prophetik music   Judges ⚖️

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

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

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

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

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

haven't listened to this OST much, but it's real nice. nice 5/4 groove to start it off. the hand percs are very clear and bright, and it's a nice vibe. the time changes when the percs drop for the initial presentation of the melodic material, and when they come back in we're still in 4/4. the lead at 1:11 is great - just a touch of vibrato, nice and understated. the plectral-heavy background fits that kind of lead well. there's a...break? can it be a break if the track is so chill already? at 1:33 that is very calming as well. this slowly builds back into a full band sound in 5/4 at 2:14. this is a great transition and the melody works well in a 5/4 time signature. there's another dropoff at 2:49, and a smooth outro with a nice ritard into the final notes. quite literally my only complaint is that the sizzle tone used as a transitional sound is very high-heavy and may be irritating to some listeners. the rest is great. the arrangement is novel, the influences are clear, the instrumentation is beautifully done, the mixing and mastering are excellent as expected. this is a great track. YES

freya's theme is recognizable right away, and the rain is a nice touch given her character development and the iconic shot of her in the rain. this is a patient approach which is expected given the context of this remix. there's some slow elements added at the ~1:55 mark, which is nice since at that point the track had been roughly the same thing for that entire time. there's one last repetition of the melodic content, and then the expected brickwall slam happens at 2:35. this isn't near as heavy as i expected given the artist, and sounds great. right after this is the shift into the Burmecia theme. the arrangement elements chosen show how related the two themes are, which again is a neat compositional element given that freya is burmecian. this one doesn't have much melodic material simply because the original doesn't, but there's still enough for it to be recognizable through another brickwall transition at 4:28. the audible acoustic guitar through this heavier section is great and gives some variation from some of the heavier stuff you've done on other tracks. the freya theme returns at about 5:15 in the lead as this continues to get heavier and more post-rock-ish, and some nice higher sustained pads come in to brighten and intensify the tone around 5:45. the choice to drop the electric guitar lead in this area and instead just have the keys handling the recap of the burmecia theme did make it harder to hear the direction, but the intensity there and the recognizable chords kept it moving forward. i wasn't concerned about the thickness of the master there. the ending is more of an outro, which was a bit disappointing but sufficient. this is yet another great track from your album. YES

bass synth in the original is awesome. super fat. some sfx and a martial-feeling snare pattern start it off, and it surprisingly shifts to a club-style kick at 0:29. the melodic content is in a pretty quiet instrument that could be a guitar or an EP, can't really tell which. there's not much besides kick and lead here - the other stuff is window dressing, and the bass that's fake-sidechained is hard to actually hear since it's in the shadow of the kick. there's a shift at 1:24 and the heavily effected lead really starts to show why the volume of verb on it isn't a good choice. there are some new ideas added in after this point, but it's either brass samples that are really not listenable or some vox samples that are not enjoyable to listen to. then it repeats in various combinations for another two minutes. so it's 4.5 minutes of an indistinct lead and kick with some other percussion alongside and a quiet bass line, and there's some other synths in there occasionally. this is honestly an interesting idea. i don't really know if any of these instruments fit together at all, but i'm sure it's possible - it just isn't working in this combination. i think this needs a lot of work overall - trimming off at least half of the duration if not more (will need more new material as a result, a bridge would be nice), really thinking hard about what instruments to include and then fleshing them out so they're enjoyable to hear, and then spending time crafting the EQing so that they fit next to each other. NO

this is another sausage, and that initial synth is just grossly over-loud. that's probably enough for me to auto-reject it right there. it doesn't get quieter either - there's just a ton of limiter slam later that prevents it from clipping. the parts outside of the lead synth have some interesting ideas - the plectral/drops synth at about 1:11 is a neat idea, and the subdued bass that's used outside of the big synth parts sounds nice. however the full band elements (at 0:43 and 1:52) are just totally crushed by the lead synth. and then it ends at the end of a loop without even a downbeat. the rest of the arrangement is...fine? i guess? the melody's adapted well to the style, it's just always exactly the same with no changes from that adaptation. this is another one that just doesn't sound like it's more than a work in progress. this is becoming a theme =( i'll again stress the importance of getting others to listen to your tracks - the workshop channel on discord is active and anyone there would tell you that the lead needs to be turned down by half before you can even start balancing anything. NO

