Liontamer   Judges ⚖️

http://ocremix.org/artist/1/yuzo-koshiro

The drumbeat being kind of repetitive for the first section dragged this down some, because it's not that interesting. Strange shift at 2:02 that could have used more of a transition, but no big deal. Some dense sections were too cluttered. That's about all the criticisms I had. I'm not sure what's there to NO besides feeling the arrangement approach is potentially too gimmicky or disjointed. OK sure, it sounds kind of gimmicky. Could it be better? Yes. But is it cohesively put together and mixed alright? Absolutely. I just don't agree with the NOs at all and felt those calls were too subjective. What's here is creative, interpretive, and reasonably well-executed. Let's go. YES

Sounds pretty beefy. When the melody entered at :27, the soundscape was fairly cluttered and the countermelody, while probably subtle on purpose, was almost completely obscured. Same with 1:21-1:48; the melody was totally obscured so the balance between parts is weak, and the overall levels were just insanely over the top. Yeah, this arrangement was pretty sweet, so I was surprised there could be 2 NOs. But it's all about the mixing being jacked here, so I don't really need further play-by-play. halc's right when he describes this as both hot and crowded, and it needs to be fixed. Don't touch the writing, but adjust your levels and declutter the dense sections. Hey, wouldn't be the first time an awesome arrangement got sent back due to the production being a mess. Tighten it up, and let's get this posted, Alex! NO (resubmit)

The track was 6:11.5-long, so this needed 185.75 seconds worth of overt source tune usage to pass on the arrangement level. I'll never have DarkeSword's theory ear, but I've been familiar with this source ever since The Black Mages arranged it, I listened through to both versions of the source (NES and PS1), and I listened through to this with the breakdown provided by Ian. That said, I like liberal arrangements, and I don't mind an arrangement focusing on the minutia of a source tune, but this arrangement definitely crossed that line towards being too liberal while coasting off of oversimplified stylistic similarities. I caught whiffs here and there, but what's there ultimately felt too liberal and overly simplified to the point of not enough overt recognizability compared to the source. Palpable mentioned something I also heard, which were a lot of instances of using, say, the first two notes of a pattern, then drastically altering what came after it. Just a lot of liberal, seemingly original writing that had vague similarities to the source, but that was it. Here's what I walked away agreeing with: * :17-:52 (A) * 1:02-1:32 (A2, just the first 2 notes in the pattern repeated 12 times = 12 seconds) * 1:36.5-1:49, 1:53-2:01.5 (IA/A3) * 2:06.25-2:21.5 ( * 2:36.5-2:44.5 * 2:59.5-3:16 * 4:08-6:08 (just the first 2 notes in the pattern repeated 16 times = 32 seconds) 139.75 seconds or 37.6% source usage Some stuff I didn't count: * 2:21.5-2:36.5 & 2:44.5-2:58.5 (stylistically/rhytmically similar, but notes are too different from 8 note patterns of source; doesn't count for me) * 2:59-3:34 - Too overly simplified. The synth arpeggios possibly would have counted if they weren't so buried in the soundscape. If anyone can point out A-to-B comparisons that involve shared melodies or transformations that go beyond rhythmic and time-signature based oversimplifications of certain parts, I'm all ears. I appreciate the breakdown, but I didn't identify much strength and directness with these stated connections. NO (resubmit)

Yep, it's totally fine. Plug the site in the chat too, if people enjoyed the mix you played.

