Nutritious

Man, sometimes I don't really feel qualified to judge certain tracks that I come across. Not because of the quality of the original piece, but more from lack of experience with certain genres (or non-genre's?) to give me a bit of a goal-post to judge a track by. This would be one of those tracks. This is a very creative, somewhat off the wall, take on the original. It starts pretty straightforward in its adaptation of the original, then gradually morphs into it's own form. Through the last half, the backing sequence is used to anchor the source connection. I'm a bit iffy on the source connections as to whether the backing pattern is enough to qualify as "dominant", but my gut feeling is that it's a clear enough, central part of the mix to fit the bill. But I do have to co-sign again on the silence crit. Not trying to beat a dead horse, but it honestly sounds like the track cuts out by accident and suddenly comes back in later. I'd like to see the silence trimmed down, but also perhaps at least a semblance of a lead-in to make it sound integrated. The same lead-in crit could be made for the 2:45 sudden (shorter) drop as well. I don't like going conditional on tracks, but if there ever was a good candidate I think this is it. YES conditional on silence

Gonna echo Deia's comments regarding the mechanical piano. Harp suffers from a bit of the same. String stabs around 2:49 sounded rigid as well and a bit out of place, sonically-speaking (sounding far away and lower-fi than the other elements. Horn at 3:05 isn't a bad sample, but doesn't really sound realistic due to how exposed it is. Nice, lush soundscape in general here. The direction/building crit didn't strike me as an issue, personally. Though, I could see the desire for a bit more direction and/or payoff to the builds, I suppose. Sounded like the mix was pushing the compressors a little too hard, like at 4:24, 4:47, & 4:52. I get trying to have a contrasting louder section for additional impact, but it sounds like it's too much for the software to handle. I think you can pull it back a bit without losing the dramatic effect. Arrangement-wise, this one doesn't stray too far from the original in terms of melodic interpretation. However, there's a lot of additive work and detailing that bring a lot to the arrangement as well as a lot more in terms of builds, drop offs, and overall flow. Overall, I like this piece. The last quarter of the piece really grabbed my attention the most. With some tightened-up production, this should be a go. NO resubmit, please

Yeah, I'm leaning more towards the "A" team on this call. The arrangement didn't sound expansive/personalized enough beyond the original melody and structure. Would really like to hear more development in that regard. It's been mentioned a couple times, but I thought the mixing was actually a significant issue here. This track is mastered pretty loud and things are definitely fighting for space. 1:30 is the most obvious example where the track is overly loud and cluttered. I had to turn down my volume for that section. Great start, nonetheless. Keep at it NO resubmit, please

Lots of good attention to detail here. I should disclose that Trap really isn't my thing. At all. But I can appreciate the complexity of the rhythm and backing parts you put together for this. I agree with Larry's crit on the track getting cluttered a little after the 2 minute mark. Also, agreeing that the melody line at that point sounds like an effected rip from the original audio. To that end, I'm not 100% sure the backing arp that plays through isn't also utilizing audio from the original that's been sped up. Also, the track ended really abruptly without much of an outro or much of a resolution, which was a bit disappointing. This much reliance on the original audio may make this an auto-NO, but beyond that I would like to hear some tightening up on the production side and more personalized interpretation. NO resubmit, please

Added. Also, very cool. I didn't know livestreaming coding was a thing until now

Updated. We need to tag-team dude.

No, Chimp. I already gave the final yes!

This is straight up awesome. Loved getting to watch the performances as well. Great bass chops. The guitar solo was epic. Easy peasy. YES

Gonna basically echo Kris here. The RMS levels of this track are super high and every element is audibly fighting for space. You can hear the various parts ducking each other with the compressors working in overdrive. To start things off, pull everything back down to more reasonable levels and see if you can get a better balance. Pull back the master compression as well - there's no need to try to get to this sound level IMO. It makes it hard to really crit the production effectively with how squashed things are currently, but the synths/samples used here are sounding a bit on the basic/vanilla end. Getting some more nuanced and interesting sounds here would definitely be a plus. Overall, try not to be discouraged. The WIP forum would be a great resource to get immediate help getting the big production issues fixed in the short-term as well as refining your craft. Good luck to you. NO

