prophetik music

i voted YES on the original. this still has a huge band sound when the melodic content comes in that sounds great. there's been nuance applied in various places - the kick at 2:11 is still fat, but there is some velocitization in there to prevent it from sounding like a machine gun. i never had an issue with the arrangement and thought the mastering was good enough last time. it sounds pretty good now with the little changes that have been made, so i'm still voting yes. would love to hear from some of the NOs last time around. YES

initial piano part is serviceable - certainly nothing particularly groundbreaking there, it's just an arpeggiated left hand into the melody in the right. the big band sound starts at 0:36. the mastering is really messy here. the bass, rhythm guitar, and kick are all overlapping and not notched in at all from what i can hear, and the drums are ultrapanned with all of the instrumental elements pretty close, so it's confusing to listen to. having the kick be hard panned left and the snare hard panned right is aurally confusing as well. MW's right as well about the lead elements. in each of those timeframes he posted, i can turn the sound down and hear only some textural elements and percussion, no lead whatsoever. there's a few reasons why it's problematic to have the drums be so loud compared to everything else, not the least of which is that over half the song features the same drum pattern. there's certainly times it's mixed up or fills are added, but you've clearly got a groove you prefer and it's used constantly. a huge indictment is the static sweep at 3:49 - static should be the most encompassing frequency range sound you can use, and it's actually pretty tame relative to the rest of the track since the rest is so blown out. the piano break at 5:20 is desperately needed at that point - earlier breaks have been there but were so busy that they didn't really feel like breaks, and so that's five minutes of balls-to-the-wall. to be clear - this track's arrangement is overall great. i love the ways that you've grouped thematic material together, the band rhythmic elements that are scattered all over, and the aggressive, constant energy that the track possesses. i don't care for the buzziness and noisiness of the synth guitar at all, i think that there needs to be a TON of EQ work executed, and there is absolutely room for lightening up some of the breaks that exist already. MMX remix history is chock full of great medleys, and this definitely has the potential to be another one - there's still a lot of mastering work needed first. NO

uuuuuuggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh lol the initial band sound is *awesome*. i love how beefy the bass synth and kick are. there's a ridiculous amount of sub-40hz content that desperately needs to be rolled off (you don't need that much at 20hz!), but the upper synths sound great. they are indeed repetitive but it's not a big deal initially. there's some fun laughing synth work and chromaticism in the section at 0:46 that's appropriately killer clown for the original. 1:18 comes back to the same lead riff, and i'm starting to think that the usage is too repetitive. it'd be nice to hear that in a different synth each time to mix it up. the subsequent solo is great though, and throughout it all the random blurbs from the bass are great. there's a big drop at 2:01 (finally!) with no drums for a while, and this is a good setup for the end run. 2:29's big hit is similar to early material, but the outro is fine and a good way to end it. while i found it a bit repetitive, it's got a great groove and is fun to listen to. it is very bass heavy but i didn't find that being a negative. drop an EQ on it in the final chain to filter out the sub-bass content and i'll call it a yes. CONDITIONAL edit 1/22: mixing sounds cleaner. it's still very sub-bass heavy but i found that overall it had less than before. there's some slight changes to the structure but not anything earth-shattering. my conditional was solely around removing some of the mud and this has happened to my ear, so I'm a Y now. YES

ping-pong doesn't bother me. it's initially a touch disconcerting but fine once everything else gets going. initial groove is catchy, and the bass has some really fun drops right off the bat. we get the whole deal at 1:18 for the first time. the drums are really not in the same room at all as the rest of the remix which is drenched in verb, but it still sounds pretty neat. the bass is bananas - i am the same as the remixer, i can really only hear them on a big system, not headphones - but it's a treat, and i don't mind the loudness at all. the first real groove is at 1:47. the 303 bass is nuts and i love it. the melodic elements kick in after this (yeah, i'll still count the first minute and a half too) and as expected they're realized with a really weird synth that's fun to listen to. the subsequent lead synth at 2:55 is not one i particularly care for, and it keeps going for ages so that was a drag. 4:01 features a neat half-time groove and some really weird detuned-feeling chord and synth work. then it just kind of ends. this is loud but it's super clear and checks most of the boxes for me. neat work. YES