the intro is pretty, as is the first section with strings. the intro of symphonic percussion, some plectral elements, sfx, and more rhythmic strings at 0:42 certainly sounds appropriately epic. the use of the slower string pad as a lead at 0:59 however isn't a great choice.it sounds good earlier on without the rhythmic elements, but as soon as there is percussive elements behind it it's clear how behind the beat it is. that needs to be something that is able to play in time with the fun backing you've put down. it's more egregious when it's doubled up the octave and you can hear it next to an instrument that actually changes on the beat. the brass there are androgynous to the extreme too - it'd be nice to get a clearer and more timbre-appropriate tone for a whole ensemble vs. what sounds like a flugelhorn synth for a coffee shop. 1:38 brings a bit of a break which is needed by this point. the echoed guitar is a nice tone, and it sounds like there's a glide synth layered into the slow string lead right after that's really nice. there's a big hit at 2:11 with chorus added, and the chorus sounds great. the same bass drop transition shows at 2:31, and then we're in an outro featuring the intro instruments. there's a hard cut at the end that needs to be faded out instead. i agree with MW that there's opportunity for customization throughout that wasn't taken. i don't have too much of an issue with the intro/outro although the outro could have certainly been different and more robust, but i do agree that the string leads being the same notes in the same places throughout is a letdown. also, the string lead that's used throughout simply isn't cutting it - it's just too slow. i think these are straightforward fixes! this would be a quick resubmission if you're willing. NO

we're locked, but i want to state again what i edited into my earlier comment, because i really don't want it to get lost. my comment about the 'implementation' losing some aspect of the norm is not referring to Terra at all, but rather the arrangement inspiration method - the mirror dance. it is very important that my words aren't read as saying that there isn't enough source - there is! notes go in the direction of the terra theme often. but a phase track where it's just the first five notes of Terra over and over again isn't a remix. just the notes in the right order aren't enough.

intro foreshadows some EQing issues, as the two synths chosen overlap heavily. the full band sound comes in at 0:44, and it's muddy to the extreme. the pad synths have a lot of bass content that needs to be cut to allow the bass synth to not layer on top of them. the heavy pressure from the bass being cranked to be audible does cover up the leads often as MW mentions. i didn't find the hard cuts for transitions to be compelling. it honestly seemed kind of lazy to just use the same hard cut several times around the 2:00 mark. after a key change, we have a new section at 2:29 that again is bass-heavy and again has the leads getting washed into the backing synths occasionally. there's another drum cut at 3:38 for a bit, and the track meanders for a while through yet another key change for about a half-minute before being done abruptly with tempo-synced synths just kind of fading off. i don't think this arrangement is particularly compelling. there's no real dynamic shape to the track - it's loud throughout and doesn't ever really relax from that, even with the drum breaks - and while it doesn't plod, it doesn't feel like it goes anywhere. the oppressively loud bass synth and overlap with the backing parts doesn't help, and there's some light clipping audible around the 1:30-1:45 among other spots. lastly, the leads are very set-and-forget - there's no shape or interest to the sounds hardly at all. this needs a significant amount of EQ work (or backing synth reimagining) to trim out the bottom of those tempo-synced pads. that'll allow the bass to be turned down. that in turn will allow you to shape your leads with much more care and attention. separately, the arrangement needs room to breathe as well - there's essentially no contrast in this arrangement at all. i'd encourage you to experiment with more variety in your backing synths and song structure to allow the remix to have a shape and direction. right now it sounds like you're driving to nowhere. NO

google says the name means "unwilling transformations", which is kind of ominous ? the garagey sound is immediately audible. the intro sounds like it's been unwillingly transformed from The Dragon's Trap, with a subsequent dose of Vs. Dragon. the track shifts towards a more standard melodic structure at 0:39, and noodles through a few variations of the sustained melodic stuff from both. organ at 1:26 is a neat synth tone, full of the movement i've come to expect from eino's leads. there's an outro that starts at about 1:54, and then it's done. i agree with larry that there was an initial impression of this track missing something. most of the sound palette is based around the 75-200hz range, which is why it sounds very dull and dense. most of the track, there's a lead, bass, and drums audible only, because the guitar is both hard right and very quiet (or missing). the intro feels fuller since it's got the guitar going the whole time, but even then it still feels a little weird because that guitar is hard-panned to the right alongside the snare and crash (with the tambourine all the way to the left). however, i'll note that on subsequent listens i did start to pick up more density in the writing. while the bass/drums/synth parts are always pretty audible, the other parts that drop in and out are both interesting and more present than i initially noticed. and i find the garagey EQing pleasing, it's certainly nonstandard but it is a funky track and sounds fun. i think this is a pass actually. it took me a bit to get there, but i can dig it. YES