Interesting opening. Good thickening of the vocals, though they sounded too distant, IMO; seems like a purposeful choice though, and it's not a huge deal to me. The backing percussion and rhythm guitars brought in at 1:09 were kind of metronome-ish and vanilla. It's not poorly done, but it just seemed to have no real life to it and dragged on. Ironically, just altering the rhythm on the shaker-type sound and snare at 2:31 was enough to make that pattern sound much more interesting Well, the lead vocals are generally not decipherable. But indecipherable words are perfectly acceptable in mainstream music, so I don't see the big deal here; the mixing's more important than whether I understand the words. The chorusing on the supporting vocals at :49 seems OK, though I would have pulled them back just a bit. That said, 1:58's chorus vocals seemed too muddy (mixing-wise, forget the delivery), there were a couple of spots that needed to be de-essed, and the combination with the supporting vocals just mudded together until 2:14. Weird fadeout of the vocals at 2:14 and again from 2:51-2:53; minor thing, but a slower fade would be better. Loved the vocal build from 2:31 slowly getting more intense, then the epic chorusing at 2:44. Some decent soloing from 2:49-3:06, though it was over the more plodding backing patterns, and the guitar performance should have been tighter. Heh. Interesting wail from 3:27-3:30. Would have went for different notes there, but it was fine and I liked the energy. The mixing from 3:30 was extremely cluttered; it just felt like guitars & backing vocals were sharing the same frequency range and mudding together, though it could be something else. 4:03-on was even worse where both sets of vocals and the instrumentation all just washed over each other with nothing cutting through in a clear foreground or background role. I liked the deconstruction from 4:48 until the end for the finish; sweet idea there for a cooler way to fade things out. Yeah, I'm not an engineer or production mind like Vig, but I know what I'm hearing and that's a messy soundscape getting in the way of a great arrangement. I may not be dead on in articulating what's specifically off, but do what you can to allow the individual parts to breathe more, Connor, and you guys would be in great shape. Definitely do NOT drop this one and nag anyone and everyone you know that's better at mixing and take a tumble down the learning tree. This is a well-though out arrangement concept where the performances get it done; you just need to adequately clean this up and you'd be good to go. I want to see this posted in some form, for sure. NO (resubmit)

Love this source tune. Definitely used it as talking segment music during the VG Frequency days; it's nice to have on loop. A little straightforward for the melodic side of the arrangement and the orchestral adaptation, and I thought the mixing sounded noticeably muddy for the densest parts possibly due to the drums. I'd really prefer another pass at that before it was posted, as I think Joe will look back on this one and agree it shouldn't quite sound this way. It feels pretty borderline to me, but I can get beyond it enough to not NO it on those grounds. I liked the countermelodic writing added to the melody at 2:18; that was a late addition that was definitely needed badly or the melody would have been too repetitive. But yeah, I agreed with Vig that it's hard to fault the execution. The additive parts were good and the execution was there, even if the soundscape should have been cleaner. Short and sweet, Joe gets it done here with a swanky approach here. The new part-writing and dynamic shifts here and there did a nice job extending the theme, and I think it's a solid treatment. YES (borderline)

You know, people bitch about when OC ReMixes don't fit the mood & instrumentation of the original pieces, but when they have a closed-minded attitude, they miss out on gold like this. Yeah, the piece was definitely on the liberal side, so I needed to time it out and not count any flourishes that, while nice to listen to, were arguably too liberal in the treatment of the source. The music was 3:22.5 long, so I needed more than 101.25 of overt source usage for the source material to be dominant. Here's what I timed out: :03-:18.5, :49.5-1:08.5, 1:11-1:36.5, 1:41.5-1:45.25, 1:49.25-1:55.75, 1:56.75-2:00, 2:04.25-2:15.75, 2:51.5-2:58.5, 2:59-3:05.75, 3:06.75-3:13.5, 3:14.5-3:17.5 = 101.5 seconds or 50.12% One could possibly count the droning-style approach of :18.5-:44 as inspired by the intro or the first note of the melody, but either way, I would have let that different style usage of the intro's drone push me over the top if this was a few seconds below my count. Turns out it checked out over 50% anyway, slim as it was. You could probably count a lot of the flourishes as source usage on some tangential level, though they were pretty indulgent and hard to A-to-B with the source. Anyway, that's just getting down in the weeds for the folks that care about the source usage (everyone should) and want to understand where exactly the theme is heard. On the arrangement & performance side, this was just transcendent, amazing work. Markus, you have a new fan. This is exceptional and such a fresh spin on a very underappreciated theme from FF9. YES