intentionally fun opening. some neat sfx used. there's some really fat bass stuff going into the first hit at 1:04, and the groove there is dope. i really appreciated the automation and lfo on the lead at 1:04, it's super interesting to listen to. the other Js are right - this is a surprisingly empty soundscape for how many neat things there are to listen to. i feel like this is an instance of the game influencing the remix and so therefore i love the concept. each element feels very crafted - the offbeat arp around 2:15-2:45 for example feels so intentionally gunked up, it's fitting. the goose honks in the last third of the track were a bit loud and over-common to me - i wouldn't have minded fewer of them. there's an outro at about 3:53 that is reminiscent of the beginning. there's some tail to trim off the track as well. what a fun remix. this is a classic original and this does a great job reimagining it. YES

intro is very simple but i love the layering and fade-in of the heavy distortion. the initial hit with everything in it that happens at 1:06 sounds great. it's a fat, heavy, dark mastering method that you're using and i think that the approach works great for such a depressing original tune. the flute's lead is represented in the leads clearly, and the iconic arpeggio is repeatedly represented in a variety of instruments through the first big band blow and the subsequent break at 2:43 or so. the break is honestly earlier than i expected, but i don't mind. the switch to the B theme in this break is also welcome - i didn't expect it at all, and the octave leads do a nice job highlighting those shifts. we come out of that into a band section with some triplet kick at about 3:48, using that set of chords. this continues to be mastered like a bratwurst, but there continue to be shifts in how it's being handled - the change in leads at 4:54 to the guitar as the lead with some altered synth work behind is a simple one, but seems huge in the fairly uniform context of the work so far. interestingly enough, the first time i felt something was over-repeated was here at 5:54 or so - i didn't find the lead part here as compelling as some of what we'd seen earlier. there's another break right at 6:30, hearkening back to the beginning's instrumentation. as one does, another slam transition at 7:04, and we truck back into the full band sound for essentially the rest of the track. there are some subtle brass/string sustained lines in the background that honestly add a ton to this section. at 8:42 or so, we get the triplet kicks back with the B section's chords and melodic content, with more and more layering on top of the existing band sound. then, finally, what we all were waiting for, some sextuplet bass drum right at the end before a fadeout on the acoustic part. this is great. it's mastered extremely well, it's indicative of the style, it features a preponderance of the original's content, and it's interesting to actively listen to. nice work. YES

the tenor sax performance is unfortunately poor enough that i can't vote yes on this right off the bat. it doesn't sound good at all. there's a few elements that cause that, and i'd be happy to talk through coaching elements on a call, but it boils down to that the tenor is lacking some basic elements that we'd call required from a performance standpoint - namely a consistent and musically appropriate tone. the honky tone is due to puffing your cheeks and not providing enough pressure on the reed with your bottom jaw almost exclusively, and correcting this can also help with the shivering, wavering tone you have on sustains. air support can assist with that as well, as can appropriately applied vibrato to cover it up. this is a deal-breaker - similar to a singer with a grating tone and no vibrato, it doesn't matter how clever or neat or expansive the arrangement is, it's not going to pass. i'll note that i feel the flugel sounds solid despite not using vibrato in stylistically appropriate places since the base tone of the performance is great. the arrangement concept is neat. i feel that this implementation (edit: the mirror dance concept, not the original this track is based on) loses a lot of the fanciful, dancing quality of most implementations i've heard before. i recognize that they're hard, for sure! this isn't something i'd have been comfortable tackling. i agree that while technically there are notes in this arrangement that go in directions that are similar to what's in the original, it's tough mapping the original to this track by ear. it's certainly not required that every track feature a clear representation of the source end to end, but since results matter as much as intent, it matters that there's little to tie this back to an iconic theme outside a few very clear references. it would have been difficult at best for the arrangement to carry this past the performance, and i don't feel that it's transcendent enough to warrant that. it is certainly possible i'm biased, but the saxophone sounds objectively poor, far past what i consider minimum quality for posting, and it's one of the only two elements in the entire work. NO

