Rexy

First of all, here's my take on source use. There's an interpretation of the A and B melodies at 0:48-1:29, and again at 1:51-2:55 with some further personalizations. If I deduct 10 seconds of nothing but bongoes, it barely bubbles under 50% source use - but its means of use doesn't affect the quota too much. It's also an intriguing artistic direction to have a more minimalist soundscape like this. You aimed to capture a more melancholic feel with just having two live instruments and a wind effect. It's a risky decision, but the parts all sound clean and don't have overlapping frequencies. Timings are loose, but they're mostly not so loose that it becomes distracting. Some things add up to not entirely pushing it over the bar, though. Firstly, I am with Gario and Nuts regarding the performance of the rhythm part and how some notes overlap with each other. It doesn't feel clean or intentional, so consider re-recording it and minimizing this error. Secondly, I'm okay with the wind effects, but why is there so much boom on them? It feels more like it's rubbing into the microphone, which gives out an unpleasant feeling. Recorded ambiance like this can benefit a lot from a high pass, rolling out the bass frequencies and adding clarity to your outdoor folk feel. And this thought is more of a personal taste thing, but I also feel the soundscape can get thickened up without compromising your minimal vision. I can see one idea where there are either multiple takes of the same instrument or some use of delay to get the feeling of a fuller sound. I can also see another idea where there's subtle stereo reverb on both of those instruments for a sense of larger performance space. I can see both of these ideas lifting the track's soundscape, but it's up to you in deciding whether they go against your vision or not. Nevertheless, I'm all for a re-recording on that rhythm part for added clarity. The other production issue(s) are a close second, and any potential new source additions are a non-issue or distant third depending on how you look at it. It's a unique take, and you should be proud of it, but I feel it needs more polish before it gets posted. Please revise it and send it back. NO (resubmit)

You got a solid and nice-sounding groove with some smart envelope work on your dubstep bass. Not a lot of sounds are present outside of the sampled VGM, but nothing's clashing with anything, so it doesn't matter. However, this track was close to a No Override decision - but there is some non-sampled interpretation that saved it. There's melody presence in the dubstep bass (1:12-1:31, 2:57-3:16) and in the backing synth at 3:35-3:58, where the melody went into double-time as the track's tempo dipped. Despite all this, there's less than 25% of non-sampled source and by far marks the biggest dealbreaker. Still, it'll be cool if you send over any future works with a more substantial arrangement. You have the potential to do a dubstep track that doesn't have sampling at all or at least keeps it to a minimum. Please, keep at it. NO

You know you've done well with the production when it made me get up and dance! The focus on sibilance is an interesting stylistic choice as EDM tracks aren't usually treble-heavy, but I can hear all the parts cleanly. The backing is merely the bass and some effects, but the synth melody layering sounded like they took the purpose of a pad or rhythm part and went full ham. I also sensed gates, pitch shifts, subtle use of LFOs, delicate sweeps, and bit-crushing in the background - all used tastefully to create an engaging soundscape. The arrangement is also fun - focusing heavier on subtractive writing with plenty of changeups throughout. The A section at 0:35 got adapted to these trance chord progressions with the melody turning straight at 0:57, so I don't see the melody's use here as outstaying its welcome. There are other sections like 1:32, 1:47 and 2:31 that also played around with the rhythm of the melody while still keeping the tone. In combination with the smart production and well-paced framework, it adds to a potent composition throughout. I too also noticed the sloppy placement of the E section at 2:15, when the execution was much tighter at 4:04. It's the only dampener of the arrangement, but not so rough it would dampen my vote. And I must also say the Game Over jingle at the end is a cute idea. Are you telling me the stage is brutally tricky even for seasoned retro gamers? I enjoyed this submission a lot - fun take on a more complicated source, and that soundscape is impressive. The little timing hiccup and my questioning on the sibilance-heavy mixdown are way too minor for me to see it as anything but a lively, personalized arrangement. Great going, Jari! YES