Right at :01, there's a light but pervasive hiss present. It wasn't a huge deal, but if it can be eliminated, that would be helpful. It stands out more during quieter sections like :53-1:20. Well, I'm hearing the mixing/balance criticisms from Vig, but it just sounds like a pretty purposeful stylistic approach. It does have a washed out quality, but all the parts actually sounded pretty clean. I would have preferred the volumes between the parts to be balanced in a different way as well, but I felt what was there ultimately works. You should see if you think some other minor balance tweaks might be an improvement on the kind of soundscape you had in mind; I thought what you had sounded a little too distant, and it's possible you might like this more after some tweaks, but IMO that's not necessary. That said ()... I would actually say the big negative was the panning being WAY too wide, which is just taxing on headphones when nearly all the foreground is panned pretty hard left. Just adjust the panning so it's not as drastic, and maybe raise the overall volume a touch. The arrangement was stellar -- very delicate, expressive and exceptional, so don't change a thing about the writing itself. If we were still doing conditional YES votes, that's what I would give it until the panning was addressed. Nonetheless, this is very awesome stuff so far, Kevin, and I really want to see this posted in some form. Some quick touch-ups will address the panning and make passing this a formality. NO (borderline/refine/resubmit)

That kinda-sorta Vega vibe the opening notes give off is awesome. Also, DAT BASS. Such a sweet track.

Seems to be going for a fairly straightforward, happy arrangement. The organ-ish part on support (first used from :09-10) sounded a bit indistinct. With the bitrate so low at 128kbps, a lot of details in the soundscape ended up just blurring together. We need at least 192kbps or VBR1 quality from now on, according to the standards. The drums sounded flat right out of the gate, and the other instrumentation sounded alright in terms of sound quality, but the timing sounded pretty rigid for the most part. By :48, the percussion (even though there were some changeups here and there, was becoming too plodding. There was the brief flourish from 1:11-1:20 to create some real contrast before changing section at 1:28. The brass lead from 1:28-1:36 was pretty flat, and that was indicative of the broader problem with the overall execution. 1:53's section also felt like more of the same plodding stuff. 2:23 briefly employed a nice slowdown, but then went back into the plodding pace. There are subtle dynamic shifts every so often, but it's basically one tempo, a constant percussion beat and instrumentation that lacks a lot of expressiveness. The writing/arrangement sounds good (albeit conservative), but the performance doesn't sound humanized and natural. It would fit in really well in, say, an N64 soundtrack, but the production standards for sequencing are a bit higher than that. I'm afraid my criticisms seem pretty similar to past ones; I haven't heard the earlier versions, though it seems like there's been some improvement on the sample quality when reading the past votes. Either way, this is an instance where you may have hit a ceiling as far as what you can do with your tools for a song like this and REALLY need to consult artists in the Workshop to more closely get at the production issues holding your music back. NO

The mix was 5:54-long, so I needed at least 177 seconds' worth of overt source usage to pass this. As is, yeah, I'm not finding enough. :35.75-1:47, 1:52-1:59, 2:47.75-3:11.5 = 102 seconds or 28.8% overt source usage Other stuff like the patterns from 2:00-2:12, 2:12-2:47, 3:24-4:00, or 4:00-4:23... those things seem meant to be rhythmically similar to the 8-note pattern of the source tune, but there's no actual melodic connection, and it's very easy for the interpretation to venture into too liberal territory. If anyone who can compare the note patterns wants to weigh in and offer some clarity, that would be appreciated. That being said, I can't say it would matter to me if these patterns were moved a few steps, it just doesn't sound that way to me. I love the parts that do very obviously use the source. I think in trying to develop the ideas further and perhaps not be too repetitive, Jason veered too far away from the source tune with some of his patterns and ultimately DID go too liberal with the approach. Sounds great in a vacuum, and Jason did a great job, but I think even he knows it a bit of a stretch. Unless a compelling case is made that the patterns are closer to the source's 8-note melody, this is just going to have to be one for me to admire outside of OCR. If that's the case, a "radio edit" or revised version that used the source melody more closely during some of these long liberal sections would easily make it. NO

