prophetik music

this kind of doesn't get started really until 0:33. before there, it's a lot of sustains on the same couple notes, which quickly sounds odd. the mix has a huge boost on about 70hz and little below that, so it's got a weird harmonic effect that makes it feel like it has no guts. there are conflicting notes at about 0:30 that sound intentional. 1:02 is what sounds like a soli section, but the guitars and drums are so loud i can hardly distinguish between what the band instruments are doing. there's some weird swirling organ sfx at 1:30 for like 12 seconds, and then a pretty solid organ solo for a bit. this is followed by a guitar solo that has some fun stuff it's saying, but there's conflicting parts again in the background at around 2:37. solo keeps going for another two minutes (!!!) and then there's a quick blow through of the melodic material before there's a quick outro and it's done. from a structural standpoint, this relies heavily on the solo parts to get it to 50% source. there's a lot of reference in the solos themselves - without that there wouldn't be enough of the OST in the track to get above our criteria. i felt i had to be fairly generous actually to get it there. from a technical standpoint, the parts are all on time and map fine with one another, but there's no volumization or dynamics in the entire piece essentially, and that is very tiring. in a real group, you'd expect to hear instruments popping in and out of the texture as they're more or less important with what's being played, but there's none of that here. the alto sax is a consistent volume in my left ear, for example. separately, the lacking of a true low end means the emphasis in the 70-100hz range is very noticeable the longer the track goes on. i would have really liked to see my dynamics (like, at all), and more band sections that were actually the whole group playing through ensemble blows rather than little chunks here and there. i would also have preferred to hear this mastered with less of a focus around the 70-100hz band that causes it to feel so dense. however, personal feelings aside, this meets our criteria, and it's performed well with a good energy throughout. YES

i really like the fade-in. the initial beat at 0:17 is a great feel, with tons of space in the synths in front and tons of wash in the pads and sweepers. i normally don't care for vox clips in remixes that aren't specific to the style, but these fit well too. the melody hits around 1:09, and for a bit it's really dense. i don't think i'd call it muddy but like MW said it's very busy there with all the verb wash. a little less on the lead would have helped a lot - same tail length, just have it fall off the initial note faster. the chop synth that came after that was less intrusive to the soundscape and i liked that implementation a lot more. there's a nice break at 2:09 that's perfectly timed. i would have preferred the lead here to have a bit more attack since it's fading a bit into the background with how light it is. there's a recap of the initial melodic material from 1:09 at 2:54, and it's very close to the original section with a few small changes for about 35 seconds. there's no real ending, just a hit with the backing pads fading out. this is mostly a rubber stamp. this is a great track regardless of my nitpicks, and you really nailed the style. nice work. YES

my original vote was around the need for there to be more to the arrangement, as it was too simplistic. 0:36 is a lot better now. shifting the arp out of the forefront is a huge positive there. the track is still clearly based on that original, but it's not just the arp slamming away. the arp coming in at 1:16 feels like a nice return rather than "oh man, even more of this?". shifting it then right away to the more bell-like synth and stuttering it in and out is a great idea as well. thank you for taking our (long-winded) criticisms to heart. this is objectively a better and more listenable track now. YES

my original issues with this track stemmed around some of the live elements - weird notes in solos, significant timing issues, etc. - and some mastering elements. lucas also contacted me separately and we worked through some of the intonation and note choice issues. my main issues with the performances - the timing of the flute in the bridge, the constant use of flat 7s and #4s in the guitar solo, and intonation issues - were all fixed. glad that my assistance there on the side was helpful. my other complaint - that the drums got drowned out on the big parts and the snare sounded odd - were also corrected or at least settled into the mix better. this is a pass. thanks for the reworks. YES

this is an interesting one. it's definitely a single loop that's repeated pretty much straight through, with a fade for the ending. i'd say that there's more going on here than an instrument swap. i'm hesitant to call this a cover since there's so much in the background going on that's new and updated. the drums are pretty much just a loop with a few fills, but the bass, pad work, lead synths, and countermelodic content is a lot more dense than the original. plus the mastering is super clear despite a dense soundscape. i think if this wasn't >50% repeated content between repeating the first loop and then repeating it again while fading out, i'd be ok with this arrangement, actually. the real issue is that it's a 1:14 loop with a timpani roll on the intro and then a fade on loop 3. the initial loop slaps, make it not repeating content and i'll vote positively. NO

