Jivemaster

Enjoyable instrumentation, great choice of instruments and style. A difficult thing to pull off. I thought the balance of instruments was mostly well done, I appreciate Larry's concern of the harpsichord being low in volume, however it feels this was intended to add backing accompaniment and in that role it does well, as being louder may actually make things sound cluttered. The brass is a bit louder than the other parts and could do with being toned down a tad. Sample quality was ok, I felt it was passable - not the most realistic around but I thought they worked for you. I don't have much to say until we hit the 2:19 things feel off - this part everyone seemed to enjoy, but for me it definitely didn't feel right. I'm completely aware of the time sig change, and at the start a few bars earlier things felt fine ... but the "conversation" between those parts felt out in that section, with parts tripping over each other as more layers are added - perhaps they were too mechanical? I don't know. Otherwise your shift of overall pace throughout the track is good. I appear to be completely out on my own with this but truly for me the middle section felt like it had the most problems, it didn't fell cohesive, and personally I'd like to see that section strengthened. Apart from some minor balancing issues, I don't have any other problems worth mentioning, production was mostly ok and source usage was clear. NO

I agree with the concerns regarding lack of variation that Chimpa has. The beginning portion of the mix right up to 1:00 follows a fairly similar pattern and doesn't change up a whole lot between bars. At 1:09 during the breakdown, tension is built but energy not delivered when the drop hits at 1:35. At the mid point things feel very similar to the start of the mix. The rolling pluck effect here to transition into the next section set this apart from earlier on, but went for too long IMO. 3:53 the drop hits better. When rolling pluck is used again at the end of the track its uniqueness is lost. I felt the ending could've been stronger. Source is completely noticeable in the mix, although things weren't often taken into original territory. Production is ok but some accompanying parts were a little dry and could've done with some reverb. Some highs were beginning to become harsh at times but didn't pass the point of great concern. Ultimately I feel the arrangement lets this down a bit, as sections are quite similar sounding and then repeated later on which makes the problem more noticeable. I'd like to see some work done on this to make the sections more unique, which could come down to simple tweaking of the already existing synths and wubs. NO

Heading straight into production, your starting (0:24) acoustic guitar is too strong in its high frequencies, causing some unpleasant piercing peaks which needs a low-pass filter and or EQ to tame it. At 0:50 when the electric guitar comes in the lead has some similar issues - not as severe but they are there and could with similar EQ treatment. The rhythm guitar is not bad but shares a little too much low with bass and kick. Bass sounds mostly like a rumble behind everything. This is creating a muddiness across the track. Drums are quite well done, especially your fills incorporating toms. At 3:40 there are a couple of hiccups that are quite noticeable though. As far as arrangement goes - while the progression is interesting with changes of pace and rhythm, I'm sharing MindWander's concern about the source being difficult to hear through the different parts playing. I can feel the "vibe" of the source occasionally peaking its head but it's quite difficult to make out full melodies from the original even after a few trips back to the source tune. Tough to fully evaluate this without a source breakdown from the artist. However purely at a production level this needs work to tame those frequencies and balance the parts more appropriately with each other so the mix is able to breathe. On this basis it's a NO

I share Larry's concerns that the track feels a little muffled. This was most apparent at the start. At 0:40 when the lead comes in we've got more highs to fill out the sonic space, but there is no reason for the other parts to be low-passed so heavily until the leads come in. I think you've done a commendable job in balancing a lot of elements at once, as many struggle with this and things become a muddy mess. In particular the background elements are regulated nicely to the background and while busy, don't overly draw focus, letting the leads do their thing. The chip tune synths and blips add a nice flair to the mix, with some nice riffing throughout. Others didn't mind it, but I felt the kick drum was a bit weak compared to the other parts. The snare rolls were also very light in volume. Arrangement wise I feel the track could have benefitted from some kind of breakdown halfway through the track to change the pace a bit. The track duration wasn't long so this isn't a major factor, but it adds to the problems. I will note that the track also ends quite abruptly. Two minds about this one, I like the variety of sounds and little production elements dotted throughout, but I feel some of the production elements listed above make this fall a tad short. I short revisit to address these concerns would really strengthen this mix for the better. NO

