prophetik music

love that intro. this is a pretty good example of subtractive and additive arrangement concepts. there's the melodic content, which is pretty similar every time it comes in, but everything around it is different each time - one time is featuring the kamancheh (i think? bowed lap viol, played in a persian style), once is featuring the descending unpitched synth, and once is featuring the vocal samples. the drums are super basic throughout - especially the hats, i always associate trap with clever hat rhythms - and there's not as much variety in the instrumentation as i'd want, but it sounds dope and certainly adds a new character to the original without losing sight of it. the mastering on this one is very good and it definitely carries the arrangement, which is fine but not super standout. i think this is easily over the bar. YES

i will note that while i refuse to remix a track unless i believe it's better/more listenable/more engaging than the original to some extent, there's no official guideline around that. so darksim's original point - that the flute isn't nearly as good as the original despite being the same instrument in the same style - is a correct statement, but only as a note, not as a definitive. the panflute right away just doesn't sound good. it's fine on sustains but not at movement, too much uncanny valley. the subsequent plectral, idiophonic, and percussive elements sound great however and put forth a very evocative (if overdone) atmosphere. the flutes mentioned above do sound pretty robotic, as i alluded to before, and the attempts to make them more lively via intentional early releases don't really do a great job of mixing it up as much as it could be. the resolution at 2:15 is nice. the extended tremolo isn't egregious imo. the ending drags quite a bit after that section is cleared (starting around 3:02) and kinda noodles its way out the door. overall it's quiet, heavily reliant on plectral and percussive elements (easy to sample well and to use well) that sound slightly out-of-place in the soundscape vs. the rest of the chamber orchestra, and it's clearly over the bar. it's just the same rebecca track we've heard for the last several years, which is tiring. this could have been from thirty different games with a few changes in the melodic line. but there's nothing in the standards about uniqueness of arrangement being a requisite element. YES

usually i really don't like the sfx approach to some things, but this pretty clearly handled in terms of what you were hoping to do. so that's kinda fun. agree with chimps that there is a ton of overlapping frequencies throughout. the dance piano and pizz are in the same freq space, for example, and it's very confusing. there's some notes that don't work in the piano, as well, and the bass is all over the place (close to half of what it's doing are conflicting with the organ and pad). the concept is also really long without a lot that's measurably different - i don't know that there's really four minutes of music (after the intro) here, it's probably closer to 2.5ish. trimming down the extra would help a lot. my suggestion would be to take out all of the sfx and vox, make a song that's able to stand on its own and submit that, and then maybe do an edit that has that in it for your personal pages. NO

several db headroom. marimba is a great starting instrument. the choice of recorders is a great one - very evocative sound. the clarinet is pretty out of tune around the top of the lower octave, when the air column is at its shortest, but you've got a nice singing tone in the upper register. the arrangement is also really fun overall, even with repetitive elements like the mallets and chimes being used so prominently. i thought the ending was fine, certainly not enough to hold it back. i agree that overall i'd have preferred more dynamic shaping to the work, a louder final version, and some pitch fixing in terms of general critiques. the ambient hiss is certainly notable, but it almost sounds like reverb that's not well-implemented to me, or an aggressive compressor/noise gate setup. if it's ambient hiss, i'd suggest filtering it out with a low-pass filter with the freq set really high. if it's some level of reverb/room sound, i'd suggest removing it entirely and using a different method to generate room sound for those bells and the winds where i heard it. if it's being heavily compressor to normalize the volume of the recording with a hard gate to remove the hiss that results from ambient being boosted, i'd just cut that entirely and find another way to get the volume normalized. in short, it's weird and anything you can do to remove it is a good idea. i want to know what's the deal with that hiss. if it's mechanical and we can remove it, this is not perfect but fine by me. if it's not removable - that is, it's due to the recording technique - i'd say this isn't there. NO

