Vig

I'm hearing this....sounds a bit uh...fuck. top thin. yeah. the piano, among other things, should be brighter. the bass as well, oddly enough. my criticisms from the last time around were dealth with, the drums arent too quiet anymore, and whatever else i said...uh...i like this track..it's so close..it could so easily sound better so it kinda hurts to give it a yes..but it might be a yes regardless...I'll come back to it. It would be nice if we could Email this guy and see if he can fix the EQ. Somehow i feel like the person to do this should not be me.

Yeah...there's nothing wrong with this other than the fact that it's straighforward, "vanilla" as Gray put it, not terribly creative...eh...i listen to a fair deal of electronica in various subgernes I am unqualified to name. People see our votes against electronic remixes and think I dont like electronic music. It's not true. But electronic music I consider "good" is like...creative and unique, which unfortunately this is not. "Vigilante Doctrine." I like that. NO

So this is a great arrangement, but still, the chiptuniness detracts, rather than adds to the song. sam is a talented guy, but OCRemix is about the boobs. i mean, instrument quality. NO

pads. they are sort of in the back so i cant identify the instrument

hmm...so the first thing i notice is that this track is lacking in a midsection. it's portioned like a womanz. wider at the top and bottom. other than that, this mix is seriously repetitive. gotta mix it up. NO

this game has such an awesome soundtrack. ah..this is very similar to the original. In fact, for the most part this could be described as the original, slowed down, with worse instruments, plus drums. there are some new sections but that really just means some random noodling on the lead over the same groove. Sorry but you need to make some more daring arrangement choices. NO

same tempo as original...more or less same arrangement...different instrumentation which works in some places, doesnt in others. some of the rougher synths dont work so well for me. The drums dont change...in addition to that, the sequencing is mechanical and repetitive. Some of the instrumentation is cool, but this has a ways to go. NO

at 2:30 the strings are playing Bb and D, the 1 and 3 of the vii chord of the key of Cmin. This follows the VI chord of the key in the same part, and since it resolves to the i, this progression makes sense. however, the bass goes from the VI (Bb) to the iv (F) and the lead plays the minor 3rd of the iv chord (Bb) which makes sense, as it resolves to i completing the plagal progression. In english, the bass and lead are playing one chord progression (VI, iv, i) at the same time as the strings play a different progression (VI, vii, i) and so they sound pooey together. Hence my comment that he needs to pick one chord or the other, because as of right now he's got two going at once and it sounds awful.

so clearly you've attempted to make the dynamics better, but it's still akward. the piano in particular now has clearly differentiated dynamics in certain spots, but it's quite uneven. The long lines are of completely constant velocity, and then almost as though to prove you know what velocity values are, you'll have a very quiet section and then have big loud piano stabs. eh. not natural. Musicians dont play consecutive notes at the same volume all the time. just a thought. the sax really bugs me. it's not the sample, it's the sequencing. velocity values, and also the solo is very unnatural. not particularly good part writing. i guess my original comment about the sequencing still applies. NO

As far as I'm concerned, the arrangement and performance here are passable without question. The production is the only thing holding this track back at all. I understand the tempation to vote NO because it clearly could be better. The track sounds monophonic which is a pain in the ass. And while it COULD be better, I don't really think it needs to be. With a fuller sound it could potentially be a very solid YES, but even as it is, it's still a borderline YES

Very moody stuff. When the vocals come in they seem a bit dry and forward for me. for their purpose I think they should be a bit further back. WOAH 2:30 a whole bunch of bad notes..ouch. that was quite ugly. Got to decide one chord or the other. cant have both. Not the strongest composition. It's really just groove plus a few ideas repeated once. However the moodiness is enjoyable enough. YES EDIT: Larry has forced me to think about the pooey notes at 2:30 and in doing so has made me grow immensely distateful of that section. So now, gotsta fix it. that in addition to the repetitive structure is enough for a NO

