prophetik music

i always found this original to just be so odd. more musicbox (just listened to the stage is set remix) to start alongside sweeping pads gives a very pastoral feel to the opening. there's a shift as we get to the Motion part of the original, and the addition of muted distortion sustains/washes is a big change from the opening. the repetitive melodic material is immediately recognizable. this is extended, and eventually we get something new at 2:48. this is indeed slowed way down, almost to the point of not being recognizable, and continues with the very spare soundscape that was defined earlier. the track is extremely simple, more of a backing element to a scene than something you'd seek out to listen to regularly. still it fits our guidelines. YES

the intro is appropriately creepy between the detuned music box and the distorted synths. there's a great build into 0:44 where the main melodic material shows up. 1:17 drops off and we get more of the marcato melodic material from the beginning of the source. there's a nice piano arpeggiation behind this that fades in and out, and sets the stage for a half-time section led by guitars at 1:47. the sweeping, sustained theme is just perfect for such an active background. there's a big transition at 2:21 with some significant pumping from the main compressor (it's even visible in the waveform). this part shifts the marcato intro melodic material to some lower strings doubled with choir, which is kind of muddy but sounds great the few times there's a thinner soundscape. this builds up with more of the musicbox stuff into another drop, and the track builds for another 20s until the ending big hit. there's some pumping but that's really my only complaint. the rest of this is just great pacing and scaling. nice work. YES

the first part of the arrangement is primarily a specific representation of the boogie riff in the right hand, with open fifths in the left hand. there's variation in how the left hand plays those fifths, but that doesn't change for about 1:17, after which the left hand switches to a common bass/chord pattern for a short period before going back to the fifths. the right hand sounds mostly like what i'd call noodling - as in, what i do when i sit down at the piano to goof around before dinner (important note: i am not a pianist outside of a few semesters of class piano in college). there's no particular direction in what's going on, there's not really a ton of arrangement of the themes as we'd expect in a piano remix outside of just playing them one after another, and it's honestly not played at a high level either. i like the way you push and pull the tempo at a macro level, but the constant timing issues at the micro level are distracting just as much as the (i believe unintentional) significant variances in velocity from note to note. i think the recording of the piano sounds fine - it sounds like a direct-in from a digital piano rather than the midi being captured, right? i'd assume if you have the midi data that you'd fix the missed notes that occasionally occur. the tone is fine, and the bass isn't too loud which can happen when the hands are so far apart. piano remixes are probably the single most difficult genre to get onto the site. the lack of variety in synth choice, ensemble involvement, tonal variation, or breadth of soundscape means that the focus is exclusively on the performance quality and on the quality of the arrangement. this arrangement is unfortunately uninspiring and the performance quality isn't at the level we'd expect a performer to be at. ultimately, recording the midi data of this (to get the push-pull timing you display) and then correction of velocity, incorrect timing elements, and pitches would be a good idea. beyond that, i'd encourage you to expand your exploration of the two primary themes of this track beyond just an initial riff-based reinterpretation, especially in the left hand. NO

initial hit is appropriately epic. the guitars are way louder than everything else until the vocals come in and are way louder than that. there's some balancing that could definitely be done there. 0:34 is the initial string riff, and this is realized almost exactly as it is in the original initially. there's more of the super-loud vox and then a really intense section around the melodic material at like 1:01 that sounds absolutely incredible. that short 20-second section is just nuts, so well orchestrated and put together. the intensity continues at 1:28, and this also sounds great but has a bit of jank from the orchestral samples. around here i noticed how much this feels like one of my favorite remixes, Ein Anderer Abschied by PriZm. the intense rhythmic guitar elements, focus on a single chord for extended periods of time, and the orchestral elements laid against the female vocals all are very reminiscent of that remix. the vocal break at 2:25 is a neat idea. it's clear both very high for (i'm assuming) EK and doesn't have any vibrato which makes it not as pleasing a sound to hear as it could be there. the layered laughing and subsequent statements starting at different times is a fun effect considering the element of time in this game, but again it eventually is too loud over the top. the guitar stuff at 3:35 sounds great, although the lead is too loud again and crushes what's going on alongside it. there's some ridiculous riffs at like 4:05, just awesome stuff, and cutting to the acoustic right after it is a great idea. after that is an outro with some acoustic guitar noodles, and it's done. i didn't have an issue with the white-noise synth, again equating it to PriZm's track if not other similarly-styled tracks. i don't have the high-end on my ears like MW does however so it's certainly possible i'm missing something he's hearing. i'll ask my wife to listen later when she's home. regarding the vox, i didn't think that they sounded odd or different - i think the distortion was an intentional effect. i didn't have an issue with the reverb either, just the overall peak volume of them. this was clearly a huge undertaking and it's super intense throughout. there's a ton of elements that i did not expect to like but ultimately came together into a greater whole. i certainly think there are things that could have been done differently or objectively better - specifically the volumization across the track - but what's here is excellent and i heard no dealbreakers for me. excellent work. YES edit 11/7: the better-balanced vocals against the backing parts at 1:00 literally raise the hair on my arms. i hate vocal sfx in a mix and this is still bonkers good. the volumization was my big issue and it's a lot better throughout, so this is still a yes.