Well, this track certainly surprised me. Going by the length, I almost thought this would be a straight cover - but the original writing at 0:56 caught me off-guard! Your synth lead has subtle uses of glides and modulation, the bit-crushed sweep at 2:03 is a nice touch, and the source is dominant despite it only being in the bookends. But some issues are holding it back and here's what stood out for me. First and foremost, the source sections (0:00-0:56, 2:07-2:49) are way too straightforward and follow the A and C sections note-for-note. There's nothing wrong with conservative arranging, but when there's nothing new underneath them, it makes them a tough sell. New parts can come in the form of a countermelody, new rhythm sounds, and any new pads if you're bold enough. Even your pre-existing backing can get changed up while still leaving the melody and chord structure intact. Secondly, the soundscape feels thin - especially when the source is present. In those sections, the frequencies here mostly occupy the low-mid range with only higher-pitch percussion filling any frequency higher than 1kHz. It does improve during your big original part at 0:56 with the synth solo and the choice of pads, but it's not even around for more than half of the entire track. Nevertheless, picking instrumentation to fill out these empty spaces also goes hand-in-hand with the subtractive arranging changes I mentioned earlier. Going over the master as well, it feels too quiet. Technically it does peak close to 0dB, but if you mute the kicks, this value won't go any higher than -6dB. To make the kick sound more consistent with the rest of the instrumentation, I can see a few ways of remedying it. One idea is to apply a sidechain and let the kick soften up the piano and pads when triggered. Another approach is to find the kick's tonal frequency and place an EQ cut on the bass at that value. Even something as straightforward as applying a high-pass onto your non-bass instruments can roll off any unwanted boom. Consider looking into these techniques and seeing how you can use them into your work going forward. Also, the white noise at 0:42 sounds like it doesn't belong here. I'm not sure why it's there despite no live instruments. If it ever pops up in a future track, either re-render it or apply high-frequency EQ cuts on the offending part. It's not a bad idea, and you got the grasp of the arrangement part. If this ever gets reworked and sent back to the inbox, I'd like to hear it with a more refined source interpretation and resolutions to the production flaws. I'm assuming this is your first sub, so well done on making it to the Judges. Let's see you (hopefully) take it one step further next time around. NO

Oh, sweet; I was there at the MAGFest 2018 live panel that planted the seeds for this mix! It's so awesome to hear it in a finished form! Excitement over, the production immediately strikes out as well defined. I sensed crispy drums, clever side-chaining, a balance focusing more on wetness, a meaty synth palette swapping and changing whenever, and many different filters and gates. They all work well together and add a large amount of fun to the overall experience. The arrangement starts straightforward with one rendition of the theme, but the breakdown at 2:00 with the new rhythm polysynths adds a side of energy that wasn't even present in the original. The bass writing throughout had given it a substantial lift as well and made it feel like the track went through multiple EDM sub-genre changes in the space of its nearly-4-minute length. Of course, I wasn't too keen on the abrupt ending - it just ended right at the end of the second run-through, with no other fanfare. It isn't a dealbreaker as it hit a lot of right notes elsewhere. If I based my assessment on the initially submitted track, I would've also gone conditional based on the ending's abrupt cut-off. However, Andrew co-operated and sent over a new render that fixed the issue. Combined with the production chops and subtle care to a subtractive arrangement, I feel confident in seeing this on the front page for sure! YES

That choice of instruments makes me think more in the direction of George Harrison rather than The Doors, but I can still identify the chill 60s vibe here. That source is present from start to finish, going beyond being played straight with a smart interpretation typical of the style. It's been played at half-time during the intro, demonstrated a funk-like swagger at 1:07, and appeared on the bass in a modified form (most evident from 2:00). Even the framework is robust, with the fleshed-out section B segments at 0:40 and 2:53 anchoring it with your Asian instrumentation. I have no faults with interpretation - it's there and tastefully done. The production, for the most part, sounds great too. Stemage and ImAFutureGuitarHero did a fantastic job with recording those live parts, the balance is near-flawless, and the sitar/tabla both feel authentic even though they're VSTs. But I am however in MindWanderer's frame of mind regarding that odd high-pitched sound that crept around the track. Is it a synth sweep? Is it a pulsing synth string? I'm not too sure what it is, but it overpowered the high-frequency band (10k onwards) to the point of piercing the soundscape. If it's on an instrument that otherwise has body below the 10k mark, consider adding a low pass to filter it out. Otherwise, I feel it'll be more comfortable to listen to if the instrument gets muted altogether. I don't see any issues otherwise, so looking into this odd choice of frequency would only take 5 minutes at best to fix. The arrangement is chill, the performers are on point, and the production values are serviceable otherwise. I see no reason as to why it can't make it onto the front page after the problem's resolution. YES (conditional on removing distracting high frequency)