this is a great original! what a fun track. started off bland and got fun quick. this is mastered hot right off the bat. when the lead comes in, i can't really hear anything. there's a lot needed in the mastering department - there is desperate need for EQing in the fundamentals right when at 0:14. there's so much content so loud right in the 60-100hz range that it sounds like total mud.to be clear - i like the stuttering bass, i think the wall pads sound good, and i like the beefy kick, there just is too much all in the same place. a clear example of what this should be more like is at 0:35 when the leads are higher up and suddenly the mix has room to breathe. layering in a lower lead alongside a bass synth and a fat kick with a lot of treble content is a recipe for mud, and that's what that first section sounds like. many of the synths sound like drop-in options - that is, there's little manipulation to the envelope or to what they're playing to make them sound like your synths, vs. just default sounds. i think there's definitely room for a lot more attention to what your leads are playing as well as how they're playing it. adding in movement to the sounds over time, being more active with when notes end vs. just when they begin, and being more attentive to dynamics from note to note will help a lot with emphasizing what you're hoping for. there's a neat little break and build at 1:31, but starting at 2:05 to the end, there's too much going on and it's hard to hear again. there's some neat ideas here for sure! i think this needs more attention to detail. the mastering elements need more focus and the synth work needs more intentionality. NO

yeah, the fake nature of the guitar is more obvious upon relistens. there's a ton of machine-gun effect that i can hear. any method to mix that up - varying release times slightly, some envelope manipulation, anything - would help a ton. it's a sweet idea though! it hits pretty hard, and if anything it's actually less weird than the source is for the first parts at least. 1:13-1:48 sounds straight off of an instrumental section of a portnoy-less dream theater album (if the snares were 900x hotter, that is). i think the synth sound design isn't anything crazy, but is pretty in keeping with other prog metal bands that i've heard which rely more on interesting playing over interesting sound design. so it's not elevating the track but it's certainly not a hindrance. 1:48's groove is great and far less fakey than the opening section. the organ does a nice job being reminiscent of the 3-weapon version. there's a section at about 2:29 that's similar to the opening section, and then we get a new variation at about 2:59 that's more rising action. i don't care for switching between major and minor of the same chord, and the guitar again sounds pretty rough again here. there's a rising-action ending that's again taken from the original and we're done. the arrangement here is great. this is an awesome idea and adaptation of the original's interesting and honestly pretty strange (in the context of the OST, at least) track. there's a lot of ideas taken from the original to influence the writing here. i think the track sounds fine from a production standpoint, as well - the different instruments are always clearly audible and don't mush together, there's not any egregiously out-of-touch instruments, etc. the third leg, the sound design, certainly isn't on the same level as the first two for the reasons listed above. i'd argue though that what's here is certainly sufficient of being posted on the site. i just want a live version since it'd be way better by default YES

nice writeup. original is great! never heard it before. opening is beautifully scored. flugel's a bit loud but the strings are very rich. the first presentation of the melodic content is pretty straightforward. i didn't care for the flugel's slightly stilted performance here (notably with notes rearticulating to match the words), but the tone is great, and considering this isn't live in a room together it's surprisingly in time despite the challenges of recording a lead part against a parted-out backing line. the guitar lead under the strings at 1:24 is a little heavy on the verb, but is well-played and the swelling strings under it sound excellent. the choice to mix up the backing parts right before 2:00 was a good idea, and the addition of some borrowed chords around 2:17 was nice. the verve that the more rhythmic backing at 2:28 adds is very well-timed, as i was feeling a little blasé about the track's direction there. there's what i believe is an incorrect or at least unsupported note at 2:45 in the violins, which is disappointing since it's so close to the climax of the piece. would love to see that pitch fixed in post rather than re-recording it. 3:09's outro is excellently designed and does a great job settling down a great piece. this sounds excellent, is well-performed, is source-abundant, and i love it. a few nitpicks can't keep this down. great job. YES