YES I think I may have enjoyed figaro more than this, however I think this track is a better OCRemix. Unlike the sparse chiptune instrumentation of figaro, the soundfield here is much more complete. The instrumentation becomes more and more dense, and it all sounds fine to me. This clearly isnt a chiptune. The instruments arent irritating at all, and the composition is up to Shna's par, if not his greatest work. I think it would be a mistake to reject this.

groovetastic. sounds quite flat, but sequencing is cool. actually, once the organ starts playing whole notes, i get bored. neither the rhythms nor the voicings are interesting. There's a lot of good melody and improvisation going on. the arrangement is very good. Keeps my interest, has lots of subtlety. by the end i'm still really impressed by the arrangement and the melodic/countermelodic parts. unfortunately the sound quality and the monotonous comping keep this one below the bar. I'd really like to hear a resubmit and I look forward to hearing more from you. NO

the ambience is enjoyable, and i'm a sucker for atmosphere, but this seems a bit cluttered and poorly thought-out. near 1:40 there's some muck where the pads and the flutes clash. In fact, the track very often feels cluttered. If you're doing ambient, you should leave more space. I feel like the flute sometimes plays too quickly, too many notes that are poorly chosen. entirely random. Needs better planning...i guess..iguess is the main bullet-point...i want you to get out of this. NO

the guitar performance isnt terrible...there are plenty of mistakes, particularly in the faster lines where you pick before your left hand presses the right fret. however these mistakes arent horribly prominent or anything. The solo is pretty cool, if somewhat sloppy...bends not going all the way up, rhythms are off the beat, that type of stuff. For some reason the guitar in the left channel is always too quiet. I think you guys are a bit harsh on the "original" section in the second half. it's very clearly the same progression as the original. I think the arrangement overall is pretty cool. I'll say this is very borderline. NO, RESUBZPLZ

the piano is mechanically sequenced, and there are a lot of notes in the low register that are too close, creating mud. the guitar sequencing on the triplets sounds terrible. The sequencing continues to be robotic and unrealistic. NO

this is a little bit too simple. lots of subtle aspects lack necessary complexity. the attack on the leads are too slow. the first minute or so has very little going on. later some of the counterharmonies work really well, like the brass, etc. the other problem is that it is repetitive. Not bad for a start, keep working with the counterharmonies, and try to make the track develop more. NO

I am not thrilled with the string sample. Feel like maybe a solo violin would have sounded better than ensemble samples playing melodies. however, the arrangement is solid, the transitions are beautiful (notably at 2:15 or so) Diggi Dis knows how to keep one's attention. Easy YES

I'm having trouble with this one. There's a lot about it that's good. I'm trying to describe it as completely as I can while still being clear. This mix has a lot of subtlety that is done particularly well. Panning, percussion hits, breaks. The instruments are simple, but tight. countermelodies (like the flute) are really cool. The mix is weaker when looking at the big picture. The groove is pretty much the same throughout. There isnt so much escalation as there is switching off between instruments and ideas. I feel similarly to this one as I do about Bonsai Garden. I'm borderline, but I think this is tighter than bonzai garden; I feel this ought to pass. YES

the instruments are quite muddy...everything is garbled. the other problem is that this mix is not so much arranged, it's just a bassline with a bunch of meandering stuff on top. NO

Koelsh tells me he'll make a minor adjustment to the sax volume this weekend, so lets hold this until then [link deleted]

the attack is painfully slow on the piano and strings. the piano sounds mechanical...too repetitive, and without dynamics. the arpeggios get really irritating in my opinion. better sequencing required. NO

agree with Jon; the arrangement is pretty good, but the sequencing is mechanical. Fast and furious without any break. The bass player would get mighty tired. the problem is there's little to no dynamic variation. Keep trying. NO

I'm borderline on this. Sure, there are production intricacies that could be better, but there's nothing too egregious about the production. The groove as a whole is great, the strings and ELP are smooth. but the second 2 minutes of the song are fairly monotonous, with the only variation being a violin solo, which really doesnt work at all. It sounds incredibly tacked-on. I say work a bit on the ending, get rid of the violin, and make a more clear or exciting climax, and it's a yes. for now, NO

larry's pretty much got it. too simple, not enough depth...ugly synths, repetitive. NO