As always Pieter, your improvisations are beautiful. You have a way of making your original writing work well with the source interpretation, and despite the fixed tempo, you kept your performance as tight and human-like as possible. I can never take anything like that or your trademark piano patch's tone way from you. I had to think carefully regarding source use, though - particularly in the first 2 minutes. On the one hand, you have the source's rhythm on the left hand, as highlighted in the timestamps. On the other hand, the right hand's original motifs de-emphasize the source presence since its introduction at 0:52. The rest of the timestamp remains on point, and I find it interesting that the melody A section of the source at 4:33 is more faithful to the melody rather than the rhythm. However, if I cut the BGM presence in the intro down to 52 seconds rather than the stated 127, I see the source content at 40% rather than your estimated 45%. Seriously, I love your improvisational skills, but it's one of those cases where source use needed more emphasis or playing around via the melody lines. One way you can fix this in a resub or future tracks is to add more BGM content into your improvs. Another way is to cut down the length of your improv sections, letting BGM content elsewhere stand out more. You've nailed that balance before, and I know you can do it again. That makes my production critique rather minor in comparison. I honestly thought the track is okay enough as a piano solo, rather than adding subtle strings and hand percussion. Both instruments appear at 0:26, but the strings disappear at 0:51 and re-surfaces at 3:44 for nearly 30 seconds, meanwhile the hand percussion leaves after the 3-minute mark. I honestly don't think they add to the larger picture, but I also don't believe they are dealbreakers in comparison to the arrangement. Again, I am very grateful that you sent a timestamp with your submission, Pieter - it's enlightening to hear your intent. As it stands though, I don't think you emphasized source use enough - and I'd like to see this track back in the inbox with this issue fixed. You did the bravest part already with the initial submission, so I do hope revising the arrangement will be a cakewalk for you. NO (resubmit)

You know, I'm with MindWander on this one. For the past few years, I've seen you as the guy who is more keen to experiment with different types of electronic music, not necessarily synthwave. This track is no different - it crosses the thin line between the mellower material of Kraftwerk and the overall bounce that has been a staple of your music. The lo-fi effects and subtle pitch-shifts are intriguing, the parts all have their own unique identity, and the textures here feel thick and loaded - even when the gas is eased off at 1:41. Consider yourself proud of the presentation - it's no small feat! Even the source material got handled very tastefully. Structure-wise, it's one run-through of the source but with a whole bunch of modifications. The backing melody's irregular syncopation from 0:48, the little melody flourishes in the first half (0:36, 1:46, the sine pluck at 1:58) and the source arpeggio changed into a filter-heavy sequence (1:06) all stuck out. The additional synth solo in the 1:23 section also added some much-needed warmth in the lower end. And the square legato synth at 2:50 is all original despite having a similar tone and rhythm to a left-panned synth later on in the source. It's a sign that you knew the BGM inside and out and achieved a compelling arrangement while still respecting the qualities of Ben Prunty's composition. Seriously, I got nothing else to say - great job, hey ho, front page, let's go. YES

Your voice tone works so well with the pop ballad style here. It felt keen to break out the energy and meaning behind the lyrics, and along with the choice of sound palette and attention to balancing the instrumentation, it's a strong foundation going forward. However, "foundation" is also the buzz word to describe the track as a whole. I know you said you spent time tuning your vocals, but in a pop environment, the amount of pitch correction/autotune for a vocal performance is relentless. There are plenty of free auto-tuners on the web that you can experiment with, so have a play around with them and see what you can reap. If a sung word is too difficult to tune effectively, or there's a rough consonant in the way, it'll also be handy to re-record that line before processing. And then there's the next issue - source use. The sections marked as the source are evident through the sung melody and the e-piano using the original's harp. But it's still less than 45% source use, and therefore is my biggest dealbreaker out of the lot. Consider going through your original parts and adding some backing writing that references either the source or other PMD BGM. I would suggest the latter as there's not a lot else in the primary source to work with, but I can also be pleasantly surprised if treated uniquely. I'm also not a fan of the snare drum being so in my face. Larry thought it was a problem since the final verse, but for me, this issue was present since 1:07. Introducing an organic timbre after a non-organic intro is an unusual move despite the right intention. For me, it'll feel more natural if only the third downbeats got emphasized and the other notes get softened up - turning them into ghost notes. It's a solid base, but source use and vocal presentation are by far the most significant issues that have let this down for me. See if you can fit in more VGM, refine your vocals, and go over your drum patterns. Your tone pleasantly surprised me though, so I see potential in you getting a vocal track onto the front page if you keep at it. NO (resubmit)

