MindWanderer

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

I like the approach here, for the most part. Lots of rich timbres, and the vocals are done in a novel way. The arrangement progresses through a lot of good ideas. Opens with a very clean, dry synth, then quickly adds dirtier and dirtier layers. It's a strange approach that took me by surprise. I'm not sure that it's wrong per se, but it sounds wrong to me; it doesn't make any sense that synths should need to sound like they're in the same space, they're fake anyway, but the change in ambience is jarring. 0:28-0:48 in particular is gritty to the point of being muddy. At 0:38 the melody is sitting pretty far back in the mix compared to the bass and pads, but it's only for a couple of measures. Balance does continue to be a little weird after that, but not so badly; notably, the drums and pads are quite loud most of the time. The quieter sections (1:38-2:07, 2:16-2:26) are the best-sounding. The ending is very abrupt and kind of inconslusive. Very much one of those endings where it sounds like you just ran out of ideas and called it a day. I'm more on the fence about this one than all the other submissions of yours I've been ramming through lately. The issue with dirty production you sometimes have is in full force here, and the ending really makes the composition feel incomplete. I think the ending is the only part that's really not okay, and I won't send this back over just that. YES

Cleaner orchestral sound than the other submissions in this wave, although it does get a little crunchy in the climax, with some bitcrushing and overcompression. The arrangement is a pretty slow burn, but it isn't static for very long. I think this is fine overall, just watch those levels. Things can be loud without getting crushed. YES

In the album eval, we all liked the composition but had concerns about distortion and balance, as well as timing of the strings. The string timing sounds fine to me, now. However, the crunchiness doesn't sound intentional to me. There's a synth that first appears at 1:02 that seems like it's supposed to be adding an industrial tone, but it's just adding white noise to my ears. It sounds, frankly, terrible, and as it's loud and plays for most of the piece, for me it's a dealbreaker. There's also a bass at 1:28-1:46 that's overwhelmingly pounding. It doesn't play for long, but it bothers me a lot while it does. Finally, the spoken words have way too much reverb. They sound like they were recorded in a bathroom, and not in the same space as everything else. That gritty synth is the one thing that's a major issue from my perspective. The other issues would be passable, but would be nice to have addressed. NO (resubmit) Revision 11/6: Sounds good now. Everything I asked to be addressed was addressed. YES

I liked this just fine when I evaluated it for the album, and I still like it now. Seems influenced by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, especially the section that sounds a lot like the Choir of the Bells. It's a great rock orchestral adaptation of the source with a lot of creative flourishes and some cool pacing. Production seems overfiltered, a smidge light in both the highs and the lows. The guitar especially seems squashed, but guitar over orchestra is pretty darn hard to mix. I'm not hearing any overbearing problems. YES

When this was submitted for the album, I complained about some distortion and the quality of the violins. The violins sound fine now. I do still hear some pumping coming from overcompression, but it's not too bad. Otherwise, this is a great cinematic arrangement. Engaging dynamic progression. Seems like it would work well in a sci-fi epic. Works for me. YES

Definitely not the sort of thing I listen to for fun, but I can't deny that it's done well. As Hemo pointed out in our initial project evaluation, it's a clear reference to Vangelis's work on Blade Runner, even sharing the name of a track on the album; a little too on-the-nose perhaps. The source breakdown was helpful, even necessary. It does what it's meant to do. I don't have any particular objections. YES

We certainly don't need timestamps; it uses the source extensively. Interesting choice to use mostly the very high end of the piano. It sounds like you may have cut some of the harmonics out of the bass, as well. The result is a soundscape that's very mid-light. I'm not a pianist, but this sounds pretty challenging to play. Lots of rapid, rapidly-changing notes. I can hear you having trouble pressing the keys with enough force, with several notes being too quiet or even missed altogether, and timing is slow on occasion. There are a handful of notes that sound flat to me: 1:41 and 1:47 stand out the most to me because they're exposed. 0:46-1:16 is a very strange section, with rapid key changes and just some weird writing. The transitions into and out of this section are abrupt as well. 2:10-2:21 is another section that starts and stops abruptly, and 2:32 also marks a sudden transition. There's lots of little things that are holding this back for me. I'm not sold on the composition as a whole, and I think the performance is holding it back a bit as well. NO