Too liberal? He said it. (Not that I wouldn't have pointed it out myself.) - LT remixer: Theophany remix: "Gravity" source: Vs Nightmare: game: Metroid Fusion Hey guys, I believe Shinesparkers will be releasing its Harmony of a Hunter: 101% Run sometime this month. I don't know if you are considering a flood of anything from the album, but I wanted to submit either way. This is a contemporary "hybrid score" style remix of the Nightmare boss theme from Metroid Fusion. "Gravity" is more akin to ferocious trailer music than my emotional tribute material from Crystal Flash, and it's also slightly different from the Shinesparkers release version. This version includes a few extra tech/weaponry audibles created from slicing and sequencing found sounds. In terms of arrangement I chose to avoid the keychange in the original song, instead expanding on the interpretation and main theme, including a "slowed down" version toward the end. Hopefully it's not too liberal. It would be awesome to see some Metroid Fusion make it to the site. Thanks for your consideration and time. Cheers, Jason

Thanks a lot for the arrangement breakdown; everything checked out and was very straightforward. Gotta say, I'm not a fan of these strings at :17, which sound terribly fake and serve as the lead; they're not awful, but they're so exposed, it just stands out too much. Same with the thin, rigid piano at 1:11 and that corny saw lead at 1:31. You have a good arrangement sense and skill in structuring things, but some (just some) of your lead instrumentation here was bland and undercut the expressiveness of the writing. From 1:41-on, those criticisms didn't apply much (even though there always room for improvement), and other stuff from earlier like the bass kick, the hand percussion, the backing synths, and brief sine wave cameo (1:23-1:26) sounded smooth, so I like your instrumentation style overall. The faux-guitar handling the OutRun-esque part of the source chorus at 1:48 isn't really meant to sound like an electric guitar, so that wasn't something to criticize. Solid transition into the Castlevania melody at 2:24; the acoustic guitar stuff sounded pretty sweet. The piano at 2:59 still had the same fakeness issues, but sounded MUCH better as an accent in the background by not exposing the sample as much. Smooth transitions using the main source briefly from 3:06-3:14, then finishing the with prologue theme. Aside from the flimsy claps from 3:34-3:49, the instrumentation and soundscapes sounded pretty swanky. Nice close at 3:51 parroting the source. Minor thing, I probably would have added one last note after the final note at 4:08 for a better resolution. Also, the fade was a bit too sudden. No big deal there. Yeah, another solidly arranged one from Mansoor; this was sweet. Nice to hear him tackle yet another game without an OC ReMix, and one with a unique and interesting tie to the Castlevania series later on. Keep those instrumentation criticisms in mind so you can improve the parts that were too lacking in realism and richness. Otherwise, nice work! Definitely looking forward to your next submission. YES

