MindWanderer

I'm going to be upfront here: this gets a NO from me within the first 2 seconds. That ping-pong audio is out of control when listening on headphones. It's literally giving me motion sickness. So the rest of the remix is going to get only a cursory review from me because I can't stand to listen to it more than once. It's easier to listen to when the ping-pong isn't exposed, but it's still there and I can't handle it. I have some concerns with source usage. The groove is certainly similar, and in several places it makes use of the bass of the source turned into melody, but I'm not picking up a lot more than that. I'm not able to do a detailed breakdown myself due to the aforementioned problem, but I encourage other judges to do so. Otherwise, production and sound quality seem mostly fine. Nice techno trance tones, good full soundscape. Not a fan of the piano at 4:02+; in a rich soundscape, there's no room for a piano to breathe, and it sounds tinny. Otherwise no complaints here. I wish I could do a more detailed analysis, but it wouldn't affect my vote. NO

I didn't read the blurb, but I did see the title, so my expectations were also met. Thanks for the comparison track, Emu. I do think this remix is excessively dissonant, but dissonance makes sense with what you're trying to do here. I think Emu is being excessively nitpicky about the drums; the production could be improved, but it's a far cry from being a dealbreaker, and the stuttering arrangement is clearly stylistic and not a mistake, and I feel like it works. Solid pass from me. YES

I'm not in agreement with the criticisms about the beginning feeling underdeveloped. It's pretty representative of early chillwave. It's maybe on a bit too slow of a burn, but it has all the necessary elements and it fills the soundscape with deeply resonant synths. And if it hit full speed any earlier, it would be harder to stay engaging without cutting length or going outside the current sound palette, which I think works fine. Production could be very slightly cleaner, but it's well above the bar IMHO. I have no problem rubber-stamping this. YES

Source usage is definitely not a concern anymore. Nice industrial backdrop. I do find that backdrop to be quite repetitive, though. It's complex and interesting, but it basically never lets up. It gets morphed during the the middle section (2:15-2:39), and a few moments at the end, but even for few seconds, its essential character is unchanged. Fortunately, the track isn't terribly long. I'm not super happy with the static backing, but I don't think it's quite a dealbreaker. Otherwise, the track is creative and engaging. YES (borderline)

I love me some atmospheric black metal. Great sound, great performance. Definitely nails the brief. The elephant in the room is, as you mentioned, repetitiveness. For a 10-minute track, there needs to be a fair bit of dynamic content to hold the listener's interest. This is an issue with the genre as a whole, however, and in fact this is less repetitive than similar commercial examples. I don't like that this is standard for the genre, but I can't ding you for adhering to it. Soild work. YES

Nice, chill take. Good full soundscape. The biggest issue I have is the repetitive structure. There are some changes across the three loops, but they're not very substantial. I don't find myself sufficiently engaged for three passes through the same structure, melody, and instrumentation. The production could be cleaner. The lead tends to sink behind the pads, bass, and even drums. It has a very narrow-spectrum timbre, so it needs more presence to stand apart from the more greedy accompanying synths. I'm also not the biggest fan of the drops that cut out completely. They make me think my headphones have failed. It's a great start tonally, I just think the arrangement needs to be further developed to justify its length, and the balance could also use a small tweak. NO

Opens with some really loud, piercing synths. I can tell in the first few seconds I'm not going to be able to listen to this more than a couple of times. The ending also just sort of stops, with no resolution. It seemed a bit source-light to me, but I'm not going to be able to stopwatch it. Even after 2 listens, I need to let my ears recover a bit. Hopefully other judges will be able to provide more detailed feedback on the rest of the mix. But that one synth is enough for me to give it an immediate NO

I'm not normally the biggest fan of brass leads, but the playing here is beautifully done. Very expressive, and good production that really shows off the rich timbre of the instrument. The rest of the performances are all excellent (there's one or two pitchy moments with the strings, but they're easily forgivable), and really show the value of having live performers. It's hard for instrumentalists to capture emotion as well as a vocalist, but I think you've succeeded here. Everything just works. Nice job! YES

I love epic cinematic arrangements! You'd definitely captured the tone and composition of the genre, and that aspect sounds great. I would say that the men's choir is a little quiet, but otherwise production sounds really good. However, I'm left disappointed in a few areas. The instrumentation is pretty mechanical: the timing and articulation is too precise and consistent. This is evident in a few ways, but mostly in the strings, which swell in exactly the same way every time. The piano intro and outtro also sound exactly identical, without human-like inconsistency in timing and velocity. Percussion also sounds like it's on a loop. And although they're clearly synthetic, the two drops (1:35 and 2:30) being identical was also noticable. The ending is also really abrupt. It's clearly an outtro, but it doesn't end on the tonic, and even the tail of the last piano note is cut off. It sounds incomplete. This is well on its way, but for a heavily orchestral track, the realism needs to be a bit higher, and while I don't normally come down hard on weak endings, an ending that doesn't resolve fully in a sub-3:00 piece makes the whole thing sound like a work-in-progress. NO (please resubmit)

