prophetik music

opens with some great EPs and organ. there's a really organic feel to this due to the timing being pretty loose initially. i'd recognize that chapman anywhere - one of my favorite sounds in Trillian! - and some fun bell elements. we get a beat at 0:43 and the melodic material to the fore. this is a really deep, low representation of the chorus material which is fun. there's a point at 0:58 where the melody is on an A and the bassline is on a Db, which is a little weird-sounding but is supported by the chord structure.
there's a break right at 1:05 to recap the opening a bit. the sweeps through here are really nice. this builds up through some fun flute-adjacent noodles to the melody again at 1:49. i like the shift at 2:11 to a more upbeat feel as well, as we'd kind of done the other stuff for a while now. there's again some funky chord structures at 2:19 - i'm not going to analyze them since they sound roughly correct to my ear, but they're funny as a transitional element! 
we get through some original material as a transitional element. there's a half-time groove here that i didn't see coming but really like, and it builds into 3:15 where we get some taikos or toms alongside the main melodic snippet. this floats through a bit more of that snippet and then it's done.
what a fun track! there's all sorts of interesting ear candy going on in here as i listen. you do a great job taking a fun and straightforward original and exploring some really varied elements.
 
 
YES

opens with foley and voiceover elements, As Is Tradition for a VQ track. i don't know where the melodic material happening behind the voiceovers comes from. some more elements come in around 1:50 and there's some keyboard elements that are lacking in velocitization, but there's some interesting textures being used here as more and more orchestral elements come in. there's a transition around 2:40ish with some horns, and they don't sound great - really blatty and far away, i think there's some extra processing on them that's causing them to sound more distant and lacking in attack than you'd expect.
there's a hard shift at 3:03 to the organ as a lead instrument. there's a bass with some attack modulation on it, and a few other elements added in like some strings and bells as a percussive element. this instrumentation doesn't blend at all with the prior section, it lacks intensity as compared to the original and what's been brewing in this remix so far, and i honestly am having trouble mapping it to the original as more than just the chord structure if even that. the chords that enter with the vordt theme also feel transformed beyond where their relationship to the original is not apparent. most of these instruments have a lot of bass content as well and they've overlapping a lot (an issue i run into with organ often). this noodles through the chord progression, continues to feel muddy and indirect with motion, and then hits a big section of falling action at 4:56.
5:42 is the Holy Blade section. the representation here again feels like there's no clear direction for a while, with the instrumentation kind of all doing its own thing and not coming together to a cohesive thing until 6:20. i can hear the adaptation of the Holy Blade descending riff here much clearer, which is good. the original's intensity and verve isn't present, which is kind of an interesting albeit confusing correlation against the fairly intense vocal lines and speed increase at the 7 minute mark. the entire section starting around 7:20 is probably the most cohesive section you've got in the entire piece, but i'd say that also it's still rife with similar issues as before, like the big buzzy bass instrument taking up a ton of frequency range and a lead that's hard to hear what's going on, and overall it's wandering instead of feeling like it's got a driving melodic element that's leading it. there's a sudden break and then the end comes out of nowhere.
overall i don't care for most of the direction of the work at all. i feel it's way more focused on the voiceover than on the music in the first several minutes and a few significant chunks after that (like between a quarter and a third of the track feels voiceover-driven). separately i feel it wanders throughout without focus on a melodic element or even a timbral element - there's no direction, and so it's hard to keep track of what's going on. the majority of the work, it's not clear where the music is coming from - it's either so heavily transformed or reduced that i can't map it. lastly, in several sections including the organ part at 3:03 and the holy blade section, there's a lot of overlapping elements in similar frequency ranges, so it's hard to understand aurally what's going on where.
i'd be remiss to say that i just don't get a lot of the dynamics and 'story' of the work overall. there's some neat building action through the first few minutes, but the release of that energy is...the horn section around 2:40, which doesn't use it at all. then there's another big build into the organ section, and that almost immediately disperses the build into a chordal exploration that i had trouble identifying where it comes from. similarly, the end of this section falls off almost immediately into a big voiceover-focused section that actually has no music playing for several seconds in it. the shape and macro direction of the work is not clear.
these are not easy fixes. i think that making the correlations to the originals in the earlier sections will make the volume (and volume) of the voiceovers more palatable, even if i think most of them are gross-sounding (not a horror fan, sorry). i think that really taking a critical eye to the organ section at 3:03 and EQing and/or changing instrumentation and instrument ranges so as to avoid some of the overlapping freqs will make that section easier on the ears. i also think that taking a look at the sections where the references to the original are basically just chord changes (long sections, like the two minutes after the organ comes in, or most of the minute before that) with very modified moving lines above them, and finding ways to tie those clearly and directly to the original will help a lot. lastly, finding ways to more consistently handle the builds and releases of the energy you build up in some of these sections would help immensely. i kept feeling let down when builds and ensemble crescendos didn't go anywhere - it happens four or five times at least throughout the work.
it's going to sound like i didn't enjoy much of this at all. to be honest, i didn't! but it's not required for me to enjoy the piece in order to critique the technical and arrangement elements. right now the scope and vision feels too big. i think overall that this needs a lot of transformative work to reign in the wilder bits and focus it more, so as to be more effective at conveying what you're trying to convey. right now it's a wildly imaginative, visionary, probably over-extending attempt.
 
