prophetik music

love me some SF64. opening piano is pretty obviously fakey - essentially no pianist is using one finger on each hand for something like that. once the chords come in, though, it feels pretty chill and has a nice initial vibe. there's some crunchy notes at 0:37 (the combination of the third in the bass and the b7 in the melody sounds weird because it's a tritone), and there is obvious and continual clipping from roughly where the sax comes in onward for some time - every time the sax bops, it's clipping there by about 0.5db. the saxophone is playing some fun stuff but sounds like it's been recorded on a phone camera - there's just no high end to the tone. the sustained bass section with the piano doing its thing is nice, but the bass feels oppressively loud and super static quickly. the chorus effects on the higher lines for the sax sound neat (like around 1:37), but if anything they emphasize the low-poly recording. after that, there's a recap and then a sudden ending with nothing besides the sax...and 45 seconds of silence...? this is pretty far below the bar still, unfortunately. from an arrangement standpoint, i think what you're doing is fine, but it feels like a demo. there's little going on besides a piano and bass in the background, and while it's got some fun ideas with the style, there really needs to be some filler in there. sustained pads or some synth work would do wonders to make it not feel so empty and to draw away from the lower-quality recording of the sax. the beginning is too rudimentary and the ending is strange, too. even a cymbal ride let to ring behind the sax would help. on the mastering side, there's a ton of clipping, and the sax's micing makes it feel very blah with no body. i think some workshopping would really help this one a lot. NO

yeah, the samples are pretty rough right off the beginning. the slow attacks on the early strings mean you essentially can't hear them half the time, and since they're not velocity-switched, everything sounds like a loud timbre even when it's obviously volumized way down. the whole opening section is intentionally quiet despite being orchestrated in a fairly full manner, same with the end. remember that your orchestral timbre is influenced by what you're including, and a low number on the gain dial doesn't mean an orchestra sounds quiet - it just means that it has a lower db value. orchestration matters a lot in those instances. the transitional element where you put a V chord with both the 3rd and 4th next to each other is offputting. i would suggest either doing a traditional sus 4-3 or else just sitting on the 4 or the 3, not having both. the big payoff here is the melody playing at 1:18, and i love the eighths leading into it. there's some messy arrangement going on here - the melody is well represented (sounds like you're layering marcato and legato strings to cover the attacks? that sounds weird), but everything else is block chords. the more you can use background instruments as detail rather than a wide brush, the better. the fast articulated strings doing the rhythmic driver aren't able to hack what you're trying to do, either - they just don't have a fast enough attack. the copypasta that MW mentions is obvious, and it's most of the main body of the work. that'd be a no just like that - there needs to be more to differentiate between the two minute-long sections. unfortunately the sample quality issues described are enough to NO this outright. i think the arrangement needs some work as well ultimately. NO

enormous amount of headroom. at least 7dba, realistically a lot more. this needs compression so bad. i just don't get the refusal to apply mastering to tracks. it's not like extreme dynamic ranges make the listening experience better. initial presentation in the flute and harp is pretty. the clarinet right after sounds terrible. no dynamic contrast and an odd chorused tone every time it's used. the part that starts at 0:23 is nice arranging and feels like the main theme's scoring. the subsequent piano parts sound pretty unrealistic though, and the ensemble strings are strangely quiet compared to everything else in terms of their volume vs their timbre. the piano's oddly loud in the right hand and in general doesn't sound like a concert piano. the strings sound like they're playing pretty strong parts but they're somehow under the piano and flute, which is a bit confusing from a soundscape perspective. the melodic content through this section is handled nicely, though, with lots of updates to the overall presentation and the arpeggio being passed between the piano and harp nicely. there's a bit of a transition point at about 2:00 that hands off the melody to the oboe with some robo-piano playing interesting but unrealistic parts lacking in velocitization under it. the bells at 2:25 are nice but pretty loud. there's an ending section that starts about at 2:37 and it's pretty delicate, but it does feel a little janky with that loud clarinet in there again not demonstrating dynamics. this is pretty far below what i've come to expect from you, rebecca. the winds across the board are not handled nicely at all - there's little to no dynamics demonstrated, the spacing added to them emphasizes their unrealistic tone more than humanizes them, and the long sustains you use also highlights how not-real they are. the use of string sustains to fill in chord structures is fine, but your non-idiomatic use of an entire violin section to play long unison sustains again makes it more rather than less obvious that they're not real. a smaller ensemble sound would have felt a lot more realistic since it wouldn't feel like it should be covering up the quieter piano and harp work. the percussion was very uneven as well - there's some beautiful glock with great room verb in the earlier sections but then it's super loud at 2:25 and feels like there's no room sound on it at all. lastly, the overall lack of actually dynamic dynamics is really a problem. nearly everything's the same volume it was introduced at, with no overall shape to the work. it makes it boring, and boring music with unrealistic instruments can't overcome a decent arrangement. it's not all bad of course, you're too good a musician for that. the arrangement has some interesting use of expansion to emphasize some of the fun chord progressions, and you do a nice job with repetition of interesting parts. the melodic content isn't static and visits most of the ensemble at some point. there's some nice subtlety in the tremelo strings near the end. however there's nothing that's so transformative and unique that it really grabs me and makes me really want to listen to it despite the mechanical and mastering flaws. ultimately we judge mixes in a vacuum, not related to a specific artist's skillset or history, so i can't NO this just because you can do so much better. i am however saying that the poor use of dynamics, rough wind samples, and truly absurdly quiet mastering sum up to something that's not there yet. NO