Right off the bat, I didn't like how muddy the soundscape was. Guitars were pretty crunchy at :07; not really a fan of how it sounds like it's distorting; it doesn't really offer anything to the track. I wish the awesome lead at :30 were less muddy; I love the delay on it, but it lacked some highs. Still, a very ethereal, somber tone that worked beautifully with this source. It's a shame it doesn't quite cut to the foreground all the way. WHOA, the chorus at 1:03 sounds WAY better than the previous version I heard way back. The strings at 1:14 also didn't sound horribly bone dry like in the oldest version I heard; it's not perfect and the sequencing still strains for credibility, but it's thankfully not not a upfront element much of the time, otherwise I'd probably NO it for that. Excellent, expressive guitar work from 2:28, while the strings at 2:45 (again, sequencing was iffy) served their role well in the background where the issues weren't as exposed. Yeah, I'll definitely echo the praise and crits of the others. The arrangement has a ton of creativity and great energy, and the strength of the writing's so much better reflected in this version. When shit wails, it wails, and that's something Mike has pulled off very well throughout his time in the community. That said, my nagging but genuine feeling is that the mixing's honestly below the bar. No hate on anyone feeling that the arrangement carries it. This arrangement is amazing and dense, and the performance is strong, but it's extremely cluttered, which was just a messy distraction and wasn't acceptable IMO. You side-by-side it with my favorite control track djp's Revenge of Shinobi 'Consent (Make Me Dance)' and the difference is just so stark. Awesome arrangement that deserves to be here, but even a slight bump in the mixing quality would be enough for me to flip to YES. It's definitely a mix where you can look back in 5 years with more experience under your belt and think "I'd love to take another chance at mixing that" for more clarity & proper separation of the parts. It may pass, and I don't have an issue with that, but I'm definitely pulling a Disco Dan with a potential sole outlier vote. NO (borderline/refine/resubmit)

Thank you, Ivan, for matching up the song to the source sections that inspired them. That said, OA pointed out this potentially felt too liberal the first time around, so I checked into this one. I needed at least 109 seconds of source usage in the arrangement for the source material to be dominant. :49-:51, :55-57, 1:01-1:03, 1:07-1:47, 2:00-2:14, 2:16-2:39, 2:51-3:18 brief part of background bassline following intro chords: 1:49-1:50.75, 1:55-1:56.75, 2:40.75-2:42.5, 2:46-2:47.75, 3:26-3:27.75 113.75 seconds or 52.2% overt source usage Onto the full vote... Interesting vibe for the intro, reminiscent of something WillRock would create. The guitars at :23 seemingly lacked some hi-end, but no big deal. From :00-:46, I didn't hear any overt source tune connection even though I hear what you're attempting to do as far as arranging it. :47-1:10 sounded very loosely connected. :46-:49 sounds like a simplified version of :11-:16 in the source video, and I see what you were going for again, but the notes were totally different. But :49-:51 more closely matched with :16-:20 from the source. :46-1:34 was a little cluttered/muddy as well. Not sure what happened with the mixing there to cause that (seems like part of the reason may be the drums), but that could use some EQ adjustments to tighten that up. That build then moved into the main melody finally showing up overtly from 1:10-1:33, followed by a solid chorus from 1:33-1:47. Once you moved onto 1:38 and some elements dropped out, the soundscape gained more clarity. Then we had a stripped down section following the chord progression (I don't count that as source use, it's too simplified) until 2:00 brought back the chrous on guitars until 2:14. 2:16 definitely had the most subtle source usage, relying on bass chords explicitly used in the back of the source intro to fill the same role here while you had some original writing on top including some ultra liberal soloing. Creative stuff there. 2:40 shifted to some overly simplified/liberal chord progressions of the chorus before the chorus itself came back from 2:51-3:18 before finishing up solidly. The final fadeout was too fast, which was sloppy, but wasn't a huge deal. The instrumentation and energy sounds a lot like something OA would have sent in back in his more formative years. While the performance sounded excellent, I felt the mixing could benefit another pass to brighten the leads and declutter the foreground, but I'll leave that up to other Js to co-sign on or not. But in the bigger picture, I think the strong arrangement and performances overcome some lesser weaknesses in the mixing that ultimately didn't detract in a big enough way to hold it back. Nice work and good energy, Ivan; keep 'em coming! YES (borderline)

No, they smellz.