Interesting take on the source. I like the concept here. Intro sounds pretty solid with a nice buildup of energy. I was fully expecting the energy to open up at this point, but when the "payoff" hit at :45 it actually stepped the energy back a bit from the transition. Agreed with the "A's" that repetition is really hurting this one. The aforementioned never-ending sidechain synth is the main offender. Drum beat, while a nice core loop, also gets repetitive over the long term because of lack of variation. Beyond that, though, there's a lot of either copy/pasta going on in the second half of stuff we've essentially already heard prior in the track. Without further development, like changes in writing or instrumentation, it's hard to justify the length it currently sits at. Transitions/Progression was a bit of a mixed bag for me. For example, the dropout to strings around 1:50 was a good idea (the backing side-chain sticks around though unnecessarily IMO). On the other side of the coin, the transition to the pseudo bass breakdown at 2:30 & 3:52 sounds awkward because we just came off a short break in the beat a 4 bars ago only to go into a second one here. Quick fadeout ending doesn't feel like it resolves the track well. On the arrangement side, as mentioned, this doesn't utilize the source melodies much, in general. Here's what I stopwatched: :23 - :45 melody 1:39 - 1:49 sounds like it may connected to the piano run in the OST, but it's too liberal IMO 1:51 - 2:09 melody 2:23-2:25 modified resolution to melody line from OST 3:14 - 3:36 melody 3:45 - 3:47 modified resolution 3:53 - wasn't able to link this string lead line to anything in OST so I'm assuming it's original writing Out of a total of 259 seconds, that's 82 seconds where I'd consider the source usage as dominant, or 31.7%. This is obviously quite a ways below the generally accepted 50% mark. I don't want to gloss over this because with this, combined with the issues outlined above, I don't feel that this is as close to passing as Andrew. Overall, this is a pretty solid start, but feels like it could be polished and developed more, not to mention have stronger source usage. Would love to hear this one come back in a resub as the concept is pretty cool. NO resubmit, please

Oh man, is anyone doing the DD2 title screen (the revenge)? If not, I want to give it a shot.

Gonna echo the crits on the levels. It's both loud and has some heavier higher-end presence, which can be fatiguing after a while. Also agreed that the main beat could use some more variation. Personally, I'd lower the leads and beats a tad and bring up some of the lower end to anchor the track better. What's here, though, is solid. Good adaptation of the theme, and the overall production is pretty solid. YES

Yep, this one is firing on all gears: nice, clear production and strong source usage and interpretation. Nit picking: string(?) lead around 1:55 had some awkward note changes. Not sure if it was intended to be an organic instrument, but it works as a synthetic one. Sounds sweet. Great job YES

Ooh, liking the approach here. The chord change-up brings a fresh take on this oft-mixed track. Beats are pretty sweet and liking the mellow feel. Given the liberties taken on chords and content, I'm gonna have to stopwatch this one for arrangement content. Writing-wise, 1:40 felt a bit underwhelming as a break-down type section. It seemed too quiet and a bit disconnected to the rest of the track. On that topic, I think this could use some balancing tweaks in general. As mentioned, the 1:40 breakdown beat/loop sounds quiet, but is interspersed with relatively loud crystal synth stabs. The sub that comes in later sounds quite a bit louder than the rest of the elements in play and bumps the overall levels up a ton compared to when it's not playing elsewhere. It seems to get louder as the track progresses as well. (/me puts on the Oji hat) 4:19 track is 259 seconds, so I would need 129.5 seconds of source to meet the 50% mark. :52 - 1:17 OST Melody 1:18 - 1:29 Modified, but recognizable counter-melody from OST second melody iteration 1:48-1:50, 2:16-2:21 I'm counting some of these crystal stabs for the times they match the B section stabs in the OST. I feel like I'm being a bit generous here as is, so I didn't count the parts where it just alludes to the original. 2:28 - 2:30, 2:34-2:36, 2:40-2:42 Small uses of OST melody line 2:57 - 3:07 OST bridge 3:21 - 3:44 OST melody 3:46 - 4:07 OST melody, with modified chords That totals to 113 or 43.6%. (Other J's feel free to chime in if I missed anything) So yeah, this is a great track so far, but not quite hitting all cylinders on production and is a bit too far on the liberal side for OCR arrangement standards. Really enjoying the approach and I hope you bring this one back. NO resubmit, please