 
NO

opens with airy pads and some nice vocal elements. there's the slightest bit of overlap to indicate that they're layered else i wouldn't have been able to tell initially that it's done with a synth. technology has apparently progressed amazingly, because this sounds fantastic. the beat and backing elements at 0:31 are great, tons of space in the bass and the drums are nice and tight. the main riff at 1:04 is a little heavy in the left ear, but i like how it's being played and i like the escalation at 1:22 in the backing elements. 
there's a recap in the vocal elements starting at 1:42 - essentially a verse 2 - with some extra ear candy behind it to keep interest. the chorus/synth led section right after it has a lot of fun new content as well, including the vocal elements. there's a break at 2:54 and the really dumb lyrics are a bit more highlighted here, but it's effective as a break in the beat and vibe for a bit before the verse content comes back again. i'd have liked the guitar parts to be a bit louder here, as it's the only new thing that's going on in this section. i liked the subsequent guitar/synth stuff at 4:00 or so a lot. it trucks through some more chorus content, hits the flying high phrase once more, and it's done.
this is great! it's got superb mastering throughout, it drives forward throughout and doesn't get stale despite some repetition in content, and the vocal elements really work well. definitely an obvious demonstration of your progress as a musician. excellent work.
 
 
YES

The Judges Panel has been talking about ways to work through the queue of submitted remixes at a faster pace, and after a lot of discussion and weighing the pros and cons, we've come to a decision that's probably one of the biggest adjustments to our process in a long time:
Submissions no longer require four (4) YES votes to pass. A decision is reached as soon as the difference in votes is three (3).
To clarify the key change here: when a submission receives three (3) YES votes and there are zero (0) NO votes, the submission is accepted, because the difference in votes is three (3).
If a submission continues to go back and forth without reaching +3 in either direction, the panel will continue to vote until all active judges have voted and the majority will determine the decision.
This update to our decision making process will immediately apply to any submissions on the panel at the time of this announcement going live, and for all decisions moving forward. We won't be going back to previous rejections to find decisions that started with three (3) uncontested YES votes but eventually got rejected; in those cases, what's done is done.
We hope that artists will find this new criteria a little bit easier to understand. Overall, we've been impressed with the quality of work being sent in these past months, and this should make it easier for us to get the slam dunk tracks through the process faster.
Thanks to all the artists who continue to participate in our curation process. Hope to hear your work soon.
- DarkeSword