Enjoyed the stereo percussion. Interesting choice of synth to start the track. Solid evolution of the intro. Soundscape is mostly minimal but makes use of creative synth tweaking to keep the parts fresh. Although the arrangement pattern is similar, it strides in different directions slightly, with different sounds at different times, and at least initially creates a non-repetitive soundscape. However this seems to hit a point of expiry. As we progress further into the track past the 2:00 mark, things begin to feel a bit too loopy and repeaty, by the mid-point ideas don't feel as fleshed out as the earlier ideas, and by the 5:00 mark I was ready to close off. I believe a lot of the issues here stem from the minimal nature of the track paired with the short repeated patterns that are experienced regularly. Although the first few minutes were good, I strongly felt more of a transition needed to be made in the second section - the track needed a departure from what was going on with a change in texture and feel, perhaps to build back up again for a final close out. Instead things felt more like a variation of the original rhythm without any true progression. For this reason I feel some more needs to be done on the arrangement side, especially to justify the length. NO

Clean production. Parts are easily heard, balance between instruments is appropriate. You changed up instruments regularly which helped keep the listener engaged. Deia mentioned she enjoyed the bass work on this track and I second that, it a strong driving force behind the arrangement. I agree with regards to the mechanical nature of each of the parts, the sequencing is quite stiff. This usually doesn't bother me as much as the others, but it is definitely noticeable, especially on the natural sounding instruments, guitars, drums. Transition between the sources wasn't the smoothest, I'm in between the two camps here on that - I do feel the transition could be clearer, be it a breakdown and build up of some kind to drop us into the next part. Ideally though, I'd want to see more of a melding between the 2 sources to build a more comprehensive arrangement, and at this point I feel this is what tips this to NO

Simple but effective intro and build-up. Agree with Larry regarding the fairly generic trancey backing synth featured throughout, which from a sound design standpoint is awfully static. Also agree the drums plod along the track for too long without much variation. Despite these problems the overall soundscape does work, with the parts complementing each other fairly well, with appropriate stereo balance and mostly acceptable mixing. I did notice like some of the others that things are a bit bottom heavy which during the busier sections begins to cloud the mix (nothing major though). The break at 1:48 is a nice departure from the sounds used from the start of the track, although is very minimal in composition and very robotic. Second half of the song begins to feel a little copy paste until the short riffing drops in. Things pick up near the end and then trail off for the outro. A few issues: The arrangement structure is ok, but I feel some more could've been done with some parts - sections are borrowed heavily at times with minor edits. The backing synth would've benefitted greatly from some minor tweaks/modulation over time to give it more character (the synth plays such a large role in the mix and doesn't do all that much) The drums could've evolved more over time and they weren't that complex to begin with which made the relatively continuous pattern stick out more. Individually these things would not have been a big deal but combined I feel these points pull the mix down. I wouldn't mind a possible revisit to address some of these (and the other judges) concerns. NO

Great contrast of instruments and sections in this track. Clear soundscape. The guitar parts certainly hit hard in the first minute, however they don't play for too long at that time, so don't have much of a negative impact on mix quality at that point. I felt their muffled nature during the part at 1:18 was for effect to let the other parts come through, and felt this was a nice creative choice. The section at 3:10 on the other hand did push volume balance a bit far when the lead was playing on top of background elements fighting for attention. The remainder of the track follows this similar theme in mixing (although not quite as hard). Outro was short but effective. Apart from the heavier points of the mix where the guitar overpowered the other parts, there isn't too much here to find fault in. Although I would like to see some rebalancing of the guitar parts when it comes to volume, the sections requiring tweaks are minimal and not something I'll hold this back for. YES

