Jivemaster

There is great production work here, a lot of clarity which can be difficult to achieve with this kind of music. Good use of the L/R channels for small variances here and there, and your guitar tone is authentic for the genre. I'm leaning on the side of Justin and Kristina about this sounding much like a metal cover of the source tune as opposed to an original take on the arrangement. I do understand the points by Clem, in that you have added some variation to your playing of the source tune, but it doesn't feel like enough of you is in there (particularly for a track this short). The song just gets started and then kinda ends. You have already ticked the boxes for source usage and production - what's really needed here is some development on the arrangement side to make the song feel like more than an extended intro to something more. If you add some more original sections, this will make a great mix. NO

Well I'm busy tapping my foot to this right now. Some nice stuff here, in particular I'm a fan of some of your MJ inspired instrumental fills. Certainly having no problems identifying source, it's well represented with some nice original licks/soloing to make things your own. There is also a ton of variation here too, I never felt like I was revisiting the same thing twice, and that's a good thing. Lots of varied instrumentation as well. Now to the production side. I think it would be a travesty to not give this mix another pass to obtain more clarity. It's decent enough, but I truly think the track would be more enjoyable if the elements were separated more, particularly on the low end side of the spectrum as Chimps' mentioned. If we can get that, I welcome this to the front page. NO (borderline)

A nice different take to the original. Quite minimalistic in the sense that there aren't a lot of elements there, but this type of track doesn't require too many things. Arrangement wise this does sound like the same thing twice. A direct copy/paste to get a track to duration is kind of a missed opportunity in making the track more your own. I would love to see some variation in the second half to keep things interesting. For example I think the track would really benefit from some dubstep like glitching and stuttering. Your lead sound is also a little static sonically, which contributes to things sounding sameish. Something simple like playing with some filter and/or pitch modulation could do the trick here. Apart from this almost being the same song twice, I also think a little work can be done on the production side of things. In particular, I noticed in the section with the trance synth playing (starting 1:14, and again at 2:00, and then at 2:52) that there was a tiny bit of low end mud. It's not bad, and it's really only in those sections, but it would be great if that were cleared up a little. This isn't a huge strike against the mix, but please consider using some EQ to chisel space for each sound if doing a resub. Some wider panning may open the soundscape a little more too. Not a bad track, but so far it's a No from me. Have a look at adding some variation and if possible give your low end in the above mentioned sections a little more clarity. NO (please resub)

