prophetik music

what an elegant arrangement, jerome. i fully expected to go into this complaining about too much source and not enough arrangement with that murderer's row of soundtracks, but this was delightful! there's a ton of really beautiful arrangement here, with some really pleasant nuance in how you've applied it to an intentionally sparse soundscape. i hear elements of klaus badelt (first pirates movie soundtrack) and some of zimmer's earlier stuff like atlantis in how you've applied instrumentation. 1:15 is stellar from a scoring standpoint and pleasing from an application standpoint. going from that, i do feel that there's a few parts that are too sparse and are calling for both more scoring background and better samples. 2:09 is screaming for a meaty full-orchestra background to a better brass sample, and so is 2:42. the consistent shift in ensemble is great, though, and it continues to showcase an eye for ear-catching timbres. great work through and through. i'm gonna call out MW and say that there's zero dissonance that isn't intentional and well-placed. the section at 3:25 is clumsy in the melody, but the bassline walking up is an intentional decision to add some stress to an active melody that otherwise is going nowhere. i also didn't feel that there were any awkward key changes - i found the shift at 2:25 to be a refreshing break from a style that would quickly get tiresome if repeated (also, it's the same key!), and 2:47 was strong but actually pretty well executed i thought. that said, i can see why that one would be polarizing since it's a dramatic shift in style that maybe needed a measure or two more of breathing room to make more sense. the mastering on this is poor at best, unfortunately. the panning issue and EQ issues are notable even on a soundbar. i'm guessing your headphones don't have much bass response - or, more likely, that you're using studio monitors without a sub - and it shows. imo this really holds the track back to the point that i don't consider it passable, but i do also consider it to be by far the easiest thing to fix! you've got the hard parts down. if this comes back with less aggressive panning and more sane EQing it's an instapass in my book. NO

nitpick: 7/4, not 7/8, since the tempo of this is pretty fast so it's a quarter note that's being dropped. can't help it =D this is a great take on one of many great themes in FF7. it's interesting because i'd say it actually has less energy than the original, but not like that's a bad thing - the leads feel slow compared to the very fast beats, which is a great contrast and presents the melody in a much less frenetic way than other remixes of this tune use. i love the feel with four on the floor at 2:43 during that build part. it gives a great grounded feel that the chorus really gets power from. i do however agree with MW that the song essentially goes on a bit too long. it probably could benefit from some repetition being trimmed from the restatement of the melody in the saw at around 3:00. minor nitpicks at best. this is an easy vote. YES

this definitely has a Pendulum feel in the drums and leveling. i think the cymbals are too loud - Pendulum is notorious for every drum being just sounding like it's snare and drum only, and that's for a reason - cymbals are grating after a while. i don't mind the drums being a bit louder, and i don't mind the mixup on the beats that you've added. i do wish the kick had more balls - it's got a fairly muted beater sound, and it would be great if it had more treble on that beater sound combined with more meat in the really low freqs to let it kick harder. i agree with MW that the bass instrument is too quiet, and also that it doesn't have enough bass in it. it's mostly high. the arrangement is entertaining, and it's very energetic. i still don't dig the synth guitars but they definitely settle into the mix better than they did before. the ending's pretty blah after so much drive throughout, but as a whole it's fine. i'm a bit torn here. i'd like to see what the other judges say before i make my decision. i feel like the mastering pulls this down a bit, but it's still a fun take on the theme, and we don't expect everyone to sound like a pro d&b group. edit: i've let this one percolate long enough. i really don't think that this is at a level enough to pass the bar on the mastering side. i do think that the arrangement works when you consider pendulum's style (pretty repetitive), but i recognize that it is fairly repetitive even when considering that. i'm going to say that this is a no but pretty close...another pass on the mastering and a bit of additional creativity in the arrangement will put this over the bar. NO

this feels really overcompressed. no one else got that? i got through the intro and my ears were already tired. it feels really mid-heavy, and everything sounds muffled. a great example is the piano at 2:00 - i can barely hear it, and it's breathing heavily with the kick too, and then that descending M7 motif just crushes it out of existence. the thick mastering is unfortunate because there's a really fun synthwave vibe going on around 2:20 onward. it's just so dense still. every new instrument is interesting, but it's just layered on everything that was already there. it sounds like you did a super-hard knee on the compressor and just put everything at the same volume. the mastering's still holding this one back for me. the arrangement is safe but not much, and so it's not going to carry lackluster production. synthwave needs to have that dark yet sparkling feel to undergird the repetitive nature of the bass and beat, and this just doesn't have that. it's just heavy. NO

