CHz

He's made music for porno games so he's okay in my book.

Arrangement is on the simpler side, yeah, but this gets more than enough work out of the melody. Well developed, keeping things interesting from beginning to end. Nothing really negative about the production except for the ending, which isn't really that bad. It'd be nice to have that extended a little bit, but this is postable either way. YES

That opening dialog is sampled from a Halo 3 commercial: . Pretty well used here, I like that. I also like the arrangement even more than I did the last time. Both themes were combined nicely.The drum writing could have been more interesting, but overall I don't think that was a major negative. They definitely could use more beef, though. The balancing is also weird in a few places. The main rough patches where clarity took a big dive were 2:12 and 4:55. This is really close, but I think a little more production work would take this over top. This is definitely improved from the last version, but there's just a little bit more to go. NO (resubmit)

Alright, I have had more than enough time to mull this one over and I still feel this one is under the bar, so I'm going with: NO I didn't actually get around to mentioning anything about the production, but at this point all the sore spots have been covered. Neither the production nor the arrangement are terrible, but they could both use some work.

BEST FRIENDS FOREVER (congraturations)

By the way, duders, second source is here: . It's kind of loose, but I think that middle section is a pretty obvious reference to 3:20-3:55 specifically given another track from the game is used.(and before the inevitable OH CHZ YOU ARE SUCH A NERD WHY DO YOU ALWAYS KNOW THIS STUFF, I have played this game like fifty billion times because it's fantastic, why haven't you)

I guess you could say the first couple of minutes are an expansive take on the original, playing the melody fairly straight (but with some definite changes) and building on the minimal accompaniment a little bit, but there still really isn't much going on in the track because the only real additions are some percussion loops, bass, and sound effects. And then the ending section is basically just a rehash of that. 2:56-4:04 is exactly the same as 0:44-1:52, but with an extra layer of percussion. The transitions in and out of the middle section are a bit rough, the first one especially, and then that section's a variation of a different source, the music that plays when you're trapped in the cage. That section is definitely more interpretive, with a more modified melody and changed harmonies. It's also pretty simple when you get down to it, though, with the original material just being loops building up on the source. I dunno, I'm just not really excited by this arrangement. The fact that a big chunk of the end is just a retread is a big factor. I feel like this needs to build on the originals in a more substantial way than it does now, even during the first two minutes, when it's just slightly modified melody + bass pad + SFX and then slightly modified melody + bass, drum, and synth loops. This is pretty much coasting to a pass, and everyone's been complimentary to the arrangement, so you're really all okay with it? I've been feeling since I got back into voting that my arrangement bar's been out of whack and I've been coming down too hard on things. Most of this just sounds more in upgrade territory to me, but maybe I'm just completely off the mark here.

Decent base for an arrangement. A bit conservative with the melody and the style, but there's a lot of original accompaniment and some melodic interpretation here and there. It's pretty short; I'd like to see this fleshed out more. Production could definitely use a lot of work, I'm with the two fellas above. NO

The Ronfaure usage is pretty direct. The mix uses the second melody from the latter half of the original pretty much straight, with an extra repeat of the first few measures and a few minor pitch and timing changes. Compare 1:51-3:04~ in the mix with 3:05-3:55~ in the source. There's similar accompaniment as well, like the clarinet countermelodies at 2:25, 2:36, and 2:47 (3:27-3:37 in source), the descending figure played twice starting at 3:04 (mimics the chords starting at 3:55 in the source), etc. If you want to be generous, you could count the melodic fragments in 3:30-3:54 being loose melody usage too. So, with that in consideration, the arrangement here is recreated Forest Temple in the beginning and end with some original piano and strings, and straight Ronfaure in the middle with a mix of original and adapted accompaniment. I still think this is too close to the originals overall. Regarding the production, I'm surprised no one's mentioned the strings carrying 1:12-1:40. The fast runs in particular make them sound really fake. I don't theoretically have a problem with the depth as OA said, because I think it fits the mood, but I'm starting to get a bit of a headache from listening to this too much because all of the sounds occupy the high end. Filling out the soundscape more would be welcome. NO

