Palpable

Very static track. It has a good sound, a good atmosphere, but after the drumloop comes in, there's basically no further evolution of the track. I kept expecting you to layer a thicker drum loop on top of it, or mix in some different melodies, different pads, something. I think I hear some volume changes, but for the most part, it's the same patterns repeated. The sound effects didn't add much to the track. Your sounds and processing are nice, especially in that 2:03 section. You've got a good handle on slotting things together. But the drum loop should be higher in the mix if that's the level you're gonna keep it at, especially if you're aiming for the dancefloor. Use more EQ or less reverb if it's conflicting with the synths. But as Larry and Jesse have noted, this track foremost needs more ideas. NO

Great sound. It's extremely relaxing but the glitches give it detail. On the surface, it's very similar to the original, but this song has a lot more going on past keeping the same mood. It has much more of an arc. The arrangement is pretty liberal but I don't think it's as hard a call as Larry did. The chord connection is nearly always there, plus a few iterations of the main melody and the back-up melody. I didn't hear the beat connection though, Larry - I hear kicks on beats 1, 2.75, and 3 in Andrew's song, and 1 and 1.5 in the original. Is there something I'm missing? Either way, I thought this was related enough. Great work, Andrew. YES

I think zyko knocked it out of the park with this one. The basic concept is a really great match for the song, and the little details give it a lot of replay value. I've loved it since I first heard it a few months back. OCR definitely needs more hip-hop.

Not visible to you, perhaps. On a side note, what do you guys think of the new No-Larries forum?

This one is tricky - there are some elements of it I really like. It's sleepy, yet playful and inventive, and it really sounds like something you'd hear in a coffeeshop. The take is very personalized and I think clearly a lot of effort went into this. But on the other hand. The rhythm is really off, especially in the beginning. You can't tell how (even if) it's supposed to swing. I think eventually it starts to find a groove but it takes a good minute to get there. The instruments sound pretty distant too, and with such a small combination of instruments, you expect more intimacy and clarity. That's pretty minor next to the rhythm though. I hate having to give a NO to songs only for performance, because I realize what a bitch it is to redo. But I think the rhythm problems really hamper this. I would definitely encourage you to resubmit after tightening up the playing, because I think that's basically the only thing holding this back. NO (resubmit)

Interesting combination, the saxophone + orchestra. I found it a little jarring initially, but I think by the end you had sold the concept. Great build-up into the main theme at 0:36, and a fine sense of grandeur throughout. I didn't hear anything specifically from Four Valiant Hearts though, except the similar theme. Maybe one of the judges can help me here - there's enough usage from Ahead On Our Way in any case. The saxophone sits a little strangely in the mix - slightly muffled, a little over-reverbed and upfront. Doesn't gel as nicely as I'd like. It's not a big enough problem that I'd need it fixed, but maybe that's something to keep in mind next time. Solid work here, Justin. YES

Larry Oji, a ReMixer? GTFO Nah, this remix is killer. I love how it's practically all drums, like a million on top of each other. I can't imagine the work that must have went into making them all audible. Larry's part of it is awesome too, and it's neat how "big empty space" is followed by a... big empty space.

Haha I can tell you had fun with this because I had fun listening to it. It has a lot of cool ideas and a playful, spontaneous spirit. The problem is that for every few good ideas, there are one or two that don't work. The drums opening the song sound awfully plain, the improvisations of the synth sound very rigid, and the transition at 2:57 is like starting an entirely new song (and I wasn't a fan of the Bowser SFX either). At 6:10 in length, you don't necessarily need all the ideas you have. I'd recommend figuring out which parts don't work so well and try to tighten them up or cut them out. And your production has some ways to go. At times, the soundscape is dry and feels empty. Instruments are too loud (the synth), or emphasized strangely (the bass, the guitars). There's some instrument clashing as well. You've gotta make the parts sound smoother and more cohesive. To get you going on the right track, I thought the 0:54 section came together really nicely. Soundscape was filled out, levels were good. If you can make the whole song sound as good as that section, and I think this one will be a winner. NO (resubmit)

Very Pretty Hate Machine-sounding. The source melodies played a real tertiary role in this though, and I wasn't feeling the piece was that cohesive. I didn't even hear the intro connecting to the bassline like Larry did (if it does, it doesn't change my decision anyhow). The really creative parts of the song to me were the crazy processing sections that totally ignored or marginalized the source, like 1:17. The sections involving the source were played a lot straighter, and they could have used some of that processing creativity too, to tie everything together. The lead instrument also didn't fit the mood that well. Production is uneven too. The volume is way down but even then, the drums are a lot louder than the other instruments. Great job with processing and effects though. I think it really captured the sound and mood you're going for. I think you really need to rethink what to do with this song. There are some cool ideas here, but for me, they don't gel. NO