Some great ideas here for probably one of the most repetitive and minimal source tunes I've heard in a while. I almost died of boredom listening to the source lol. Nice instrumentation and riffage to keep things fresh here, and big varied arrangement. I didn't initially have a major problem with the production side of this track, but later I encounter some mixing problems. Read on. The main point of contention for me in your track was source usage, and audibility of source usage. I've been given the opportunity to look at this again to satisfy that there is enough source for a pass, because the others feel I've dropped the ball on this. Firstly, I must admit that initially I was having problems hearing source tune in your mix, which is why I initially dismissed the track without a complete breakdown - and that was wrong. I have come to the realisation however that at that point, I didn't really have a lot to break down - from beginning to end I could hear the notes occasionally touching the source, but then leaving off to do their own thing too frequently, or the source was buried in a faint lead in the background which has apparently skipped my ear. I've now moved to headphones and have listened again another 10 or so times, and have gotten closer. This is an extremely tough one for me because the others are hearing it fairly clearly, but with all the amazing instrumentation you have going on I found it incredibly challenging to catch more than cameos of the source tune throughout. My initial concerns stem from the following: 1. The track is too interpretative at times with lots of original supporting elements going on at once AND 2. These supporting elements like the guitar are too big to hear the source clearly in places. So this moves from a source usage issue over to a mixing issue. There is buckets of skill here, nice guitar tone and a great choice in sounds... but for me to be confident in giving this a Yes, I need to be having a less challenging time hearing that tune so I can relate it back and say "hey, thats a remix of that Castlevania intro song! Neat!!" Let me break it down how I heard it: 0:00-0:13, original intro. 0:14-0:33, I'm hearing an interpretation of the source in the tiny lead in the background, which is probably not enough to constitute actual usage. The guitars at this point are making it difficult to point out as they're big front and centre. 0:34-0:51, I'm hearing the source tune in that tiny lead, it is quite faint, again buried behind a bunch of stuff, but this is the first time I hear verbatim source. 0:52-1:07, I'm now hearing the melody in the lead guitar. There's some soloing, but it's in there. 1:08-1:41, lead guitar soloing gets a bit interpretative and moves away from the source to do its own thing. (which is quite nice BTW) 1:42-1:48, clean guitar lead is playing the tune. 1:49-1:58, we have some some original guitar chordage. 1:59-2:18, organ/choir playing the tune (or variation thereof). 2:19-2:26, guitar lead is back playing tune. 2:27-2:36, initial lead guitar solo uses source elements. 2:37-2:53, original guitar lead solo portion. 2:54-3:02, original guitar chordage. 3:03-3:21, clean guitar lead is playing the tune. 3:22-3:26, lead guitar briefly plays the tune, then begins to guitar solo with source making a brief appearance initially. 3:27-3:44, original lead guitar solo plays us out. Totalling what I've heard above (excluding original soloing elements) I'm only hearing a clear 1:35 of total source out of 3:44. It's possible I could be missing source material here and there, but I don't think it'd be enough seconds for me to get to 50%. It would be good for another judge to possibly weigh in, but at this point I am the only one concerned about it, so I'm willing to concede on the point of adequate source usage. I will say however, for any artist going through the OCR submission process it is far better to hit a home run with source than make us get out the calculators to see if you make the 50% rule. As a judge I must unconditionally accept 50%, but I strongly encourage more. I know this can be hard with all these ideas you want to implement, being super talented musicians and arrangers, I don't want to discourage your creativity. But hitting things clearly past that 50% mark (and I recommend a bit further to be safe) will take the possibility of source contention off the table altogether, which means we can approve your tracks a lot quicker! You guys are the next emerging OCR talents to take over from the Strader's of this world, and it annoys me to No this stuff. As I get to my final deliberation, I'd like to emphasise a point Nutritious made, concerning the foreground elements. This is something I want to add to - to make it easier for us to hear source tune and clear a track, getting that original source melody/progression/whatever up close in your face is crucial. You distortion guitar lead was front on, but your clean lead was lost in the background behind all the original foreground elements. Some mixing to bring out those important source carrying leads and push less important stuff to the background will solve the issue. In the end, I'm on the side of there is source (just - based on the other judges analysis), but the mixing is off the mark to hear said source. If you can bring those source tunes buried in there out to the front (aka your leads), this is Yes. NO (please resub)

I don't have as much of a problem with sampling when it's using sparingly, but your mallet sound here is happening pretty much continuously until it fades at 4:00. As the others have pointed out, because you're using it a hell of a lot and the mix almost relies upon the sound in places, it would be great to drop your own sample in there. I would love to see a bit more variation in the arrangement. I don't think you need too much more though. The guitar at 1:00/2:54, the flute at 2:07, and the synthy lead at 2:30 vary things for me, but all the underlying stuff is very repetitive. You essentially have the same base with the occasional instrument coming in over the top to add variation. It would be great to hear you tear back some layers and add some different elements here and there. At the 4:00 mark I'm enjoying the slightly varied soundscape, now that the mallet is faded away, you have some great stuff happening here with the bass and light piano sounds. I would like to hear more of this kind of thing earlier in. I don't have any major production crits. Lets lose that sample and find something a little more original. Once that's in place, vary your soundscape in parts so things aren't so loopy, then I can see this working. NO (please resub)

