prophetik music

hey, this has some real fun parts in it! i agree with MW that as a whole it's real thin from an arrangement side, but there's some really fun ideas going on throughout. i enjoyed the initial presentation of the melody at 0:32. for an intro section i thought it did a good job laying out the initial melody. i also found the section at 1:25 to be pretty crazy but i didn't not like it, just thought it was in the wrong place in the mix. when that section ends we're nearly two minutes into the mix and have heard the melody once through for about thirty seconds, which means that the mix feels pretty distant from the source at that point. going back to the melody after that was a good refresher, but then it's into another (really cool!) original section that is fun but isn't obviously tied to the source. the restatement of the melody at 2:30 or so is nice but it's the same articulations as it was the last time we heard it, which was a little disappointing. it's also still feeling hollow at that point. the build after this is a nice change from what we've heard, and goes into another chillstep-like set of wubs which is a great contrast to what we heard before. it's also too thin here in terms of frequency range, and then it goes to a filtered piano for an outro which is fine. there's a long block of silence at the end that could easily be trimmed there as well. overall i found the arrangement to be decent but really lacking in bass throughout. i think MW nailed it that it's essentially thin everywhere - there always seems to be at least one instrument missing. the drum programming is fun, the synths you've chosen are enjoyable to listen to, and the melodic content is (barely) enough overall. i think though that it's sounding unfinished next to other tracks in similar styles that we've passed in the past. i think this one is close! some pads and a bit of additive arrangement will really improve this significantly. NO

almost 2db of headroom. right off the bat, there's some real weird EQing on everything, notably the drums. it sounds really, really clogged up, like i'm hearing it through a pillow. there's no highs in it at all, even in the cymbals. beyond that, from a technical perspective, both saxes are pretty out of tune and need to at least be run through some autotune software if not re-recorded entirely. soprano sax is very difficult to play in tune to begin with, more so if it's a straight horn (which this sounds like), more so if it's on an open-chamber mouthpiece (which this sounds like), more so if it's in the lower ranges. neither horn sounds like it has any verb applied either. some room reverb - just a little! - will help them not sound so dry and exposed like they do here. another thing that's a little odd is the guitar - it sounds extra-compressed. are you compressing that significantly and then applying one overall that's also significant? the combination might be why it sounds so pumpy. from an arrangement perspective, i thought that this is a fun concept. there's some variance in the melody and in how you've realized it. i did notice that you play that opening riff with the piano and horns a total of four times essentially the same every time, and there's two sections that follow that opening riff in order without much change at least twice if not three times. while i like the idea of the arrangement, i think that creating a bridge section would help avoid that samey feel, as well as varying up a bit how each section sounds. a common technique in similar songs is to allow one of the lead horns to glam up the sustains with riffs, and that helps with interest during sustained notes (you don't listen to great sax players because their sustains are beautiful!). overall this is a great first run at the track. there's a lot of little things you can do arrangement-wise to really flesh out your ideas and make it more engaging throughout. i'd say also you need another pass with the EQ, compression, and limiter to make sure you're not over-shaping the sound. NO