i believe this is at least my third vote on this one. here's the wrap of my last vote: so let's see where it landed. the intro is still neat. the drums sound heavily processed, for better or worse. there's a lot of tone in the kick that in general feels like it gets in the way of everything else. glancing at the freq analysis, i think it's because there is not as much sub-100hz tones as i'd expect. there's a dip between 110 and 70, peak at 70, and then very little else. the kick's mainly present in that beater tone and not really in the sub-bass range, and the bass is almost unable to be heard throughout. i believe turning down the kick/snare (leaving the rest where it is) just a bit and giving some more EQ love to that bass will help a lot by letting everything else speak, and then adjust the kick a bit by scooping some of that pitched tone from it a bit and reinforcing the 40-60hz range. i still really like that arp going through the first break. there's definitely some more attention paid to the lead. it still tends to be more zappy and doesn't really move too much, but there's some automation on there that's a nice change from what there was last time. i still think it could use more! finding ways to vary articulations (glides, maybe?), more use of space in the lines so it's not constantly on, and also it could be brought down a touch since it's very loud compared to everything else, especially in the second half of the track. i am not really sure if i'm making perfect the enemy of good here. i think there's a lot of places it can improve but it's a fun track to listen to right now. i think it's got a bit farther to go but this is closer to my not-sure list than i've been in some time. NO

you ARE ahead of the curve, larry =D oh man, the initial hit with the orchestral taikos sounds so much better without the mud. there's a lot of energy in these parts that i simply couldn't hear before. i really like the section from 3:20 to 3:40 now. ending being in 6/8 is a great way to use the same material in a new way. i still really like the ending, but can see how it could be a turnoff for some. a slight sustain there might have reinforced the intentionality of the choice. silence at the end is unneeded and can be removed. the opening's still way, way too quiet comparatively speaking, but this is a lot better. always nice to see a resub make it. YES

that's a pile of good originals there. intro is far too quiet. needs to be much louder - it'll still sound quiet next to everything else. the initial presentation is super fun though! i love the idea. one of the issues with this type of arrangement in general is that there's a lot of doubling to get everyone playing as often as possible, and it makes the track muddy. there's a huge over-emphasis in the low mids throughout from a mastering perspective which is why it sounds so dense. cutting out the snare fundamental would help a lot there (use a snappier snare rather than one with so much head tone), same with some of the head tone off the kick while leaving the click. the vocal part was really surprising! i agree it's way too quiet compared to everything else. the waveform says it all: that should be, like, a quarter of the difference there to sound right. the volumization issues become worse as the track goes on. the growls are difficult to understand next to everything else (boosting the formant of all of the vocals will help a lot too! boost around 2-3k depending on sex of singer). the big blow at 5:35 is fun, and the loud sustains of the instruments cover up the lead guitar pretty bad here. they've gotta be loud to compete with the drums, though, and i do believe the drums are louder here than at the beginning. bringing them down a bit makes the rest of it balance out, i'd suspect. this whole section is a sausage and needs to have some serious work done to make it feel better. overall this is a fun track! it's so all over the place in terms of volumization though, and needs some EQ love especially on the drums and vocals. i'd love to hear it again. NO

about 3db of headroom. what a great source tune. super weird. i love GS's soundtrack. intro does a good job of setting the stage. that first lead is super generic and sounds like a gladiator preset, though, and the tons of reverb don't really do it any favors. it's much louder than everything else too. the varying of the beat around it is interesting though, and it's got a plodding nature to the bass that actually is pretty neat since it drives it forward through some weird tonalities. there's a big transition at about 1:13 that is more energetic in the drums, and some further time signature tomfoolery with some fun backing synths that give it a lot more drive. a significant ritard around the 2:00 mark and a big fanfare, followed by a transition to a different groove and a recap of the plucked synths from the intro. this second section has a much more singing quality to the writing, and focuses on a more traditional vi-IV-I-V chord pattern to help anchor it. a M7 chord to finish it and it's done. this is a tough one for me. on the positive side, it's a recognizable take of a super weird track, it's got a clear A/B format that you're going for, there's some fun intentional detuning and playing with the synths you're using throughout, the intentional atonality of some of the harmonies is neat, and the overall concept is one that i like. on the negative side, that main lead is way too loud and also super not in the soundscape at all with so much verb, the kick snare is almost inaudible, the toms have no punch, the snare has no attack tone, the hats aren't really there much, the first minute plus meanders around in a not-positive way, and the bass doesn't have any punch and sounds very generic too. as an example, the faster part at 1:29 sounds like you're going for a big groove-driven transition with a punchy bass and rhythmic synths to emphasize the tempo right before the big ritard, but little of that is speaking out. there's a lot of room for less generic, more active synths throughout and better mastering (and probably better samples on the drums) to make that entire first two minutes more impactful. right now it is really lacking verve. i think this needs more workshopping. i don't hear a finished mastering job. i do think the arrangement itself meanders a bit but is good enough, but i don't think it's as good as the other votes so far. NO