oh, this is really fun. tons of source right off the bat, big fat soundscape. love the super fat sidechaining. i appreciate that there's a lot of changing textures and creative synth work to keep it moving. there's so many crazy shifts everywhere that it's hard to point one that i really like the most, but i think my favorite part is the clicky kick that's throughout. arrangement is great - usually five seconds of melodic content and a five-minute mix is a recipe for copypasta, but this is fresh and creative to the last few seconds. in answer to MW's comments - there's source to 2:25, and then the bassline is the one that was defined earlier by the chords. the detuned bells and hornet synth after that - around 2:50 for example - are playing the melodic content in a different rhythm. the following filtered stuff is the original melodic content's chords arpeggiated differently. 3:16's still got the bass pattern, and the lower saw is again playing the melodic content's arp part with a few extra notes in between. 3:49's link is rhythmic - it's roughly the same rhythm and shape as the melodic content, although a bit different execution. 4:36's is the melodic content stretched out - not sure where the issue was there. it's mastered extremely loud, which is fine, but the constant pressure is admittedly tiring. even the 'breaks' are super loud. in general i look for more dynamic contrast in breaks, but there's nothing technically wrong with how this is handled. what a great track. YES

this is fun to listen! i love the idea. it's really peppy at first, and the electro kick actually adds a ton of character since it makes it feel more like a club performance. the loop at 1:01 and electric guitars really amp it up. the break at 1:33 is well-timed, and the ocarina right after is a fun idea that's reminiscent of the soundtrack. the additive crescendo at 1:58 is again well-done, and it really gets a big blow at 2:30. the chiptunes are a fun way to end it, too, great throwback way to keep it moving. the end is kinda just there which was disappointing after some fun ensemble work. from an arrangement standpoint, i agree that there's not much that's new here. the vox pads, constant instrumentation changes, and added countermelodic content i think do enough to get it over the bar just slightly, though - but man, it'd be awesome to get more out of this arrangement. the gerudo valley theme is so basic and repetitive that three minutes at a fast tempo does not lend itself to wanting to hear it again and again. making that initial riff your own via rhythmic and melodic changes would add so much staying power to this remix. even varying the chord structure for a section (again, very doable since it's a simple vi-IV-V-III7) would help a ton. from a technical standpoint, i agree that the vox are pitchy in several places. a quick autotune on them would help a ton. similarly, there's several places where the acoustic's out of tune as well, like the section from 1:01 to like 1:34, especially the last half. from a mastering standpoint, the track feels super quiet until it suddenly has too much stuff on it and starts pumping hard. this is a sign that the knee of the compressor is just set too high, and the ratio when it engages is way too strong as well. a glance at the freq analysis confirms also that there's very little in the highs throughout despite several instruments that have a ton going on there (the acoustic guitar and the claps especially). i suggest spending some serious time with EQs to really notch in where you want your instruments to sit, go through and re-volumize your instrumentation so that there's not huge shelves of sound for each different section, and then even out the compressor. that'll result in a track that sounds dramatically more professional and produced instead of layered in like it sounds now. a hint - boost your female vocals in the 3k area and your male vocals in the 2.5ish k area, and reduce their fundamentals below 500hz a bit. you'll still get a clear sound from them (from boosting their formants) but they won't be taking up so much of the low mid frequency range. as i said, i'm actually ok with the arrangement (although i'd love more work there). the mastering is pretty rough on this one, though, and it could just be so stellar with some additional time spent. NO

