prophetik music

intro musicbox doesn't sound a ton like it's in the same room as the piano. the trombone is indeed a little quiet for the intro, as is everything that's not the guitar. what beautiful writing, though. some more percussion come in at 0:40, and again there's an element of the percs not feeling like they're in the same space as the other instruments, especially the shaker that's used. some drumset comes in at 1:35 and the kick drum is just way loud compared to everything else. the piano and guitar take turns being more in the fore, which is nice, but in general the lead instruments are too quiet compared to the backing parts. what the drum is playing sounds stilted, too, there's not a lot of natural patterns going on back there. there's a recap of the intro as an outro, and that's that. this is a great arrangement in my opinion. the themes are combined and arranged beautifully and it sounds nice. the mix however is a mess, particularly from an EQing standpoint. there's a ton of sub-40hz content that's occupying the soundscape, and the drums overall are way too loud. some significant revolumization and EQing is needed to notch in the backing instruments so they settle next to each other without competing (the bass is especially egregious here). additionally, the entire track it sounds like there are instruments in totally different worlds. more attention to the room sound overall and application of reverb would be a very good choice. NO

the cello in the beginning is referencing source material - rather, that's what the remixer calls the source material. note, down a perfect (or augmented) fourth, up an octave, back to roughly the original note. the remixer is right in saying that there is little to the source, but reducing it down to just that specific riff is probably too reductive - there's other elements in the original that can be used, and i can't say that i hear them a ton in the first part. those first 48s or so are just the cello noodling around that pattern. some more actual instruments come in at 0:48, and they continue to reinforce that pattern on top of more sfx. 1:40 gets the pulsing bass line and more rhythmic representation of the original's chord structures and changes. so that's pretty clear. this is ultimately not really arranged - it's essentially the same as the original in the background instrumentation with some pre-recorded choir patches layered on top. at 3:19 there's a big shift to lean into those prerecorded choir samples, and then it ends. i actually don't have a problem with source usage in this track, and i'm surprised that the other j's said this was their dealbreaker. the first 48s of the cello wandering around the four-note motif is what motivic arrangement sounds like. there is more than enough source in the first 3:19 of the piece, it just isn't all a very clearly delineated and honestly pretty conservative arrangement of the original like the middle third of the piece is. given the extremely simple nature of the original, the motivic approach for the first part of the track was a great idea. i found your more overt source usage in the middle of the track actually kind of lacking in comparison - it's essentially the same as the original with a bunch of pitched sfx over it. the third act of the piece is kind of just a neat soundscape and isn't super tied to the rest of the track until you look at the usage of rubato and a rigid tempo structure vs. a nonrigid structure. from that perspective, this is an ABA structure - rubato-heavy opening section, super rigid middle section with a strong beat, rubato-heavy closing section. that said, i don't have a problem relating that initial four-note motif to source, which gives you more than enough there. the first part is great in how flexible and exploratory it is, the second part is contrastingly kind of a disappointment but serviceable, and the end is a bookend tempo-wise but doesn't really relate to the rest of the piece. looking at this track from the top down rather than by piecing it out, i think that this track is less than the sum of its parts, but it's still over the bar. it sounds good and is mastered cleanly, it features some really interesting exploration of a manufactured motif from the original piece, and it has some fun stuff to listen to. i'll admit this is pretty close to the bar overall in terms of arrangement - i'm stretching to accommodate not the motivic section but the more conservative middle section. YES

the original is about 2:34 long and this remix is only about 2:05. the initial presentation of the winds isn't bad, but they're not played particularly idiomatically - there's a lot of space between the notes in a way that doesn't come across as intentional, and some of the instrument choices are not particularly cohesive. in the section at 0:22, for example, the vibe (?) usage is extra clanky and doesn't fit against the natural timbre of the oboe, bassoon, or strings. the section starting at 0:58 with the flutes was a great chance to mix up your backing parts. with a track this short, you need to take advantage of every possible chance to show arrangement and nuance in your approach. similarly, 1:19 is arguably the biggest part of the original, and here you're sticking with the boom-pop background, sustained strings, and the same few lead instruments you had before. there is a lot you can do here with orchestral percussion and a bigger full-ensemble sound, but you chose to again keep it conservative. 1:48 brings back the (unwelcome) vibraphone and features what i believe are some incorrect or unsupported harmonic choices in the supporting instruments. please plan to take another look at the harmonic choices through this last 20s stretch to ensure that you're not competing with the arpeggiated chords the vibe is playing, even in passing. similarly, mirroring at the fourth is not a pleasing harmonic choice for the last few riffs - perfect fourths and fifths mirroring for harmonies sound robotic, and that boosts the overall uncanny valley of most of the instrumentation. unfortunately the best parts of this track are toby fox's, not yours, gabriel. the instrumentation is lacking (there are much better free options available in 2023), the arrangement is pretty lackluster throughout, and there is no verve or dynamic shape to the track the way the original swells and drops down. please consider adding more dynamics throughout, work on flexing some part-writing muscle and not just layering in sustains on a pad, and identify more idiomatic ways to 'perform' each instrument. NO

