Nutritious

Really liking that intro. Nice beat work here and instrument choices. Gonna echo Kris' gripes at :57 with the panned piano and flute lead. They're really getting lost behind other elements. One issue is that the distorted guitar-ish noise in the background is taking up way too much space in the high end, preventing the leads from getting through. I was really on board until this section hit, which comes off as messy and cluttered to me. Very similar issue with balance at the 2:12 section. There are a lot of busy parts here, which starts to all jumble together to noise after a while and is fatiguing after a while. Also gonna agree on needing some contrast from the bass & beat foundation that plays throughout so much of the track. Besides a couple breakdowns, the energy level and sounds/levels stay pretty much the same throughout the track. Really could use a changeup or a true "b" section that more adequately differentiates itself from the main riff. (EDIT: Nabeel did ping me about this and pointed out the incorrect source was referenced on the submission letter. It definitely cleared up the source connections for me. There are significant enough production issues for me that keeps this one below the bar IMO as I mentioned below in the original vote.) Assuming the arrangement issue pans out, there's still work to be done on the production side before this can be posted. NO resubmit, please

I like the diverse instrument choices with the Genesis sounds, synth bass, and piano lead. Piano sounds a bit stiffly sequenced, especially on the faster note runs. Some better velocity management (lower volumes on quicker notes leading into a louder finishing or downbeat note) would help this at the very least. Tone could use a little more body I think as it's a bit top-heavy. Production is quite clean with good separation of parts. I will say that the various instruments didn't quite fit cohesively in the soundfield. Some of the drier instruments stood a bit in contrast with the reverbed piano, so a touch of verb on these parts would likely help. Arrangement-wise, lots of personalization (is this a word? judge-only word?) and expansion without ever losing site of the original. Lots of detail on the piano part-writing over top of the bass anchoring the source motif. Rexy always seems to excel at this side of things and this is no exception. Good stuff overall. YES

Hmm, interesting source to try to tackle. Sounds like a tough one. Let's listen. Gonna start with a source breakdown to validate your timestamps: :00 - :13 Original :14 - :32 I see what you're saying, but too much of a stretch to call it source IMO :33 - 1:26 Guitar leads covering melody with some variations 1:27 - 1:41 Original soloing 1:42 - 1:49 Guitar lead covering melody 1:50 - 1:58 Original 1:59 - 2:17 Backing choir pad (you called it organ) on melody. It gets really obscured at the end, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here 2:18 - 2:32 Guitar again on melody 2:33 - 3:02 Original (couldn't hear organ/pad/thing well enough to establish claimed connection) 3:03 - 3:32 Guitar melody 3:33 - 3:44 Original I counted 126 seconds of source connections out of 224 or 56%. We good here. On the production side, there are a few big issues that are really bothering me. First is balance. When the melody comes in on the guitar, the tone is tiny and gets almost fully obscured by the loud & prominent panned guitar parts. The odd thing is, it's immediately followed by a far more prominent and better sounding lead playing essentially the same thing. I see that you labeled the first lead as the background guitar in your source breakdown, but given the fact that it's covering melody, this seems really odd to me. I'd recommend cutting the tiny backing lead and rolling with the main lead. Also, the backing guitars are far too loud. They should be playing a supporting role, but instead are constantly competing for the spotlight from the melody lines. Second of all, progression and clutter. From the time the track kicks in with the main melody until the end, there's a general pattern of adding more and more elements on to the already loud and complex parts already playing. It gets to the point where you've got 2 busy backing guitar parts playing, a busy lead part (especially when soloing), plus a busy bass part, plus a busy background choir-ish pad, and busy percussion with lots of fills and hits. There is a couple sections with semi-respites from this, but if you scroll through different parts of the track it's like a constant stream of really cluttered, busy sections. To be honest, by the end of the track, it's really wearing me down as the listener because it's so intense for so long. The "organ" (which sounds like a choir patch to me as mentioned), really isn't cutting it here. The sequencing is badly exposed on it when it carries the melody with choppy note changes and not the best tone (either for an organ or choir). Ending wasn't bad but pretty sudden. Not to say this is all bad by any means. Guitar performances are well done and good ideas on expanding the source beyond the original's single melody lines. The approach was surprising to me when I first heard it, given the somber source, but I think it works. Very creative, but you need to think about what you want to take the foreground for the listener and consider more contrast in sections to give the listener a break. NO resubmit, please