Definitely hearing a solid mix here. Some interesting instrument choices fused together (chimey stuff, piano, porta synth lead and ethnic like drummage) and a lot of riffing throughout to keep things fresh. From 3:03 the mix got a bit weird for me as the synth solo was starting up, but settled itself. However, at that point of the track I came to the realisation that the slides between the notes on that synth lead were a bit too much across the track. If this is resubbed, I'd like that portamento reduced a little just so things aren't as wacky and the melody is hit clearer. Ultimately what we have here is beautiful production with a little too much scuffle to find source. We need to hear more of that source tune. I don't think weaving more in will be terribly difficult, the entire song is there, just have to use the melody more upfront. If you can do that (and possibly tone that portamento down a little), we're there. NO (please resub)

This electronic to western vibe is very intriguing to me. By the 2 min mark you have taken us on a great journey already, and we're only half way. I am really enjoying the guitar work. The pitch bends you've implemented are a little weird in places, but I know you're trying to invoke some feels in the track and I accept that. After a couple of listens I am ok with source use. There is some stuff in there that sounds similar to source, but can't quite be constituted as such IMO, but when referring to Kristina's breakdown and quickly doing the math here, there is enough. Things that need fixing: I'm not a huge fan of that fake brass at the start, something more realistic would really help this mix, considering the beginning is quite acoustic driven before it turns electronic. It's also a bit loud and needs to be blended into the mix better. The intro guitar is also a little too soft and should be upped in level a bit. Your production quality also needs some tweaks to pass I think. You have some decent balance amongst the majority the instruments and everything is quite clear, but your big problem is there are two volume extremes to this mix. The lighter sections are too soft (the intro, as well as 2:20 onwards), and fuller sections are too pumpy compression wise from the drums which begins to break the clarity (1:04-2:05). This divide in volume should be closer together - not so far as to ruin the dynamics across the song (keep the soft bits softer for example), but close that gap in volume so the mix is more cohesive dynamically. NO (please resub)

Digging the industrial x cinematic vibe of this. Production wise this is spot on, great use of space. Lovely instrumentation in the strings and horns. You also have some great transitions into each unique section of your track. Hardest part here is identifying all source usage. I can certainly hear it in your bassline and drums, but some stronger use would be great. It's a lot easier/quicker then for the judges to get you through the gate. But you have done a good job of taking a fairly minimalistic song and making it your own, and IMO more interesting than the original (which can only be a good thing). After listening through I did notice some isolated parts came through a little hot (mainly during impact parts when the horns and strings came in together). Not something I'd no the mix for considering the high quality everywhere else, but something to consider for future mixes. No other problems caught my ear. Happy mixpost. YES

From the beginning, there is a nice full textured soundscape. Some nice filtering to lead us in. You have a good grasp of keeping the stereo soundscape interesting. However I'm finding things a tiny bit repetitive on the arrangement side in places, although adequate changes are made in time to hold interest. Creative use of source in this chill environment. I think for me the biggest problem is your track takes a little long to cut to the chase. It's not something I'm going to no the mix for, but taking 2 mins for the track to really get started can make the listener impatient. The drums also feel a bit too loopy throughout, some variation in sections would have been nice. A fairly chill track throughout. As mentioned, would love to have had the track start sooner, but things are good enough here. YES

Some very funky stuff here. I am actually a fan of the piano tone, very house like, mimicking the original source sound. There is some brilliant riffing here making it your own. Percussion elements have nicely varied velocities and are complementary to the mix. Arrangement is nice and varied with lots of changes. Representation of source is clear. My main crit is there is a little too much compression across the track. This is most apparent in the more built up sections, where you can hear a tiny bit of pump. This isn't a dealbreaker for me though - there is still plenty of clarity. Overall good track, no complaints. YES

Well I must say, certainly more enjoyable than the source! Feels a lot tighter than the source too. Quite minimal in execution, but this song really doesn't require much, and the included elements are more than enough to carry it. Lots of unique fills and blips and blops throughout to make it your own. No real production crits from me, a little more body to the kick would be nice, but this seems well mixed with a decent level of clarity. Good to see unrepresented games get a mix against them in the catalogue. YES