oh, this sounds great right off the bat. the initial theme presentation is excellent - great realization. the gritty hats sound so good. the voice-over is clever (and features the bassline that's been defined by the original, so there's a tenuous connection). the guitar solo sounds so good, and that tapedrop to the filtered digitized theme bits is super fun. 1:29 isn't a tenuous connection - it's the same theme from the beginning, with some eventual half-beat delays to put it on the offbeat. there's tons of theme through at least the glitchy part at 2:15. it gets hard to hear pitches for that bit, but the arpeggio that's essentially the melody is preponderant through the rest of the groove from 2:25 to the end. the tail is longer than it needs to be but it's interesting anyways so i didn't mind. from a mastering perspective, this is really beefy but intentionally so. there's some mild clipping at a few specific spots, mostly between 1:55-2:05, but it truly sounds intentional (or at least not unintentional) so it didn't bother me. i love how fat the bass is throughout, and the specific attention paid to filling in the space of the soundscape consistently with pads and sfx so it doesn't ever sound hollow. arrangement-wise there's no issue here - i hear the 'melody' arpeggio throughout almost the entire track. for certain it doesn't sound like pac-man, but the only times it was even really in doubt about the source is when there was intentional detuning. this is fantastic. can't wait to see it on the site. YES

fun style on this one. this is a great source for this genre. the intro didn't bother me as much as it did for MW, i think. i liked the way you built volume by adding in instruments rather than specifically via volumization changes. the first big orchestral sound we hear at 0:36 has a few oddities - the violas or second violins (whatever that sustained line is) are pretty loud comparatively speaking, and the toms are essentially just attack sounds and then tons of booming noise that should be filtered out so it doesn't sound so muddied. the first real melodic content at 1:06 is great, but the orchestra is playing at full bore for close to 30 seconds at that point, and it needs some more dynamic contrast to make that feel important. i would suggest bringing down the toms there (they're doing fun stuff, it's just too much) and lighten up on the background instrumentation a tad, then bring it back in to give it that boost you're hoping for. the spiccato at 1:29 is fun. by 1:45 i was getting a bit tired of the ongoing driving toms, and lo and behold there's a break right after it for a bit - then we're back into the main body of the arpeggiated section (which sounds copied from the intro). there's another break here - an actual one, and then it picks back up with more of the original copied section as MW pointed out. arrangement-wise, there's some fun ideas here - the initial presentation of the arpeggiated intro is really nice, there's some fun orchestral tom work throughout (although it's too much by the end), and the overall form is not bad. there's a lot that could be improved though. the energy level is too much - having the section between 0:35 and 1:55 be all go, all the time is just exhausting. Separately, there's not much contrast between the quieter parts and the bigger parts. this is mostly a byproduct of having too many instruments doing too many sustains behind the scenes. this isn't a real orchestra - don't layer in instruments just because those players need parts! use just what you need to get what you want and don't use extra fluff to pad it out. that will help drive the bigger parts a lot better since the low/mid energy sections won't be so full and loud. improving the piece's dynamics throughout and using less copypasta will vastly improve the overall product. NO

very low overall volume. several db headroom and even that's generous thanks to a few specific spikes. MW's right, this has a very old-school OCR sound to it. it's certainly a lot of stock sounds that aren't really being EQ'd or personalized. the track sounds very dull as a result, and the samples are all pretty disjointed. some techniques that'd help would be to share verb among the instruments via a send, EQ your individual instruments so they don't sound so bland and missing in highs, and focus on getting a soundscape that feels more cohesive. specifically, your snare and hats feel like they're in a totally different soundscape than the synths and vox stuff. the second half has more verve, but it does also still feel pretty stock in terms of synth choice. in terms of arrangement - you've got some fun ideas! the brassy synth in the second half has some fun stuff going on particularly, i really liked that. what MW said about the whole track needing more uniqueness throughout is true though - it feels like two minutes of looped concept stuff and then two minutes of a different concept looped. i know it isn't really looped, there's some differences in there, but it doesn't feel different, and so it gets stale very fast. this needs some workshopping. interested in hearing what comes out on the other side. NO

