prophetik music

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stamping this. i love the idea of phases and i'd love to hear an album of distinct phases that are based around game themes, but this doesn't fit OCR's guidelines for posting because it simply isn't transformative enough (i get that's a weighty word but that's the guidelines). would be a great project track IMO however, and is better suited to that scope as well. as an aside, i would argue that adding the original melodic section actually harms this work as it breaks the immersion that phases generate. NO

agree with kris that this sounds like a bunch of opening segments in a row, and it never actually hits. the significant lack of bass is confusing too (guessing your headphones have significant bass representation naturally?). this sounds like a 30-second sound demo that's just repeated. there's not really any true development going on. to be honest, that 30-second demo would be an absolutely dope intro for a track, but it needs to get to the meat. there's no meat here unfortunately. NO

what a weird track for a remix. looking forward to this one. a pad and some some ideophone (kalimba, i'm assuming) and (sounds like live) flute start it off. there's some synth voice (i love the idea but the execution is very fakey) going through the ostinato. 1:22 is a kinda repeat of the beginning, and 1:44 is similar to the beginning section as well with some differences in how it's moved through. there's a very out-of-place panflute (?) at 2:14 that doesn't sound like it's in the same space as the other orchestral instruments, and then some fadeout. i feel like i've said this a lot lately, but this is a weird one. in terms of the original, there's very little recognizable melodic content, and the untimed nature of several of the instruments is a key aspect that's hard to represent in a DAW. there's some really interesting work in how the original's two primary parts play off each other while the bells bumble on in their own time-world behind everything else. in your version, you squared it up to a beat much more than the original was, and attempted to capture a repeating pattern for the 'melody' as opposed to the more exploratory original. i don't feel removing much of what made the original unique both to the in-game situation and to the soundtrack as a whole (the out-of-time background, the weird harmonies, the very un-melodic direction of the whole thing) is a positive. that said, the submission standards require identifiable source material and substantial, original arrangement, not commitment to the source material's context. in that regard, your ostinato version of the vox synth in the original and how you handle it does fulfill those criteria. i don't consider the arrangement to be remarkable however, and the lack of blending by the flute, vox synth, and panflute in the remix are pretty rough. the flute's performance is somewhat uneven from a volumization perspective (the loudest part of the track is essentially just the flute at one point) and has some tone and audible fingering issues, whereas the vox synth's vibrato is so consistent and strong that it actually sounds out of tune when it comes in. variance of the vibrato usage and speed would be much more humanizing if possible. the panflute just sounded very out of place as well - it did not feel it was in the same space at all. this feels like nitpicks, but the entire piece is like six instruments and three of them have pretty clear execution issues. i don't feel the arrangement makes up for it. it's honestly pretty close - the idea that's here is really interesting! - i just think that it isn't quite there. i could be convinced that i'm being too hard on it and i wouldn't be surprised to see other judges vote the other way on it. NO

fun original. lots of creative stuff going on in it. this starts off with some fun synth work that is reminiscent of the detuned stuff that comes in later in the original. there's a lot of aural exploration and playing with different synths - i particularly like how you continue to switch the lead instrument to keep a pretty repetitive melody fresh. this continues through around 2:30. the melody is prevalent through the entire thing, and it never stays in one vibe too long. there's a percussive break at 2:31 with some fun effects on the kick especially. the drums drop (they were getting a bit repetitive so that's good) and there's another big sweep into a new section at 3:20. around here we've heard that four-bar melodic bit quite a few times, so it's getting a bit tired even with the melodic instrument changing regularly. there's some new ideas at 3:31 that give it a much different feel, especially the synth solo through 4:23 (and subsequent C section from the original). there's a shift back to the initial groove around the five minute mark. a lot of what happens after that sounds like what was going on in the earlier parts of the piece, although i don't think it's quite a copy. the remixer drops some synths here and there and then sends it out with a short outro. overall i feel like it's four minutes of music spread over six. there's a lot of shifting around and clever synth work, but it's a short melodic fragment that you're representing and it stays essentially the same for most of the piece. while i think this one's over the bar due to the great presentation, i think you could have made a more cohesive package by actually playing with those modes you mentioned, or exploring switching up rhythms, chords, or notes in that four-bar fragment. that said, the mastering on this sounds pretty good and there's a lot of fun stuff going on, so i do think this one's good to go. YES