2.5db headroom. realistically more like 4 or 5 outside of a spike or two. this is another original track with minimal melody. it's essentially a noodle on a sustained pad bass. the primary motifs are the initial movement on the following tones [0-2----0-2-5-----], where 0 is the root and each subsequent number is a half step. i'll be looking for those, as well as the consistent movement to the flat 7 (tone 11), and utilization of tone 1 for contrast. this starts out with some attention paid to the consonants that the synth choir is singing, which is a welcome change from past submissions. it's real loud though, drowning out the other more interesting parts, so it's nice that it moves more to the background around 1:15 before coming back more set back in the mix. the echoing melodic content here is pretty clear and cribbed almost directly from the original, but it's recognizable despite the instrumentation changes, and the significant variation in the background from the original's simple one-note pad is nice. at 2:18 we see the sitar take the lead more. the vox pad is still real loud in the background but it's nice to see some other instruments taking the lead. here rebecca shifts away from the original echoing concept and focuses more on the unique timbre of the instrument, which is a welcome change. as the song went on i started to notice that the echoing, panning background woodblock hadn't really changed throughout, and the other sounds (the sleighbell, the string pad, and a few others) really weren't changing much at all. this highlighted to me that for a track that is over five minutes long there's very little different between the beginning, middle, and end. it's essentially the same instrumentation doing the same thing at 0:30, 2:30, and 4:30. the static nature of the scoring and arrangement, combined with the heavy reliance on an average-at-best choir synth, the lack of compression, significant headroom, and an overall lack of personalization on the melodic side of the house make this barely below the bar for me. i would need to see more arrangement in the melody and some more varied background before i'd consider this one 'enough'. NO

yeah, i agree this is a pretty loud track. the drums are real loud throughout (especially the kick is just huge), and the sidechaining at 1:00 is also really distracting. there's some fun things going on though, between comping over the chord patterns, some of the subtractive stuff around 1:30, and the soloing on the melody at around 2:13. i do think it's tiring to listen to however due to that kick being so huge. the ending is just kinda there. everything sort of just stops at 3:00, and what's left is not an ending as much as a rendered tail. outside of that, though, the arrangement is great. my main concerns are with the mastering, and after a few listens on a few sets of headphones i think it's not enough to reject based on that. i think this does clear the bar. YES

yeah, the initial presentation of the melody just sounds so good in this style. nice work realizing it. i really like the meatiness of your kick particularly. there's some good personalization of the leads throughout and there's some nuance in the background so it's not just supaslammed sidechain the whole time. i like the lfo synth at 2:04 a lot since it's a good example of that kind of variation. the drop at 2:32 was well-timed and does a good job setting up the meter change for that section. it's a nice change of pace and allows the last recap section to feel more frenetic since it's back into duple meter. overall the arrangement is great, and while there's some heavy sidechain on this i didn't feel like it was too much or over the top throughout. i also didn't think the mids or leads were congested or buried at any point - i was able to track the melody without too much trouble. it's certainly a bit quieter at 2:06 compared to other sections but it wasn't nearly enough to prevent it being passed. this certainly feels like something from 2002 (in a good way!). my biggest nitpick is the ~10s of silence at the end, which is an easy fix. i can't wait to see it on the site. YES

fun SMG track - really energetic. never heard it before. up front - there's a few seconds of silence at the start, 15 seconds at the end, and it's got about 6.5db of headroom. so some simple fixes would need to be made if this passes. after a brash intro, the track is an adaptation to a bossa or big-band style. there's some nuance in the melodic content and the backing tracks are pretty well-done for the style. melody passes around between instruments. i like continued attention to variation in the level and complexity of the background parts, and the mastering is realistic in terms of pan and verb for a live performance. at about 2:04 we see the shift over to the DK64 track. i'll be real honest - i didn't see how this wouldn't be a jarring change when looking at the submission, and yet i didn't notice the change between sections for almost a minute until i realized that the melody wasn't SMG anymore. bravo. talk about an organic transition. this is a great downtempo section contrasting the opening blow. the sax swell into a fuller rendition was excellent as well, although i was expecting more variation to the melody from the original based on how you'd done the first part. the tempo change into 3:56 was nicely handled. the change in style continued to keep it fresh, and the addition of ensemble stops was a nice way to freshen up the smoother writing you'd used in the previous section. the part at 4:44 where you've got each major section and the keys all doing something different is fantastic. i can clearly hear each section by themselves and it's well-handled to allow each their little snippet. it's a little heavy in the left ear but not overly so, and it's an appropriate thing considering the simulated-live layout of the group on the sound stage. if the trombones were more middle it'd balance out a little better, but that may mess with the stereo separation depending on how you implement it. the final blow at 6:27 is great. love the trumpet flip and the also sprach zarathustra-esque brass chords under the pinned trumpet note at the end. this is a superlative arrangement. what few technical issues i had with it are minimal at best. if we remove the silence on each side and amplify it (a touch of compression to bring up the quieter middle section wouldn't be amiss either) this is easily postable. YES (conditional on levels and silence removal) update: the new version is great. consider this a YES now.

