OCR04843 - *YES* Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) & Knight 'n' Grail "Ninjan graali" *RESUB*

[Liontamer ⚖️]

Original Decision

Artist Name: Eino Keskitalo

 

Hello again and again, panel!

 

Another oldie but goldie. This was my piece from KNGI Game Duels EP vol.1, that I've touched up for the OCR submission. Which has now taken me from 2012 to 2025. I did take 10 year break somewhere in there though. Thanks to Guifrog, Rozovian, the WIP VIP Hemophiliac, Dj Mokram, pixelseph and the panel (and others!) for feedback during these years!

 

There is some story behind this track! KNGI Game Duels was an EP of mash-ups.. I think it was the brainchild of Dj Mokram back in the day on the KNGI forums, after a few other album projects were hosted there. It had a cool theme of every arranger pitting two character types out of three against each other in a single arrangement. I picked a couple of games I had played recently. To represent ninja, I picked Ninja Gaiden Sigma on the PS3 that I played through with a friend around then. The aquaduct level music stuck in my mind as being pretty cool. It turned out to be quite challenging to transcribe and arrange, but today I think I did a pretty good job! To represent warrior, I picked a homebrew C64 game Knight 'n' Grail.. which by now is about 15 years old? I'd played it a bit and enjoyed the mood & music. The Ninja Gaiden source tune is from the original Xbox version. I think the Sigma version is a bit different, but maybe I couldn't find a reference source for it so I went with the original.

 

Having gone through the gauntlet of varying feedback this somewhat strange arrangement is now pretty different when it comes to the mixing, and a bit different when it comes to structure towards the end. So this is definitely an alternate take to the EP version by now! It was especially interesting to really tone down the bass after the panel feedback. Hopefully this is decent enough to pass now so that this particular ghost can stop haunting me ...

Source breakdown:

• The arpeggio from Ghost Castle plays from the beginning, starts to weave in and out and the last whispers may be heard around 3:08 or so.
• The two-note figure that plays in Aquaduct 0:00-0:38 is played 0:00-1:00 (though in 6/8 and 7/8 instead of 4/4)
• Dropping the bass to C# in Aquaduct at 0:20 is reflected at 0:45-1:00 (although the bass does come back to D# in the arrangement before going back to C#)
• The melody from Title Screen plays at 0:28-1:00
• The melody from Ghost Castle at 0:47-> hums quietly in the background at 0:45-1:00
• Aqueduct 0:39-> is approximated at 1:16-2:07
• The two-note figure from Aquaduct plays at 2:07-2:38
• The melody from Ghost Castle is played from 2:07->03:11
• The bass in the final section 2:07-> also follows Ghost Castle chord changes.
• 03:27-> the title screen melody plays again

That's about it. Cheers!

--Eino

---

Games & Sources

💫 RESUB 💫

• Aquaduct from Ninja Gaiden (Xbox): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9qD2WA2CxQ
• Title Screen from Knight 'n' Grail (C64): https://haxel.bandcamp.com/track/title-screen
• Ghost Castle from Knight 'n' Grail (C64): https://haxel.bandcamp.com/track/ghost-castle

[prophetik music ⚖️]

when this came up ~18 months ago, i voted on this with primary criticisms being the balancing, frequency overload in the low mids, and the arrangement feeling meandering due to lack of dynamics.

opens with the ghost castle arp and a ton of really fun sfx work. some very industrial stuff is going on pretty far away, and the title screen's surprisingly chromatic melodic line comes in at 0:29. it's neat how well that works among a very spare background. the riff at 0:47 goes on for a long time and gets a little tiresome fairly quickly (that synth's delay effect was cool in small doses but is irritating with longer lines, especially since it's in one ear hard).

percussion drops a bit going into the textural shift at 1:16 - there's some new drums here as well, which are pretty hard to hear (especially the kick). the aquaduct arpeggio with the delay effect is back in the right ear and it's way louder than everything else. it gets toned back later which is good. this continues to wander around with the aquaduct theme in the front for a while. i found this section to be lacking in direction still.