nickel creek's one of my favorite bands, and TLT is one of my favorite songs by them. i love how each chorus builds on the prior. if folks haven't ever listened to 'progressive' bluegrass, i highly recommend it.
opens with a bell arp. the arp's really loud compared to the melodic element that comes in pretty quickly after. the strings that eventually come in are also really not great - they don't feel N64 to me, they just sound fake. the 'full' band sound comes in at 0:43, and the lead feels a bit weak in this section as well as slow (the attack feels a touch behind). there's no real bass through here either, but there is a kick. the lack of beater tone on the kick makes it hard to hear except for where you can feel it.
sad girl comes back at 1:43, and there's some weird mallet strike tones through here that would add realism if they weren't repeat strikes next to each other. the strings come back in, and i'm still not feeling them here. the eventual synth lead elements that come in at about 2:34 are really loud, and the lack of balance makes it hard to hear what's going on. i like the patience that comes with the chords after this section, although i think they should be a little closer together as they're encroaching on 'too long since sound' territory.
at 3:07 we get copypasta from the opening 40s, and then subsequently more copy pasta from the band section from 0:43 to around 1:35. there's a repeated phrase at the end, one last arp, and a few sustains.
i think that the combination of these two originals works really well together. i like the idea of focusing initially on bells and then building up to a bigger band tone, and i like the introspective approach and patience that you show. i think that your synths are letting you down throughout, and your DAW's letting you down from a mastering perspective. everything that isn't a bell sounds cheap and fake, and volumization throughout is a mixed bag. this needs a good amount of work, but there's good bones here. i think that the discord or the workshop forum would help a ton with this track.
 
 
NO

well, ok then.
opening is definitely a stylistic mashup. love the way you took metallica's vibe and make it work with these tracks so well. at 0:46, though, this is almost straight Metallica for like 30s straight. the melodic adaptation is indeed tenuous, especially when you consider it's two bars out of hundreds in the original (admittedly they are very recognizable bars). at least the chorus is more from the Rival track. the singing works great, it's realized well, and seph does a good job with it. i'm just not sure it's not too much metallica.
the transition riff is back to the final battle riff, and then another verse (same caveats as before). the bridge works well to bring together the style and original into a better combination that's more in balance of the original. there's then 30 seconds of insane solo battle, because that's literally what the originals are about, and a bunch more instrumental sections that go through various elements of the sources. the end of the false chorus section at like 3:50 was pretty hip.
the track cycles back to one more verse and chorus dyad, a quick riff, and it's done.
the performances here are nuts, as expected. the three main performers are among the best in the local community at doing this kind of stuff, and it shows. there's a ton of synergy in the performance, it's intense and complex without being overly meandering or relying on tropes to make it work, and it's mixed very well by xaleph as well. the arrangement concept is also great. my concern is just that the verse's connection to the original works is essentially academic. it's tough to map the vocal lines to the original, although your timestamps make it clear once you've A/B'd it.
i think what's here overall is probably distinct enough from Metallica to be ok. but this is the second really fun track from you guys that's come through recently that's been very, very close to a mainstream original. you need to be careful as you're treading a line here that we (the judges) don't want to more clearly define because of how subjective it can be.
 
 
YES (borderline)
edit 10/25: larry's numbers make it clearer than i originally thought that this is not 'probably too much Metallica', it's just plain too much. i didn't realize it was over a quarter of the track. sorry guys, sick track, but not for here.
NO

I liked seeing Chimpzilla bring up Tangerine Dreams. I wouldn't have thought that myself but now I totally hear it. And its just a great remix as well!

Really love that..... I'm not even sure what it is. Gated brown noise? Some sort of rhythmic effect that sounds really cool.