what an interesting source choice. after listening to it, i'm going to say that there's little here to actually call melodic content. there's a consistent use of the #4 in passing, there's a few specific rhythmic elements, and there's what passes for chordal movement around 2:30, but that's about it. the intro section, through about 0:45, i'm not a huge fan of. it's essentially just orchestral flourishes over a few sustained chords that aren't particularly idiomatic for the track. the section after that though has a lot more recognizable parts - the three-note rhythmic motif, some of the extended arpeggios, and the chordal shifts between a I and bVI are nice. i also appreciate the attention paid to varying the leads. along those lines, there's a lot of variation in the instruments burbling up in the background, which is also nice. i wasn't a huge fan of the tremelo string pad that was used throughout, though, i felt it was pretty overused by about halfway through. i didn't think the piano was particularly well-realized. most of the flourishes were too mechanical and didn't have enough nuance to the variations you'd see in the velocities on the interstitial notes. it also didn't sound like the keys were in the same space as the rest of the instruments. the arrangement wraps up pretty nicely overall, continuing to play with tonality and still emphasizing that #4 that was predominantly featured throughout. the arrangement is pretty well-done considering the nature of the original track. i consider it to be transformative, substantial, and original enough that it's standing apart from the original without being unrecognizable. if it wasn't so comically quiet, this would be a clear yes. as it is, i am going to mark this as conditional on levels. YES (conditional on levels) 6/10 edit: the updates to volumes are fine. this is now a YES.

hey, the initial presentation and melody sound pretty good! there's not much arrangement, but i think you did a nice job making it listenable with a limited sound palette. i agree with MW that it's limited arrangement at best through that entire first presentation of the original. 1:33 is where it starts to get some original content, primarily through some much more creative interpretations of the melodic content. i appreciate how you add in a lot of flourishes without losing what made the original good. overall, i do also think that this isn't there yet. more than half the song is essentially cribbed straight from the original, and that's going to make this need to be rejected right there. there needs to be your own spin on this. we both agree that the original track's great, so make that shine by bringing out the parts you like the most. i'd recommend starting with the background, which you don't really change much at all. toby's background is real funky and fun, but i'm willing to bet with more attention you can make something that's more you and isn't a direct copy. a real ending is another thing that'd help a lot. more arrangement will do wonders on this one. NO

well, the beat itself sounds fun for a few seconds, but the hard pumping is so tiring to my ears that i'm done with it after maybe 30 or 40 seconds. i liked your samples, and there's some cool concepts in there, but the really heavy compression is hard to listen to. there's a fun change at 0:50 to bring in a B section, but then it...just sorta repeats three times and ends? if there'd been just the A/B section with a refreshed and more unique A section at the end, and it was 2:15 long, i'd have considered it. but this is essentially a minute of music scraped over three and a half minutes of bread, and that's not enough. the synth voice at the end was also surprisingly and uncannily not-good. the pitch fluctuation in there is not something i wanted to hear, let alone hear multiple times. i think you've got a great initial groove if you tone down the hard compression on it. i also think your b section was pretty fun. if you dress this up some more - mix up subsequent sections, make the melody more your own, and figure out a better ending - this is a significantly better effort. NO