there's a simplification at 2:07 alongside a time signature shift, and we're back to just the kitchen sink effects alongside the ghost castle theme for a bit. this section is neat with some of the counterpoint between the melody and counterpoint, but it feels underbaked both because of how thin it is here as compared to the drums chiming merrily along, as well as because it's the same synths as most of the rest of the song at roughly the same volume. it's hard to pull out that this is more or less important than other sections. i still find the transition at 2:37 confusing as well - it really sounds like the song suddenly ends, and there's no real prep or anything set up to come out of it either.

the synth work immediately following that break featured a few shifts that i found made it easier to pick out what was the most important. the texture here also feels more fleshed out. i didn't like that the lead instruments for this section were mostly in the right ear instead of centered. there's some fun stutter effects on the leads later on also that i liked. 

i don't think my opinion on this has changed yet. i still don't like the weird cut at 2:37, i still think the middle third drags, and i still think the lack of dynamics is a negative throughout. i don't remember the panned lead instruments before, but i find that to be irritating as well (i found myself turning my head regularly to the right to 'hear' the lead better) - in fact i think the piece is over-panned throughout.

from an arrangement standpoint, i think that you would be well-served by being more intentional bringing out the melodic lines you're trying to have us trace. you've got three sources, and tbh i think they work really well next to each other, but with that comes an imperative to be very intentional about how you emphasize and define what's where without losing the general song-form structure that you're using. the story here isn't as clear as it should be, and a big part of that is that the natural ebb and flow of a track isn't here due to there being little dynamics. i'm fine with a track that doesn't have a clear melody, but what is melody should be cohesive and readily apparent, and that's not happening here right now.

i do think you've fixed the mix a lot - i remember before the bass being totally overwhelming above everything else, and then all your instruments were very tightly mashed against each other. i think the bass is probably a bit overcorrected, but overall i found the mix to be passable aside from the panning stuff. my concerns are mainly with the song form and arrangement elements.

i have a lot to say here and it probably sounds like i hate it. i don't! i think there's some really neat concepts here, and a lot of overlapping back-and-forth stuff that reminds me a lot of old-school remixes that i loved. i just...i got done with the full listen a few times and just didn't remember a thing that happened in the middle of the piece outside of that panned synth being so annoying. that's not a good thing given the interconnected nature of this remix. the track doesn't go anywhere for an extended period of time. i actually think this is a fairly straightforward fix - just cutting some cruft out of the middle and emphasizing your melody more via non-delayed leads is probably enough.

 

 

NO

Edited January 9 by prophetik music
last paragraph

[Chimpazilla ⚖️]

I didn't vote on the previous version so I'm coming to this fresh.  From 2012-2025... that's a loooooong time to work on one arrangement!

I am a huge fan of unique and varied time signatures.  In this arrangement there are many changes in time sig which leaves me unable to find the beat consistently, leaving me feeling disoriented.  There isn't a kick in some of the drum track, and in some sections there is only a top loop.  At 1:33, a trap-like drum groove begins, with the kicks and claps each playing a busy and inconsistent pattern, and I am more rhythmically confused.  None of this is "wrong" technically of course, but for me it means I cannot connect with this arrangement rhythmically at all, it's more of a random-sounding mishmash of instruments and drum sounds.

Just trying to get a grip on the time signature changes, I hear 6/4 from 0:00-0:14, 7/4 from 0:14-1:00, 4/4 from 1:00-2:07 (at 1:33 there is one beat dropped, again at 2:07, giving one measure of 7/4 each time), 7/4 from 2:07-4:16 (outro).  That is a lot of time signature change and most of it is not signaled at all, nor is it supported well by the drum groove.

I agree with prophetik that lack of melodic/motivic content is hurting this arrangement, it makes the ideas harder to follow.  Combined with the changing time signatures and busy/random drum track, the lack of a lead melody to focus on makes this even more nebulous for me.  When there is a lead instrument such as at 0:30, it is hard-panned to the right.  I'm not a fan of hard-panned leads, especially when there is not a countermelody or something to balance it on the opposite channel.