i didn't vote on the original decision. right off the bat, this sounds really condensed. i was surprised to see a good body of >4khz freqs up past 10k, and that it's really only got about 1.5db of headroom. however there's a lot under 40hz and there's a TON in the 100-500hz range. that is why it sounds so dark and like it has no highs - most of the dbs are going to the low mid range. an EQ pass would help this out a lot, scooping out the low mids some especially on the pad and opening up some room for other instruments. as i get farther into the piece, i see what MW was talking about regarding balance. it's all over the place. there's some really fun synth work in here! like the melody stuff at 1:30, there's some really fun butterfly synth stuff jumping around in there. but it's totally different in terms of volume from everything else. while i think some of this is volumization, most of it is just a good multiband compressor to help balance it out. around 2:30 the heavy low-mid/bass/sub-bass content started to get tiring. the arrangement picking up after this helped a lot, but there's still a lot of stuff going on in the same register (which is causing so much low-mid throughout i think). the countermelodic content here though was pretty fun. this needs a lot of mastering work. i think the synths overall are fun, but they're unbalanced and so it's hard to hear what's going on elsewhere for much of the track. i think you've made a lot of progress though! NO

there is a surprising amount of sub-20hz bass in this mix for how little there is at 40-80hz. it's a clear scoop down at 30hz and back up but fairly quiet at 40hz so it's intentional and not just a bad 40hz cut. intro is hip. there's some fun effecting on the vocals initially, but they're pretty quiet vs the backing part. i agree with MW that the bass is nowhere near as loud as i'd expect based on the rest of the background. there's some more neat effecting on the vox at 1:07 onward. there's a break and the 'chorus' comes in at 1:22, and i realized what's bugging me - the track has no punch. the lack of significant compression to give the background a punchier feel (which you're obviously going for based on that drop at 1:07) is a real miss. having no bass is a big deal too...there's nothing in the range that most headphones are going to put out, although it does sound beefier on a system with a lower freq range like a car system. the arrangement itself is pretty solid. it's clearly from RRT and doesn't ever really get lost (no pun intended), and the execution is definitely competent. i thought the lyrics were kind of meandering and dumb, but i can't really talk having written the worst lyrics of all time on a remix before. i thought they were spoken/sang well but would have preferred the vocals to be a bit louder. overall this is pretty darn close for me. i do think the lack of punch and bass is a dealbreaker, and i think it's not a huge change to fix that given the headroom in the mix right now. it just feels quiet rather than low and intense. NO

still around 4db of headroom, but certainly less than in the past. progress! there doesn't appear to be a real direction of this work. it's noodles on the melodic content for 2:30 and then it ends. there's no dynamic direction or obvious focus to it, which works for incidental music but not as well for standalone content. i also didn't like the vocals, poorly recorded as they were - they didn't fit in the soundscape at all. completely removing them would have been preferable. the arrangement is great as expected. i liked the little wind chorale for a few seconds at 0:44 among other little moments that were really well-handled. i just wanted more dynamics. this is of course above the bar. YES