This arrangement is a lot of fun! I wasn't feeling the left-panned lead at first, but when the rest of the instruments started fleshing out at 0:12, it became way less of a problem. The half-time pace at 0:52 used dynamics well, and the slow interpretation 2:08 was a pleasant touch. Even the breakdown at 1:42 had some effective use of filters on the pads, plus the bass writing as a whole adds a happy and bouncy feel. However, the production values feel thin - and that goes beyond the 128kbps submission. Larry said something about the claps being thin-sounding, but I believe the snare needs work as well. You got the right idea at 3:44 with the snare and clap working in unison - layering different percussion sounds can make a difference to how strong the kit feels. With your snares, layering one or two complementary sounds underneath it can also add more snap. They can be other snare sounds and/or any other claps - but make sure you still emphasize the snare sound you want rather than its support. The low-bitrate submission also exposed the tone of the hi-hats, made difficult to digest at 1:16 with the run of robotic 16th notes. They have a piercing presence to them, which is usually okay for this type of tone; but there's too much of it, so it's best to turn them down. It also goes hand in hand with Larry's comment about the quiet bass as well. Said instruments usually the second thing you mix down when balancing your parts (the first being all of your percussion). It'll be a good idea to revisit the mixdown and get their volume levels re-adjusted. Also, it'll be a good idea to go over your melody lines and see if you can do EQ separation away from the pads. The shadiest offender for me is at 0:52, where the pads themselves completely buried the plucked synth. Whether it'll be better for you to revise the instruments' EQ, transpose the lead up an octave, add an extra lead layer or a combination of the three is all up to you. I know I went all out on this submission, but be proud of your arrangement - it's a cheerful and thorough interpretation of a very well known Zelda BGM. But it'll need a balance / EQ revision and potentially a bunch of additional layers to get the production values to stand tall as well. It'll be great if you can revise it and send it back to us. NO (resubmit)

The use of the source here is visible with the change of instrumentation to a bell-driven landscape and the different key adding to an underwater feel, and yet it treads the line between straight-forward and interpretive writing. The first repetition does its job with identifying the source, and 1:23 moved on with a delicate switch between additional writing and playing around with various motifs. Then there's the rest of the track starting at 2:35, where the focus balanced between subtractive interpretation and playing around with the chords to add a unique character not present beforehand. In other words, a surprising amount of coverage is going on for its length and pacing, and it's beautiful to take in. The production values also feel pleasant. The bells and pitched percussion are lovely and delicate, there are well-balanced instruments to match this underwater feel, and the use of reverb also dodged the risk of overpowering mud. But there is the usual problem with the quiet mixdown, with the peak at -3.6dB. It's one of those tracks that I felt the dynamics would benefit more from a normalization of the master render, adding more to the bells leading the track's direction. As it is, it's a lovely piece of work that does a hefty amount of exploration despite the minimalist source. In an intriguing twist, this isn't one of Rebecca's best productions, but the arrangement shines through much more. I'm all for front-page treatment, as well as relaxing to this at night. YES

This arrangement is meaty and jumped around the mix doing three different ideas. It explored the source as it is (like with the chiptune intro), played around with the foundations and adding new melodies over the top (like at 1:00), or added something brand new (like the piano intro at the end). Even the piano-into-ensemble-into-chiptune breakdown at 1:48 explores all three ideas at once. I also felt the lower chip harmony at 2:51 didn't sound harmonically pleasing with the backing, but it's a minor gripe in an elegant set of writing otherwise. The sound palette's mixture of chiptune and modern synths also felt intriguing and fit the arrangement's goal. They're all mixed in well, the synths' manipulation is engaging, and even the piano sounded realistic and adapted to the stereo space. The only thing that sticks out for me though is the clarinet at 2:12. I understand it acting as the bridge between the piano and chiptune melodies, but to me, it sounded like it was performing all of these legato notes without any room to inhale. You can remedy it in future works by merely adding a moment for it to rest. Putting these little nitpicks aside, it's a varied arrangement that jumped between handling the source and doing its own thing. And it's all with a lovely presentation that crosses the line between retro and present day. Ben, I wouldn't have guessed that you took two years off before working on this - because there's no sign of rusted chops here. Nice work! YES

