prophetik music

this track was a pleasure to listen to. you've nailed the aesthetic so well with this - synth work, percussion, the grit on everything, the mastering, it's all fantastic. there's room for the track to breathe in the arrangement, there's a clear and over-arching journey we're travelling, and there's a ton of creativity in getting from point a to point b. this would be an instant classic. i spent quite a bit of time thinking about the arrangement aspect of this one. having been told where the verse/chorus concepts come from, i can definitely hear the influence the original track has on the arrangement. i kept coming back to this in the standards, emphasis mine: so i believe the source material is dominant but not identifiable in this track. the verse section is a great example of using augmentation (a musical term used to indicate the increase of note values, and by extension as its use as the opposite of diminution, the removal of flourishes) to fit into the style. i found the verse correlation to be present but not immediately identifiable since it's so augmented. the chorus section as well uses parts of the correlating section from the original, but only part, and because it's essentially just four or five notes of that section, it isn't even as correlative as the verse section was (which was already pretty loose). counting the verse into rexy's calculations above gets it over 50%, but only just, and only with a very charitable interpretation of the timings. i think ultimately, although i initially didn't want to NO this, i'm going to have to. it's just not close enough. it'd be fine for a project mix but it isn't enough for a mixpost. adding even a little more correlation between your verse/chorus sections and the original's verse/chorus sections without losing the originality and great arrangement you're displaying will be enough for me. NO

haha, i love the initial 20 seconds or so. it's got that classic intro-build into the lead guitar. i also really appreciate the use of timbral variations/arrangement in your synths to keep it interesting without relying on just repeating the melodic theme over and over. there's some really fun little things here and there that pop out of the mix (example: the little bass synth fill at 1:58) and make for a much better package than it appears at first. the vocaloid is gonna turn a lot of people off, i think, due to personal preference. it's simultaneously not clear what's being sung while being bright enough in upper registers to bother me, especially when compared to how dense and dark the rest of the mix is. lifting that around the 2k-3k range with a notch filter will help the pronounciation a *lot*, as will rolling off the siblants in the 8-10k range of 'her' voice. i do think the fadeout's going to bother some people too. personally i don't mind fadeouts. however, it's nearly 25 seconds long and doesn't appear to follow a traditional parabolic curve so it spends a lot more time in the middle of the fade than most people like. if it was, like, ten seconds at most i wouldn't say anything, but this is too long. i think both of these fixes are simple enough to handle under a conditional. a bit of EQing on the voice and updating your fade (start it later, use a parabolic curve, then nail down the silence at the end and trim it) will make for a much more complete package. CONDITIONAL (on fixing EQ and fade)

this is a beautiful arrangement that has some really nice emotion throughout. there's some nice surprises with the arrangement and scoring, and there's some real nice variety in the dynamics. probably my only complaint is that the first 'big' section, from 1:15 through 1:52, the left hand is very dominant in the mix, and it overwhelms the melodic line under these big block chords. aside from that, though, there's some real nuance in the playing overall. pretty easy vote for me. YES

i mean, what was i expecting? of course it's good. there are some sour notes that you may want to consider cleaning up. the first is the fourth in the bass (a D) bumping against the major third in the chord (C#) in a passing tone at 0:47.5 (this happens often and never quite sounds right, possibly due to the pitch bending prevalent in this bass instrument you're using). this is followed by a pile of conflicting notes: a G# and A (7th and octave) next to each other at 0:50 in the bells/ep, and some very strange passing notes surrounding weak inversions of what sounds like a ii7 chord at 0:53 (i think you go to an A under that Bm chord...3rd inversion is best avoided if possible!) while the bass is scooping quite a bit so it's hard to hear where it lands. it was very strange because most of the rest of the the track felt so clean from a chord standpoint. one other odd part in the bass is at 1:12 and 1:36, where it sounds like that's supposed to be a string fall? it's hard to hear the body of the pitch dropping, it just kinda stops (on an upright bass, you'd make that attack much louder to allow the fall to speak a bit to show what you're doing before it faded). i don't know how i'd avoid that without using a better sample, but i didn't think it sounded intentional. note nitpicking aside, there's a lot of nuance in what's going on here for the entire first section. i liked the consistent movement of different parts, and there's a lot of ensemble rhythms which i always am a sucker for. i love the shelving of the parts, too - the entire track is very clear and pleasing to listen to, and it's easy to pick out all the little things each instrument's doing to add some touch to the piece. the transition at 1:46 was great. still very recognizable as the same track but unique and new, and the catch beat you add at 1:55 is fun and set up well without being confusing. the ending wraps the melodic content up nicely in a way that brings it back to the beginning without feeling rehashed. i wouldn't have minded a final chord to help resolve the supporting parts that were moving, but this is still real nice. overall this is a great track. there's some weird notes in the first part but easily overshadowed by a clean track that has a great vibe and fun arrangement. nice work! YES new version edit, 8/11: MORE YES

