Liontamer

The rigid timing of the electric guitar sample at :46 is already sounding like a dealbreaker; it also cuts out abruptly at 1:14 when moving over into the bowed strings, which was completely unnatural and had no decay. Right after that, the sequencing/timing of bowed string sample at 1:14-1:39 was also very robotic sounding and exposed; you have to mitigate the realism issues of the sample tone by at least humanizing the attacks/timing. More rigid timing with the wind lead at 1:39 and the bowed strings at 1:40, it's just a pervasive issue that's an emphatic dealbreaker. Also, the way the wind lead's mixed, it doesn’t even sound like it’s sharing the same room/space as the strings; instead, the winds sound stapled on top. So in short, Huy, the guitar sample isn't cutting it, and you need to humanize the timing of practically all of the instrumentation, with the acoustic guitar strums being the notable exception/outlier. Consult the Music Composition & Production forums for help on mitigating and masking realism issues with your current samples as well as exploring other instrument/sample options. Improving all of that will allow an otherwise decent arrangement concept to be better realized in terms of the production. NO (resubmit)

Nice work on this, Caleb. The soundscape was fuller and there was more variation with both the textures and the sound clip usage. Easy call now. YES

More dynamic, and that's the name of the game. I also noted how there's one line reminiscent of munky's old school Guardian Legend mix. Good job enhancing this, Jonas! YES

This is already in place via the Workshop evaluation system with the criteria you linked, not with % system, but qualitative feedback. That said, we're behind on THAT as well, with about 30 tracks to review there. Just need to keep on trucking.

Just a formality after hearing it and comparing with the source, but I could loop this all day. Nice work, Kyle & Bree! YES

[This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!

As long as you go beyond the authentic chiptune limitations and incorporate some other production choices, a track like this should be OK as far as the Submissions Standards. You may run into issues with sample realism, particularly with the choir, and I'm leaning against this in the sense of the piece not feeling dynamic enough as a standalone piece (while going well in the right direction) IMO, there's definitely notable subtle dynamic contrast within a narrower dynamic curve due to the textural changes from verse to verse and chorus to chorus, so it's there. Despite that, the track tends to feel repetitive and relatively flat for a 3-minute piece. IMO, the choruses didn't sound much different from one another. If you haven't sent it in already though, let's see what happens. I could just be an outlier.

[This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have set it to Completed status, indicating that I think your remix is ready to be submitted to the Judges Panel. Congratulations! If you feel like you still need to work on your track and want more feedback, you can change the prefix back to Work-in-Progress and we'll go through the review process again. If you decide to submit your track, please change the prefix to Submitted after sending your email. Thank you!

Agreed on the mud comments mentioned before; you mentioned you updated the track, but it's still a problem in the first minute; around :50, it clears up a great deal, so find out what was happening before then to cramp things up. Otherwise a relatively straightforward but personalized cover with several well-integrated theme cameos. Make sure the fade-out has the proper length to fully wind down to 0; it cuts off early on the SC version. If it's not already submitted, go for it; I'll mark it as a direct post. Nice work, Juke!

[This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!

Sorry for the long wait or formal staff feedback for this one. The main positive first, I thought the arrangement itself was solid. IMO, the middle area (1:01-2:06) went on too long while being more texturally empty, but the eventual rebuild was good and there's nothing inherently wrong with it, just a relative flatness dynamically. That said, it's the production quality that's holding this back from sailing through if it were to be submitted. I'd say the string samples are serviceable in tone, but are pretty exposed throughout, and that ends up hurting this in terms of the production quality standards. The way the sustained strings decayed at 1:31 was way too sudden and exposed the samples (again at 2:05 but less so). The rise in the percussion from 2:27 sounded unnatural as well. At 2:33, for example, the sample's unrealistic attacks for the higher notes are pretty exposed. The humanization needs to be improved, which would help improve the dynamics and expressiveness that's not fully coming across in the composition. It's a great base, and not much needs to be tweaked on the arrangement side. Use the Music Composition & Production area to get advice on how to improve the realism of the tools you're currently using.