Man, this is a shame. Really enjoying the genre conversion and the drumwork is really nicely done. But, yeah, as illustrated in Kristina's audio layering, this mix follows the original track near-verbatum. There are additional parts thrown in here and there, creative drum additions, etc., but as a whole, this is far more in cover territory than what OCR is about. To quote the standards: (emphasis mine) This is pretty darn close to MIDI rip + drums. As cool as it is, and as well produced, it's not gonna fly here NO

Gonna give a stab at this one . Song sounds awesome

Just gonna say, not being intimately familiar with the source tunes (having never played the game) makes it really difficult to analyse a mix that focuses on small, specific source sections as a repeating motif. That said, I was able to identify the key parts from the sources that form the linchpin of the backing track. Anyway, super creative. Well produced for sure. The panned backing vocals are a great effect to hammer home the comedic vibe of the lyrics. Everything is balanced well. Really like the deep brass stabs. YES

Piano tone is a beat weak from the get-go, both from a lack of body initially to not cutting through well when other instruments are playing. A tad mechanical is sequencing as well. Nice synergy of instruments as things kick into gear at :43. As mentioned, the hats stick out a bit and they and the snare tend to get robotic at times with repeated similar hits. Tip with your drum writing: have the hat notes cut out when the snare or toms fills hit (like :43). You actually remember to do this later, but not early on. Balance could use some improvement. Rhythm guitars are a bit loud compared to others and, as mentioned, the piano tends to get buried a bit in the mix. The acoustic lead sometimes gets lost behind other elements. The leads in general don't always cut through well to the forefront. 1:26 is the weakest section. The lead barely emerges from the backing instruments at all and is too slow of an attack to carry the melody. The transition leading into it felt awkward as well. It doesn't either drive the song forward or provide a good energy contrast to the rest of the song. It's just kinda there. Source breakdown: :00 - :28 - claimed by mixer as based on source2 intro, but far too abstract to count IMO :29 - :36 - source1 :37 - 1:04 - source2 melody 1:05 - 1:25 - source2 second section in guitar melody 1:26 - 1:49 - source2 section 3 1:50 - 2:04 - source2 solo section Ok, that's probably enough. I'm pretty much agreeing with mixers' breakdown besides the intro section. Overall, nice arrangement that utilizes a ton of source material and blends them together artfully. This one's very close for me. Trying to weigh the production crits with the strength of the overall arrangement. On balance, I feel that despite having a lot of minor production issues, it still carries above the bar for me (if just so). I could see this going either way, so good luck with the rest of the vote. <edit: see below> Notes: It sounds like the attack of the very first note is chopped off. Common FL Studio issue (I frequently hit it as well). Just highlight the whole timeline and move things out 1 beat and it should fix it. Would be nice to get a fixed version if this passes. EDIT: Given how much on the fence I was on this previously, I decided to come back to this to give it a fresh listen. The first plucked lead in the intro (and later at 2:51) is really stiffly sequenced and has unnatural sounding note changes as a result. I'm surprised I didn't catch this before. Also, the balance/cutting issues are striking me now as a bigger issue than when I voted on this previously. Gonna flip over my vote on this and ask for a tightened up version. There's a lot of good potential here that is currently unrealized. NO resubmit, please