interesting concept here. i agree that the kit sounds pretty blah, and the keys aren't on the same swing as the cymbals. once the ep comes in, it's a nice take, but it feels pretty rigid. at 0:57, it picks up, and your nice guitar tone starts to come out. unfortunately it's still pretty rigid - i'd love to have more creativity there for your playing, so that you're not just limiting what you're playing to how you can sequence the keys. around here i noticed that the bass is playing some really weird patterns for this style, as well. you're spending a lot of time on repeated notes (even if it's a root, that's a no-no), and also i am expecting to hear a lot more stepwise motion instead of jumps mostly to and from the root note of the chord. i'd encourage you to get more creative with the patterns and notes you're going for in the bassline as often that's one of the most interesting parts of the background. a great example of this that i always say to check out is the bassline in the Cantina Band track in star wars episode 4. it's very stepwise, and during the turnaround gets more creative with some jumps, but it hardly ever sits on a root tone and it's always progressing forward. it's a great spot to learn from. after this, the piano comes in with some arpeggiated content for a bit at 1:12. this is real out of time, or at least more noticeable than last time - the keys have a bit of swing applied but it's nowhere what the ride has or the guitar is playing, so it sounds totally out of time. i agree that the following section is either copy/pasted or close enough that it doesn't matter. adding the saw lead at about 2:20 was a nice change-up, although i'd rather had seen more new content there. after that we're into an outro that's essentially the same as the intro with a bit of whistle bell on top, and a fun extended chord to end it. as a whole - there's some interesting ideas in the arrangement, but they're reused too much, and you're significantly held back by instrument choice/usage. i think there's several things that you could work on to get a much better track overall. adding some more content so that it's not so much copy/paste will help. another, more careful look at what the keys are playing as compared to what the cymbal is rhythmically laying down will help a lot. and another pass on the backing parts as a whole - the bass, the drum patterns, everything - will overall make a much more interesting and solid track. NO

hey, there's some great chops shown off in this! there's some real fun/interesting styles showcased too, starting right away with the switch between that aggressive intro and the jazzy interlude at 0:30. snare there is real slammed and could use a bit more nuance. i agree with rexy and emunator that the mastering is decent but a touch over-loud throughout. i get the stylistic consideration, but it's just too much over the top. i liked what you did with the arrangement. there's a ton of goofiness going on and yet you still got some real meat in the heavier sections.i like the contrast between the synth/chippy sections and the guitar as well. there's just nowhere near enough content to really call this enough, though. taking out the ending (repeated) fade, the opening several seconds of silence, and the sections which sound like they're the exact midi from the game, you're at around 1:30-1:40 of content depending on how you count it. just not enough overall. expanding on a few of these sections would significantly lengthen the track without adding too much repetition, and you'd have a much better track overall for it. right now this is just too short. another arrangement pass and maybe some attention to your output level and this is in a much better place. NO

hoo boy, that is a meaty intro. i love it. i also love how you kept the same driving, aggressive feel throughout the entire first minute and a half. it really sets the tone for the rest of the mix. the arrangement is clear and consistent throughout. i like the consistent attention to the song's overarching form, allowing time to 'rest' from the faster beat during the last section and bringing in occasional breaks to allow your listeners to reset. this is a great track. it features some great skill on the guitar and some fun ideas throughout. easy vote for me. YES

ooh, right off the bat those ensemble string articulations are exposed and not great. the faster moving parts are super-oofy as a result. it sounds better once we get into the main body of the mix, but it never goes away, and it's pretty distracting. overall this is a really interesting arrangement because it feels very Pokemon throughout. it has the whimsy i associate with those soundtracks, yet still is distinct enough from the original to call it something new. the mastering by chimpa really helps this sing out even more. ima rubberstamp this one as needing the pops mentioned by other judges and the ending clip fixed. once that's done this is good by me. YES (conditional) edit 6/29: pops fixed, ending fixed, vote fixed. YES