i disagree that the first part of this is a sound upgrade. the original is superior in every aspect - the backing pad is richer and the original's plectral instrument is more evocative. there are some added percussive elements at 0:55, but they're almost nonexistent. the doubling of the lead is nice but again not as evocative as the original's instrumentation. the cello at 1:22 is certainly nice, but i don't think i'd call it particularly realistic with the machine-gun vibrato (if you can modify the depth, reduce it! it's very wide). i particularly like the slides added between notes, they're not idiomatic but help give it a folky feel that counteracts the very wide romantic-era vibrato. there's a clear shift at about 2:44 to start bringing in a lot more countermelodic and backing content. the original plectral instrument is lost in the mix (i hear snippets here and there) but the rest of the writing is rich and broad. i wouldn't call what is being played particularly groundbreaking, and the melodic line regularly gets lost, but it's nice to listen to and feels good until the fadeout which is a super buzzkill. i'm one of those people, larry, i feel it just drains any energy or emotion built up in that section. and it's lazy, especially on a melodic line with a clear ending point like this one has. the fadeout loop starts at 4:06. the cello comes in at 1:22. that means that 34% of the track is the original but less, another 34% is original with a cello doing sustains, and the remaining 32% is a solid arrangement of the theme. i would argue that we wouldn't ever think of even coming close to passing the first 68% of the track, so a minute and a half of orchestral remix work isn't enough to balance it. i'd possibly consider it if it didn't have the first 1:22 of less-than-original, and was 1.5 minutes of original with cello and 1.5 minutes of orchestra. the extra cruft on the beginning is too much for me. edit: to clarify my vote, my issue is not with the remixer writing boring music or something. it's that the vast majority of the first three minutes wasn't written by the remixer at all, it was written by marcin przybyłowicz & friends, and the remixer put some (simple but well-handled and carefully animated) cello sustains in there on the second half. that's not arrangement, that's realization or transcription, and we don't accept either here normally. the last minute and a half is immaterial at that point; way too much of the track isn't arrangement. NO

i don't remember this original at all. i haven't played FF8 since probably 2002 so that's likely on me. the original's simplicity is a strength, so i'm hoping that's what we hear here. the intro is stylistically very similar to the original, but has some really neat ideas to stretch the composition so it's not just a cover. it actually reminds me a lot of remixes of the map theme from the mass effect series or the Earth theme from assassin's creed 2 - starts with just an arpeggio, but eventually gets fleshed out more. the vox is beautiful and meandering. there's a neat rhythmic synth into 2:16 and the time changes. the connections to the original here are a little thinner as more stuff is going on, but it's still recognizable. i appreciate the consistent 3 vs 2 patterns that are throughout. after a bit, the rhythmic elements drop and it's just the rain, the voices, and the strings and arp. this is simple but effective, just like the original. nice work. YES