Interesting, this source sounds like a mashup of CT - Secret of the Forest and one of the Dungeon themes from Zelda LTTP. I can see why you'd choose the former as a second source choice. Liking the airy synth feel behind the beat. Nice, meaty kick/snare sounds. Was a bit surprised when it dropped out so quickly, but it came back equally as quickly. Source connections are pretty clear, though it sounds like things go off the rails a bit as the song progresses with how far the synth soloing strays. Not sure about some of the note choices at 4:11. Also, by the end of the track it felt like things were dragging on needlessly because there's not much contrast sound-wise with the rest of the song and the continued synth noodling. 2:45 is a good example where, despite the double-time beat, nothing much changes in the background parts. That would've been a good opportunity to get some contrast from the rest of the track for a while before the complete drop off into pad land. At times, the track feels a bit out of balance. The lead parts (lead synth when it gets quieter, piano part at 1:32) sound too far back in the soundfield, partly because of how wet the reverb is on them. At other times, they sound fine. I'm conflicted on this one. You've got really positive stuff on one hand: bass/pads/beat create this REALLY good backing track, but on the other hand, the constant synth movement really wears on me by, say, the 4:30 mark. I was ready to pass this thing on the strength of the production, but the more I listen, the more the lead writing is bugging me. tl;dr version: scale back the writing - like DS said, sustained notes are OK; trim the fat from the arrangement (a good 90 - 120 seconds could come off without negatively impacting the track); BUT keep the backing feel and beats. NO borderline, resubmit, please

Good stuff here. Easily recognizable connections here. Mix felt a bit busy in some of the louder sections, but I didn't hear any sort of distortion or compression problems. Really like the separation on some of the backing synth parts. This mix is just a great package overall. YES

I always appreciate it when another J does source analysis. That way I'm more in verification mode, rather than discovery mode. Thanks, Krisina. Man, dat Main Theme track. Love it. Arrangement is the main concern cited. Beginning sounds like it's trying to reference the arp during the Main Theme, but it's too liberal a take if so IMO. Between 2:30 - 2:56 as well as 3:40 - 3:57 I heard the Cave Theme come out in the piano a few times, sandwiched between more original sounding expansions. But yeah, beyond that I'm not really able to identify anything Kristina hasn't already laid out. Production wise, there's a nice amount of reverb, giving an ethereal feel to the whole thing. I would've liked to hear a bit more contrast in the parts as the song goes on. Yes, hand percussion is added, the portamento synth joins in eventually, but after a while, the same underlying piano textures and constant aforementioned synth start to wear out their welcome to me. It's a nice piece for sure, and it's definitely possible both Kris and I are still missing connections. Based on what I'm hearing thus far, I'm gonna have to go to the NO camp. However, I'm open to a possible switch if someone can point out more than we're hearing (despite my repetition concerns). NO resubmit, please

Haha, I like this. I feel like it takes a certain amount of intestinal fortitude to put out a mix like this. Done well, it's (intentionally) amusing and a fun listen. Done poorly, and it just comes off as if you're trying too hard and can be a bit embarrassing. Fortunately, this one falls in the former category. Great arrangement here, incorporating it both in the backing instruments and vocals. Nothing really to add there. I agree that the piano was slightly mechanical, though helped by the tasteful room reverb. I agree the ice cube effect was a bit overdone, but not a big deal to me. I'd add that the ending was a little sudden for my tastes. Vocal balance didn't bother me TBH. They're the feature of the song, so I'm fine that they're so prominent. But yeah, a very creative, fun listen. YES

Wow, really liking what you guys have brought here. Starts a bit conservative, focusing on adding elements on top of the repeating goddess motif. As time goes on, however, things are expanded further with some offbeat notes and a ton of variation. My biggest gripe is the balance on the track. I think I could pick out who did what based on how they landed within the soundfield (to be fair, though, I've worked with both artists on the sm64 project and know both of their styles relatively well). Here are some examples: :21 bass sounds more distant than upfront harp pattern :33 brass sounds a bit thin and again, behind the more prominent pattern 2:57 lead synth is too loud above everything (this is the biggest issue IMO, but fortunately it only plays briefly) There's tons to love here. Jordan's vocal & brass additions are fantastic. Both artists' arrangement work here is exceptionally good. Love it. YES

