Palpable

I didn't like the treatment of the source in this. The bassline is a weak connection to the source - the rhythm isn't the same (as far as I can tell), and for the first minute, the Terra chords haven't come in yet, meaning that there's absolutely no tie. I guess the thing is that the bassline in the original just plays the root, so the rhythm is really what distinguishes it. Once you lose the rhythm, you're just playing the chords. Given that the verbatim melody is the only other tie, and it plays for three minutes, I don't think this is connected enough to the source. Even putting that aside, for a sparse song, this needs more detail. The patterns play on auto-pilot far too long, and it needs some new percussion patterns, instruments, something. I realize it's going for a minimal approach, but this is too much so. Some warm pads would also fill in the lacking mid-lower areas of the soundscape, while keeping things minimal. I'd also have preferred a lead that didn't overlap with the bellpad so much. Production was the strong suit here, and the mood and the groove were good. I thought the pumping of the bell pad was intentional and a good effect for variety. Sorry if I came down on this hard, Alex, but I think the arrangement needs an overhaul before we could accept it. NO

Arrangement has a lot of ideas, though I wish it had stuck less to the original structure and melodies for most of the song. A little bit of melodic flair would give this added distance from the original. Nevertheless, there's a great deal of personalization here, including a genre overhaul, lots of new backing parts, and a very creative finish that served as a nice contrast to the rest of the song. I think Larry covered the production very well. Biggest problem is making room for all your various instruments - for the most part, things are clear, but it gets cluttered at points, like 1:53-2:27. Try to cut down some of the backing instruments there in the frequency ranges where they don't help. It just hurts clarity the way it is right now. The little details he mentioned also add up, like unrealistic string and guitar articulations. I definitely like this, and I don't think it will take much work to put it over the bar. Please give it another go, you all. NO (resubmit)

Ook. This one was close last time, but I don't think the issues were resolved here. :sad:Unfortunately, the guitar might have gone too far in the opposite direction, where it's not prominent enough now. I don't remember exactly what the last version sounded like so I'm not sure if it's closer to where it needs to be now. I'd suggest nudging it forward a little. It's also possible that it's more a matter of clarity and that the guitar needs its own space. At 1:39 and onward, the guitar is hard to hear against the strings. I'd say try to give the strings and guitar their own space first using EQ, then check whether the guitar is still too soft. The drums don't sound distant to me anymore, but I think there's still something off about them, like they are missing high frequencies and maybe some low frequencies too. I'm starting to think some of that comes down to the samples, but maybe you can account for them by boosting the ranges that need the help, rather than swapping them out. Try focusing on just getting them to sound right on their own first, by comparing them to other songs. It's probably frustrating to be so close with this one and get stuck on one or two problem areas, but I think those areas are too significant. You seem to have gotten symphonic mixing down pat - if you can fix the guitar and drums, I think it will definitely improve your range as a remixer. Hope you see this one through. NO (resubmit)

Interesting take on the source, very jumpy and restless, while keeping the melody identifiable. There were a number of individual moments I liked also, like the Metroid Prime-like whistle synth drifting in and out, and the glitchy 1:16 section. I think the arrangement concept is pretty solid, though at times the bends on the guitar sound a little silly. I'm willing to cut you some slack there, it's clearly a more whimsical piece. Production needs some touching up. The combo guitar-vibe lead takes up a lot of the track's space, leaving little room for bass and drums. Some EQ work may be required. Larry makes a good point that in the quiet 2:25 section, it's hard to hear the bass writing, even though there's not much else happening there. I think the bass and the drums need more presence, possibly a fatter snare sample or a deep snare layered with the one you have. The hi-hats could also use some high frequency boosting to cut through. These problems make the beat of this song not strong enough, especially given how focused it is on rhythm. Towards the end, you introduced some heavier drum sounds and I liked the contrast there. A lot to like here, Dustin, and this is definitely most of the way there. If you can fiddle with the mixing of the song, make things sound fuller and clearer, I could see this passing. NO (resubmit)

Third resub I'm judging today. We're two for two on passes - will this be number three?? This one was pretty close last version. Intro sounds better, a lot less muddy, and those opening strings no longer make me reach for the volume knob. Lead is a lot clearer, though like Larry mentioned, it does sound a little dry and disconnected from the rest of the song. I also still wouldn't mind a fatter sound. Overall, the lead is a solid improvement over the last version but there's still some room for tweaking there. Some decent improvisations on the leads after the key change spiced up the repeated section, though a couple of those notes sounded a little too dissonant to me. The one thing I think is definitely worse than the last version is the sound of those leads together at 3:33. It gets shrill and loud, especially on the whistle-like notes towards the very end. Try reducing the EQ at points in the 1K-5K regions to make those sounds less irritating. I think if you can fix that small detail, you're good to go. Congrats! Three for three! YES (conditional on EQ)