part of me wants to complain that this mix sounds like boiled buttholes, but i recognize that the style is intentionally over-grungy and that's not a knock on it. i've listened to a bunch of this style and agree that it's executed fairly well here, although i do feel the drums have way too drastic of volume fluctuation throughout the track. there's major sections where you can't hear anything but the crash, and i don't think that's wanted (although it may be intentional, i'd argue that it's not a good intent). from a source perspective, the most common riff in the remix (0:14-0:25) is the initial riff in the original, with a few less notes. 0:17 in the original is at about 0:45 or so in the remix. 1:13 in the original is roughly 1:35 in the remix. there's a lot of noodling around each and obviously a ton of detuning, which makes it hard, and lucas did a great job totally tossing out the original chords and going with a much meaner and gloomier set of chords that really changes the vibe drastically. i'm never going to listen to this again! but it's clearly not marketed to me this is a good execution of your vision and meets my criteria for the site. YES

i need a timestamp before i can talk about the arrangement. this is ridiculously hip to listen to but i can't find any elements from the original song - not really even timbral similarities - for the first minute and a half, and aside from the bass riff that shows up at 1:30 for a while, there's not a lot else. from a mastering perspective, this sounds awesome, and i love it. show me the melodic content and i'll pass it. i hear virtually no SF3 in this track's musical elements, so barring a breakdown that shows me things i totally missed, this is not passable. NO edit 11/9: larry's breakdown is enough for me. i don't feel bad for not catching the relationships. i wasn't really listening for this level of subtractive arrangement. talk about boiling it down to the essence...i like it. i'm good to go. YES

i love the bitcrushing that eino uses on the drums in several of his tracks. it's just such an iconic sound. it's used to great effect here. combined with the heavy stuttering on the backing parts, there's a great glitchy vibe that comes through here. the lead has a lot of activity on it, which is nice, and it's also actively personalized with some fun call-and-response harmonic content, so that's nice. i didn't like that the first third or so mirrored the second third quite a bit, and to that extent the repetitive nature of the background that MW called out is noticeable. the break at 2:15 in the general concept is needed and well-timed. there's some more background breaks via subtractive arrangement that show up around 3:00, and that's a nice change as well. some more noodles in the leads and glitches in the backing parts, and the track is done. mastering is sound and the track sounds great overall. the arrangement is certainly different from the original if repetitive. i think this is solid. nice work eino. YES

oh, that opening is really great. the nuance with the volumization and variety of instruments is so good, very detailed. i particularly like the barest hint of squelch on the initial arp's attack. 1:05 sounded like straight out of a 90s PC game, which is a fun coincidence. again, the nuance around the bass volume compared to other stuff going on is brilliant. 1:42 brings in a synthy guitar - really feeling the 90s PC vibe. i didn't hear any real timing issues outside of one run that sounded intentionally timed differently. i wouldn't have minded more of a bass presence on this section, as it's a while until the bass comes in. the snare also is a bit loud, but that's a nitpick. there's an extended fade before some more glittery pads sweep in - again demonstrating real patience in the process of the work. the major chord at 3:03 was a nice touch. at 3:15 we get the "Ein Anderer Abschied"-sounding oboe coming in again, and there's an extended outro after that from about 3:46 onward that just slowly progresses through the melodic content one more time. i love the breadth of this piece. there's a variety of significantly different timbres, unexpectedly combined into neat groupings, and it all comes together primarily because of the space and patience the arranger uses to allow each section to breathe appropriately. this is a great track, and an easy vote. excellent work. YES

oh, that fat overtony bass and snappy snare are a great vibe right off the bat. really eclectic combination of synths right away. the not-sax and arp leads do a great job of keeping the melodic material front and center without ever really focusing on it, which is a neat trick. there's a lot of blurbs and bloops going on that keep your ear moving. there's a bit of a reset at 1:37, and then there's some funky beat work at 1:47 under a second reimagining of the melodic material. some more intense drum work and a glitchy fade, and it's done quick. this is a great one! there's a ton of clever ideas taking the original's unique elements and recreating them in new ways. and it sounds super clean despite the variety of stuff going on. excellent work. YES