You certainly did manage to do something new and creative with an overdone source. Interesting sound choices. The loud, grungy pad results in a soundscape that's less clear than I expect from violins, and indeed from the rest of the palette. It's not objectively bad, and I appreciate what you were going for, but it does detract from my ability to enjoy it. I would have at least pushed the pads back a bit to let the violin shine. Marissa's part-writing really stands out as a highlight, and now I kind of want an acoustic or mostly-acoustic remix of this that puts her front and center. Otherwise, I love this. Worth it. YES

I wasn't familiar with this genre, so thanks for explaining it. Definitely not something I was expecting to hear today. Great tone; your choice of instruments seems eclectic but it all works well together. The crazy ending is, well, a little crazy, but clearly it's intentional. I can't really find much to criticize here. Checks all the boxes for sure. Easy YES

I really need to get around to playing this game at some point. What great music. Beautiful music box-like opening. Trombone is a weird choice here and doesn't really fit the pastoral sound palette created by the other instruments. It's also often mixed quite quietly even though it carries the lead. Then at 1:35 the piano takes the lead and is also much too quiet. The bass is filling up the whole spectrum pretty much everywhere, and, other than the percussion, only the flute is mixed loudly enough to cut through, including when it's not the lead. Nope, I take that back; starting at about 2:09, the flute is pushed too far back as well. I love this arrangement and the ensemble performance. But I think the mixing isn't doing this any favors. Kick that bass to the back and let the other instruments take turns being leads or accompaniment. NO (please resubmit)

Seems like this piece is designed to resonate emotionally with listeners familiar with Stormblood and with a connection to Indian culture, history, and art. I am neither of those things, so to me this isn't anything more than a pretty piece of music. It certainly is pretty, though! The sitar and bongos are used tastefully with the synth soundscape. There are those two repeated sections, but the way the first repeated section is repeated again, but doubled, it's still effective at retaining interest, increasing energy slightly, and still tying it all together. This is how you can do copy-paste right. The word for this as a package is "elegant." It's tasteful, it's culturally relevant. It's the sort of thing pretentious art critics gush over, and as that's basically my role as a non-musician judge here, I'm happy to give it a YES

I don't think this was repetitive at all. Sure, the piano motif was used extensively, but it's the glue that holds the piece together. The strings, chimes, pads, vox, FX, and probably more that I'm not consciously picking up on are dynamic throughout, never repeating and constantly taking turns. And even the piano changes things up enough that I don't think it would be an issue. I don't think it needed the lo-fi effects, but otherwise this sounds great. YES

Opens up with some synth-led metal. Does some weird things to the source tune which make it less melodic and cohesive. 1:54-2:17 especially sounds disjointed and rambling. The melody is from the source, but the timing is strange. At 2:18, there's a sudden tempo change, and a piano joins in, which quickly takes over. At 2:50 you have a piano arrangement with a completely different tempo and instrumentation; there's nothing but an awkward transition to tie this in with the synth rock that was the first 2/3 of the piece. This part is a great piano arrangement. The guitar and synths do join back in at 3:19, and this transition is pretty good, but then they go back to playing the first source as a sort of very short bookend The overall impression is one of two unrelated songs joined together in the middle and at the end with brief mashups. That said, the performances are certainly solid. Production is fine. It just feels to me like the arrangement doesn't know what it's doing from one minute to the next. The synth rock Main Theme and the piano Missing Perspective seem like two different songs stuck together; they're stuck together fairly well, but they still don't sound like they started off related at all. And then the timing of the first half is hard to follow. For this one, I'm going to have to go NO

Hoo, opens up with a loud wash of reverb right in your face. The whole intro, through 0:50, is a wall of sound for me. All I can make out is beats and echoes. I can hardly even distinguish individual notes. Then the melody kicks in, and I hear notes, but they're on the quiet side compared to that continuing morass of reverb. At times, e.g. 1:31-1:40, I can barely even tell whether the lead is playing. It took me multiple listens to even notice there was even a melody in 2:09-2:58. Did I even listen to the same track as the judges above? It must be, because it's definitely Chemical Plant + Brinstar, but this isn't "clean" production by any stretch of my imagination. It's a great idea, but I can't hear half of it and I can't appreciate the rest. It's all echoes on echoes on echoes. NO

Fragments, indeed. This takes the hooks, primarily from the title screen theme, and mashes them up heavily. Going from memory instead of referencing the track was a great idea, as it let you create something that was unique and inherently memorable. Lo-fi isn't really my thing (as with pretty much anything that's intentionally produced "badly"), but I recognize that this is done appropriately for the style. It works. YES