I was going to say the arrangement is pretty OK, but I've been beaten to the punch to that one, thanks big giant jerk. Anyway, "pretty OK." The interpretation of the source was fairly good. The accompaniment is simplistic, though not really out of the norm of ragtime. It could definitely be a bit more interesting, playing off the melody and solos more and generally being more engaging to really get that ragtime toe-tapping feel across. Right now it's kind of generic, and that combined with the odd stereo separation gives that weird, disjointed feel Vig mentioned where it's like it's not a single solo part. The other weird part for me is the section starting at 2:12 that's decidedly unragtime. It could just be me, but that short thirty seconds or so before the bass-chord-bass-chord accompaniment comes back really throws me off. The sequencing could certainly be a lot worse, but it's still very robotic, and not just in the accompaniment. The right hand playing is really incredibly even to a fault, except for the occasional accented note. This is really obvious in the fast runs, like at 1:03 and 1:36. And, again, the panning was a weird choice, and I think a wrong one. Sorry about writing too much and generally focusing on the negatives, but I would like to see this on the site! I think it's got a lot of potential, but it's just not all the way there yet. NO (resubmit)

Huh, this source is an interesting adaptation of the Dark World theme from LttP. A bit more noteworthy than the track from the game that is the Dark World theme from LttP (literally). Arrangement mostly takes the expansive approach, but it checks out. The melody and chords are changed in a few places, the slow section is good, and there's a lot of original material in there. Pretty close, but I'm okay with it. Production is pretty crisp, not a whole lot to complain about. The flute does get a little lost in the synths in the louder sections, though it's not so bad, and the overall sound of those sections is nice. I liked it. YES

There's some personalization here, but I think this sticks too closely to the original, in not just melody, but also the accompaniment. The main bassline is simplified from the source, and most of the synth riffs accompanying the melody are straight from the source as well. There's a little playing with the melody and some original accompaniment in there, but ultimately this just feels like a dance adaptation without a whole lot of interpretation of the source. Production is pretty spot on, though. Nice work with the synths. Never thought anything got too mushy, except maybe a little in the tail end of the big buildup from around 1:15 to 1:26. The arrangement is definitely my main issue. NO

The above votes are pretty comprehensive, so I won't say much. The arrangement is pretty rad, though maybe a bit stretched out for how much actually happens, especially the first half. The production is not terrible, but there are a lot of areas that could use some work. Not a bad effort overall; I enjoyed the direction you took the original. NO

The melody is fairly unchanged from the original, and there wasn't really a whole lot done besides moving it to a trance setting with an original intro and outro, but the leads and accompaniment do change, so that's something. Production side, why is the lead so soft through a lot of this? 0:35-1:03 is kind of soft but alright, 1:59-2:55 is okay when it's not competing with the pads and drums, and 2:55-3:23 is really hard to make out, with the piano handling of the melody immediately after not much better. The piano is not particularly great in general either. I'm not going to be a stickler for emotive sequencing in a dance track, but it's front and center for forty seconds starting at 1:17 and just doesn't sound all that good, especially with all that delay. I dunno, maybe I'm being too hard on this, but I don't think it's all the way there. The arrangement could be more interpretive, and there are some not exactly major but not exactly minor either production flaws. NO (resubmit)

Almost all of the melody in 0:41-2:51 is derived from the source, but I couldn't connect any of the guitar or piano stuff in the intro or outro. The handling of the source material was alright, and the integration with original material was pretty good, but this could definitely use more overt source. I don't have anything to add about the production that hasn't already been covered, except that the track gets pretty crowded at the climax from about 2:40 on. NO