whoa, great original! never heard of this game. initial presentation is much slower, but it works pretty well to let the melody breathe a bit more with this arrangement. there's some fun flourishes in the intro, and a fairly straightforward adaptation of the melodic material. there's some added material that fleshes out the original without being overwhelmingly original. the drums are essentially the same pattern and velocity throughout, although there's a few fills which are desperately needed to mix it up. there's a break around 2:12 that is certainly needed at that point, and after that it goes into a short solo section, and a blow through the melody before ending on a quick flourish. there's a weird cymbal sound that sounds like it's added in post at the end of this that isn't needed. the elephant in the room with this one is that it simply isn't mastered very well. there's little to nothing above 10khz and a ton of content (i think it's the bass) at like 150hz, so it sounds very dark and condensed and musty. the bass tone especially has essentially no harmonics so it sounds very plodding...the chorus on it isn't doing it any favors. i think there's some EQing needed to expand especially the lead guitar's tone and notch the bass in so it doesn't have to be so loud on the fundamental to make it be heard. i think the arrangement's fine if fairly conservative, but i don't think it's transcendent or anything. with that in mind, i don't think the mastering is good enough to call this one a postable track. the myriad DoD submissions we regularly get are mastered cleaner than this pretty consistently, so I think at least another mastering pass is needed before we can post it. NO

the initial ocean sounds are surprisingly indistinct. the instruments in the opening are all in the same range, which makes it hard to really hear anything until about the 1:02 mark when the rest of the intro stuff drops. this represents over a third of the track. a quick glance at the opening section shows a huge amount of sub-40hz content, and even content below 10hz that's as loud as 100hz is. it's no wonder it sounds muddy. this desperately needs a filter to trim the fat. the melodic content really kicks in around 1:05, when the tempo picks up. the main body of the track here feels very big, which is good, although it is super generic. there's a short break for about 30 seconds, which features elements we've heard before in different synths - for example 1:07 and 2:02 are very similar to the point that they're basically palette swaps. this builds into a copypasta of 1:18 through 1:46, and then it ends with a clipped version of an earlier melody. the intro isn't bad but it's hard to hear everything with the synth choices and how loud the ocean SFX are. the actual main body of the remix, is from 1:05-2:47. this consists of the initial presentation of the big house section (1:05-1:46), a repeat of the intro melody with arp in different synths (1:46-2:02), and a repeat of the big house section (2:02-2:44) with a short blurb at the end. that means that the first minute is hard to hear and the last minute is copypasta, and the track is under three minutes long. this is honestly a lot better of a submission in terms of realization than some of your previous posts. from a mastering perspective, the main body of the house stuff sounds solid if bland - the kick is nice and meaty, the saws aren't overpowering, and the bass sounds fine for a non-sidechained option. the entire track however needs significant filtering on the low end (even the house parts have a lot of sub-40hz content, way too much). the opening could use some volumization to balance the instruments, and you may want to consider moving some instruments to other octaves so it's not overlapping so much. from an arrangement perspective, the last third being essentially a direct repeat isn't a great look. adding countermelodies or varying up the melody, chords, or backing rhythmic elements would help a lot to differentiate between the parts. just changing the q on the lead isn't enough to make it truly different. this needs some more workshopping. it is an interesting first attempt though! i definitely think there's something here. NO