i remember this one! the dystopian elevator music description fits this one even more, actually. i see no problems with the arrangement, there's creativity in the presentation of the melody, it doesn't clip, and there's variation in the track so it's unique throughout despite using essentially the same few instruments. there's a lot more going on during the track as well. i still don't think it's vaporwave - it's still essentially really out-there nu-jazz - but there's so much silliness with timbres and audio clips that it comes out on the other side of bad-weird to be strangely charming. there's arguably not a lot of procession or forward drive, but the style - vaporwave or nu-jazz or Space Jam or whatever you want to call it - doesn't seem to call for it either. ultimately if that's the hold-up i think it's not enough to keep it back. if this was on an OST for a game, there'd be someone out there who said that this is their favorite track. i'm calling this a yes. will i ever listen to it again? probably not. but it does what we said remixes are supposed to do, and i am not going to let my personal opinions influence it. YES 11/19 edit: ＶＡＰＯＲＷＡＶＥ

hey, what a fun take! this passes my bar easily. i particularly like the vocal treatment - while a few times there's some strains or odd scoops that needed some post lovin', i think it sounds great within the mix and is well-suited to the singer's vocal range and style. i agree with NutS that the background is little more than a bucket for the vocals and sax parts, but that's ok in this style, i think. it's well-executed and doesn't get in the way of the parts that we showed up to listen to, which is all it needed to do. some suggestions to subversiveasset, one saxophonist to another: one thing that'd help from a recording perspective is to crank down your gain on your mic and really play a lot louder. there's several times repeatedly where your tone is soft and subtle, which is great for some styles, but this needs a really wailing timbre which only comes from more air behind your stack. the lick at :51 and others is a great example - it sounds like you played it real quiet and controlled, and then it has to really be cranked up to fit volume-wise, but then it feels odd next to the other instruments which have more body. it'll also give those articulations more bite. lastly - don't be afraid to run your parts through pitch correction, just like a singer. the low end of the upper octave (F-D w/ octave key) is really sharp, and it shows on some of your runs through there. it'll let you focus more on tone and fingerings, and less on perfect embouchure adjustments for those runs. if i'm nitpicking, i'm pointing out that a major seventh up is a huuuuge jump for a singer, especially a male singer going from chest voice to mixed (4:16). combined with a glottal stop (the g in -getting) makes that a pretty hard play, so i'll call that sub-optimal writing. also the entire track has a ton of headroom and can be pushed up easily. as a whole, though, this is a great fun track that features some excellent guest performances. nice work to all involved. YES

this is a notably mechanically inconsistent track from you, rebecca. your strength has always been creating a really nice, lush, rich soundscape, and you do none of that here. the strings are robotic from the get-go, the brass are poorly balanced and awkwardly implemented, and the entire arrangement goes essentially nowhere. there's some clever turns of phrase and repetition to make it not straight in time with the original, but there's nowhere near enough to carry the low sample quality. this isn't good enough in this state, unfortunately. NO

oh, fantastic! google drive, dropbox, or box would work for me, but really wherever is fine.

i agree with rexy's edit that the xylophone part MW is describing does not correlate to the chords in the opening section. in the OST, the chords go between open fifths (C/G) with a fourth thrown in for color, another open fifth (C/G), another C chord of some kind, and then the V in that key (G/D, with more G major in the run). the initial chord progression in the opening sequence is reminiscent in style and articulation, but is a wholly different set of chords (at least at first), initially based in Bb major - Cm (ii), Gm (vi), F (V), Eb (IV). key aside, this went from a minor i-V progression to a standard ii-vi-V-VI progression, so, no, i don't think it counts as OST usage. it's just a harp part. there's not enough correlation. so, this one's DOA unfortunately for not enough source. in terms of song analysis, i agree with MW that the 'intro' goes on for way too long, to the point it's essentially a (really pretty boring) A part to the more upbeat B section. i also agree with the other judges that the last part is turbo-compressed and it really hurts the product as a result. reinforce the source usage, take out some of the compression, dress up the percussion, and give us something else to listen to besides the bass and lead, and there's going to be a much more solid track here. NO

hey all, looking for anyone who might have Global-Trance's old Unmod Sessions or Public Address sets. i somehow lost them after getting them back in 2007.

