prophetik music

wow, talk about variety in originals. volcanic has some really dope concepts in it. love the fat intro sound. i wouldn't mind some compression and volumization on the band sound, but it's a fun sound. the initial lead with the volcanic melody is a bit hard to hear, but is a neat synth choice. the transition between sections is honestly kind of weird, but so's the original, so i get it. this first section through about 0:42 is then repeated with what sounds like little to no change, which is not great. there's a B section that meanders a bit at 1:22, and then we get to a poppy vibe at about 1:42 that's honestly head-bobbing. the hat in the right ear is a bit loud, but this is a great section and i really liked it. there's a bit of a drop/break at 2:19, and a time change into a faster tempo, complete with flourishes in the keys and big drop before the band comes back in with the opening title material. the remixer wisely doesn't sit on this a lot, but puts another drop to allow it to build to the end rush. the solo at about 3:30 is great and thematically appropriate. from 4:00 out we've got a big blow to the end, and a simple but effective ending. i was honestly on the fence initially about this simply because the beginning is not volumized super well. however, the second half absolutely changed my mind. this fits very well in the style you chose and the stuff you've added in make for a great, enjoyable experience overall. excellent work. YES

the initial chimes (?) playing the chromatic ascending motif sound pretty fake. the entire initial 17 seconds are pretty fakey. the subsequently fleshed out section at 0:17 sounds a lot better, although the sustained celli are pretty echoy and loud. the bird sounds here enhance the vibe rather than detract which is really nice. there are some assorted brass and percussive elements added in around 0:40, and the orchestration of the melodic material at around 1:02 is nice and unique from earlier versions. there's some fun motivic passing concepts after that, and we get the B section at about 1:38. there's still some very loud sustains here from the additive nature of the room verb on the sustained elements, but the ideas are well-handled despite being atmospheric. the track is very short, which is unfortunate as i feel like there's more that could be done, and the dynamic range (finally no headroom!) is enormous, which detracts from the opening and ending. but what's here is unique and a creative take that draws from elements of the in-game situation to influence the arrangement choices, which i appreciate a lot. YES

intro feels a ton like the intro to the first track on Relics of the Chozo, that's a fun reference. the intro bass sounds pretty generic. i'd encourage you to add some space and a bit of treble especially so it's not so guttural. there's a lot of overlap around 1:00 with the low airy synths as well. the entire section at 1:08 feels really similar to the original, same timbres and ideas. the break at 1:44 is nice, and i like some of the exploration done there. 2:14's groove coming back actually felt kind of recycled, and would have been an excellent place to mix up the vibe. 2:31 has some differences but feels very similar to the section at 1:08. the fadeout doesn't do this track any favors. from a mastering perspective, there's a lot of layering in the low mids between the bass and some lower synths. i love the timbre of that low airy synth but it's making mud pies down there. i'm super on the fence about this one to be honest. i like the whistle synth, the percussion is interesting, and the initial vibe is really fun, but it's hard to hear a remix that's done with similar timbres and similar structure and similar layout and think that it's a totally different work. i think i'm just slightly on the negative side here. i think it's just too close for our standards. it's a nice track to listen to outside of the nits that i mentioned, just doesn't fulfill the arrangement requirements. NO

intro has some interesting (if common for Castlevania remixes) sfx, and the arpeggio going pretty hard. there's a fat club kick and percs that hit at 0:35, and that feels pretty good initially with the arp in the background. there's a bit of a cut with the bass goofing around and doing some funky stuff, and then there's a key change and the arp comes back (same instrument, same octave, same stuff). that transitions to a keyboard and then back to the same synth. there's an extended outro with the arp and sfx, and then it's done on a chord. this is...not really enough arrangement. MW's right to point out that the arp is hammering away for >75% of the piece, and it's mostly in the same instrument, in the same octave as the original, and there's little variation there. what's more, the original has virtually nothing aside from that arp and a sustained bass tone, so this is essentially the original being repeated with a beat under it. this feels very much like a cover, and isn't transformative enough to really call it a remix. a 30s break in the middle (around 0:50) isn't enough to change that. arpeggiated source tunes are hard to arrange - i've had some experience, like with the face temple remix i did a decade or two ago. there are a lot of ways to add your own feel to the track that aren't just layering in the same arpeggio. adding in a unique solo line, practicing subtractive arrangement by dropping out parts of the arp, extending the arpeggio rather than just keeping it between a few tones, and actively passing around the outlined chords between instruments would have all been helpful ways to mix up this tune and not keep it so similar throughout. ultimately, though, this just doesn't have enough transformative arrangement. there's nothing that makes this uniquely yours. it's also so short that even if you did have something unique, it'd be a flash in the pan. so, in short, this needs more arrangement to it. i think it sounds good (although choosing to just keep repeating the arp really got tiring after a while) from a mastering perspective, but there needs to be more variation from the original to avoid being called a cover. NO

