Portal 2 - Reconstructing Science (Motion Sickness)

[Eino Keskitalo]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4246f874kgd7pkd/eino_keskitalo-motion_sickness-20150809-resubfc2.mp3?dl=0

 

Some improvements! Sending this off soon.

 

---

 

Resub final candidate 1
 

• cut out the weird section towards the end
• a bit more melodic now
• beefed up the snare sample

---

Working on a resub based on the panel feedback. Done a bunch of smoothing out the mix, plus a bunch of work on the structure. Not quite sure if it's quite there yet. Some sanity checking of background elements and harmony also left.

WIP 2015/03/23

-----

edit: submitted

final candidate 6

Tried to make the overall mix a little less noisy: turned snares, hihat & crash down just a little, EQ'd the saw lead - additionally, adjusted lead balance a little more so it's more even across the piece. Now to write the submission letter! Thanks once again to everyone for the feedback!

Fun fact: the project file is smaller than the MP3.

<><><><><> old: <><><><><>

final candidate 5 - unbusied competing leads in the final few bars

--- older: -----

Final candidate 4 (dl) - soundcloud

An update based on Timaeus' excellent feedback.
 

• tweaked the levels so that the main lead would stand out each part (a little seems to go a long way)
• tried to parallel compress the bass drum, maybe a bit more interesting now
• some other little details
• tried a bit of that crosspanning, but it's probably pretty inaudible
• boosted the limiter on the master channel by 1.5db (getting bad ideas at this stage?)

----------- old: ------------

Final candidate 3

An update based on Gario's excellent feedback.
 

• tweaked some lead & pad sounds to balance the EQ better
• pitched a couple of the snare sounds a bit higher
• made some leads follow the source more closely
• added a bg melody from source
• tweaked the bass sound for additional life/stereo/detail
• other small tweaks

confusing convoluted source breakdown:

What's used from the source:

the two slightly different note sequences:
0:51-1:05 "half-time"
0:00-0:07 "fast"; the variation/ending at 0:05 is only referenced once at a bg melody.

0:29-0:36 background stuttering melody-ish support bleep

0:22-0:29 bassy line

Source usage in the piece:

The bass line - the rhythm is offset to be off-beat:
half-time: 0:24-0:53, 1:10-1:23, 1:58-2:01, 2:05-2:09
based on half-time with chord change: 2:01-2:05, 2:09-2:12
mix of fast/halftime: 0:53-1:08, 2:14-2:41

Square lead:
0:53-1:05, 2:13-2:43 half time, the steady rhythm broken up
1:26-1:56 half time

The filtered saw lead at 1:48-1:56 based on the bassy line at 0:22-0:29.

Support stutter (from 0:29-0:36 in the source):

build-up:
0:09-0:11, 0:13-0:15, 0:17-0:18

meat of the usage:
0:20-0:38
0:40-0:46, 0:48-0:53
2:22-2:30

sparse usage (often buried):
1:00, 1:03-1:04
1:34, 1:38, 1:49, 1:53
2:06, 2:09
2:32, 2:36, 2:40-2:43

Other support stuff:
* "ticking" square 1:08-1:10, 1:25-1:26, 1:41-1:58, 2:00-2:01, 2:03-2:05, 2:07-2:09, 2:11-2:12, 2:19-2:21, 2:43-2:48 (from source 0:00-?)
* bg square lead 1:19-1:21 (fast, part at ?)
* bg square lead 1:23-1:24 (fast, part at ))

---- old --------

Final candidate 2

* faded the beginning in better & cut the too long delay tail at the end

edit: Some source breakdown.

Source use starts at 0:25. The basic building block from the source is the figure that plays at

. I've offset it a bit relative to the beat, and used it as the bassline.