stylistic influences are immediately recognizable. what a fun idea. interesting time signature choice initially - sounds like 9+10. adding in extra eighths to make it feel like a wobbly dance. the subsequent bigger orchestrated section uses this regularly to keep the listener off-balance - very fitting considering the context (the Gold Saucer). after the larger orchestrated section, there's a much more patient and quiet setion from 1:29 onward. the flute notably has a lot of air tone - consider a high-freq filter to remove the air noise, like 6-8k. 2:50 features a bit of a shift where the orchestration is a little more goofy than before and feature some fun side-by-side harmonies and intentional dissonances. 3:37 is essentially an outro and it's done. this is an intentionally silly version of a neat track on the ost. it's well-performed and well-orchestrated. nice work. YES

the first note in this track's representation of the iconic riff from the zelda track doesn't exist in zelda. it's added for this to help it fit the Secret Song's song layout. the guitar on the bridge at 1:38 is pretty loud compared to the first minute and a half. i wouldn't have minded a more graceful crescendo over the course of the bridge to get the overall volume up to where you wanted to go at 2:17. the vocals here are nice but are a bit quiet. the higher vocals have a few pitchy tones but overall sound nice. there's another (loud) guitar lead section after that, with some well-handled chord changes and some great modifications to that original zelda riff. once this is done, we get the kicks and a distant maj7 arp and it's done. this is a really neat idea. MW's right, it's an experiment that works. vocals are stylistically appropriate, the addition of that first note to the main riff does a great job of helping make it different from the original and fit the box you made for it without really dragging it too far away from the original's idea. it's well-realized and it's clear you spent a lot of time with this on the back burner. nice work. YES

this kind of doesn't get started really until 0:33. before there, it's a lot of sustains on the same couple notes, which quickly sounds odd. the mix has a huge boost on about 70hz and little below that, so it's got a weird harmonic effect that makes it feel like it has no guts. there are conflicting notes at about 0:30 that sound intentional. 1:02 is what sounds like a soli section, but the guitars and drums are so loud i can hardly distinguish between what the band instruments are doing. there's some weird swirling organ sfx at 1:30 for like 12 seconds, and then a pretty solid organ solo for a bit. this is followed by a guitar solo that has some fun stuff it's saying, but there's conflicting parts again in the background at around 2:37. solo keeps going for another two minutes (!!!) and then there's a quick blow through of the melodic material before there's a quick outro and it's done. from a structural standpoint, this relies heavily on the solo parts to get it to 50% source. there's a lot of reference in the solos themselves - without that there wouldn't be enough of the OST in the track to get above our criteria. i felt i had to be fairly generous actually to get it there. from a technical standpoint, the parts are all on time and map fine with one another, but there's no volumization or dynamics in the entire piece essentially, and that is very tiring. in a real group, you'd expect to hear instruments popping in and out of the texture as they're more or less important with what's being played, but there's none of that here. the alto sax is a consistent volume in my left ear, for example. separately, the lacking of a true low end means the emphasis in the 70-100hz range is very noticeable the longer the track goes on. i would have really liked to see my dynamics (like, at all), and more band sections that were actually the whole group playing through ensemble blows rather than little chunks here and there. i would also have preferred to hear this mastered with less of a focus around the 70-100hz band that causes it to feel so dense. however, personal feelings aside, this meets our criteria, and it's performed well with a good energy throughout. YES

i really like the fade-in. the initial beat at 0:17 is a great feel, with tons of space in the synths in front and tons of wash in the pads and sweepers. i normally don't care for vox clips in remixes that aren't specific to the style, but these fit well too. the melody hits around 1:09, and for a bit it's really dense. i don't think i'd call it muddy but like MW said it's very busy there with all the verb wash. a little less on the lead would have helped a lot - same tail length, just have it fall off the initial note faster. the chop synth that came after that was less intrusive to the soundscape and i liked that implementation a lot more. there's a nice break at 2:09 that's perfectly timed. i would have preferred the lead here to have a bit more attack since it's fading a bit into the background with how light it is. there's a recap of the initial melodic material from 1:09 at 2:54, and it's very close to the original section with a few small changes for about 35 seconds. there's no real ending, just a hit with the backing pads fading out. this is mostly a rubber stamp. this is a great track regardless of my nitpicks, and you really nailed the style. nice work. YES

my original vote was around the need for there to be more to the arrangement, as it was too simplistic. 0:36 is a lot better now. shifting the arp out of the forefront is a huge positive there. the track is still clearly based on that original, but it's not just the arp slamming away. the arp coming in at 1:16 feels like a nice return rather than "oh man, even more of this?". shifting it then right away to the more bell-like synth and stuttering it in and out is a great idea as well. thank you for taking our (long-winded) criticisms to heart. this is objectively a better and more listenable track now. YES