Had no problem with the arrangement last time and nothing has changed in that respect this time. My biggest problem with the last sub was fixed here, so that's a good start. The piano is now the centerpoint of the piece and gives the listener an anchor. Maybe could stand to be a little more prominent at points, but I'm pretty happy with it now. Mixing is stronger, and string timings sound better too. My only concern is the 2:23-2:49 section that Larry mentioned. Some of the timing seems a little off there, and along with some unusual note choices, it's a weak link in the song. Since it's such a small section I'm willing to still say YES to this one; there's enough good in this song that it passes our bar, as far as I'm concerned. Nice work, Meteo. YES

I knew you would come through, dude. This is excellent. Mixing is much improved and the new changes you added improved the song. I LOVE the background strings that come in at 1:31. Like last time, the arrangement is liberal but well-connected with the nine-note riff, which goes through a couple neat modifications to match the chord. Great work! YES

Anyone coming to the OCR panel at SITAcon this weekend just might get hear an arrangement of it...

Overall, I like this, but you've got some problems to iron out. Feels like for every good thing you've got going, there's one little issue that follows it. The intro had a cool, ethereal quality to it, but remained soft even when the percussion came in as loud as it ever gets in the song. Pretty jarring hearing those first few snares - take those down in volume and maybe filter them a little lower. 1:11 was practically a new song, which was again strange to hear. The new chords were a cool idea but the texture was pretty generic, especially the lead. Over the course of the song, that lead wears out its welcome. Again, more to like following that with the percussion switch and riffing on the B section melody of the intro, followed by strange note choices at 2:09, like the bass missed the chord change. Boss battle kept up the hi-energy, and I liked some of the minor effects and in-game FX you used there. I thought there was enough interpretation here between the new chords, backing parts, structure, and melody alterations in parts. If you can fix the problem areas Larry and I've listed, and spruce up the more generic 1:11-1:50 and 3:46-4:10 and the lead, I think this has a good shot at passing, for me. You've got the energy level and groove where they need to be. NO (resubmit)

To contrast Larry, I thought this was interpretative enough. The melody is kept pretty intact, as well as the rhythm of the left-hand part, but the chords are totally different. This has a much more unsettled feel, culminating in the dissonant sections that close it out. There's also some new changes in rhythms halfway through, but before that, the song veers dangerously close to being plodding, like Larry mentioned. The rhythm and volume is too even; one gear is a good way to describe it. This is a tough decision for me. I think I get what you're trying to do with the piece, but I thought the changes didn't improve the song. The left-hand gets a little meandering and bland with the new chords - when the more melodic 1:51 section came in, it felt a lot stronger, though it started to get conservative there. I think something a little more dynamic and melodic is what I'm looking for here; mileage might vary for other judges. The piano wasn't as clear as it could be, but I think it was good enough on that end. Good luck with this vote. I found it difficult to call, so I could see others leaning your way. NO

Yeah, very nice piece. I get Birth of the People stuck in my head from time to time but it never occurred to me to check out remixes of it. This definitely does it justice, with some small but nifty alterations to the classic source. Good articulations, and the Northwall theme is handled pretty well too.

I wasn't really feeling this one until 1:09, when it switched over to the B section. That section gelled in terms of percussion and instruments landing on the right beats, and I think it was a case where your trademark key signature and rhythm emphasis changes worked in your favor. In the other sections, well... they didn't. There's too much randomness in terms of timing and volume in the drums and as a result, little direction. Lastly, the song is a little sparse overall. The snare didn't sit right with the rest of the instruments, too punchy and dry. The bell lead was too muted and tough to hear against the other instruments you had. I think something brighter might have suited the song more there. This one has some very sizable problems and I don't think it's as strong as some of your other work. Sorry dude. NO

I liked the arrangement quite a bit. The takes on Song of Storms were interesting, varied, and well-connected. And the Serenade of Water bookends also fit well. I didn't have a problem with any transitions in the piece - there were some unusual meter changes, but I felt they flowed reasonably well. I'm listening to this on monitors at home, but I dunno, I only noticed the clipping a couple times for extremely short amounts of time. If I listen very closely, I can hear more, but I feel like that's getting really nitpicky. I think worse clipping has been passed before. I'll take a listen on headphones tomorrow and see if that changes anything, but right now, I'm comfortable with this as it is. YES Edit (10/3): Yeah, I'm cool with this. The pops are more noticeable on headphones but I feel they are small enough that this can pass. Edit (11/2): I'm also guilty of using "clipping" synonymously with "pops". Often clipping can cause those kinds of pops, but here that's not the case.