Enjoyed the piece. Great playing throughout, the instruments are spread out nicely (though the right channel is heavier than the left in a lot of sections) and the mixing is solid. Like Gario I think it could be a bit louder, although it does pick up in volume across the track. While dynamics are critical in creating and maintaining the overall mood for an organic track like this, at its peak it was noticeably quieter than other submissions. The backing at 3:45 and 4:15 also sounded slightly strange and jarring for me in a non-jazzy way. This wasn't a problem for the others though, and while I wish the overall volume was higher, I won't hold it back for that. YES

Evaluating the newest version from the link provided. Straight up, a few odd notes stood out to me as the song progressed (mostly the backing synths "conflicting" with the other parts/bass, at places like 0:32, 1:04, 2:58, 3:12). These weren't completely jarring, and I imagine some of these are due to the original source material, but I felt these could have been changed up a tad to fit with the other parts better. Arrangement wise things progress well, the breakdown at 1:20 was a great addition and helped to change pacing a bit near the mid point, as did the later solo portion. Production was a bit on the airy side. I felt some of the drums (the kick in particular) could've been a bit clearer and some busy parts of the track did swim in reverb a bit too much. I noticed the end cut off before the reverb tails could end, would be good to get a new render of this before posting to fix this. Overall this isn't too bad - I'm used to Mike's more recent stuff which is more polished. There are some niggling note problems here which are the biggest problem for me above all else. However I don't feel them to be deal breaking, and they do add help in retaining the evil feel of the source game. YES

Good instrumentation across the track - dropping instruments in and out as the arrangement progresses to keep things moving. Synths accompany the guitars well, both sections complement each other. Parts are panned well and mostly sit in their own space, making them easily audible. Over compression is definitely present here, and is the main flaw with your production. There is a bit of pump to the track that doesn't suit here, causing some subtle unwanted distortion at times. In addition, the drums are a bit on the mechanical side, with the snare rolls sounding machine gunny and lacking tonal variety on each hit. Drums are also muffled compared to the rest of the track. Not a bad mix. Over compression stuck out easily, likely due to everything else being so well done. I certainly think had your arrangement not been as good, this would've carried more negative weight. Because the others don't feel it's a big problem, I won't hold it back here for this, but it is certainly something you should tone back in future mixes. YES

Sly and dirty mix, great transformation of the source tune to a slow groove with original personality. Some great lead work and generally trippy synths throughout, creates a nice contrast through the track. I enjoyed the production elements you have dotted through the mix, such as the delay signal panned to alternate ears. Leads and percussion nicely fill the upper register, as the bass grooves below. Mixing is clear. The breakdown and build-up around 2:55 was a nice change of pace but was a tad overdue. Mix felt it went a little too long because of that, but there were lots of parts dropping in and out over time to keep things fresh. Great to see you drop back to remind us how it's done YES

Nice source choice, and some great guitar playing. It may have been the drums but some of the guitar parts felt like they ran ahead of the rest of the mix at times causing a sensation of lost timing. The drums were also a bit soft and regulated to the back a bit too much. The synth that drops at 2:20 wasn't really audible and kind of lost in the mix, not because of bad EQ, it was simply too low in volume to be heard. As Gario has mentioned, your mix is much too conservative for OCR, with no real original interpretation added in to personalise the mix. There needs to be some re-arrangement for a track to be passable. Above problems aside, as the arrangement currently stands, this is a NO

Great intro, I like the combo of synths and real instruments. Main synth lead that plays for the first minute or so is a bit dull and could do with some EQ work to bring it out of the mix, and is probably my main problem with the piece. Guitars seem fine in level mostly and don't require work IMO, great playing and tone, especially the lead at the half way point. The drums work well and drive the arrangement forward well, carrying a nice thud with them. Intro was brief but decent. With regards to overall track clarity, there are some parts where things get a little cloudy - this is likely coming from the synths stepping on each other in the same frequency space. I think the contrast of basic synths works well in this piece, but their mixing isn't quite right. I think this is very close though - if the lead could be brought out more (brightened), and the low-end toned back on some of the synths that don't need it, things should work out well. Until then, NO (borderline)