my original issues with this track stemmed around some of the live elements - weird notes in solos, significant timing issues, etc. - and some mastering elements. lucas also contacted me separately and we worked through some of the intonation and note choice issues. my main issues with the performances - the timing of the flute in the bridge, the constant use of flat 7s and #4s in the guitar solo, and intonation issues - were all fixed. glad that my assistance there on the side was helpful. my other complaint - that the drums got drowned out on the big parts and the snare sounded odd - were also corrected or at least settled into the mix better. this is a pass. thanks for the reworks. YES

this is an interesting one. it's definitely a single loop that's repeated pretty much straight through, with a fade for the ending. i'd say that there's more going on here than an instrument swap. i'm hesitant to call this a cover since there's so much in the background going on that's new and updated. the drums are pretty much just a loop with a few fills, but the bass, pad work, lead synths, and countermelodic content is a lot more dense than the original. plus the mastering is super clear despite a dense soundscape. i think if this wasn't >50% repeated content between repeating the first loop and then repeating it again while fading out, i'd be ok with this arrangement, actually. the real issue is that it's a 1:14 loop with a timpani roll on the intro and then a fade on loop 3. the initial loop slaps, make it not repeating content and i'll vote positively. NO

very familiar with this theme ? i'll cover the vocals later. suffice to say, they're not in a postable state right now. so i'm reviewing for a resub going forward. i didn't care at all for the initial few notes in the electric - when you don't have any reference for the instrument, going with a scoopy note just sounds wrong. the acoustic part however sounds great. in the intro. there's a few fret blobs but nothing huge. there's an audio artifact at 0:41. the build into the second half is great, and i love the groove you chose there - obviously influenced by the original but unique to arrangements i've heard. there's other stuff going on besides the guitar and bass, but i can't really hear them. the break at 1:50 still sounds great in the acoustic. the solo section is a great idea, and i love the stop break. the last blow through is great and super energetic. so, onto the vocals. the initial presentation in the acoustic section sounds not good at all. i get you're going for a more traditional style earlier on - lots of flips and intentional air in the tone. however, it's nowhere near on pitch anywhere except the long sustains, and the sustains are even kind of sketchy. beyond that, you can't really hear anything you're saying because you don't pronounce any consonants. example: i cannot hear a single consonant on the third line of the song at all. i can't pick out the words even with the lyrics. lastly, this entire section is super quiet in the vocals relative to the acoustic. boost your formant by adding several db to around 2.5khz in the vocals at the least, that'll help some of the text to carry. please do consider recording this again with more air support - it sounds like someone singing slouched over. even worse, your timbre here doesn't sound good because of the lack of air support - so even if it's on-pitch, it's not going to sound like it since the tone just isn't there. the heavier section is more your style, and it shows. it's still very pitchy, especially on sustain starts (consider cutting the notes up in melodyne and repitching individual parts of the note so that you don't get the heavy shift of the pitch over time). i love the doubling of the vox, especially at 1:35 when the harmonies come in. you sound much more confident and on-pitch here. the break is the same as the beginning. you're like a quarter tone flat on the first sustain that's in your head voice. as soon as you give it some air support, it gets better (but the second higher sustain is also way flat). then you do the rob halford scream thing and it's freaking ridiculous. never going to get tired of that sound. the last section is both a touch too loud in the lead voice and balanced well in the backing parts, and it sounds awesome. and the sustain at the end up high is nuts, just nuts. it's clear this is the part of your repertoire you've tirelessly worked on over time. so! a lot of words to say, i love the arrangement pretty much across the board, and i hate every time you're not screaming at me. please redo the clean vocals so that they're more directed and have better air support and timbre. i'm happy to help with more nuance in the vocal corrections if you would like that. NO