I like the piece a lot in a vacuum, but like my fellow judges I thought the connection was weak. The cello handles the same chords as the original, but the melody really isn't close. It's tricky, because the melody of the original sounds pretty improvised and what you've done with the guitar sounds pretty improvised. On some level, that is a connection and I can see how you were inspired but I just feel like any number of pieces could fit that. I don't really have any suggestions for you, because this piece is pretty well-formed, and making it less liberal would take away a lot of your concept. Sorry, man. NO

Love this, so much going on! Definitely my kind of mix. I like the addition of sections that play the beat straighter - a nice steadiness to contrast the rest of the chaos.

I've always been fascinated by the way music is put together, so a lot of my early inspirations were just the artists I liked where I thought I had a decent shot of recreating their music: Depeche Mode, Orbital, Underworld, Daft Punk, other electronic stuff. I love music of all types, but I didn't know how to play any instruments (and barely do still), so all my stuff tends to sound like these guys.

Nah, not necessarily. It's using "jungle" as a mass of something, like lost in gas, or lost in water. I like the title more without "the", in any case.

Sorry, but that drumloop is so out-of-place to me. I totally agree with Larry that it sounds pasted on. It has no reverb, it's very high-pitched and grating, and it distracts from what I think is a fine arrangement otherwise. I seriously think this song would be better off canning them. The guitars and the normal drums have a lot of power to them, and you're got some really cool effects going on. The vocal chopping stuff later on is a much better usage of unusual samples. Another big problem with the song is the mixing. It sounds like it might be too compressed, because it never gets much louder than the intro, despite having a lot more going on in the chorus. I'd like to see more dynamic curve to this, which means scaling back the compression, and possibly using EQ a little more to make the elements more distinct. And if you really want to keep the drumloop, at least take it down in volume and tuck it into the soundscape better. I hope you clean this up and resub because it only has a couple problem areas. NO (resubmit)

Hells Yeah YES

The textures here were cool, especially your lead, but the song repeated itself too much and at times, didn't sound that melodious. I wasn't a fan of the way the chorus was handled, changing the chords. The new chords you created there didn't really click for me. I also thought some of the 2:31-3:11 new writing was a little random - it wasn't that compelling, and couldn't hold its own once the main melody left. Try to make those sections more melodious. To combat the repetition, I'd recommend changing up the drums sometimes, and add a couple sections that really drastically change the textures in place; maybe a section with no drums. Production is pretty nice, I think you've got a pretty solid base there. Just need to focus on the arrangement. NO (resubmit)

If Continue is in there, it's very liberal, yeah. I listened over both your song and the original a few times and couldn't find the connection there. As for the rest of the song, the sampling didn't bother me. It's heavily chopped such that it forms a new melody, and only the timbre is recognizable from the original. To me, that's a valid form of interpretation. However, the new melody was NEW, and there isn't enough connecting this to ICO. I did like the song quite a bit. Very moody but playful, good build-up of textures. It ended too soon for my liking, which usually means a song is compelling. If you can somehow work more ICO into this - like somehow using the chopped guitars to give a more obvious take on Continue - I think it would be a knockout. NO

Cute. But doesn't alter the original arrangement in any way apart from the instruments, so not for OCR. Also, wouldn't hurt to clean up the clicks and pops in your samples a little. NO

Well, that's good and all for you, but I'm still pissed. Fuck those judges. I'm never submitting to this site again.

Hmm. I liked the performances in this, but wasn't hearing much new partwriting except in the drums. Original melody and structure was pretty much intact for the entire song. There were a few chord changes here and there, but for most of the song the backing guitars played parts from the originals, or stretches of sustained chords. Felt like a genre adaptation without a lot of personalization. Oh except for the singing. I'm not even sure what to make of it. I know it's not supposed to sound great, but it's a little much. Context is everything, but I feel weird giving that part of the song a pass, while rejecting other songs for having vocals out-of-tune. I'm curious what other people think. Production was not bad, but it sounded crowded and the drums were a little hollow. I would have liked a cleaner sound. When everything is going at once, some elements sound indistinct. Bigger beef is with the arrangement. I would have liked to see some melody changes and countermelodies, more entirely new backing guitar parts. What's here sounds good but not that interpretative to me. NO

My favorite bit of this is the first 1:04. The triplet feel gives Mute City a really unique feel and the slow tempo gave it a lot more poignance. It was disappointing to hear it become a lot more conservative past that, sounding like a straight cover until the melody came in. The additions to the melody aren't that interpretive and get a little predictable. 1:47 was a decent section, with new dynamics and some keyboard escalations. 2:04 was another very conservative section, followed by more substantial interpretation at 2:25 until 3:08, when Mute City came back to close it out. Not an easy call. There are chunks of this that really work and others that play it too safe. The transitions were a little awkward but alright (they may have been eased by changing the key of Big Blue). Recording is a little boomy because of all the very low notes, which tend to drag on the ears. I think I want to see another pass at it, it doesn't sound quite there yet. I'd say spice up those conservative sections a tad, and cut down some of the low frequencies. I could see this easily passing with some small modifications. Who knows, it may anyway. Good luck! NO (resubmit)