ooh, there's some really great themes in this arrangement. overall i agree with the other judges that this sounds like a great first pass, but not finished. a great example is the section at 2:18. this is such a great build, and it's a fun take on it, but the leads sound dull, the organ synth is kind of shrill, and the backing parts need like ten more takes to get that wall-of-sound at 2:47 that you're going for and really do that part justice. the riff at 3:03 and backing entrance at 3:08 gave me chills. there's so many fun ideas in this arrangement, it's just not really done to the same level throughout. something that'd help throughout would be beefing up your backgrounds so it's not just clearly a guitar in each ear and the bass/drums/synth combo. some more body and double-tracking will help a lot with keeping it feel as big and epic as you want it to. a critical aspect of medleys like this is that they need to feel organically combined, and that's not always the case here. something that'll help a lot is a total mastering pass to get some serious compression on the track as a whole. the bass tone is ok but it feels pretty small and dull. guitars all feel really scooped out of the highs so there's no sparkle to them. drums sound decent but i wouldn't mind some more attention paid to the kick especially. overall this track needs some significant EQ and mastering love to bring out the best of what you've got going on, and some more body to most of the backing parts. it is a great first take though and i can't wait to hear a bigger, badder, meaner, more complete shot at this. NO

a jazz piano look at this is a fun idea. i feel the whole FF7 soundtrack is real funky, especially early on, so it's a nice concept. just up front, this is a really, really loud mastering job on this mix. the drums are very much in the forefront, and with such a wet piano and very indistinct bass, everything gets cluttered quickly. i feel like if everything was turned down 3db and the compressor's ratio set to something less tight that it'd suddenly make a lot more sense and the overall volume wouldn't change much due to the compressor having some room to do what it's supposed to be doing. the arrangement here is primarily based around a runthrough of the original theme's arpeggio, and then followed by some pretty simple but enjoyable guitar soloing. i liked the interplay between the backing piano and OST arpeggio, and except for a few notes that were close to questionable the guitar soloing helps keep it interesting. the drum parts are well-designed and feel interesting without featuring a ton of polyrhythms or significant fills. there's some looping in there but it isn't egregious. i thought the guitar got exposed as not real when it started mirroring the arpeggio at the end, around 3:55ish, but other than that was well-realized. the ending is disappointing as there's no real transition other than suddenly everything stops. there's a significant amount of the track devoted to the original content the guitar's playing, but this song has a unique enough chord progression (and it was stuck to and reinforced by the piano) that i don't have a problem saying that it's clear what the original is. my biggest concern is more that the arrangement is static for roughly the last three minutes outside of a single 5-second break. there's not much in the way of dynamic contrast or truly transformative adaptation to keep it from getting a bit repetitive. this is a difficult vote. the track's arrangement is enjoyable if fairly minimal and relying on original content, and it does get a bit stale by the end. the mastering is listenable but loud and gets tiring. i like the instrumentation choices, however there's definitely room for improving the overall sound with some balancing. ultimately with another mastering pass i think this one would be OK. i don't know rukunetsu enough to know if this could be handled via a conditional or if he'd be willing to do so, so i'm going to vote a soft NO right now. i'm very willing to change that if there are conditionals coming from the other judges. NO

what a great original track. never heard it before. lush and vibrant. i love the vibe and arrangement through the entire first half. it's also very lush, there's a bunch of stuff going on, and it's very verby, but it doesn't get overly complex or hard to understand what's going on. the slower tempo gives it all a lot of weight which i really like. the build through 2:30 is fantastic and really brings to mind most of covet's effloresce album. when the recap of the melody hits with everything under it, it's got a ton of body and really sings out well. if anything i was expecting to be even heavier there, but keeping it moving and pretty light underneath kept it moving forward, which was great. the spring effect at the end was fun too. i wouldn't mind seeing the last five seconds of silence cut, but other than that this is a great track that is well-mastered and really well performed. excellent job. YES

yeah, this should be a DP =) it's liberal but not overly so, well-performed, and well-produced. the shift in backing parts at the 2:02 mark was perfectly timed and well handled. i liked the inclusion and mixing of the vocal parts as well, they stood out in that they were set into the mix really well and didn't overpower anything while adding a great change of pace when they appeared. easy vote. YES

