Jump to content

prophetik music

Contributors
  • Posts

    8,007
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Posts posted by prophetik music

  1. Quote

    i definitely think this is closer. i think if you're able to square up those drums so they sound more like a dance kit and less like the drums you use in an intro before the real kit comes in, it'll fix the issue it has right now where the EQ is really mid-lacking. cleaning up that and that spot of peaking at 1:30 will really make for a much stronger overall track.

    there's my last vote (i voted on the original as well). let's see where this is.

    i agree that the main lead in most of the track is super blah - there's some fun sweeping synths in the background, and then the lead's just this boring hornet that doesn't really do much. i also agree that everything needs to be turned down a lot since the compressor's constantly engaged. 2:07's noodly bit is just a bit too much out of time. the hats throughout are a bit too loud which obviates anything else in that space.

    there's some really great stuff here! the 303 that's going during the first break around 1:00 sounds great, and there's some variety in the background which is great. i still like the arrangement and the ending sounds good. i think the drums sound a lot better overall (although the hats are essentially just static, probably due to FL's multiband pegging out on them since they're too loud), but the heavy compression used to 'fix' peaking is causing it to be pretty tiresome on the ears.

    turning down most of the instruments by the same amount, addressing that really blah hornet lead, and ensuring that it's not compression city will probably be enough for a yes from me.

     

     

    NO

  2. i didn't vote on the original, so i'm coming in clean.

    it's so mushy. the opening 25 seconds are some fun chippy stuff over a bucket of guacamole. it seriously sounds like the bass is next door and it's being recorded through the wall. the chips have some really fun performance parts, and there's some really fun ideas with the arrangement chirping up here and there. but the guitars are very lossy (and panned pretty far left), and the bass is just very low-heavy. the drums suffer a lot because you can't hear the kick or head impacts hardly at all, and the high end seems to be pretty cut out.

    i'm echoing the others here. this needs to be brighter by a lot. some serious notching to shelf in your different non-chip instruments will help a lot too so there's not so much in the same area.

     

     

    NO

  3. track is very short, about 2:05 in total.

    opening is marcato strings, flowing into the melody in winds with harmonies in the strings. the background is pretty static. there are some crunchy notes in here (the quintal harmony in the brass (?) at 0:29, the ascending harmony has a wrong note in it right after that as well), and it's fairly simple backgrounds.

    there's a significant tonal shift and a really fun/funky breakdown of the background at about 0:54. it's much less blocks-of-sound here but i like a lot of the interesting sound design going on here, especially the sliding plectral instrument. this kinda just keeps repeating, though - at 1:27 i expected something to happen, and it kinda just keeps grooving along. there's a bit more at 1:44, but it feels just layered on top and not properly balanced into the rest of the mix. then the track ends with a flourish.

    from a mastering perspective, the middle has a much lower RMS than the rest of the track and it felt pretty light. also whatever instrument comes in at 1:44 is not really fit into the soundscape, but just put on top of it, so it sounds very crowded suddenly.

    this is a tale of two halves. the orchestral opening is pretty boring, honestly, and the non-chord tones don't sound intentional. the melody's very static and plodding with no real humanization in there, so it sounds pretty fake. the second part, with the drumkit and stuttered guitar parts, is way more cool and does some fun stuff. it definitely sounds underdeveloped though - even going through the melodic content again at 1:27 and then doing your section from 1:45ish out would have added enough content that i'd call it good. but as is, it's a tech demo that's barely two minutes long. this needs more content, and more attention to the orchestral opening section and the last 20 seconds.

     

     

    NO

  4. high rms and pretty loud mastering overall right off the bat.

    melody is apparent right from the beginning. there's some playiing with the B theme to mix it up (and some interesting chord choices to make it work). the A theme comes back pretty quickly and we get a little expansion with new instrumentation. there's a switch to triple meter right where it was starting to get a little static at 1:06, and some FF7 battle theme-esque riffs with a distorted synth. there's a bit of a break at about 1:48 and it comes back to duple for a recap that's very similar in instrumentation to the opening A/B section. 

    this is honestly a pretty decent attempt using a not-DAW to make music. the mastering is pretty blown out, there's some funky notes in a few places (you settle on some non-chord tones around 0:26-0:30, and there's a reliance on a b7 between 2:06-2:14 that sounds odd), and the static nature of the synths throughout starts to get repetitive pretty quickly. i don't know what kind of flexibility you have in the app you're using, but if you're able to make it sound not so over-compressed and mix up your synth usage a bit more so it doesn't feel copy/paste from section to section, you'd have a pretty fun little track on your hands i think. right now i think there's too much repetitive texture usage and it's too blown out to consider.

