Rozovian

You can find older discussions on how to make seamless loops using the forum search function. Here's one thread that came up, although it pertains to FL rather than Logic, but the principles should be the same. The basic idea is that if there's no wrap option in the DAW itself, you can just bounce it, start a new project, import the audio, and cut the tail end (decay, reverb) and put it in the beginning along with the real beginning of the track. If there's too much audio tail at the beginning, you can then bounce a new audio of it, import, and make a cut in the beginning just before the attack of the first note. Can't listen right now, so I don't know how well you have it already. Just know that mp3 can't do seamless loops because of how the format works. I noticed your track is 30 megs, so it's not an mp3, which means it's a bigger download but it's also potentially a seamless loop already. Didn't check. As for the music itself, use the right subforum. I'd move the thread myself, but I don't have mod powers here. Someone else will probably move it.

Hi Ganaé, welcome to the site. I already know some of what you can do from your other tracks you posted here. I've been taking these in reverse order, apparently. Use mod review for when your remix is ready to be submitted to ocremix for a a shot at an official mixpost, not otherwise. I've got little to add to what's been said so far. It's a nice orchestration, but the arrangement itself doesn't have much new stuff. I suspect it'd be nixed on the arrangement being too conservative, but you're welcome to sub it regardless if you want to.

Wasn't expecting it in major. I'm not complaining though. Nice. Piano might not be the best instrument for just a single melody. Once it does more than just one melody, it fits in a lot better. Might be the small reverb doing something too. Hard to say. Something's iffy about it when it first starts playing. It's there around 1:35 as well, but with so much more going on it's less of a problem there. There are parts that feel rather sloppy, some timing things in the doubletracked guitars and occasional transitions. 1:20, 1:2, 2:43, what's going on there? There's the guitar tone that sounds a bit practice-amp-y for some of the parts, a bit too newby for my liking. You're a veteran of this place, what are you doing? The doubling of the lead melody between distorted guitar and a very high-heavy stereo synth is interesting, and not necessarily the best result. I'm on headphones, so I'm a little extra sensitive to pan-related things today. It's a bit too shrill for my liking, the synth, and too clean to go well with the guitar, but aside from softening the more piercing frequencies I don't know what to do about it. Arrangement and source usage is fine. At most, I could complain about it's mostly the same parts of the source used, but using the whole source has afaik never been a requirement. I like it. It's a nice take on the source, even if it's just part of the source. The band performance aesthetic works for the track, and even excuses the piano melody issue and some of the guitar performance/tone things to an extent. It's not flawless, for sure, but I don't think that's enough to keep this from being accepted, either. It depends on how much a band performance aesthetic lets you get away with.

There's a few slow attacks in there, and I think the levels could be better at bringing out the lead melodies and mids. It might be a bit heavy on reverb, too. The transition from the first intro to the second felt a little clunky. Some of the brass feel a bit mechanical and could possibly have a bit more impact in the mix. That said, it's epic. Really cool arrangement, good sound, overall a very nice remix, and a good fit for ocr. A listener more versed in orchestral stuff might find more to improve on, but as far as I'm concerned, it's good.

It'a a little short, and takes no great liberties with the source. Original backing, melody very conservative. So very much a cover. A charming one. I'm concerned about there not being enough liberties taken with the source. A lot has been done with simpler sources than this. A mostly verbatim melody on original backing doesn't make for a very interesting arrangement, even if the backing is nice. I saw you have some other mixed marked for mod review, so I'll check them out as well. If they're all short and cover-y, perhaps you should look into making an arrangement more along the lines of what is known to be approved on ocr. But, I haven't listened to those yet, so I dunno. For your mod review, my assessment is that this wouldn't pass. It's nice, though.

The source is really cool, and easily fits the Smash Bros franchise. Never heard it before. I really should look into Project M. I don't know what ocr's stance on a Project M original as source is, so this could be nixed just on that. But I don't know. Piano sounds wrong. I can't put my finger on why, but there's something off with it. I think it's the timings that are too mechanical, but it's really hard to say. It doesn't sound sufficiently performed. It could be an issue with the piano sound itself, like a lack of velocity layers. Can't say for sure what it is, but there's something. It's a nice groove, but it doesn't really feel like it's going anywhere. Skipping forth and back, the only differences I hear is small changes to intensity, but nothing in the progression itself changes. It sounds like layers of loops entering and exiting. There's nothing wrong with a track that's built on a single chord progression or a single beat, but the more repeating things you have, the more repetitive the track becomes. For this track, it's too much. I would look into changing up the chords, finding a set of chords to use for a B part for some variety. The ending just cuts off. Not acceptable. Nothing wrong with a simple stop like that, but you gotta let the audio tails die out. Not ocr level at this point. Nice groove, cool source, some nice effects in there. Has potential. Nice work.