there's a lot of fun ideas in this one. starting with bloody tears is great since it's such a recognizable theme. i didn't mind the transition at 0:55 (not sure what would have made it better? it's a dramatic stylistic shift). same with 1:30's shift, i thought that was fine. i really liked the swell into 1:55. 2:39's grace notes is such a fun, eerie idea that flows well into the brass fanfares and subsequent faster section. the trumpets particularly in that section weren't great (great writing, poor execution by the computer unfortunately). 3:45 just had me bobbing my head, i love the realization there. 4:08 is just fantastic - great lead-in, epic scale (organ in right ear was a bit loud), and the big orchestral tutti with the melodic content. the piano following this section was a great contrast and again very well written albeit fairly straightforward. more verb in this section would have been really nice - it's just a touch too little. arrangement-wise this is superb. i didn't hear any transitions that were rough - to be honest they all sounded straight out of medleys i've played in concerts before - and overall the track feels cohesive and cogent. there's a few issues with samples but they're not gross, just a bit of uncanny valley. great work here. medleys are difficult because everyone has different ideas for what's good enough, but this is way past my bar. superb work. YES

some real sausage here. it's very boomy right off the bat, mostly caused by there being what feels like a huge EQ boost in an extremely narrow range - sounds like 80hz, give or take like 20hz. i agree that the drums have some weirdness in them - they're extremely notched in, and it makes them sound more like static than instruments (not unfitting given the chippy feel of the synths, but very unexpected). MW's also right that there's nothing up top and it gets less and less the farther up you go. i checked a freq analysis and the left side is egregious. this should have a bit of a bump on the left side, be mostly flat, and tail off above 15k. the huge boominess i'm hearing on multiple sound systems and headphones is a result of the sub-100hz range being boosted like crazy. it sounds like buckets of mud on the bottom. that said, the arrangement is dope and the lead synth work is great! i love how active the bass is, the variety of synth choices, the constant use of the original's melodic content in various ways - it's great. it's just so boomy. i really do think it's just a specific tight notched EQ that was boosted right there. i can't YES this right now since it'd sound pretty rough on any system with any semblance of bass representation, which stinks because i do love the arrangement a ton. NO

great fat beat right off the bat. it's a very short intro, and then the melody's in right away in some fun contrasting leads. there's a break at 0:48, with some noodling with arps and heavily filtered leads, and then we're back at it. i love the distorted bass with the lfo on it, that's a great sound. there's more fooling with the melody on this second half, which is nice. there's a very short outro, and then the track's done at the 2:20 mark. this is real short, honestly - there's some arrangement expansion, but it sounds like it's a 3+ minute song that's been condensed down a lot (we usually see the opposite!). each section comes and goes very quickly, and there's not really time to breathe between each section except between about 1:15 and 1:30. The intro and outro are both quite short. from a mastering perspective, there's a lot in the low mids to my ears, and i think it's hot enough there that it's pretty tiring on the ears quickly. i like the beef of the bass instrument across the board, but there's some real pressure there (for example, the fundamental of the bass part around 1:30) that feels oppressive quickly. i'm actually not sure how to vote on this one. it checks the boxes, but i feel like there's caveats at every spot. ? 8/10 edit: yeah, this just isn't there. mastering is too dense, it's too loud, arrangement is too tight, the ending isn't really there. some more attention will help so much on this. and a real DAW will make a huge difference. NO

i don't know the ost, but i recognized the theme from DHS's remix from 2005 as soon as the melody came in. trap feel initially. the low synths next to each other are an interesting idea that i initially didn't like but got into after a bit. the plucks at 0:35 have a touch of chorus on them and sound great. the hornet that comes in with the lead at 0:52 is pretty static, really loud compared to everything else, aggressively detuned and frequency-heavy (while everything else sounds like it has a low-pass on it), and has a ton of verb when nothing else really feels like there's any room verb (even the plucks only have a touch). i really didn't care for it at all. with so many sustains, it'd be great to hear some envelope modification or LFO work on it to let it stay interesting through those sustains. when it drops out, there's more balance in the mix, and an interesting distorted arp-like synth that's got some more variation to the tone. at 2:03 there's a very light plucked glass synth that's nice, and then a dropout around 2:17 with some pretty glassy strings. there's a recap of the plucks from 0:35 (sounds like a copy to me), and then some subtle pad work after that. the plucks come back again (very obvious it's copy-pasta at this point), and then the hornet synth is back. the backing parts drop at 4:00, but the synth stays just as loud and crushes the strings under it. there's some more of the distorted arp and a slowdown. the bass cuts out before the arp so that sounds a little unfinished. from an arrangement perspective, there's lots of the original here. there is a lot of different synths being used, which is nice to keep it changing, but every time each synth comes in, it plays exactly what it played the last time. i like the subtractive techniques used but there needs to be some more cohesiveness and uniqueness between the sections, and especially some volumization for each time a part comes back. volumes are all over the place. also the end really just sorta dies - there's an abrupt tempo change, and then instruments end at different times in a fashion that doesn't feel intentional. i'd want that to be more cohesive as well. more importantly, this song is three minutes of music stretched out to four and a half. there's a lot of repetition that doesn't feel intentional but rather rote. i think there's a few sections that could definitely be trimmed without removing the overall intentionality of the tempo and beat. from a technical perspective, i commented a lot already on how all over the place the volumes are. i think there needs to be a bit of a boost in the high-band for all the instruments except the strings and that hornet lead. everything is very dark and mushy, which unfortunately means that some of the really neat synths don't get as much time to shine. aside from the lead being so loud and difficult to listen to, most of what i'm complaining about are smaller issues. they add up to a track that feels like it needs some more workshopping before it's ready. i really like the idea you've got here - i'd just love to see it realized in a more full fashion, without the extra repeated stuff and with more personalization. NO

