Palpable

Quite a moving song. There's a lot of emotion in this one and I think it's a wonderful tribute. Very expansive on the source tune. I'm really feeling this one up until 0:47. I think the higher string that gets introduced there sounds unrealistic though (maybe the sample is being stretched too high?), and the rigidness of the playing doesn't help that. And unfortunately, I can point to places like that across the entire song. The section starting at 3:01 suffered from the same rigidness and sounded like the string parts were just being looped. Solo piano section also sounded off. I'd like to see the parts move more naturally. Basically, I think I'm saying the same things as Larry but in a different way. There are some key issues holding this back, and the rest to me works great. For instance, I thought the section starting at 1:20 was quite nice and the rigidness of the playing did not detract. Please polish it up and resubmit! NO (resubmit)

Thought this was a very cool arrangement. Reminded me of zircon's stuff actually, with the mix of old-school synths, strings, and processing. Slightly conservative, given that the structure and some of the parts are basically the same, but lots of processing and new bits. It's a fun listen. Fadeout seemed abrupt but not a big deal. Yeah, the beat on this is wimpy. It never reaches the energy level it seems like it should be at. The kick and the snare both sound like they need more power in the low-end - consider layering the ones you've got. The strings I didn't have as big a problem with, and I think I'd be ok with those as is. Soundscape is also extremely dry but I thought it worked reasonably well anyway, because of how full it is. The dryness makes it sound like a chiptune, not a bad thing. A little more softness might make it easier on the ears, I suppose. Very close one, but I'd like to see the drums improved a bit before giving this the ok. I could easily see someone giving this the YES, so good luck with the rest of the vote, Andrew. NO (resubmit)

I have to admit, the last two minutes were a little tiring to my ear, because of how relentless it is. And obviously, it is very dirty. I can get why people wouldn't dig it, if you aren't into that style. But I don't understand the comments that this was an accident or that the noise isn't intentional, because I thought this was pretty cohesive and had a lot of creativity. (In fact, I'm not even sure why something being an accident is a criticism. Whether it sounds good is the real question.) I would've probably YESed it too.

Definitely didn't like how much of the original audio (or a recreation of the audio) was used in this. For the first 2:16, it sounds like the original audio with drums and some supporting instruments. The second half got a little more creative with the usage (like having those strings cut out in the section with the harp arpeggios) and in using more interpretative part-writing - I'd like to see more along those lines. Also, you've got a really solid groove going, but I would have liked to see more variation, especially in those first two minutes. You're holding the same pattern a long time. Think you've got the production pretty much under control. This had a full, well-balanced sound and a good groove. I really dug it around the one-minute mark before the repetition got to me. That guitar gets fake at times, when it plays some of the lower notes - might want to touch up that part. Also, not sure, but I think I heard some light clipping in the 2:25 section, though I guess that's the echo you were talking about. No big deal. The arrangement concept is going to be a hard sell without some drastic changes, I'm sorry to say. I'd definitely encourage you to rethink this one or send us something new. Your sounds are really nice. NO

Liked the arrangement. It's a lot more powerful than the original, and though the instrumentation is similar, it's used in a completely different way. I liked how the strings took the lead for most of the piece. Great dynamics, though I thought the end was too much off a drop-off. That's very minor. Soundfield could have used a lot more clarity, for sure. The strings cover up a lot of the character of the other instruments. I understand those parts are mostly used to support the strings, and the important ranges of those instruments shine through, but I would have liked to see something cleaner and more natural. Rigidity also an issue at times, but much less of one. However, the overall sound is balanced pretty well, and you hear the important stuff. It's close, but I'm willing to say this one is good enough. I'll probably give it a listen on my monitors and might revisit my decision. YES Edit (3/9): Listened on monitors. Sounds fine. Staying with YES.

Dude, you gave us a birthday present this year. Well, happy birthday anyway. Hope it's a good one.

Happy birthday, you cradle robber.

Great title. Not much change to the melodies, but there's new chords, new structure, and just a hell of a different feel, with plenty of new material backing up the pieces that are kept from the source. I'm not sure why this would be NO'ed for being too conservative; there's quite a few arrangements on OCR that do this sort of thing (including some of my songs). Like Jesse, I felt the drums were a little repetitive, which was puzzling given that some effort was put into those drum breakdowns every few measures. But there was always plenty going on to keep it interesting. This thing just sounds great. High energy, full bodied, and a smooth flow (feel like I'm talking about an energy drink). I think people are really gonna like this one - I know I did. YES

This is the toughest decision I've had to make so far as a judge. This arrangement is beautiful. It's played and recorded excellently, and it's just a joy to listen to. I think that's what made this so hard to say NO to. I looked for reasons to pass it because I think people ought to hear it, and that in itself makes me think I knew from the start this one was too conservative. Ultimately, the changes are quite minor. It's far more expressive than the original and it has some slight variations on the left-hand part (some of which are simplifications), along with some new runs in the melody here and there. While these embellishments are nice, they are largely downplayed, and I don't feel that they add that much. Meanwhile, the structure, the tempo, the mood - all basically unchanged. Breaks my heart, seriously. I would love to see you touch this one up, maybe adding more significant changes in the left-hand part. Wouldn't blame you if you don't - this is a superb cover, as is. Either way, hope to see more from you, Johan. NO (resubmit)

Sweet mix. I wish it popped out more, but I thought the new vocals added a lot to this, very personalized. Definitely checking your other stuff!