Big thanks to Kristina for the detailed analysis. People may not realize it, but it takes a ton of time and concentration to do that sort of work. I can't hear any more source than what's she's already pointed out and even then I'm having trouble hearing some of these connections. I'd argue that while I think she's right about the arp at 2:28 from bad future, it still sounds like a bit of a stretch to connect the two. Good ideas here as usual from these guys, but I think the focus on the arrangement was lost somewhere along the line . I've done the same thing myself. NO

Yeah, rigid sequencing and samples are really hurting this. Biggest offender is the flute lead at :35. The note changes are robotic and the sample timbre is inconsistent between notes. Ideas are cool. I dig the fuzzy beat beneath this and the feel you're going for. Re-reading Larry's vote and he really nailed it here with his various crits. Stop reading my vote and go read his . Good start here, but needs some production looooove. NO resubmit, please

Good energy here for the track. Sounded like there was mid/low-mids scooped out of a lot of the instruments, so there's some room to fill things out a bit more IMO. Snare gets a bit repetative IMO, but not terribly so. Good guitar performances. The various guitar effects and transition parts were a great addition and make the track a ton more interesting. Felt like the synth lead at 1:36 was too buzzy and static sounding (not enough variation in the timbre of the sound). Doubling the guitar lead with the synth helped support it much better, though. Good stuff there. There is room for improvement on the production side (all minor issues in my book), but overall nice track. YES

Tough call here. I see valid points on both sides of the coin, so just gonna throw my hat in the ring. At the outset, the sequencing was super rigid, which had me worried. Fortunately, things even out immediately with the bit crushed beat and lofi samples. Pretty cool feel established here. Reminds me of the cave story soundtrack a bit for some reason. Trance change up was a bit unexpected, but the transition works. Kick sounds like it's taking up a bit too much room for my tastes. Sounds may be a bit on the basic side, but it's generally well produced with a clear soundscape. Arrangement connections are clear throughout with plenty of variation on the theme. Upon repeated listens, I didn't find this to be too repetative. Sure, that gated trance part plays quite a bit, but the track never felt copy-paste to me. YES

Wow, this takes me back a bit. I remember having LindsayAnne's previous Zelda mix on my playlist quite a long time. I mentioned this on a recent sub, but I love seeing artists from the bygone OCR era return with new material. This definitely reminds me of the style of her previous track. I'm gonna go ahead and do a rough breakdown: :00 - :59 original 1:00 - 1:18 Zelda's Lullaby 1:19 - 1:23 original 1:24 - 1:34 Zelda's Lullaby 1:35 - 1:48 original (at a stretch, sounds a bit like the last part of Lullaby, but not enough for me to count) 1:49 - 1:56 Main Theme 1:57 - 2:08 original 2:09 - 2:23 Main Theme 2:24 - 3:53 original (I couldn't hear any source in this extended section) 3:54 - 4:10 Zelda Lullaby subtly on harp (or whatever it is; it's so quiet is hard to tell) 4:11 - 4:34 original 4:35 - 5:38 Main Theme 5:39 - 6:44 original (very loose interpretation on Main Theme in part of this, but not enough to count IMO) Pulling out my Liontamer® stopwatch, that totals 150 seconds of source out of 404 total, or 37.1%. Unfortunately, this falls pretty significantly below the 50% mark, which is approximately what we're looking for minimum. Someone please feel free to correct me on my count, but I'm pretty confident I caught everything. In general, things take quite some time to develop and materialize behind the slow moving string chords (consistent with her previous track). Samples are a bit of a mixed bag, but for the most part they do the job. The orch chimes in particular stood out as sounding out of place in the mix. Also, towards the end during the climactic section, the horn sequencing sounded a bit messy. In general, this is pretty quiet and often there isn't a ton of distinction between the various parts, which gives it a muddy/washed-out sound. I wouldn't disqualify this one on production grounds, but there is room for improvement. Still, with so little source referenced in the piece, I'm afraid I have to go with NO resubmit, please