The arrangement feels repetitive as it moves along, as the soundscape and instrumentation stay roughly the same throughout the piece.  The drum sounds and writing stay the same during most of the arrangement.  I don't feel like the trap kick, snare and clap fit well with the rest of the instrumentation which is more dreamy and whimsical.  The drums are mixed very quietly with only the snare sounding audible enough to me.

I really like the transition at 1:16 and the chords and arps that follow until 1:33.  That section is beautiful and mysterious and feels cohesive to me.  The delicate simple pattern in the background is keeping the rhythm for me and I can follow well in that section.

The mixing isn't too bad overall, other than the kick, clap, percs and bass being too quiet in the mix, and again I'm not a fan of the hard-panning of the prominent plucky elements.

There are many good ideas in this arrangement and solid synth choices, and I like the combination of these three themes, but the arrangement doesn't feel fully realized to me yet.  I'd like to hear some more variation in the soundscape, even some unexpected ear candy or filter effects would help break it up.  I'd like it if the drum sounds and writing made a bit more sense with the rest of the writing and instrumentation, and I'd really like to hear the drum groove support the time signatures rather than make them harder to follow.  Some better transitions into and out of the various time signatures would help.  The drum elements and bass should be brought up louder in the mix too.

NO

 

[Liontamer ⚖️]

When the volume's up, this does still feel muddy, and I see how the delay/warbling effects can feel disorienting; I'm OK, but I can see why others would take issue with it, and those effects could be reduced without removing the overall sound it's meant to create.

I like a fair amount of the sound design, though this still has a stilted feel, not helped in part due to the underwhelming claps, e.g. 1:42-2:38, as well as the bassline now getting pulled back too much, though I do hear it well enough that's it's genuinely contributing.

It's not the most sophisticated piece, but my reservations weren't on the arrangement last time around, they were about the imbalances between the parts and that causing the piece to feel too meandering and unfocused. The finish didn't need to be grandiose, but it was flat and underwhelming; I'll chock that up to personal taste and not let that strongly color my opinion

I understand the comments on the perceived lack of dynamics, but there's enough going on within a narrower curve, mostly from textural changes. Nothing about the rhythms and time signatures was throwing me off; for whatever reason, the busyness of this ultimately feels grounded to me, perhaps because I already heard the previous version. Same with the panning, nothing felt mishandled there to me.

Arrangement-wise, very transformative and it creatively invokes the three source tunes, so I remain on board with it on that level. The sound design could have been more sophisticated in parts, but I want to be very careful that we're not too subjective here, when IMO this is OK with the production. I'd recommend looping this more and familiarizing oneself with the flow of it; to me, the writing's solid and I can better follow along with it now that the mixing isn't so odd. It's a solid mood piece and an overall cohesive enough piece of music to me.

I buck these NOs; this is arguably too selective instead of permissive and what's here may have flaws but is more than cohesive enough to work, IMO. It's improved enough mixing-wise to push it over the line, and as much as I'm addressing potential issues, I want to be clear that the arrangement structure and creativity is actually there and the overall sound design and production are good enough for a hobbyist bar.

YES

[Hemophiliac ⚖️]

I honestly don't recall listening to this, I'm sorry but I just don't remember it.

Ghost Castle's arp immediately cuts through and is recognizable. The melody from Ghost Castle that appears later on 0:45-1:00 is barely audible. During that part, I find that the right-panned synth pluck sound is overwhelming my focus and is distracting. I suspect this is for a few reasons: one being that it's panned (not hard right, but might as well be), and the second being it's frequency range is in that mid to high-mid range (~1.8k-2k kHz) that cuts through. I question if the synth pluck was supposed to be the melodic focus or not. It also helps when the melodic focus is center panned or close to center. And if you drive our ear to a melodic focus better, it would help alleviate the "wandering" sound that prophetik and Chimpazilla pointed out.

No concerns an amount of source used here, adequate but not necessarily the smoothest listen with the time changes.

