Protricity

As analoq said, its the original with some minor updates. However, for the most part, this song is exactly the same as the original. When new things are eventually added, like the violin at 1:35, things become to sound ugly. The key changes are a very bad idea. They just sound... bad. And thats about it. NO

The intro showed some promise, but then it quickly degraded into a collective of ugly deturned synths, octive bass, and ofcourse some boomtish. Theres a lot of vocal shows, sound effects, wishes and washes. Musically, there's hardly anything going on. This song is solely carried by its samples and synth presets. Go for more than the lowest denomiation of 'generic trance' NO

This could have been very cool if more attention was given to the notation and arrangement. Lots of grating repeating. More arrangement, less note for note next time NO

as analoq covered, nothing much going on. Its very very very repeating. The beat starts to grate on me after a while. The hats mostly. The song doesn't really go anywhere. Beat never changes. Bass never changes. Just go for more. NO

Indeed vig covered the concern with the off notes. To that I add that there is simply nothing new going on here. This song has so many remixes that the standards for it's submission must be higher than normal. Even if this was not the case, the off notes, poor chords, low sample quality, poor equing, and general lack of arrangement is enough for a NO

What the hell is the point of reviewing this? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Chords are very poor. Harmony is nonexistant. Drums are a few steps below typical. Improv is weak. Song is repetitive. Ending is weak. Work on all these problems for your next submission. NO

WUT

Real nice. Some excellent dnb goin on here. Good use of bass, synth, lead. Great MAKE IT LONGER NEXT TIME YES

Very nice. Listened to it for a good 50 minutes. Really got into it. Nice alternate styles of playing and well played. Cant ask for more YES

Way too ameture for this site. The original had much better notation, percussion, movement, and arrangement than this remix. Even better sound quality. On those grounds, this has to get a NO

This song is kinda simple. Its got simplicity on the drums and instruments - note the octave note backgrounds, singular drum patterns. The sample quality is ace. There is originality which is a plus. Orchestration is a bit hallow but really not bad enough for me to not give it a YES Nice!

I'm a big fan of CJ's ocremixes, but this one let me down. Processing is good, execution is interesting. Can't say I've heard stuff like this before really, but then yea, its pretty close to the original, repetitive, and completely lacking in the unique way Jeff used to kick ass. Cool, but not cool enough. NO

Not quite that straightforward. The repeating is well within my Yes-Bounds. Theres plenty of arrangement to match it up. This song really moves. Author doesn't seem to tone down the action at any one point; It doesnt seem like he/she even wanted it to. Plenty of change up. Good length. Here comes the ending... eh, could have been better. Very nice still. YES

The shouts got very annoying. They did not add to this song at all. The guitar riff samples are the only thing making this song even remotely interesting. Take those out and you got an even more boring song. Fun to experment with vocal clips and guitar riffs, but I'd rather hear your own music, as I know you got talent. NO

Apparently I judged the wrong OMF song. My bad This is not anywhere near as good as the original in my opinion. The chords used at 2:23 are just wrong. It kills the songs to change the chords for the worse. Remixes should try to improve on all aspects and degrade nothing. Ending really sucks. Way too much repeating. No improvement over the original. NO

Took me a while to remember which song this was. This song has the dance where its at, but lacks in the aspects of arrangement and originality. Its not far from oc quality as is, but just needs some real rearrangement in more ways than one. NO

Hmm, 2 minutes. I hope theres a reason for that. 2 repeats, so this is really one minute. Work on length and try to make this into more of a song than a simple guitar cover. NO

This song is about 2 steps away from OCremix quality. The talent is definately there, but the application is not. This song is simply too simple. Lets get less minimalism, less repetition, and more activity.

ftp://aripc.dhcp.asu.edu/Upload/2-18 fight against smithy.spc This is pretty cool. Lots of potential here. Awe damn, its over already... 2 minutes. I really like this. Aside from the string and flute bends, there ain't much wrong with it... except the length. 2 Minutes simply doesnt cut it for orchistral. Go for twice the length and resubmit. NO

This is way too close, if not exact, with the original. NO ftp://aripc.dhcp.asu.edu/Upload/2-18 fight against smithy.spc There are some liberties takin up later on, but as for the rest of it, its the original with differen't patches.

Lots of arrangement and improv! Just not very good. Its sorta ameture. Aside from that, its the sample quality and minimalistic nature of this song thats really killing it. Lots of repeating and weak solos. It needs to be played live... or something. NO

I heard this one already. I advised the author not to follow so close to the original as is going on in this mix. Guess they didn't listen... Theres simply no.. rearrangement at all... oh wait. This part (3:30) is new. Cool, but simply doesn't make up for the rest. NO

[Everything that Vig said] + sync was very messy as was the playing. You gotta strive for that recording quality. A better mic/environment can make all the difference here. NO

This mix is kinda ... all over the place. It really could be more solid. Probably a no, but I'll listen to it more. EDIT: There are elements I like about this mix, but there are too many I do not. Its really all over with arrangement. Beat keeps stopping and starting. Needs to be more solid. Ending is weak. etc NO