what a unique method of audio creation. there's obviously a ton of really creative synth work in this, and the arrangement is both expansive and clearly from BotWF. there's a bit of copy-pasta between the opening and at about 1:17, but it's minimal. the real focus here is all the crazy sounds you're getting out of that original lead tone, which is impressive. i particularly liked the fm bell sound. i think the length is perfect, too - this quickly could have become tedious but it doesn't overstay its welcome while still being interesting and showcasing a variety of different ideas. this is pretty neat. it's a go from me. YES

at least 4db headroom on this one. pretty straightforward presentation of the melody originally. the violins are playing spiccato from the sound of it, which is a bit of a weird choice. i'm guessing this is due to sample limitation since it sounds pretty not good. there's a key change at 0:41 with more of the same in a lower key this time. there's another transition to the intro lick at 1:04, and it's back through the same thing we already heard, with no real ending. from an arrangement perspective, this ain't it, daddy - there's essentially one minute of cover here (which is itself repeated twice each time) repeated a total of two times. there's little to no adaptation apart from the instrumentation change. the countermelody you mentioned is entirely inaudible thanks to no real ensemble panning or setting of the soundstage (more on that later), leaving us with a melodic line that's essentially cribbed directly out of the original with no modification, and block chords underneath that which don't really do anything else. the percussion concept is nice but it's repeated the entire track and doesn't really change much. the ritard that occurs at the beginning of the one-minute loop is nice, and a good throwback to the original, so that's good. there's not really any dynamic contrast, either, which is disappointing because that's an easy way to add flexibility and contrast to a track like this. lastly, it's really short, which makes it harder to add transformative content to a mix. from a technical perspective, there's several issues here. the first is that your samples are not terrible, but they're not being used in a fashion that's idiomatic. an example is using the spiccato ('bouncing') articulation for the strings in the melody. that's not something that'd be used for fast moving lines, and as a result sounds weird when it's being used for faster runs. similarly, the trumpet that mirrors the melody is sustaining the entire bar, and never breaks for a pseudo-breath or anything. this also adds to the uncanny valley sound that makes it sound more fake. the second technical issue is that everything's right in the middle so it's difficult to identify what instruments are doing what, and it mashes the sound together. subtle panning would do wonders for allowing the ear to differentiate between what's going on. the third issue i'll point out is the dense orchestration. you've got a lot of instruments just mirroring each other. be more intentional about what's doing what, so that there's room to fit in more countermelodies or other concepts. this needs a lot of workshopping. i'd suggest breaking it down to just the first loop - roughly the first minute or so - and then building out from there. think about new ways to update the melody, ideas to expand the melodic and harmonic content, and ways to add dynamics as a starting point. NO