Great synths throughout. Love the whole thing!

well, ok then.
opening is definitely a stylistic mashup. love the way you took metallica's vibe and make it work with these tracks so well. at 0:46, though, this is almost straight Metallica for like 30s straight. the melodic adaptation is indeed tenuous, especially when you consider it's two bars out of hundreds in the original (admittedly they are very recognizable bars). at least the chorus is more from the Rival track. the singing works great, it's realized well, and seph does a good job with it. i'm just not sure it's not too much metallica.
the transition riff is back to the final battle riff, and then another verse (same caveats as before). the bridge works well to bring together the style and original into a better combination that's more in balance of the original. there's then 30 seconds of insane solo battle, because that's literally what the originals are about, and a bunch more instrumental sections that go through various elements of the sources. the end of the false chorus section at like 3:50 was pretty hip.
the track cycles back to one more verse and chorus dyad, a quick riff, and it's done.
the performances here are nuts, as expected. the three main performers are among the best in the local community at doing this kind of stuff, and it shows. there's a ton of synergy in the performance, it's intense and complex without being overly meandering or relying on tropes to make it work, and it's mixed very well by xaleph as well. the arrangement concept is also great. my concern is just that the verse's connection to the original works is essentially academic. it's tough to map the vocal lines to the original, although your timestamps make it clear once you've A/B'd it.
i think what's here overall is probably distinct enough from Metallica to be ok. but this is the second really fun track from you guys that's come through recently that's been very, very close to a mainstream original. you need to be careful as you're treading a line here that we (the judges) don't want to more clearly define because of how subjective it can be.
 
 
YES (borderline)
edit 10/25: larry's numbers make it clearer than i originally thought that this is not 'probably too much Metallica', it's just plain too much. i didn't realize it was over a quarter of the track. sorry guys, sick track, but not for here.
NO

track starts off with some sfx and some beautifully-realized harp work. if anything i wish there wasn't sfx so i could hear the tone of the harp clearer. there's some celli under it too as a pad. what a moving realization. the initial presentation of the melody is heavy on the lower strings but when it moves up higher, it really pops out of the texture.
the 'storm' section starts at 1:33 and it's appropriately intense. the cello work after the storm, at 1:56 onward, is just superb. i am not an emotional listener but i truly got chills at the tight harmonic lines.
i get caught writing too much sometimes. this doesn't need it. you've crafted a beautiful rendition of a great example of why EoS is one of the best pokemon soundtracks front to back. please write more arrangements of game music using this level of arranging, performing, and recording skill.
 
 
YES

for those that care, i put a slightly altered new version above. i made some very subtle changes based on critiques around the opening bass drones and a freq pop that kris called out. i also backed off the sidechain just a bit to balance it better, at least partially by lowering the volume of one of the arps in the higher-energy section.

lot of sfx and tempo-synced stuff to start, in particular a lot of panning elements. most of the first 45s are heavier in my left ear. i don't think that's intentional. there's a significant build into 0:55, and the first big hit of everything at 0:55 also sounds a bit weird - the bass peaks at like 70hz instead of 30-35hz like i'd expect. is there a filter on this that's cutting out subbass content there? there's also a big notch around 350hz and i can kind of hear the scooped mids there. paging resident primate @Chimpazilla for help with what i'm hearing. apes together strong.
the flourish at 1:08 that's mirrored in a lower instrument is a neat idea. there's a break at 1:23 or so that again has a lot of tempo-synced stuff going on, and especially the swooping effect got a little irritating after the first few times i heard it. the beat comes back after that and quickly goes back to the tempo-synced quieter stuff - some very fast transitions there.
there's an interlude with chips at 2:07 that again sounds hollow with whatever filter's on it, and a half-time section after that that i really dig, and then another half-time section that's different and i dig that a lot. this is a great break section, still featuring some of the tempo-synced stuff but really shifting the vibe a lot. the heavily distorted synth that comes in at 2:55 was >9000x louder than i expected and was probably too much. the following trap-adjacent (pitfall?) section with the funky hats is again a neat change in style. it's very busy and probably could use a bit of trimming down/volumizing down stuff that's less important (just a little, this part is honestly real close).
there's a big build into 3:38 that really subverts expectations with the drop. nice use of the vocal clip to further that subversion. eventually it picks back up at 3:50 and goes through the melodic content from Towering Mountain. the transition out of that section (or lack of one) is pretty jarring. the following perc-less pad section loses a lot of energy fast, and the following detuned bell vibe is pretty minimal and felt like it lost some direction. i did like the shifts to chords that were added to that melodic snippet. i admit that i would have been very fine with a short outro after the section ending at 4:05 - the last section is very different and there's not a ton tying it to the first 80% of the track.
i think that there's a lot of little things here that, if corrected, would result in a really ridiculously great track. i am particularly interested to see if we can figure out why the opening sounds like it's missing part of the freq range. that said, it's a really fun listen and does some super creative stuff with musical elements and especially with synth effects, although the mastering needs work. i think this track has a place on the site, if not now, then eventually.
 