I can identify that summer feel, going for 909-sounding drums and some engaging low pass filter sweep at the start. Source presence is there, though not entirely note for note thanks to two beats of additional writing at both 1:16 and 1:24. The section at 1:41 sounded fun, bringing the countermelody in for some rhythmic changeups and added harmonies. Despite this, the interpretation of the source tune itself is minimal at best. In all three parts that the source is present, there's just the bass, melody and countermelody. While the bass has a summer dance vibe rather than the source's gallops, there needed to be more subtractive arrangement if sections like that are to stick around. Talking of which, if you're going to copy-paste the 0:46 variant at 3:24, the duplicate would need more new layers and/or further interpretation so that it could stand out. The instruments themselves all sound clear and well presented, but despite all the subtle effects in play, the synth timbres themselves outstay their welcome too soon. There are no new textures after that first main theme variant, and when matched up with the minimal arrangement and sparse soundscape, it all contributes to a stale sounding track. Consider going over your synth patches (or generate new ones) and layering some on top of one another. It'll be nice to hear something more unique. Glenn, it's a promising and enjoyable tune, so thank you for sharing it with us. As of right now, the bland soundscape and barebones arrangement are holding it back, and it'll be nice to hear another version with these problems addressed. NO (resubmit)

I undoubtedly see it as a more unusual Timaeus arrangement. There's more of a focus on subtractive arranging with additional instrument layers under the primary source, which even goes as far as keeping the 6/8 time signature and general atmospheric feel. I also like the impressive tricks with the integration of other Tangledeep BGM (and the occasional riff from Dungonmans), as well as adjusting the source to a Persian scale on a couple of occasions. It matched the goal of a more calming mix that evolves as time goes on. The production is also very charming. All the instruments are well mixed, the percussion sounds gorgeous, and the pitched percussion (harp, bells, piano, etc.) had proper attention paid to dynamics. And as an added bonus, the synth leads combining with the soundfonts generate a unique timbre that respects the pseudo-SNES nature of the source material. The stated extra time spent mixing the track to this meticulous detail paid off, that's for sure. It's an easy decision here - it's a lovely crafted arrangement and an equally thorough presentation. That means a spot on the front page - great work as usual! YES

Yeah, Youtube links aren't a great place to host submissions for us. I'll give the benefit of the doubt, but please host it in a cloud drive or attach to your email in the future. Anyway, the source treatment is mostly safe and conservative, but there's plenty of subtractive interpretation that makes it stand out. And there's so many I'll need to dish out the bullet points again! * The intro and first run-through use the source's elements straight with the drum and bass grooves controlling the pace, varying slightly as the rack goes on. * The pitch-bending harmonies during the second run-through (2:52) are expressive and caught me off guard. *The slow chugging guitars at 4:18 added a more ominous tone to lead out of the track's first half. * The section at 4:35 had a cool use of time signatures alternating 2 bars of 4/4 and a single bar of 7/4. * 5:40 added a dramatic rising choir that gets revisited at 7:49. * 6:07 has the stereo-shifting guitars on the upbeats forming an effective countermelody against the piano. * The 7:09 section revisited ideas from the first and second iterations of the source along with the latter's harmonies. * And 7:49 also had moments where the rhythm guitars would go into triplets and occasionally have an engaging gate effect at the same pace. As heard, these ideas all come and go with one or two getting revisited. With the source's familiar framework, it all ties in with enough ideas to fit this track's prog-rock feel. Even the production doesn't pull any punches. The instruments are easy to pick out, the guitars had so many tones they didn't outstay their welcome, and the performances are all clean and tight. I do agree with Larry regarding the lead guitar's sloppy introduction at 0:57, but it corrected itself quickly, so I don't see it as a dealbreaker. And I do sense inconsistent writing - notably in the first half - with the drums going back and forth between working with the other instruments and working independently. But at the same time, it doesn't grow stale and adds to the arrangement's engaging nature. Overall, this track pleasantly surprised me despite its insane length. The performances are on point, there's plenty of interpretation to justify the framework, and the presentation is both clean and matches this vision of loneliness. Impressive stuff, Andy! YES