interesting writeup. also just a great ost - really remarkable what concernedape was able to do solo. lots of space to start the arrangement, which does a great job setting the feel. the opening synths are clearly derived from the original's opening idiophone, and they're deliciously late on the beat. my jazz background has me always really loving when people really play with the beat and the pocket, so i really like just how far back these drums sit and your playing with attack and delay settings on those synths. i really appreciated the not-quite-organic feel of all of the instruments in the opening - the zippy arp to open it, the flute-like lead at 0:44, the wide, slightly chorused bass at 1:08, and the high-pitched bells in the right ear. they all help convey the mood you were going for so well. there's a transition at 1:33 adding in some brassy chords and sfx, and then a wash into a perc-less section around 1:56. the windy sfx/synth at this point continues the theme, and some more interestingly out-of-time descending bells and pans add some color. the beat comes back in at 2:30 and continues exploring that descending line (which is derived from the right hand of the piano in the B section of the original, for example around 1:20ish of the youtube). this section feels way more vaporwave-y, and i noticed the bass starts to get a little heavy here (something about the pitch it's sitting on is pretty resonant). there's a bit of a transition at 3:21, and i started losing track of where the source was until i caught the chord change at 3:33 which mirrors the part at 2:30ish in the original youtube. at 3:56 it's back to the chords from the main body of the original with some more arps that mirror the piano and (i think?) the clarinet, at least in a deconstructed fashion. then it sorta just ends. not a fan of the non ending to be honest. this one nails the aesthetic really well (ＡＥＳＴＨＥＴＩＣ) and seems to function very well as a vehicle for conveying the remixer's ideas. there's a lot of "beat with chords for a while" going on here, but there's enough things to tie it loosely to the original that i think that this has enough in terms of original vs remixed content. i just love the synth work throughout, to be honest, and how thoughtful the application was. nice work on this one. YES

such a great original. this soundtrack is iconic for a reason. big, fat opening sound, and some obvious arrangement right away between the modified arp and some funky leads dancing around. there's some fun pads going on behind the scenes here but i found the bass to be oppressive. there's a nice break at about 0:42 with some delicious bass slides (which still felt too loud tbh), and it gets back the beat with a neat bitcrushed fill. new lead in this section continuing the sliding concept. the drums are pretty similar to the opening but continue to have some different fills and more nuanced things to mix it up, which is good. there's another metallic pad fill going into 1:34 similar to 0:42, a short break, and then we're back to The Big Showdown. this is really loud here at 1:47 - bass especially has a lot more going on, and the compressor's engaged pretty much full-time from 1:47-1:57, and then it suddenly drops down in volume and normalizes some. there's another runthrough of the melodic content, and then it wraps with the victory fanfare. it's a little short honestly - i love what you're doing and i'd love to have more of it. the breaks feel rushed - you could expand more there without losing the energy throughout. from a mastering perspective, this one has some stuff that needs work. some issues i heard include the right ear having a higher RMS throughout for whatever reason (is your bass panned?), the section from 1:47-1:57 being really just too loud despite having fun stuff going on, and in general the mix feeling light in the highs and much heavier in the low mids (mostly because the bass is all fundamental and not much else). a glance at the freq analysis for that one big section explains why this feels like this - it's by far the heaviest between 50-120hz, and then drops off consistently above 8khz. that bass needs some reduction to allow other fundamentals to speak out and fill in the sub-1k range a bit, and the highs could really use a push to help the mix sparkle more. i think the arrangement is great, but this needs some mastering work before i'd call it good. great start though, this is a fun listen. NO

ooh, love that opening pad. very evocative. feels like it's from starcraft a bit. the piano's a bit blah but there's lots of fun tinkling stuff going on around it that comes up and flows into a big synthy band sound - definitely getting SC1 vibes. the chord structure fits this style, too, with lots of crunch as you go between those adjacent chords. the melody's clear in the arp and several other plectral-style synths as well. there's a bridge at 1:53 that's a nice break of style, getting away from the arpy lead and focusing more on the guitar, and then some chilled-out piano and a build. there's some nice bass movement in here too - the more i listen, the more i find something i like, which is neat. the track steps back around 3:00 for another break, and then we get a build to the big push - except it's not quite, and then it fades out in some recap material. there's a tail of some nothing that we can probably trim off. from a mastering perspective, i think this is really solid. the hats only being in the right ear is a little weird, but overall i love the sound and the body of it. there's not much in the low mids except the bass synth leaving it with a bit of a hole there to my ears, but i didn't mind it too much. the track sounds great and consistent across the board. excellent work. i liked it a lot. YES

opening is pretty non-idiomatic for the piano. i didn't care for the ocarina much - sounded very fake. the tape stop was pretty unexpected given how organic the earlier parts were, and the transition with the strings was also unexpected! the beat that comes in at 0:53 is pretty funky, though, and i'm digging the bass under it too. the strings at 1:16 sound real rough though thanks to such a delayed attack. the new texture after the scoop after 1:43 is interesting, but then we get more copy paste right before 2:00 of the beat, the tapestop, the transitional material, and then it just ends. this is all over the place right now. i'll echo the others in pointing out the lack of a cohesive form to the track, and also point out that this spare of a soundscape requires very careful attention to synth selection and the strengths and weaknesses of your samples. there's a lot of highlighting things your samples aren't good at, and that's not good technique. this one needs some rework IMO, especially on the execution end. the best parts are definitely where there's a beat going on and we're not listening to one or two synths repeat the same arp for most of the song. lean into that more. NO