hey, if this is live, the instruments each sound great! the performances are consistent and well-recorded. i'll note that i thought the hulusi was a clarinet - usually hulusi have more of a throaty tone than a clarinet does. the writing wasn't very idiomatic so it was hard to tell the difference. i expected more of the heavy scoops, trills, and hand vibrato that you see with the instrument. from an arrangement perspective, i'll agree that it's way too repetitive for a sub-3 minute piece. there's little variation in the background, and that's more egregious because you've got two plectral instruments, which can have their strum/picking patterns varied very easily. there's also essentially no ending. i like the concept, but it doesn't sound like more than that yet. additionally, a track that's this open in arrangement just can't support descending seconds like you have at 1:34 for a few seconds. that stuck out like a sore thumb. with everything else so tonal, that kind of significant dissonance is going to be a black mark. from a mastering perspective, i agree that it's tough to differentiate the banjo and guitar sometimes. i'd also point out that the accordion could be turned down several dB and still speak just as well while allowing the background to speak a bit more. this feels unfinished. like i said before, i like the concept, but it doesn't sound like there's enough here to call it finished. flesh out your background part a bit more, make the melodic line a little more yours, and fix the descending seconds, and i think this is going to be over the bar. NO

i agree with rexy there's a ton of bass going on here. the cymbals are pretty slammed too. there's very little if any EQing going on here and it's showing in how everything's just mashed down with the compressor and sounds really dead. i like the lead sound, actually, and i don't mind the tone of the rhythm guitars, but there needs to be a serious pass on the mastering side for this to be passable. listening on other playback devices confirms my suspicions - this is essentially unlistenable on a car's sound system, for example, due to how boomy it sounds as a result. i know rexy said it looks flat across the board, but that's certainly not what it sounds like. it sounds very mid/low heavy and lacks any sparkle or brightness. from an arrangement perspective, this was a fun listen. i actually really like the contrast between the two tracks and agree that they dovetail together pretty well. i didn't mind the backing synth bits you did either, since they're there for some extra body and not much else. i don't consider the arrangement to be particularly transformative but it's enough in my book. i will note that i would call the harmonies at 1:49 to be wrong. you're using a whole tone scale from the sound of it, and does not fit the chord underneath nor the harmonies implied in the original. i don't think the mastering on this is passable in its current state. i like the performance and i like your lead sound a lot! i think it just needs more love with the EQ to get it out the door. NO

not a problem! glad that you didn't dive into something just to be in financial trouble right away after it, too. just think of how much nicer whatever you do at november will be than what you'd have afforded now, with all the deals around black friday.

hey, this is pretty energetic right off the bat. that's fun! it's definitely a close cover with some synth leads to carry the melody initially. i found that synth lead tone to be both too loud and real boring (no lfo or anything that i noticed), but it was serviceable. the track came out of a soloing section to a bridge that felt real strange since it sat on the V and vii?/V for a while. it felt very unsettled as a result of that, but it served as a bridge well enough. after that was a restatement of the theme and then an extended outro featuring a lot of soloing. i liked the solos. they were fast and fun and weren't perfect, which i appreciate quite a bit since it makes the track sound more organic and not as processed. they also were panned but not too much, which was nice. i didn't mind the end's overlapping leads. i thought everything there was clear enough to hear the individual voices. the mastering overall felt pretty clear. it's loud and in your face, but it wasn't too cluttered. i wouldn't have minded a bit more verb/room to the overall tone, as it felt real dry, but it was fine. this is a fun take on a great source. nice work everyone =) YES

agree that there's some sausage here, but while it sounds real loud it doesn't sound bad. i can hear everything and i don't hear waveform distortion that doesn't sound intentional. honestly it sounds like i'd expect something like this to sound. it is a big fatiguing but that's personal preference. i like the arrangement a lot. there's a ton of great examples of how to mix it up demonstrated here, and while the track uses a bunch of sfx, it definitely isn't leaning on them to carry the ear's interest. the breakdown and build from 2:00 to about 2:30 is great, and the subsequent melody lead does a great job taking a theme that's super common and adding some auditory interest to it without adding a ton of notes. this is a great total package. fantastic job. i'd love to hear more from you both! YES

same, larry, i love the original. such an evocative track, like so much of the soundtrack. track is extremely quiet, i'd estimate at least -6db outside of a few spikes and one 5-second section with a lot of bass. intro is pretty nice with the tempo change. there's some fun echoing of the bell parts in the bass pizz. there were some machine-gun effects in the bodhran (?) which were pretty obvious up front but weren't as obvious later. i wasn't a fan of the synth voice never taking a breath, which really hurts immersion, but i liked pairing it with the glock. there were a few nice flourishes underneath too which were nice - like at 1:34 and 1:42. the subsequent melodic handoffs were well-done and well-voiced as well. the bass at 2:45 was nice but very loud compared to everything else. around this point i noticed that the underlying string pads had been essentially the same for a while, but they changed soon after so it wasn't bothersome. the handoff in the melody to the voice at 3:44 was noticeable because that's a real chest-voice sound and the transition from head to chest there and about ten seconds later really stuck out. i also really liked the tempo shift near the end to help it move towards a more lush, passive ending. this does a lot of things pretty well and a few things not as well. i think it's over the bar by a bit. there's great balance throughout, the parts are interesting and new, and there's some fun orchestration ideas. i don't like synth voice most of the time so that's a turn-off for me but i can see most people thinking it was fine. overall, nice work, rebecca! YES