The blop-blip that starts at 00:39 and evolves to a more proper melody at 0:54 is also based on that figure. The faster figure that plays in the background at 1:26 (and elsewhere) is also based on this figure, and in spirit to the faster figure that plays at the very start of the source (but I think just the first four notes are the same). I think that's all I've used from the source, there's lots of cool material that I skipped/replaced. The bassline plays throughout and much of the melodic material is derived from the same figure. The riff that plays in the breakdown starting at 1:27 is the same thing as the bassline, only now placed on the beat, instead of offbeat like the bassline.

Final candidate 1

changes:

* more attention to mixing the leads
* added a subtle pad and fx'd percussion to fill things out

--Eino

-- old:

WIP: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o534cpxz6flqry1/motion%20sickness%2020120726.mp3

As per sggod89's suggestion, cut put a low pass on the square lead. Maybe should do the same on (most of) the saw too.. I also adjusted the background hums, and put a little reverb on the bass line. All in all pretty small tweaks in the update. I should mix/master this properly and mark it Finished. So I should start learning about proper mixing mastering. (: I do notice that the waveform gets a lot louder in the end where there's tons of leads going all over the place, so that'd probably need some special (levels, eq?) attention.

--Eino

-- old:

WIP: https://www.dropbox.com/s/llhr2cxj3g67cog/motion%20sickness%2020120707.mp3

This is a tweaked version of my PRC220 entry. (In case you have heard that version, I've tweaked the structure a little and improved mixing). Arrangement-wise I've taken the basic 8-note melody/figure and based the bassline on it (I've "shifted" it to the offbeat, rhythmically) and built from there. The title is a bitter one, I would love to play Portal 2 (co-op!!!), but I get motion sickness from the game.

I don't have any big ideas how to develop this further, I'm thinking I'll just need to mix/master this properly. I'm aiming to get this posted on OCR. I appreciate any comments on

• the track in general
• the recognizability of the source
• if the sounds sound good enough
• if there's anything (too) strange going on with the melodies (which are a maybe little wild at times)
• if the structure feels like a complete piece

Thanks in advance & hope you enjoy

--Eino

Edited August 9, 2015 by evktalo
resub final candidate 1

[sggod89]

The mix has improved. I would try throwing a low pass filter on some of those lead synths at around 9-10k, otherwise it eats up the cymbals and the other synths. Maybe boost the horns a tad too. I think it sounds pretty good man.

Other than that I don't have much advice. I've never posted to the OCR, so I can't be of any help on that subject.

[Eino Keskitalo]

Thanks sggod89! I put the low pass on the square lead, and it didn't seem to hurt, at least. What to do you mean by horns btw, the saw lead? Should I low pass them as well?

New WIP: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o534cpxz6f...2020120726.mp3

In addition to square lead, I also adjusted the background hums, and put a little reverb on the bass line. All in all pretty small tweaks in the update. I should mix/master this properly and mark it Finished. So I should start learning about proper mixing mastering. (: I do notice that the waveform gets a lot louder in the end where there's tons of leads going all over the place, so that'd probably need some special (levels, eq?) attention.

--Eino

[tesselode]

I honestly just don't like this remix. The synths all seem obnoxious and not nice sounding to me. I think it's because they're all just playing separate parts at full volume. There's no subtlety to any of it.

The artistic decision is yours, but I would have some quieter sounds that blend in with each other, and then put a couple of stronger lead sounds on top of that.

(Note: My opinion of this may be skewed by just having listened to a very quiet orchestral song.)

[Elder Kirby]

The beginning is too forced and the transition is just terrible at 1:57.

Also, I feel like you stayed too true to the source, which isn't good.

Overall, the mix feels very dry and up front. A lot of sections are nice and full, but others are very dry in comparison. One such section is the part starting at 1:27--I feel like it would help if a high-freq counterpoint played in the background here. Some more stereo enhancement can help.

Other than that, the mix is pretty darn good; I like it!

