Leaderboard

Quick review. Shido - Starts out silly and fun, although the detuning somewhat overstays its welcome. Then you take it in this awesome new direction. However the detuning reappears along with some dissonant chords, IMO to the track's detriment. Silverpool - Appropriate track title I'm not familiar enough with the source to tell if you added anything bit it sounds alright. Would have liked to hear the lead synths sound a little deeper and more pleasing to the ear though. hoboka - Liked the parts you added. Would have liked a little more of that. The tempo shifts were a good idea too but I think you took them a little too far. Nevertheless this stands out to me as the best of the three tracks.

You've got some lovely commentary on here, but I'll add my two cents and cap this off with an official mod review. EVAL You've gotten quite a bit of energy put into this track - the instrumentation sounds far better than the source while losing nothing in the original source's energy and intent. Of course, when handling the track in a way that's similar to the source you run the risk of being TOO close to the source for OCR's purposes, which unfortunately would be the case here. The notes, the style, the instrumentation, etc., is all very close to the source material, to the point of sounding like a sound upgrade rather than a re-arrangement of the material. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it wouldn't be something OCR could post. On a related note, the arrangement does a direct loop with no difference between the loops (other than the automated highpass location). It's a bit of a side effect of following a source too closely, but it's still an issue in it's own right worth addressing: if the repeat is nothing more than filler for length then it's not worth having in a stand alone track. In this case it's a method of achieving an almost three minute runtime rather than a meaningful expansion of the track. Give the listener something new to grab hold of if you use such repetition in the future - some new textures, variation in the theme, a variation in the drums, etc.. As far as the production values go, this isn't bad - the overall loudness of the track is about where it should be, and save for the moments where the highpass overtakes the track there's little notable overcompression or limiting artifacts. Those automated highpasses, though, really cause production problems (clipping/limiting artifacts), and they make little musical sense to boot. Techniques like automating the highpass should be used with some purpose in mind, not simply in the middle of an otherwise straightforward arrangement just for the sake of having an automated highpass. It really tars an otherwise enjoyable track. It's not bad, but it would be stopped right at the gate due to how conservative the arrangement it. Furthermore, the strange use of automated highpass would cause it some problems, as well. While not a bad arrangement, it's not something OCR would be looking for.

Sounds great, very professional. Was it all recorded with real instruments or did you make it in a DAW? I can honestly say that I like it better than the original, great job!