There's a large lack of dynamic changes through the track that is making it tough to sit through. Yes, there are textural changes that help propel the piece forward with parts dropping out and being re-added or changed as it goes along. However, some softer or louder parts would help greatly. This by itself is not a dealbreaker and does not need to happen, but would improve it should you choose to revisit it.

I feel like this one is close, but would need another go to pass. At a minimum I want to see a mix that let's us know what to focus on as a listener, and less distracting panning.

NO

[paradiddlesjosh ⚖️]

First, thanks for adding the source breakdown. That made identifying source usage and analyzing your arrangement much simpler. I’m not making the “Aquaduct” connection underneath the “Ghost Castle” arp until the bass starts the slides while the “Title Screen” melody begins to play. Still, each source is clearly represented throughout your track regardless. Proph already included a play-by-play outlining the arrangement and source usage above, but I’m including my own here.

The track opens with the arp from “Ghost Castle” atop mechanical noises and bass sustains. As the other Js have noted, the bass is noticeably tamer than I’d expect for a track in this style. I didn’t have an opportunity to listen to this one on the first go ‘round the panel, but my understanding is the bass was too loud the first time through – seems like you overcorrected here, but I can hear it well enough.

There’s a two-beat break and a shift from 6 into 7 at around 0:14 when the arp synth is joined by strings and claps. There’s some filter automation on the arp layers around 0:30 when a plucky synth adds the “Title Screen” melody into the mix. Around 0:45, the pluck synth’s pattern complexifies as the bass adds portamento. There’s a gradual release of energy around 1:00 as the plucks give way to the “Ghost Castle” arp. There’s a bar of 8 subtly thrown amongst the 7 and the extra beat seems to help this spot breathe.

At 1:16, there’s a shift into “Aquaduct” and another meter shift into 4/4. The “Ghost Castle” arp gets molded to fit the 4. Excellent restraint on the percussion until 1:33, after the bar of 7, when the beat drops. There’s a mix imbalance in this segment as the pluck synth on the right overpowers the pads on the left until 1:33, where the plucks fall below the pads (note: from my listening experience, this is more pronounced in speakers or monitors than headphones). Hemo’s right that the pluck here is too hot, I’m hearing around 3.5 kHz – if you cut about 2-3 dB around with a medium Q, that would mitigate this issue.

The drum groove intensifies at 1:50 with the return of the claps and some hi-hat drills. I’m actually on board with the drums mixwise here; to me, each part’s audible and in its lane. The claps are being used more like claves or a cowbell than like a backbeat layer here, which is probably going to throw some listeners for a loop and cause them to lose the beat, especially once this little foray into a 4/4 groove is over. While an unconventional use of the palette, this part writing choice works in my opinion because the snare is capable of holding the backbeat role without the clap layer.

Back into 7 at 2:03 where the “Ghost Castle” arp returns and we get the melody from the same source – as an aside, the arp up to this point has been incredibly helpful for keeping track of the pulse against the intricate drum patterns. The plucks counter at 2:22 with a variation of the arp pattern. A break in 6 at 2:38, and then we’re back to 7 with the “Ghost Castle” melody in the plucks. The descending “Aquaduct” motif returns at 3:12 and flows into a recap of “Title Screen” at 3:27. The drums begin simplifying at 3:42, as does the pad running the “Title Screen” melody, and it feels like the energy is dragging here more than is necessary. But here comes a strong ending at 4:13 and we’re done.

Is there a perceived lack of dynamics? The other Js have certainly made a good case for it, but I say Larry’s got the right of it with this track having a narrow dynamic curve. The meter swaps like the bar of 7 around 1:30 and the pause in 6 at 2:38 work wonders for managing the pacing as the track moves through the sources, and I feel the textural shifts more than make up for the slow burn in terms of track energy.

As for the production side of things: as noted above, the right-panned plucky synth causes some panning imbalances. EQing the pluck could provide some more arrangement clarity in sections like 0:45-1:00, 1:33-2:03, and the return of the “Title Screen” motif at 3:12 – you might even have enough headroom left over to bring the bass up a couple dB. As it is, I’m not hearing clipping, pumping, or other overcompression artifacts, so this isn’t a deal-breaker for me in the grand scheme of things.