extremely quiet again. starts with sfx, choir, and percussion. the 3-note arp is present right away, and there's some glissandi in the glock that are interestingly arrayed against the rest of the soundscape. both the 3-note and 5-note arp don't appear to be in traditional instruments, which is a little disconcerting given the overall realism of the other parts - certainly intentional. the track features a lot of stereo separation, which is also kind of disconcerting. it's clearly being used as a compositional technique, the rest of the track continues to vary between choir chord stacks, a few similar synths doing the different arp patterns present in the original, and some percussive elements. there's some orchestral tremelos that occasionally pop up, but as a whole this doesn't really go anywhere or do anything, similar to the original. i agree with MW that this is very, very close to being just an audio upgrade. certainly parts are in different places than the original, but i don't hear transformative arrangement here. the same or similar synths doing similar things at roughly the same time relative to each other in the same tempo of the original with similar percussion and similar sfx doesn't do enough to differentiate itself. separately, from a mastering perspective, this is comically quiet, beyond even RET's normal super-quiet stuff. Her continued inability to understand the difference between volume and timbre when discussing dynamics is a significant downside of her music. It's simply unable to be listened to alongside other tracks of similar style or instrumentation without constant volume shifts. even if this was mastered appropriately, i'd argue the arrangement isn't particularly there. cutting and pasting similar synths doing similar things in slightly different places than the original isn't enough for me. NO

opening sounds like it's a fall bgm for stardew valley. percussion and drums come in at 0:23. there's some overlap in the bass occasionally from the sound of it, but i like the tone and the feel. lead comes in soon after and is smooth as butter. there's a shift at 1:04 with a nice wash sfx, and a higher zipper synth is introduced which echos the original. a bit of a break at 1:26 introduces some keys again, and the remix cruises for a bit before the drums drop at 2:06. an extended outro and it's done, quicker than expected. this is a fun track! it's got a neat funk to it - especially in the fills going into each section, i loved the offbeat hits for those - and it keeps the great vibe of the original. this is going in the rotation right away. YES

bold opening complete with some borrowed chords, an auspicious start. coop purposefully turns the energy down quickly, and switches to a slower tempo right away after that big opening. i hear a lot of the block fifths in the left hand that i heard in the last arrangement i spent time with of his (for the chrono cross soundtrack you can hear it here at like 0:40), as well as the constant movement of eighth notes jumping between fingers and octaves that he used there (1:09 is an example of this). coop's focus on a consistently represented melody above a ton of interesting middle-octave stuff is a great choice, letting the theme soar above the more complex backing parts. he again brings the energy back in a false resolution at 1:47, and continues the octave-jumping left hand fifths through the original's chord progression, and then very slowly builds back up with some nice dissonance over repeated left hand block chords. this builds towards a key change that brings it home to a very quiet resolution. this track does a great job maintaining the intensity of the original without the big percussion or huge dynamics. there's a quiet energy here that's great and consistent, and the track is both well-played and well-arranged. nice work coop. YES

the initial burbling sfx are really arresting. the intro's muted vibe is perfect based on what you were going for. the hit at 0:40 of everything together is just great, and subsequently at 1:00 is just as beautiful. there's a ton of verb on everything, so it's almost too lush, but it's a very relaxing and chill vibe. 2:00 feels like a significant shift, if only for the break from the glock/crotales/glasses/whatever that is. the chromatic nature of the theme causes some mess with the long tails of the sustained instruments through this entire section through 3:20. later on you change the theme's mode so it's not causing a bite on that sharped 4 in the melodic line, and i think that came too late - i'd suggest you do it right away. it takes away a bit of the uniqueness of the theme without it being in lydian, but it fits your backing parts far better. 3:20's definitely the high-point of the piece dynamically. your long-tail strings here are a bit exposed - i'd have preferred a faster attack so it wasn't so delayed, but that's my only real pick about this part outside the continuing use of the arpeggiated glass instrument being overused. after this section ends around 4:40, the song slowly works down to an ending. from a mastering perspective, a freq analysis confirms what my ears are hearing - there's little to nothing over 3khz, which is why it sounds so intentionally dull and muted. there's also some notable spikes at overtone intervals over around 260hz which i think is the glass arp instrument's overtones sharply poking through the mix. it's noticeable and probably will be a turn-off for some. aside from that, the dynamics of the piece form a nice shape, and the track sounds good. there's some light clipping in the biggest section from 3:20 through maybe 4:00 (particularly right at 3:24), but it's barely noticeable. this is a great arrangement with some beautiful choices made in the instrumentation. i think it's probably too over-lush in a few spots, overuses the glass arp, and has some crunch from the melody's #4 next to the rest of the chords, but overall it's a great listen. YES