agree that this is far too quiet to really be considered as more than for a conditional. some interesting instrumentation choices right off the bat. the talking drums are a fun idea for the style. the glock felt pretty odd since there was no verb on it compared to everything else, and it was used in a pretty non-idomatic way as well. overall it did still feel like something from the Narnia soundtrack, and had a nice feel of wonder. the arrangement however was nearly note-for-note with some flourishes. at 2:18, the change to major was very surprising but unfortunately the plectral instrument (is that a harpsichord or cimbalom? can't really tell) was a poor choice since it puts that major third next to the fourth, and it sounds wrong as a result. still the change to major was refreshing since it shows where you started to be more experimental with your arrangement. it's still really, really conservative, but at least you're not just restating the melody on the same instrument ad nauseum. the upwelling of strings at 2:59 and again at 3:28 were both really subtle but pretty - it was a nice way to add support to the melodic line. as a compositional technique, if you're not going to do much with the melody on an arrangement, at the least you can vary what's carrying the melody. timbral arrangement is very much a thing and can add a lot of color and unique texture to an otherwise stale arrangement. i would encourage you to explore that technique more. i don't feel it would have saved this one entirely, but it certainly would have been a significant help. the technical missteps in the mastering combined with a too-conservative arrangement both mean this isn't close enough to count. I thought it was a pretty piece, but it just doesn't meet the guidelines. NO

i agree with MW that this is essentially a cover. there's a few very minor changes but nothing close to transformative. as a reminder, here's the pertinent guidelines from our Submission Standards document: beyond that, the detuned piano sound is consistent with a bar's upright piano, and i'm guessing that's where the sample concept came from. i do agree that when the arrangement is this sparse there needs to be extra attention paid to the environment, and it doesn't sound like they're all in the same place here. this doesn't have enough arrangement to be considered at this time. NO

good call on the similarity, mw. it's really obvious now that you point it out. i found myself unconsciously thinking 'dracula' throughout. what a fun initial wash at 0:15. i love your initial presentation. the arp that comes in at 0:32 is a little loud compared to everything else, but you tone it back when the melody comes in. i found a few of the original's notes jarring in this context (like the lower note in the melody at 0:58 is a half-step away from something in the arp), but as a whole it worked with the chord structure you used here. another instance of some notesy things is like the chord at 1:25 which sounds like an extra note got included unintentionally. nothing that was really huge. i liked the pickup coming out of the breakdown at 1:37, and enjoyed the subsequent build (and snap! love it!). the melody restatement at 2:10 did feel like it was the precursor to the end though so i was surprised when i realized there was so much more after that. there's some more notesy stuff going on in the background arp at 2:46 - guessing it's the delay or verb tail of that arp conflicting with the actual attacks as it's moving between chords. it wasn't that big initially but it started to bother me more and more as it went through this section. not a huge fan of the fadeout either. the track sounds fun and is enjoyable. i think that some people will pick up on the crunchy notes and be turned off but as a whole it was good enough to pass the bar. YES

about 6db headroom. really ethereal source. there's a fairly basic motif that shows up a lot (5 b7 1) with a third tacked on occasionally. i'm going to use that as my primary source material here because much of this is noodling around that, and there's not a true melody here. based on that, there's enough source here that the original is recognizable. a few of the OST's noodles show up here as well without being directly copied from the sound of it. the fakeness of the choir jumped out at me right off the bat. i like what it's saying but it just doesn't sound great how it's being used. that said, i like the combination of pads, EP, and windchime-like sfx for the opening feel of the track. there's a clear change at 1:54, where the brighter EP comes in. it goes to more of a synth-string pad throughout while staying very textural. it continues to noodle for another minute or so and then hits a final pad fade that takes nearly 30 seconds. overall, it's a pretty piece of music, and i personally like this kind of timbral arrangement where it's more about the colors used than what's being said. i thought about this one a long time and ultimately came back to this part of the submission standards. underlined emphasis mine. ultimately, looking at this list, i realized that i couldn't pass this as it's just that repeated motivic noodling (which is beautifully rendered and nice to listen to) over a straight pad the entire track. the pad shifts slightly here and there, and it brings in new timbres occasionally, but there's essentially no compositional techniques used here. this is, at its most basic level, a cover with a bit more attention paid to the melodic line. there's no change in what carries the melody, no changes to chords (if anything they're simpler than they are in the original), the same tempo, the same key even. even the use of pads to fill the space between the minimal melodic content is the same. as i said before, it's a lovely adaptation to listen to. it's well-volumized, the choir works after the initial jarring entrances, the use of synth-string pads is nice to listen to, and i liked the use of electronics alongside more traditional instrumentation. i do not feel however that it reflects the level of arrangement that we require for it to have a place here. it needs more to recommend it and make it unique from the original. NO

