Really don't want to make a big point out of this, sorry everyone! Just one last thing I'd like to say.

[...]Perhaps lack of variation in the snare rhythm would of been more valid.

I said: "[...] after a while it drags on because it keeps hammering out the same line. Maybe some more variation, to accompany the build up of the overall theme?"

Elsewhere you say: "It really is a matter of personal taste. You're acting like the way you would do things is the end all, when it's not."

I would like to say: That's not the way feedback works. Of course it's all a matter of personal taste, I've never denied that. Moreover, the way I would do things is irrelevant, because it's your piece, not mine. However, you're completely disregarding the connection between creator and audience. In this case you created something and asked what the audience thought of it. The audience replied, and you are provided with a different perspective - not a better or worse perspective, but a different one. It's completely irrelevant whether or not something is "personal taste"; it's about being open to different ways of listening to your own composition. I assumed you were interested in a different point of view, since you stated that feedback was welcome.
Now, if you would've said "I deliberately chose the snare drum to be like this because <reason>" or just "I really like the snare drum this way", then that would've been the end of the story. However, you said "changing things you pointed out wouldn't make a big difference". Here comes the audience (in this case me) saying: yes they would, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned them. Of course you can disagree with my taste in feedback, but you are in fact disregarding the concept of feedback completely, so you'll never know whether or not it would've made a big difference. You haven't considered the idea.

Tl;dr: I'm trying to make the point that you're not open to suggestions at all, which in itself is fine, but don't ask for feedback then. If you're certain you're 100% happy with a composition, why would you want to post it on a music creation forum and ask for feedback in the first place? Just keep in mind that for every composition, there is a version of that same composition you'd be more content with somewhere in space and time.

The arrangement of my compositions are based on what I hear in real orchestra recordings. If I hear a song by a real orchestra use the so called "non-stop snare", I'm going to use that in my composition.

You're really hung up on this non-stop snare point but yet you disregard or don't respond to many of the other critical points others are trying to make. And if you're truly trying to emulate a real orchestra, much of that feedback was (and is) aimed at helping you achieve that. Even with sub-par samples. You've been around this forum for years, since 2011 I believe and you've been pretty active posting your pieces - WHICH IS GREAT! But much of the feedback you've been getting for years hasn't been applied. And I have no idea why that is.

It makes me think either you disagree completely with much of the critical feedback you've been given all of this time, or understand that feedback, ignore it or don't know how to apply it. I'm honestly not sure which is the case. Then you go on to say you're not ranting... while you're ranting in a long post. I don't get it. This forum is all about discussion, feedback, sharing ideas and helping each other get better.

And I'll give you a tip - the "non-stop snare" didn't really bother me as much, personally. But the production, odd volume changes, slow attack of some of your samples, lack of automation, lack of real depth and space and lack of overall progression in your piece did. And you can fix all of that with some production love! :)

Tl;d: Feedback can hurt sometimes. But try to look for what is useful to you as a composer (AND PRODUCER) and use it to help make your pieces better.

One other point - you seem to only look at your pieces from a composer's vantage point. But these days its critical that composers also be great producers. You're not producing your audio well at all. I pointed out several key factors that are lacking in your piece earlier. You stated this statement several times already: "...and I don't agree that following most of that feedback will improve it." Well, better production WOULD make your piece sound better without having to change a single note.

And that's really important because 100% of your audience is going to experience your music via streaming audio over the web. So shouldn't you spend some time and effort learning how to produce that audio better?

Well Sampletank 3 has a nice variety of good samples and articulations so maybe the problem is how you use them. Like in the melody starting 0:13 you clearly have used only one kind of articulation for the melody instrument. The attack is waaaay too slow for most of the notes and you release some notes too early so that you can hear the note fading out wrongly.

Try starting with articulations that don't swell in that slowly and use the swells only where really needed. It's so distracting that sometimes I think that the volume is pumped in the master.

I listened some of your other tracks and they sound nice when you have chosen the right kind of articulation and most of the time in nice parts it's without the swell. It sounds that you've just improvised or played the stuff in without touching the midi track afterwards to fix the note releases.

I'm not saying anything bad about the actual composition for now as it sounds quite nice. But it's ruined with wrong articulation choices. Try to fix even some parts and upload it again. That's how you have to work with clients also. They give you feedback (sometimes harsh) and then you fix things and notice also yourself that it sounds a lot better afterwards :)

You clearly are quite talented making songs and compositions so try to focus making them sound really nice for a while :)

I agree Sampletank 3 has good sounds for the most part. But the orchestral samples are from the dated Miroslav Philharmonik library from 2005. Not to be confused with the newer Miroslav Philharmonik 2 library. Still I could try to use more articulations. What articulations would you recommend I add to the French Horn melody?

Also, I have a question, when you talk about the attack, you're talking about how the note fades in correct? Just want to make sure. If so, does that mean I should fade in notes faster?

Again, the main thing with the Sampletank 3 orchestral samples is that they're from a dated library. More recent libraries like EWQL, Hollywood Orchestra and Miroslav Philharmonik 2 have round-robin samples. "Round-robin" means that a different sample is played each time you play a note. This helps get rid of the machine gun effect and helps instruments sound more natural. But Sampletank 3's orchestral samples lack this round-robin effect.

A lot of instruments in Sampletank 3 do have the round-robin effect. But unfortunately the orchestral samples don't.

Lacking the "Round-robin" effect, every time you hit a key with the orchestral instruments, it plays the same sample.

I have tried alternating between articulations every note to get around this; but that has questionable results sometimes.

The orchestral samples in Sampletank 3 also lack velocity layers. So no matter which velocity a note is; it will play the same sample.

More recent libraries also have built-in legato scripts. Built-in legato scripts make it easier to make realistic legato strings.

But I will try to take your advice and use more articulations. But like I said, the orchestral samples in Sampletank 3 are from a 2005 library and very dated. Lacking round-robin samples and velocity layers that newer libraries have, it's hard to impossible to make them sound realistic sometimes.

It's especially difficult with the strings.

One other point - you seem to only look at your pieces from a composer's vantage point. But these days its critical that composers also be great producers. You're not producing your audio well at all. I pointed out several key factors that are lacking in your piece earlier. You stated this statement several times already: "...and I don't agree that following most of that feedback will improve it." Well, better production WOULD make your piece sound better without having to change a single note.

And that's really important because 100% of your audience is going to experience your music via streaming audio over the web. So shouldn't you spend some time and effort learning how to produce that audio better?

Oh sorry nsmadsen, I wasn't actually talking about your feedback but The Lost OST's. I actually do agree with the feedback you gave. There is a lack of production such as lack of reverb. I agree with that 100%. Currently, I only use the reverb that comes with the samples; but perhaps I could add some reverb on the master track.

I think I already confused even myself crosstalking about articulations and attacks. So mostly I was meaning the attacks of the notes meaning the fade-ins of the sounds. The attacks should be quicker so that not every note sounds like it's climbing "uphill" and is at it's full power too late as the next note is already coming in.

It could be nice to try to move the first note of a melody to be a little bit earlier so that the full power comes in at the right place. Then the next notes can be with quicker attacks or they could start also earlier.

This video explains some of the stuff I'm trying to explain. I'm too tired and dizzy for now to explain any better :D

From 2:00 forward

So the notes start earlier and they go a bit over each other to give a legato feeling.

I don't think that the round-robin is a real problem for now as I didn't hear that much of a machine gun effect in your composition.

I didn't know about the velocities in Sampletank 3, thats a bummer. But maybe you find some different quieter or louder samples for different parts if needed.