the string intro sounds charismatic and creative, but the samples are objectively not good. the heavily filtered guitar playing the DbG initial jam is fun, and the pizz-style strings are more fitting when they're happening around 1:00-1:15 than they were in the intro. when the arrangement relies on them, it sounds like a lot of copypasta - that is, the same instruments playing the same things over and over. the parts of the track i liked the least featured this kind of repetition, like at 1:40. the guitar at 1:43 sounds great. right after this though is what's almost a complete repeat of the 1:30 before the guitar break. same riffs in the lead instruments, same orchestration. this is probably already enough to reject the track between the repetition and the strings sounding so obviously not real. there's a fun rhodes solo break at 4:06, complete with some clavinet and EP comping. there's a slick synth solo at 4:35, and then we're into a great guitar solo with some really fun verve. aaaaand then at 5:38 the earlier section is again copypasted in. this is particularly egregious even if it does bookend the track like MW mentioned above, since it feels like it should be prepping for an end and we still get the shuffle section at 6:04 and some other stuff before we get an actual ending (which doesn't even feel particularly prepped). this is ultimately sunk by two main things. one is that the strings just don't sound good when they're the lead instrument. they do a nice job comping under solos and functioning as stabs here and there, but there isn't the breadth of tone that you really need for being a leading instrument or timbre. this is exacerbated by the second issue, which is that this is about 3.5 minutes of music and the track is nearly seven minutes long. this needs some significant work done on the chopping board to cut out a lot of repetition. the difficult part - at least from OCR's perspective - is that this work needs to be done while still maintaining 50% source usage. the best parts of this track are the solos, so ensuring you still have enough source without it being copy/paste to get there will be critical. ultimately i agree with MW. the guitar work is superb. the concept is also great. the execution is lacking. NO edit 10/20: i'd like to first say that i appreciate the significantly patient response to the original thread. as you can see, we were not 100% on our decision, so it makes sense that there'd be some differences between us all. the string samples for the entire first major section starting at 0:55 do not sound realistic. they are obviously (to me) synthesized. the section at 1:22ish is particularly obvious to me as those fast runs just sound like glissandi and that isn't idiomatic for a stringed instrument. they sound like someone is playing them on a keyboard, and are at their best when they're in the back. another section is the stabs at 2:18 where the first several notes are louder and the next is quieter but has the same timbre - this is a dead giveaway for synthetic dynamics vs. the differences in how a string instrument sounds at different volumes. that said, they play fun things, and they're interesting to listen to. it's certainly possible i leaned heavily on this because i really don't care for synthesized strings. it's probably not a dealbreaker by itself. i noted several times that there is a lot of repetition in the track. in the scope of a much longer work, i don't think there's that much repetition, ultimately. however, for the scope of this as a standalone work as submitted to our site, there is a lot. several sections are repeated wholesale. you can describe how you've changed the backing parts repeatedly when they happen, but ultimately it doesn't matter if you've changed some tertiary countermelodic elements - what matters is that i, as the listener, couldn't tell the difference between several sections without multiple relistens - and that's bad! you don't want to repeat the same instrument playing the same melodic material with almost the same backing instrumentation and the same drums four or five times in a piece regardless of the scope or timeframe. that's not good composing. i recognize it's hard to tell when you've listened to the same thing for an extended period of time - i certainly still get caught up in the same issue 20+ years into my development as a composer and musician. i really didn't care for this. it's also possible that, as i tend to focus on repetition as bad, that i called this out as being a real problem. i think it's poor technique and the track should be way shorter. i don't think by itself this is a dealbreaker. i'd like to point out that, while i didn't complain about the mixing, i agree with others that it isn't great - it's so unbalanced constantly, and so many elements are getting buried repeatedly. i love your thematic reason behind how you scoped everything into the mix, honestly. unfortunately, intentions don't matter when it comes to listenability. your statement about submitting a radio edit actually touches on this - we aren't listening to a short snippet of a larger work here, we're listening to a single standalone work. i think that work should be about four minutes long if you cut out the overly repetitive elements, and i think it needs to be much more attentively mixed to balance the instruments regardless of your creative vision around mettaton. last thing i'll say, and it'll sound harsh but i truly don't mean for it to be hurtful: if you're hearing feedback you don't like five years into working on a huge effort, and your response is to really strongly push back, i'd argue that you're too close to it and listening to that advice from the perspective of "i am not objective anymore" would be worthwhile, regardless of your internal feelings about it. i ran into this with the chrono cross album when concerns were raised around mastering elements of several tracks specifically. i disagreed, allowed someone else to master the tracks to get the project out there, and ultimately was convinced that my ears weren't true anymore regarding tracks i'd heard for years. there was a better result after i took an ego check and let someone else be my guide. i encourage you to do that with others who are objective, are talented engineers in their own right, and who haven't heard the track evolve over time. this will allow for nuanced approaches that aren't skewed by history or the initial glitz of the work. that's a lot of statements about why i think it's not the track it should be. one thing i personally and regularly need to keep in check is that the pursuit of perfect shouldn't get in the way of 'pretty good'. this track is objectively 'pretty good', even if you did a lot of stuff that i feel is mistakes. that said, this is not above the bar that i believe OCR holds. i think fixing your mixing so that it's not so overbalanced would be enough to scratch past my line. i think cutting two minutes of repetition would also be enough. the other elements i called out would take a lot more time and it sounds like the artist isn't super into that level of revision. my vote is still a no. it's honestly very close, closer than i've been in a while. but i'm comfortable staying where i was with this vote for now despite it being four months later.