lol, a 109mb wav file for 3' 31"...that is high bitrate, wow. some great classical guitar to start it off, and then we're into rock mode. the band sound is solid and fun to listen to. i thought the snare had too little head tone (it's very treble-y) and the kick is hard to hear when the bass is playing. there's some more breaks with the acoustic guitar, and back to the big band sound for a bit (weird note at 1:20), and then there's a significant tempo dropoff. the middle section with the flute is a nice break but it spends a lot of time with at least one instrument being out of time, confusingly. there's a big band section after that again, and the guitar solo just straight up sounds like it's in the wrong key for a while. there's a lot of use of a sharped 4 and a flat 7 which just sounds strange to me. it's lots of notes and fun to listen to but it sounds like it is in an adjacent key (maybe a fourth down?), and it's out of tune to boot (notably at 2:11, 2:21, 2:32, and especially 2:43). from there there's a big blow through the melody once last time and an ending. from an arrangement perspective there's not much time spent on stuff that isn't original, so that's fine. from a mastering perspective there's some little things that persisted that i wasn't into, like the kick being hard to hear in the bigger sections and the snare being so artificially high in the sound spectrum. i found the solo guitar in the second half to be pretty off-putting as well as the middle break being out of time consistently between instruments. a lot of little things add up to make this not quite there. another mastering pass (if possible?) and some little cleanups would help a lot. NO

even for rebecca this track is way, way too quiet. peaks are nearly 5db too low, and realistically this is closer to -12db. i get that it's an artistic decision to be minimal, but there's too many tutorials around how compressors work for her to not be applying a default to these tracks. this is a really minimal original. i'm interested to hear how rebecca handles this. there's some inaudible stuff going on at the beginning, but the initial presentation of 'melodic' material is immediately recognizable. the overall panning is too aggressive (reducing it by half would be appropriate in nearly every instance) - for example the rainstick is exclusively in the right ear and it's used constantly. the violin harmonics are pretty, but they're really obviously looping and sound odd as a result. they also don't fade to nothing like strings should be able to, so the cutoffs not matching the other backing instruments also sounds weird. the added percussion though is (as expected) fantastic, and there's a ton of nuance going on with what they're adding. this is a tough one for two reasons. first of all, there's simply not much in the original, so calling this arrangement transformative is difficult. there's certainly a lot more here, and the added percussion, string tremelos, and other nuances make this a lot more fleshed-out. ultimately i do think the arrangement is pretty good considering what's in the original, so i think that part's fine. the mastering and execution of that arrangement is not well handled, however. this delicate of a soundscape leaves a lot of room for inconsistencies to show up, and we hear that in several places - the heavy panning of several instruments, the various pad instruments cutting off at different times, the obvious looping of the violin vibrato. they are very distracting from what otherwise would be a really neat piece. that's all aside from that you can't hear anything without turning this track up far too much. the claves/toka/stick hits push the max db up far too far - this needs a compressor with a very fast engage and a quick disengage to allow for the track's really interesting sound design to be heard around those unpitched instruments. i'm interested to see what the other judges say but i don't think i can pass this. the execution of it has too many issues that really impede the listening experience. NO

i'm with MW on this regarding source usage. it's prevalent enough for me. also, larry, just cut off the ten seconds of silence at the end and your valuation is fine. the main riff in the keys and bassline just sounds dope. the adaptation from the original arp absolutely makes the track. i love how you keep coming back to that initial presentation as a touchstone and then referring to it in modified forms via rhythmic and harmonic modulation. just a great example of how transformative the genre can be. 3:01's stuttering rhythm really feels great, and i love the leslie on the organ. the drums are continually interesting. the ending is exciting and great. what a track. a mark of a really great arrangement is being able to hear that arrangement in other styles. we see this with great originals that just keep getting arranged in new ways, because of some key aspect that just jumps into your ears and doesn't let go (earhuggers?). in this one, that's the driving keys/bass riff that comes from that arp in the original. i can easily hear this arrangement being covered with a prog band or an a capella group with minimal change - it doesn't rely on instrumentation to really sell it, but rather just great execution and a catchy presentation. fantastic job. YES

funky start to this one. some interesting percs and bass to start it, and once the keys come in it starts to come together more. the percussion samples were pretty old-school and sounded it - there's some weird behaviors there, like how the metal strike is cut by other samples, the hat sounds not really having an attack but being just sorta staticky, and i wasn't really into it although it was doing some interesting stuff. i felt that overall the drums need some real mastering work - their stuff is all over in terms of volume, and the kick for example is very quiet whereas the hats and sidestick samples were way louder. the track kinda does the noodly thing until about 2:03, where there's a stylistic break. i don't know where this chord progression comes from. i found the sfx that sounds like a rising scream to be pretty grating in here. coming out of this is some more noodles going back and forth between a few chords, and then it goes down to an outro that still manages to end suddenly. so overall i have two complaints. the first is an extension of what i said about the drums earlier - the mastering is irregular at best. the drums need more body and volumization, the keys are easy to hear but don't have any room or verb that i was hearing in the mix, and the track overall feels quieter than it actually is since there's no compression that i could hear on it. it'd be nice to have a more consistent concept applied to the instrumentation and resultant mix. the second is that there's a lot of noodling in this track and not as much explicit declaration of melodic content in here. there's definitely parts where it's hard to hear where the original is, even though what's playing is interesting to listen to. to fix this up, i'd want to hear a more consistent retelling of the melody (adapted for the time signature). this could be in the keys or new instrumentation. right now it's just too exploratory to make up for the issues in the mastering. NO