     

     

    NO

  5. a quick intro leads into the first source track. the band sound is solid and i like the organ work. there's good variety in the groove and it's well-performed. clear transition at 1:25 into the next track, and again it's well-handled. i like the technical approach to the melodic content. the breakdown at 2:33 and subsequent slow build is great. especially around 4:00 i really started to groove with it. the last track at about 4:25 doesn't even really sound like a new track, it's just natural progression. the last minute's octave melodic parts are just great. ending was a tiny bit weak after such aggressive riffs but it's not a problem.

    i'm really impressed. never lost the melody, never thought the approach was overly cover-ish or too disparate from the original, and the band sounds great. excellent job. easy vote.

     

     

    YES

  6. the opening is pretty rough. the snare sample is super electric and sounds pretty weird being machine-gunned like it is. the bass has a fun tone but it's panned and also has a ton of sub-bass, which makes it sound muddy (and it'll sound worse on a big-sub system). the kick is also panned oddly and is mostly beater sound without any bass, which is an odd sound. the pitch-shifting of the snares is an interesting idea, but not shifting the formants as well makes them sound kinda odd when they get farther from their natural pitch.

    at 0:41, there's some of the melodic content coming in. the synth work here still features too much bass, but i liked the block chords idea (they're still a little spare and an octave too low IMO). the lead synth is a fun tone and clearly delineates the melodic content, so that's good.

    there's an obvious loop point, and we go through the build-up to the melody again, which comes in at 2:20. i did like the glide synth for the arp, and that was a neat change, but other than that it felt pretty much the same as the first time through the same material with no break in between.

    at 2:55, there's a synth-only part that noodles around some bits of melody that builds back up into the rest of the groove. it was a nice break from the original idea, but i started to get tired of the lead at this point. the song noodled some more around the initial riff of the melodic content and then sorta ended.

    overall this one needs a lot of workshopping from the synth and instrument choice side, i think. the drums sound strange - they feel like they're in an electronic song but you're using them in a classical fashion, and it doesn't do them any favors i don't think. the synths are mostly static throughout - some shifting timbres and new instruments part-way through would help relieve some of the oppressiveness of the repetition. beyond that, i'd think hard about putting a hard EQ on most of your synths so they don't sound so muddy and bleed into sub-bass range.

    this one isn't there yet.

     

     

    NO

  7. classic tune here. also, you went with polygonjohn instead of polyjohn? missed opportunity :<

    filtered drums and some sfx start this track off, along a very bass-heavy bass and some quiet bells. the melody comes in at 0:35 with some nicely-sequenced gliding synth. this does a nice job sitting back on the beat which fits the background well. there's a silence break at 1:22, and a fade-out for the last 25 seconds of the song featuring a bit of noodling on the A section of the melody. aaaaaaaand...that's it. the melodic content takes up less than a minute by itself. so this isn't going to pass since there's nowhere near enough development here to call it. things that i liked included the general vibe of the drumloop (more creativity and fill use there would help a lot as the track's duration progresses past where it is now), the automation on the melody (i'm a sucker for glides), and the approach overall of a more relaxed version of the original track.

    i did not care for how bass-heavy this is. there's a lot of overlap between the bass synth and the chorded bell tones - those need to be squared off with an EQ so there's not so much mud in the low end. adding a bit more highs overall to both instruments would actually help i think - it's very low/low-mid focused, and while that can help it feel relaxed it also makes it harder to tell what's what. i also don't understand not including the B section of the melody on a track that is so short. even just a single run-through of that bit would have helped lengthen the track by 20 or 30 seconds, which is approaching what i'd consider the minimum.

    on the topic of arrangement, this definitely feels like a demo. mixing it up in instrumentation, chords, or style with a second run-through of the (entire) melody would add a lot to the track and help wrap it up into less of a demo and more of a finished duration.

    overall this is too short to really consider. there's some really nice ideas but it needs more content.