very familiar with this theme i'll cover the vocals later. suffice to say, they're not in a postable state right now. so i'm reviewing for a resub going forward. i didn't care at all for the initial few notes in the electric - when you don't have any reference for the instrument, going with a scoopy note just sounds wrong. the acoustic part however sounds great. in the intro. there's a few fret blobs but nothing huge. there's an audio artifact at 0:41. the build into the second half is great, and i love the groove you chose there - obviously influenced by the original but unique to arrangements i've heard. there's other stuff going on besides the guitar and bass, but i can't really hear them. the break at 1:50 still sounds great in the acoustic. the solo section is a great idea, and i love the stop break. the last blow through is great and super energetic. so, onto the vocals. the initial presentation in the acoustic section sounds not good at all. i get you're going for a more traditional style earlier on - lots of flips and intentional air in the tone. however, it's nowhere near on pitch anywhere except the long sustains, and the sustains are even kind of sketchy. beyond that, you can't really hear anything you're saying because you don't pronounce any consonants. example: i cannot hear a single consonant on the third line of the song at all. i can't pick out the words even with the lyrics. lastly, this entire section is super quiet in the vocals relative to the acoustic. boost your formant by adding several db to around 2.5khz in the vocals at the least, that'll help some of the text to carry. please do consider recording this again with more air support - it sounds like someone singing slouched over. even worse, your timbre here doesn't sound good because of the lack of air support - so even if it's on-pitch, it's not going to sound like it since the tone just isn't there. the heavier section is more your style, and it shows. it's still very pitchy, especially on sustain starts (consider cutting the notes up in melodyne and repitching individual parts of the note so that you don't get the heavy shift of the pitch over time). i love the doubling of the vox, especially at 1:35 when the harmonies come in. you sound much more confident and on-pitch here. the break is the same as the beginning. you're like a quarter tone flat on the first sustain that's in your head voice. as soon as you give it some air support, it gets better (but the second higher sustain is also way flat). then you do the rob halford scream thing and it's freaking ridiculous. never going to get tired of that sound. the last section is both a touch too loud in the lead voice and balanced well in the backing parts, and it sounds awesome. and the sustain at the end up high is nuts, just nuts. it's clear this is the part of your repertoire you've tirelessly worked on over time. so! a lot of words to say, i love the arrangement pretty much across the board, and i hate every time you're not screaming at me. please redo the clean vocals so that they're more directed and have better air support and timbre. i'm happy to help with more nuance in the vocal corrections if you would like that. NO

extremely quiet again. starts with sfx, choir, and percussion. the 3-note arp is present right away, and there's some glissandi in the glock that are interestingly arrayed against the rest of the soundscape. both the 3-note and 5-note arp don't appear to be in traditional instruments, which is a little disconcerting given the overall realism of the other parts - certainly intentional. the track features a lot of stereo separation, which is also kind of disconcerting. it's clearly being used as a compositional technique, the rest of the track continues to vary between choir chord stacks, a few similar synths doing the different arp patterns present in the original, and some percussive elements. there's some orchestral tremelos that occasionally pop up, but as a whole this doesn't really go anywhere or do anything, similar to the original. i agree with MW that this is very, very close to being just an audio upgrade. certainly parts are in different places than the original, but i don't hear transformative arrangement here. the same or similar synths doing similar things at roughly the same time relative to each other in the same tempo of the original with similar percussion and similar sfx doesn't do enough to differentiate itself. separately, from a mastering perspective, this is comically quiet, beyond even RET's normal super-quiet stuff. Her continued inability to understand the difference between volume and timbre when discussing dynamics is a significant downside of her music. It's simply unable to be listened to alongside other tracks of similar style or instrumentation without constant volume shifts. even if this was mastered appropriately, i'd argue the arrangement isn't particularly there. cutting and pasting similar synths doing similar things in slightly different places than the original isn't enough for me. NO