This mix has promise. I like some of the ideas throughout. The sax and vocals are great additions. For starters, I really think your mix should start at 0:59, there is where the mix really starts for me. Before then, not a lot is happening and source is completely absent. Going forward from this point, the sounds have a very 80's feel and feel reminiscent of the original soundtrack which is great. There is a little muffle in the mix, but it's not overly bad compared to some of the mud I've heard. I do understand that some of this muffle is for effect, but when we hit the main part of the song at 1:25, more clarity would be really helpful here in strengthening the production side of things. The primary problem here is we need more source usage for this to pass. In particular, I'm having a hard time hearing the Tidal Tempest Zone (Present) source. There are many places through the mix where this could be weaved in. If we get the source more apparent in this, we're a lot closer. NO

IMO this is actually a pretty good track. The combination of world instruments and electronic elements is a really nice approach. It's clear it's a Yang mix. I think even though I can't hear a lot of Oni (at least easily), I believe the mix can still be accepted as a Yang mix exclusively, although it's possible we'd need more source representation then to carry us through the duration. Your production quality sounds decent enough. There aren't any major faults to me here except that your bass is a bit too powerful and is making things sound a little muffled. Not a lot but it's noticeable. I think the crowded feeling we're hearing is being caused by that and too many elements fighting for space more than anything else. Apart from lowering the bass, I think the problem can be fixed on the arrangement side. When listening like the others, I feel everything is a bit relentless the whole way through for this kind of music, with a lot of stuff going on. When we're about to get a break at 0:55, the bass brings the drop back on us... I think you could take the opportunity here while dropping the drums to drop the bass too. The mix would really pace nicely in that portion then, letting the leads and assisting percussion soar and play without fighting for space. I know you've panned some instruments in this section to avoid your bass - with the bass gone, you might be able to pull them in a little closer. I'm not personally against hardish panning *provided* you have balance. Things may balance at little more if they're pulled in a bit. The flute lead from 1:26 would benefit from some layers shed back at that point, it's a really nice lead line and it would allow us to hear it better AND would give us another break. I also reckon your drums could drop back to half time in certain bits to give the higher energy portions more impact. Having a bit more of a listen, your drums are a little lost in the mix BUT lowering the bass will solve that. So far it's a NO from me, but not a hard NO. You've got lots of the right stuff going on, you just need to make that source poke out more AND lets give everything some room so we can hear it. NO (gimmie resub)

Haha I know right! Is a blast from the past.

I am a metal specialist - I can pick it out from a mile away and say NO like that *clicks fingers*

I remember this one back during the Temporal Duality remix project, although I can see made some improvements since then. Some great guitar work as always from Dustin, with many licks and original solos throughout. Arrangement wise you're solid, and the source is here in droves. Your vocals here are well done and decent enough. I have no major problems with them, considering the mix sits in punk territory. I would say that there is the occasional flat note here and there, but it is quite a hard song to sing and I think being in the punk genre it's certainly passable. Production wise I like your use of panning for backup vocals and your leads. It's this kind of creative movement around the stereo spectrum that brings that extra level of quality. Everything is audible and well recorded. YES

This reminds me of those classical orchestra cassettes you used to be able to get which had a disco beat layered over the top, except with a Pirates of the Caribbean vibe (as the title suggests). Straight up, I enjoyed this mix - it felt like I was about to embark on an adventure where I'm gonna whip me some skeletons. You've taken the original and modernised it in a great way. You've made some great choices on instruments (piano, strings, organ, electronic bass), and you added a bunch of licks, fills and breaks to make things your own. The whole track sounds fresh from beginning to end. You've got the production side of things covered. A couple of minor crits - I feel the strings were a teeny too quantised, but that could be due to the driving beat behind them. However it wouldn't hurt to loosen them up a little more to add that additional bit of realism. The choir sounds used were quite fake, but in contrast to the rest of the song being a mix of electronic and acoustic elements, I'm ok with it. Nice work. Gimmie moar. YES