i didn't realize it'd been this long since i've posted here about this, but i'm still doing this. so if you need a new machine to work from home with, or you want to use your upcoming stimulus/ubi check to play some phat games, let me know and i'll get you hooked up. i have more time than what used to be normal thanks to working from home, so i still am actively doing this.

what an interesting take on it. it actually sounds pretty good right off the bat too. it's definitely immediately recognizable and the synthesis done shows a ton of patience and care taken to simulate traditional dynamics. the section breaks between the throbbing bass and the smoother orchestral parts are great as well and really mix it up. the ending - simulating open strings on a cello - is a real cool stylistic adaptation and does a good job as punctuation at the end. i can hear some of the white noise that MW is not digging, but i actually don't mind it at all - it gives it a body that i think it wouldn't have if there wasn't anything in that range. i also didn't think the leads were too covered up - they're pretty noticeable every time they're going. there's one or two points where you could say they're quieter than they could be but as a whole i thought it sounded real nice. if there's a complaint here at all, it's that the arrangement is really conservative, but i think there's enough to make it by. i fully expected you to blow the doors off with some huge chorus at the end but it just stayed as this intense, brooding, driving feel, which is real fun considering how kratos is in this game compared to past games in the series. i feel like this is a pretty evocative synthesized version of the original. i like it. YES

this is a pretty spare original, but you've done quite a bit with less before so i'm interested to see where this goes. the intro seemed long, but i liked the additive nature of approaching such a simple source 'tune'. the first lush chord at about 0:35 was really a fun change, and the continued use of chromaticism in the background was a nice approach to a melody that featured tritones. the rhythmic section from 1:24 through maybe 1:34 was a little odd at first, but it really fleshed into the best part of the track, which is the flute flourish into solo over the top. as a whole i liked the realization that you did. from an arrangement perspective, there's not a ton of changes made to the original (if at all), but the additive stuff you brought in did a nice job keeping it interesting. from a technical perspective, the track is pretty muddy (there's a lot of fast low runs in the bass) and the track needs compression to help some of the quieter parts stand up to the eventual louder sections of additive arrangement. it also has ~15s of silence at the end. as a whole i do think this is over the bar. i'd love a better-mastered version but i think i say that about all of your tracks. the arrangement is organic and approachable and there aren't glaring mastering issues holding it back. trim the silence at the end and this one's ready to rock. YES (conditional on removing silence) edit: silence removed, this is a YES

the first 24s are a straight copy of the original. after that, the real track actually starts, and it's a pretty simple but competent realization of the track in a bigbeat/chill style, and then it alternates between those a few more times for the rest of the track. i'm not going to address straight rips, but they're less than 50% so it's not officially against the rules. the bigbeat sections are very simple in that they do adapt the melodic and harmonic content into a stylistically consistent feel, but there really isn't any adaptation or movement in the piece other than that. so i'd say that the arrangement isn't enough - there's no progression or direction other than making the backing strings into a stutter synth and a bit more. the lack of an ending is also a negative mark here - there's no adaptation to making it a track that ends as opposed to being a looping track. in terms of the mastering, i thought it was a little bass-heavy, but that might be a personal thought. as a whole i thought it was good enough. it pumps a little when the kick isn't playing, but it's competent enough to pass muster without being overly tiresome or heavy-feeling. if you spend more time making the arrangement yours and not just transcribing the original, this would be a lot more solid of a track. right now there isn't enough arrangement to call it a remix. NO