opening sounds like it's a fall bgm for stardew valley. percussion and drums come in at 0:23. there's some overlap in the bass occasionally from the sound of it, but i like the tone and the feel. lead comes in soon after and is smooth as butter. there's a shift at 1:04 with a nice wash sfx, and a higher zipper synth is introduced which echos the original. a bit of a break at 1:26 introduces some keys again, and the remix cruises for a bit before the drums drop at 2:06. an extended outro and it's done, quicker than expected. this is a fun track! it's got a neat funk to it - especially in the fills going into each section, i loved the offbeat hits for those - and it keeps the great vibe of the original. this is going in the rotation right away. YES

bold opening complete with some borrowed chords, an auspicious start. coop purposefully turns the energy down quickly, and switches to a slower tempo right away after that big opening. i hear a lot of the block fifths in the left hand that i heard in the last arrangement i spent time with of his (for the chrono cross soundtrack you can hear it here at like 0:40), as well as the constant movement of eighth notes jumping between fingers and octaves that he used there (1:09 is an example of this). coop's focus on a consistently represented melody above a ton of interesting middle-octave stuff is a great choice, letting the theme soar above the more complex backing parts. he again brings the energy back in a false resolution at 1:47, and continues the octave-jumping left hand fifths through the original's chord progression, and then very slowly builds back up with some nice dissonance over repeated left hand block chords. this builds towards a key change that brings it home to a very quiet resolution. this track does a great job maintaining the intensity of the original without the big percussion or huge dynamics. there's a quiet energy here that's great and consistent, and the track is both well-played and well-arranged. nice work coop. YES

the initial burbling sfx are really arresting. the intro's muted vibe is perfect based on what you were going for. the hit at 0:40 of everything together is just great, and subsequently at 1:00 is just as beautiful. there's a ton of verb on everything, so it's almost too lush, but it's a very relaxing and chill vibe. 2:00 feels like a significant shift, if only for the break from the glock/crotales/glasses/whatever that is. the chromatic nature of the theme causes some mess with the long tails of the sustained instruments through this entire section through 3:20. later on you change the theme's mode so it's not causing a bite on that sharped 4 in the melodic line, and i think that came too late - i'd suggest you do it right away. it takes away a bit of the uniqueness of the theme without it being in lydian, but it fits your backing parts far better. 3:20's definitely the high-point of the piece dynamically. your long-tail strings here are a bit exposed - i'd have preferred a faster attack so it wasn't so delayed, but that's my only real pick about this part outside the continuing use of the arpeggiated glass instrument being overused. after this section ends around 4:40, the song slowly works down to an ending. from a mastering perspective, a freq analysis confirms what my ears are hearing - there's little to nothing over 3khz, which is why it sounds so intentionally dull and muted. there's also some notable spikes at overtone intervals over around 260hz which i think is the glass arp instrument's overtones sharply poking through the mix. it's noticeable and probably will be a turn-off for some. aside from that, the dynamics of the piece form a nice shape, and the track sounds good. there's some light clipping in the biggest section from 3:20 through maybe 4:00 (particularly right at 3:24), but it's barely noticeable. this is a great arrangement with some beautiful choices made in the instrumentation. i think it's probably too over-lush in a few spots, overuses the glass arp, and has some crunch from the melody's #4 next to the rest of the chords, but overall it's a great listen. YES

this is a surprisingly quiet track, all told. there's a few peaks that restrict the headroom but it really has like at least 4db of room there. intro is simple but the rhythmic elements are real nice. the beat that came in at 0:26 was surprising, but again i liked the rhythmic elements and the focus on the off-beat. 1:02 brings in some new instrumentation. i think that the lead here could have used some dynamic programming so it's not just sustaining long notes without moving much, but the lfo element on the tone itself was appreciated. 1:38 is a tonal shift, adding new rhythmic elements via stuttered and delayed synths. the original continues to be clearly evident through this section. there's a dropout at 2:32, and it builds back around to the instrumentation of the beginning. this is very similar to the opening, but there's some additional reinforcement in synths to make it not quite copypasta though close. this progresses through with some new countermelodic material until a fairly abrupt ending. this is pretty straightforward but a great rendition of the original nice work. YES