I love the original and I thought this take on it was great. Very grand sound in line with the feel of the original, but still adding a lot. 2:15 was a great moment among many. While the overall production is good, I thought this could have used more EQ work. There's mud in the mid-ranges, and not just in the section Larry mentioned. Moving some of the emphasis of the lead instruments to the higher-end (especially the acoustic guitar and piano) would have given this more breathing room and clarity. I think in comparison, Devastation's Doorway had a lot better clarity and separation. I went back and forth over whether this issue was big enough to NO this. In the end, I think the rest of the production and arrangement are strong enough that I can borderline pass it. I would love if we could ask Greg if he's willing/able to touch this up the way he did with Devastation's Doorway. YES (borderline)

The arrangement idea here was pretty cool. Kind of a garage-metal sound with some interesting dynamics, especially towards the end. Using Waterside was quite unexpected too, and that was a pretty drastic change from the original. In general, I thought your usage of the sources was creative. The production here is just messy though. It's muddy, there's some minor clipping, and the parts are unbalanced. In particular, the drums really pale next to the guitars. Even in the sparse Waterside section, they are reduced to a very small section of the sound spectrum. Give them a more natural sound and push it closer to the forefront of the mix (I hope this doesn't mean re-recording them, but it may), maybe put some boost on the high end, and carve out of the guitar and bass to give them room. They are your backbone and they need more of a presence. I think this one has a lot of room for improvement in the production, but if you can make it work, this will be a solid arrangement. NO (resubmit)

This definitely has some great sound choices. The VGM-sounding crunchy beats, filter effects, and strings create a very cool atmosphere. Good use of the soundfield. But I think Vig pretty much called this one, even though he voted YES: it sounds like something is going to happen, but never does. 0:31 is practically the biggest dynamic jump you get the entire song. The problem is the parts sound very static, and so even when things drop out and get added back, you don't get the sense that a dynamic shift has happened. Volume changes in your parts across the song would help immeasurably, both in terms of making the transitions less abrupt and in humanizing your parts. The solo at the end especially sounds very mechanical. Some slight variations in the parts would also add a lot because many of them play predictably. You hear one measure and the song pretty much plays the same for the next three measures with a new chord. It'd be nice to have some changes in the last measure of a section to serve as a transition to the next section. This song is built on a very solid base, and the arrangement ideas are interesting, but I can't shake the feeling that it coasts. I think some attention to detail could make this a really great song. I hope you give it another try. NO (resubmit)

Nice arrangement. You've woven the songs together well, and there's lots of little details, like the piano in the background around 3:00. Double-time sections ramp up the energy nicely. I thought this was pretty solid on production too. I know last time Larry thought the drums were too loud, and this time I agree with him. The snare could stand to be a little softer and more blended in. It also gets a little crowded at times, and maybe more EQ could help. But these aren't major problems and I'm comfortable passing this. I think you're really improving quickly, Simon! YES

I was definitely a fan of the arrangement. Great textures here, and I didn't think it was played that straight either, with the complementary original sections and the new melody over the source's chords at 1:16. Dynamics built up well, and the bassline was a clever idea. It has a little too much repetition though, in the melody and the drums. Some minor changes in the melody, including volume ones to match the energy level of that section, would go a long way. I kept expecting the drums to break into something a little fuller and I think the way you kept them so constant detracted a little. Still, I'd like to stress that I thought the general arrangement idea was strong and it wouldn't need much more writing effort. Production though... the leads were too loud in comparison to the rest of the instruments (especially the one starting at 2:33) and this piece really could have used some EQ, as it gets muddy. Drums were sort of buried. I'd recommend listening to more music in your genre to really get the shape of the instruments. There's a lot of frequency ranges you can cut to get a cleaner sound. This is a good candidate for resubmission. Work on those problem areas and make this one really shine. NO (resubmit)

Hahahaha. Yeah, Snake is pretty awesome. I think it's hilarious how his down + A and forward + A smashes both take like 3 seconds.

Makes it much easier for me, personally. I don't have to constantly compare the mix to the source; saves me about half the time I'd spend on a mix. Sometimes I feel I get a better appreciation for a mix if I'm very familiar with the original, but I try not to let that get in the way of judging. If this has happened to me, I've not been aware of it (though my judge career is yet young heh). Changes like that have sounded off to me, but I'd like to think they've been changes that would have stuck out even if I wasn't familiar with the mix. More often I go the other way, where the changes are more pronounced given my familiarity and so that creativity is more noticeable.