up front - the mastering on this one is not great. there's a desperate need for compression across the board. so this is a no right off the bat. i don't know quinn well enough to be able to say if they'd be able to hack a conditional for this level of mastering work, so i can't go that route. throughout the first minute or two, there's overall a pretty interesting old-school feeling to the background, which is cool. i liked the brass chirps and the attention paid to volumizing them into having some semblance of performance in them, and chill beat was nice. i wasn't a fan of the bird-chirping synth that came in at 2:08ish at all - it was really jarring and hard to listen to. overall i found the track to be pretty meandering without as much connection to the source's melody as i expected. the mastering as well is really, really poor throughout...it sounds like this was mastered on a set of headphones that doesn't have any highs and boosts lows naturally, because there's essentially no bottom and 100x more highs than anyone wants. some compression and a volumization pass is desperately needed as well as it's not really something that i can listen to again right now. NO

yeah, i don't think this worked as well as you'd hoped. it feels pretty sparse in a bad way - like a backing track for initial recording that'll get fleshed out later after some live stuff gets layered in. the synths are generic in a bad way and the mastering feels pretty flat. this feels like a step back from the attention and care taken with a lot of your previous arrangements. you've shown an ear for unique sound design in the past, which is great, and could absolutely be applied here to flesh this out more. there's just very little body to this track as it is, and not much to recommend it on subsequent listens. give it some more character and fill in the track more, and this will be on the right track. NO

hey, there's a lot of nuance here. i really appreciate the attention paid to the blurbs that come in and out (the slide guitar, wind chimes, etc), and to the marimba lead's variance of rolls. the countermelodies are nice and there is a ton of little things that come together to make this nice. i didn't mind the background being pretty static considering that it's short. i wouldn't have minded a bit less seabirds but that's more personal than anything. i agree that it can't be posted in this state - it's really more than 5db headroom, that's exclusively due to the bump at 2:30 due to resonance, it really should be more like 7 or 8db boost. the ending's fadeout in the lead is weird as well. boost it and maybe adjust the ending and we're there. YES (conditional) edit 3/26/2020: these fixes are good by me. updating my vote to YES.

more musique concrete? yes please! yet another great concept here. this is definitely an interesting and niche application but i think it actually turned out being something really interesting. i love the chopped tail effects being used, and the layering of sliced piano chords on top of organic piano sustain is really a great contrast. i didn't mind the pink noise being used at all, although my wife found it grating (we have very different listening profiles in terms of genre). from an arrangement perspective, there's definitely enough going on here to make it clear (once i knew the source) what the melodic content was. i'd argue that the original melody is at most four repetitions of the initial chord cluster, and this track has that in spades, so from a content perspective it's enough. the arrangement comes from all the ways that hudak glitches and goofs with time and pitch. again, more than enough. as someone who didn't mind the high freqs, i'd argue that this is a superb realization of a very simple original track in a style we don't do enough of. if anything, i'd love to have seen more weirdness - more pitch shifts, more temporal shifts, more clicky stuff - as similar tracks in classical music often have way, way more experimentation. this is very tame as a result, but still very accessible. a definite yes from me. YES

the mastering on this one's pretty not-close overall. even for the style everything is super mashed - it's so over-compressed that the instrument pumping is almost painful. this is a shame because i actually think it's a pretty fun take. i am usually not a huge fan of SFX in remixes but they work in here. i also like the grit overall, but there's just so much mulch being made of most of the synths (especially at ~3:00) that it's hard to really hear what's going on. i like this arrangement a lot and i like the concept a lot. the mastering is not good and needs a significant rework. if you do that this is an easy vote. NO