     

     

    NO

  8. some interesting instrumentation to start this one off, with some equally interesting sound design choices. there's a fun groove though once everything comes in at 0:14. i like the synth bass's attention to articulation and the really nice automation on the guitar. the percussion is fun as well although i'd like to hear more consistent fills around transition points. speaking of that, the overall track just keeps evolving which is really neat. there's some downtempo break sections, there's some fun string pizz stuff and a flexible flute, and some fun harmon-muted trumpet with some backing organ that's real understated and nice. there's another not-transition at 2:54 to a pretty robotic section driven by what's supposed to be like an upright bass but just comes across as feeling too automated (i have the same gripe for the earlier part that featured this, but it wasn't as obvious there due to more going on, but it's sounding really similar outside of the percussion), and then a pretty nice ritard into a very chill ending.

    from an arrangement perspective. the opening section is clearly derived from the chords in the intro of the original, and the initial slide guitar around 0:35 is definitely a dressed-up version of the original's melody for the first section. that initial ascending and descending riff shows up in several other instruments throughout as well. overall there's some filler and groove sections but i think that there's enough here to call it enough source. i will say that i didn't like the walking bass sections at all, and thought not only did they sound extremely similar in the bass and strings but also the bass just sounded bad. there's so much rhythmic variation and articulation used throughout the rest of the track that a bunch of eighth notes strung together (in non-idiomatic ways, i feel) with no flips or occasional rhythmic variation sounds weird.

    overall though this one hits enough points to pass. i like the percussion throughout, i like the variety in lead instruments, and i like the attention to detail most of the time. this has a great vibe.

     

     

    YES

  9. starts off real peaceful with some pretty piano and strings. from there the flute and strings pick up the main melodic section over some rhythmic strings. this is fairly straightforward writing but it's competent and sounds nice. there's a break for the piano at about 1:04, and this is really well played/sequenced again. we get back into the full group at 1:47, and the arrangement is again in the flute and then strings. this is very similar to the earlier section from 0:25-1:04, nearly copy/paste territory. there's a fun brass chorale at 2:32, and some string ensemble work to follow that up. the solo violin isn't great quality but it's passable. a light flourish in the bells and we're done.

    this feels very pokemon, which is pretty nice. the copy/paste section though is pretty egregious. the intro, piano solo section, and ensemble section at the end is really nice, however, and throughout the ensemble writing is pretty solid. this could probably go either way for me, but some more creativity in that second copy/paste section and this is an easy pass in my book.

     

     

    NO

  10. yeah, the lack of room verb or body on the piano is really obvious right off the bat. there's some wrong notes in it too that can't be attributed to the style - like the second note at 0:34. this kind of burlesque playing loves purposefully incorrect notes but they've gotta be leaned into. clashing notes in the background are just wrong, not quirky.

    i'm at 1:20 and i still can't shake that this is the background and half the instruments are missing. i like the idea of an approach that's less a large ensemble and more a small group, but it feels very empty throughout.

    the ending is odd. it sounds like the instruments start to fade out, but there's a clearly defined ending that actually wraps it pretty good. i don't know if the dynamic shifts are intentional.

    there's some interesting ideas that can come from small-ensemble work like this, but this still feels very disjointed and like it's missing too much to string it together. a key component of small ensemble writing is that all parts need to be equal contributors, or at least roughly equal, and that doesn't feel like the case here. as a result it sounds like piano and random sfx instead. the keys sound odd, but the arrangement needs more to tie it together beyond the (admittedly pretty good outside of the unsupported wrong notes) piano writing.

     

     

    NO

  11. what an interesting original. i haven't heard of this one.

    there's some really great stuff going on here. the original's very atmospheric, and the way that you approached this aspect and made it your own is really fun. there's some fun fm-ish bells in here, lots of swelling synths, some heavily filtered percussion in the intro, and then it fleshes out into a really fun half-synthwave feel. the concatenation of a half-time beat and 16th notes in the synths is really interesting.

    the piano that comes in at 2:17 is also great, it's very metallic and feels like it fits this future-retro spacey feel really well. the track develops really slowly but it doesn't feel like it's dragging.

    there's a break at 3:12, and the synth work here continues to be pretty nuanced and interesting. this feeds up into a heavily sfx'd version of the texture of the first section. the electro synth-guitar does a nice job singing out over the top of all of the chaos under it. the ending is sudden but not problematic.

    this sounds great and brings to light a great original. excellent work.