Nice dynamic metal/trance arrangement. The source tune is repetitive as hell, so it's impressive you were able to do so much with it. Clean production, full of interesting ideas. I'm on board. YES

Yeah, that opening, with thin, fakey orchestral samples, is a pretty weak way to begin. In general the strings are a lowlight everwhere they appear, which is unfortunately most of the piece. The guitar is mostly excellent, if produced a little thinly, but the one at 4:34 is has some really weak timbre, and I can't even tell if it's a bad guitar or an antique synthesizer trying to be a guitar. Despite the performances being slightly different each time they loop, I'm also finding this pretty repetitive. 0:54-2:30 is looped twice; it's not copy-pasta but the differences are minor, mostly tiny performative variations, and easily overlooked. The same themes return at 5:38; they're used appropriately as a bookend there and there is more variation, but the loop is so long that even there it drags a little. There's a ton I like about this. The guitar performance is phenomenal, the original writing is excellent, the orchestration is beautifully realized. But the orchestral samples and lack of articulation are a major letdown, and the arrangement relies on them heavily. The loop that's longer than some entire submissions, and over 1/3 the length of the entire track, does indeed cause it to drag in my opinion. To me this is borderline. The strong aspects are really strong, but are they enough to counterbalance both the lack of realism and the amount of repetition? I feel uncomfortable saying yes, because either of those things have been dealbreakers in most submissions, let alone both together. I don't like rejecting orchestration and performance this good, but I don't think we can do otherwise and still be fair and consistent in our judging criteria. NO (please resubmit!) Edit 9.28: I read Teo's response, and I have just a few things to add that Gario, who did a fantastic job of explaining our concerns despite not having been part of the original vote (which speaks to our evaluative consistency), did not. First, I apologize for my confusion about that distorted organ. We hear a lot of badly synthesized guitars around here that sound a lot like that! The fact that it was an electronic organ processed in the same way an electric guitar would be explains my confusion. Second, regarding popularity as a metric: We don't listen to submissions the same way most people listen to music. In fact, I don't always listen to music the same way when I have my "judge hat" on as when I don't. We pick at things that might not merit comment when listened to casually, and we reject a fair number of mixes that are commercially popular. We also accept a fair number that probably wouldn't be very popular, because they're doing something esoteric or with an obscure source. Our not accepting a remix says very little about whether it's "good" or even whether we enjoyed it. And I think we all enjoyed this submission very much!

Nice, solid metal adaptation of the theme. Pretty conservative approach but there's plenty of original interpretation added and layered on, including a neat solo. Pretty much everything one would expect from a take like this. Production could be a smidge cleaner (the various synth pads in particular get muddy), but I think it's good enough as-is. YES

Cool arrangement of an awesome track I've never heard before. Thanks for that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's a limitation of FL Mobile or what, but production here needs a fair bit of work. The bass and kicks are super loud, to the point where the kicks are pumping, and the distorting way, not the nice sidechaining way. The entire soundscape is muddy and mid-heavy, very light in the highs. The synths are also pretty vanilla, making the whole thing sound like a remix from 15-20 years ago. Again, not sure how much you can do with FL Mobile, but I don't think it's working for you here. There's some sort of percussive synth that starts at 0:49 that sounds like Link from Zelda 1 taking damage, which I find hilariously out of place. This is fun to listen to, but you may need to port the project or MIDI over to a desktop DAW to do the finishing touches. NO

Nice arrangement of a tricky source. Goes in a lot of different directions, maintaining interest while staying coherent. The ending is pretty abrupt, but otherwise the arrangement is dynamic and engaging. There's something about the production that's bugging me, though. It's pretty light in the bass and mid ranges, clustered mostly in the mid-bass and mid-highs. The guitar has a very narrow frequency presence, and the percussion (kicks and hats) are filtered very high. Weirdly, the best word I can use to describe it is "metallic." Not as in "metal" the genre, but there's an industrial, brassy tone to it. Overall, the thin production and vanilla synths make this sound like a submission from 10+ years ago. I'm having a hard time pointing to much objectively wrong with it, though. Maybe another judge will be able to put it into words better than I can. It doesn't feel like there's enough grounds to explain a solid NO, but it also just doesn't sound right to me. I'll revisit this after I see a couple more votes; right now I'll give this my YES?

