Rozovian

This could work as a downtempo big beat thing, or as something lighter and more chill. Right now it's its own thing, which is fine too, though I can't quite grasp the idea for it. Cool stuff.

It's a nice track, and seems to work well in 3/4. For improvement, I'd look into the note velocities to make sure the tracks enter smoothly and that the entrance of a new part, be it strings or just piano bit, is nice and smooth (or nice and dramatic, where appropriate). This sounds more sequenced than performed. if performed, you might want to look into how responsive your piano instrument is to different velocities as well as not quantize it so aggressively. If sequenced, you might want to humanize it more (and I mean humanize, not just subtly randomize). Cool stuff, keep at it.

eval: I'll bring up the tracklist for a neat overview of the things I think would keep this from passing the panel. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION [X] Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION [X] Too quiet *low priority problem, solve the other problems first [X] Low-quality samples *technically it's bad processing, with badly distorted bass, repetition of the same drum sample throughout... [X] Unrealistic sequencing (particularly acoustic instrumentation, e.g. notes use the same velocities, mechanical timing) *very mechanical sequencing [X] Drums have no energy [X] Mixing is muddy (e.g. too many sounds in bass, middle or treble) PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts) [X] Wrong notes, general sloppiness *velocities sometimes jump a lot STRUCTURE [X] Lacks coherence overall (doesn't "flow" enough) *there's no clear direction for the track, things just appear and drop out seemingly arbitrarily [X] Not enough changes in sounds (e.g. static texture, not dynamic enough) *dynamics especially; while there's some change to the overall dynamics when tracks appear or drop out, there's no discernible reason for it [X] Too repetitive [X] Abrupt ending *in the sense that there's no climax or breakdown for the end, no reason to believe the track would end there The stone tower theory is a fun old piece of fan theorizing for Zelda, and makes for a cool theme for the remix. I think that's the biggest strength of the track at this point: the theme. You just have to figure out how to convey it. I find that the writing is the biggest problem here. The track doesn't seem to know where it's going. There are instrument parts entering and dropping out throughout, but the track don't seem to signal any of this, so it sounds arbitrary. A change in drum patterns, dynamics, melodies, or other things can signal a bigger change coming up, such as a mid-track breakdown or a chorus/"big" part. Without that signaling, it just sounds random. Relying heavily on a regular rhythm for the writing also hurts the track. Everything in this track seems to happen on a regular subdivision on the beat. No syncopation, no deviations from the rhythm, none of that. That regularity can be used to some effect in some contexts. It doesn't work for this one, though. It brings to mind GSlicer's take on the same source(s), which is also conservative, but has that cool groove handling the dynamics and flow of the track. This lacks that kind of distinguishing element, so I'm instead drawn to the source elements... which get repetitive. There are a lot of source elements that you don't use. I can only clearly pick out the simple 14-note ostinato from source, though it's possible the strings are playing something source-y as well. While a minimal use of source can work just fine, it takes a lot of skill to do that well. I think this track would benefit from a few more melodies being used, whether verbatim from source, or adapted, or original stuff written to fit with the source bits. There's a bunch of technical problem, but mix/sound design is probably the one needing the most work. The sound is best described as "raw" or "vanilla", with little balancing and processing done. That comes off as lazy and/or newby. With some EQ separation and enhancement, and appropriate reverb, the sound would be a lot better. Work on that. Keep learning, keep trying.

I don't think you need _my_ advice on the music. I can find things wrong with production and point out obvious flaws in the arrangement, but I don't think that's the type of feedback that would benefit you. You're at the point where you're hearing flaws in your own work, stuff you're not satisfied with. Follow that instinct. Too much overlap between instruments? Find a solution. Play fewer notes. Play different notes. Separate with EQ. Separate with pan. Try them all, see what you like the most. I don't terribly mind how you've done it so far. I listen to it and hear it as a kind of improvisation, a for-fun piece. The production makes it hard to listen more critically. When it comes to reverb, the advice I generally follow is that I turn it up so I can barely hear it, then turn it down slightly from that. It makes for a clean and clear sound. For a two-instrument piece like this, you can probably let it have a bit more reverb than that, depending on the type of reverb and the sound you're going for. Case-by-case thing. Try everything.

JoY confirmed. Just a reminder: we're about to master the tracks. Any final updates to your tracks should be sent asap. Get ready to get hype.