i loved HZD when i played it but couldn't tell you a thing about the music. this is an excellent set of originals though! the initial build is just great. the hit at 0:17 is nice, and the melodic entrance at 0:36 is excellent. the near-immediate transition to a breakdown is great pacing - saving the big bits for later is a good way to get your listeners coming back. 1:12's rising build section hits hard when the backing parts kick in finally at 1:30. the lead through here isn't as big as it could be but sounds good. 1:56 is the first real break, and the glitchiness is a fun add. the melody comes back in about 20s later and i appreciate the continued updates to the melodic material that keep happening. the false build into 2:48 is a great idea. we get one more final blow through the melodic material at 3:04, and then an extended outro that mirrors the intro. i see what darksim is saying - it doesn't have the wall-of-sound mastering this style normally has - and it is indeed quieter than i'd expect, but i don't think it's enough to hold it back on a conditional. nice work treyt. YES

ok, that intro is super evocative right off the bat. 0:45's goofiness is a good building element too, there's clearly a lot more going on under the filter and i was really anticipating hearing the hit, which was worth it when i got there. i think the lead's a touch loud when it hits - don't forget to volumize instruments for context when you're using additive arrangement techniques! - but the melodic presentation at 1:06 and subsequently at 1:27 is great. there's a funky breakdown at 1:49 that's got some neat stuff going on outside of the melodic material. it wound up being longer than a breakdown and was more just where the track went - the zippy synth at 2:50 was probably my favorite part. there's another extended build to the big hit at 3:17, and the half-time beat is fun alongside the nasty subbass. this section feels a bit like it's missing something in there - i think that there's room for an active synth in the middle here, but i get thinning it down. the beat comes back and we get the melodic material played through once before the guitar solo (which is imo too quiet). a dropoff outro and it's done. i don't have a problem with the drums. the way they're used is idiomatic to the style (a la Pendulum's In Silico album). when the big name dnb bands are doing the same pattern for most of their songs, i think it's fine to use it as-is here. i have some nitpicks but overall this is a banger. looking forward to listening to this on a system with a serious subwoofer. nice work. YES

agree with MW that the intro is cribbed straight from the original. it's well-played, but it's nothing new. also agree that the initial band sound is really loud. the soundscape has a lot of noise in it from what i can hear - there's a sweepy static pad that's occupying a lot of the audio range, and combined with a wide bass instrument and what sounds like zero panning it's a very dense soundscape. the very loud drums don't help. my trick for checking levels is to turn the volume way down until i can only hear one thing, and if it's not the lead then something's wrong. doing that here shows drums, then turning it up a bit allows the pads to creep through before the lead does. so there's some audio reprioritization that needs to occur. beyond that, there's a ton of sub-40hz content that's causing my ears to feel pressured from how dense the remix is, and there's little above 1khz to help it sparkle. the mix is dull, dense, loud, and imbalanced. from an arrangement perspective, this isn't a particularly crafted remix either. there's a lot of repetition between parts, the backing instruments are static throughout and do not change or get replaced based on the shape of the track, and there's no dynamics whatsoever. the drums are the same throughout, the arp is the same throughout, the bass pad is the same throughout, the lead is the same throughout...that's not a positive. even if i thought that the initial band sound was cohesive and solid - which i don't, as much because of how loud everything is as anything - the lack of delta over time is a problem since it's almost four minutes solid of just loud. the track needs, at least, a break in the middle, and way more attention paid to what's going on in each instrument instead of just painting in the same patterns over and over again. right now it's boring, which is the worst thing you can say about a ballad. this needs attention throughout. a more interesting and crafted soundscape that's better balanced and is playing more interesting and crafted parts will dramatically change the quality of the remix. right now it's not postable. even fixing one element - arrangement, mastering, implementation - wouldn't be enough to get it over the bar in my opinion. NO

