Israfel

Yeah, the samples aren't much, but what you have here is a pretty nifty idea that's executed fairly well. I'm not digging the stereo effects on the sax, and in general I feel the instrumentation is too sparse; but still, it's a fun, unique take on the theme. It's on the short side and a bit rough around the edges, but I'm fairly comfortable yes'ing this one. YES

Fairly unconvincing orchestration, which is a bit of a killer for a piece that's attempting to capture an orchestral sound. Shnabubula is right in pointing out that big chunks of this are presented in simple two-part voicings; and in general, the possibilites inherent in orchestral writing are greatly unexplored. This combined with a somewhat vanilla arrangement make for a hard piece to pass. NO

Fun, understated stuff. I tend to be more forgiving of the sparseness of the arrangement and if wasn't for the general dearth of interpretation I might lean towards passing this. But unfortunately, the majority of this mix is essentially a cover of the original with drums and some effects; the new melodic interlude is nice, but it's not enough for this to be an acceptable mix. You've got a lot of ideas to play around with here- you could really expand on the original more and make this one longer. NO

I would imagine that the main reason this was sent to the panel is that the source tune is unfamiliar. But in anycase, this is some pretty slick stuff; no serious criticisms here and I'm sure the listeners will dig this. YES

If we say that an adequate amount of time is spent with the source, and I'm willing to go along with that, then I think that the arrangement is strong enough for this to pass. The recording and performance aren't exactly pro quality, but they're decently well-done and certainly acceptable for an amateur community. YES

Aside from an overly conservative arrangement, this mix suffers from acute beginneritis, to use the technical term. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing; everyone starts as a beginner. But the best thing to do here is to consider this mix good practice, get feedback from the WIP forums, and keep working. NO

This *really* needs to be longer. The short length combined with the sudden texture contrasts creates a schizophrenic, unsatisfying arrangement. You never give any particular idea enough time to truly develop, and you either need to get rid of the section at 1:46, or figure out a way to better incorporate it into the piece. The arrangement feels incomplete at this point, and the other elements aren't strong enough to make up for it. NO

I really hate to not pass this one, as on the whole I think this is pretty good, but the main problem that Larry mentioned is both too distracting and too easy to fix to let slide. That problem of course being that the rhythm guitars almost entirely drown out the main theme for the majority of mix. Otherwise, this is fun, if fairly conservative, piece- it just needs a little tweaking. NO

It's really a shame that with all the materials you had to work with more time wasn't spent on the arrangement. It's pretty, the sounds are nice, but this is a only small hop away from being a sound-upgrade to the original theme. It's fairly easy to create pleasant music when you have nice samples, but I'm going to need a better arrangement to pass this. NO

Ok, this is friggin' cool. It seems the only true objection is that some feel that it doesn't expand on the original track enough, and I just can't agree with that criticism at all. A tad on the short side, but it's an adequately developed, well executed, and creative mix; it gets an easy yes from me. YES

Some pretty low quality samples and production here, unfortunately. You'd need one hell of an arrangement for something like this pass and this one just isn't up to the challenge. It's rather short, many of the sections are too close to the original, and the samples, aside from being low quality, are poorly used throughout. NO

Well here's a theme I'm rather familiar with, having toyed with it quite a bit myself. The arrangement is much more conservative than the weird effects and chipmunk voices might make you think; that is, there are next to no changes to the theme aside from instrumentation. If it wasn't for the percussive additions, this would be only a small step up from a cover. Seems a tad gimmicky and there's not enough actual arrangement of the theme to warrant a pass, in my opinion. NO

Yeah, I'm with the others, it has nice production but there's basically no arrangement of the source tune. Cover with rap/beats recorded on top is unfortunately a fairly apt description of this mix. NO

I have no serious problems with this. Nice samples, and a good, interpretative arrangement. The writing is a bit schizophrenic for my tastes, but otherwise I enjoyed this. Those who, like me, like music in the classical tradition but don't much care for overblown film scores ought to appreciate this one. YES