great concept for a remix. love the idea. there's definitely a lot competing in the soundscape throughout. a great example is the vocal synth (even robots need to breath, man, give her a breath here and there!). there's a ton of body to it in the lower/middle registers that totally hoses the guitar when it comes in on the solo at around 0:33, for example. boost the 2.5-3k range or so (vocal formant), roll off anything low, and scoop the mid a bit and it'll actually sound louder since the high boost will carry it better. that's one example. the snare, orchestra, and some of the guitars are all overlapping throughout most of the track and it's causing a lot of mud. notching everything into their specific shelf will really make it clearer while making it even more punchy, which is what it sounds like you're going for. also, a nitpick - you've got a cymbal ring being cut off at the end. maybe give it another second of silence after the track and fade your master to avoid that? beyond that, i agree that there's a lot of copypasta going on here. rexy nailed that there's a ton of repetition throughout, which is an aspect of this genre that can really wear you out fast. i'd heavily recommend thinking about adding rhythms that are new and different throughout to add excitement on the second and third iteration of each section. overall this is a great first effort. some cleaned-up mastering and more attention to the overall repetitive feel of the track would really improve everything dramatically. NO

i don't know what i expected, but wasn't it! i love it. it's fast and energetic and the flow's solid. there's more than enough going on in the background to count it. it's a little quiet but i don't care enough to really hold it against the track. in the immortal words of Vig... [B]YES!:"!#

wow. so, on a personal level, this track is fine. i'd have put it on a project without question. however, this is a great example of the clash between points 4.2 and 4.3 of the submission standards. i consider this arrangement to be substantial enough for the style to be easily over any bar we might set. there's variation, it's not boom-tiss-neener-neener for the entire track like some synthwave tracks are, there's a significant amount of creativity in how the different themes are applied, and there's some real advanced theory going on (paralell fourths in a melodic minor mode, shades of In a Sentimental Mood, eh?). that said, this song is unrecognizable as a BK song, which doesn't mean it's bad, just that it's too far out there for this application. the clanker's cavern riff honestly is too far away to be considered a true arrangement and not just inspired by CC. as that's what the track is based on, correlations fall apart after that. i'd put the actual source usage that's identifiable and consistent at maybe 20%, if not significantly lower. there just needs to be more source in here to really call it. the bassline is too generic to consider that enough to tie it to the original song. i love the concept and execution for what it is but i don't believe it has a home here unfortunately. NO

you're keeping the budget low so there's only so much you can do, really. i would definitely recommend a case that has front and back fans (front pull, back push) to keep air moving, but it doesn't need to be a complex decision past that. pick one with good reviews that doesn't complain about quality and you'll be fine. as for the motherboard, you need a mobo that supports your CPU and has at least one pci-express x16 3.0 slot and two fan headers. if you need wifi you'd need an uncovered pci slot as well probably (uncovered means that the gfx card isn't going to cover it up). the rest is pretty standard. in general i prefer msi motherboards these days but use asrock and gigabyte as needed based on prices and features.

correct. you'd want that cpu since it doesn't come with the motherboard. it comes with a cooler with some basic thermal paste on it so you don't have fool with your own unless you want to (it's cheap and pretty easy, but i get not wanting to do it yourself). there's a ton of great youtube tutorials on how everything plugs in together. just be careful since that cpu has pins and it's easy to bend them =)

hey jigs! so for mobo/cpu, i can't recommend the current ryzen series enough. there's a ton of talk out there but the current ryzen series is stellar and has the infrastructure to be a great cpu for a long time. i'd look in that realm. for cases, if i were you, i'd look at whatever cases have the most reviews on newegg that'll fit your motherboard you pick (likely standard atx) and that newegg actually sells. there's a ton of options out there, but if you buy one that generally has a lot of good reviews it'll be hard to go wrong. you can do similar for a mobo. expect to spend maybe a hundred USD for the motherboard. you can get a great case shipped for maybe 60 or 70 USD as well. for the ryzen, one of the mid-level options would be perfect, like the 3600.

i don't see a memberlist anymore to compare content counts. you can go through profiles by hand based on the leaderboard tab up top of the forum, though.