This arrangement is fantastic! I had fun listening along with the timestamps and hearing the different elements in place, so thank you for that. It's especially amazing to hear points where one source worked alongside another. They contributed to an arrangement that never tires out and retains familiarity almost all the way through - almost as if it's rhapsodic. I felt especially floored at 1:55, where the Zelda theme got adapted to fit the more ominous minor key shifts and set the scene leading up to the groove's introduction. It's a visible sign that the sources were used, played with, and retained a consistent vision. The production values are also potent as well. This sound design feels like a fitting homage to the Metroid Prime trilogy's overall score and the early work of Jean-Michael Jarre. Everything's well balanced, clear to pick out, used reverb effectively to create ambiance, and even experiments with different timbres to pull the listener into the immersion of deep space. All in all, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be on the front page. There's excellent playing around with themes to simulate the vision of an epic duel, the presentation is meticulously crafted, and a result like that can also mean great teamwork. Amazing job! YES

Right off the bat, I saw that you've gone for a louder production than what I have previously heard from you. Have you been practicing, or did Gabriel help out with the render again? Still, it's a pleasant surprise. The instruments are not only mixed well, but there are subtle articulations on the early woodwinds, and the rest of the instrumentation has some lovely dynamic variance. I didn't mind the quiet robotic drone as much, though. It only jumped out rarely outside the beginning and ending, and even then it added to the rest of the percussive feel. The arrangement is also in a more unexpected direction than what I usually associate with you as well - way less conservative, with an engaging framework. It uses the B section's piano arpeggio as a rhythm part and treats the source's C section as a chorus at 1:45 and 3:36, but these halves also stood out from each other. The first half played around with the A section's second half through the strings, and the second half had the first half's A section on the panpipes before further interpretation. It's a lovely hint of attention to detail and shows an understanding of how to interpret the source while still making it recognizable. It's a more unusual Rebecca production that I've heard, and for me, it ticks all the right boxes. The only bit of homework I have for the future is to experiment with articulating the strings as well to match the attention on the woodwinds - because quite frankly, the production as a whole stands out as well. I'm in favor of hearing this on the front page! YES UPDATE 8/14/2018: I listened to the track again after seeing Larry's vote below. Using a visualizer as a guide, I sensed the piano overlapping some of the instrumentation at 1:02-2:02, 2:38-2:53 and 3:36-end. I also must admit the low drone's tone slightly de-emphasized some of the other lower-range instrumentation. However, the minimalist setup prevents these flubs from over-exposure and therefore reduces any negative impact to the soundscape. My Yes vote will still stand.

This semi-baroque feel sounds like an exciting direction to take a minimal source. With the moments where the harpsichord would take more center-stage and where the strings would become a lot more forward, the characterization feels refreshing and well interpreted. However, there is some robotic sequencing going on here. I appreciate the change in velocities, but you also need to think about what a performer would do in a live setting. If you look at your strings and woodwinds, they have this constant use of sustain and identical attack. You can remedy it by experimenting with attack/release envelopes or looking at the VST's key switches to more realistically articulate them. Another issue I had was the dominance of low-mid instrumentation and their contributions to a muddy mix. There's nothing wrong with having cellos in most of your string section in the loud parts (1:04, 3:53), but their notation made the bassoon and harpsichord troublesome to pick out. If I were in this situation, I'd transpose the strings up an octave to let the bassoon and harpsichord breathe and fill in a void in the mids, just like you did at 2:58. But let's say you do want to keep the pitches as they are. If so, you'll need a considerable amount of EQ separation between those three instruments alone to give them their own space. It's lovely to hear an arrangement that's more classically inspired and will be great to hear on the front page. As of right now, it needs more care with string/woodwind humanization and making louder areas cleaner whether by shifting pitches or doing another mixing pass. Please keep at it - arrangement-wise it's a pleasant listen, and I hope a second version will push the production values up there as well. NO (resubmit)