Nice metal medley. It's definitely a medley, but the transitions are incredibly smooth throughout. A ton of sources, but they're all used in an obvious way. No problems there. Ninja Gaiden still has one of the greatest soundtracks of all time. It's a standout even among so many excellent sources. The Parasprinter section gave me goosebumps. Great performance, great production. Hope this did well on DoD, it deserves it. YES

What a unique sound palette. Sax and a bunch of synths I can't say I've ever heard before. Can't say I'm a big fan of the muffled orch hit synth (which gets overused at the end), and I'm not sold that it all goes together cohesively, but there isn't anything objectively wrong with it, either. Definitely uses the source material, and production is of course clean, as we expect from Eino. An easy YES

Opens with a brass synth and some very loud ocean sounds. The waves do mostly fade out once the EDM beats kick in. At that point, it's pretty vanilla house fare. You've got your supersaws, your 808s, it's pretty much paint by numbers stylistically. 1:17-1:45 is repeated at 2:16-2:44; not too much, but more than I'd like in such a short piece. Ending is pretty sudden, but at least there's an ending. I'm not wowed by this, but I don't have anything in particular to object to. It's a perfectly servicable adaptation. YES

Opens with a very loud pad; I had to turn my volume down. It doesn't muddy the other instruments, though, since it doesn't share space with anything, until 3:28. The lead there is pretty smushed. 3:53 is even louder, and shrill. It hurts my ears. I was waffling on the production until this point, but this part I'm immediately not okay with. The lead at 2:08 was louder and shriller than I'd like, as well. Overall the arrangement is fine. For a chill, conservative mix, it's dynamic and engaging. My issues are with production. The pads are far too loud and dominant, especially given their low-fi, gritty quality. There are also those piercing leads that are just uncomfortable to listen to. Good foundation here, just needs tweaks to balance and the tones of those few synths. NO

Looks like you've got about 110 seconds when you need 121, so you're 11 short. 0:35-0:43 (7 seconds) plays the main hook with a key change on the celesta. That's still 4 seconds short, which I'm unable to find. Certainly there are commonalities, but not as much direct source usage as it felt subjectively.

I'll stand by my position. Music is not the dominant component of this submission, full stop. Joe's counterargument is "the purpose of that rule seems to me designed to ensure that each arrangement contains a sufficient nexus to the video game that inspired it." That's not correct: the purpose is that it contains sufficient use of the musical track(s) that it's derived from. To take an extreme example, if a submission were a radio play-style re-enactment of the plot of Metal Gear Solid, it would have plenty of connection to the game but none to the music. OCR is about video game music, not video game-related audio.

I'm glad Larry posted first, because my one and only concern here is that it goes off the rails with a lot of original riffing. I trust Larry when it comes to needing to timestamp, though — at least, I trust him not to be too generous! Fantastic performances, fantastic arrangement, fantastic production. Excellent adaptation of a tune to a genre. Really just a stellar job all around. This could have been a DP, IMHO. YES

A repetitive 20-second source, huh? Very curious what could come out of this.... ...Well, I would have expected that if I'd read the description first! As it was, a pleasant surprise (other than the explicit lyrics, but ). The groove is super repetitive, but for the genre, that's to be expected, and at least the lyrics aren't repeated too much. The last minute or so drags more than I'd really like, but it's not that bad on a single listen, especially if you focus on the lyrics. The vocoded lyrics are a bit hard to understand. Otherwise, production is of course fine, and the source usage is ever-present (perhaps to a fault). It's almost cheating to call this a ReMix; it definitely counts, but choosing a minimalistic source to use as a base and then just doing whatever on top of it feels sort of against the spirit to me. Still, there's nothing objectively against our standards about it, and the quality is well above our bar. YES

Sees proph's screenshot Lowers volume of music player I can't say I agree with the position that it's mastered cleanly. From 0:28-1:24 I can barely make out even the lead, and I have only the slightest suggestion there's any kind of bass or harmony or anything. All I'm getting is drums. It's better after that until 2:08, but I'm still hearing mostly drums. I can make out the harmony now, but not bass or anything else. Then it alternates between the two styles until 5:27. That section is pretty minimal; not objectionable until 6:33, when the guitar comes in, which is absolutely awash with reverb to the point where it becomes muddy and indistinguishable almost immediately. I get that black metal isn't typically "cleanly" produced. There's a garage-y, wall-of-sound quality to it. But it should still be clearer than this, IMHO. I often use Clementine's "temperature" visualization to spot unusual balance and patterns. Here's what it shows for this track: Black represents (relative) quiet, white represents use of the full spectrum of sound, other colors represent partial presence in lows/mids/highs. This whole thing is either white or very pale colors. Generally, only a climactic section, if any, should look like that. (For contrast, here's your previous mixpost and another very busy metal track by the late great PirateCrab .) Regardless, the amount of repetition is unambiguously enough reason for a NO vote, as proph described. NO

proph nails the critical issue here. Far too much repetition for what we're looking for. It's a great orchestration. Production is clearly sampled but also well over our bar. If it just flat-out ended at 1:56 I'd probably still vote in favor of it despite technically being 4 seconds below our minimum. This should be an easy fix. NO (please resubmit)

Nice soundscape, if notably bass-heavy. I really like the syncopated beat. It's a little meandering and static, but I tried and failed to find any actual copypasta. I would like a little more variety and more of an ending, but I don't think either is strictly required in a remix of this length. It's a novel take on one of the most remixed tracks of all time, so kudos for that. YES