agreed that it's got some really weird stereo separation - like, the left side is maybe at the 50% left mark, and the right is like 75% right. it's like i'm listening to a set of speakers with my head partially turned. the pumping is really evident on the crash but it's through the whole track. i also agree that it's super similar throughout - normally i'd be for it, but i was tired of the snare before halfway through the track, and it never goes away or changes. i found the different ways you tried to play with the melodies interesting, but ultimately the mastering issues and the lack of textural variation really pull the track down i don't think this is really there yet. NO

just rubber-stamping this one. it's a great, fun track that i want to listen to, but it just doesn't have enough source. i actually like the length, and just feel it needs more source, rather than paring it down to bring up the percentage of wario. it's also really loud, peaking at +1.6db during the sausage section that starts at 3:45. some clipping is ok in this style but that's pretty hard to hear. ultimately, the lack of source usage sinks a fun track. NO

i wanted to review this without caring about timestamps because i feel that there's more like 65% source here, but i think that rexy's listed timestamps are really, really loose, and when it's this close that matters. here's what i got on a more exact listen (let it be known that i went into this trying to find more time, not less). bolded numbers are changed (albeit minimally), and as a whole are exclusively melodically focused: 0:54-1:04 - The blippy synths at the 1:29 section. - 11 seconds 1:12-1:17 - A syncopated piano from Phendrana Drifts. <- this is so quiet, and so minimal, that i think we can't count it. 1:27-1:29, 1:33-1:35 - The sine wave as heard in Torvus Bog. - 6 seconds 1:41-1:55 - The blippy synths at the 1:47 section. - 15 seconds 1:56-2:28 - The constant sine wave throughout the source. - 33 seconds 2:28-2:42 - The blippy synths at 1:47, with the sine wave in the background. - 15 seconds 3:15-3:30 - The blippy synths at 1:47. - 16 seconds 3:40-4:02 - The constant sine wave throughout the source. - 23 seconds that is, 244 seconds total (i trimmed the end a touch), and i have source in 119 (that's including start AND end seconds, not missing the last second), or 48.8%. so that's under the hard timestamp bar. that said, there's some really weird shit going on here, and i feel the best way to approach this is how the panel approached our first non-melodic remix (doug's CT mix that was all percussive instruments), which eschewed melodic focus for a rhythmic focus. i went this direction because the remixer chose as well to eschew melodic (and, frankly, tonal) technique in favor of creating a work that reflects the original. metroid prime 2 was a game that featured a really dark, distorted landscape in many of the areas, and this is clearly reflected throughout with how the composer used a lot of really random bleeps and blurps in the original track. in turn, the remixer reflected this throughout with their choice of instrumentation and tonal center. i agree that essentially half of the first minute is just intro, but the there's a ton more of the sine wave in this work than the composer credits themselves with. for instance, the entire time from 1:17 through maybe 1:24 feels like it's from the original from a rhythmic standpoint, and that pops up in many other places (the opening circa 0:39, 2:44, etc). in other words, i'd argue that the consistent use of that bass instrument's rhythm qualifies it enough to count for more than the time listed, which would put it over the bar, and in turn into evaluation of arrangement quality. that is a lot easier - if we're saying this has enough content, then yeah, the arrangement's great! it's wandering and distorted and occasionally maudlin, but it's a great representation of both the original track and also the underlying theme the remixer's going for. i don't mind the instrumentation and the volume issues rexy mentioned are noticeable but not hindering the experience (i won't say 'enjoyment') of the track. so, i guess it comes down to whether others agree with my interpretation of the bass instrument. if so, then it's got enough, and in turn has a yes from me. if it's not consistent with past judging, then it's below the timestamp threshold, and that's a no as a result. hooray, another question mark! edit: after i talked it over with a few other judges, i think we need to go with explicit source usage vs. the rhythmic focus i theorized above. based on that, there's not enough source, and that's that =( unfortunate since this was a fun piece that really got me thinking, but them's the rules. adding a touch more clear source usage would be totally doable i think, if you feel like retouching this, but i understand if your catharsis from this work is done and you don't want to go back. NO

