prophetik music   Judges ⚖️

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

nice writeup. original is great! never heard it before. opening is beautifully scored. flugel's a bit loud but the strings are very rich. the first presentation of the melodic content is pretty straightforward. i didn't care for the flugel's slightly stilted performance here (notably with notes rearticulating to match the words), but the tone is great, and considering this isn't live in a room together it's surprisingly in time despite the challenges of recording a lead part against a parted-out backing line. the guitar lead under the strings at 1:24 is a little heavy on the verb, but is well-played and the swelling strings under it sound excellent. the choice to mix up the backing parts right before 2:00 was a good idea, and the addition of some borrowed chords around 2:17 was nice. the verve that the more rhythmic backing at 2:28 adds is very well-timed, as i was feeling a little blasé about the track's direction there. there's what i believe is an incorrect or at least unsupported note at 2:45 in the violins, which is disappointing since it's so close to the climax of the piece. would love to see that pitch fixed in post rather than re-recording it. 3:09's outro is excellently designed and does a great job settling down a great piece. this sounds excellent, is well-performed, is source-abundant, and i love it. a few nitpicks can't keep this down. great job. YES

part of me wants to complain that this mix sounds like boiled buttholes, but i recognize that the style is intentionally over-grungy and that's not a knock on it. i've listened to a bunch of this style and agree that it's executed fairly well here, although i do feel the drums have way too drastic of volume fluctuation throughout the track. there's major sections where you can't hear anything but the crash, and i don't think that's wanted (although it may be intentional, i'd argue that it's not a good intent). from a source perspective, the most common riff in the remix (0:14-0:25) is the initial riff in the original, with a few less notes. 0:17 in the original is at about 0:45 or so in the remix. 1:13 in the original is roughly 1:35 in the remix. there's a lot of noodling around each and obviously a ton of detuning, which makes it hard, and lucas did a great job totally tossing out the original chords and going with a much meaner and gloomier set of chords that really changes the vibe drastically. i'm never going to listen to this again! but it's clearly not marketed to me ? this is a good execution of your vision and meets my criteria for the site. YES

i need a timestamp before i can talk about the arrangement. this is ridiculously hip to listen to but i can't find any elements from the original song - not really even timbral similarities - for the first minute and a half, and aside from the bass riff that shows up at 1:30 for a while, there's not a lot else. from a mastering perspective, this sounds awesome, and i love it. show me the melodic content and i'll pass it. i hear virtually no SF3 in this track's musical elements, so barring a breakdown that shows me things i totally missed, this is not passable. NO edit 11/9: larry's breakdown is enough for me. i don't feel bad for not catching the relationships. i wasn't really listening for this level of subtractive arrangement. talk about boiling it down to the essence...i like it. i'm good to go. YES

i love the bitcrushing that eino uses on the drums in several of his tracks. it's just such an iconic sound. it's used to great effect here. combined with the heavy stuttering on the backing parts, there's a great glitchy vibe that comes through here. the lead has a lot of activity on it, which is nice, and it's also actively personalized with some fun call-and-response harmonic content, so that's nice. i didn't like that the first third or so mirrored the second third quite a bit, and to that extent the repetitive nature of the background that MW called out is noticeable. the break at 2:15 in the general concept is needed and well-timed. there's some more background breaks via subtractive arrangement that show up around 3:00, and that's a nice change as well. some more noodles in the leads and glitches in the backing parts, and the track is done. mastering is sound and the track sounds great overall. the arrangement is certainly different from the original if repetitive. i think this is solid. nice work eino. YES

oh, that opening is really great. the nuance with the volumization and variety of instruments is so good, very detailed. i particularly like the barest hint of squelch on the initial arp's attack. 1:05 sounded like straight out of a 90s PC game, which is a fun coincidence. again, the nuance around the bass volume compared to other stuff going on is brilliant. 1:42 brings in a synthy guitar - really feeling the 90s PC vibe. i didn't hear any real timing issues outside of one run that sounded intentionally timed differently. i wouldn't have minded more of a bass presence on this section, as it's a while until the bass comes in. the snare also is a bit loud, but that's a nitpick. there's an extended fade before some more glittery pads sweep in - again demonstrating real patience in the process of the work. the major chord at 3:03 was a nice touch. at 3:15 we get the "Ein Anderer Abschied"-sounding oboe coming in again, and there's an extended outro after that from about 3:46 onward that just slowly progresses through the melodic content one more time. i love the breadth of this piece. there's a variety of significantly different timbres, unexpectedly combined into neat groupings, and it all comes together primarily because of the space and patience the arranger uses to allow each section to breathe appropriately. this is a great track, and an easy vote. excellent work. YES

