same key as everything else. 1:30 introduces a weird synth which is just kind of doing its own thing. The rest of the remix is pretty much the same thing. Thin instruments, a thin soundscape, instruments that aren't in the same key and don't mesh with each other. No ending to speak of. I'm afraid we're looking for something richer and more cohesive. NO

MkVaff submitting a Journey to Silius mix? What decade are we in? Well, apparently the right one, at least for music. Mike's lost none of his touch; this is the same sort of EDM goodness that brought so many of us onto this site in the first place, nearly 23 years ago. Classic sounds, but some sounds are classic for a reason. Production is crisp and clean. The kicks are pounding perhaps a little too much for my taste, but otherwise everything is firing on all four cylinders, just as it should be. YES (This could stand to have a better title, though.)

I'm not picking up a lot of source usage here. It might be more subtle than I can make out, but I hear nothing until 1:41, which is nearly halfway into the track, and then no more after 3:19. The composition and production are very pretty. It sounds great on its own. But with only the middle 1:38 of a 4:03 piece being a remix, as far as I can hear, I can't give it an affirmative vote. A shorter intro or more overt connections to this (or any other) source and I'll happily vote in its favor, but as things stand I have to vote NO Edit 8/11: OK, so now I know the 4-note sequence I'm supposed to be listening for. It's slowed way down in the remix, so it was hard to make the connection. I hear it played by the cello at 0:07-0:20, by the piano (in the background) at 0:49-0:57, then the cello again at 1:00-1:10 and 1:22-1:30. Technically that's another 39 seconds, which would be 56%. There are other times in there where the cello, and sometimes piano, are riffing on that 4-note theme, but when it's only 4 notes, you can't really change much before it's just not "source" anymore. Eh, I'll give it credit. It's not totally unrecognizable, and it didn't need much to get it over the bar. It's borderline, but I'd rather encourage creative interpretation than stifle it. YES

Very nice chill arrangement. Clearly based on the source, cleanly produced. A little monotonous for my tastes, but this sort of piece is going to be tonally repetitive, and there's little if any actual copy-pasta. Does everything it needs to do. YES

Wow, that's a... detailed explanation. I don't think that much was needed for us to understand what you were getting at! There's clearly enough source material even without every little connection being spelled out, even though the opening is a very slow burn. When the main melody does kick in at 1:28, the background is very wet. I couldn't even tell what instrument it was at first, because each note is blending into the next. At 2:04 you can finally tell it's pizzicato strings, but that section also introduces some very wet pads of some sort which get very muddy in their own right. At 2:41 the backing is a positive wall of sound: I can hear the lead and percussion clearly, the brass less clearly, and everything else is a wash. After that comes the epode, which I had to look up. Thanks for the vocabulary word! It's an interesting take on the idea: an epode usually takes a different meter from the rest of the poem, and it's usually an irregular meter, which you interpreted here as a change in tone and some random-seeming note choices. As with a poetic epode, all the main themes are present here, in condensed form. It's very weird to modern ears, but makes sense in context. Unfortunately is still has that morass of instruments serving as a backing, which is at this point quite loud and distracting. I really enjoy the arrangement here. It's very unique and fun. But I can't get over the backing, which is just echoes on top of long tails on top of white noise. Clean that up so I can hear actual notes and you'll have my vote. NO (resubmit)

Great stuff. Album evaluators Fishy and Hemophiliac immediately identified the homage to Morricone's "For a Few Dollars More." The vocals are a little thin; before seeing the credits, I actually thought it was just one person layered on themselves. Highs are a little sharp; the whistling needs to be to convey the intended tone, but the strings are quite bright, and the flute, guitar, and even trumpet don't need to be quite so piercing, either. Those are nitpicks, though. Otherwise this sounds great, and nails the intent. It's long but extremely dynamic in a holistic way; not something I mind listening to repeatedly. Great job, especially for your debut submission. YES

I've listened to this a whole bunch of times, over two days now, and there's just something about it that doesn't jive with me that I've been having a hard time putting a finger on. Part of it is how rambling and aimless it is, which is partly due to the sources doing some weird things, but when you slow them down they just sound like random notes in a way the originals don't. However, is that an objective criticism, or something I just don't care for? I honestly can't say. I'm going to put a pin in this one. ?