     

     

    YES

  12. i'm going to preface this by saying that i really am not into lofi despite liking downtempo and other styles. i find the reduced freq range to be tiresome.

    that said, i think this is a fairly good adaptation of the original into this style. the beat sounds consistent with the genre, and the bass is interesting and adds some fun to the track. that said, i'd consider this to be more of a cover than an arrangement. there's essentially no adaptation of the melody or chords throughout at all, no personalization. the bass groove is fun and the few synths used are thematic and fit, but i'm landing on the not-enough-arrangement side of the line by just a little. maybe if it was longer and could explore the ideas laid out here more i'd be ok with it, but the melodic content occupies less than a minute and a half of the track. it's just too short to really explore anything.

    if it was a minute longer (with a minute's worth of exploration and development) i'd be cool with it, i think, since it sounds good. it's just too close to being a straight cover in a new style otherwise.

     

     

    NO

  13. kick has a lot of reverb. i'm guessing that'll cause issues later in the track. opening synths are interesting but quiet.

    already by 0:28 there's a lot of heaviness in the lower mids because of how oofy the bass is and the amount of sustain on the kick. the melody coming in at 0:55 is nice, though, and i like the handoff between the two synths to make that initial arpeggiated line. the melodic content is definitely pretty repetitive, and that's just the nature of the original here. that said, there's a lot you can do to expand it out, with one really obvious idea being updated chords. a fun thing is that when the melodic content is highly repetitive, you can essentially put whatever chords you want under it and it'll still sound right (within reason). i'd recommend looking into some easy progressions like I-vi-IV-V or I-bVI-bVII-IV to get some movement out of the second half of the track.

    the break at 1:49 was needed. i think you had a chance to branch out more in your sound design here, also, to make it even more separated from the main section.

    the ending drop to just synths is a nice idea to help wrap it up. needs some extra blank space at the end to allow your ending hit to fade naturally, it's clipped now.

    overall the bigger issue here wasn't the repetitiveness, as emu said (although it's definitely repetitive and should get some more body to the arrangement itself), it's the mastering. it's very boomy because of the bass and kick both having long sustains that aren't trimmed, and because both clearly have a ton of spare freqs flying around. an EQ pass and trimming down the envelope for both the bass and kick will help immensely, and open up a lot of room for some of your more interesting mid parts to speak easier.

     

     

    NO

  14. some fun fm-style synths to start out the track. the melody is recognizable right away, and the drums are nice and tight early on. the first presentation of the melody is a bit weird, because there's this huge sub-bass, the drums, a melody, and a moving countermelody, but no real obvious pad or anything to help hold it together. it feels a bit empty as a result. also at this point it becomes obvious that there's only really one drum loop being used and then a different one for fills, and that's it.

    there's a break that's needed and we get back into it at 1:40 or so. there's some more complexity in the mids here which helps. 1:56 is the melodic content again, and again this is very 'hollow'-feeling, with no supporting pads in the mids and the melody several octaves above most of the other synths. 

    there's another break at 2:54 for a while, and there's a bit more exploration here before it comes back up for a final bit at 3:15 that sounds more like a transition to a new song in a set more than anything else, and then a fadeout. this ending is pretty not-great for a standalone track.

    from a mastering side, the cymbals and highs especially in the drumset are very bright compared to the rest of it. the bass is also very present, but it's worth noting most of the beef is in what i'd call sub-bass frequency so it might not speak on everyone's headphones or speakers.

    overall i think this one needs a bit of workshopping. i liked what it was doing - there's some fun countermelodies going on, i liked the feel of the drum groove initially, and the synth choice is fun. there's a bunch of simple-to-fix missteps, though, like not scooping the mastering so hard, or filling out the middle of the frequency range a bit with some pads, updating the drums so they're not the same loop for 3.5 minutes, and adding some body to the lead synth so it's not quite so thin up high where it is (or dropping it an octave). this has some fun ideas but it's not there yet.

     

     

    NO

  15. oh, that's a gorgeous texture up front. the washes of sound are really nice, and i found the vocal 'pad' to be really nice too. there's some very fun percussion being used in here as well. i agree that the panflute isn't a great sample, but it's not egregious.

    the song felt like it was done at 1:40, so i was surprised to see that this was only the halfway point. it picked back up though and had more interesting exploration of the arpeggio. there's some odd notes in here (2:05, 2:07, and a few others), and the winds aren't particularly realistic in their orchestration. the outcome is interesting to listen to though, and i liked the later application of some plectral instruments to complement the ongoing harp work. the song hangs on longer than expected - there's another natural fadeout/ending and some fun double-time stuff - but overall the arrangement is really interesting and does a good job expanding on a very minimal source.

    nice work.