I can't deny the quality of those orchestral sounds. They all fit well in this soundscape, sound gorgeously realistic, and even the brass has a lovely and expressive release to it. I get that the entire section from 0:43 onwards is majestic, but I would've preferred the master volume to get brought down, not letting the instruments touch the ceiling. It's still just a desirable thing rather than a significant flaw. And of course, there's the arrangement. Yes, it's barely 2 minutes long, and it covers just one loop of the source material. But the new instrumentation added onto the source's bones makes up for it. The slowly building strings at 0:14, the brass playing the melody at 0:43 and adding its own little flourishes, a fuller orchestra at that same section, the complete change of chords at 1:07, and that gentle plucked string backing at 1:26 are all potent examples of expanding the source's foundation. It's short, it's sweet, and the treatment is sublime. Excellent work, Jason - with the arrangement and production working well, your challenge paid off! YES

This track sounds amazing! The live musicians are all clean and mixed well, Cyril's raw vocal power is perfect for this setup, and a lot of the writing is very energetic. Taking this fight theme into power metal is an idea I didn't think we deserve, but it's a near-seamless production. However, I too wasn't thrilled about the organ tone either. Thanks to its flat sound, it just couldn't keep up energy-wise with the rest of the instrumentation. With everything else going on, I can let this issue slide. The arrangement wasn't a straightforward assessment, though. As powerful as the track was, I found it challenging to timestamp it - to the point that I asked Chernabogue directly. Here is what I got back. Before asking, I was able to pick out the intro, bridges and choruses. But right off the bat, the verses don't sound like their equivalent section in the source in melody, and I even tried double-checking the lower harmony but with no luck. Likewise, the transitions at 0:18 and 1:12 have no melodic content to identify with immediately. There is good news! I can accept HeavenWraith's guitar solo at 2:06 based on this factor - Furilas's bass adapting the D section's melody and rhythms straight. That part is already a bright idea itself - a 5/8 sequence for the bass and the drums, working as a polyrhythm alongside the rest of the instruments performing in 6/8. When I realized what was going on here, that just added a significant amount of time to my previous estimate. By understanding Chernabogue's notes, I feel more enlightened by his intentions - and with the spotty verses and transitions aside, I detected 60% source use. Combined with the framework and solo sequence, I felt surprised with the treatment given, and it's got a surprisingly intelligent undertone despite the balls-to-the-wall power metal approach. So yeah, that's my reasoning for accepting - great arrangement, high production values, and fantastic performances. Alex and the team did themselves proud! YES

In a vacuum, the instruments here do sound lovely and cohesive. Considering the source material is percussion-heavy, those sounds needed attention out of the gate, and you got the ambient space and atmospheric feeling all worked out. Again, quietness is a recurring irk, but based on how much the dynamics built up after the 2-minute mark, it's not a big deal in this case. But here's the problem with interpreting a percussion-heavy source - making sure the source is dominant. Melodies are already minimal in the source, but there's more emphasis on rhythm. You got the right idea early on with the hand drum groove getting expanded right from the get-go. But the main issue with the arrangement is the interpretive BGM side of it stopped too soon. There's some lovely additional percussion working well alongside the source's core elements - but at 1:12, the emphasis swung in favor of cinematic string, harp and flute writing. It's not usually a problem, but it did push the core source elements way too far into the background. That's not even at 30% of its duration, and it stays that way until the end. It's a tricky source to arrange as it is, but there are a couple of ways to go around it and still make it feel like a Wind Waker remix: As Larry said, you can incorporate the minimal melodies in the source onto pre-existing timbres - or even focus on arranging more of the percussion. But again, you may be limited if you don't feel confident enough. Another method is to incorporate some different Wind Waker BGM into the track, or just Zelda BGM in general. It's a less risky move to pull off, and it can fill out the melodic space that the original writing is currently occupying. It's always a good idea to send music over and see where it goes, definitely - but in its current form, the arrangement cuts it short. If you ever get a chance to revise it, go over the track and see what you can do to make the source material more dominant. It's a pleasant listen, but it's just not there for OCR yet. NO (resubmit)

This idea sounds neat - a digitized orchestra makes me think this is what Wendy Carlos would do if born 50 years too late! It follows the structure of the source up until 2:38, where it decides to do one last build based around the central three-note motif. Surrounding all this, the choice of synth textures and percussive sounds are so distinct and compliment the track's vision. However, the production isn't quite there yet. Firstly yes, that white noise layer either needs to go or be significantly quieter in the mix. I can argue it provides percussive energy in the high-end when there aren't many other high-end sounds present. As of right now, it's distracting to the point of borderline piercing. Another way to remedy the soundscape not having enough high-end is to transpose some of your sequenced synths up one or two octaves, then EQ so that its higher frequencies have more of an emphasis. A lot of your synths also occupy the same tonal space and some can benefit from a technique like this, while others can have cuts in one area so another sound can get a boost in the same place. Techniques like these can cut back the muddiness harming this mixdown. Trust me - this is a cool idea, and I suggest you leave the arrangement as it is. All it needs is a cleaner mixdown, and I would consider it golden. Please stay on this track - it'll be amazing to hear something like this on the front page! NO (resubmit)