wow, this is a tough one! there's some really fun stuff in here, and some stuff that definitely isn't where it needs to be. i'll focus on the first statement of the melody first. i really liked the intro's arrangement and lead in. separately, i really liked the bass when it came in at 0:47, and the build to 1:14 was great. i thought that the choice of piano was a great one for the melody, since the nature of the instrument allows the heavy verb to play with the tone over time and make some real beautiful washes of color. the drums in this section are downplayed but serve to provide a framework to prevent it from getting too nebulous. at 1:41, you change character a bit to start transitioning to the breakdown, and that change is solid if simple and uninspiring initially but picks up nicely around 2:08 with more transitioning synths. my main critique here is that a lot of the instruments don't sound like they're in the same place as the others. there's several with heavy verb, which beautifully demonstrates the underwater concept, but you're contrasting them with some fairly sharp synths that don't have any body to them. an example is 0:20, which is fine starting out, but as the notes get longer, you feel that there's no room sound on them at all, and they're just very harsh and standing out. the bass, which i initially liked at 0:47, shows itself as more harsh as the melody comes in, and that also serves to contrast against the looser, more washy background in a negative way. it's a subtle thing but it really serves to drag me out of the vibe you're setting up. picking back up at 2:08 where i left off, the bass synth and snare are both so different from the light, ethereal background that they stand out again. this is a pity because the rest of the breakdown is great! from there, though, i really like the feel at 2:35 when the melody comes back in. i think the bass is still too harsh initially, but as the texture fills out it starts to fit more. i really like the arpeggiated synth on top, though, and that fits into the feel really well - a great example of fitting the synth into the feel more, like i asked for above. and the sidechaining is delicious. really helps settle things back into the pocket. in this last restatement of the melody, i did feel that the piano began to get lost in the texture, even with the synth strings layering it. i love the rhythmic effects on the keys at the end - is that a tight ping-pong or just a fast stutter effect? - but the hard filter on it is a hard pass by me, as it emphasizes the resonance that MW called out a lot, and feels (again) harsh after such a chilled-out recap. i think ultimately, however, that this is good enough to pass. the things i am viewing as missteps are things like the lack of verb and odd choices for synths in a few places, but they're minor and absolutely won't bother everyone. i actually don't think the verb is too much - it's certainly a lot, but i like the application in terms of reinforcing the theme. i think this is a really nice adaptation of a common theme, and it does a good job evoking the feel of the original in another medium. YES

so, essentially, the melody here is based around a whole-tone scale (1 5 4 2) - thanks to Rexy for writing it out (and using the proper note names for it!). this has quite a bit of dressing on it for what's essentially a two-note motif, but it demonstrates consistent and solid adaptation in line with typical motivic development in orchestral works. i particularly appreciated playing with pitch, which is another example of using the source to inform the remix - time-shifting (and temporal anomalies ) often produces strange pitch artifacts, and it's fun to hear that used here. i agree that the mastering is nonexistent - it really needs a limiter (to control that bass tremolo) and volume increase as the other judges have said. once that's done, this is easy front page material. YES, conditional on mastering 6/10 edit: this is better. not perfect but over the bar. YES

they sure used to! i don't know as much about more recently. the trailer looks very interesting. i'm definitely interested in the game to the point of being willing to buy the console if it doesn't go cross-platform (at least eventually, likely not right away).

what a delightful approach to this (for real, no sarcasm here). i'm no stranger to arrangements that break the boundaries - i think when we talked about this right after i became a judge, i pointed out that my animal counterpoint track from the Link's Awakening project was just as much an artpiece as this. personally i love it when people really break down the walls. at least part of that's my background in classical music, where pushing the boundaries is an expectation rather than extranormative. while i know where the lines are as a judge, from a personal standpoint i've always wanted there to be more of a focus on the technical side of arrangement and composition, and less about if it sounds like the original. i can't wait for the first time i hear a track submitted where the original melody is entirely inverted or something and the production doesn't sound like someone's garbage disposal. i'll mash that like button so hard people will think i'm watching youtube. i found this work to be so, so, so interesting, and i loved it (although like others have said i'd have preferred it to be without the processing). the continued attention to using cadential movement to push the work forward in spite of the tempo was really well done. fantastic job. stick to your guns and keep making your music, for you. even if you wrote a thing that everyone hated but did what you wanted it to do, that's growth and a positive thing.