Edited July 27, 2012 by Elder Kirby

[Eino Keskitalo]

Many, many thanks to both for your critical comments! I envision that this piece should be quite in-your-face, but I'll be giving the dynamics and the sounds (including dryness) some thought. I have a tendency to first make a sparse mix/arrangement that needs to be filled up. I probably need to give it a rest to hear it afresh myself.

--Eino

[Eino Keskitalo]

Final candidate 1

changes:

* more attention to mixing the leads

* added a subtle pad and fx'd percussion to fill things out

All of the above criticism probably isn't addressed, but I hope this is nearing a passable status. Comments much appreciated!

--Eino

[Eino Keskitalo]

Changing to mod review along with this trivial update:

Final candidate 2

* faded the beginning in better & cut the too long delay tail at the end

edit: Some source breakdown.

Source use starts at 0:25. The basic building block from the source is the figure that plays at

. I've offset it a bit relative to the beat, and used it as the bassline.

The blop-blip that starts at 00:39 and evolves to a more proper melody at 0:54 is also based on that figure. The faster figure that plays in the background at 1:26 (and elsewhere) is also based on this figure, and in spirit to the faster figure that plays at the very start of the source (but I think just the first four notes are the same). I think that's all I've used from the source, there's lots of cool material that I skipped/replaced. The bassline plays throughout and much of the melodic material is derived from the same figure. The riff that plays in the breakdown starting at 1:27 is the same thing as the bassline, only now placed on the beat, instead of offbeat like the bassline.

--Eino

Edited July 31, 2013 by evktalo
add source breakdown

[Gario]

MOD REVIEW

Alright, let's see what we've got here.

The arrangement has got the theme all in it... in the baseline. While I can't necessarily fault you for that (site rules don't prohibit this, after all), it does make it difficult to write the piece in a way that the listener will focus on it as the theme. Unfortunately, I find that after the first iteration or so of the theme the track seems to lose focus of the source, having a lot of distraction caused by the neat stuff you wrote above the baseline. It's unfortunately human nature that we'll focus on the upper lines, which makes it actually hard to associate it with the source, in this case. In short - the source doesn't seem to be the focus of this arrangement, and I think the judges would call you on that.

That snare sounds weird. It needs to have a tighter sound, and it needs to be tonally higher - it sounds messy and unfitting with the song, as it is.

The soundscape sounds like it's missing the middle if it's EQ range, which makes it sound hollow overall. Either make the instruments that you have fill this space better, or use an instrument to fill that space (pads work wonders for this - just be sure to watch for clipping!).

I like the structure of the arrangement - it balances the piece out nicely, and it makes good sense. However, I fear the source isn't focused enough in here, the soundscape sounds hollow and the snare needs a makeover. After you do that, send it to Mod review and I'll get to it right away (at least, sooner than I did this time).

Also, thanks for the PM - I meant what I said in that thread earlier. I'd like to catch fallthrough Mod reviews, if at all possible, so I'm glad you called me on my offer in that thread.

[Eino Keskitalo]

Thanks for the crits! That all makes sense to me. I'll look through the source for more material to use in the lead & support writing. I'll take care of the soundspace issues as well (thicker lead/support instruments I'm thinking) and look at the snare too. Again, thanks!

--Eino

[Eino Keskitalo]

Time to finish this thing for subbing. Still taking feedback, hopefully this will do!

Final candidate 3

An update based on Gario's excellent feedback.

• tweaked some lead & pad sounds to balance the EQ better
  
• pitched a couple of the snare sounds a bit higher
  
• made some leads follow the source more closely
  
• added a bg melody from source
  
• tweaked the bass sound for additional life/stereo/detail
  
• other small tweaks
  

confusing convoluted source breakdown:

What's used from the source:

the two slightly different note sequences:

0:51-1:05 "half-time"

0:00-0:07 "fast"; the variation/ending at 0:05 is only referenced once at a bg melody.