The recording isn't great, but the music is lovely (there were a few moments that reminded me of this masterpiece). Fisherman's Horizon is a lovely source, and I'd enjoy a better recorded version of your take on it (with some notes changed, but you're already aware of them). I don't think you need my advice on the music. As for the recording, I'd look into how to record the piano better, be this a change to mic placement, reverb in the venue, performance style, or using a different piano. But I don't know enough about recording to be very useful in that. Cool stuff. This is what summer sounds like.

non-eval-opinion: The pizzicato strings don't line up. At all. It's distracting enough that it's hard to focus on other issues with the track. And there are other issues, some structural, some technical. But I won't be going into details now. It sounds like a frozen track wasn't rendered anew after a tempo change. That's the only reasonable explanation I have for this. Sort out the pizzicato strings timing/render issue and get an update up for eval.

Vid asked for clarification about my comments about the B part (0:53-1:31 imo), and I'm responding here as a resource (and in case any other evaluators/listeners want to chime in; please do), and to remind you all that it's fine to ask stuff about the eval/feedback. In this case, the problem with the B part: it's a problem with the overall structure of the remix. Until 0:53, there's a kind of buildup, and it works. From the 1:31 break and on, it works. This bit in between doesn't, and it's difficult to articulate why. I think it's because of the mood. The mood of the melody suggests a different structure. This isn't a problem in the source, because the source has a different mood. It also feels less cohesive because of the variation in the melody and drum patterns, which messes up the dynamic structure and makes the break thereafter feel a little odd. The break is fine, it's what leads into it that's the problem: the B part. I think you should build a brand new part for it, chords, rhythms and all. The melody can be from that same part of the source, or from a different part of source, and you might have to alter the melody to make is flow better with the surrounding parts. It can incorporate other elements of the source, too (and I enjoy both doing that and hearing it in remixes of sources I know well). But the chords and rhythms create a mood that just doesn't flow, just doesn't fit, just doesn't sit right. It sounds terribly subjective, and I'm struggling to explain why I have a problem with it. I dunno. It _feels_ wrong. Any other ears on this?

'"THE" Joys of Youth', huh? Anyone else want to change anything? Artist name, song names, bio, species, track notes, tracks? Dunno any final cutoff date after which we can't make any further changes, but the tracks aren't mastered yet so you should still be able to change them, and probably everything else as well. Better do it asap. Let me know.

eval This game has got some really nice tracks. Haven't played it myself either, we'll see when that happens, but I like what I've heard of and about it. Digging the atmosphere+chip aesthetic. Cool stuff. Eladar put it quite well, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of his points, positive and negative. I use ocremix stuff for background music when I do other things, so I don't particularly mind meandering or boring parts that much, at least for tracks like this that rely a lot of atmosphere. It gets repetitive, sure, and the little deviations and embellishments alone aren't enough to alleviate that, but I don't think this is a big problem, either. Source is everywhere in the track, and there's plenty of room for more deviations from it. It might help with the aforementioned repetition issue to swap to a different set of chords and different harmony or do other things to break it up more, but while that might be welcome, I'm not sure it's actually necessary. I find it different enough from source, so that shouldn't be an issue. Have you panned the drums? There's something in the stereo soundscape that feels uneven, which is really annoying on headphones. Unless my ears are acting up, this is something you need to address, because few things are as annoying as a slightly off-center set of drums making you question your ears. Hats and other high-range percussion are usually panned, as can toms and other drums used mostly for fills be, but the primary drum elements, kick and snare (usually) should in most panning philosophies be dead center. There's something about the mixing that bothers me. The lead is simultaneously too loud and ducks under the drums. So the drums are probably too loud. But everything seems a tad too loud. You could probably relax the lows a little, too, which might give you the headroom for everything else. But this is a subjective criticism. Compare your track to some well-mixed tracks of similar style for some ideas on how to balance it. Be okay with a slightly softer track if that retains headroom and dynamics, because those matter. I suspect this would pass the panel, though it can still get better. Nice work.

eval Something about the drums doesn't sit right with me. Could be a combination of distance to microphone, the reverb of the room, the panning/mic placement, and any number of other factors. Maybe it's a performance thing. I'm not sure. So I'm being really helpful here. Seems like this is recorded as if heard from the position of an audience member. Sounds fine on speakers, but not as good on headphones. This is a very subjective thing, because someone who enjoys the sense of being on location might not have a problem with this. So, more subjective, super-helpful feedback. I'm not a big fan of the audience participation here. I don't terribly mind some cheering and clapping, but when it becomes distinct words, and/or too loud, it bothers me. As does the use of the original source in here. It makes sense for the performance, but I don't like it. But I don't have to. Again, subjective criticisms. More relevant, more to the point, I'm a bit worried about the source usage. The structure is basically source (in samba) -> soloing section -> source (ipad solo) -> repeat of theme -> end. It's probably fine, but I'm hoping there's some source bits in the soloing section that I'm just too obtuse to hear, since that would alleviate most of my source-related issues. The structure is rather conservative, but I don't think that's enough to reject it. The performance is fine. It's got groove. I'm not well enough versed in the genre and live performances to tell beyond that I don't have any particular problems with it. It's enjoyable and I can't easily come up with anything to complain about when it comes to performance, so at the very least, it's okay. On the production side, there's my aforementioned aversion to "on location"-type recordings, and I think a different placement of mics and instruments would yield a better recording. I think I'd prefer the drums centered and possibly a bit closer to the mic, and the rest of the band placed at the appropriate distance based on instrument levels and prominence in the arrangement. But that's subjective. It's a bit reverb-y and the audience noise is rather loud, but I don't think that's enough to reject the track. It's difficult to say whether it's a pass or a rejection. There's plenty of good stuff here, like the genre adaptation itself and afaict the performance. There's nothing that makes me say "easy no" or anything like that. Most of my crits are subjective, and I'm struggling to draw a line between what's my personal taste and an ocr-wide standard. My assessment is that it could very well pass, although it's not my kind of track. What's important is that you're happy with it, and I don't see why you shouldn't be. Sub it. If it's a no, it's a no with better feedback than I can provide, and if it's a yes... then it's a yes. And I'm leaning towards the latter. Nice work, y'all.

There's this ffx thing we did in a hurry, though it's not official ocr stuff, and we didn't cover a particularly large portion of the tracklist. And there'd be competition for Besaid, no doubt. But I've got some other tracks in mind, myself. Once I've got my music setup in order again, I'd be interested in an FFX project. But I'm not gonna run it.

There's probably a hundred different ideas on how instruments should be panned. I find this panning a bit too excessive, or at least unbalanced. I prefer that each panned element of the mix is counterbalanced with an element panned opposite. In EDM, you can have hihat left and a shaker loop right. In rock, you can have hihat left and a hissing, noisy amp right. That's the high range, and the same applies down the ranges down to the lows where human ears can't really discern direction much, and it just wastes headroom to make it stereo. As for this track, the right-panned brass doesn't seem counterbalanced with anything. It starts off with everything slightly left of center, until the right-panned brass comes in (before the rest of the brass comes in, as they're slightly left of center). Imitating the positioning of the band from the perspective of an audience member is a valid pan philosophy. In this case though, it seems this audience member is actually on stage. I suppose that'd just as valid, but a lot less common. In my experience, anyway. I don't listen to enough jazz to know, and rarely with my mixing/eval headphones anyway. Yes, this is on headphones. It's most likely a lot less of an issue on speakers. Still, I would recommend putting the drums center, and trying to counterbalance everything when possible. It might be too late for this, depending on how it's recorded. Fortunately, it's no dealbreaker. Just a nitpick that's worth three paragraphs of text. The arrangement is great. Lots of creative takes and variations on the source, easily recognizable, nice structure to it. It feels a little too loose, though, as if you needed a conductor, a louder drummer, or something. As for the mixing, it should probably be louder. Difficult to say when I'm listening through soundcloud. Dig up a couple of big band jazz things on ocr, for reference. #1847 The Shinra Shuffle and #1947 Big-Band Battlefield both sound louder than your track (again, soundcloud might be mesing with this). Just don't overdo it. Better too soft than too loud. The piano should be louder, more clear, more upfront, more prominent in some way. It's lost somewhere there in the background, yet you feature the pianist in your first post. That seems a bit contradictory. It sounds okay during the soft parts, eg around 2:00, but even there it could be a little louder. There's still technical adjustments left to do in the mix, but depending on the material you have recorded, you might not be able to correct everything pointed out to you about it. Find the point when it's no longer cost-effective, time- and effort-wise, to keep fiddling with this one, and then sub it. Cool stuff. Nice work, guys.

Good news, bad news. The good news is that this is structurally much better than your previous remix. The bad news is that this still runs afoul of the rule about sampled audio from Square-Enix-owned material. As the Piano Collections were released by SE, I guess that's another NO, OVERRIDE. Sorry. There's some clashing notes in here, sometimes between the synth and the source piano, sometimes between the piano parts themselves (eg 0:55). I like the 808 tom melody. I can't quite grasp the time signature of the track. Most of it is a fairly straightforward 4/4, but the way the piano elements come in suggests something more like 12/4 at times. It's interesting, but it doesn't sound entirely deliberate. There's problems with repetition, as expected from something built primarily on the source audio cut up and looped. Stuff like the 2:27-2:58 part, maybe in part because of the odd harmonies and clashes and things, gets old fast. Like I said, much better than your previous mix. Keep trying. I suggest you try to make one that doesn't sample the source directly. While there's only a NO, OVERRIDE in the case of SE-affiliated material, and sampling can be done very well, I think you'd benefit from improving the other skills involved in remixing. btw, please list the source as it appears in the game, too. This track. This is what the judges will judge your track against. If a remix of a remix (all submission qualifications aside) doesn't keep the video game source material dominant, the remix is "too liberal" and doesn't get approved.

An OCReMix can't "include any sampled audio (...) from material owned by Square Enix or its subsidiaries" as per the submission standards. Your track seems to be the original, with a delay and some filtering, and some drums and things. If that's the case, then if you submitted this and it made it to the panel, you'd get a NO, OVERRIDE vote. If it wasn't an issue with the Square-specific audio usage, you'd still get a NO. There's abrupt transitions, issues with repetition, some weird structural decisions, the B part of the remix is difficult to trace to source, there's clipping or other unpleasant distortions on the drums, the elements aren't effectively separated and the whole mix is therefor muddy and not as clear as it should be. It's also interesting, as I can hear that you've worked with quite few techniques and done something creative with them and the source material. Because it's your "second mix ever", I'm surprised it's not terrible. My second mix ever was terrible. Most people's second mix ever probably is. It seems you're just using the sampled audio in different ways, plus some loops from somewhere, creatively. It takes about two years for people to get a mix approved and posted on this site, more or less, depending on experience, resources, knowledge, spare time, talent, and a lot of other things. You're off to a good start. Some of that time is spent just understanding what an OCReMix is, and what you need to improve in order to make one. In your case, I suggest you look into working with virtual instruments. I know your other post here mentioned synths, so I'm looking forward to hearing that.

Quick reply, haven't listened to the update: Having effects doesn't mean using effects right. You have a very exposed sound. Some genres and styles can do this, and chiptune-y stuff generally doesn't need a lot of effects. But tracks still need their own place in the mix. Start with the levels, then push tracks into their own frequency ranges and give them the sense of space (with reverb) that they need. That's the order I recommend doing it in. Dunno how much you've already done. What I call expression is the feeling that there's an emotion behind the sound. A static waveform, which many simple synth patches have, generally doesn't have a lot of emotion. While that's fine for fast melodies where the expression comes from other things, slower melodies end up sounding robotic when the simple sound designed is exposed. That's when you want small things changing in the sound. A good analogy is the violin, because a violinist will vary the vibrato and the strength of the stroke all the time, and sometimes lag behind the beat slightly, or do other things based on what they feel the melody needs. Timaeus covered some of the tools and techniques to use for this. The tracker scene is about using old tools (trackers) to make music. A lot of chiptunes are made in trackers, but there are non-chip-based trackers as well. A lot of old game music was made in trackers. It's got its own sound because the tools lent themselves to certain techniques. I like that sound. It's part of what got me into music. Minor sources don't need to be sourced if the main source is dominant. If you want to mention them, that's fine. The overall impression I got was a good middle, a weak beginning and end, writing-wise. The sound was raw and exposed, and had some track level balance problems. Dunno how the new version sounds. Hopefully better.

It's either my ears or your compressor, but I hear too much compression. The lead doesn't need to be _that_ loud. I really don't like the lead. It's either the level at which it's mixed, or the timbre, or the dynamics, or some combination of those, or something else. Something about it makes me quickly tired of it. I should like it. It's not a bad fake violin. Humanization is hugely important in a track like this, and that's another thing I don't like here. This doesn't sound sufficiently expressive, not human enough. The arrangement sounds fine to me. I can't speak for classically trained orchestration professionals and whatnot, but I find this sufficiently arranged and full of source. Maybe the final iteration of the A part could be emphasized, foreshadowed a bit more, or given a sound that gives it a sense of ending, whether a big or small ending. Maybe a different use of the supporting instruments, more arco, staccato, I don't know. Maybe. Also, the very end cuts off. Leave enough room for note releases and reverb tails. This all sounds pretty negative, but that's all the lead's fault. This is a pretty good track, it just needs to be more human, and less hard on the ears. Even better with improvements to the other issues I found. I hear nothing that says this arrangement isn't ocr-level, so well done there. Humanize and make some production tweaks, and you should have an ocr-ready mix. Nice work.

For the record, unlike Gario, I don't like sound effects. This is a mess of sound effects. Surprisingly, I don't terribly mind them, once the track gets going. That's successful integration of sound effects into the track. The sound seems like a combination of sounds ripped from the game and simplistic synth design. It's not mixed well, both in terms of levels and frequency balance and placement. The sound design gets better as the track goes on. Sometimes I wonder if the ripped sounds were mapped to the right key, as parts like 1:25 and 2:13 seems to clash badly, but I can't tell to what extent that's a writing problem or a instrument tuning/mapping problem (either can be solved in the writing). A chiptune-y aesthetic is fine, but it still has to be mixed better. I suggest you work on creating some expression in the leads especially. The arrangement pretty cool. The beginning, in part because of the mixing problems, sounds newby, and the ending drags on for quite long. That aside, it develops well, and has some really nice moments, many in the intense 3:00-4:00 area. There's bits of the arrangement that bring to mind the tracker scene, little snippets of melody that does very tracker-y things. The writing is full of references to the source, and I think I heard some other Sonic sources as well in there. Arrangement-wise, I'm a little concerned about the beginning and the long end, but the middle is done well. Still, I wouldn't be comfortable passing this if I was a judge, mostly for the mixing. There's things about the arrangement and sound design to complain about, sure, but it's the mixing that's the big problem here. Get your track levels in order, and use EQ and reverb to give each track its own space in the mix.

I was thinking this could have been a collab, with Kamex being the collab project's account. I didn't want to make any assumptions, but I'm glad I could spot the influence, and apparently, so are you. If this is rejected, it'll probably be for arrangement, or for a myriad of small issues that just collectively annoys the judges too much for them to approve it. Even so, it'll be more useful feedback from a few more people. Great work regardless, I hope you're making progress on other music as well.

This is marked for eval, and you haven't received one for the most recent version, either because the tag was only recently set, or because we evaluators didn't catch it. Are you still looking for an evaluation?

Aaaand we're a month late for this. Just PM some of us evaluators if we're being slow, ok? I'll just base this on my last eval and see what still applies. Sound design still needs work. The FM synth isn't a problem. The delay on it is a little annoying. There's that weird tuned shaker-like sound that's not lining up with the other melody. I recommend you just scrap it. it's not a bad sound, but when it doesn't line up, it doesn't work. it plays the same melody as one of the other instruments, so you're not losing anything important. Drums feel more like a part of this now, so that's an improvement. There's a lot of different beats used here. Good news, bad news: it feels like variation for the sake of variation rather than what the track needs at the time; you've now got lots of beats to work with, and can pick the ones that fit the dynamics of the tracks, whether it's banging cymbals or something lighter, whatever the track needs at the time. Fake guitar still needs more performance/humanization/sound design work. Consider where the notes overlap where they shouldn't, and where they don't, where they should. The lead works ok in this context, the backing guitars don't. They're managing to be both too loud and distinct, and muddy and muffled. Are they playing octaves? Power chords? Consider what a real guitar player would play if they weren't playing lead. Still feels like something is missing at 0:25 when the bass isn't there. Your transitions have improved. There's still work to be done to make the arrangement make sense, but they're a lot more fluid than before. Yeah, the arrangement still doesn't quite make sense. Here's how I'd break it down: 0:00-0:18 pre-intro whatever 0:18-0:23 intro proper (yes, there's overlap, and that's fine) 0:18-0:37 first source melody, we call this the A part 0:37-0:53 repeat and end of the A part 0:53-1:31 the B part(s), which is a collection if disparate little bit stacked in sequence 1:31-1:50 the transition into the break, which works quite well 1:51-2:07 the break proper, also works quite well 2:07-2:22 the break, again, but with drums, which then randomly stop 2:25 ending and fade, works well Based on that, I find that the problematic parts of the arrangement are in the second repeat of the A part, the entire B part, and the part between the break proper and the ending. There are some melody lines that I find awkward, even in the good parts, and there are parts of the problematic bits that can be reworked into something great. Here's how I'd solve the arrangement problems: The repeat of the A part wouldn't be that different from the first time through, and would transition into _a_ B part. The B part would be replaced, possibly with something new, but probably with something based on a part that's already there. I'd probably repeat the A part after the break, but do it differently. An easy way to do this is to just change key, but changing scales, making it "bigger" by using different instruments or just getting more out of the ones you used before; something. That's my solution, but it's not the only one, and it might not be right for your vision of the track. Maybe the pre-ending bit should be a "smaller" repeat of the A part? Maybe it should be something completely new? Whatever works, I guess. The problems of structure and production remain. But it's a lot better. How are you adjusting to working in a DAW now?

First, I noticed we were late to respond to your last eval (then mod review) request, too. You know you can just PM some of us when we're being slow, right? You're promised an eval by using the eval tag, so if you're not getting one, we're the one at fault. That goes for everyone here. More info in the eval thread. The source sounds like Hiroki Kikuta's work on the Mana games, so I already like it. And I know it's been remixed before, with pretty nice results. Good choice of source. There's something about the chiptuney lead choice and elements of its writing that's typical of a lot of remixers. To me, it mostly brings to mind TGH's originals and BGC's chiptune album, both of which I've enjoyed a lot. TGH remixed this source too, through to a different sound. The combo of those elements and the big, hard-hitting drums isn't something I've heard too much of, and it's a nice, dramatic combo. I've got no complaints about the sound design, and there are plenty of very cool sounds in here. Source is there, handled creatively enough for ocr, although there's parts that I feel are unnecessarily changed, going into soloing where the source would have sufficed, and felt a bit forced because of it. Arrangement bookends, which is nice. It sometimes feels like the arrangement is a sequence of cool ideas put together without much thought to the overall structure, though each of them works well on their own, and the transitions aren't jarring or anything. There's not much need for humanization in a track like this, but the guitar-like sound starting around 1:54 feels like it's supposed to be more human than that. It's a small part of the remix overall, but its more natural sound makes it stand out. Not in a bad way at all, quite the opposite, but also in a way that highlights it... and its mechanical sequencing. Humanizing that bit would do a lot for the track overall. My default take on compression is that if I notice it, then it's too much. In electronic genres, I'm a little more tolerant, but I find it a bit excessive here. But only some of the time. It's as if you had two sets of similar drums, one side-chained to the compressor and the other not. It could be an effect of the lead's envelope, where the effect of a lead line ending together with a big drum makes the drum seem like it's compressing more than it actually is. The dynamics of the supersaws behind it all being heavily affected by it adds to this effect. I don't think it's at a point where the track would be rejected for it. The frequency balance could probably stand to be a little brighter, to have a little more highs. This is something you should mix to taste, with some well-mixed reference tracks for comparison. The clock effect at the end is a nice touch. I think it should continue for a little longer, either fade with the epiano or end some other way, because it currently just stops, which sounds... wrong. It can always be better, but I wouldn't mind having this in my ocr playlists. I think it's good enough for ocr. Nice work.

We've adjusted to the forum upgrade from a while back, we have new, fewer stickies, and a new evaluator. I'm bumping this to ask a few questions for you all: What works well on the remix forum? What doesn't? What would you like to see changed?

It was promised for this year, at a panel, so we'll at least make sure that happens. It's taken way too long, and that's mostly my fault. Ambition, perfectionism, and an aversion to deadlines... not a good combination if you want to get things done. Next album I make is going to be three tracks long and have at most two remixers. No trailers or previews or anything, and the website will be in HTML 2.0. With ASCII art. Space Invaders. Coming "soon".

No problem. Protip: read the how-to threads at the top of the forum. They're there for a reason. You removed the eval tag from your other two mixes, and I only got to one of them in time, so that'll be enough from me for now. When you have a remix that you think is ready for ocr, mark it for eval and I or another evaluator will be there (hopefully within a few days) to give it our critique. Again, welcome to the site.