     

     

    YES

  16. this soundtrack is so much fun. props for picking a more complex track for the remix.

    big hit to start. the tonal shift at 0:15 is just instantly recognizable despite the new instrumentation. the guitars at 0:52 are really aggressive and i love the pitch mod on them. the build towards 1:27 is really solid, and 1:27 is also great. i like the approach of having multiple leads on the melody to simulate the original synth that played the melodic line there.

    2:05 drops off in tempo and volume, and there's some fun sfx and a heavily-effected bass noodling. very atmospheric throughout here. the wooblesynth you've got doing the higher pitched parts at 3:00 is fun but it cuts itself so it sounds a little weird considering it has a longer attack. either way the rest of the background here is excellent, lots going on but still identifiable. the drop at 3:38 is very intense - there's a lot of energy there without losing the build you just did.

    3:55 brings that back to the forefront. i like the focus switching between guitar and synth in this section. this took a little longer to build up to supermax than i expected, with a little more repetition than i expected, but it kept getting bigger and eventually maxed out for a big wall of sound ending. i like the ending and the repetition used there. normally i'm not for abrupt endings but this was in keeping in the rest of the track's style.

    excellent track. very impressive work.

     

     

    YES

  17. rubber-stamping this one. everything's too loud, it's all over-compressed, and it all desperately needs EQ. also i agree that the kick drum sounds time-warped - try layering three or four different kicks in to get the sub-bass freqs and attack sound that you want. edit: emu end edit and jive laid out some great steps that will help you get going in the right direction.

    your arrangement is fine, which is the hard part for a lot of non-musicians! now you just need to learn a bit of mastering technique, and vary up some of your instruments attacks some, and you'll have a really nice track. i'd suggest the workshop to get some additional ears on this before your next submission.

     

     

    NO

  18. well, i love the instrumentation concepts. the guitar, piano, ep, and drums are all great sample choices (although the drums are a bit more underwater than i'd like). the soundscape build around 1:30 through 1:40 is really nice (with one caveat, see below). i agree with emu that the track sounds heavily quantized but it's not the worst thing, in my opinion. there definitely was some room there to be more flexible with your realization.

    there are two major issues that i see. the first is that this is super heavy in the mids. there's essentially nothing in the lows, and the highs are muted due to the style - probably too much - so everything in a tight band in the mids. it's cluttered as a result. this is really noticeable for most of the section between 1:15 and 2:10. your ep, piano, guitar, cello, strings, and choir-replacement burbles are all kind of in the same place. it would probably require some notable EQing to fix that, and also likely some rearrangement to get notes out of the same registers.

    my second issue is that this is really, really conservative of an arrangement. if everything was rock-solid outside of the arrangement i'd consider a borderline yes - that's how close this is to not being enough for me. there's a ton of opportunity for personalization here. the stepwise motion of the melody means that altered chords would be easy to substitute in. an altered time signature would really mix it up as well. additional countermelodies or harmonies, some more variation of instrumentation to get it away from the original, more dynamic variation...any of those would help a ton. as it is, it's so close to the original that it's hard for me to say that enough was done for it to be a transformative arrangement.

     

     

    NO

  19. for the first minute plus, the track is much heavier in the left ear. a little too much panning - you could use half what you did and still get a good clarity of soundstage, i think. noticeable again around 2:30 through 3:10ish.

    agree with emu on the source usage. the chords are definitely the same, and that's solid, but there's simply not enough melodic source to call it the same track. unfortunately jazz combo's a tough sell for a track on the site simply because the norm is thirty seconds of the head, ten minutes of ramen, and then back to the top twice for a recap. 

    fantastic tone on the clarinet, especially the upper left hand stuff, really stellar. i've always preferred a clarinet tone in jazz that has more pitch variation (vibrato, lipping, etc) - i can hear you doing some really fun stuff around licks, but maybe consider it on your sustains. your tone is so clear that i don't think a heavy goodman-style vibrato is a good idea consistently, but some color at the end of your sustains would add a ton of vibrancy to what you're playing.

    this is a rubber stamp unfortunately. there's simply not enough source to pass this. as much as i want to lean towards the "this is pretty good source for the style!" argument, the reality is that the standards are genre-agnostic, and so we need to be as well.