Because this is a resub you've gone through a lot for this already, so I'll ease up a bit. As far as the arrangement goes, the source tune is clearly there, and you've done a few bits and pieces to make it your own across the arrangement, including some soloing. While I would have liked to see a little more variation, it's not a deal breaker. Production wise, I felt the track was a little thin. The individual elements also feel a little too compressed, blending into each other. This combination of problems is making it difficult for me to hear all the stuff in the background you have there, so my ear is drawn to the lead synth and left there for most of the song. You've done a lot of hard work on those background elements, it would be great to hear them more clearly. Playing with some panning, EQ, easing off the high pass filters or a combination of those would help bring out these elements. All the frequencies are having a party in the mid range, don't be afraid to send some downstairs or onto the roof. Overall not bad. I just ask that you consider some of my points above for future mixes. YES

Coming in at 2:08, your track is quite short and straight to the point, and that shorter duration helps to keep things fresh through to the end. Production wise there is some work to be done here. The first thing that struck me when listening to your mix was a lack of dynamics, and checking your track in my DAW confirmed this. It's almost the sonic equivalent of a waveform being squeezed out of a sausage machine. Rock and metal are often characterised by this, but here I think it's a bit too compressed. This is a really easy fix however, if you loosen up the master bus compression and ease off the limiter a little, your track will breathe and make all the elements you have in there more audible. The others have already brought this up and I will concur that your low end is a little too muddy. HPF's on your guitars would pretty much solve this I think. I'm on my own on this one but I felt the guitar playing was a little too out of time occasionally. Particularly at 0:45-0:52, 0:56 and at 1:32-1:47 things felt a little out. Probably all this needs is some slight dragging of the lead track to fit to the beat better. I'm not penalising the track for that, I just think your soloing and riffs could be strengthened by stronger timing. Source wise, you've changed a few things around in the arrangement but I can still hear the tune there. A lot of solid work has gone into this and it'd be great to be able to hear it better. Ease up on that compression and give the low end some breathing room, then we're in business. NO (please resub)

I quite like this remix. For me the production quality is there. You're missing a little bit of low end but it's not a dealbreaker for me. Very trippy and chill vibe throughout, with some thoughtful and well varied instrumentation there keeping things relatively fresh. I like those bitcrushed drums you have in places. You have done some nice things with the arrangement to keep things interesting, which would have been challenging as the source tune is basically a 14 second piano number. The main issue I have with this track is the chorus. When the chorus hit initially I was somewhat hooked but then it repeated again and again with not much changing. I know arpeggiator trance and/or club lead lines can be like this, but I think for this song it doesn't quite work. You have lots of variation elsewhere but the chorus feels like it goes on a little too long playing at the same rhythm with the same few notes over and over. To put things into perspective, the chorus almost takes up half the song's duration, and not a lot happens in it during that time. I think the chorus sections would benefit from being shortened or you could play with some things there to try and make it more interesting. You could try adding in a few more notes, playing with the rhythm or even drop a different lead in occasionally to take over. Even changing the background accompaniment over time might do the trick. Don't get me wrong, I dig how you clubified the source tune in the chorus, but I really think something needs to be done with it to make it more interesting. Do that and we're sweet. NO (please resub)

