Hemophiliac

In a macro sense, I think this arrangement was pretty good. It's just got the minor issues holding it back from being the complete package. For me the biggest offender and the reason why I can't give this a pass is the dissonances in the backing elements. 2:35 stands out to me the most with regards to dissonances, doesn't sound like an individual note here but a chord choice not fitting. Flexstyle also pointed out other timestamps that should be addressed as well. Hi hats also stand out in the mixdown, feel hotter than the leads to me. Guitar work was good and sits within the mix well, just check for dissonances in the chords. Also liked the subtle movement on the synth leads when they would occasionally pop-in. I know you're capable of revision in a manner that will address our concerns and keeps your idea intact. Please revisit this and send it back when you're ready. NO (resubmit)

As the two previous judges have mentioned, the arrangement on this is not at all the issue here. I like the conservative approach with minor additions throughout. The arrangement itself is very pleasant and I could listen to this on loop with more work put into it. The interplay between the guitar and the piano is very pleasant, however; the guitar is mixed behind the piano and is tougher to focus on with the piano being much more forward. I don't love the vox but it's possible to get by with this sample. As a vocalist myself, I'm always bothered when I hear forte timbre being applied softly through samples. It just sounds unnatural. Unfortunately, the humanization of all of the parts is the drawback here. With only 3 parts, they are exposed and it makes it easier to hear when things aren't as realistic sounding as they could be. If you don't want to get live performances, that's fine. You'll just need to spend a lot of time working on the fine details of performance to sound more in line with a human performance. Now, I'm not saying things are robotic here, but they certainly could be improved. 2:33-2:56 in particular (in the piano) stood out as it seems no pedaling was utilized here. Exaggerate what you've already put in as well as adding more human rhythm/velocity variation will go a long way to improving this. Just not quite passed the finish line yet. NO (resubmit)

I have to echo what the two previous votes have said on their points, I agree with them. The leads are often much too bright and forward, really making a harsh unpleasant tone to listen to for long periods. A few things that I want to add: 0:37 shakuhachi-like instrument enters and it's very dry and present. 3:07-4:20 there are many notes during this section that just sound wrong. Something is dissonant and not in a pleasant way, at times it just sounds like the shakuhachi/flute is playing in a different key entirely. Many transitions and direct modulations don't feel prepared and as a listener you're jarred from section to section. The overall macro-structure of the song is fine, and there's a journey taken and a story told. There just needs to have a lot of work done to improve the detail work and production. After 3:07 think about what's the most important part of the arrangement and have that be the focus. Not only are there a lot of parts going on, but the balance between parts is off. As the lead is much louder and forward then the other parts. This whole section is brickwalled too, give the listener some breathing room here to be able to process everything that's going on. Prophetik mentioned side-chaining for this section, and I'm not hearing any being used here. It would definitely help clean up this section some with minimal effort. The ending after 6:23 having an echo-like coda that fades to nothing is much quieter than the section proceeding it, I honestly thought I had something else accidentally playing in the background at the same time. I do like that some attention has been given to the articulations on the leads with some glissandos as well as shaping of phrases with dynamics and crescendos/decrescendos. However, the actual instruments used are still feeling unrealistic. This can be helped some with better application of reverb on them and pushing them back into the mix so that they aren't forward and as present. When something stands out as much as these leads it's easy to hear their imperfections, easier to get away with less realism when it is pushed back into the mix. NO

While this is a fun and peppy throwback track, as this sounds like something you'd hear from the early 2000s. However, it's very much a cover with a genre adaption. We're looking more for Magna Romagna's flavors and spices applied to it. Genre adaption is a start at doing this, but you would need to do more than just that. It could be melodic interpretation, adding original sections, or changing the time signature. Those are just a few suggestions, and certainly doesn't cover all possibilities. What you've got here isn't bad at all, just not what we're looking for in a passing arrangement. If you need assistance with those ideas or how to interpret the source more, I recommend utilizing the workshop on the forums to get feedback or join the Discord and do the same in the #workshop channel there. Again, this isn't a bad start at all; the potential is there. It just needs more of your own development and interpretation of the source. NO (resubmit)

Care to elaborate? Not much being mentioned here...