original is a great track. melody is very exciting and catchy. intro's timing is indeed pretty rough, and it does sound lo-fi to the point that i'm not sure if it's intentional. the whistles and choir pad sound great though, that's a great vibe. the next 30 seconds or so continue to feature some rough timings in various instruments, but the underlying idea is great, appropriately epic in scope and realization. the whistle sounds excellent. we get some (overwhelmingly loud) guitars at about 1:03, and then get into what feels like the main body of the arrangement at 1:18 along with a tempo switch. the drums feel pretty bland and the rhythm guitar sounds way too loud, but the guitar tone itself is great, and the saw's tone cuts really well through the mix. there's some extended transition to the B melody on organ, and the guitar parts here sound great (still too loud) and are perfectly timed as compared to the opening. around here i realized i can't hear the bass at all. i'm not sure if it's a result of the instrumentation (ie. guitar chugs are covering it) or just mastering, but it's not obvious if there's anything there. there's a break at 2:16 that is even more obviously out of time since the piano's got drums behind it this time, and the guitars (which are still too loud) come in for a lower-energy section. the chord that you altered at the end of the A melodic material (at 2:47) is wrong here - i liked the altered choice, but it's performed incorrectly here. 3:09 brings in some new material. the drums are more interesting in this section as compared to elsewhere, but are still mostly on autopilot outside of a few fills. there's some fun call and response in the guitar and leads here which is a nice way to mix up the delivery of the melodic material. this kinda just ends and it goes into an acoustic outro with some ocean or rain sfx. the last sustain and chord is not a particularly pleasing choice. this has some really fun ideas! the guitar-driven approach with leads is energetic and exciting, and the whistle-driven elements that are more acoustic sound fun too. the piano parts are just so out of time, however. it's very distracting. the drums throughout are pretty rote, and i really just can't hear the bass. from a mastering perspective, the rhythm guitars are too loud for essentially the entire track. overall i think a redo of most of the quieter sections and maybe a reorganization like what darksim suggests would really benefit the track overall. i agree with him that the last blow-through with the band going full blast is probably the best part of the piece - focusing the arrangement more around that best part would help a ton. NO

aw yeah, that intro is awesome. washy pad into a super-defined bassline and choppy percs. i love the space added there, it adds so much definition to the groove. the melodic parts are intentionally buried for much of the first minute and a half. i like the concept (underground!) but do wish they were just slightly louder at the start of that. impressive breakdown at 1:45 and a huge tempo change. the vocal parts are appropriately ethereal and sliding around in a pleasing way. we get a real lead finally at 2:43 with some more percs - and then it's back to the fat bass groove, with more choppy synths doing the lifting on the melodic side. there's a huge build that again uses tempo to intensify into a big break at 3:25. lots of sfx and a neat, appropriately weird plectral lead brings it back up. more vocals - what a great addition to the piece next to all the obviously synthetic instruments - and tons of rhythmically driven filtro synths to build back up to the bass groove re-entering at 4:39. there's a few more runthroughs of the melodic content with a huge build into an outro. the chord at the end that it ends on is unexpected. what a great track. if you'd have told me before starting that i was going to get into a bass groove that was essentially one note for six minutes i'd have laughed at you. the track sounds awesome. YES