CONTEST WINNER ANNOUNCEMENT! THANK YOU to everyone who entered our exclusive Video Games Live UBER SWAG BAG giveaway, organized by Tommy Tallarico JUST for OC ReMix fans! This is all to congratulate OC ReMix mainstay Jillian Aversa for VGL's official announcement of her JOINING the concert tour THIS SUMMER! Please LIKE all 3 pages linked so you can know about new dates as they're added and see Jillian & VGL perform at a concert hall near YOU! And now the announcement of the winner, who wins... • Video Games Live: Level 2 Blu-ray - SIGNED! • Video Games Live: Level 1 CD - SIGNED! • Video Games Live: Level 2 CD - SIGNED! • Earthworm Jim Anthology CD - SIGNED! • AND a Video Games Live T-shirt, Concert Program, Poster, Keychain, AND Hat! We had 115 entries, and we picked the winner by alphabetizing the names and selecting the random number generated from that range (literally) the 87th time. We're thorough. THE LUCKY WINNER IS... #19, Brennan Jack Thomas Conroy from Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada!!!! CONGRATULATIONS Brennan, YOU are gonna get super swagged out by Video Games Live, and we'll be in touch to get your postal address so Tommy & the VGL team can hook you up! Thanks to everyone who entered and shared their well wishes over this awesome news for Jillian; we hope to see you at a future Video Games Live! For everyone else, VGL IS running a similar giveaway contest RIGHT NOW open to all fans until the 27th with most of the items available from our exclusive contest, so don't despair! Head to the Video Games Live FB page, Like it and SHARE their latest status update to enter!

The vocals and instrumentation at :15 were dropped WAY too much compared to the first version; pretty sloppy/lazy. It may be done to make the volume increase at :49 give off more dynamic contrast, but it really isn't working. You probably should have recorded a more quietly played take, not merely cut down a loud part, but the musician Js could give better advice on how to tweak that drop so that it actually works. But do resist lazy "quick fixes" like that, it makes it looks like you don't have attention to detail. :50-on sounded swank. 1:05's vocals should be louder, but I did like how it seemed they faded up around 1:18. Increase 1:05's levels so the loudness change isn't AS drastic, but it's not a bad concept, like I mentioned for the first instance. Very nice improvisation over the source tune from 1:48-2:17. 2:46's vocals had a good soulful delivery, though the sour note at 3:08 was a weak point, even though it ultimately resolved with the follow-up. Still not a fan of the Bastion cameo at 3:17, though the vocals stood out better, the added "Nothing" background vocals brought another layer to it and the instrumentation and performances were all tight. Going forward, everything else sounded brighter and stronger than the previous version for a nice finish as the development in the arrangement continued. Like SGX's Beatmania mix "Kick Your A", this was a great example of using the source material more as background accompaniment (while still being overt & prominent) while seamlessly adding his own original composition ideas in the foreground. I'd really love for tweaks to the overly quiet parts at :15 & 1:05 just so that this is firing on all cylinders, but I'm not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Good job raising this up, Brandon! YES

It seems as if some higher frequencies got chopped off, because the soundscape sounds lossy like a low-quality encoding, despite the 192kbps bitrate. After a solid opening, the organ brought in at :13 & 1:30 sounds pretty poor. It's too lossy sounding, and (more importantly) the timing's way too sloppy. The thin claps from :25-:49 were too beginner-ish; you need to layer them to give the background some meat and properly fill things out. Or just change the sound to something better, since that part's not in there for long. The saloon-ish sequenced piano at :25 also had very mechanical timing and lacked body. On the plus side, the bassline had some meat to it and sounded excellent. The guitar at :49 had good energy even if it could have cut through a bit more. Once this shifted to the rock-focused stuff, I thought the overall execution sounded much better aside from the mixing needing a bit more brightness. The synth work from 1:55-2:07 was rather scattershot and little too loose, but OK. The guitar soloing afterward until 2:21 was also loose, but sounded more cohesive. Overall, it could have been a little smoother, but was a nice, creative addition that benefited the arrangement. Sweeeeet dynamic changeup at 3:08. With the piano sounding a lot more airy and delayed, it had a lot more body to the sound to cover up the fakeness of the samples and sounded pretty good as a result. Good pickup into the high energy at 3:44 to then close things out. Humanize the sequencing of the melodic/piano leads, fix or replace the claps, and restore some higher frequencies for a bit more clarity. The arrangement is already pretty strong and doesn't need any changes there. Just improve the mixing and some of the weaker instrumentation to get this where it needs to be. Really nice stuff, Antanas, that IMO just needs some TLC to bring it above the bar. Definitely DON'T be discouraged, this is definitely the kind of creativity we're looking for. Use the Workshop forums to get more advice on how you can do the tweaks you need to get this approved & posted, we need this here in some form! NO (refine/resubmit)