interesting writeup. thanks for the background. a glance at the waveform for this one shows it needs compression badly, and it's apparent on first listen. the track starts with a straightforward pad and some (obviously sequenced and chrono cross-reminiscent) electric bass with very little high end. there's some bells and a reed lead, and a fun electro loop and some hand pans come in to give it some variety at 0:42. the palette is very dull here - all the instruments sit in a low range with very little representation above 1khz, and there's no rolloff below 40hz, so there's a ton of db spent on notes we can't really hear. there's some sfx that don't sound within the mix either. it's got a real ps1 vibe to it. there's some pretty bad cymbal samples and rolls (the cymbal roll into a gong hit sounds really poor tbh), a brassy lead (again very ps1 sounding), and some accordian-style leads which are a bit loud going through melodic content. this just keeps making me think of chrono cross in a way that i can't believe isn't intentional, so i'm leaning towards excusing some of the sample issues like the brass lead and some of the string pads. the ending is well written and even finishes with an FM-like bell, another thing i associate with ps1 sounds. there's a long tail that should be cut. from a sample perspective, i actually think this is fine. it's intentionally low-poly in a charming and simple way. there's some really bad ones that need to be fixed - those cymbal rolls are really not great, and there are a few sfx that just don't make sense aurally like at 0:50 - but the rest are not distractingly bad. my main issue is the mastering, which is very dense throughout. there needs to be first a full EQ pass on most of the leads and percussion parts to brighten them up and remove the sub-40hz content, and then another full volume pass as instruments are consistently misaligned from a volumetric perspective. some automation is likely needed. once that's done, compression will help further brighten it and prevent it from feeling so quiet throughout. in terms of arrangement, i didn't specifically have issues with a robotic feel, but i can see what larry's going at. adding in some space for the mix to breathe after long sustains in the lead for example will help open it up a bit. fix the mastering and the cymbals and i'd probably pass this. humanize it a bit more and i think that this will be something really fun. NO

real basic source. recognizable source content at the beginning thanks to the chord progression being fairly easy to hear. there's a lot of really fun synth work throughout - the squelchy bass arp, the added percussive elements to fill out the drumloop, the bass drops. around 2:45 i was starting to get tired of the loop plus the bass being pretty repetitive too, and just in time a drop arrive to break it up a bit. i'd have preferred to hear a shift in the synths here so the lead, pad, and squelchy arp weren't still the same after that - it's essentially a retread of the earlier section for another minute before we get the choppy vox (which in itself is kind of a repetitive section). and then we get two more minutes of the same stuff with extremely minimal changes. this is just too much repeated stuff - no synth changes, the same drum fills, the same vox samples used the same way, and super simple changes (like a single piano chord every two bars) to differentiate it. it's four minutes of music (arguably about 3.25) spread over six minutes of bread...something's gotta give. there's a really catchy, fun idea here that i love the idea of - but it's completely played out at the end rather than making me want to listen to it again. i'd need this to be much shorter before i pass it. NO

yeah, this is fine. it's a weird original and a similarly weird interpretation. there's a lot of "fun Massive patch i found" ambiance going on, but some interesting use of vocals around 1:53 (i love the use of auto-tune to make it sound not quite normal). i liked the use of the throbbing, pulsing bass as well. the 'melodic' content - really, just the recognizable lead instrument stuff from the original - is clearly recognizable throughout. rubber stamp, it's good by me. YES

big dark mastering on this one. the initial chords under the organ sound super dark, and the synth choir, big room reverb, and heavy low presence certainly give it a specific vibe that's really fitting. i agree with larry that the lead guitar is pretty far back under the big drums (cymbals are nonexistent, though, it's just static that's filtered out from the sound of it). there is a lot of presence below 40hz, not much at all above 3khz, and a hard cut at 16khz. that's why it both sounds boomy in the lows and lacking in highs, and it does sound muddy in the kick/bass. a harder cut under 40hz would help a lot, as well as an EQ pass on the rhythm guitar, snare (the kick's got more treble in it than the snare does!), overhead/cymbals, synths, and lead (in that order). brightening it up would add a ton of clarity to it i think since you could smile the EQ some and turn down the upper mids a touch without losing punch. i admittedly like the cheesy lead synths and crappy string synth since it feels super 80s and IMO fits the style with the huge arena reverb and super bright and loud kick drum. arrangement-wise this is fun. there's more than enough expansion for me and it never loses the energetic feel through a variety of exploratory things. the ending is indeed two or three times as long as it should have been - use a proper parabolic curve to prevent it from overstaying its welcome. i actually think this is pretty close. it's pretty low-heavy and dense intentionally to give it a darker feel, but i think it's just too much. for me, just cut some of the sub-bass freqs, boost the highs a bit more so it's not dead above 3khz, and make the snare and lead less in the background, and this is done. fun track. NO