Not a bad arrangement. Source is easily identifiable. Great use of instrument combinations to build things up triumphantly between each section. I agree with Gario on the choir, it definitely doesn't fit the rest of your instrumentation, it's very robotic and a little off-putting in this context. For a mix just over 4 minutes, I thought some parts (particularly the main melody) were played too often without much change. The mixing here isn't too bad, most things are audible. Your drums get drowned out a bit during the louder sections where everything is built up. In some sections you have instruments poking out/hovering above the mix when it isn't necessary (eg: 1:27), like they're in a different room - this could be due to a lack of reverb or different reverb being applied to these parts. Some backing parts are also a bit loud compared to their lead counterparts. The yoshi voice samples were quite irritating when played over and over. I feel like things like this should be used sparingly, to keep that uniqueness and not become annoying. I would recommend their usage be pulled back should you submit a resub. Overall this is ok but there are some niggling issues in arrangement and mixing that hold this back. NO

As the others have expressed, this is a great cover, with some nice guitar work and tones. The style suits the original well. The organ is a little weak compared to the rest of the performance, but it's not used an awful lot throughout the song. These sections did get a little muddy, although I think a lot of this has to do with the bassline underneath clashing with the guitar's lower frequencies. I also thought the drums were lost in the mix a bit (they pop through but are pretty obscured). Aside from the above, the key issue here is you're too close to the source to pass. Following a source of this length also makes things feel repetitive without some kind of change or pace or feel, which this lacks. It really wouldn't be hard to add in some original goodness into this track to make it fit the guidelines, and it wouldn't hurt to revisit your mixing to squeeze out some more clarity (especially if you stick with the synth bass). Have another look at this. NO

Short and sweet mix. Enjoyable intro. Quite like the sounds you have going on here. While the rhythm of the original is changed here, the arrangement plays things incredibly safe with not a lot of original content apart from the bridge section. As far as mixing goes, most things are passable for me, but there are a couple things needed attention. The drums in particular could do with more clarity - they are a bit clouded which make them feel weak. At 1:36 the break feels a bit dry/empty, I would've loved to hear everything with a large reverb tail here which is cut before things drop back in. I don't mind what you have here - the mix has a nice feel to it. I enjoyed the parts you did add and you left me wanting more. I wish there was more you in this mix. NO

Short, sweet, enjoyable. Straight up instrumental mix of the original, I do however enjoy the personal nuances you have added here. Channel balance was decent, things felt relatively full but clear, and each part sounded real enough to my old ears. Sure some EQ tweaks could be made here and there, but because the mix was clear I don't think this is really necessary. Not much else to say for this one, for me it's a YES

I can appreciate the remixes' use of sampling to facilitate the breaking through the original track concept. From a pure music level, it sounds good and fits well together. However I don't feel the sampling across the track is really required or achieving something that couldn't be built from scratch. Personally I would've preferred you sample to get yourself through the intro, then let it go on it's own from there into your original territory. There is a lot to like about the extra stuff you've thrown in, and honestly I don't know why your mix couldn't be completely driven by this. I thought the progression of the arrangement was otherwise ok, and the sounds were punchy and crisp. I personally would love to hear some additional work done on this to tie this back to the source in your own way. There are some nice ideas here and a great foundation to build something a little more creative. NO

Definitely starts a little too suddenly. During the first assault in the intro (and later at 1:40) I find the snare looses a lot sonically, sounding almost like a flapping fish due to the frequency of it being hit and only the high end being audible. It also feels slightly off time to the other parts in this section. When things slow down, parts are much more audible and the arrangement really shines. I thought source usage was pretty solid, but I did not do the math. Unfortunately even in the slower sections, there are mixing issues here - with a lot of low end choking the mix, which makes the individual parts difficult to make out. Bass guitar is a bit boomy which I believe may be the main contributor to this problem. Cymbals are easily heard but a little wavey due to the crowded dynamics across the mix. Guitars are the least affected by the copious amounts of low end, and are quite tight for the majority of the track, but could do with a HPF to leave breathing room for the bass and kick. The fade-out outro felt cheap and uninspiring considering the other arrangement detail exhibited for the rest of the track. I feel the mixing problems here are deal breaker for me, as well as the drums during the faster sections which at their current levels, become lost. NO