oh, that fat overtony bass and snappy snare are a great vibe right off the bat. really eclectic combination of synths right away. the not-sax and arp leads do a great job of keeping the melodic material front and center without ever really focusing on it, which is a neat trick. there's a lot of blurbs and bloops going on that keep your ear moving. there's a bit of a reset at 1:37, and then there's some funky beat work at 1:47 under a second reimagining of the melodic material. some more intense drum work and a glitchy fade, and it's done quick. this is a great one! there's a ton of clever ideas taking the original's unique elements and recreating them in new ways. and it sounds super clean despite the variety of stuff going on. excellent work. YES

whoa, great original! never heard of this game. initial presentation is much slower, but it works pretty well to let the melody breathe a bit more with this arrangement. there's some fun flourishes in the intro, and a fairly straightforward adaptation of the melodic material. there's some added material that fleshes out the original without being overwhelmingly original. the drums are essentially the same pattern and velocity throughout, although there's a few fills which are desperately needed to mix it up. there's a break around 2:12 that is certainly needed at that point, and after that it goes into a short solo section, and a blow through the melody before ending on a quick flourish. there's a weird cymbal sound that sounds like it's added in post at the end of this that isn't needed. the elephant in the room with this one is that it simply isn't mastered very well. there's little to nothing above 10khz and a ton of content (i think it's the bass) at like 150hz, so it sounds very dark and condensed and musty. the bass tone especially has essentially no harmonics so it sounds very plodding...the chorus on it isn't doing it any favors. i think there's some EQing needed to expand especially the lead guitar's tone and notch the bass in so it doesn't have to be so loud on the fundamental to make it be heard. i think the arrangement's fine if fairly conservative, but i don't think it's transcendent or anything. with that in mind, i don't think the mastering is good enough to call this one a postable track. the myriad DoD submissions we regularly get are mastered cleaner than this pretty consistently, so I think at least another mastering pass is needed before we can post it. NO

the initial ocean sounds are surprisingly indistinct. the instruments in the opening are all in the same range, which makes it hard to really hear anything until about the 1:02 mark when the rest of the intro stuff drops. this represents over a third of the track. a quick glance at the opening section shows a huge amount of sub-40hz content, and even content below 10hz that's as loud as 100hz is. it's no wonder it sounds muddy. this desperately needs a filter to trim the fat. the melodic content really kicks in around 1:05, when the tempo picks up. the main body of the track here feels very big, which is good, although it is super generic. there's a short break for about 30 seconds, which features elements we've heard before in different synths - for example 1:07 and 2:02 are very similar to the point that they're basically palette swaps. this builds into a copypasta of 1:18 through 1:46, and then it ends with a clipped version of an earlier melody. the intro isn't bad but it's hard to hear everything with the synth choices and how loud the ocean SFX are. the actual main body of the remix, is from 1:05-2:47. this consists of the initial presentation of the big house section (1:05-1:46), a repeat of the intro melody with arp in different synths (1:46-2:02), and a repeat of the big house section (2:02-2:44) with a short blurb at the end. that means that the first minute is hard to hear and the last minute is copypasta, and the track is under three minutes long. this is honestly a lot better of a submission in terms of realization than some of your previous posts. from a mastering perspective, the main body of the house stuff sounds solid if bland - the kick is nice and meaty, the saws aren't overpowering, and the bass sounds fine for a non-sidechained option. the entire track however needs significant filtering on the low end (even the house parts have a lot of sub-40hz content, way too much). the opening could use some volumization to balance the instruments, and you may want to consider moving some instruments to other octaves so it's not overlapping so much. from an arrangement perspective, the last third being essentially a direct repeat isn't a great look. adding countermelodies or varying up the melody, chords, or backing rhythmic elements would help a lot to differentiate between the parts. just changing the q on the lead isn't enough to make it truly different. this needs some more workshopping. it is an interesting first attempt though! i definitely think there's something here. NO