Gonna second Chimp's crit on the opening synth. Not sure if it's just me, but I'm hearing a lot of interference between the kick and the rest of the instrumentation. It sounds like the kick is taking up too much room in the low end (too "boomy"), causing the track to have an odd compressed sound whenever it hits with other instruments playing. Seems like Kristina really hit the nail on the head with the production issues she mentioned above, so I'd def recommend taking a look at her notes. Yeah, that stutter at 2:22 just didn't sound right - contextually or execution-wise. This is pretty solid as-is actually, but needs some production tightening IMO. Good luck with the rest of the vote, I could see this going either way. NO resubmit, please

Liking the clean production work here. Crisp beat, good separation of parts, nice filled out soundfield. Nothing to really gripe about on that front. As mentioned, this initially keeps it pretty close to the original, arrangement-wise. However, Binster starts getting more and more creative with his interpretation throughout the track, keeping things fresh. Speaking of Binster, we haven't heard from this guy in a while! I remember his older stuff being on my ocr playlist for a looong time. It's nice to see early ReMix pioneers (as I see them, at least) returning with new stuff. Liking this mix and hoping we hear more from him soon. YES

Cool arrangement ideas from the get-go. Wasn't expecting the sudden change-up at :30. Honestly, the whole :30-:58 transition felt a little messy and unpolished to me. Not bad, but potential to be more effective. Some piercing high frequencies in this section to (but oddly not anywhere else in the song). Beyond that though, cool movement throughout the mix. This is one of those mixes that defies simple categorization. Each new section used the original melodies in a creative and unexpected way. Really liked how things built up into a very full sound around the 3:10 mark. Of course, as soon as I say that it immediately switches into this crazy, twisting, mangling version of the dungeon theme. Super creative & fun. As Larry mentioned, I think there will be quite a few detractors of this one. Too often with any sort of dark, downbeat electronic style there's the "oh noez this sounds liek dubstep, we hates it, precious!" Regardless, cool stuff in my book. YES

Yeah, I agree that the heavy panning of parts is distracting on headphones. It's also very much in cover/underdeveloped territory. This would need more expansion and/or personalization to jive with OCR standards. Still, this is enjoyable as a standalone listen. The performances are well executed. Not sure we'll hear a revised version of this one, but I'd definitely like to hear more from both players! NO resubmit, please

Not much to add to what's already been said here. Larry really summarizes the issues well and I don't want to beat a dead horse (sequencing, dynamics, lack of cohesion between parts, repetitive nature). If you haven't already, I'd recommend spending some time in the WIP forums, which should net you some more immediate feedback and help on the more high-level issues you're facing here. Good luck to you. NO

Off the bat, I felt like this could use some tasteful reverb to smooth out the attacks & releases and generally mesh the parts better together. The samples themselves aren't bad, it's just the sequencing and production holding this back. Right after typing this, I'm getting to the woodwind lead section, which actually feels slightly washed out to me. So, I'm not sure I can make the blanket neez moar reverb statement. I still think it's part of the problem (like type of reverb used and settings), but Chimp makes a good point about how much care needs to go into how you sequence orchestral. Simply automating velocity (and, if it also crossfades samples like EWQLSO does with CC11, which I'm assuming this library does) goes a very long way. Alternating velocities on one shot samples like xylophone helps a lot as well. The ending was also a big disappointment TBH. It just kind of stops after resolving a chord with an extra snare roll. Not really sure what the thought process here, but to me it sounds like the end of a WIP, rather than a finished piece. This isn't bad by any means, but I agree with Kristina that this needs some more love. NO resubmit, please

Dat intro. I like how you've approached both the production and the song progression/flow. I'm a big fan of DnB, so I may have some genre bias going here Haha, this. Anyway Source was smartly interwoven in various sections throughout the track. As Larry mentioned, I definitely would've liked something to differentiate the copy pasta sections. From the production side, I'd say the kick could be brought down a bit and the snare either boosted a bit or made a bit more meaty. Love the atmosphere, though. Very cool track. You have a new fan YES