what a fun original. i've never even heard of this game. intro is certainly 90s-reminiscent. the lead especially is a great sound. there's a big build that starts at 0:40. i think the saws here are too loud - they're balanced for the main band sound at 0:56, not for playing by themselves. the whole band sound though sounds great - bass is meaty, drums feel balanced, the pads aren't overwhelming or missing entirely. there's a cut to triple meter at 1:25. this is a fun sound - i've always like triple meter EDM since i feel it rolls along better - and bringing back the initial lead is a good idea. there's a drum cut at 1:55, and the (very loud) saws are here too. i started to get fatigued a bit with how loud they were than everything else around this point. there's a recap of 0:55 here with some solo parts noodling around it. it's very loud through here, and then we get the triple meter cut again. there's some new parts in the leads here to keep it different. the ending is minimal but sufficient. this is a fun take! i'm not as ebullient about it as emu is, but i definitely think there's enough to keep it interesting to keep it over the bar. i wish it wasn't so overly loud and you'd taken more time with the volume automation to prevent the saws from running over everything when the drums aren't playing, but overall it's a fun take. YES

those are both very relevant and fair points.

the voiceover recording quality is distractingly poor. it's very noticeable and does not sound good, especially compared to how organically the saxes and guitar are recorded. i think that removing the heavy reverb and toning that back to be much more organic was a great choice from last time, but it still sounds like you recorded it on a poor mic. i feel that the diction, emotion, and pace are all fine, however, so my issue is more with the technical aspect. i wouldn't mind if it was the slightest bit slower, particularly around the 3:15 range, but that's more a nit than anything. the backing music is cute! the first set of backing parts are really enjoyable, well performed, and well-scored. the sax parts at 0:51 are distractingly off in terms of timing both initially and occasionally throughout the rest of the section. the lead is noticeably ahead of the beat, the the alto in the right ear is also ahead compared to the mandolin/uke and low winds. the triplet section around 2:00 is also really rough initially. it's distractingly bad when it happens. 3:44's attacks and timing are much better - this section sounds great. the bari's a bit wild and you get some air column issues on the recording (always record a bari sax off-axis so you don't get air pressure artifacts and volume changes due to the left pinky notes closing the column too far!). the resolution at 5:10 is beautiful. the writing at 5:15 is a cute idea. it's wildly out of tune, even not counting how strange of a choice the synth behind it is. the synth's overtones are so present that the instrument sounds out of tune with itself as it arpeggiates chords (same issue that you get from church bells, as an example). i get the music box idea but it sounds bad, especially next to wide vibrato and pitchy note cores in the singers. this part desperately needs some autotuning to level out the pitch drift and maybe tone in the width of the vibrato. the initial timing in the singers is also dissimilar. elephant in the room - this is a great remix *idea* if you take out the spoken word and just listen to the main remix. in other words, if Eyes on Me (Obsession) is a remix, so is this. that track is numbered in the three digits, though, so i get that it may be grandfathered in. as it is, though, i think there's more than enough here to count as a remix. that said, this isn't executed well enough. the voiceover sounds like it's recorded with a headset mic. the voices at the end are significantly in need of remediation. those two together are enough for me to reject this. beyond that, the timing issues throughout are troublesome but could easily be fixed via autotune software that autodetects notes and transitions - i've used it regularly for instrumental timing fixes in the past, and it's nearly flawless in this application. the ending musicbox synth is honestly difficult to listen to. even a glock would be a better choice there. these issues may be somewhat time-consuming to fix, but i think they'd make a huge upgrade in the track overall and the enjoyability of it. NO