surprise, i love this original track. right off the bat i love the synths you're using. the pad is great, the bass blurps are very evocative, and the electro pizz string is on point. it really got me into the mood. your choice of synths throughout is varied and enjoyable. the arrangement is solid and consistently transformational, so that's easy enough. from a technical perspective, this is overall really solid. my only complaint there is that the descending synth that's used heavily in the last minute or so gets pretty loud compared to the rest of the background (notably at around 3:28), and it takes over the soundscape to the detriment of the melodic content there. overall this is a great representation of letting the source influence the style and arrangement. the driving bassline and synth drums really clearly are derived from the militaristic vibe you get from the Black Waltz and also tie into the overarching theme of synthetic self-identity that vivi struggles with. it's an informed choice to tie these together - great work. YES

i really liked the intro to this. it's a real fun setup to that first hit at 0:42. similarly i really enjoyed the deconstructed drop into 1:35, which really set up the super-digital 90s-esque melody presentation at 1:35. the delayed section at 2:20 was pretty hip too, although i admit i was feeling that the bass was getting a little tired by that point with how present and repetitious it was. bringing the pain back in at 3:05 was a great way to get back into it. i enjoyed the overall use of padding and instrumentation to allow some sections to be huge and others to be still impactful but less so. i thought the ending was fine and i didn't think any part of the arrangement was over-repeated too much (which when you use an aggressive synth to play a repeated arpeggio throughout is a pretty difficult thing to accomplish). my complaint is that it just doesn't sound big, or loud, or powerful. there's little bass response throughout and the mids sound really, really overlayered to the point that nothing sounds big. if you turned everything down by a few dB and then fixed your limiter settings, i think you'd get a much punchier and more powerful-sounding piece. right now it is such a fun concept, and i love the synths you're using, but the mastering makes it all sound really bleh. if you make another mastering pass on this and can make it be punchy without the squashed mids, this is an easy pass. right now it's not there yet. NO

the opening is simple but pretty. there's some clearly non-idiomatic usage of instruments in a few places (the choir synth at 0:45 for example, repeats a few times). another example is the piano at 1:19 that just keeps hammering the same chords without varying velocity. keeping the melody in the flute for over a minute at the beginning is kind of tiring after a while too. the men's choir at 1:55 and 1:56 has some false attacks that sound like mistakes rather than intentional fuzz, as well, and it didn't sound great to begin with. in general, the flute lead's vibrato is exactly the same as the tempo of the piece, which for me at least is really distracting and emphasizes how robotic it was 'performed'. this may be personal though so i'm not counting it against the track. this is a weird one. i agree with MW that it's definitely different from the original while simultaneously being really similar. the realization execution of it is fairly straightforward and won't blow anyone away with the humanization (if anything, it's under-humanized in the leads and keys). i found the arrangement to be quite conservative in that the piece is driven by the same rhythmic concepts and that it really doesn't introduce anything new. the mechanical execution is fairly lacking in that the only dynamics come from adding layers vs. via scoring, and the work's levels reflect this by staying at about -5db until the big swell from 1:15 through 1:40ish, and then dropping down to there again for most of the rest of the piece. a better job of compression would add a lot more verve to the sections that didn't have many instruments playing simultaneously without sacrificing the nice texture that those elements present with right now. one of my standard ways to measure a track is if it's saying something different than the original. it doesn't necessarily need to be 'better', but it has to say something. i don't feel like this track is saying anything new. it's a restatement, but i'd argue the work is less as a result of that restatement rather than more. this needs...anything, really, to make it be it's own track and not the original with some glock and a new lead. a personalized look at the melodic content, some chording alterations to say it in a new way, a significant change to the original's scoring, time or tempo alterations...anything to make it something new, to demonstrate some compositional technique being applied. if this was flawless from a mechanical and realization standpoint, i'd consider it as a borderline, because there are changes here, technically speaking, and the track is a nice listen. i don't think that this is near that yet though. NO