This is a fun, but highly conservative arrangement. Going dnb isn't a bad call, but when you're working with loops like this you need to give some variety or variation with them. You drop out the drums at good times such as 0:41. Keeping the same loop over and over gets old very fast, so changing it up or slicing it goes a long way to keeping the track moving and avoiding becoming static. The ending is awkward as the final transition at 2:09 is abrupt to get us bookended to the opening bass loop, and then it has a very quick fade-out to close it. Nothing wrong with book-ending the track, it's just the sudden transition back and the quick fade. A more definitive ending would be ideal considering it is such a short track. I'm not sure if that is the original source instrument lead in the background or a synth that is very close to it, but I would suggest to make that not as similar to avoid the confusion of it possibly being just the original in the back. Some of the other synth choices aren't ideal, but I don't want to criticize those too much as that can be an artistic choice and they don't impact my decision on this track in particular. I agree with Prophetik that we need more of Radixerus' takes and inspiration to take this to the next level. Let's hear what you bring to it aside from the drum loops. That could be in the form of melodic changes, harmonic changes, or maybe a brand new section that's completely original. Those are just a few examples (but not all) of how one could bring your own looks to a track. If you feel you need more help in that department I'd recommend posting in the workshop or joining the discord seeking feedback on there. NO

We need more new jack swing! Severely under represented genre with VGM. This is a fun track with excellently sung vocals by Alvic. I'm also a sucker for well used orch hits! For me there's two major issues and one less so. One, the arrangement is too conservative and close to the original source. Now, you've nailed the genre adaption, but it's still too close. The second major issue is the drums don't have enough variation and are stuck and static on the same pattern for most of the track. Nothing wrong with the pattern itself as it feels very appropriate for the genre. It just doesn't change or have parts added or subtracted as the song progresses. Give us some variety to change things up and give a sense of progression aside from section changes. For me the minor issue is the lack of weight in the bass, and that could be because it's quieter then the other parts. Compression might help bring it out and give it the beef I think of when I think of that particular 90s sound. The other production feels mostly solid to me, the vocal processing was handled very well in particular. The fadeout ending isn't great but it doesn't bother me either. Wish I could give this the nod, but the closeness to the source and autopilot drums kept this playboy out of the club. NO

This is really begging for more development and expansion. As of right now this is mostly an orchestration of parts rather then a fully realized ReMix. The dynamics are fantastic and I'm so glad to hear the gamut of soft to loud here. The samples and production are handled well enough for them to not be an issue in what would pass this. The issue comes down to the arrangement. It's conservative and doesn't take us far away from that source much. At 1:28 it barely feels like the idea is executed before it's done. For me to pass this I would need to see more of your own expansion on the theme and/or some creative interpretation of the melodic material. This sounds good, but there's not enough material to feel fully developed. NO

This is tough. It's gonna sound like I don't like this, which is not the case I do enjoy the concept a lot. I can really get behind the idea of an ambient/chill track, I love putting these on and just zoning out. This one just feels incomplete without more to it. It feels like a mostly polished sketch of something greater. Now, I'm not saying this needs percussion to be successful because that's the first thing that came to mind. Rather, this needs more to it. More ear candy, more subtle background parts, more dynamics, more modulation...anything. It could be this chill and ambient without percussion but you would need to find a way to add in subtle background substance to give this more forward momentum. As it is right now it's feeling more static. It does have some growth/modulation/dynamics to some parts, but I think it needs to be more exaggerated to make it work better. I am hearing the connection to the source in and I feel like that aspect is done fine. I also want to echo the sound design comments that Prophetik pointed out. Because things are more sparse the attacks will really stand out, as well as the amp noise on the guitar. So again, great concept, just needing some small clean up on sound design, and some more subtle background things. NO (resubmit)

Have to start out by saying the intro is very cool. I love it when something starts out with simple sounds and morphs them into more of the identity of the track. Nice work going from chip to guitar smoothly as that can be difficult to pull off. This one is wild, both in good and bad ways. The wild energy is to your benefit, the panning on the other hand is unusual and very wide at times. The wideness of the panning combined with the dryness of the instruments is creating a lot of empty space and texture. Liontamer identified the same and noted the spots where this was the biggest issue. When everything is playing together, it has a fullness that is alright, but when it's only an element or two together it feels too texturally sparse for me. The source is there on this, but it feels more interpretive then straight up conservative as Chimpazilla was suggesting. More direct reference to the melody would've been nice but not a requirement. I like the performance and interpretation, but the mixing, panning, and sparseness were arsenic and rat poison to me. There's definitely something to this energy though, and I'm bummed that I have to give this a NO

So, I've been waffling back and forth on this one for a while now. The arrangement (aside from the sudden transition at 1:31) is good. All themes have been incorporated and have added plenty of your own interpretation to them. The macro-structure tells a story and the piece goes places, bravo. Where this needs improvement is the production and sequencing. Most of the time the samples feel like they have been handled ok (but could have been better with more attention to detail and articulation switching) and you get by with what you have. However, the sore spot is the lead cello. A few times it is too forward in the mix when it should be more blended (1:46-2:24, gets better when the male choir enters). 0:46 on the cello has a strange flanged quality to it for a moment. I think the arrangement is strong enough to overlook some of the production/sequencing issues here. YES (borderline)