0:29-0:36 background stuttering melody-ish support bleep

0:22-0:29 bassy line

Source usage in the piece:

The bass line - the rhythm is offset to be off-beat:

half-time: 0:24-0:53, 1:10-1:23, 1:58-2:01, 2:05-2:09

based on half-time with chord change: 2:01-2:05, 2:09-2:12

mix of fast/halftime: 0:53-1:08, 2:14-2:41

Square lead:

0:53-1:05, 2:13-2:43 half time, the steady rhythm broken up

1:26-1:56 half time

The filtered saw lead at 1:48-1:56 based on the bassy line at 0:22-0:29.

Support stutter (from 0:29-0:36 in the source):

build-up:

0:09-0:11, 0:13-0:15, 0:17-0:18

meat of the usage:

0:20-0:38

0:40-0:46, 0:48-0:53

2:22-2:30

sparse usage (often buried):

1:00, 1:03-1:04

1:34, 1:38, 1:49, 1:53

2:06, 2:09

2:32, 2:36, 2:40-2:43

Other support stuff:

* "ticking" square 1:08-1:10, 1:25-1:26, 1:41-1:58, 2:00-2:01, 2:03-2:05, 2:07-2:09, 2:11-2:12, 2:19-2:21, 2:43-2:48 (from source 0:00-?)

* bg square lead 1:19-1:21 (fast, part at ?)

* bg square lead 1:23-1:24 (fast, part at ))

--Eino

[timaeus222]

There's a lot going on at once at 0:38 - 1:24, without a more careful volume hierarchy to allow each instrument to be relegated clearly to a specific part. You have a trebly saw arp, an octave-playing square-ish arp, that chippy sound you called the "ticking" sound, the bass's partwriting at 0:53, and a lead by the time you reach 1:10. Lots of trebly material fighting for attention.

While this is more of a rhythm-centric piece than most, there still needs to be one or two instruments that capture the focus of the listener so that the general listener can follow what's going on. You'll need to pick and choose some parts you want to come through more and simplify those parts while slightly lowering the volume of the arpeggiated parts. A bunch of arpeggiated parts at the same time really demands a lot of attention when all of them are nearly the same volume.

That aside, the kick could be stronger; it's somewhat of a generic dance kick at the moment, and while that isn't a bad idea in general, the execution is a little less strong than the sound design of the other elements. A kick like that one could work more in psytrance perhaps, but that wasn't your goal 'cause you don't have any 303's.

Also, seeing the track name, I'm surprised there isn't a lot of noticeable cross-panning automation.

Edited March 27, 2014 by timaeus222

[Eino Keskitalo]

Many thanks for the valuable comments, timaeus!

I think in my arranging I generally have a problem (or maybe just style, but more likely a problem) of not establishing a strong lead or a followable center to my arrangements. This isn't the first piece I get this kind of feedback with. Thanks for the good pointers, I'll look into it!

I was actually wondering about the kick myself. The kick is a stock sample, I don't know anything about constructing good electronic kicks - perhaps a good time to start learning.

Hehe, good one on the motion sickness (actually it's the name of this arrangement). If I did (over)do the crosspanning accordingly, I *would* probably get some myself quite easily. It's a fun idea, I'll consider it!

I'm don't want to polish this thing forever, just to submittable (and passable) status, as I want to move on to other pieces. But I'll try to address at least the clutter & focus problems to some degree. Once again, many thanks for the excellent crits!

--Eino

[timaeus222]

Many thanks for the valuable comments, timaeus!

I think in my arranging I generally have a problem (or maybe just style, but more likely a problem) of not establishing a strong lead or a followable center to my arrangements. This isn't the first piece I get this kind of feedback with. Thanks for the good pointers, I'll look into it!

I was actually wondering about the kick myself. The kick is a stock sample, I don't know anything about constructing good electronic kicks - perhaps a good time to start learning.

Hehe, good one on the motion sickness (actually it's the name of this arrangement). If I did (over)do the crosspanning accordingly, I *would* probably get some myself quite easily. It's a fun idea, I'll consider it!