i can absolutely hear the Giacchino influence here. the low moving brass are something i've always associated with him. the flourishes in the flute and xylo at 0:26 and onward are delightful and add some whimsy to the normally dour phrygian mode you're playing with. i like you moving between Cm and Fm to keep interest. the mixed meter is another whimsical addition that is a great way to keep attention, and the varied percussion (vibraslap!) is a fun variation from the usual gong or cymbal crash. the variety of instrumentation for the second theme at 1:10 is nice. i wasn't a fan of the articulation of the brass through this section - too sharp for the volume, but beyond that i liked what it was saying. the transition to 1:51 was nice, too - adding some fury there for the next theme. the mixed meter continued to keep it off-balance and moving forward, along with the sudden unexpected ritardando. there was another Giacchino call-out at 2:25 with the heroic brass leading that part, and some more pseudo-film-score movement with the extra beat/hang at 2:48 into the fast articulated brass sections (a bit of Williams star wars prequels there?). another nuance is that i really like the way you bring back rhythm as a motif throughout - the flourish in the winds at 3:18 is echoed at 3:22 in the brass at half-time. just stellar attention to detail. i think my only sample nitpick is that i'd have preferred the flute at 3:52 to be a sharper tone, so that it continued the Middle Eastern feel throughout the ending. maybe an english horn instead, to tie the ending to the beginning's style a bit? beyond that, i heard no issues with muddiness or uncanny valley that i'd complain about. no one's going to confuse it with a live performance, and that's ok. there's no glaring issues that really jumped out of the texture. i do agree that it's too quiet, and that a bit of compression to liven up the quieter beginning and end would have helped a lot. i don't consider that enough to hold it back. YES

ooh, a fun concept on this one. the intro chiptune bits going into the first big swell at 0:22 are really nice, and it builds great to the first drop at 1:00. there's a lot of fun use of space throughout this entire first part, and i really appreciate the contrast between those rhythmic saws and pads, the very simple on-beat drums, and the sustained tones used in the melody at 1:24 onward. the entire breakdown is really nicely paced and stays with the melody just enough to keep it connected to the more vibrant parts. i agree with rexy that the clarinet wasn't quite as realistic as it could have been. the lack of attack played into that (that verb is really wet!), as well as the lack of breathing room. there's also what i think is actually an incorrect chord at 2:27 - is that supposed to be a b6 in first inversion used as predominant to the G following it? Ab7/C? that's what the strings sound like they're implying with a diminished C chord and a Eb in the melody that moves stepwise in Ab for a bar before landing on a D, but it's hard to tell. either way, the E natural in the piano bites at that Eb in a bad way, and it makes what would be a really fun turn of phrase into just a sour note. it happened again at 2:51, so that's why i think it's a mechanical issue vs. a misplaced note. the last section, from 3:48 onward, is real loud compared to the rest of the piece. the saw sections have been big the entire time, but the focus on it here makes it stand out more. there's another sour note or two at 4:09 (sounds like a flat 7 against a root-position I chord, which is always going to sound funky despite being in the key's pentatonic scale), and like MW said the kick pumps a bit here too. theory nerd nitpicks aside, this is a fun arrangement that is interesting and sounds great. this is definitely good enough for the front page. YES

i started in fl studio 4.1, went to reason 3 for a while, then stayed with FL6 through current. during that time, i went through five OS installations over fifteen years. most of my VSTs and samplesets required installation to have the proper registry keys. if i don't have that particular version, or installer (elastik comes to mind, you can't get elastik 1.x anymore and the later versions don't load consistently on my pc), i can't access my old tracks anymore. so even though i have the project files for everything going back to my last external hard drive mishap (so, ~2008), i can't access most of it without significant work rebuilding the original file with new versions of old synths.