intro is great, love the filter sweep. as soon as the band sound hits at 0:15, though, it's clear what emu was saying. it sounds like a notch filter has wiped that entire freq range from the remix. that needs to be fixed. it doesn't sound like there's anything in the low mid range. the arrangement is fun! there's a lot of variety taken in the approach, i particularly liked the keys at 1:08. the bass issue is again super obvious at 1:52 - there's just no presence in the low mids at all below all the sparkly percussion. when everything's going, it sounds pretty good outside the notch emu described. fix that and this is good to go. NO

context matters. the rest of my comments around arrangement in the post do not say anything about there not being enough source. it ultimately doesn't matter. the saxophone performance is a non-starter. edit: i must make very clear so that it isn't misread - my statement about the 'implementation' losing the 'fanciful, dancing' quality was not directed towards the original's representation in the remix at all. it is referring to the arrangement's inspiration - a mirror sonata, of which most are extremely light, silly, entertaining pieces. this is a surprising interpretation of my words especially given that i regularly beat the hell out of melodic lines to the point that they're academic, as well as championing music that uses those academic interpretations.

solo performances on any instrument are hard. since you're distilling down the soundscape dramatically, simple issues are magnified significantly. for example, slightly out-of-time triple-tonguing like at 0:20 are way more noticeable than they would be in a larger arrangement. similarly, the articulation at 0:36 is stilted in a way that wouldn't be noticeable even with a piano or guitar playing alongside. last example - the lack of vibrato on sustains (especially lower notes like at 0:52) really sticks out. the variety of timbres used in a short period - for example, going from 2:15 to maybe 2:45 - is pretty great. i also liked the interplay of the two themes right after that section. there's certainly a lot of source represented here. i struggle however with the cohesiveness of the work as a whole. just taping together lines of sheet music from the two themes does not a complete whole make. tsori's clear tone is present throughout, and the fanfare-style writing is certainly idiomatic to the instrument. however, the nature of an arrangement like this requires a lot more depth of composition than this shows. there are a lot of examples of solo monophonic or close-to-monophonic works for every eligible instrument out there - i certainly played a lot of them as a collegiate and graduate musician. all of those works - be it joshua redman playing the intro to Hide and Seek, a cellist playing one of bach's cello sonatas, or something really wild like phoenix by ryo noda - feature similarly complex compositional structures that use extensive dynamics, constant use of the instrument's entire range, and often extended techniques to imitate more than just the one instrument that's being played. in the case of hide and seek, redman uses slap tonguing to imitate a string bass to mimic a call-and-response between the tenor and 'band', and he intentionally jumps between louder and very soft parts to help add distance to the work. in the case of, say, bach's cello suite no. 1, the full range of the instrument is used to again imitate a group of several instruments playing, complete with constant push-pull of tempi and dynamics to draw out emotions and tell a story within the chord groupings. looking at phoenix (which i know mostly from playing it in 2010, so it's been a minute), there's a huge variety of extended technique used to imitate birdsong, a crackling fire, and the death scream of the eponymous avian, used in concert with the entire breadth of the instrument's dynamic and pitch range. this arrangement does not use dynamics as a compositional device outside of a very specific section for about 30 seconds in the middle. the majority of the work takes place within an octave range, with a few notes higher and one notable section that is lower with sustains. there are no extended techniques utilized - no glissandi, no microtonal examples (which would be particularly useful when going between the two themes to help represent the disjointed nature of the section), no breath attacks or altered articulation methods outside of triple-tonguing, no mutes or altered horn methods - so there's nothing there to draw the ear either. and again, there's not even vibrato on the few sustains we do have, so there's not even really any contrast ultimately in tsori's timbre throughout. you can say that i'm splitting hairs, but ultimately there is nothing here that stands out as remarkable. i don't think it's required for a remix to cause someone to sit up and say "that's the best thing i heard all day" and put it on their favorites. there's a ton of room for arthousey weird stuff here that nobody wants to listen to more than once. and i will admit - it's tough to think of an amateur composer identifying and executing a monophonic arrangement that it is technically proficient both for the composer and performer while still being valid for our arrangement standards. i'm sure it can and will be done eventually, but i don't think this is that. it's a neat arrangement exercise, and the performance of what was on the page is fine. however, with fewer elements comes more scrutiny. the performance isn't transcendent and the arrangement is elementary. i don't think this is good enough for the site. NO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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