my original vote criticized the scatterbrained mastering and copy/paste. let's see what we have here. 2.5db headroom. sounds much better cranked up imo. the bass is definitely tamed quite a lot! the synths sound like they're in the same bucket more than they used to be, so that's nice. the intro breakbeat is also actually break instead of loop, so that's nice too. the second iteration of everything continues to mix it up too, so it's not just the same thing. the break at 2:22 is needed and well-timed, and the shoutout from the horns is a good complexity. 3:02 continues to keep it mixed up too, even if we're back to what sounds like the first breakbeat loop. the transition and fadeout at 3:33 is still kind of sudden, but it's fine, just a bit extended. the tail can probably be trimmed to take 10s off with a better fade envelope. this is a great example of making a better track from some simple changes. there's so many more interesting things here now. nice work. YES

interesting opening. agree that the intro synth lick feels pretty flat. the track kind of chills around the original's arp with lots of noodling around between the lead buzzy synth, the guitar's sustains, and eventually some keys. there's a lot of intonation issues, specifically around the first lead instrument, and that's really unpleasant to listen to despite having some fun ideas it's handling. there's a quirky break around 1:46, and after about 30s of noodling, we get some post-rock style building into a full band tone that sounds awesome as long as that out-of-tune lead doesn't play. i actually like this a lot more than my fellow judges, i think. i found the ~90s where there was a lot of noodling around the initial arpeggio to be fun and interestingly handled. i agree that it's just a bit too buzzy to be enjoyable, and that detuned lead is just a huge fly in the ointment as well. the end is great and significant and i wish it was twice as long and had a longer tail. i think though that i'd consider this to be 'under' the bar by a little. NO edit 4/6: the intonation improvements on the lead that before were bad are much better, and much less bothersome. i'm good with a YES on this now. the popping artifacts that MW mentioned sound to me like artifacts from the instruments used, and while noticeable weren't bothersome to me since everything's so buzzy/artifacty as it is.

some clipping and really weird phases for the intro parts. it levels out at 0:33. right off the bat, the bass and the kick are both really quiet. this is a very, very guitar-forward mix to its detriment. it doesn't sound even kind of balanced right now. a glance at the waveform and it's heavily limited as well. i think there's enough arrangement here, but it's admittedly pretty conservative. the variety of backing textures and extra flair brought in by the leads are nice however. the drums overall are hard to hear but are indeed doing interesting things throughout. the loudest part of the mix via a spectrum analyzer is below 20hz, which is why it sounds so dense and muddy. a rolloff on this and something to bring up the highs are desperately needed. really everything needs an EQ pass badly. i can't pass this one as-is. it needs significant production attention. NO

thought i recognized this when i started listening. it's a great track that's fun to listen to. ultimately i didn't find overt source usage that was not included in MW's representation above. there's some stuff that's pretty close and i'd consider enough if we were at 48% usage and we needed a bit more, but it's a ton of new melodic content over the old chord progressions, and much of the track doesn't refer to the original melody so it's not even obvious what track it's remixing. unfortunately this doesn't meet our criteria for being able to be posted. NO

the initial hit of noodly synth, EP, filtered drums, and lo-fi strings is a great sound. there's a great groove to what the drums are doing and the vibe is really nice. there's a drop at 1:19 and it picks back up at 1:30 with a slick synth solo. it's a touch out of time here and there but sounds great - i especially like the lfo on the lead tone to keep it moving. the subsequent bridge section is also great and functions well as a way to mix it up without drastically changing the soundtrack. there's a recap of the B section of the initial lead for the last 20 seconds or so, and then a (somewhat sudden) ending and fade. overall i think this sounds great! there's a lot of care taken with the drums to keep them relevant and not on autopilot throughout. the synth leads are carefully chosen and the solo is great. the two tracks go very well together as well. i'd have liked to hear more of a prepared ending, but what's here is sufficient. nice work. YES

really obvious limiter pumping right off the bad. not a great sign given that it's just a fuzzy pad and pianos. the bongos are indeed really out of nowhere and don't feel like they're part of the mix. similarly, once everything comes in at 0:42, the mix overall sounds super dense with no treble. what's being played is pretty standard stadium anthem style stuff. there's a big drop at 1:24, some more bongos and a return of the keys, and then it blows through the melodic material (on a copy-paste, as far as i can see) and then it's just sorta done with zero prep or outro around the ending. from an arrangement perspective, there is a lot of repetitive material here done exactly the same. i get it, it's trance, you hear repetitive stuff all the time, but most trance is additive or subtractive in the way it approaches things (ie. pare it down, add more back in) to make things not just the same loop over and over. i don't hear that here. the altered chord progression is nice (aside from the third-to-last 'chord' that is just a unison and sounds weird alongside everything else) but admittedly there's very little outside the initial hook. it's not like the track has unique synth work, a special drum pattern or usage, or something else driving it forward. i'm on the other side of the fence from MW. i think this is too derivative of itself. even if the mastering wasn't dull and the pumping wasn't bad and the synth work wasn't very generic and the ending existed, i think the same hook being copy-pasted for over half the track on the clock is too much. NO