This sounds absolutely gorgeous up until 3:14, but I have to say I strongly dislike the glitching effect. It sounds unintentional for a long time. I didn't suspect it might be intentional until 3:30, and wasn't confident it was until 3:37. It took until 3:47 before I really understood where you were going with it. And it just doesn't sound good at all. To me it ruins a really gorgeous piece. I understand that the glitching is part of the vision here. And I respect it. But Emu nails it here: it's not done in a way that makes it seem like it's part of the music. It detracts from it instead of adding an element of interest. Everything else here, I love. And I want a version of this track posted, very badly. But I think the glitching needs revision. Focus on sounds that don't sound like production artifacts (especially at the beginning so the listener doesn't assume the worst), and integrate them with the beat somewhat. The way it's executed right now is a dealbreaker for me. NO (please resubmit!) P.S. Glossolalia is "speaking in tongues," i.e. vocalizations that sound like words and sentences but have no meaning. A conlang is created intentionally, and does have meaning, even if that meaning is not widely known.

This sounds like perfectly fine jazz to me on production and performance fronts. It's not my favorite genre, but I respect it for what it is. Source usage is tight. The marimba and vibraphone are much too subtle to count as source usage IMO, especially when they're only playing the bass, which doesn't have much to it to begin with. This takes it down to 68 seconds of identifiable source usage, which is 47%, 4.5 seconds short of 50%. I suppose you could squeeze a few more seconds of consideration out of the bass in the last section, since it is identifiably using the bass of the original, but it's subtle. It also ends very abruptly. It very much sounds like a jam session where they just decided they were done. The last notes don't even have tails. This is close for me on those grounds, but the performances are enough to carry it over the bar and earn my vote. I wouldn't object to this getting sent back for a real, finished ending and more overt source usage, though. YES

Wow. What an eclectic mix. Fascinating sound design. Lots of really cool, interesting choices. Lots of off-putting ones, too, but they're artistic decisions that I just happen to not agree with. I think a lot of people will love this, and I don't have any objective complaints. Let's post it. YES

Well, there's no question about this being similar to The Definition of Insanity, because they're nothing alike. The breakdown was helpful; these are weird sources, but you've made something wonderfully creative with them. This has a great sound to it, although it seems a bit crunchy in a way that I'm not 100% sure is intentional. Bass and drums are often a little too loud, where they're sitting above the melody, but the melody is usually audible; 2:23-2:46 is the one big exception, where the piano(?) melody is far too quiet. And in the guitar section after that, the soundscape keeps getting louder while the guitar stays at the same absolute loudness, which results in it getting drowned out starting at 3:11. And honestly the violin section at 3:36-3:59 could stand to be rebalanced as well. I really like the composition and sound design here. On that front it's a highlight, for sure. But I think I have to ask that it be rebalanced before putting it on the front page. NO (please resubmit) Edit 11/30: This is better. There's still a lot of that crunchiness, but it's been tuned down. The specific balance issues I called out have all been addressed. The only thing I don't really like is that there's a really wide dynamic range now: I had to keep turning my volume down lower and lower as the track went on because it got louder and louder, and by the time I got to where 4:02-4:23 was at a comfortable listening volume, the first 1:34 was too quiet to make out clearly. But I wouldn't call that a dealbreaking issue. YES

Such a strange arrangement, almost stream-of-consciousness. The jazz elements work well with that, though. This is very much not my jam, but the execution is solid. Performances are good, production is good, source usage is good. Sure. YES

I'd completely forgotten this track existed. And I know this OST pretty well! Great performances, great arrangement. Structurally conservative in some ways, but the multitude of approaches and the depth of the orchestration add a lot of interest. Strong work. YES

As a novice remixer myself, I've definitely experienced that same sort of eureka moment myself, when I break down a MIDI into its components and get to really appreciate the individual parts. So I totally understand your approach here. I've even used the same vocoding that you opened with! Lots of really cool ideas here, with a rich and constantly evolving soundscape. Very creative and engaging. Great sounds overall. Thanks for submitting! YES

Most of my issues were fixed as well. The odd notes all seem to have been addressed, and production is much better. With those issues gone, I was able to finally put a finger on the other issues I was feeling but unable to articulate: it very much feels like the lead electric guitarist and keyboardist are mainly doing their own thing, kind of on autopilot, without a whole lot of changes in dynamics, and everyone else is just trying to fit in as best they can. Those two instruments are either on or off, with no interplay or consideration for the other parts. It's not like they're clashing with anything per se, but they're not cooperating either — they're like the lead scorer on a sports team, where the coach told everyone else to just pass them the ball and stay out of their way. That's absolutely not a dealbreaking issue, though, just something to bear in mind in the future. This checks all the boxes. YES

This is still a pretty relentless groove overall, but it's a vast improvement. The modulation of that core arp throughout the piece makes a world of difference: it constantly changes waveform and volume, and even whether it's a lead or accompaniment. It also takes a break for a good chunk of the first half of the arrangement, to the point I started to get concerned about source usage. (It's obviously fine in the end, as it's present for nearly the entire second half.) Great work, and thanks again for taking our advice. YES