I’m going to split the panel here with my first vote: I buck these NOs, too. As Larry mentioned, this one takes a few listens to grok. The production issues noted above are certainly worth exploring, but the arrangement is cohesive and there’s lots of creativity shining through on it. I say this is above board.

YES

Edited February 21 by paradiddlesjosh

[pixelseph ⚖️]

First-time listener here as well!

There’s no question that all 3 sources are represented in this remix. Opening (:00-:1:32~) arp is from Ghost Castle over the bass movement from Aquaduct, melody is from Title Screen. Dominant melody seems to change hands when the sections change (1:33, 2:08, 2:41, 3:12, 3:41) which helps keep all three sources tied together rather than getting into medley-itis. Outro blends the Aquaduct arp under the Ghost Castle melody; percs hint at the Ghost Castle ambient chip noises.

Melodically, Knight ‘N’ Grail feels more dominant than Ninja Gaiden here, though structurally the arrangement and style are more Ninja Gaiden. I’m leaning more KnG here as far as dominant track, specifically Ghost Castle as its arp and melodic sequence feature most prominently across the runtime.

The remix opens with the synth arp which has the focus for the first 30 seconds until the plucked synth comes in with the melody. Starts in 6/8 until around :14, when everything swaps to 7/4. 7/4 can be a tough meter to grok with a perceived lack of backbeat - the clap on 2 and 6 helps alleviate this, giving it a 2+3+2 feel. Title Screen melody over the top of the 7/4 around :30 was done by displacing the pick-up in the melody by a beat; love the ostinato line at the end, though the delay masks the playing more than it enhances. This also is where the panned-lead issue the other Js brought up begins. Counterpanning the delay from the pluck to the left channel is one way to address this, though centering the pluck and ping-ponging the delay right-to-left also works.

Aqueduct shines through around 1:16; plucked synth takes the Aquaduct arp and a pad takes the two-note lead line movement. The percussion brings us to a 4/4 feel, building the claps to move to syncopated hits and a backbeat snare after 1:41. Energy picks up here thanks to the percussion and bass at 1:50. Section at 2:08 drops the bass for a round before coming back in around 2:23 an octave up. Filter synth has the Ghost Castle melody, the pluck enters with the bass for a countermelody. We get a fake-out drop at 2:38, swapping back to 7/4 but with a 2+2+3 feel this time. New warbly piano seems to have the melody here while the pluck takes a deserved breather. Bass maintains its upper octave work throughout. 3:12 seems to be the climax of the piece, pluck returns with the filter synth halfway through. When the outro arrives at 3:41, percussion and bass settle down to land the plane.

This is a clever arrangement and a lot of attention has been paid to balancing out the sources. I am in the same boat with Hemo, Chimpa, and Proph, however - the panning on the leads is not helping this piece. Having a melodic phrase front and center gives the audience something to focus on, and especially when you've got a tricky odd-time rhythm underneath, it's all the more important. Bringing whichever instrument you want the audience to focus on back to the center while keeping the counter-melodic voices and FX to the sides gets this over the bar for me.

NO (resubmit)

[jnWake ⚖️]

You surely picked a challenging source with that Ninja Gaiden theme… After listening to the other 2 sources I have honestly no idea what to expect from this!

K, so we begin with the arpeggio from the Ghost Castle source, I like the patches used here. There’s a brief tease of Ghost Castle melody before some percussion elements enter… Here things get tricky since you shifted the arpeggio somewhat unexpectedly to 7/8 (or /4? Whatever). Soon after, the melody from the other Knight ‘n’ Grail joins and I’m surprised that it actually fits well! A similar vibe continues until 1:16 where we finally get a clear presence of the Ninja Gaiden track. The mix gets a little busy here, I assume because of reverb or similar effects. I like that you somehow kept the Ghost Castle arpeggio as background despite the change in chords. Focus returns to Ghost Castle around the 2 minute mark until there’s silence and a neat transition at 2:40, which continues the Ghost Castle melody actually. I wish the bass was louder on this entire section, it feels very subdued in general. Eventually, the title melody returns and eventually the song ends. I feel the ending is a bit anticlimactic, after 4 minutes I was hoping for something more interesting but it kinda just stopped.