fun concept and title. it starts out very quiet, too much so. it's obvious that several instruments are being volumized to be quiet instead of velocitized (the cymbal roll for example). this track really needs compression. the brass at 1:10 are pretty slow-attacking and not suited for the quick runs they're doing. subsequently, the brass sample (supposed to be horns?) doesn't sound good at 1:23 either - it's too high for a french horn but doesn't sound like a trumpet. the drums are waaaaay too loud here and it's hard to hear anything else, and there's a ton of bass presence right there that should be trimmed out as it's just boom mud bass city. there is a lot under 50hz that's essentially just rumble and gets in the way. the arrangement itself is pretty fun though. i like the way you consistently are handing off the melodic content, your samples are just letting you down a lot. it sounds pretty good at 2:13 conceptually, albeit suffering from what i mentioned above around the drums. there's a nice transition to a quieter section at 2:30, and it does that for a while. your cymbal roll at 3:07 is a bit late (should arrive on the beat, not just after) but it's a cool layered building motion you get after that as it heads towards the end of the track. there's some chord soup at 3:55 but it goes up to a big ending. brass samples are behind the beat again here. i like the rising ending that just abandons us - it's a very epic way to end a big track. you've got some great ideas here arrangement-wise. i'd suggest getting out of your music editor and into your ears more when it comes to realization though - your brass are consistently slow (so maybe shift them a 32nd to the left), and several of your samples are used in a fashion where their timbre doesn't match what they're doing (like the brass comments above). also the mastering is all over the place - you need compression on this track to bring up the quiet parts so they're in the same universe as the strong parts. you can have a track that sounds quiet but is still audible on the same volume setting as the big epic parts with proper mastering. this isn't there yet but is a great idea. NO

the drums on this track are all over the place. i love the variety in usage, but volume-wise they're nowhere near consistent. 0:11-0:22, the snare's not even in the same universe it's so quiet. then they're very loud and in your face, then at 0:41 the snare's back to being next door with a huge clicky kick, then it's back to the punchy electro drums. the constant shifts in volume and soundscape were confusing aurally. i also didn't care for the bigger set of drums just constantly playing the same kick/snare pattern for the majority of the piece with the same toms fill used several times. it got very tiring, especially with the bass not having any real unique parts either and the same lead used for the entire piece. the copy/paste section was already mentioned and i agree that it's a lot of repetition. the track also just sort of ends with little prep, something else i don't care for. i sound like i don't like it, and that's not true. it's got a ton of energy, it's got some nice fat mastering that feels good most of the time, and what you've chosen for your samples and synths is great (at least initially!). getting rid of the copy-paste stuff, varying up the drums (and turning them down just slightly) and your lead synth a bit, and a better ending will all go a long way towards a more complete track. NO

agree that the overall sample quality isn't great. my main issue is also the very slow string attack, but the mastering struggles too in a few ways - notably that the electric bass is totally divorced from the soundscape of the orchestra, and the orchestra feels pretty blah since it's all mashed down with no highs. from a writing standpoint, it's a lot of wall-of-sound sustains in the orchestra under the melody. that's not really an arrangement so much as a realization. it's also effectively 1:20 of music with an extended intro and outro, so even if there was a lot of good content, it's over so quickly you can't process it. there's some fun ideas going on but nothing really stands out. i think this needs more workshopping. NO