original is basic and essentially follows the circle of fourths for a chord progression. intro in the keys (not idiomatically played, just blocks with melody layered on top) and some nice filtered synths. the initial build is pretty big, and the synth arps, bass, and drums at 0:29 are nice - just way too loud. i can't hear the melody around that at all. it goes through the initial melodic progression several times, and finally hits a break at 1:23 or so with some filters and no kick. interestingly enough, you didn't use the break at 1:23 in the original here, which exacerbates the repetitive original lick. it gets loud again and noodles through the circle of fourths progression some more, and then falls off at 2:33. there's some piano at way too high a velocity (this is why it sounds so metallic), and then the track is over with a bunch of silence and not even a resolution. this arrangement isn't really much more than a cover. removing the break in the original wasn't a good choice - this doesn't have anything to help mix it up in the middle at all now and is super repetitive. there needs to be significantly more arrangement to get past the bar there. beyond that, the track needs volumization to allow a lead instrument (that is, you need one to begin with) to carry the melodic material. right now there's essentially nothing there. NO

intro is simple almost to a fault. there's some bass that comes in at 0:16, but i wouldn't call the initial instrument pleasant to listen to, so focusing on it isn't a great feel. some heavily crushed and slowed-down drums come in at 0:32, featuring significant sidechaining. that sidechaining continues to really crush anything that isn't drums, and you really can't hear anything beyond it. by about 1:30, i realized i can't really hear the piano enough to call it a melodic line due to the sidechain, and also that the drums essentially hadn't changed since they came in. there's a shift finally at 1:53, but the instrumentation appears to be the same, and the shift is more in the form of subtractive arrangement. the break stays until about 2:25 when stuff starts to come in again, and then we get copypasta for the rest of the arrangement. i would argue that the original 'loop' isn't interesting enough or developed enough to be good enough on its own. if this ended with an outro at 2:41, i'd be hard-pressed to pass it on its own. the sidechaining is oppressive, the drums are repetitive, the arp-based lead is not pleasant to listen to, and the track doesn't have any dynamic shape. and the it repeats for a minute and a half before an outro. this needs more throughout, separate from fixing the copypasta, for me to pass it. NO

what a writeup. excellent breakdown and a clear voice. thank you for that. oh, that initial swell of guitar is badass. the heavy, dark soundscape is very fitting for the theme and setting here. 1:06 is a huge shift, and really surprising, but fits really well. i like the brass in the right ear a lot there. the lead guitar tone is great too, without being too wild next to the orchestral elements. the heavy, dark lead-in to 2:30 and subsequently to 2:43 is just *chef's kiss*. the triplet kicks are great. there's a lot going on at 2:43, but the lead stays clear. there's a hard drop at 3:20, and... 3:33 is huge and crazy as expected based on other votes. it absolutely slays and is everything i've ever wanted with this theme, it's brutal and mind-shredding and literally made me sweat listening to it and it's exactly what thirteen-year-old me would have wanted to her as a remix of this music and it's insanity and it isn't perfect and that's ok. the point of it isn't the lead part (although the lead is the only melodic element you can really make out), it's the intensity of what's going on. the melodic elements being quieter than the kick doing paraddidles with my subwoofer isn't a negative there, it's a feature. emu said it best so ima quote him (emphasis mine) and feel better. i've run into this issue both as a judge and as a composer repeatedly and never really settled onto a side. this is good enough. the truth is that there's maybe ten people active right now on the site who could make that sound better. several of them are judges. YES

haven't listened to this OST much, but it's real nice. nice 5/4 groove to start it off. the hand percs are very clear and bright, and it's a nice vibe. the time changes when the percs drop for the initial presentation of the melodic material, and when they come back in we're still in 4/4. the lead at 1:11 is great - just a touch of vibrato, nice and understated. the plectral-heavy background fits that kind of lead well. there's a...break? can it be a break if the track is so chill already? at 1:33 that is very calming as well. this slowly builds back into a full band sound in 5/4 at 2:14. this is a great transition and the melody works well in a 5/4 time signature. there's another dropoff at 2:49, and a smooth outro with a nice ritard into the final notes. quite literally my only complaint is that the sizzle tone used as a transitional sound is very high-heavy and may be irritating to some listeners. the rest is great. the arrangement is novel, the influences are clear, the instrumentation is beautifully done, the mixing and mastering are excellent as expected. this is a great track. YES