I think the big problem with this track is that because your production quality is so high, the faults pop out a lot easier. I personally felt there was a decent amount of variation here to keep interest, with some really satisfying soloing. Your synth leads define technomanga, and your guitar tone is great, please give it to me. The general consensus (and I agree) is the second half of the track is more interesting and original than the first half. Source usage is too verbatim in the first half, and needs a little more "you" in it. The main thing I dislike about the track is actually the drum rolls of all things. I know they're in the original source tune but here they make things feel like they're tripping over every time the roll happens. This is especially apparent near the beginning at 0:13. I think you could safely move away from those rolls and do your own thing in those places. I didn't have as much of a problem with your snare, but it is very static. Your mix of rock and electronic elements doesn't particularly demand a super varied snare, but changing your velocities and tone slightly throughout would be enough I think. Also I think your track slightly cuts off at the end a bar or so too soon. I'd drag that end marker out a tad and re-export it. Do not feel discouraged by the wall of NO above, this mix IMO is stellar, as in, fix these couple of things and it's a SUPER yes and have my babies from me. NO (super uber borderline)

Ok, there are some decent ideas here. Straight off, I'm finding things too repeaty, anticipating for the next thing to happen for too long. The source is spoken for, but you're not really doing a lot with it. The originals are quite repetitive too, which is adding to this problem. There aren't a lot of elements to the track. We have that bass, and that nice organ, and not a lot else for the majority of the track. As far as the original source tune of Sazh's theme goes, its acoustic instruments and varied percussion elements are the major players in keeping interest. Being more on the electronic side of the fence, you may need to compensate a bit. I think the bass could benefit from some varied notes here and there to make things feel more fresh as time goes on. I'd also recommend playing with some filters on the bass to make it evolve over time to keep things interesting. You've got that gorgeous sax around the middle of the track which is the best bit IMO. I almost think if we can cut to the chase sooner than later and get to that sax, we're off to a better start. Production wise I don't have any major issues. So far it's a NO from me. This track has some good ideas but needs a bunch more variation. I feel if you spend a bit more time with this, maybe add a few more elements here and there, things will work. NO

As everyone else has mentioned, that sampled intro must go, as it's against the submission guidelines. Now I don't mind this track. There are a lot of decent ideas in here. Amongst the riffing and chugging the source is clearly heard. Your guitars are nice and large (a staple of the genre), and while you repeat a few sections in the arrangement, things don't get repeaty. Ok, my gripes - on the production side of things, I actually feel the mixing could be greatly improved in this track. I'm finding some elements difficult to hear, especially that snare. It's trying to pop out and can't quite make it. I think a large part of this is the low end on the guitars is choking the other elements. I really think lifting a HPF on the guitars would help enormously. I'm not going to slam down a NO on this one with the others saying it's fine, but in the future, I think you really need to explore some options to get more clarity in that bottom end. Making things easier to hear will make your music a lot more enjoyable. YES (super borderline)

Source wise you're there, I have no complaints. On the production side, to be completely honest, when I first heard your track I thought I was listening to a MIDI, because everything was very rigid locked to grid timing wise, and the guitar samples used did not sound very convincing. I absolutely accept that guitar is very difficult to emulate in a sequencer, it's something a lot of people have problems with. I think there are a couple things you can do to make this work. 1. Loosen up that quantisation on the guitar. All DAWs these days have the ability to humanise a performance by loosening the quantisation by a few milliseconds/ticks, making notes appear slightly sooner or later like a human player was playing it. This would reduce the roboticness of the playing. I then suggest exploring some of the other options below. 2. Accompany the acoustic guitar lead you have there with some sampled chords. There are some free sample packages out there which contain some nice acoustic strums. Combining some real chords with the MIDI driven lead I think would help to mask the fact the lead is fake, and would create a thicker texture/atmosphere in your track, making things feel less sparse as well. 3. All else failing, pop into the workshop and see if any folks there can direct you to a good sample library to use. Someone may even want to collab or lay down some chords for you to use in the track. They are a friendly bunch there with all kinds of ideas. 4. Perhaps try switching to another genre. Faking a complete acoustic performance is damn hard. If you can't get things convincing, you could possibly switch over to the electronica side of town to see if things work better. Looking at the arrangement things aren't too bad, but a couple unique licks here and there would make things feel more fresh. Definitely some work to be done of this one. I'd like to see you explore some of the options above to strengthen the mix. NO