I'm in agreement with my fellow J's on this one. The arrangement itself on a macro level is good and I enjoy listening to this one. The part that needs improvement is the production and mixdown. From 0:00-1:25 everything works for me, and sounds pretty good. At 1:26 a slightly different bass synth enters and takes up a lot of the space. It's got a bunch of high-end on it that crowds out the other parts from being balanced with it, some top end reduction with EQ could help to tame it. I agree with Emunator about side-chaining as well. It isn't required to have some to clean it up, but it would really help in creating a lot of space and helping to lessen the muddiness. There is some general part imbalance during the upbeat sections where I'm not sure what the focus is supposed to be because of the size of the bass. I like how both sources are incorporated and how the overall flow of the piece works very well. The production is what is holding it back unfortunately. This would be the kind of piece that could benefit from some feedback in the workshop if you need more suggestions on how to clean up the balance between parts or reduce muddiness. NO (resubmit)

Like your other Mega Man 3 submission, the synths in this are very basic. Sounds like something you might hear in the early 2000s. There are a few filter sweeps I heard in various places in the track, that's good! Now you just need to use that same idea to automate effects or parameters on the synths to give them life, add sophistication, and expression. I want to hear more expression! There's mixing problems abound with this, the leads are tough to hear at times, but also extremely bright in the high end making them unpleasant to listen to. As XPRTNovice points out the snare is very forward in the mix and cuts through tremendously. It is also very static and does not change very much at all in velocity or pattern. The main organ-like lead is difficult to hear as it's buried behind many other elements of the track. 3:03 is a strange transition. The drop out in this manner can work, but it was just into another loop of much of the same we've heard. 3:03 felt like a good opportunity to change things up and show us more of "Heel Tactics" territory then just another repeat of Top Man with the continuous kick. Arrangement-wise this is fairly conservative once we get past the intro. There is much more that can be done to make it your own other than changing up the instruments and dropping into a 4-on-the-floor beat. If you haven't already, I recommend reaching out on the workshop on the forums or Discord to get more feedback so you can refine what you're working on more. NO

This sounds and feels like a throwback to the early days of OCR. It would not be out of place to have heard this back in the early 2000s. The biggest issues are the blend of parts and the mixdown. The drums are the most present part of the mix and the melodic elements are further back. The bass could be a lot fuller. As both of the previous two votes have noted, this snare is like a laser that cuts through everything. It's the number one thing you hear and not just because of volume, but it seems to be taking up much of the frequency range as well. Structurally it's not terrible, as you do have some contrasts in texture and even have a dropout around 1:42 and 3:00 that helps to break up the repetitiveness of the track, however it quickly gets repetitive again. If you keep following a drop out to just reintroduce the instruments one at a time it will get stale. The synth choices are pretty vanilla and are lacking some sophistication, could use an update to a more modern palette. As well as taming of some of their harsher upper frequencies, such as the lead that enters at 2:08. If you do consider revising this, take another look at the sound design, try to get the parts to blend together better rather than them being so separate in the mix, and see about reducing the overall repetitiveness within each section. NO

Wow, this was a tough one. I don't understand the need for many of the sections to get a second or sometimes 4x repeat before it moves to another phrase. While this is a compositional/arrangement technique, the application here ends up feeling more drawn out. The original source had many of these melodies play a second time, but with definite differences to the first time they were introduced (for example: change of dynamics or instrumentation). When things get played a second time without changing anything to them, it just feels like adding length without saying anything significant. In terms of the macro-structure and how the whole piece is laid out it works, it's just the repeats within each section getting so dull. 1:25-2:11 we get the first presentation of the "chorus" as you called it from Invincible. Except you've changed it so that the first half of it (1:07-1:13 from Invincible on the YouTube video source) is the only part that we get and loop that. We recognize that as being from Invincible even though it's modified somewhat, and the amount of repetition also ingrains us into knowing it's your chorus. 2:36-3:00, 3:01-3:24 The "chorus" returns and plays 4x twice! And these 4x are identical except for an upper guitar added on the second time, but it's so buried it might as well not be there. The final time this repeats 6:25-7:00 it doesn't seem like anything is different and is copied over once again. In between the "chorus" sections and the intro I really like how you use the other parts of the source to act as bridges and create a softer contrasting texture. The production is mostly good, and you certainly know your genre very well. My only production gripes are few things being buried or taking up too much space. Such as the higher guitar during the second half of 3:01-3:24, and the sonar-like synth taking up a lot of space in the mix. I also didn't care for many of the synth choices, but that didn't factor into my decision. The downfall of this, for me; is ultimately going to be in the repetition without variation or changes. NO