 
YES

*Checks submission thread* Ok so this track has been updated NINE times???  First, that's too many updates.  Second, we need a better way to have more visibility when submissions have been updated. 
I'm still cool with my YES on the track as of the 4/13 version.

intro has a lot of sfx and random-sound sounds that come together to make a rough beat under the ghost arp. we get some melody at 0:30 or so, very chopped up and strange-sounding intentionally so. layering in some plectral instrumentation as well on top obfuscates the melodic material, and the percussion is pretty loud through here.
1:16 is a big stylistic shift, both in terms of time signature and in terms of instrumentation. the heavily filtered strings here are pretty grating and really loud, and it's hard to differentiate between them, the treble content in the very weird bass synth, the ghost arp, the melodic stutter synth, and the plectral instrument that you've had going. it hits more of a groove later on, and around 2:00 has kind of settled down, but it's still confusing to listen to.
2:07 is another shift, bringing back the industrial percussion under a 7/8 groove with more of the very intentionally overtoney bass doing stuff under the stuttery synth. the hard break at 2:40 was confusing to me, as i didn't get why you'd want to just shut off the track in the middle without there being a clear resolution or build section around it. there's some more ghost castle lead played as the melodic content and then it's just done very suddenly.
looking at the freq analysis confirms what i felt was confusing to me from an auditory perspective - the bass instrument (which doesn't really ever venture below about 100hz from what i can hear) is by far the loudest element in the mix, both the fundamental and the first overtone. it's fairly confusing from an auditory perspective to listen to something that features such a high fundamental, especially with the heavy variance in styles throughout the track. the section at 1:16 is a good example - there's nothing to ground the track, and so many elements are in the same aural area that it makes it hard to differentiate and really listen to them. it's very tiring on the ears.
i really want to like this track. the creativity in choices of synths and approach is really neat as expected from eino, the sources are a fun combo, and the arrangement is interwoven nicely. ultimately though it just doesn't sound good - the heavy layering of instruments in the same freq range is intensely tiring. i was only able to get through two listens before my ears felt quite pressured, and the middle section is most of where that came from. the track also is meandering and lacking cohesion, which combined with the lack of real dynamics throughout makes it difficult to follow and stay with what's going on at any given time. there certainly is a ton of source used in creative ways, but the track still manages to feel inchoate.
i think you need to spend some time breaking up the blocks of instruments in the same freq range, and then re-volumize everything so that the instruments that are the loudest at any given time are what you want the listener to be listening to. right now the melodic content is never the main thing, which isn't a great result. also consider adding more to the bass end of the bass instrument while still keeping the weirdness of the upper overtones so as to ground the mix more.
 
 
NO

what a dope original! never heard it and it's awesome.
starts out with some pretty static tones, but the beat comes in at 0:11. initial writing is pretty faithful to the original. the drums aren't quite what i expected given the original sound concept. the bass is pretty active and the lead is very basic initially.
there's a recap at 1:06 and some repeated material (everything from there to 1:24 outside of adding the ascending arp flourishes in a few places). the following section is also very similar to the original outside of a few added flourishes. there's another repeat at 2:00 and then it repeats the opening section and fades out.
i like the concept here! i think there's a bit too much repetition for a piece that's only 2:10. i think the style survives the genre adaptation pretty well, though, so that's fun! i think there just needs to be more arrangement here - less ANARCHY TAKAPON and more Nuac. i'd also like to hear the drum mixing bring the drums out, assuming you're willing to use modern mastering tools and you aren't explicitly going for a GB-realistic sound.
 