freya's theme is recognizable right away, and the rain is a nice touch given her character development and the iconic shot of her in the rain. this is a patient approach which is expected given the context of this remix. there's some slow elements added at the ~1:55 mark, which is nice since at that point the track had been roughly the same thing for that entire time. there's one last repetition of the melodic content, and then the expected brickwall slam happens at 2:35. this isn't near as heavy as i expected given the artist, and sounds great. right after this is the shift into the Burmecia theme. the arrangement elements chosen show how related the two themes are, which again is a neat compositional element given that freya is burmecian. this one doesn't have much melodic material simply because the original doesn't, but there's still enough for it to be recognizable through another brickwall transition at 4:28. the audible acoustic guitar through this heavier section is great and gives some variation from some of the heavier stuff you've done on other tracks. the freya theme returns at about 5:15 in the lead as this continues to get heavier and more post-rock-ish, and some nice higher sustained pads come in to brighten and intensify the tone around 5:45. the choice to drop the electric guitar lead in this area and instead just have the keys handling the recap of the burmecia theme did make it harder to hear the direction, but the intensity there and the recognizable chords kept it moving forward. i wasn't concerned about the thickness of the master there. the ending is more of an outro, which was a bit disappointing but sufficient. this is yet another great track from your album. YES

bass synth in the original is awesome. super fat. some sfx and a martial-feeling snare pattern start it off, and it surprisingly shifts to a club-style kick at 0:29. the melodic content is in a pretty quiet instrument that could be a guitar or an EP, can't really tell which. there's not much besides kick and lead here - the other stuff is window dressing, and the bass that's fake-sidechained is hard to actually hear since it's in the shadow of the kick. there's a shift at 1:24 and the heavily effected lead really starts to show why the volume of verb on it isn't a good choice. there are some new ideas added in after this point, but it's either brass samples that are really not listenable or some vox samples that are not enjoyable to listen to. then it repeats in various combinations for another two minutes. so it's 4.5 minutes of an indistinct lead and kick with some other percussion alongside and a quiet bass line, and there's some other synths in there occasionally. this is honestly an interesting idea. i don't really know if any of these instruments fit together at all, but i'm sure it's possible - it just isn't working in this combination. i think this needs a lot of work overall - trimming off at least half of the duration if not more (will need more new material as a result, a bridge would be nice), really thinking hard about what instruments to include and then fleshing them out so they're enjoyable to hear, and then spending time crafting the EQing so that they fit next to each other. NO

this is another sausage, and that initial synth is just grossly over-loud. that's probably enough for me to auto-reject it right there. it doesn't get quieter either - there's just a ton of limiter slam later that prevents it from clipping. the parts outside of the lead synth have some interesting ideas - the plectral/drops synth at about 1:11 is a neat idea, and the subdued bass that's used outside of the big synth parts sounds nice. however the full band elements (at 0:43 and 1:52) are just totally crushed by the lead synth. and then it ends at the end of a loop without even a downbeat. the rest of the arrangement is...fine? i guess? the melody's adapted well to the style, it's just always exactly the same with no changes from that adaptation. this is another one that just doesn't sound like it's more than a work in progress. this is becoming a theme =( i'll again stress the importance of getting others to listen to your tracks - the workshop channel on discord is active and anyone there would tell you that the lead needs to be turned down by half before you can even start balancing anything. NO