track does sound oddly mixed - nothing sounds like it's in the same place, with the snares feeling like you're watching someone play them through a door. the intro is cute, but just sounds strange. the synth with the arp at 0:36 is immediately recognizable, but the drum loop laid over it has a really heavy shuffle and it feels weird next to such a rigidly performed synth, and the snare fill again being rigidly quantized sounds really weird. the fadeout is way long for how long the piece is. you've got 30ish seconds of intro, barely more than a minute of material, then a long fadeout. it's not really enough time for transformative arrangement. i don't think this is really all there yet. it feels like a demo with some neat ideas but that needs a lot more polish. NO

nice initial hit. i appreciate the patience in the build - you've got a 7+ minute palette, using all of it is definitely the right choice. the initial hit at 0:55 where the bass comes in feels great, and the fat, short snare sounds great alongside it. we start to get more obvious theme correlations around 1:30, and there's a great drop and extended exploration before it really starts to build hard into the complete picture. again, the patience is just very good. i didn't expect the liquidy chorus for a quarter of the track, but it was a fun shift and helped keep the half-time feel going alongside the synthy strings and distant keys. when the wide arpy lead comes in after the 4 minute mark, you really get the feel that it's time to buckle in because now you're going to be in a ride to the finish. i loved the anticipation this built. 4:45 is a great payoff, and getting the extended outro from 6:07 onward was even better since i figured we were going to be in a downswing after the payoff finally had hit. the track is mastered effectively and sounds great. it features source throughout and handles it in a new but recognizable fashion. excellent work - this is a track i'll definitely be coming back to. YES

interesting original choices. intro is very ethereal, nice work making a vibe. the bell synth that comes in around 0:30 is a little square to fit into that. norfair's initial brass hit is actually to me pretty fitting in style, and i really dig the super-distorted bass synth, but the brass quickly sounds bad once it's more than a initial color choice. by around 2:15, there's some noodling and it kind of hasn't progressed. there's some changes at 2:15, but i'd argue that they're not positive changes - it's just weirder, and less rooted in the original content, and not really forming a cohesive whole. i don't mind the idea of competing time signatures, but your mastering is too muddy to make it clear if that's what's supposed to be going on. the guitar doubling the lead is neat intiially, but at 3:20 everything is just noise. it's way too much simultaneously. luckily you back off right away. the brass come back in at 3:45 or so and that kind of just...autopilots to the bookend sample and it's done? again, a weird progression. this one's interesting. it's hard pointing to one specific thing as "this is why it's a NO". combining the very over-busy palette with dull mastering, no cohesive overall structure, and repetitive not-great synth choices is tough and definitely below the bar, though. fixing any number of these would improve it a lot. NO

i love the pkmn blue/red soundtrack but it sounds so bad on youtube. always liked this original though. neat intro. there's a ton of space given the chords and synths in the beginning and it really sounds great. the melodic content actually comes in at 0:40. huge amount of sound, intentionally loud and weird, and it sounds great. the piano's a bit quiet, but honestly the intense buzz and strangeness is more the point. there's a monster build that hits on a absolutely mega-ballsy long-attack synth drop at 1:20 that is easily the best thing i've heard in two months. i literally made the ooh yeah face when it hit. i love the lead synth in this section too, it's got just enough envelope manipulation to really make it feel different. there's another big drop and build at 1:48, with a reduced version of the melody before the swell comes in. the build at 1:55 particularly sounded great, i love the repeated aggressive synth pattern especially after the vox clips come in again. nice bait and switch on the hit at 2:52 - another short fill into the original's arpeggio as the lead instrument, and then we're into a big falloff for the ending. mastering sounds great, track is awesome. easy vote. OOH YEAH

