pixelseph   Judges ⚖️

YOU HAVE UUUUUUNOOOOO I mean hell yeah I’ll sub one for this

Absolutely it will be needed ❤️

I’m in! Happy to be on either team 🤘🤘🤘

This is a solid start! Too much repetition across the runtime, and not enough personalization by far, to meet our criteria, though. proph hit all the same points I was going to make; there's plenty of room for more exploration in here - changing the backing under the solo, adding an original bridge to tie some sections together - that would help make up ground. Seconded on the #workshop channel feedback (direct link to the OCR discord) - it's invaluable for getting ears on your track and feedback making any adjustments you'd like! I'd be happy to give this another listen if it comes back on the panel with some fresh changes, but unfortunately it's going to be a NO (resubmit)

No reason to hold this one in suspense more, my fellow Js have identified exactly my thoughts. I don't think the instruments in and of themselves are bad choices, but I do think something is missing that would make them shine more - whether that's with saturation or other effects would be up to Matt. The arrangement overall works, but individual sections feel plain and last too long; as an example, :42 - 1:25 feels like it's said all it needed to say by :53, such that by the time the pitch ramp comes @ 1:14, I'm pretty fatigued by the repetition instead of enjoying the transition. 2:36 - 3:30 is another example - the section has changes inside it, but nothing in those changes feels like a compelling reason to have the section run as long as it does. The big pay-off at 3:30 loses all its steam for me since I was expecting something like it 30 seconds prior. This isn't too far from passing, it just feels like it's stuck between being a sketch and being fully realized. A tighter focus on managing the low-end and mids as Chimpa suggested, as well as tightening up the arrangement, would get this over the line for me. NO (resubmit)

Two sources that don't have a lot of melodic content - can definitely see why this is presenting source problems with my fellow judges. The piece isn't doing itself any favors by saving the most straightforward quotes of the source until the very end of the piece (the bassline rhythmic structure from Howling Gears being used only on the outro, for example). In times where a source has too simplistic a melody, or its defining features are in other facets of the piece (rhythmic structure, sound design, etc), it becomes much harder to nail down the tie between the remix and the source. And the spirit of Rule 3, as jnWake outlined above, is to make that distinction as clear as possible for the audience. On the panel, we're then tasked to ask, "when I listen to this section, am I making a connection to the source somehow?" Anyway, that's my preamble, onto the vote. It's a rare (and welcome!) vote on a VQ track where I don't have qualms with the production. There is some mud in the low-mids when all the layers start to coalesce (1:51 - 2:30, 3:50 - 4:25, 5:11 - 6:00), but it's not pulling me out of enjoying the track, so I'll live. I also agree with jnWake that the arrangement flows nicely - it certainly takes its time with basically a 2-minute slow burn intro, but the transitions between sections are excellent and the writing straddles the line between enough variance to feel developed and enough repetition to feel cohesive. The biggest problem the track has is source usage, as my fellow Js have noted. Both source tracks have a similar challenge to overcome from a remixing perspective, in that their actual melodic content is sparse to my ear. Howling Gears A has a single actual melodic phrase that I can pinpoint - the diminished leap in the synth. VQ's changed the interval to be something more palatable in the soundscape, but in doing so, I think it changes the character of the phrase enough that it's no longer easy to connect it back to Howling Gears. The arpeggiated runs in Howling Gears B are more clearly delineable, and they're woven in better. That leaves basically the rhythmic structure (the groove), not the notes, of the bassline, guitars, and drums to draw from in Howling Gears. Nidavellir's Shout has the portamento synth line as a melodic figure, as well as the even more melodic melody @ :26 in the source and B section melody @ :48. To my ear, the first 2:30 minutes of the piece is Howling Gears B (the modified arpeggio is the biggest tie, and even that feels tenuous to me), with the guitar coming in with the altered Howling Gears A melody around 1:12. If I am really listening for it, I can hear the Latin groove of the source's bassline at 1:50, but again, it's tenuous. 2:50 - 3:09 is much easier to identify as Nidavellir's Shout from the melody; I can't count the ostinato as the chord it outlines is not unique enough to Nidavellir's Shout. 3:10 - 4:27 comes back to Howling Gears B with the melody front and center in the guitar, and 4:32 - 5:11 returns us back to that modified Howling Gears A. 5:12 - 5:50 has no connective tissue that I can identify, and then we get the groove of the source bassline in the bass from 5:50 - 6:10. Timestamping gives me 233 seconds out of 376, or ~62% source if I include the tenuous spots, ~51% source if I don't (194 seconds out of 376). What it's coming down to, for me, is that I have to strain to hear the sources in this piece when our standards ask for very clear and identifiable - dominant, even! - source use. I think this is arranged and produced well, but all of the connective tissue just doesn't come through enough for me to pass this one. I would need to hear more clearly defined ties to the source, preferably early on in the track (within the first minute or so). NO (resubmit)

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.