I needed more than 142.5 seconds of overt source usage for the source material to be dominant. I had a quick breakdown of the melodic elements I heard used. :23-:26.5, :53-2:26.5, 2:34-2:47, 3:03.75-3:33, 4:08.5-4:20 = 150.75 seconds or 52.9% source usage. That also doesn't count the backing beat which was rhythmically similar to the source and constantly in play, and would have put me over the top if the most obvious stuff fell below. Why's the encoding at 160kbps? Step it up to at least 192kbps or VBR1 if you still have the source files or WAV. Interesting intro. The beat brought in at :54 felt a little bland but only if it wasn't ever going to be altered, which ultimately wasn't the case. The lead synth handling the melody was a little flat to me, but it was a very small detail and it still served the piece well. Same small criticism with the lead at 1:35; it could be more about how they were mixed a bit quietly within the soundscape. Nice stutter from 1:54-1:57 to then transition into a bit more energy, followed by the rhythmic changes in the beats at 2:07, both great ideas to help the track evolve rather than get plodding. The electric guitar at 3:01, which was performed solidly, was another element mixed to sound rather distant, which wasn't a big deal but could have been tweaked. That said, I liked the constant instrumental variations from 1:54-on that provided a lot of development even while maintaining the tempo. What's here is very strong on the arrangement side, and y'all did a great job tightening it up. Excellent collab, guys! YES

The sequenced piano at :23 was too mechanical. Though the brighter, airyer sound via the layering at :52 helped mask that better in that section, this generally stuck out throughout the piece. The layered claps brought in at :07 were OK, but could probably be pulled back a little without leaving the track sounding empty. I thought the transition back to having the clap beats at 2:39 was too sudden and seemed awkward. I agreed along the lines of Vig that the dynamics here were too flat. While he gave you credit for the percussion, I thought the clap pattern was bland & repetitive over the long run, exacerbated by being so loud and prominent. Some rhythmic variations there (that make sense for you without going overboard) could help spice it up while not dramatically altering your structure, though some instrumental variation or two could be helpful there as well. Piano needs to be humanized some, the clap pattern needs some variation, and the dynamics could be enhanced a bit without majorly messing with what's already there. Otherwise, some good ideas and good potential. The execution's a bit vanilla right now, but gets most of the way there. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, the bitrate was way too low as well. I don't even get how the arrangement works in using "Twilight," since the source is just drones/pads, but I'll listen more closely later. EDIT (6/20): Having heard the 192kbps version (included in the first post), there's a little bit more clarity than before, but that alone wouldn't address the various issues here.

Winner, winner. Chicken dinner. Big props to Jonathan "@RichieStacker" Humphreys ‏for the answer! https://twitter.com/ocremix/status/336566708913451008

Don't see what the deal is. YouTube's glitched our videos before during an upload. We'll just have to replace it. 1. Yes, one's official and one's not. Projects are efforts that are already approved as upcoming OCR album projects. Anything that's not at that status yet can develop in the Recruitment thread. 2. a. No. Confirmed by looking at many project rosters and seeing that not everyone's a posted OC ReMixer. b. Yes. Make a strong track.