Wow, another interesting, orchestrated take on Into the Darkness (there's another one in the queue I just voted on). This one has some really cool harmonic elements that add a lot of character to the original. Great balance of new and old. It's very quiet for most of it, but the dynamic range is used fairly well, and the quiet moments work. You get that sense that the instruments are bubbling under, waiting to burst out. Couple of the parts seem a little fake (in addition to what Larry pointed out, I think the soloed string at 2:57 sounds unnatural), but overall, this is pretty high-quality stuff. I like this a lot, Patrick. YES

^^^^^ this. Larry's right on. This song was extremely repetitive. I thought the mood was good and the groove was actually not bad, but it needs a lot more detail and variation for a six-minute song. Some subtle changes to those patterns would make this go a long way, without sacrificing the minimal groove you're going for. I'd love to see some expansion at sections with different melodies or new instruments. I also think some light 16th-note percussion would be really cool, but that may be my personal preference sneaking in to it. Synth and bass work were actually pretty cool. Good textures and design there. The rest of the samples were cheap though, no way around that one. That guitar absolutely didn't work, and might benefit from some delay and reverb in addition to a stronger sample. It really stuck out. The drum pattern felt dry, and the samples in it didn't gel together. You have a ways to go with balancing and using effects to make it all come together. Some cool ideas in this, but it's too rough. I'd like to see you keep working on it. NO

I've bought or been given some pretty bad games in my life, so here's one of the more recent ones: Tony Hawk's Proving Ground - Last one I played was THUG2, which was enjoyable if basically the same game as the preceeding ones. This game proves (haha) that consistency is what makes this franchise work, because all the new elements here are awful. The choppiness was such a downgrade from the smoothness of the early PS2 versions. The new balance meters are really unhelpful. The worst part was the Matrix-like slow-mo crap, which totally halts the action and is so damn hard to control! I spent about half an hour trying to do the tutorial before giving up. I think that was a boon. I'd probably have wasted more time on the game before coming to the same conclusion.

This is very similar to the originals on a part-by-part basis (some of the instruments even sound the same), and a lot of the changes involve drawing the source tunes out without adding new parts. Seemed conservative overall, and the transitions were pretty awkward. The heavy usage of the Batman theme (even though it is in the source music) and clips would also make this a NO. Larry explained the standards well. I have to say I did like the choir coming in at 0:57 - very reminiscent of Batman without directly referencing it. This had generally strong sounds and an epic scope, but I felt there was a lot of part conflict. EQ is your friend, to help those quieter parts shine through. I also thought the section starting at 1:48 sounded really unnatural, almost like the drum track was skipping. So while this ReMix might not be the one that puts you on the board, I think you've got potential. I'd encourage you to send something else our way. NO

Haha, Toronto? It doesn't evoke the same sense of magic and wonder that a town name in an RPG usually does. Wasn't digging the transition, but otherwise, great arrangement. Very different feel to the material, and I thought the melody wasn't even that coverish, with some flourishes and harmonizations. Love the last third of this song, which combines the first two thirds in many ways. Production wasn't perfect, but certainly no dealbreakers here. The guitar at 1:26 takes up more room than it should and masks the piano; little more EQ would help. Just keep it in mind next time, ya crazy kid. YES

Cool arrangement. It trades the grandeur of the original for high energy, and the synth guitar lead lends the piece some mysticism that the original didn't have. The soundscape was suitably frantic and the quieter sections built up anticipation for the beat again. I think this one really came together well, especially for a first-time full-out electronic mix. Great processing on those drums and synths, though I was feeling a little more balancing and EQ could have helped the overall picture. But it's hard with a song like this, especially when you're going for a frantic effect. Personally, I wanted those chopped drums to come out of the background and really set more of a groove, but they never did. I ain't holding that against you; it's a personal preference. By and large, this was fine work. YES

I thought this was an interesting arrangement idea. The melody is slowed down and simplified, and new chords are created with the countermelody. Very simple, but elegant and beautiful. Am I missing some source though? 0:21-1:06 and 1:28-2:12 were the only sections I recognized using the melody. The B section seemed totally original, though well-connected, and the opening and closing parts were just the countermelody on its own. That means it's right on the edge on 50%. It doesn't change my vote, but I'd feel better knowing that the B sections used something from the source too. Production... well, it's a guitar. It sounds like a guitar. You can hear the notes. Good enough for me. YES