the intro is pretty, as is the first section with strings. the intro of symphonic percussion, some plectral elements, sfx, and more rhythmic strings at 0:42 certainly sounds appropriately epic. the use of the slower string pad as a lead at 0:59 however isn't a great choice.it sounds good earlier on without the rhythmic elements, but as soon as there is percussive elements behind it it's clear how behind the beat it is. that needs to be something that is able to play in time with the fun backing you've put down. it's more egregious when it's doubled up the octave and you can hear it next to an instrument that actually changes on the beat. the brass there are androgynous to the extreme too - it'd be nice to get a clearer and more timbre-appropriate tone for a whole ensemble vs. what sounds like a flugelhorn synth for a coffee shop. 1:38 brings a bit of a break which is needed by this point. the echoed guitar is a nice tone, and it sounds like there's a glide synth layered into the slow string lead right after that's really nice. there's a big hit at 2:11 with chorus added, and the chorus sounds great. the same bass drop transition shows at 2:31, and then we're in an outro featuring the intro instruments. there's a hard cut at the end that needs to be faded out instead. i agree with MW that there's opportunity for customization throughout that wasn't taken. i don't have too much of an issue with the intro/outro although the outro could have certainly been different and more robust, but i do agree that the string leads being the same notes in the same places throughout is a letdown. also, the string lead that's used throughout simply isn't cutting it - it's just too slow. i think these are straightforward fixes! this would be a quick resubmission if you're willing. NO

we're locked, but i want to state again what i edited into my earlier comment, because i really don't want it to get lost. my comment about the 'implementation' losing some aspect of the norm is not referring to Terra at all, but rather the arrangement inspiration method - the mirror dance. it is very important that my words aren't read as saying that there isn't enough source - there is! notes go in the direction of the terra theme often. but a phase track where it's just the first five notes of Terra over and over again isn't a remix. just the notes in the right order aren't enough.

intro foreshadows some EQing issues, as the two synths chosen overlap heavily. the full band sound comes in at 0:44, and it's muddy to the extreme. the pad synths have a lot of bass content that needs to be cut to allow the bass synth to not layer on top of them. the heavy pressure from the bass being cranked to be audible does cover up the leads often as MW mentions. i didn't find the hard cuts for transitions to be compelling. it honestly seemed kind of lazy to just use the same hard cut several times around the 2:00 mark. after a key change, we have a new section at 2:29 that again is bass-heavy and again has the leads getting washed into the backing synths occasionally. there's another drum cut at 3:38 for a bit, and the track meanders for a while through yet another key change for about a half-minute before being done abruptly with tempo-synced synths just kind of fading off. i don't think this arrangement is particularly compelling. there's no real dynamic shape to the track - it's loud throughout and doesn't ever really relax from that, even with the drum breaks - and while it doesn't plod, it doesn't feel like it goes anywhere. the oppressively loud bass synth and overlap with the backing parts doesn't help, and there's some light clipping audible around the 1:30-1:45 among other spots. lastly, the leads are very set-and-forget - there's no shape or interest to the sounds hardly at all. this needs a significant amount of EQ work (or backing synth reimagining) to trim out the bottom of those tempo-synced pads. that'll allow the bass to be turned down. that in turn will allow you to shape your leads with much more care and attention. separately, the arrangement needs room to breathe as well - there's essentially no contrast in this arrangement at all. i'd encourage you to experiment with more variety in your backing synths and song structure to allow the remix to have a shape and direction. right now it sounds like you're driving to nowhere. NO

google says the name means "unwilling transformations", which is kind of ominous the garagey sound is immediately audible. the intro sounds like it's been unwillingly transformed from The Dragon's Trap, with a subsequent dose of Vs. Dragon. the track shifts towards a more standard melodic structure at 0:39, and noodles through a few variations of the sustained melodic stuff from both. organ at 1:26 is a neat synth tone, full of the movement i've come to expect from eino's leads. there's an outro that starts at about 1:54, and then it's done. i agree with larry that there was an initial impression of this track missing something. most of the sound palette is based around the 75-200hz range, which is why it sounds very dull and dense. most of the track, there's a lead, bass, and drums audible only, because the guitar is both hard right and very quiet (or missing). the intro feels fuller since it's got the guitar going the whole time, but even then it still feels a little weird because that guitar is hard-panned to the right alongside the snare and crash (with the tambourine all the way to the left). however, i'll note that on subsequent listens i did start to pick up more density in the writing. while the bass/drums/synth parts are always pretty audible, the other parts that drop in and out are both interesting and more present than i initially noticed. and i find the garagey EQing pleasing, it's certainly nonstandard but it is a funky track and sounds fun. i think this is a pass actually. it took me a bit to get there, but i can dig it. YES