the intro's chill vibe is great. there is the right balance of verby tones next to crisp percussion. the melodic material comes in at 0:51, and it is indeed heavily reverbed but not so much that i can't hear what's happening. there's a lot of subtlety with the various synths and getting just the right amount of bite to their tone. there's a break at 1:42, focusing more on the glassy bells and some lighter instances of elements we've heard up to this point. the groove is back in at 2:09, and we get a more involved recap of the melodic material at about 2:57. this is very similar to what's happening earlier - in fact i think it's the same material as at 0:51 just with bigger drums. similar to before, there's a break at 3:50 that's almost the same as before but slightly bigger, and this kind of suddenly ends, not even on the root. i did not like the ending's sudden end (it just sounds like the end of a loop) or the copypasta from 2:57 to the end, which is not quite a third of the piece. however, the arrangement is clever, the synth work is nuanced, and i felt the mastering was pretty good throughout and didn't have too much reverb. there's a lot of sub-40hz content that didn't get rolled off but that's my only real complaint in that area. this is a neat idea that's executed pretty well. in the future, i'd encourage you to always make your recapitulation section more different - particularly in the handling of the melodic material, which at that point has usually already been repeated several times. the last time through is a great chance to leave a mark in the listener. YES

took a while to wrap my ears around the intro which does indeed feel quite disjointed. almost feels more in a slow triple meter vs. 3/4. there's a heavy, plodding feel to the guitars in this opening section, with a ton of space in the rhythm guitars. i don't particularly care for the lead synth, which combined with the very loud delay makes it hard to focus on where the beat is underneath it. the farther along in this opening section we get, the more i'm reminded of the very dramatic, lush style of peruvian tango music. obviously a dramatically different instrumentation throughout, but the slow 3 beat and wide instrumentation with tons of verb made me think of it. there are some odd timing artifacts at 2:02, 2:09, and 2:17 where it sounds like the track is missing a sixteenth note. at roughly 2:20 there's a significant shift in tone as the piano is more in the fore, then at 2:50 the tempo slows a bit but keeps the 16th note roughly the same while transitioning to a more piano-driven groove. this isn't the best transition i've ever heard but it's certainly not terrible. this is pretty straightforward and uses Missing Perspective as a base to jam a bit on, and then the track's done. i think this is a perfectly serviceable remix of these two themes. i think that the track is a bit less with jamming in Missing Perspective than it could have been using the Main Theme track as the basis for the solo section, but that isn't enough to demote it to a NO in my mind. the track doesn't have any mixing concerns and the overall product is certainly above our bar. YES

i am going to echo MW and DarkSim here - this is very much what i'd consider to be a cover. the important bits that define the original are replicated throughout, with little to originality in how it's represented. you definitely nailed the style you were going for, it's just too close overall. from a mastering perspective, i think the guitars sound great, but do wish that the bass had a clearer tone and was more present in the mix. drums sound fine, nothing stood out there. sorry to vote no on a fun mix, but unfortunately there's just not enough arrangement elements being used that aren't directly from the original. NO

rubber stamp here. it just sounds so messy. it's certainly got some more going on, but you can't hear anything over the cymbals specifically. NO

really neat intro, and the first minute or so before the glossolalia sounds super good. layering sustains against the iconic tritone pattern really emphasizes how strange that pattern is. the initial presentation of the ?lyrics? is a really interesting concatenation of your intentionally un-classical vocal tone (which to me sounds more folky, that is less rigid/within strictures) against the backing style, which to me presents as more rigid and constrained. the slight glides between the upper and lower pitches on the bigger jumps, the very wide vowel tones, and the ethnic choir sound of your voice harmonizing with itself really is a significant juxtaposition against buzz synths and FM bells. i think it's really neat. 2:15 kind of finishes the first part, and starts a different approach for vocals as well. you use a more closed vowel tone here alongside a more traditionally classical approach to your vibrato. there's a few more obvious pitch issues here (understandably, it's harder to pitch-shift tones that are richer in overtones and have heavier vibrato over a very thin pitch with no vibrato). the slide where you stop your vibrato and try to gliss down is probably my least favorite part of the song actually, it is hard to hear that as anything other than just out of tune. i understand the intent behind the glitching effects - at that point, the track has been doing the same thing for over three minutes with essentially no break in the backing part whatsoever, and the vocal parts although interesting have been doing the same thing too. as a method of mixing it up, this is certainly effective at shifting the style. i don't mind it as strongly as the other judges. i do think though that it exposes just how little there is behind the arrangement overall - there's essentially two chords, and you're either not singing, singing the invented stuff, or singing ahh tones that do roughly the same thing across the board. sometimes a track just needs a cool idea to get it from point A to point B. i found myself wishing this track had more there from an arrangement standpoint ultimately, rather than just being about the same volume with the same backing parts and roughly the same ideas in the melodic content for >4 minutes. to be clear, this is definitely over the bar. it's a creative approach to a weird source and has some great ideas. i wouldn't have minded it being a minute shorter, or having more development to stop it feeling so samey across the board. YES

i can't believe that a saxophone quartet - truly my favorite medium to work in - came through the queue and managed to get three votes to close it out while i was on vacation. what are the odds?

i got the same vibe right away, MW - definitely feels like a TSO song. intro is very evocative between the guitar, cello, and chimes. big hit at 0:40 to build up a very full band sound. the adaptation to 6/8 - and particularly the inspiration to alternate your measure groupings between triple and duple - is great, really adds a ton of energy. there's a drop around 1:32 that brings it back to focus on the orchestral elements with some drums helping to amp the energy over time. this builds for close to a minute before finally really hitting hard at 2:14. i really liked the harmonized lead guitars here over the top of the very active bassline. this section felt heavy in the right ear, almost certainly driven by the lead guitar. there's another break and another big band section starting around 2:58. there's a few bass runs in here that don't feel 100% in the right key, but they don't sound like wrong notes, just key choices that i don't think are as supported as they could be. there's one big blow through the main motif and then some keys bring us home. i don't really have any major complaints. this is yet another great ZP track from this album. excellent work. YES

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