You have no idea how long I've been waiting for this. Nice nod to Messiaen in the mix title, by the way. The arrangement is intelligent; the motives from the sources are still very recognizable despite the modifications and all the original material dancing among them. I especially like the section after the cadenza, starting as a canon in the woodwinds before being built up with other material. I'd love to have heard this performed by a real ensemble, but no major gripes with the sequencing. A job well done, sir. YES

Not a whole lot to say. :thumbzup: to the arrangement and the production is nice and clean. There is some emptiness, but it's never detrimental to the light and breezy sound. (b¯^¯)>

I think it just scrapes over 50% (0:40-1:26, 1:52-2:04, 2:27-2:44, 2:59-3:24, and 3:39-4:10 all work for me), but even if it didn't, this would still be connected enough. YES

Cool concept for the mix, but the execution leaves something to be desired. The arrangement is a bit simple and repetitive, and while the sound effects work pretty well to keep things interesting, the writing could stand to be more varied. The drums are pretty loud, and that in combination with the simple writing makes them stand out in a not so good way. The panflute sound also isn't that great, but everything else is alright. Good stuff so far. The simplicity is a nice approach, but it ends up being a problem because it makes the flaws that much more obvious. I think this could be really good with a little more work put into it. NO (resubmit)

Pretty conservative, but the additional writing, original sections, and chord changes definitely help. The guitar has almost no presence, especially once it switches to rhythm, and the non-bongo percussion is also pretty weak. This is pretty close, but the combination of factors puts this under the bar. I don't think it would take a whole lot on the arrangement or production to bring it over. A great first sub, for sure, and I always appreciate the Follin love. NO (resubmit)

Production is certainly passable. I think the percussion does suffer a little bit, but this sounds pretty good despite that. I like that phrasing "dangerously conservative," as though the world were in danger of exploding if this were any closer to the originals. Obviously extremely coverish on the melodies, but there's original drums and guitar harmony even in the first half, some really subtle piano in there, soloing obviously, countermelodies, and all that good stuff. This is really scraping it for me and I could go either way, but I'm going to go with a yes. There is more than a minimal amount of original material in this, and both source melodies are tackled twice in different ways. YES

Creative take on the original, I like the things you've done with it. I didn't really like the sound of that lead synth, but that doesn't affect the decision at all. It's really in my face, though, and it starts eating up the rest of the track at the end. That and the snare make this feel unbalanced, though production is otherwise pretty solid. I'm kind of on the fence about sending this back for some balancing tweaks, but the arrangement is pretty cool, and the issues aren't distractingly problematic, so I'll go with a pass. YES

I'm rather liking this track. Granted, not a whole lot of direction, but it didn't really drag anywhere for me thanks to the textural work. Pretty cool for a track to chill out to. I do unfortunately have to join the majority here re. the arrangement. The mallet stuff from 3:25 to the end was easily recognizable as that bit in the source starting at 1:50, but the rest of it was way iffy and not really connectable with the source save for a few fleeting moments. NO

I gave the mix and Calling the Four Giants another listen, and I'm cool with the music box; for some reason I was hesitant about it, but it's one of the more distinctive parts of the source and still fairly recognizable despite the modifications (I mean, I caught it, right?). Thanks, bromigos. YES'd like hell If he wants to revise the vocal part, that'd be great, but I think this is absolutely fine for posting as is.

Hey brodingtons, can someone timestamp me some source usage in the first half of the mix? I can't really hear anything I'd call obvious usage of either Oath to Order (what he said he mixed) and Calling the Four Giants (the MIDI he actually linked, and given the lyrics what I'm assuming he mixed), and the mix is pretty overtly Stone Tower Temple from 2:12 to the end save for a short break, so I feel like I'm missing something obvious. The closest I could come up with is the music boxy accompaniment from 0:55 to 1:28, which I guess with a stretch could be derived from the guitar in Calling the Four Giants from 0:08 to 0:25. That's basically the only thing preventing me from YESing this. Excellent arrangement idea with some nice performances, and holding this up on production would just be nitpicking.