     

     

    NO

  20. yeah, the "this is terrible!1" line from you doesn't fly, mak =D this sounds pretty fun. the full band sound isn't my favorite (the synth over top is kinda grating to me) but the arrangement is fine. drums sound great tbh.

    there's indeed a few notes that are modally correct but aren't set up so they sound real weird where gario mentioned, but i also agree that they aren't game-breakers. one thing i will complain about is the lack of a real break anywhere. this is 3:20 of all-out, and it gets tiring after a little while. some more balance in the instrumentation and a short break in the middle would have been nice, but i get that you didn't have form on your mind when you were playing.

    there's some ending that needs to be trimmed. this isn't perfect overall but it's over the bar, i think. if i had my druthers, i'd want the form to be more intentional, and for the balance overall to be modified a little to make the background synths a little clearer.

     

     

    YES

  21. the lack of verb on, like, anything really kills this right off the bat. nothing sounds like it's in the same area, and there's no volumization on any of the instruments to balance them as the ensemble changes. the guitar solo is pretty slick, but even when it's playing the band doesn't really sound 'real', mostly because the band mixing is so dry, and because the overall dynamic range of the track stays exactly the same for the entire length of the song. the drums need serious attention, as well - there's very clearly one rhythm beat with one fill beat used, and i can't even hear the hats if there are any.

    i can't say that i like the vocaloid application on this track. vocaloid can be remarkably convincing when used carefully, and i don't think that enough care was taken with the phonics on this instance. there's some effecting going on there as well that just sounds sloppy.

    the other judges seem more bullish on this than i am. i think this needs some serious work before it's ready for primetime. i think workshopping this would be a great idea.

     

     

    NO

  22. this is super fun! and too short. echoing what was said, this is less than half what i'd consider to be my minimum length for a remix that isn't absolutely knocking my socks off with every other aspect of it. explore it some more and i'd love to judge that.

     

     

    NO

  23. the intro has some fun delay effects but the drums sound pretty robotic. i agree with emu that the opening synths are real loud - sounds like they are volumized for later in the track and the remixer just didn't adjust them in the beginning. the choir sample is also pretty robovox. when the guitars first really come in at about 1:10 though it sounds pretty great. layering strings with the lead synth helped that a lot too (although i admittedly wanted to hear complexity there). around 2:05 i noticed that the lead synth didn't have any real personalization to it - no lfo change, no vibrato, nothing to keep the attention on these sustained tones. some variety or change would have really helped. there is also very little personal influence into the melodic line here and it really could have used it to keep it moving.

    the guitar solos start out fun although they could have used a bit of verb to fit them into the soundscape. the one at 2:47 was in the wrong key - sounds like the adjacent melodic minor, or more likely lydian (based around the 4th note)? it worked but there's a lot of odd notes there. same thing happened at 3:19, you sit on a G over a Bb chord (6s never sound right), and then step in a scalar fashion to an Ab when the Bb's the root key and not the V. would have worked if you were in lydian or something but sounds odd here.

    the part at 3:40 where it's trucking through the chords is pretty nice. i like the simple movement in the guitar to keep it moving at about 4:15. the ending was great until the last note - i think i get what you were going for but it's a real letdown after a piece that was pretty low-key intense the whole way through.

    i think ultimately i'm on the other side of the line as emu. i think this one is real close, but there's too many little things that came together to make me want to say no. opening synth volumes being so strangely loud, several solos in the wrong key, some real boring melodic programming in the first half, the letdown ending...none of them are dealbreakers by themselves but together i think pull this down just a little too much. i think this is a great track that could easily get posted if there's a few more changes made.

     

     

    NO

  24. audio is consistently quieter than expected - looks like it maxes at around -2.8db for some reason.

    this is a beautiful original track with minimal melodic content. this sounds like a hard track to remix honestly.

    listening to your version, i noticed right away how overblown the piano sounds - it's heavily compressed and sounds more like a techno track's piano than anything that's more acoustic like this comes across initially. separately, the backing pad is really interesting, but it's smeared liberally throughout the entire first half of the track and is super loud, and the tremelos that help make it so unique quickly become baader-meinhof artifacts. the rest of the instrumentation sounds similarly overblown as it enters at 1:14. overall the heavy compression is very offputting.

    i can't hear any direct application of the original chords to this either. a breakdown may make it less obfuscated, but this isn't close to passing based on the mastering by itself. as the resident "this is a tenuous at best arrangement but i love it" guy, i can't hear any correlation between the two that's more than passing adjacency. 

    maybe with a full breakdown i'd hear it, but right now the lack of a clear link between original and remix makes this unpassable. the overblown sound design is a separate negative that likely would preclude passing on its own as well.

     

     

    NO

×
×
  • Create New...