A bit on the repetitive side and fairly conservative as well. The synth and drum work, while not completely horrible or anything, simply don't meet the standards of the site. Bit of a weak ending as well. You just need more practice working with synths and I'm sure you'll start to hear some better results. Just keep working at it, man. NO

You sure this is a fugue, dude? As Larry mentioned, there is a decent amount of crackling throughout. This may actually be the sample itself; I seem to recall a few organ samples with problems like that. And the lowend presents another problem with the sample- it's far too muddy; when the pedals have the melody the whole mix deteriorates into a mass of indistinct sound. And given the short length of this mix, there are too many sections of all original material. Particularly as the style you were attempting to emulate lends itself to endless variations, there's simply no reason to introduce all new material (unless you were to make the piece longer). And, like Larry, I found the sustained pedal near the end to be largely unsatisfying and a bit of a compositional copout. This isn't a horrible piece or anything, but it doesn't really live up to its potential. NO

Pretty much with Larry on this one. This is a very conservative take on an already over-remixed piece. There's nothing really of substance added to the original, either. It seems the only arrangement decision was to simply have a lot of repeats. NO

The samples are the only major problem here, in my opinion. That's not to say that they're bad, but just that sometimes their flaws are a bit too exposed. The guitar in particular seemed to work better when it was hidden a bit. But otherwise, I rather enjoyed this. The arrangement drifts pleasantly along, builds nicely, and is just overall a joy to listen to. Nothing too flashy, but this is nice. YES

I tend to lean a bit in favor in passing this one. I agree that the sounds are nothing special, and while they could be better, they really didn't harm the listening experience at all for me. What can I say, I just flat out enjoyed this. The arrangement is quite impressive, full of energy, and a joy to listen to from start to finish. Excellent use of dynamic contrast throughout and the way you managed to develop and expand such a simple little theme is rather commendable. The only thing that truly bugs me about this (and it *really* bugs me) is the audio glitch at the end. But I won't reject the whole mix for that. YES

Nice. There's a good amount of variation and development on the theme and you've added a tasteful amount of original material (plus, a nice reference to the main Mario theme). Synths and drums, while perhaps nothing special, seem decently pulled off to me. An above-average and largely enjoyable mix. YES

Gee, you've got a lot of distortion on the guitar. Given the style of music, it seems to me that a tone with a less distortion and more clarity would have made more sense. There's also a muffled, "distant" quality to the recording of the guitar. It simply doesn't sit well in the rest of the mix. And the drums are basically acting like a metronome; they really need to be spiced up a bit. Combine that with an arrangement that isn't particularly interpretive and only a stone's throw away from "cover" and I have to side with a NO

Despite how much I sucked at it, I always liked Solstice and was interested in doing a mix of it myself. I actually rather like the subdued nature of this mix, but there is very little expansion on the original theme; and the piece in general is more repetitive than there's really any reason for it to be. Plus, you *really* can't have audio glitches like the one at :27. This is pretty close to getting a yes from me, but I'd need more development of the theme (and fix the glitch, of course). NO

The only reason I can figure for this not being a direct post is questions regarding the amount of arrangement vs. original material. Vast chunks of this are a bit too close to "cover" for my own tastes, but there's probably enough arrangement to qualify for the site. YES

It's neat that an orchestra performed this for you, but while the arrangement has its moments, I don't think it makes up for the performance and recording. There are little flubs throughout the work and tuning is a real bugaboo. This simply feels a bit under-rehearsed. Plus, in what I suppose is an effort to get this under 6mb, the encoding is rather low quality. NO Still, congrats on getting it performed.

Generally, I feel that the possibilities of writing for four pianos were never fully explored. Each line seems fairly simplistic and I imagine that this could be redone as a two piano or even a four-handed piece with little to no editing. The four pianos bit just seems a bit gimmicky and isn't used effectively, in my opinion. The low end is rather indistinct and you have some timing issues where the multiple piano parts are too loose rhythmically. And unlike some of the others, I don't feel the arrangement is much of a selling point (particularly, I felt the writing for the bass voices was unimaginative and too repetitive). I have to go with a no, here. NO