Chimpazilla   Judges ⚖️

This is a wild romp through the Virulent source indeed, very creative and avante-garde. I like it, there's plenty of source and it's a fun listen. This version is not my master, and this master is as jnWake pointed out quite overhyped in the high mids and highs. The premaster was already quite heavy in those regions, as my master still indicates, but this master is screaming in the high mids and highs to the point of pain. The limiter has been cranked so high here, and also oddly it is limited at -1.2db which seems odd to me. I agree another shot at the master would be appropriate here. I'm happy to provide my master but that is absolutely not a requirement. NO (resubmit)

Cool concept! But I agree with proph in his assessment that the sections don't really pay off, they each build fairly well but what they build to isn't satisfying. I feel like there's a lot of great ideas here, arrangement wise, but as he said there's something missing in almost every section. The sections also become repetitive as they move along, as the same patterns and instruments repeat over and over. These sounds are strange. They sound dated to me, but more than that they sound dry and midrangey which makes this less pleasant to listen to than it could otherwise be. I think these timbres could be processed to sound much better than this. The drum kit is weak, which is a shame for DnB, and the drum samples themselves are not fitting for DnB. I hear zero sidechaining so the piece lacks groove. The master is extremely and unnecessarily loud and somewhat overcompressed (I'm pretty sure that pumping is overcompression and not sidechaining!) Ok I just read the writeup and you've said there's sidechaining, but I don't hear it, it's not being utilized to its full potential. The low end feels so weak to me, and this also makes the heavy midrange sound even more midrangey. Looking with an imager I see the lowest range (150Kz and below) is somewhat stereo spread, which is causing the low end to feel weak and unfocused. This arrangement has a lot going for it, just needs more mixing TLC and some arrangement and writing adjustments to get it where it needs to be. NO

I think proph nailed his vote and I'm in full agreement with him on all points. Agreed about the boomy/wide bass, I put an imager on the track to be sure, and the bass is indeed wide. Narrowing the bass below 150Hz makes a huge difference to how the low end comes across. I always strive to make sure that the lowest range is mono on my basses and low drums, and I hit my masters with a monomaker below 125Hz as well, to be sure, so this doesn't happen. I love these vocals! Same as proph, I don't understand a single word other than "Link" (Linkie? hehe) "rupee" and "lynel" etc. but I am smiling listening to this!!! I also agree with proph's timestamping, unfortunately. It's not enough VGM source, and too much of the other Aguas track. That's a bummer indeed, because this is a very cool track! I agree that the chord sequence at 2:06 is not enough to tie that section to the source song, it's just too subtle on its own without any melody over it. Mixing-wise, the track sounds fine to me other than the left-panned-too-wide bass (which is an easy fix), and the master is a tad loud (especially for the style) but that's not a big deal, but the lack of VGM source and the overuse of the non-VGM source breaks the deal. I really enjoyed listening to this! NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO