Palpable

Awful, awful title, dude. Sorry, it just had to besaid. *rimshot* Wonderful sound here, very blissful. I think a good chunk of this is conservative - pretty much everything you hear in the first 1:20 is from the original, just on different instruments with some subtle FX - but the rest of the song added more. It opens up at 1:20 and onward, with new guitar and synth melodies. Good structural changes. Glitch section was a very good addition for modifying the staccato riff from the original, I think that's what put this over the interpretation bar for me. Honestly, I thought the mixing was fine. Fix that click at the end and this is good to go. Great first mix! YES

Great genre adaptation, but I didn't think it did enough to distinguish itself from the original otherwise. I did hear some new parts but they were buried in the mix and the leads and snare were the only parts I could really hear. Unfortunately, the leads were unchanged for most of the song. No hating on the song itself, which I thought was very well performed, but OCR is generally looking for something more interpretative, like the soloing section you added to Freeway. If the new parts you added were brought out more, it would also help this sound more interpretative (thought you might still need to do more with it). Larry also pointed out that a few transitions could stand to be smoother, and I agree with him. If you're willing, I'd love to see you retool this a little more for OCR standards. If not, I'd also love to see new material from you in the future. NO

There are some interesting ideas here, which is tough for a song that has been remixed so many times in a trance style alone. I liked the breakdown, and I thought the melody you added at 3:01 soloed well over the original chords. Some additional variation of the main melody would have added a lot, even just changing the note lengths and volumes. The repetition starts to wear as it is. I think you can take it even farther than changing note lengths and volumes, and mess with rhythms or a note or two. There's a lot of room for interpretation there. I also felt that too many of your sounds were too standard, making the overall texture bland. The mixing isn't great, sorry. In general, I think your leads are too loud and the entire song would benefit if you spent more time adjusting the volumes of the instruments. The arrangement is pretty standard trance, so maybe compare your song to a handful of other trance songs to get a better sense of where your volumes should be. I also think this song gets pretty cluttered later on, and EQ should be used to cut down on unneeded frequency ranges. It would help eliminate the slight lossiness you hear in the louder sections. Seems like we've given you enough to chew on. Keep working on your music, you've definitely got potential. NO

Solid effort here. I like the arpeggiated synths, soloing, general mood, and the well-connected original section. The original sections do make up a fair bit of this, but I think the source melodies and chords are still prominent for the majority of the song. Those sections are actually a little conservative, but they have your own spin. I can see where Larry's coming from wanting more creative usage of the source. 2:35-2:48 is a place where I thought you used the source really creatively, modifying the original melodies. A lot of what you added to this song is completely unconnected to the source parts. I felt the mixing needed some work. The body of this song was always sounding a little empty. A fatter snare that isn't so pushed back might have filled in some of the empty space, as well as using a pad with more mid-range sound and less air to it. Leads could have been more prominent and full too; you might have to play with the volume and EQ ranges to get those sounding right. To me, the production is a bigger issue than the arrangement, but both could use some tightening up. Hope you tune this one up, it's a good base. NO (resubmit)

Cool concept. I'm a fan of DnB remixes that take the original melody and mess with the underlying chords. In this mix, one gets the sense of hearing the original song through a haze. I agree with Larry that it's a little repetitive, but it didn't bother me that much. I hear enough changes in the drums - missing beats, extra snare hits, filtering, added shakers - to keep me interested. I wouldn't have minded a little more "foreground" to command attention, but I appreciate the haze effect you're going for, and there's a lot of movement in the background. Spoken word stuff was an ok addition that I don't think adds or subtracts much. Production was a little muddy, and I think this would have had more dynamic contrast if the parts were separated better. Larry's comment about the drums compressing the energy level of the foreground writing maybe gets at that. This song could be tightened up certainly, but I thought it was enjoyable and good enough on both ends, making it a pass. Nice work! YES

I've got a ticket for Kamelot and Edguy a couple days before you, Wes, here in VA. Can't wait. Actually, the next two months are gonna be jam-packed with concerts I want to see: David Byrne Kamelot Deerhoof Polysics M83 maybe They Might Be Giants (for a fifth time)

This is great stuff - very gentle, even compared to the original. It's conservative in structure, but I found a lot to appreciate about this arrangement in other areas. There were somewhat significant additions and changes to the melody, the left-hand part strays a good amount from the bass part of the original, and there are a couple short parts like 1:23 that are entirely original and alter the chords. I think it has enough personalization. The piano is full and crystal clear, playing is excellent, and the dynamics are good. I think this is a YES. YES

I can definitely see this one turning into another debate. zyko, you are the controversiater. First of all, I think it's a very cool arrangement. Chill jazzy backdrop made of a fine assortment of instruments, great performances, and cool changes to the source melody. I've been a long-time fan of how organic your arrangements sound, and this one is no different. The rub for me is whether it's too liberal. Honestly, my gut reaction, totally ignoring the stopwatch, was that it was. I didn't hear Sagat in huge chunks of it. The takes on the main melody are pretty obvious ties, but that accounts for about a quarter of the song. The opening synth-guitar riff is a bigger question in my mind, because it sounds to me like a very liberal take on the synth riff from the original. Including that probably pushes this close to a pass, but I felt it was a weak link since the notes were so different. In this case, the original is also only one chord so there's no real connection there either. I'm gonna have to NO. I'm always open to changing my vote if you (or anyone) wants to argue/explain ties that I am missing. Sorry, man. In case this does pass, I think the drums coming in at 4:08 could be clipping or something. They sound loud and a little lossy. Might want to fix that if you can. NO

Nice concept, with the time signature change. Gives the original material a very different feel, and the additional harmonies and countermelodies are well-placed. I thought it was a near-perfect balance between original material and source material. I do think this is weaker than your usual stuff, which may not be that surprising given the time you had to put it together. The bass has too thin a tone when it's isolated, the lead at 2:26 was loud, and the drum change-up isn't as effective as the drums you use for most of the song. The repetition near the end was also disappointing but there are small change-ups in structure. Still, I think this is not that hard a call, speaking for myself. These problems either didn't last long or weren't that prominent, and otherwise the production clicks well. The arrangement is also strong overall, as noted. I think it's a YES

What an arrangement, so many ideas. It seems to switch instrument leads, tempos, and styles every fifteen seconds. But for most part, the styles are played/sung well (sometimes the strings sound a little out-of-tune) and the transitions are handled pretty well too. In particular, I liked the second verse which had a cool marching beat, and the "Summer Nights"-like doo-wop after the first chorus. Recording quality is pretty good for a live performance, and the parts are pretty easy to hear. I think the lead vocals maybe stand out a little too much, but it's a nitpick. I don't see any big reason to say NO, and many to say YES. YES

I think Larry's covered most everything I'd say. The intro sounds fine, but the volume levels stay about the same even when the song takes off. I think there should be more dynamic curve there, instruments getting louder as the song builds. The overall levels are very quiet anyhow, so you have room to get louder. I think most of your arrangement ideas are cool (even the drum soloing works for the most part, sometimes it gets a little much) but I'd like to see more melodic interpretation too. There's some good countermelody call-and-response stuff, but some bigger changes to the melody wouldn't hurt. The biggest problem is that the soundscape doesn't sound that full. I think it's some combination of using thin instruments and having the instruments be too distant, possibly because of your reverb settings. It feels like it needs more bite. I'd push the instruments closer to the forefront, and maybe try to layer sounds or get better sounds. Yeah, I'd like to see you take another shot at this, Andrew. There's a lot of good ideas in place that need better execution. NO (resubmit)

I see you a lot on the WIP boards, but I don't think I've ever heard anything of yours, Rozovian. Cool to see you submitting. Solid build-up, but I thought things were slightly cluttered, and a little muddy in the bass regions due to the filtering. The very opening strings also get quite piercing and loud - I'd tone those down. When the lead comes in at 1:10, it competes with the lower rhythm guitar-like synth and needs to be given more room, possibly made fatter. That there is probably my biggest issue with the song. Nice interpretations in the next few minutes, keeping the bass intact sometimes, modifying it others, changing chords, and making short references to the melody in the solo section. I was disappointed to hear repetition of an earlier section after the key change, but I thought 3:59 to the end was a decent way to close it out, ending the way it started. It's definitely close, but like Larry, I'm gonna call it a NO. I'd like to see you fix the production issues and add a little more variety to the last minute and a half. Could easily see this one picking up YESes cause I thought it was on the border. Good luck. NO (resubmit)

Damn, you're a prolific mixer, Justin. I feel like I'm judging one of your songs every week. This was excellent, one of the best I've heard from you. Great use of the soundscape, and the writing weaving these disparate themes together was practically seamless. Transition to the heavy Norfair beats in particular was masterful. This could have been a direct post to me. YES

Love the intro. Great energy, and I like the way the theme is handled by brass, while the woodwinds provide subtle countermelodies. The staccato section starting at 1:20 is also really nice. And then 2:04 happens. You a crazy man, Jamaal. I think this could work but the transition is really jarring. Like Larry, I felt the orchestra was marginalized and the beats took over too much. I think keeping more of the orchestra there would make the transition smoother. Great piano work from there on out, great jazzy feel. The transition to the 3:21 section was again a little awkward, and guitar sounded too prominent, but the kick back to the main section was cool. One thing I didn't mention but should be fixed is the timing of your instruments. Before 2:04, there's some timing problems, possibly because you recorded MIDI? Just a guess. I think some of the instruments are too loose (especially the percussion) and you get strange moments like 0:55 and 1:01 where it sounds like nothing is playing for a quarter beat. A steadier percussion and moving instruments closer to playing on the beat would really help things. The attack on some of the low brass and strings also sounds a tad late, but this is not as big an issue. I don't think this is very far from passing. Great ideas, just need to tighten the execution. NO (resubmit)

Definitely some good ideas here. Reminded me a lot of 80's Depeche Mode, with the stark mood and the use of unusual percussion, the clanks and the marching. (The marching breakdown was a particularly good bit, by the way.) But it doesn't sound complete. The lead synth was lonely and I think some additional instruments near that synth's range playing countermelodies would have added a lot. There isn't a lot of melodic development going on this song anyhow. 3:06 sounds more full than the rest of the song, so I'd recommend taking a look at what you've got happening there and maybe think about applying that to more of the song (but be careful of the mud, cut down on those low, muddy frequencies). I also thought some of the sound choices were iffy, like the short guitar hook you've got going in the right channel towards the end. It seemed out of place. The snare is too loud and should be pushed back. I also think the lead synth could be less generic; even some effects on it would spice it up. We've probably given you enough things to work on. Get to it! NO

I liked the new parts you added, but the song felt static. A lot of the instruments hold similar for long stretches of time, even though they go in and out. I agree with Larry's comment that it never felt totally full either. Having a low-mid range instrument in the chorus, like the one that opens the song, might have filled out the gap. Generally, I just want to see more variation besides instruments falling in and out, maybe something along the lines of the 2:27 section, different drums and a totally new texture. 2:06 is a place where some totally different drums could have made for a very interesting, creative contrast. More melodic interpretation would have helped this too; it mostly just sticks to the original chords and melodies with rhythmic changes. Based on this sub, I think your production is actually pretty solid, Jose; it's more that your songs need more variation and interpretation. Don't give up. I feel like you definitely have the potential to make something great. NO (resubmit)

Lots going on in this production, some very cool effects and instrument choices. My major complaint is that, like you said, vocals could be placed right on top of it. I think they should! There's an empty space in this song where there should be some kind of a fat lead synth or vocal. Everything in this sounds like a background instrument and I think it needs more direction. It doesn't help that the texture is a little static; this would really be balanced by a prominent lead. Rapping or R&B vocals over this would sound amazing. Otherwise, I think making the gated synth more prominent and more melodic (playing more than two or three notes) might suffice. That's pretty much all I got. Remixing a source that is just three chords is tough, but I think this works. It just needs a little more to it. NO (resubmit)

The arrangement is simple but interpretative. The new left-hand chords add a lot and I even liked the liberal 1:22-1:45. On the other hand, it borders on overly simplistic. The left-hand writing was static and even for a dirge, I would have liked to see more movement there. This might be the most minimal remix I've thought had a shot of passing. The recording quality is definitely not as high as most piano arrangements we have on this site. The overall sound is muted and reminiscent of older, live piano recordings. I feel like the simplistic writing combined with the mediocre recording quality makes this a NO. I just don't get an overall sense that this meets the bar. It's close though and I could see this passing. Good luck, Peter. NO

Creativity comes so fleetingly to most people, so when you have great ideas, it's nice to able to make them sound how you want. I think that's the advantage of having worked on music for a long time, that it's easier and quicker to turn your ideas into a song so you can move to the next step and keep the creative momentum. But my creativity has never "improved", I wouldn't say. I might have had more ideas when I started than I do now.

Happy birthday, Doug. Now that you can legally drink, I suggest going to town.

Not disagreeing with anything with Shariq said. Short and sweet, great performances, good clarity. But I too thought it was coverish. For the first 1:30 and last 0:40, it plays very close to the original with instrument changes. The additions that I noticed were the keyboard adding a few new chords, subtle rhythm guitar, and more varied drums - nothing sizable. A little repetitive too. The original section is a cool addition but not connected to the source until the bass comes in, and even then it's loose. Altogether, I don't think it's right for us. Sorry, guys. NO

Impeccable breakdown, Andy. First off, I thought 3:39 to 4:03 quoted enough Cyan that I heard it. But the chord progression... like Mattias, I too forgot that we ultimately passed Shinesparks and I think that decision should be taken into account here, even though I disagreed with it. That makes this decision closer than I originally thought, but I think I'm still a NO. In Shinesparks, you could point to the chord progression being there for the entire song. Here giving credit for everything you can, it's still practically a 50/50 call with a significant amount only tied with the chord progression. I suppose by the logic of Shinesparks, one could argue using the chord progression is a enough of a tie on its own, but I'm going to stick to my gut and say I don't hear Cyan enough there. I feel like a chord progression connection should be considered based on how significant it is to the original. At least Maridia has extremely unusual chords, and is minimal on melody. The Cyan chord progression is less distinctive than the Shinesparks one (at least until the last three chords), and the source is more focused on melody. If this song was only soloing over this chord progression, I'd really struggle to hear Cyan in it. In any case, I don't see how this song is an easy call one way or another, despite what Jesse might think. I'll note that if this passes, I will really start to reconsider how I judge songs that only use the chord progression.

Alright, thought about this one a little bit more after what was said in IRC. The part of the standards that references sampling is sort of confusing. As Jimmy points out, the instruments may not be directly sampled, they may just sound very similar. And we've passed songs that sample before. This isn't just the original audio with drums, so I don't think NO OVERRIDE applies. In this case, the instruments sounding similar simply makes the arrangement more conservative. Now then. The first half of this song absolutely relies on the two main riffs, kept intact with some slight processing on them. There are a lot of subtle background instruments that are added, new tempo, new beat, but by and large, I felt it was very conservative. None of the new parts take the lead or offer much interpretation. They just back up the intact parts of the original. At the breakdown and after, it gets more interesting. There you get some chord and structural variation, and the eighth-note synth riff changes. I think this is pretty solid, interpretation-wise. But it's about half the song. I'm sticking with NO, but I think it's a closer call than I originally assumed. Wouldn't fault anyone for going YES. NO Edit (11/26): Vote changed, see next page.

Argh. Double argh. I adore this track and I am definitely keeping this. One of the best songs I've ever said NO to. But yes, it samples the original track for the three-note riff. The eighth-note riff that plays constantly also sounds exactly like the original, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just recreated, since the notes change later. It's a pretty simple instrument. Can we discuss this on IRC before canning it though? I want to get a better understanding of what we allow in terms of sampling the original song. I don't see sampling vs. recreating a sound as being that different, but I get the sense that sampling is a big flag for us while recreating an instrument isn't. If there was a song that had a guitar part and someone played the guitar part nearly identical to the original (and changed everything else about the song) would we NO OVERRIDE it? (I think the song is still a NO because it's not very interpretative until the breakdown. I just want to NO it for the right reasons. )

The amount of webpage real estate was actually starting to unnerve me. Like if you suddenly got a few extra degrees of peripheral vision. Something to get used to. So far, it seems slightly faster than FF, but animated gifs in people's sigs really slow it down. It seems like it struggles with rendering them. Hmm.