great fat opening. love the big sweep in. the initial melodic presentation is big and clear, and the little drops in between phrases are pretty fun. i like the break at 1:15 - it's well-handled and is a nice break. the track cuts out just before the two-minute mark and then filtros out. it's very short but does explore some neat ideas. i just really wish it was 30 seconds longer. i love the complexity, tbh - tracks like this are often too simple for me. there's a lot of fun interplay in the synths here, and i like how regularly active the bass is and the variety of sweeps and sfx. and i'll also say that i think the different synths are handled pretty well - there's nothing that really feels too loud or too crushed by other stuff. i understand where MW is coming from, but ultimately i think this is solid. i think my main concern is the consistent clipping. bring the peaks down and i'm good with it. CONDITIONAL

interesting choice with the opening organ, used extensively on the original FFVII soundtrack. most of the first 0:53 was fragments so minimal it was hard to tie to any specific theme (at least to my ears). there's some more triple meter ramen between 0:53-1:25, but the attack-heavy piano there sounds very evocative and is clearly referencing the OST. the panning's a bit much but only a bit. mirroring it with the winds a bit later before expanding it is really great and serves as an excellent transition to the harp and bells. the string entrance at 2:34 was so rich, and the overall feel of never coming quite to a root chord fits the uncomfortable, weary feel of both originals really well. the execution of the instruments is super good. there's a few tiny spots i might complain about (the initial flute for example around 0:39) but that's a nitpick at most. this is very well done. the connection between both of the listed originals can be tenuous at times but i believe that there's more than enough there (admittedly i don't want to timestamp it if i can avoid it). the technical aspects are fantastic as well. YES

a 8.5 minute organ improvisation? interesting. organ's a great option for the melody. the natural room sound is superb for this track's original ambiance. here's the breakdown (bar references are based on this? first four bars is "A" second four/five bars is also "A" next two bars, then repeated, is "B" last five bars (which contain half of "B") is "C" 0:00 - 0:15 - A 0:15 - 0:37 - A with expansion 0:37 - 0:47 - reminiscent of the start of the C section but i didn't see a direct parallel 0:47-0:57 - middle of A with expansion 0:57-1:13 - this sounds like it's following the shape of C but no direct parallel 1:13-1:35 - A with expansion again 1:36-2:07 - descending line is the end of A pretty consistently (3-4-5-1 pattern), but this is a tenuous connection, if i'm stopwatching i count half of this time in total 2:07-2:26 - this continues using rhythmic motifs from the original but i don't hear a lot of melodic connection 2:26-2:47 - more expansion of A 2:48-3:10 - pad chord with C melodic portions 3:10-3:52 - cadential pattern leading to descending fifth motif from most of the original, with A-reminiscent expansion in the foot pedals (i love this section) 3:52-4:21 - recap of A and a beautiful resolution 4:21-4:53 - traditional carillon intro, with flourish over root movement, expansion of the tail of A 4:53-5:19 - continuing root movement, registration change but no clear melodic content 5:19-5:44 - A section recap, clear melodic content, with condensed B motif following 5:44-6:20 - more escalation content, sounds like the implied chords from B 6:20-6:59 - more A under right hand flourish 6:59-7:35 - B content, malformed, following a straightforward A recap and some more escalation content 7:35-8:30 - registration change, same escalation content, final chord and tail this is well over the 50% mark for at least motivic representation. that's my only concern, because the rest of the work is superb. there's a clear two-movement concept being relayed here, and the registration choices and improvisation throughout are excellent. if anything, i wish there was more motivic development - there was a ton of room to explore other tonalities and get even crunchier from a compositional standpoint. i also didn't hear as much B content and would have liked that, but that's such a nitpick it's hardly anything. this is a clear pass for me. the intense care taken on the realism aspect, the expansive arrangement, superb registration work, and perfect soundscape all really make this a mix i can't wait to see on the site. YES