On the arrangement side this is pretty cool, you do a great job mixing the sources, especially the 2 from Knight ‘n’ Grail. Ninja Gaiden is much less present but I’m not really surprised since that source is extremely odd. I also like that you changed the time signature for your own personal touch, something like that quickly makes the cover “your own take”. Structure of the arrangement also flows well, slowly adding more regular percussive elements and using recurring themes in a smart way.

On the production side I think you nail it for the most part, although there's still some issues. I generally enjoy the sound choices in here and there’s clearly a lot of care put into how the soundscape evolves. The moody percussion in the first minute is neat although arguably a little loud. As something to look for in next mixes I think the reverb/delay (whatever you used for ambience) is coming too hot and loud into the mix, which creates a lot of mud and some slightly ear piercing moments. The mud is very noticeable in the Ninja Gaiden section since the guitar arpeggios generate a lot of it. Another issue I found was the bass, I felt I couldn’t really hear the bass but after looking at the EQ curve there’s actually a lot of bass so… I dunno, maybe you didn’t find a bass patch that cuts through the mix well. Consider layering additional patches for this instead of simply pushing the current patch harder.

Overall, this is a pretty cool track! I really like the arrangement and although I think the production could be improved (basically, control the reverb/ambience mud and fix the bass), I feel it’s good enough to pass. Like Josh, I decided to come here and split the vote!

YES

Edited February 22 by jnWake

[Emunator ⚖️]

I see walls of paragraphs all above me, so there's probably no chance I'm getting through this one with a clean vote... not sure how I missed voting on this during the judge test myself!

I love the foundational elements of this piece, juxtaposing a deep 808 synth with some very grimy, industrial percussion drenched in reverb and some plectral instruments that feel like they could have been pulled straight from Castlevania. On a conceptual level, we're hitting the right marks here. The end result is washy and messy, but in a way that feels appropriate - the leads don't necessarily cut through, but do they need to? I'd argue that this works perfectly well as more of a vibes-focused track where the melodies are sidelined.

The 808 feels rather tame though, like it wants to be a commanding presence that grounds the rest of the ambient elements in something more concrete, but it doesn't really feel that way in the mix. This is common when you have a bass that has tremendous sub presence but little upper harmonics, and can usually be rectified by either adding some subtle saturation to the bass (preferably using multiband saturation so you don't introduce issues with the sub frequencies) and/or by cleaning up competing frequencies in the low mids from your other elements. I would imagine that the industrial/orchestral percussion layers probably have a lot of low-frequency content that doesn't need to be there. Make sure you're low-cutting your reverbs too! Low freqs can build up there and dull the presence of your bass and kick.

The muddiness is the only thing that I feel actively detracts from the listening experience - the rest feels like it can be chalked up to a stylistic decision, so I personally side with the YES votes that this does enough stuff right that the bass mixing shortcomings can be a "learn from this next time" rather than a dealbreaker on this piece!

YES

 

[XPRTNovice ⚖️]

One of my biggest issues with this mix is the panning. There's a heavy imbalance here with lots of things basically pushed all the way to one side. Hard panning can work in a mix with strong melodic and harmonic elements, but in an arrangement that leans heavily on undefined ambiance, it makes it difficult to find a focal point and I felt lost for a majority of the time I was listening. 

Beyond that, the mix itself feels muddy, as some of the other judges have mentioned. I won’t dwell on that, but from an arrangement standpoint, it took me about three minutes to even grasp what was happening. I don’t mind atmospheric arrangements, but this track feels like it’s missing something essential. The hard panning, combined with the mix’s lack of clarity, makes it difficult to interpret the composition. If the mix were cleaner, I might be more forgiving of the arrangement, but as it stands, it falls short in terms of structure and overall cohesion.