this is a surprisingly quiet track, all told. there's a few peaks that restrict the headroom but it really has like at least 4db of room there. intro is simple but the rhythmic elements are real nice. the beat that came in at 0:26 was surprising, but again i liked the rhythmic elements and the focus on the off-beat. 1:02 brings in some new instrumentation. i think that the lead here could have used some dynamic programming so it's not just sustaining long notes without moving much, but the lfo element on the tone itself was appreciated. 1:38 is a tonal shift, adding new rhythmic elements via stuttered and delayed synths. the original continues to be clearly evident through this section. there's a dropout at 2:32, and it builds back around to the instrumentation of the beginning. this is very similar to the opening, but there's some additional reinforcement in synths to make it not quite copypasta though close. this progresses through with some new countermelodic material until a fairly abrupt ending. this is pretty straightforward but a great rendition of the original nice work. YES

i loved HZD when i played it but couldn't tell you a thing about the music. this is an excellent set of originals though! the initial build is just great. the hit at 0:17 is nice, and the melodic entrance at 0:36 is excellent. the near-immediate transition to a breakdown is great pacing - saving the big bits for later is a good way to get your listeners coming back. 1:12's rising build section hits hard when the backing parts kick in finally at 1:30. the lead through here isn't as big as it could be but sounds good. 1:56 is the first real break, and the glitchiness is a fun add. the melody comes back in about 20s later and i appreciate the continued updates to the melodic material that keep happening. the false build into 2:48 is a great idea. we get one more final blow through the melodic material at 3:04, and then an extended outro that mirrors the intro. i see what darksim is saying - it doesn't have the wall-of-sound mastering this style normally has - and it is indeed quieter than i'd expect, but i don't think it's enough to hold it back on a conditional. nice work treyt. YES

ok, that intro is super evocative right off the bat. 0:45's goofiness is a good building element too, there's clearly a lot more going on under the filter and i was really anticipating hearing the hit, which was worth it when i got there. i think the lead's a touch loud when it hits - don't forget to volumize instruments for context when you're using additive arrangement techniques! - but the melodic presentation at 1:06 and subsequently at 1:27 is great. there's a funky breakdown at 1:49 that's got some neat stuff going on outside of the melodic material. it wound up being longer than a breakdown and was more just where the track went - the zippy synth at 2:50 was probably my favorite part. there's another extended build to the big hit at 3:17, and the half-time beat is fun alongside the nasty subbass. this section feels a bit like it's missing something in there - i think that there's room for an active synth in the middle here, but i get thinning it down. the beat comes back and we get the melodic material played through once before the guitar solo (which is imo too quiet). a dropoff outro and it's done. i don't have a problem with the drums. the way they're used is idiomatic to the style (a la Pendulum's In Silico album). when the big name dnb bands are doing the same pattern for most of their songs, i think it's fine to use it as-is here. i have some nitpicks but overall this is a banger. looking forward to listening to this on a system with a serious subwoofer. nice work. YES

agree with MW that the intro is cribbed straight from the original. it's well-played, but it's nothing new. also agree that the initial band sound is really loud. the soundscape has a lot of noise in it from what i can hear - there's a sweepy static pad that's occupying a lot of the audio range, and combined with a wide bass instrument and what sounds like zero panning it's a very dense soundscape. the very loud drums don't help. my trick for checking levels is to turn the volume way down until i can only hear one thing, and if it's not the lead then something's wrong. doing that here shows drums, then turning it up a bit allows the pads to creep through before the lead does. so there's some audio reprioritization that needs to occur. beyond that, there's a ton of sub-40hz content that's causing my ears to feel pressured from how dense the remix is, and there's little above 1khz to help it sparkle. the mix is dull, dense, loud, and imbalanced. from an arrangement perspective, this isn't a particularly crafted remix either. there's a lot of repetition between parts, the backing instruments are static throughout and do not change or get replaced based on the shape of the track, and there's no dynamics whatsoever. the drums are the same throughout, the arp is the same throughout, the bass pad is the same throughout, the lead is the same throughout...that's not a positive. even if i thought that the initial band sound was cohesive and solid - which i don't, as much because of how loud everything is as anything - the lack of delta over time is a problem since it's almost four minutes solid of just loud. the track needs, at least, a break in the middle, and way more attention paid to what's going on in each instrument instead of just painting in the same patterns over and over again. right now it's boring, which is the worst thing you can say about a ballad. this needs attention throughout. a more interesting and crafted soundscape that's better balanced and is playing more interesting and crafted parts will dramatically change the quality of the remix. right now it's not postable. even fixing one element - arrangement, mastering, implementation - wouldn't be enough to get it over the bar in my opinion. NO