interesting concept. intro is weird. i don't get the gap in timing at all, and the significant spacing in the melodic instrument comes across as stilted due to skill vs. being an intentional choice. the main melodic content comes in at 0:20, and it doesn't sound good at all. the bass is very messy and dull-sounding, the kit doesn't seem to be in the same room as everything else, and the intentionally stilted lead just sounds so bad. it isn't enjoyable to listen to at all. the wide-swelling pads don't compliment the dull bass either. even looking at this from a vaporwave/VHS pop perspective, this doesn't sound great. larry hit on some of the really empty sections and i agree they're just kinda existing and navigating the melodic material on autopilot. there's a countermelody in the background at 1:40 that's both low and playing conflicting notes, which is a sure way to make something sound wrong without actually sounding intentional or purposefully weird. i am going to be very honest - i don't like any synth choice in this entire track, even if it's mastered correctly and doing something more unique and Lucasy than just blowing through the melodic material in order. the lead's wide attack and subsequent sustain tones are not particularly enjoyable to listen to, and combined with the super-wide buzzy pad and the dull bass just sound strange. i can dig that you found a new way to get things going, and that you're working with new tools to get interesting results. my suggestion is to take this back to the drawing board and be more intentional about every element. the arrangement is pretty straightforward - find some ways to make it yours. the synths are hard to listen to - find ways to make them interesting without being grating. the mastering is low-heavy, muddy, and does not enhance the sounds of your synths - add some sidechaining and EQ to reduce the mud in the bass, and notch down some of the wide, freq-rich synths via filtering and EQ to remove the noise that's getting in the way. NO

ok, neat idea. the initial beat is a fun sound. the string stabs were stylistically appropriate and sit well next to the sitar's buzziness. melody comes in at 0:32, and while i think the accordion is a clever idea, the natural lack of a focused tone made it harder to really hear the melody. the chord adjustments done here though are great, and would have been further emphasized with an actual bass (the bass instrument feels like it should be an octave down). the drums also are neat initially but get stale fast, with little to no shifts. this section overall is fun to listen to, if overall light on arrangement. there's a hard shift at like 1:28, which i don't mind (although the transition meanders). i agree though that it just doesn't tie to the original hardly at all, and then it just ends. sounds like you submitted something that's half done. at the least this needs a recap to tie it together more smoothly, and then a real ending. i think i like this more than my fellow judges, but this just ain't there yet. NO

intro's a fun idea. a bit bright, tone down the 2-3k range and it'll feel duller like you'd expect. agree with the chimps that this could use a bit of record/needle noise or something similar. 0:44's beat coming in was an immediate head-bobber. love it. agree the snare's really loud and kind of not something i want to listen to a lot, but i love the quant on the drums and the groove from it. guitar sounds great here, and also at 1:28 when we get to the break. the fat kick next to everything else reminded me of the Pyre soundtrack, specifically the travel themes. a whistly lead comes in at 1:48 that i didn't like much at all. it was very loud and needed some action on it (volume changes, vibrato, pitch-bending, etc) to keep it interesting. the oboe layered with glass beads after that was a neat idea. this transitions (suddenly) into another great guitar section, this one a solo. the heavy distortion tone on the guitar contrasted negatively with the backing EP. something more aggressive as your chord instrument there would have helped keep the energy up. the subsequent string stabs were better, even though i heard them earlier and didn't think much at the time. the last minute or so is on auto-pilot, which was disappointing. would have liked to hear more melodic content between 3:30 and 3:52. the outro is, as MW said, disappointing. i think this is over the bar. mastering is good enough, the arrangement is fun and has some great solos, and the overall execution is more than competent. i agree with chimpa that there's a lot of little nags which are disappointing, but don't think they're holding this down enough to say no. YES

i didn't vote on the original in time, but was batsignaled in a vote so i offered a bunch of commentary around the harmonic content and the approach. 6dba headroom, in a negative way. this track needs volumetric expansion, or a very light limiter and compression to balance the dba without affecting the timbre of the instrumentation. there still does not appear to be any true mastering on the track, and a lack of polish/sparkle does not do this track benefits. i remembered this as soon as i heard that bass synth. there's some interesting electrical/glitchy fx on the track overall, and i like those parts. there's what i believe is added block chords at 2:15, which adds a ton of body to the piece but also stands out as feel more organic vs. the very synthetic feel of the bass and added fx/pads. there's some timing elements here too that don't feel right, like at 2:52, 3:04, and elsewhere. this is an interesting one. like kris, i don't feel this has enough going on to really comprise a remix. but, similarly, i think Death on the Snowfield is an excellent remix, and that track's highlight is also its simplicity. i believe there's two differences here. the first is that the instrumentation in DotS (acoustic guitar, filtered piano, some synths) fits together much more comfortably than the burble bass synth and the lead piano here, since they're obviously different timbres where as the bass synth and piano here feel very similar and so can be hard to tell apart. the second is that DotS does a better job creating an overall feel and progressing through that in a traditional song 'shape' - starts small, builds, comes back down - than this one does. i think this is a fundamental issue that may require significant rewrite to get around. the natural progression of this remix does not build energy (or quiet resolve) throughout, but instead is fairly flat until 2:15, and then loses that and goes back to the flat by 2:35. the lack of overall shaping hurts the track. you could resolve this through layering new synths or instruments progressively/additively throughout, and then tailing off, or you could handle this via what the piano's doing and not add new material. i think if you do the latter, you have to do some very nuanced filtering to ensure it doesn't leave the beautifully dirty vibe you've got initially in the instrument. i found it really hard to delineate a single thing as to why this isn't 'enough'. i don't feel that the arrangement is significant enough to carry it past the fundamental composition issue i have with the song's bones. so unfortunately i'm still on the NO side of the fence. a song this simple requires perfect execution to be great. for every Galaxy Map from Mass Effect, you've got a hundred less memorable phases from Steve Reich. identifying what makes a minimalistic track truly memorable and focusing on those elements can only help you here. NO