You've taken an already mellow track to further levels of chill. Sound wise things are a bit of a mixed bag - the rhodes/organ you have going on has a nice feel to it. In contrast, I felt your lead sound was a bit weak and could have done with a bit of low end, either via some EQ or perhaps even an additional oscillator octaved downwards. This brings us to a couple other problems: Across the mix, there is a slight feeling of muffledness, with the lead sticking out and everything else kind of blending together in the lower end. This is probably made more prominent due to the above mentioned lead lacking in low end. Arrangement wise, I like what you've done with your lead - it walks a lot with bits of riffing and soloing. However the other elements such as the backing sounds don't change all that much (and what they do play is quite short), leaving the track to rely heavily upon the lead for any/all track progress. The synthy string accompaniment that plays with the lead occasionally gets peaky/resonant and too loud in comparison to the other parts. I feel this mix is a little lacking with regards to arrangement content, especially for a mix duration of over 5 minutes in length. Yes there are little sounds and FX here and there, but they're very subtle and don't feel like quite enough. Along with some of the other problems mentioned, I think this falls a little short and should be revisited. NO

A lot of great variation across your arrangement - things feel fresh most of the way though, with repeated parts spaced out and small once off interludes that are appreciated. Most changes fell together well, while some transitions like at 3:00 were abrupt and didn't quite work. Instrumentation had a good mix, I quite liked the piano tone personally, though I can see the other judges had some problems with it. I will agree it's a bit stiff. Guitar chords add some nice meat to the mix without overcrowding. The lead guitar is a little thin in comparison and could've done with more low end, but it's not used often. Drums seem ok, with fills dotted about. Organ is a bit overpowering in volume at times, which also had some odd frequencies poking out every now and then which were distracting. Overall your arrangement is strong. Your sounds are decent IMO. I've been flipping back and forth a bit in my mind - although you have some problems here, but I don't think they're collectively deal breaking. The strength of your arrangement certainly carries this. If this is indeed a first mix, you've done a great job. YES

Good intro build up, nice chips. I enjoy the progression of the arrangement. I agree with Mike that a break somewhere in the track would be nice, although I felt the more minimal parts where just a synth, kick and bass play at least partially substituted for a full breather/change of pace. I thought the drums could be louder, as they get drowned a little in some of the busier sections. The synths were also a little thin - not deal breaking but I felt there was sonic space here to fatten your sounds up a bit. Overall I think I'm ok with this one, some smaller concerns but I don't feel any of these breaks the appeal. YES

The overall soundscape of this track is strong - you have a lot of elements which complement each other as the track progresses, nice panning work, drums are strong and audible. Playing is relatively decent. Arrangement wise I believe things could be stronger. From the onset we're hit with different instruments playing the main riff, and because this part is short, things get repetitive quickly. Biggest problem for me on this one is things really only change up substantially at 2:10, and by then we've hit over half duration. The spacey section while appreciated, doesn't quite transition back into the main theme as well as it enters. The outro is much of the same stuff we heard earlier in the mix. I think more interpretation of the source is needed here - you have everything else pretty much on point, except that things are highly conservative, and the backing parts IMO don't provide enough variation away from the original to detract from this. NO

Great guitar work on this one. Your intro sets things up nicely with great numbers of chuggery, and more importantly, your parts are fully audible throughout the course of the track. Great use of stereo space here with alternate panning of your parts, and nice glitch work which is implemented great for fills and isn't overused. Lead sits above the rest of the mix and is clearly heard, although I will say it does get close to being a tad ear piercy at times. Your overall tone is solid. While you largely play it safe with arrangement, the original bits you've added complement the source well. To close it off, the track is a decent length and doesn't overstay its welcome. No major problems for me here. YES