Right off the bat, I'm going to have to disagree with MindWander for a different reason than Larry. Why? The structure of the track is identical to the source material, right down to the number of beats per segment. Luckily there are some subtractive change-ups with a guitar lead rather than vocals, an added rhythm guitar part and a solo at 0:57 where rapping was present. Ideally, I'd like to hear more interpretation-wise, but there are changes, and they get the job done. After hearing the rhythm guitar in the Fly Octo Fly choruses (0:32-0:46, 1:09-1:34), the run of G notes on the bass makes it sound too bland. I feel it'll benefit from the bass playing the original's root notes, or a pattern that'll fit the lead and rhythm's writing. It's not as weak as the minimal interpretation, but it helps to focus on the source material's chords. If you can't identify them, try writing sequences that feel harmonically pleasing with each other. Production-wise, I have different feelings regarding this mixdown. * Yes, I do agree that more can be done to separate the EQ of the lead from the rhythm guitar, but rather than the lead getting muffled I thought it was the other way round. * Regarding the exposed string sample at 2:00, a track like this can benefit more from a synth lead rather than any realistic instrument, so consider that as an idea. * The backing bass and rhythm guitars do play at a consistent texture. However, the drums did a good start via its variations with subtle 16th hat runs and visible identification of each section based on the number of open hi-hats and occasional tom rolls. It's a good start, but experimenting with different rhythms and writing more unique drum fills can break this wall of monotony. It's not a groundbreaking idea, but I do see promise based on the source's treatment and strong performance values. Unfortunately, the smaller production issues added up too much overall. Consider doing another pass on the mixdown at least - and whether you'd want to add more source interpretation is up to you. Keep at it. NO (resubmit)

I too sense a lack of realism on those instruments. The parts sound too static, the limiter squashing dynamics down in the Dark World Dungeon section is unnatural, and a lot of your leads feel dry. If you're going to be writing for a full orchestra, it's a good idea to: Make it feel as if the performance is in a concert hall, with attention to the placement of parts in the stereo field and the amount of ambient space they have. Abandon the limiters and let your parts have room to breathe. And most importantly, go over each instrument and make them feel more humanized. Loosen up the timings, vary the velocities and emphasize which ones you think are the most dynamic notes. You can even consider using the volume envelope to shape the dynamics for sustained notes. The arrangement has the source present, but there's a four-section medley going through straight interpretations of your source material. I liked hearing Ganon's theme adapted near the end of the Dark World theme at 1:19, and similarly, Dark World reprised near the end and accommodated at Lorule Castle. But I would've liked to have heard more of that kind of idea in other areas around the track. That idea above is one of a few things that can be done to personalize the arrangement in a subtractive way. Other possible suggestions include adding original parts in the background, or even some original writing to make the transitions between sources feel smoother. It's not bad, but issues on both arrangement and production fronts have weighed this down too much. It'll be a good idea to take it into the Workshop and experiment with new ideas, then try again. NO (resubmit)

Honestly, I feel the melody got excellent treatment. It starts simple enough with a straight run at 0:43 with a dynamic break between renditions of the A section. But then there's playing around when adding the B section during the double-time segment at 3:31, and one more interpretation at 4:08 that adds a guitar solo and a key change in the middle. Add all the original guitar solos, orchestral breakdowns and crazy tempo changes throughout and it just geared itself to such an epic arrangement. Even the production values sound tight. The orchestra sounds clean, the big rock sound is well defined, and the guitar performance is exceptionally expressive. The only issue I had with it was the guitar tone sounding like it's got too much sharpness to the point of providing a hint of a buzz in its tone. It doesn't dampen the mix though, but it's more like something to watch out for in the future - especially after seeing how your gear has grown over the past two years. Enough waffling around from me - it's golden, so let's get it on the front page. \m/ YES