love the concept. and the original is nuts, i'd never have guessed this was from a mario game. the inspiration for the track is immediately recognizable - the beautiful strings fading in, the wall of latin text, the groove with guitar and synths underpinning it all remind me immediately of ES Posthumus. the groove on the drums is especially great. the choir moves a touch slow essentially the entire piece, which i'm not a huge fan of, but the adaptation is great and the execution is surprisingly effective. there's a big break at 2:22, with some ping-ponged autotuned singing - another ESP inspiration that admittedly didn't do it for me. around 3:00 we get another repetition of the 'chorus' section of the piece. i know ESP tends to do a lot of repetitive tracks with tons of copy/paste, but i'd have liked something to mix this up a bit. maybe different orchestration or instrumentation to keep this part unique. another break at 3:45 and a slick guitar solo. love the extra distortion on the verb, it sounds really great. the last 30 seconds is a good outro that serves to wrap the track nicely. i agree with the previous judges that it's not mastered as crisp as i'd like. it still sounds solid though so i'm definitely on board with a positive vote here. YES

never heard this original, it's a neat idea. there's a lot of fun pieces to this one. the bass has a nice squelchiness to it that shows up sometimes, and it's playing fun stuff. the honky horn synths are a really neat tone, and i like what they're playing. i usually hate sfx in remixes, and the uses of these are both rhythmically appropriate and add rather than detract from the remix. the drums are fast-paced and fun initially, too. ultimately, though, this is as MW says - it's a ton of copy/paste, and a lot of it feels on auto-pilot. beyond that, i thought that nothing really felt like it was in the same place. the bass, percussion, drums, lead synth, sfx, and honky horn synth all feel like they're in totally different places in the mix. they're not balanced and verbed and EQ'd such that they feel cohesive. there is a really neat tech demo here. i think it'd be really positive to spend some time making a more cohesive whole, with drums that are less looped and have more fills and blurbs to help them feel less repetitive, and less copy/paste overall. NO

hey, this is really fun! the original's vibe translated really easily to this arrangement. ultimately most of the arrangement felt like the original to the point i needed to A/B it, and i think that the first minute is mostly in line with the original, with a solo break and some goofiness during the second minute until a break at 2:02. there's an extra-frantic ending and that's that. ultimately, the mastering on this track is really poor. it's hard to hear anything, really, and there's no EQ i can hear on the drums at all where they're desperately needed. it's very dense as shown by the freq plot - tons of sub-40hz content, tons of stuff between 100-200hz, and essentially nothinig past 2khz, which is why it sounds so dull. a quick mastering pass could work wonders with this! right now i don't think it passes our mastering bar, but it's a fun track that absolutely would have a home here once it's gone through that. NO

i don't mind the intro. reminds me of some of the ways that prog bands mess with time in intros. this is a hip arrangement! i really dig the additive intro, and how the melody is getting passed around a lot. there's some small but meaningful updates to the melodic line - the little flips into notes and triplets added really make a huge difference. i also appreciate how much space there is in the implementation - lots of chopped synths, the drums are crisp. the layering of the Athletic theme with the immediately-recognizable underworld theme is great. the ending is kind of nonexistent - this is a loop, right? - but it doesn't take away from a good overall package. it's short but fun. wish it was longer! i just wanted to keep listening. easy vote ? YES