Nice work! https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03892

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

BRAND NEW for ARTISTS *and* LISTENERS: Automatic Mixing & Mastering Service! OverClocked ReMix is proud to announce our latest feature: automated mixing & mastering of all remixes on the site, and any future submissions as well! Using the latest advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence, and following on the foundation of services like LANDR, we've developed an algorithm that addresses volume, noise, and dynamics for a refined listening experience! For listeners, this means a more consistent experience when listening to multiple mixes in a playlist, and enjoying pristine, high-fidelity audio for EVERY track! For artists, it means never having to worry about mixing & mastering ANYTHING you submit to OCR - we'll do the work for you! How does it work?? The GRO/INR algorithm has two essential components/phases: Gain Redistribution & Optimization - ensures that levels are consistent from mix to mix without compromising dynamic contrast. Intelligent Noise Reduction - eliminates hum, hiss, and other artifacts that can harm recordings. Fine... but what does it SOUND like?? We believe the enhanced listening experience of GRO/INR automated mastering speaks for itself, so we've prepared several examples highlighting its flexibility & power. Specifically: GRO/INR is designed to work with ANY music genre! From the Bohemian Rhapsody-inspired "Impresario" to the pulsing EDM of "Chemixtrixx," GRO/INR has you covered. Even works on jazz!™ Don't believe your ears? Hear what the experts are saying: We've gathered some testimonials from early adopters & beta testers:

Whoa. Jesus, is this bright. Not sure what happened here, but way too bright, and, during the denser parts, the brass just ends up practically burying some of the supporting writing, e.g. the piano accents at :31. Keep the other Js production advice in mind going forward. I like the part-writing being expanded in some aspects here, Bryce, as well as the comping from :50-1:09, but it was too brief within what's just a straightforward cover. DarkeSword's point about Estradasphere's version of this same theme on OCR is a valid point that I hadn't thought of, but the comparison is definitely illuminating; this theme's been tackled in a much more developed, expansive, and interpretive way; that track's quality remains far above where our acceptance bar is, but it DOES demonstrate -- in conjunction with our current quality bar -- that you do need to bring more creativity and personalization to the table. At only 91 seconds, this would need a LOT more interpretation to pass our arrangement standards as a fully developed concept, and that's difficult to do with a sub-2 minute piece that includes repetition. NO

I won't be talking much about the arrangement here, because last time around, that part of the equation was an easy pass. This still sounds very muddy and lo-fi. It's not super scientific, but just listen to this in Winamp and look how the high-end frequencies barely register; it's like the highs got severely cut. In a vacuum, it might not necessarily sound deficient, but when putting it up against a more balanced, properly mixed track and then listening to this, the lack of highs is really apparent. At 1:39, where you first have some sort of part drop out (1:40) and back in (1:42) and again gone (1:44), it sounds as if you randomly muted an indistinct guitar that freed up a lot of low end space; because it's so muddy and unclear, the effect you're going for with the drop off and return of that part gets completely lost and initially sounds more like a mistake than what's clearly to me a purposeful compositional choice as it goes on until 2:08. Nice original section at 2:15; again, the original material was seamlessly transitioned to from the source usage. There's some minor part at 2:42 that almost sounds like fuzz, like some brush kit or even cymbal part that got extremely muddled; that's another example where the crowded soundscape is messing up the sound of supporting parts; it's a nicely written accent part that might as well not be there the way that it's mixed. Being honest and transparent, I agree that production-wise, this is below the bar, but I'm in Gario's camp that I want to encourage rather than discourage Mikki here; once again, the arrangement remains on point and the production is too muddy and lo-fi. In this case, it's more salvageable in this form than in the last one, and I'd like to see us TLC this with him in order to get it where it needs to be. If any J is willing to correspond with Sinfinian on this -- like Palpable has done in the past with others, for example -- I think there's a lot Mikki can take away from more precise EQ guidance. I agree that conditional YES'es shouldn't be overused and this is obviously a case where a 5-minute quick fix isn't possible, but this needs some extra attention to push it over the line, and it really deserves a place here in terms of the arrangement. Let's see if there's a way our community can help lift this up. YES (conditional on mixing improvements)

I'm sad to learn of this, made all the worse on account of it being so unexpected when it happened. I was always a fan of Ash's work, including great original tracks of his I remember playing back in my college radio days, like "Computer People". He was extremely talented, and it's a shame that won't continue.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

This is a classic theme yet you've staked your claim to a very nicely personalized rendition here. The electric guitar timing felt too rigid, IMO, but it was still expressive enough, so perhaps it's more of a subjective criticism. Solid fleshing out of the theme, Reuben, and I loved the acoustic guitar and woodwind work in particular. YES

All good here. A little muffled/muddy for my taste, but it fits the underwater aspect of the source tune if you want to think of it that way. Great trip hop take, Shaun! YES

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.