I'm don't want to polish this thing forever, just to submittable (and passable) status, as I want to move on to other pieces. But I'll try to address at least the clutter & focus problems to some degree. Once again, many thanks for the excellent crits!

--Eino

Ah, okay, I got the source and remix name mixed up.

Generally, a tightly processed electronic kick would have some compression with a fast attack, medium release, and maybe some extra gain. If you can, you could try parallel compression. All that means is you process part the signal and leave the other part dry; that way, one signal can be very compressed, and when mixed with the other, it balances out to "just enough". This can be done by creating a compression send, then routing a certain percentage to the master and the remaining percentage to the send. 40~55% wet mix is pretty typical, but feel free to try experimenting within 40~80% if that sounds better to you.

Layering the kick itself is more or less a matter of taste, but generally, it should feel grounded, snappy, and "glued". Something kind of like this, perhaps.

[Eino Keskitalo]

Final candidate 4 (dl) - soundcloud

• tweaked the levels so that the main lead would stand out each part (a little seems to go a long way)
  
• tried to parallel compress the bass drum, maybe a bit more interesting now
  
• some other little details
  
• tried a bit of that crosspanning, but it's probably pretty inaudible
  
• boosted the limiter on the master channel by 1.5db (getting bad ideas at this stage?)
  

Thanks again for the excellent comments Timaeus!

--Eino

Edited April 1, 2014 by evktalo

[timaeus222]

Yeah, this is achieving a much clearer balance between the leads! Really the only concern I have left is that part near the end at 2:36 - 2:41, where some leads are actually fighting for attention; if you focus on that part, there are two or three leads going on at the same time, and at least for me, it gets hard to follow what they're doing. It does seem to go into that "motion sickness" idea that came up earlier, but maybe simplifying one (or two) of those parts with more extended notes (e.g. half vs. quarter notes) could put more focus on the melody with the most notes.

This is actually a neat remix, and despite its repetition, it personally keeps my attention to the end. Great job! =)

Edited April 7, 2014 by timaeus222

[Eino Keskitalo]

Awesome! Thanks once again. I'll fix that spot.

--Eino

[Eino Keskitalo]

final candidate 5 - unbusied competing leads in the final few bars

The melody kind of goes between the leads now.

--Eino

[timaeus222]

Awesome! I really like this. Solid work, man! I actually hear the source in there after comparing, btw. Just for perspective, you'd need at least 84.5 seconds of overt source usage. Here's what I'm hearing, based on my own comparisons:

0:24.051 - 0:38.820 = Source Melody in bassline (0:07 - 0:14) + chippy arp playing blips from source (0:29 - 0:44)

0:38.820 - 0:53.590 = Source Melody in bassline (0:07 - 0:14) + chippy arp playing blips from source (0:29 - 0:44) + non-source octave lead

0:53.590 - 1:10.205 = Source Melody with stronger bassline (0:22 - 0:36) + Source Melody in lead with lower-pitched "bridging" notes between the actual source tune notes (0:07 - 0:14) [i think that could be fine]

1:10.205 - 1:26.823 = Source Melody in bassline (0:07 - 0:14) + solo (?) + chippy arp playing blips from source (0:29 - 0:44)

1:26.823 - 1:48.970 = Source (0:07 - 0:14)

1:48.970 - 1:56.539 = Source (0:07 - 0:14) [1:56.539 - 1:57.972 is too quiet to count, I think]

1:57.972 - 2:13.897 = Dominating Solo [quiet source usage, might not count]

2:13.897 - 2:21.282 = Source Melody with stronger bassline (0:22 - 0:36) + Source Melody in lead with lower-pitched "bridging" notes between the actual source tune notes (0:07 - 0:14) [i think that could be fine]

2:21.282 - 2:49.000 = Source Melody with stronger bassline (0:22 - 0:36) + Source Melody in lead with lower-pitched "bridging" notes between the actual source tune notes (0:07 - 0:14) [i think that could be fine] + interacting leads

Overall, my personal tally is, not counting the solos (as in the worst case scenario):

110.973 seconds

If I don't count the last portion with the interacting leads, with the assumption that they bury the source:

83.255 seconds

So I think this could be borderline, but I think it'll fly.