i always loved this original. even the various translations of the track's name are evocative. big washes of sound to start out. i like seeing the game's context inform the remix. the pad washes have some dissonance in them too (sound like maj7 chords?) so that's a fun concept. the melodic content comes in at 0:52 alongside some bass and some more brass in the pads. the eventual string plucks and FM e-piano also are reminiscent of FF7's OST, so again a great pick. there's a shift in the lead instrument at 1:43, and some particularly odd-sounding bass stuff happens right after. i think it's a result of using detuning throughout the soundscape alongside some creatively interpreted chord structures. 2:28 through 2:31 is particularly bad - you can't put the bass on the maj7 if it's that low, which is what it sounds like is happening. i don't think it's a positive, but the rest of the soundscape is really neat. there's a shift at 2:36 to a string-heavy concept, and then subsequently at 3:01 the bass sustains bring in a more aqua-inspired backing, especially with the liquidy arps. the bass here is very strong, almost too much, certainly right on the edge. at 3:52, we finally get some percussion (mostly snaps and a ride cymbal), along side some more intentional bass rhythmic work. the arps continue to be so interesting behind the melodic content, and i still haven't ever really lost the melody this entire time despite all the changing backing parts. there's an extended outro for like 30 seconds and then it's fading into the distance on the descending chord from J-E-N-O-V-A. clever call-out. i really don't like whatever the bass is playing from 2:28 through 2:31. i think it's wrong notes, and that needs to be fixed. but i think that's conditional-worthy as the rest of the track is IMO excellent. the mixing is super bass-heavy and pretty brash considering what it's playing, but i really like the liquidy, burbly synths used throughout, and i think the countermelodic elements really elevate the track. CONDITIONAL (on fixing whatever the heck the bass is playing at 2:28, or at least un-detuning it so it doesn't sound so messy)

intro is quite simple, but not in a bad way. there's some P H A T bass synths coming in at 0:30, and then we get the first real run-through of the melodic content. i don't think this earlier section sounds too thin at all - the space in this realization is great, and allows the very slow, patient melody to have some room to breath. i really liked this section actually. at 1:41, we get some iconic sixteenth-note bass stuff sidechained nicely, and a good driving beat that continues to explore countermelodic material. this plays through and then goes through a key change, and that key change brings in a more heroic, uplifting set of arps alongside it. the ending actually comes a bit soon - i wouldn't have minded a four-bar outro, as there's a ton of energy there at the end - but it's handled in a fine way. this is a slam dunk in my opinion. there's a natural shape to the song, the synths sound great, i love all the space in the first half and the countermelodic content in the second half. nice work. YES

this is an excellent example. this is an excellent point. my vote on it stated that i felt that it counted since there was another OCR that did quote text in a similar fashion. however, as MW pointed out, that's way less of the overall product in that remix, and it's text directly from the game. so i think my statement was incorrect. i agree with the above arguments and don't think it fits here simply because it isn't music, and the music it does contain isn't the dominant aspect of the remix.

hooooo boy, first couple chords are indicative of a bad trip. that intro is really, really weird. i can see myself dismissing it right there if it was just in a random rotation. there's some great resonance in the bass elements after that though, and the altered chords you get from that resonance is neat. the timbre is very thin though. a lot going on that is just so quiet, or is actually not really anything. after the initial bass elements, 1:22's woody clunks in the synths take a while to coalesce into something that's actually ice cappy, but the schmears that layer in around 2:00 are much more helpful. the subsequent time-based res chirps alongside the arp is really a neat concept, and the block chords with no attack are immediately recognizable within the context of the earlier melodic content. 3:15 is heavily distorted and continues the crazy train approach, and it kind of blurves it's way towards the ending fade. this is way more difficult a vote than i expected. it's intensely weird in an r/surrealmemes kind of way and i honestly think it might be a little too far on that side of the curtain. much of what's after 3:00 is only tangentially related to the melodic content in a shapes and colors way, not necessarily because the pitches or rhythms are the same. and then it ends. it takes serious work to sound this strange. i can't imagine anyone wanting to listen this regularly, although of course that's not a requirement. the technical proficiency is obvious and clear throughout, though, and it consistently does reference the source material for >50% of the track. it even has what i'd call a standard theme and variations form, albeit horribly mutilated. this is a pass, but it's probably pretty close to the arthouse 30-minutes-of-balloons-floating-in-a-room is-this-cinema line than i'd want to go very often. YES?

it's a neat beat and the beat especially is super well produced. there's some variation in the background beats overall - the chippy synths at 1:51 are great - and the the variety of vocal leads is nice. the vocals aren't near loud enough for me to actually understand them without the lyrics sheet. the track constantly feels like it's waiting for a big chorus, but that's a stylistic thing and not necessarily bad. this is a fun listen, even if the lyrics are too low. YES