Mute City theme felt totally tacked on to an original song. I think the manner in which you used it was cool, but we're looking for a full song along the lines of the last minute of yours. If I missed some source usage, I'll definitely revisit this one. Thought your sound built up well, though those vocals could have been brought out more. NO

This was a pretty cool arrangement that kept changing its angle. The jazzy sections complimented the straighter-played ones - I especially liked the transition at 4:16, how it goes from chaos to order. Wasn't feeling it was as unwieldly as Larry said, and in general, I liked the way you used dissonance in this and I thought the messiness of the drums worked in your favor. Production is rough though. I thought this mix was really missing low-end and the drums and synth bass should have had more bass emphasis. As it is, your mix doesn't have enough energy. The drums sounded more lo-fi than the other instruments and I felt they clashed a bit. Clarity was also an issue at times, like the woodwinds coming in at 0:14 or the piano that came in later. I'd hit that EQ up some more to make room for these parts. Give it another shot, Doug. This is most of the way there. NO (resubmit)

I thought this was really sweet, Jacob. The smoothness of the pads paired with the grinding D&B beat made for a very nice listen. This has some excellent processing and a great flow, and I think it's a lot more complex and well-realized than your Kirby remix. Unfortunately, I'm totally with Larry in not hearing enough of the source. I felt the chord connection at 0:58-1:19, but even counting that, it's still well under 50%. It's weird though, because I feel like I recognize the melody of the e-piano-like synth that opens the song, and I've never played the game. Is it from the Wii browser, or used in a different game? Maybe it's just a similar instrument as the Wii's start-up sound. In any case, if that melody is from something, this would be a pass. It gets used a lot. Mixing is a little high-heavy but I thought for a light, airy tune it worked. The subbass was a nice counterpart to the trebly drums. I've got no clue why Larry's not thinking the parts weren't distinct. I actually thought you separated things quite well! Whatever. We both agree that this needs more of the source tune before it can pass. Maybe you could even incorporate another song, since the original is so simple. I hope you decide to give it another look. NO (resubmit)

I love the Aero soundtrack, and was actually thinking about remixing something from it. Hope you liked those songs. Although I imagine after this many songs, it's already starting to sound like a big mush?

This seems a lot better than Melee. I played once with each of the characters my friend had unlocked (he's the one with the game; think he had 28 unlocked) and the game just feels a lot more in my control. Love the slower speed and that attacks feel like they do more damage, like they did in the original. The new characters that my friend had unlocked seem great except Dedede, who was always a touch too slow on his attacks. Somehow I think that's more an issue of me getting used to him. But Sonic, Wario, Metaknight, Pit, Olimar, Pokemon Trainer... all solid additions that play pretty uniquely. Ike is solid too, but he plays pretty similar to Marth. Hah I was wondering why Pokemon Trainer wasn't Ash until my friend pointed out he'd have to have Pikachu.

Excellent drums. I think that element of this song is basically perfect. The supporting synths and FX help fill out the picture nicely. I sort of wish the strings sounded fuller but I can understand why you toned them down. Great song, dude.

Thought the basic idea was fine here. A little cookie-cutter but a solid, high-energy track with enough distinction from the original song. I felt like some of the transitions could have used more smoothness, as these kinds of songs are usually built upon keeping the flow going. The transition at 1:55 in particular sounded awkward. Some of your instruments are thin, like the leads and the backing synth starting at 0:32. Sounds like they are missing information somewhere on the spectrum - some of it comes down to the samples and some comes down to how it's produced. Hi-hats, snare, and the lead starting at 1:24 were dry and I didn't think they blended into the soundscape that well. Other parts were over-reverbed which caused some muddiness. Work on getting everything sounding like it fits together. I felt like I got pretty negative on this one, but only because the problem areas seem pretty evident. I'd still encourage you to resubmit, after working on some of the things Larry and I pointed out. NO (resubmit)

I love "Book of Days" (for underwear!), but this was really missing the dynamics of that song. That's not necessarily a bad thing - a lot of my ideas come from trying to recreate songs, then changing key elements around - but this felt too flat. I didn't feel you made good use of the sound spectrum, as a lot of the elements tended towards the low frequencies. Brighter, percussive elements would help liven this up. The piano does part of this task in "Book of Days", but in your song it's thin and not that bright; it could use a stronger sample and more fluidity. Perhaps the vocals could also be produced differently to emphasize the higher end. If this doesn't do enough for the song, consider moving some of your instruments up an octave for more contrast. Lastly, Larry mentioned some off-notes in the harmony that I also found distracting. In general, I liked what you were going for but the production just doesn't sell it. It will take a lot of work on that end to make this one happen. Listen to "Book of Days" some more and get a sense of what those upper frequencies should sound like. NO

Favorites: zircon's "Monstrous Turtles!". Harmony's "Dragon Song" is excellent but I haven't listened to it in a while. I've also played Nick Singer's "Forerunner Mix (Alpha)" a ton lately.