original is basic and essentially follows the circle of fourths for a chord progression. intro in the keys (not idiomatically played, just blocks with melody layered on top) and some nice filtered synths. the initial build is pretty big, and the synth arps, bass, and drums at 0:29 are nice - just way too loud. i can't hear the melody around that at all. it goes through the initial melodic progression several times, and finally hits a break at 1:23 or so with some filters and no kick. interestingly enough, you didn't use the break at 1:23 in the original here, which exacerbates the repetitive original lick. it gets loud again and noodles through the circle of fourths progression some more, and then falls off at 2:33. there's some piano at way too high a velocity (this is why it sounds so metallic), and then the track is over with a bunch of silence and not even a resolution. this arrangement isn't really much more than a cover. removing the break in the original wasn't a good choice - this doesn't have anything to help mix it up in the middle at all now and is super repetitive. there needs to be significantly more arrangement to get past the bar there. beyond that, the track needs volumization to allow a lead instrument (that is, you need one to begin with) to carry the melodic material. right now there's essentially nothing there. NO

intro is simple almost to a fault. there's some bass that comes in at 0:16, but i wouldn't call the initial instrument pleasant to listen to, so focusing on it isn't a great feel. some heavily crushed and slowed-down drums come in at 0:32, featuring significant sidechaining. that sidechaining continues to really crush anything that isn't drums, and you really can't hear anything beyond it. by about 1:30, i realized i can't really hear the piano enough to call it a melodic line due to the sidechain, and also that the drums essentially hadn't changed since they came in. there's a shift finally at 1:53, but the instrumentation appears to be the same, and the shift is more in the form of subtractive arrangement. the break stays until about 2:25 when stuff starts to come in again, and then we get copypasta for the rest of the arrangement. i would argue that the original 'loop' isn't interesting enough or developed enough to be good enough on its own. if this ended with an outro at 2:41, i'd be hard-pressed to pass it on its own. the sidechaining is oppressive, the drums are repetitive, the arp-based lead is not pleasant to listen to, and the track doesn't have any dynamic shape. and the it repeats for a minute and a half before an outro. this needs more throughout, separate from fixing the copypasta, for me to pass it. NO

what a writeup. excellent breakdown and a clear voice. thank you for that. oh, that initial swell of guitar is badass. the heavy, dark soundscape is very fitting for the theme and setting here. 1:06 is a huge shift, and really surprising, but fits really well. i like the brass in the right ear a lot there. the lead guitar tone is great too, without being too wild next to the orchestral elements. the heavy, dark lead-in to 2:30 and subsequently to 2:43 is just *chef's kiss*. the triplet kicks are great. there's a lot going on at 2:43, but the lead stays clear. there's a hard drop at 3:20, and... 3:33 is huge and crazy as expected based on other votes. it absolutely slays and is everything i've ever wanted with this theme, it's brutal and mind-shredding and literally made me sweat listening to it and it's exactly what thirteen-year-old me would have wanted to her as a remix of this music and it's insanity and it isn't perfect and that's ok. the point of it isn't the lead part (although the lead is the only melodic element you can really make out), it's the intensity of what's going on. the melodic elements being quieter than the kick doing paraddidles with my subwoofer isn't a negative there, it's a feature. emu said it best so ima quote him (emphasis mine) and feel better. i've run into this issue both as a judge and as a composer repeatedly and never really settled onto a side. this is good enough. the truth is that there's maybe ten people active right now on the site who could make that sound better. several of them are judges. YES