 
NO

i love the bitcrushing that eino uses on the drums in several of his tracks. it's just such an iconic sound. it's used to great effect here. combined with the heavy stuttering on the backing parts, there's a great glitchy vibe that comes through here.
the lead has a lot of activity on it, which is nice, and it's also actively personalized with some fun call-and-response harmonic content, so that's nice. i didn't like that the first third or so mirrored the second third quite a bit, and to that extent the repetitive nature of the background that MW called out is noticeable. the break at 2:15 in the general concept is needed and well-timed.
there's some more background breaks via subtractive arrangement that show up around 3:00, and that's a nice change as well. some more noodles in the leads and glitches in the backing parts, and the track is done.
mastering is sound and the track sounds great overall. the arrangement is certainly different from the original if repetitive. i think this is solid. nice work eino.
 
 
YES

neat original! i didn't vote on the first decision.
comments about the soundscape and verb application above apply to me too. percussion across the board doesn't sound like it's in the same world as the synths but the toms are particularly dry. the rest of the verb is like 10x longer than i'd expect too, the tail's super long - i actually think this is more the problem than the percs, since in a vacuum later the percs do have some room tone. the chords that come in at 1:08 are neat, but i wish they'd come in earlier. the lead at 1:22 has such a long tail that it takes a while to fade, and it's moving stepwise in Gm. that wouldn't be too big a deal except the third chord in the short background chorded instrument is a flatted II chord, and so at 1:24 it puts an Ab major chord under an A in the lead line. it's definitely a bit crunchy but wasn't a super big deal to me since the chorded element is so short. the percussion here and the bass writing is actually pretty fun, and i like the call and response through this section. it feels like there isn't quite enough there though - another instrument is needed somewhere where it won't compete with what's happening.
this repeats over a few times and then we get a breakdown at 2:17. this was needed by here so it's well-timed. the same issue that was described above happens at 2:30 except this time it's the bass and the lead, and this is more noticeable since the soundscape is emptier. the same riff in the lead and the same lead riff are used here repeatedly, and it's not until almost 3:15 that we get anything new. this is a perfect section to really change up the vibe or instrumentation, coming out of the break, and staying the same is tiring from an auditory perspective.
the track felt like it was approaching the end after 3:45 and then it goes for another minute doing the same thing, no solo or anything to mix it up. this is too much repetition - we're talking five minutes of bread and only three minutes of butter. trimming this back a lot would help a ton.
so this is a very long rubber stamp. consider changing up the notes that conflict, take some more time to trim back the arrangement to just be the best parts and not also a ton of fat along the edges, flesh out the bass and percs writing for later in the track, and consider how you can continue to iterate what the song's saying throughout so it's not so repetitive. also consider toning back the synth reverb's tail and normalize the soundscape a bit so that it's not so diverse.
 
 
NO

TBH I'd still NO-RESUB anything that was this blatant of a copy-paste. Gotta show some effort for arrangement, can't just make half a song and then double it up!

the chords don't map directly from what i can hear. that makes these blobs of chords inspired by, and not directly taken from, the original track. they may be highly different voicings and that's where i'm losing it. i really don't dig the idea of us trying to parse this ourselves, this should be an artist-provided breakdown to ensure we're not missing stuff in either direction.
edit 2/8: i am teh dumb

I'll still try to do one anyway, but that's my bad, I should have asked in the first place. I'll reach out to Rebecca.
EDIT (2/1/24): Rebecca kindly provided video-based timestamps (added to her submission comments in the first post).

oh, that fat overtony bass and snappy snare are a great vibe right off the bat. really eclectic combination of synths right away. the not-sax and arp leads do a great job of keeping the melodic material front and center without ever really focusing on it, which is a neat trick. there's a lot of blurbs and bloops going on that keep your ear moving.
there's a bit of a reset at 1:37, and then there's some funky beat work at 1:47 under a second reimagining of the melodic material. some more intense drum work and a glitchy fade, and it's done quick.
this is a great one! there's a ton of clever ideas taking the original's unique elements and recreating them in new ways. and it sounds super clean despite the variety of stuff going on. excellent work.
 