There's some good arrangement ideas here. The song flowed well, and I thought the shift to A Knight's Oath was pretty cool. Nice setting of mood. For the most part though, this doesn't do enough to hold attention. The parts aren't that pronounced (too many seem like background elements) and at times, the playing doesn't sound realistic. Even for a lullaby, this needs more drive to it. Would be nice to have more elements keeping a pace, things with sharper attacks. The bum notes also sounded really sloppy. The soundfield seemed thin for some reason, even when there were a lot of elements at play. More presence in all parts would probably help. Also, sample quality was definitely low and it hurt in the sparser sections (in other sections, it wasn't that big a deal). I didn't hear your first version, but I think this still has a long way to go, man. Keep improving your game. NO

I think being a DDR fan and listening to E-Rotic has desensitized me to moaning in music. I barely blinked while listening to this. Is that a good or bad thing? Chill, detailed arrangement that really gets moving in some sections and clearly creates its own style. I dug the atmosphere you two created and the original writing, that supports the mostly intact melody. It sounds well thought-out on both the writing and producing ends. YES

This is awesome. Great atmosphere built out of strings, decaying beats, and background synths (would have loved some rain and thunder FX too, haha). Excellent development of the simple Chicago theme - I get the feeling that this is what the original song wanted to be. Love the elegance of the climbing strings at 2:16. Production is very good. I agree that the bass playing could have been tighter, but that's not close to stopping this one. YES

Had no problems with this sounding too much like the 2002 version. Different structure, different parts. I think the melody is the only idea that is carried over. The intro is really promising, with a cool mix of pads and synths. The lead there sounds a little static, and might have benefitted from some more movement, but no real problems. 1:03 was the point where this started to go wrong for me. The lead synth there - actually the whole soundscape - is thin, and pretty much holds at that level for the rest of the mix. This to me is the big problem; it never reaches the energy level you'd expect it to. More parts in the simpler sections like 1:03, and fuller, louder leads would make this one a lot stronger. I really liked the idea of the beat switch, but Larry's right that it wasn't a smooth transition. Could have used more foreshadowing. The transition back to the main beat at 2:53 worked much better. On a slightly related note, the cymbals sounded dry and floated on top of things. That doesn't help the transitions. This one's close. The arrangement isn't terribly innovative, but your production shows a lot of effort and detail. Close up the problem areas and this one is good. NO (resubmit)

I thought your additions to the original song were interesting, but there weren't that many and the song wore out its welcome by the end. The drumloop was overrelied upon, and the weird samples aren't incorporated that well into this either. Production was just plain sloppy. Some of the sample quality is poor, sometimes the sounds clip or near the verge of clipping, sounds conflict with each other, and balancing is off. There's also some weird stuff going on like the loud pop at 0:26. It's hard when you're starting out, but this song just needed a lot more work. Keep using that WIP forum to improve your producing and writing skills. NO

Definitely feeling this one through the intro. Great build-up and atmosphere. The drums were the first thing that seemed a little off, along with the guitar starting at 0:59, but I think my concerns are with the way they are produced. The arrangement had some very interesting ideas and you were able to sell them. Nice take on it. Things sound pretty cluttered when the drums and guitar enter the picture. Especially towards the end it gets hard to make out distinct parts; some EQ would help that. The hi-hats especially need some love because they eat up the space. Maybe pan them out more in addition to EQing them. The drums sound distant, and disconnected with the orchestral work. I think more prominence, less reverb on those parts would give your song a lot more energy. Guitar samples are on the weak side, but they didn't bother me that much. It's only when they are exposed every now and then (like at 0:59) that they bothered me. I don't think you necessarily have to change these. I really hope you don't call this quits now, Jeremy! It's seriously pretty close to complete and it's a solid arrangement. If you do feel like you're done with this song, I definitely encourage you to submit something new in the future. NO (resubmit)

Excellent work guys, and an easy YES. The guitar work is understated, and really reminded me of Durutti Column towards the end. Slow, measured, but still epic in its scope. The lead guitar sounds like it's being played from the top of a mountain. You can barely tell that this was a colloboration, which is usually a sign that it worked. The Mellotron section was a bit of a weak link production-wise; thought the pitch and quality of it was a little jarring, following the guitar. Very minor complaint though; let me pass this already. YES

I thought this had a pretty chill, old-school electro sound (which is becoming popular again). The Metal Man parts kind of float in and out, which was cool. This song did feel a little like it was just there though; the song never truly took off. Some of the synths and sounds were too static, some of the leads stayed in the background when more prominence would have kept up the energy. When you go the simplistic route, you need to have your parts really working together well, and I think you've got some room for improvement there. Keep working on it, I like what you've got so far! NO (resubmit)