To improve this, I’d recommend easing up on the extreme panning. This will force a more refined mix, requiring careful EQ and compression rather than relying on placement to create separation. Right now, it feels like hard panning was used as a shortcut to avoid detailed balancing. With so many elements working together, bringing them toward the center will help ensure each instrument is both necessary and properly positioned relative to the others. Or you may find that once you're forced to mix them together, some instruments are doing double duty and can be discarded in favor of a mix that is more effective.

As for melody and overall direction, I’m not sure where to steer you. Part of that is due to the chosen sources, but it’s also because the track remains too ambiguous for a clear path forward.

NO

[DarkeSword 🎮]

There are a few weak spots but overall I really like the texture of this entire track. The hard-panned synth is a problem but it's not present for the entire song so I can get past it. It's transformative, and the contrast of industrial sounding percussion with a dreamier, synthy-er sound on top is nice.

YES

[Gario ⚖️]

Man, most votes on a track ever? More likely than you think!

So the good: this does a very nice job blending the sources, and it uses both in ample amounts (mostly using the C64 source as texture), and I like the soundscape. The production values are decent, as are the instruments used.

However, the mixing is dense, and sometimes is easy to lose track of what people should be listening to in the arrangement, with the lead often being no louder than the accompaniment. This leads to a larger issue of the arrangement sounding like it's meandering aimlessly - there's little for the listener to grab as important so the overall arrangement sounds like a bunch of textures and ideas put into one package rather than an arrangement. After the 2:41 there is a melodic hook that's easier to follow which helps the song close off strong, and there's some material from 0:30 - 1:00 that could be used to grab the listener's ear if it wasn't so washed in reverb and mixed to match the levels of the rest of the texture.

There are a lot of good ideas here, but I don't hear enough to keep the listener's attention over the textures, and there's too much going on to consider this minimalist or atmospheric music. I *hear* elements that could be used as leads in various points of the arrangement, but they need to blend less with the rest of the texture and not be washed out with reverb as well as be mixed more in the lead to work as such. I hear an arrangement in this, but it needs to be mixed better so that the listeners can hear it, too.

I like it, but it needs more focus. Better mixing and cleaning up the likely intentional leads so they don't wash out so much would bring this the focus it needs.

NO

[Rexy ⚖️]

I'm a not-quite-first-time listener here - I heard this on GameDuels back then.

I followed along with the source breakdown just fine, and with these sources brought in, I'm glad that the Knight n' Grail music provided most of the melodic anchoring - they made it much easier to follow.  I am, however, going to disagree with the difficulty of following grooves as outlined further up, and that's because the groove does have a downbeat leading into the individual bars.  It is tricky to anticipate when there's a change to another time signature shift, though, but it is way less of an issue when most of it is at 7/4 initially.

Credit where credit is due with the soundscape - there's a great selection of dreamy pads and synth/keys that send this in a more atmospheric direction, and I am all for the ride.  But mix-wise, it's not a perfect one.  There is bass, but it's a very light sub-bass - and that takes more of a backseat to the various leads, which vary in panning, echo, and tone.  One is a piano that is louder than the others, is hard-panned to the right side, has a high amount of reverb and a pinch of a chorus effect, and dominates over everything else.  It works when cooperating with the hard-left organ and has had moments where it allowed the sweeping pads to take more of that front stage.  But it's not as effective when it's eating up the soundscape around it and, therefore, adds unnecessary clutter.

Now, here's the big question.  Is this a dealbreaker?  Surprisingly, no.  The master has no issues with clipping or over-compression, and the waveform allowed for a consistent level of narrow dynamics without going the whole "waveform sausage" route.  This decision is something that I can chalk up to artistic intent despite its imperfections.

If it does get sent back, then I wouldn't mind the panning being tighter and some tweaked instrument balancing - but after further deliberation, I see no reason for it not to be posted as it is.  We would appreciate a warning the next time you send in something that a previous iteration of the panel had last assessed, just saying. ;)

YES

 

Edited March 7 by Rexy