The intro is really underwhelming as it stands here. Repetitive block chords with eventual additive elements. Not sure if you're going for a realistic sound (based on the arrangement, it sounds like you are), but if so, the guitar samples are really not gonna cut it for that. Things are pretty stiffly sequenced as well, which won't help with the realism factor either. Arrangement is pretty straight-forward take on the theme. Some soloing work does come in later, which is the bulk of the personalization from what I am hearing. Sudden ending sort of comes out of nowhere, which makes this sound like a WIP, rather than a finished product. Really helps to write a true ending to give the listener some finality & satisfaction :). As mentioned, this is pretty quiet overall, so some compression work in the mastering process will help here. I'd worry about this later, though, when you have the other stuff worked out. Sorry if this is such a downer vote, but to get to the OCR bar this would need some significant production work and (IMO) some more arrangement expansion/personalization on the original. Don't give up on your craft and send us some more stuff in the future. The WIP forums could be a really good pace to hone your skills in the meantime. Good luck to you. NO

Emu really hit the nail on the head here. Beat is hot, but could use some variation. Main lead is honestly pretty bland and weak sounding. It doesn't cut through the mix as much as it should and the tone isn't very nuanced or interesting. The backing parts get somewhat repetitive until you start playing with some (dBlue?) glitching effects. Sometimes they sounded a bit forced if that makes sense, so a bit more polish on getting them to sound a bit better integrated may work. Ending was a letdown TBH, almost like you sort of gave up at that point and just faded it after a quick extra melody line. Good start here, but some areas for improvement. Good luck to you. NO resubmit, please

Gonna co-sign with the above. Levels are way out of whack. Tone down the flute quite a bit, and rebalance everything with a fresh-mixdown. There are places where there is some odd audio squashing (probably due to overcompression) like 1:57. Sequencing was a mix of really nice (like the glissando work) and some choppy parts that could be smoothed out. Concept is solid. Really liking the guitar work. Ending felt a bit weak without percussion or kit support. Agreed as well that there is room for more arrangement expansion. But yeah, approach is very cool with lots of energy. Solid work so far, just needs tightening up. NO resubmit, please

Sorry, somehow missed this one. Updated.

Larry really nailed this one. The brass felt a bit out of place in the oriental instrument context, but it can work. The piece is pretty short, which can also work, but only if the arrangement is developed enough. In this case, this feels more like a good base that needs to be expanded and interpreted further. Liking the approach a lot and it has lots of potential. NO resubmit, please

Man, I hate to do this, but gotta agree with the No crowd. Loving the production and writing, but hearing very little source connections. I mean, I do hear the occasional nod to the first few notes from the OST melody, but it's like it's faking me out then going in an original direction. As much as I love the track, the source usage in no way feels "dominant" to me. NO resubmit, please

I can hear a bit of both sides of the coin here, but feel like I'm personally leaning towards DA's points here (OA bro I sill love you). Piano sounds nice and lush, but over time it overpowers some elements that it should be supporting. Because of this, the mix gets crowded in the busier sections, making it sound muddy. This is especially apparent in places like 3:12. I don't think the drums are a deal breaker necessarily, but I agree there's some room for improvement. The snare sticks out a bit as the track progresses as something that feels very static and not nuanced. Hard to put it into words, really, but I hope you know what I mean. Good stuff here, but I think it needs to be tightened up a bit. NO resubmit, please

Basically on board with what's already been said. Sequencing was handled quite well. Not sure I would've even noticed it if it hadn't been pointed out TBH. Source connections are clear throughout. Very effective translation to the triplet signature. I felt like the drums got a bit repetitive at times (but other times were just fine). I agree this could be trimmed a bit without losing the impact of the track. Felt like it should start resolving a bit after the 5 minute mark. I'm gonna sign off on this one, but wouldn't mind a revised version that's trims the fat a bit. YES (borderline)

Post updated

Way to bring some energy and excitement to a pretty underwhelming original track. Liking the concept of this one. There are some production weaknesses present. Some of the percussion hits sound a bit on the lofi end and didn't mesh well with the rest of the track. As Andrew mentioned, the choir isn't super realistic, but it gets the job done. Cool beatwork around the 3:15 mark. This may be my favorite section of the track. Mixed bag of cool writing and energy with some production issues that could be tightened up, but on the balance I'm on board with this one. YES

Not a whole lot to add to the yes camp here. Solid track put together here. Nice progression throughout to keep things fresh. Pretty unique style here - I'm not even sure how to classify it TBH. The breakdown at 2:00 felt a bit underwhelming compared to the strength of the first half. Very cool sequenced synth lead in at 2:30 to redeem it, though . Great stuff here. Digging it. YES