Edited April 12, 2014 by timaeus222

[Rozovian]

This source reminds me of something else... just what?

Sounds a little too loud. The snare-ish thing sounds a bit trashy, probably adds to that sense of it being too loud and noisy. I think the percussion could all stand to be toned down a dB or two. Yep, totally hating on your drums.

Source seems fine to me. The Submission Standards say the source "must be identifiable and dominant", which it is in this track imo. Stopwatching isn't the only measure of how dominant a source is.

It moves well.

Just a tad too loud and noisy imo, otherwise it's fine imo.

[Eino Keskitalo]

Thanks Rozovian! I tried to address the loudness a bit. The snare effects chain is a bit too complex for its own good, I didn't want to start working on that, but did turn it down a little (and some other stuff too).

final candidate 6

Tried to make the overall mix a little less noisy: turned snares, hihat & crash down just a little, EQ'd the saw lead - additionally, adjusted lead balance a little more so it's more even across the piece. Now to write the submission letter! Thanks once again to everyone for the feedback!

Fun fact: the project file is smaller than the MP3.

edit: submitted

--Eino

Edited April 15, 2014 by evktalo

[Eino Keskitalo]

Working on a resub based on the panel feedback. Done a bunch of smoothing out the mix, plus a bunch of work on the structure. Not quite sure if it's quite there yet. Some sanity checking of background elements and harmony also left.

WIP 2015/03/23

[timaeus222]

I think the snare is a little more reserved than before, but that's not a major issue to me; I think the arrangement and balance concerns are more important.

Melody stuff:

Noting my breakdown section, I think the arps before 0:54 that play the source tune melody can be louder because they seem to be the melody, but they're quieter than the octave-playing arp and feel like they're in the background; that's one thing Chimpazilla was having issues with---no discernible lead until 1:11. Stylistically I personally think it's OK to do leads with short decays on their envelopes, but perhaps rebalancing the lead with respect to the other melodic elements (that don't play the melody) can help to bring the melody out more.

I sort of see why Chimpazilla also thinks the melody at 1:11 - 1:26 feels noodly (lacks contour). It doesn't feel like a typical call/response-style melody, in which one iteration plays something that feels like it's incomplete, then a repeated iteration alters the last few notes to "resolve" the incompleteness from the first iteration. Try chopping the melody pattern you have into two iterations (slice tool?), and layering the second one on top of the first one, and comparing the notes you are using, seeing how similar or not similar they are. Then try making the first half of each chopped iteration more similar and see if you can make the second iteration resolve the first.

For example, take the variation of

's melody here and separate it into four logical chunks; chunks 1 and 3 are the same, and 2 and 4 differ. Chunk 4 resolves 2 and prepares the listener for the song to go back to the beginning of the loop by using a picardy-third-like "resolution" that ends on the 7th note of the scale to add tension. That kind of feel is what people expect for a "good" melodic contour: one iteration that adds slight tension to keep people listening for a resolve, and one iteration that resolves the melodic tension.

Those things aside / overall comments+suggestions:

To be clear, I do hear an improvement in the way you handle the melody in general, and there appears to be a higher melodic emphasis this time around, so I'm glad you looked into that more. There also seems to be more expression on the leads. Still, for some reason the melody feels "noodly" and "directionless". Larry calls the arrangement cerebral, meaning it's not something to sit back and enjoy, but rather, to pay close attention to, to figure out more on what's happening. I don't think it's really an indication on how interested he is, per se, because he loves OCR! I think it's more like, he has to think harder to "get" the arrangement.

