prophetik music   Judges ⚖️

originally i NO'd this due to bad mastering. let's see how it's doing on a second take. sounds like there's some more distortion applied to several of the synths, and everything's handled a little better from a mastering perspective. there's still not a ton of bass that i can hear outside of the kick (at least on these headphones), but i'm really digging the gritty, rough approach. the detuned synth used in the last section is a little offputting but that's more personal preference than anything i think. it is mastered really loudly, but i don't think that's a negative for a track focused on a dark electronica approach. i think this is pretty meaty and i like the changes. it might be too loudly mastered for some but i didn't think it's holding this one back too much. YES

as expected there's some fun sound design here! the bells, kick, bass, and 'glitter' all were immediate reminders of the 80s, so that's fun. i was real surprised though that there's essentially nothing in the lower mids for most of the track. you've got the bass, and then the next thing up is a shimmery pad that's only there sometimes. it leaves the soundscape feeling real hollow and shallow. when you got to 1:52 there finally was something in that space. i liked the evolving concept but it felt really washed out since everything was just ringing and ringing and conflicting against itself. then 2:45 happened and i laughed out loud because it was so randomly placed compared to other stuff around it. i 100% agree that something to mix it up was needed there but it needs to be more than ten seconds of rawk =D i think overall i agree with MW's criticisms - it sounds the same the whole 4+ minutes, with a similar beat (there's some hats and a ride used but overall it's boom boom tiss for most of the time) throughout and some fun synths that are fun initially and tiresome after a few minutes. i'd love to hear more variety in this, especially given how much you like to play with creative synth choices. NO

i really liked the attention paid in the intro to spacing. the piano was also well-used to fill in the chords without making it the focus. i found the double reed with the melody around 1:45 to be a bit strident - try doubling with something else that speaks better rather than trying to just crank the volume on it in the future. i agree that it's quieter than the 2db headroom suggests. some compression would be great. this one comes and goes pretty quickly but does a nice job realizing two songs in a beautiful orchestration. a bit of compression to liven up the earlier section, or at least an overall volume increase, and i think this one's a go. CONDITIONAL (volume) edit: updated volume sounds fine. i'ma call this good. YES

yeah, i agree with most all of what MW said. there's a lot of non-idiomatic writing here, and the samples are pretty limited. you are very adventurous with what you have, and that's really hard to do! i appreciate the attempts. as a whole it sounds like everything has intense compression on it to make it feel 'loud', and i think that's exacerbating the low-quality feel of the samples overall. the arrangement is pretty adventurous, which is pretty hip. i liked the unique combination of instruments, but agree with MW that it doesn't have the depth we'd assume an orchestral (or orchestral rock) concept would have. i definitely recommend spending some time in the workshop as this sounds like it'll need a few iterations to get up to the OCR bar. NO

about 3.5db headroom. feels pretty quiet too. this is a difficult vote. on one hand, i like the arrangement a lot. there's some real fun tonalizations in there with the intentional shift in modality, and i like that. the flowing piano feels nice. the instrumentation is an interesting combination as well. on the other hand, the instruments are poorly balanced - the bass is hard to hear throughout, the crotales are recorded and played in an non-optimal fashion (they need room sound and a thicker striker or else they exist solely in the higher frequencies with no actual attack tones), and the variation between the pizz and sustained tones by the nyckelharpa (i've never heard one plucked before!) were significant. notably the sustained nyckelharpa was pretty thin - thinking the mic was too far away from the bridge. lastly, it's very short - the track really starts around 0:03, and it's essentially over around 1:57 with 20+ seconds of fade-out. it's hardly longer than the youtube demo track. they get a lot of arrangement into a short package, but i don't know if it's really enough to call it substantial (to use the wording of the submission standards). i think the negatives outweigh the positives. if the levels were more even, the nyckelharpa and crotales were better recorded, and the track was another minute longer, this would be an easy yes. as it is, it feels like a first draft. NO

there's some really fun ideas in the execution of this one. there's a lot of attention paid to glissandi, fills, the articulation and length of individual notes in the lead lines, and other performance nuances that i really appreciate. this is particularly cool because the samples in question aren't very good but the extra love on them really raises the overall bar in spite of those lower-quality samples. the arrangement is pretty solid. you do a nice job bringing in each of your sources and you don't sit on any for too long. the one part that i really didn't care for was the >30s fadeout at the end. there's a ton of great standard endings for dixeland tracks - shave and a haircut comes to mind! - and i'd encourage you to look there. a fun ending to an upbeat track is the tail on the donkey to a lot of people, so sending it out with a bang is preferable to ending with a whimper. overall the samples aren't near good enough though to call this one postable. notably, the brass are very blatty when they're in the background. the off-beat trumpet stabs, the sustained trombone in the supporting parts, and a few times when the trumpet's the melody, the velocies used are just too strong and it results in a very blatty, obnoxious tone as a result. adjusting channel volume vs. instrument velocity should help correct that a lot, along with adding tiny spaces between some of the notes to imitate jazz articulation would make a big difference. i think this one is real fun to listen to! some improvements in the sample quality would make this an easy vote for me. NO

what an interesting idea for a remix. the vocals sound like you're worried someone's going to wake up if you give them more air. they sound really unsupported. more air wouldn't dramatically change the volume or quiet timbre you're looking for, but it would make it so it doesn't sound like you're whispering. that would also allow you to turn down your overall gain, so that it fits into the track a little more comfortably. right now they're much louder than what's around them and so it's hard to hear the background around you or the ocarina playing (the ocarina really cuts through a lot). all that said i love the duet between you and the ocarina, with you two trading off back and forth. it's a very thematic concept, allowing the game to inform the music, and i thought it was really clever. i didn't have any issues with the lyrical content (or lack thereof). speaking of the background, it's notably minimalistic. there's some very light harp, some aleatoric bamboo chimes, some glock, and the harmonizing instruments. i found it to be really well-realized apart from a few of the violin runs, and i enjoyed the interplay between the parts. i also found the ending to be long (albeit interesting). the song essentially ends at about 3:47, and then noodles for over two minutes after that. the ambiance that you create here is really pretty interesting, and i liked to listen to it, but it didn't make much sense to be in the track for more than maybe 30 seconds at most since past that you're really losing what it was that you were listening to. i think i get what you're going for - "have you lost your way?" as it fades to nothing implying that we're lost in the forest - but it's a little tedious. maybe if you put some of this in the beginning to help frame the track more? as a whole this one's a tough vote. i think the vocal parts aren't well-supported or particularly well-recorded, and the lower-quality recording grates against a really very accurate background. there's no compression or limiting applied that i can hear so the whole thing is super quiet except a few specific parts. however the total package is pretty nice to listen to. i wasn't a huge fan of the ending but i also didn't think it was wrong from an arrangement perspective, i just wasn't into such a long tail on the mix. i think as a whole i have more negatives than positives about this one. if the ending hadn't been so long, or the voice and ocarina so much louder than the background, maybe this is good enough. As it is right now I think that there's more on the negative side of the scale, but it's a very creative and original take on a really, really commonly remixed track, and i love that. if you were to condense the ending a bit and clean up the volume issues i would love to vote yes on this. NO

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