lot of attention to attacks right away, which is great (although the poor flautist needs some time to breath in there!). very lush orchestration behind it, which i think fits the original well. the swells in the backing instruments are nice, but it does lead to it sounded pretty loud throughout. the big block chords at 1:26 lose a bit of drama as a result of that, and that also highlights the problem of having lots of sustained chords - it sounds like an organ rather than an orchestra. there's a recap after a short flourish that starts around the two minute mark. this second section is pretty similar to the opening part in terms of added content, and a ritard to the end. from an orchestration standpoint, this was indeed adapted to a full orchestra, and there's a lot of attention paid to articulations. my issue with it is twofold. the first is that the melodic instrument is not only very similar to the original's choice, but it also never changes. this leads into the second issue, which is that there's no real countermelodic content in the track - so it's pretty much block chords for three minutes and sounds static as a result. there is essentially no dynamic contrast to the work aside from a quick interlude around 1:52, and the recap of the A section of the melody is very similar to the original presentation of it. there are few examples in traditional classical arrangement or even film work that stay this static for so long, and that's on purpose. my suggestion initially is to vary up the instrumentation around the melody, and then simultaneously reduce the amount of instruments playing big static chords on top of one another and increase the movement behind the scenes. i'd guess that most every instrument is playing the whole piece once it comes in the first time, right? that isn't good sound design, and it isn't good compositional technique. be more intentional about why the trombone is playing that note or why the winds are layering on that chord, and save the big blocks of sound for a specific moment or two of the piece you want to emphasize. from a mastering standpoint, like i said, it's quite loud, and it feels crunched some of the time as a result. reducing the layering like i mentioned above will help a lot with this. the overall soundscape and room verb sounds really nice, though, so letting the mix (and the room!) breathe will make it sound so much better. the technical skill around handling the realism of the instruments is evident here, so now let's get the arrangement up to snuff and it'll be in a much better place. NO

what a great genre adaptation for this. the slowdown stutter synth and initial presentation of everything at 0:30 is just great. melody is immediately apparent, saxophone is well-mastered with a lush verb for the style, and the wide synths and vox sound great. i agree with gario about the lack of low-end (and despite there not being any real beef down there, it does sound like occasionally there's some collision between the sweep synth in the lower mid range, like around 1:28ish). the cello sounds great with the big glisses in there. nice rich sound - excellent instrument choice. the break around 2:41 is a nice break for the ear, and the bass drop into the next section at 3:00 is delicious. the following section features some nice stutter synths that add some extra color to the recap. it was a bit cluttered in the drump fill at 3:41, but the distorted synths (or synth guitars?) right after that were great. i like the false ending at 4:01 - that's a fun idea that i'm going to steal sometime! the sax solo following this is pretty flat but what it's playing is fun, and the ending is fine. this is a great track. mastering sounds excellent aside from the nits i mentioned, arrangement is great, the personalization in here is great. nice work jorrith and company ? YES

fun original. i haven't ever heard it before. the opening synth swells are nice, and the intro of the drums and bass sound good, although the drums and bass are a lot louder than everything else. there's some really weird panning at 0:35 and a few other places - it's hard to tell if that's intentional or not but it didn't seem so. i heard this in several other places in the track as well. i like the brassy lead synth, although the other synths (especially the bass) drown it out a bit. the repeated little flourishes in the background are nice to keep it moving forward. nice transition at 1:37, set up by the chords going into it, and i like the mirroring in the lead at 1:55. at 2:15 we get a break, and eventually that shifts to a recap with some interesting filtering on it to trim out the highs a bit more, and then it's done somewhat abruptly. from a mastering perspective, this has a really warm feeling to it overall. i thought it sounded pretty solid throughout with the main exception being the occasional drops in the right ear that i mentioned before, and the bass in general being a bit loud and covering up some parts. i'd consider those nitpicks. i think this sounds great. nice job. YES

what a great original. need to spend more time with this ost. i agree with darksim about the tempo increase - it really changes a lot surprisingly to pick it up just a little bit like that. the initial presentation of the backgrounds and subsequently adding the lead sound very, very good. well balanced and meaty without being overbearing. the first break at 1:18 was a little surprising but it's well-timed. i really like the filtro synth with the bends here, it's a great evocative synth in the middle of the arps and sweeps. there's a build starting at 2:06 which was kind of dry, but i like the aural shift at 2:20 and that it didn't go back to the chords and everything. i i agree however with gario about the harmonies - i generally don't like hard mirroring down a fourth/fifth because you always get weird notes, and that happened here. i like the idea of adding harmonies however. i feel like i'm just mirroring the other votes, but they're good votes so that doesn't feel too weird. ultimately the comments i have are nitpicks, and there's so much to like about this track that can't be explained solely by a great original. excellent work making your own thing out of a great track. YES