larry is right, that source is awesome. the fm bass is great. super punchy. yeah, there's a lot of issues with mastering here - namely, it doesn't sound like anything's actually been individually EQ'd, and there's no unified room verb / verb send so everything sounds like it's in different soundscapes. since it's being asked for, i'll go through part by part with suggestions about how to flesh it out. for the drums, there's a few things that are concerning. the snare has a lot of head attack and body in the sub-1k range. note that it sounds pitched unlike other similar styles where most of the snare sound is static higher in the freq range. scoop most of that head hit out and get a snappier, crisper sound. that'll take up less of the spectrum and require less overall volume to be heard. the kick is pretty much just sub frequencies and no beater, which is fine since it's still quite clear and the bass isn't sitting down there to interfere with it. the hats are pretty loud compared to everything else in the kit and have a lot of initial impact and not much sizzle - boosting their highs a bit and trimming back the initial strike will make them feel louder even if they're not since they'll be in an unused band. i like overall what the drums are playing, too - most of the volume issues are other instruments. the bass has essentially no low end and little attack tone. adding some notched treble to it will help with the finger attack it's got, and not scooping out the sub frequencies entirely will help give it more presence. the writing is great and it just needs a boost. for the rhythm guitar, it needs to be doubled and panned to expand it. this also sounds like it's been mid-boosted. this song sounds ripe for an 80s-style mid scoop job on the rhythm guitar - try putting a smile on the EQ and seeing if that gives some more body to the sound. there's a lot of synths and organ going on in different places, and overall i like the additions. you do use some pads in areas to help fill it in, but the leads are so loud over everything else (1:48ish is just egregiously loud) that all you can hear is the lead instrument and the hats. bringing everything down a bit and then using proper multiband compression will help a lot with balancing the tone out. that will also help it feel louder. the arrangement is great. i like the solos, i like the active bass, i like the drum work. it just sounds quiet and small right now. some mastering love (admittedly this is the hard part!) will help out a ton. NO

lot of interesting attention paid to the initial atmosphere. melodic content comes in at 0:31 (a little heavy in the right ear) and is both immediately recognizable and creatively realized via the synths. i really like the buzzy bass synth under all of the bubbly, undistorted synths above it. the build into 2:08 is fantastic, and the subsequent chord changes to the melodic content are just perfect...i wish i'd thought of the idea! the transition into the original Brinstar theme at 2:50 was also great, love the choral vox behind it. if i'm going to complain about any one part of it, it's that it meanders a little between maybe 3:00-4:00 simply because it goes through a lot of melodic content in a row without a break. a break to the lead synth in there may have helped prevent that, but it's a nitpick at most. there's a great drop beat that flows into an extended ending around 4:20. this is fantastic. what a great track. i have really nothing significant to complain about. YES

i feel the dynamics compare favorably to several other wide-dynamic works that i've heard in the past. the recording of martin's mass by the westminster cathedral choir won awards for its mastering of a highly dynamic work and it has a wider ranger than this one (the sanctus movement is a great example of this if you can find it unaltered, i can send it if you want). the nature of the medium is such that significant variation in volume is a big part of the instrument. also i really want to hear the 7.1 mix on a proper set of speakers.

i agree that this is a cover. the performance is fun and exciting, but there's little melodically that's new and different or re-arranged. some sick drum work though! the keys at 1:35 are super robotic and lacking any sense of velocitization, which is noticeable. there's also basically not a break of the strings/keys playing the melody for most of the track outside the pretty sick guitar lead near the end, which gets tiresome quickly. ultimately the lead work in the guitar might be enough for me to squeak it by on arrangement, but it falls too short on production. agree with MW on production for sure. there's nothing below 70hz and nothing really above about 2k either. it's remarkable actually how little highs there are when it still sounds pretty good. i wish there was more attention on the rhythm guitars, too - it just sounds like a single take and isn't layered from what i can hear, so it's pretty thin. i think that it's a fun track to listen to but doesn't meet our arrangement guidelines. it'd be a sick DoD track though ? Cleaning up the EQing so it has, like, any lows or highs will be a big help. stretching more on the arrangement would help a lot too in terms of meeting our guidelines. NO