this is just beautiful. this style - light winds, plectral instruments, and pitched percussion - is something you do so well, rebecca, and i'd encourage you to continue to develop this style more by doing more with this kind of timbral arrangement - that is, using instrumental timbres to carry the melodic interest as much as the actual notes being played. it's quite conservative overall, but the nuance in how you move it around the different instruments is great. 2:35's tempo change was a great shift to keep things interesting. i found the EP usage here to be unexpected as well - you'd done so much with acoustic instruments that the addition of more electronic instruments was a bit jarring. that's more a personal preference than anything. alternatively, the stereo echos at 3:55 were a really nice touch. right around 4:10 or so i was starting to get tired of what was going on, and you did your thing at 4:25 to carry me through to the end. it was a nice little swell that gave the track the energy it needed to finish. as a whole, a beautiful and appropriate rendition of a difficult source. nice work. YES

i knew nothing about this game, so the history lesson (and the great ost!) are welcome =) i'll start with what i considered to be negative, because there wasn't much! i really wasn't a fan of the synth at 0:24 - i felt it was way brighter than the rest of the texture around it, to the point of needling my ears a bit. i also didn't like the hard, overlapping cutoffs, which felt clunky. beyond that, overall i felt that many of your leads lacked character or transformation during longer sustains. an example is at 3:10, the melody lead just sits there during each of those sustains. an lfo, chorus effect, or natural fade on those notes would really have added a ton of interest to the sound beyond the detuing effect. since many of your leads were really bright, cutting synths, they really need something during longer sustains or else the sharp nature of their character really cuts through the arrangement and can be distracting or negative. these points are, however, trivial at best. the original melody is obvious throughout, the style is superbly done, and there's a lot of fun things done to keep it interesting throughout over five minutes of music. i particularly liked the breakdown at 2:08, which did a nice job balancing a driving momentum in your synths with lowered dynamics and altered instrumentation. the pitch shifting at 2:33 was delightfully unexpected. i really liked that you took so long to really get back to the melody - nearly two minutes of B section was just what the doctor ordered, and prevented the (repetitious) A melody from getting annoying. this was a great fun listen that deserves the front page. YES

this is only looking at the new version. this is a great original track that adapted really well to the style chosen here. i enjoy the background work and the implementation of the drums and synths. if i'm going to complain about anything, it's that it sounds a bit muffled, and the lead guitar doesn't speak as much in the forefront as i'd like. none of that is nearly important enough to affect the outcome of this vote. the arrangement is fine and the performance is excellent. this is an easy stamp for me. YES

for a fairly non-melodic piece of vgm, you did a nice job making a track that sounds immediately recognizable as the original. i love that blurpy synth that you use throughout as part of that initial octave motif - the lfo on it is great fun. the little drops at 0:47 and 0:54 were well-timed and well-executed. i agree with LT that the copy-paste section from 1:20 onward needed more variety to keep it moving forward. i loved that funky breakdown at 2:01, though, and didn't mind the solo or the change to the initial motif to keep it fresh. the ending was weak, but not to the point i'd avoid passing the track. if you do come back to this, i'd recommend spending more time making that section at 1:20 more unique, and also to play with the drums more to combat that same-y feeling the other judges have mentioned. that said, i think this is great fun, and worth the front page. YES

wow, this is a really high-energy mix! what a fun take on a great piece of vgm. i'm going to approach this primarily from a production and execution standpoint, because i felt that the arrangement was solid. i didn't feel that it was too repetitive, nor did i find it to be tiresome or too esoteric. overall, i think it sounds loud, in a bad way. the guitar is not doubled or panned wide, and as a result everything sounds like it's coming from right in front of me. this is exacerbated because the drums do sound panned, so there's a ton more stereo separation in the drums compared to the other instruments. i'd encourage you to listen to other synth-driven rock tracks that have similar instrumentation. i think you'l find that they regularly are doubling every guitar part, which gives the guitar more body and allows it to set the soundscape like a pad does in less energetic styles. additionally, once you do this, you won't need the guitar to be nearly as much in the forefront, which will allow you to turn it down (so you can hear other instruments clearer), and then reduce the compression so it doesn't pump so hard. i don't want to make it sound like i hate it. this is a fun track with a ton of energy and an interesting approach, complete with a great solo and good implementation of synth work within the style. the lack of doubling/stereo separation in the guitar combined with the really overblown mastering kills this one for me. NO