 
YES

really neat intro, and the first minute or so before the glossolalia sounds super good. layering sustains against the iconic tritone pattern really emphasizes how strange that pattern is.
the initial presentation of the ?lyrics? is a really interesting concatenation of your intentionally un-classical vocal tone (which to me sounds more folky, that is less rigid/within strictures) against the backing style, which to me presents as more rigid and constrained. the slight glides between the upper and lower pitches on the bigger jumps, the very wide vowel tones, and the ethnic choir sound of your voice harmonizing with itself really is a significant juxtaposition against buzz synths and FM bells. i think it's really neat.
2:15 kind of finishes the first part, and starts a different approach for vocals as well. you use a more closed vowel tone here alongside a more traditionally classical approach to your vibrato. there's a few more obvious pitch issues here (understandably, it's harder to pitch-shift tones that are richer in overtones and have heavier vibrato over a very thin pitch with no vibrato). the slide where you stop your vibrato and try to gliss down is probably my least favorite part of the song actually, it is hard to hear that as anything other than just out of tune.
i understand the intent behind the glitching effects - at that point, the track has been doing the same thing for over three minutes with essentially no break in the backing part whatsoever, and the vocal parts although interesting have been doing the same thing too. as a method of mixing it up, this is certainly effective at shifting the style. i don't mind it as strongly as the other judges. i do think though that it exposes just how little there is behind the arrangement overall - there's essentially two chords, and you're either not singing, singing the invented stuff, or singing ahh tones that do roughly the same thing across the board. sometimes a track just needs a cool idea to get it from point A to point B. i found myself wishing this track had more there from an arrangement standpoint ultimately, rather than just being about the same volume with the same backing parts and roughly the same ideas in the melodic content for >4 minutes.
to be clear, this is definitely over the bar. it's a creative approach to a weird source and has some great ideas. i wouldn't have minded it being a minute shorter, or having more development to stop it feeling so samey across the board.
 
 
YES

haha, super weird opening. not bad, just immediately made me smile because it's weird. the big beat and swirly keys right away were a fun sound. drums are probably a bit loud over the piano lead, but it's a fun beat and i love the bass blats. there's some more rhythmic synths added at about 1:00 and then it opens up more at 1:15 to a more traditional electro/rock feel. i agree with MW that you'd never guess this is a mashup.
there's a piano break at 1:42ish, with some fun panned verby synths and a recap of the super scooper lead from the beginning, and we're back to a bigger beat at 2:19 or so. this felt similar to the opening, but there's some new stuff added in around 2:35 that mix it up, especially in the keys. 3:06 opens up again and i really dig the descending countermelodic synth work there. there's a swell to a keys-driven outro, and it ends comfortably.
this is a fun track. it sounds good, does a great job with a preponderance of source, and doesn't overstay its welcome. nice work.
 
 
YES

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

"Phonk?"  "Witch House?"  Even "meme music" is a new term to me. I guess I'm really out of the loop and not up to speed on my subgenres, sub-subgenres, and sub-sub-sub-abyssally-deep-subgenres and straight-up joke-genres. 
That said... I really dig this remix!  Groovy with a creepy vibe.  I like the instruments and sounds, the phat beatz, the full/deep low end, the wide open feel of the soundscape.  I am not a fan of that thing taking the place of a snare either, Larry.  I get that it's the style/genre/meme/joke, it is purposely distorted, and that can work sometimes but it just sounds like a comical sfx more than a drum element, and it's dry so it sticks out of the lush soundscape more than I'd like.  
Mixing works fine.  Mastering is on the loud side but not overblown.
The arrangement and source interpretation are great.  The ending though... where is it?  There's no outro, it just stops.  Gosh, I don't like that.  Why not do a few bars of cooldown and some kind of final sound or chord?  Even so, I think this passes and it's a super cool and fun listen.
YES