what a disparate group of games. i love how this comes together, though. great job picking ideas and representing them in ways that are immediately recognizable but definitely different from one another. this is a bit of a mess in terms of instrumentation and realization, but there's absolutely a great track under this. in fact, i think just fixing the mastering would be enough, although some additional attention to most of the individual parts would result in a really huge upgrade overall. so i don't mind the opening bell section. sounds like you've got a basic pad under a very sine-y bell, and aside from the high notes being a bit too loud it's a very peaceful opening. i lost track a few times of where the measure start was in here - using lower notes to delineate an overall measure structure will help ears keep track of where you are. i like the initial guitar part as well! there's a fun concept of space you're working on here. the issue is that your bass, rhythm, and lead instruments all are a little too similar in tone. i would suggest adding some grit to the lead to make it more distinct from the rhythm instrument, removing some of the bass out of the rhythm instrument, and then make your bass guitar a little more distinct in tone by removing a bit of the highs and also probably using a different style (finger instead of picked would help differentiate for example). lastly, adding some panning or chorus to your rhythm will help spread it out of the exact middle of everything, where it's getting lost. i love the strum at 1:19. the drums sound pretty generic. if it was me, i'd tone them back a touch overall in volume, and use less busy patterns when everything's going on the snare at least (the snare seems to mostly be doing the same thing throughout). at 1:30 when everything comes in, the lead's a little too quiet next to everything else. i'd bring pretty much everything down (rather than the lead up) a bit. i like the simplicity of the strings but they're definitely too loud for a pad role - the rhythm guitar's more interesting, so let that be more in front. the subsequent piano section is nice but everything's the same velocity. bringing the velocities down a bit and letting the volume knob handle how it speaks out will help there. many of your transitions are twice as long as they need to be and serve to highlight your not-real bass and drums. i'd cut them down. the texture at 2:20 is simpler, but again the not-real bass and drums take the fore rather than the interesting rhythm guitar and lead (and later the synth). some more automation in your mastering will help with that. i found the ending to be unsatisfying ending where it did. i liked the arpeggiation going on, but didn't think it needed to change chord or end on such an unsupported chord form. sitting on the root would have been fine there. to be honest, i think it's short for the amount of stuff it covers. you're not really in the song until 1:29, and it's done by 3:05. that's a good feeling to have. to recap - i think volume-wise there's a lot of automation and attention needed, and some EQing to help filter out unneeded freqs in the low-mid would help clear it up. i think some panning would be good - there's essentially none, and you've got lots of instruments that could really be clearer with that - and i think that once that's done, brightening it up a bit with some multiband compression would be the icing on the cake. however, some attention to what things are playing what (like the opening being difficult to follow, or the piano's velocities) will help a ton as well. this is a great start that will be really fun with some workshopping. please do follow through, i'd love to hear it done. NO

wow, only 1.5db of headroom. a turning point?! this is an intentionally difficult choice for a remix as there's only a few motifs to hang your hat on. there's the offbeat percussive sound, the I-bVII-I piano chord pattern, and a bucket of sfx. there's some wind samples initially and the original's downbeats in the piano. there's some attempts at replicating the sfx with orchestral instruments, and some really badly exposed samples of winds. the clarinet and bassoon's attacks just sound very unreal. at 1:07, they're attacking just separate from each other and it's intensely distracting from anything else going on, until the keys come in at 1:27. those keys have zero room effect on them and also sound very strange in a bad way - no verb, right up front in the mix when everything else has more atmosphere on it. it seems so baffling to me that rebecca can have these incredibly handled sections that are so atmospheric like at 2:25 and then put a keyboard with zero reverb right next to it. i think that the source is prevalent and what interpretation there is is more than sufficient. there's a lot of what i'll call adjacent arrangement (that is, taking the original idea and applying various techniques to transform it into something relative but not obviously the same) and a lot of interesting uses of orchestral percussion to keep it different in my ear. the lack of a cohesive soundscape and sample issues are what kills this for me. if rebecca takes a bucket of reverb and slathers it on so that there's more of a cohesive sound to this, it's a pass for me and i'd grit my teeth about the samples. fixing up the sample quality or using them in a method where it's not very obvious they're not real would be even better. NO