Something I would suggest is to sit back and try to identify on a larger scale, what the structure is supposed to be. If possible, try labeling each section in your remix to see how the structure looks afterwards (tab labels?). If there's no clear section (like if it's hard to figure out where the breakdown section starts, or where the intro ends, or where the outtro starts), then you've got a structure issue. Once you've got a better idea of how everything's put together in the grand scheme of things, then try looking at the transitions between sections and see if it all connects.

To me, it feels like what's past 1:59 in this remix is leading me in multiple directions at once (and in that sense is 'directionless' because it's every which way) because at 2:28 - 2:44 or so, the drums feel as if they aren't sure what to do, and they just raise the energy up, then bring it back down soon after, then back up again soon after, and as a result you've got 'indecisive' dynamics. It could be hard to think about, but having an idea of the dynamics someone could perceive in your music at particular moments in the track can help you to figure out where you want the track to proceed from a particular point while you're still writing it. So I guess that means you might want to consider muting certain drum parts and reworking them (almost) from scratch, just to see how you might do it *today* compared to ~4+ months ago.

Edited March 26, 2015 by timaeus222

[Eino Keskitalo]

Resub final candidate 1

Many thanks once again for your valuable feedback, timaeus222. I note that I should probably keep the big picture better in my mind while I write, and that also goes to melodies - I have a bad habit of just inserting a bunch of notes in to the pattern, instead of trying to think about the melody as a whole.

Since the sub, I extended the arrangement, but that was fixing something that wasn't broken and lead to that indecisive feel (or, to have more of it). Instead, I just cut out that weird section which no-one seems to think was good (even after simplifying it), and now it seems to progress well.

The Hydrocity Zone example was great, and I think I have the 1:08-1:22 lead resolving better now. I also mixed the bleepy thing a little higher in the beginning of the mix, doesn't seem to hurt.

I did mix the snares down due to the feedback, and I thought they were ok balance-wise for what I was going for even so much less loud. I did now layer the main snare with the lower frequencies of a beefier sample.

[Rozovian]

That snare thinks it's a hihat.

I'll just go by the judges' comments to see if I agree wit their crits. If not, it should be good to go. Not sure the timestamps are the same, but I'll pretend they are.

Mix needs tightening? Nah.

Snare timbre issue, too breakbeat-y? Yeah, I'm not a fan of the snare(s).

Not a lot of lead to grab until 1:11? Nah, the bass from 0:24 is enough for me. In the 0:09-0:26 part I might agree, but it's a much smaller part of the track.

Melody 1:11-26 lacks contour? It's softer, but I'd chalk that up to dynamics or something. I'm cool with it.

1:59-2:15 filler-y/out of place? Might be a bit more performance-y than the rest of the track, but not a big deal for me.

2:46 anticlimactic? Well, it's _missing_, so... The ending doesn't have a lot of oomph, and I think going from the high-pitch melody stuff straight to an ending without a reprise of a chorus part is what makes the ending feel a bit weak.

Lacking something to sound cohesive? Not imo.

Lacking expressiveness in the leads? They seems to have some automated filter on them. This could instead be a more deliberate thing for added expression, manually screwing with a parametric EQ peak or something. I think automating some parameter of the synths and using that to add some expression to the synths would be the best solution here. The background melody at 1:47 has a filter on it, and it moves expressively in that area. That's cool. The leads could use something for added expression, too.

Needs EQ work? Not imo. Maybe in sorting out the snare.

1:59-2:15 no clear lead? I'm cool with this part.

Mid freqs should be tamed? Nah. Seems fine to me.

For the most part, I think you've addressed the issues the judges had. I'd look into the snare and the leads a bit more; the rest seems good enough to me. Lead timbres are fine, they just need a little extra for expression. Mod wheel vibrato, filter motion, something deliberate. Snare might need replacing altogether. It seems you've got multiple snares, it might be enough to swap the supporting snares for a softer alternative. Not sure.

Still things to do, but whether those things are necessary to get this track posted is difficult to say. Nice work. I especially like the little fm percussion/ring mod elements in there.