One of my favorite sources from MMX. Interesting sound design. Retro drums. Cool pan effects, new timing for the melody, but at least there's source. Not much source at times. 2:10, very nice buildup and transition. 2:30, so many overlapping saw things that ruin the gating for each other. Lead melody with no apparent connection to the source. Those are my first impressions. I like it, there's lots of cool things in here, but it's not ocr stuff just yet. There's not enough source to qualify as "dominant". I'm okay with just about everything else as a stylistic choice, although that's not to say it's flawless or necessarily passable by ocr's standards... though that depends a lot on the presentation; a simple retro synth will fit a retro synth track better than a modern one. But those are all things that could work. This remix' main problem is the arrangement, source usage especially, and that's not at an ocr level. Keep working on it. Find ways to incorporate the source more, to make any existing source usage I missed more clear. You can deal with things like the 1:37 transition and the sparse soundscape while you deal with other arrangement issues.

Dat groove. I'm digging this. Pan effects are a little annoying on headphones, but no biggie. I hear source interpreted, it's recognizable and arranged, nothing stands out as bad. The strings might not be a convincing performance, but that hasn't stop tracks from being accepted. It might be a little soft in terms of levels (headphones, new setup, difficult to compare), but if you're satisfied with the levels, it's better to leave them as is than to mess with the dynamics and introduce compression problems. It's easier for listeners to turn the volume up than to turn the compression down. I'd be surprised if it was rejected. Excellent work.

It flows better than before. The repetitive elements are still repetitive, and the frequent breaks are still frequent, but I find those things less problematic now. The sound design is more cohesive, even though the leads still stand out (though leads should, just not too much). The saw lead is probably still a bit too loud. Can't give you a proper review because by now I'm biased, especially with source usage since I'll just hear your melodies and consider them familiar. Another mod can give you a proper review, I'm really just bumping this.

There's so much Mana in that track.

I'm hoping to find something appropriately winter-y to remix, but will otherwise contribute with, well, something else. I'm in. No idea with what.

Those soundfonts are already processed to have a cohesive sound when used together, and they'll fit a less realistic aesthetic anyway. The more realistic you make things, the more you have to worry about sounds fitting together. Some people can tell when you're using different reverbs on different instruments, and this would be a problem for them listening to an otherwise realistic piece, but one made of soundfonts won't bother them as much because it's not trying to be realistic. Maybe a soundfont aesthetic is what you should be shooting for. Maybe you should sketch out your ideas with a single instrument (I use a Rhodes sound for my sketches). If you're looking to construct higher-quality sounds, look at the spectrum of a single note, and try to recreate that. Look at the waveform. An organ sound could probably be recreated with an additive synth. I would probably try Absynth, if I didn't find any good sampled instruments to work with. I could also look at the waveforms available in ES2 and try a combination of oscillators in FM8, even make something out of Pianoteq that resembles that kind of organ. But first I have to know the component frequencies of the sound, and that's best seen with a good spectrum analyzer looking at a single note. Comparing that single note and a single note from your replacement instrument will be very useful in getting the balance just right. Then you'd have to match other qualities of its sound, such as envelope, resonances, and reverb. Though the idea of making a synth sound realistic might seem super difficult, it's actually not as hard as it sounds... depending on the sound. Strings, especially solo? Very difficult. Woodwinds? Easy. An organ isn't that different from a woodwind, it just has more component frequencies. If the idea of component frequencies is too foreign for you, know that they will most likely be multiples of the note's fundamental frequency. If that's 100Hz, the next frequency is (assuming full set of harmonics) is at 200Hz, the next at 300Hz, the next at 400Hz... Am I making it too complicated? In an additive synth, you'd likely have this series listed in order, and you'd see an ascending set of frequencies in the spectrum analyzer, too. For the organ, I would probably synthesize it. Other sounds I might find in sample libraries. Some sounds I might not find or be able to make a similar instrument of, but could swap it out for something with a different sound that still sounds okay in the mix. You get used to the sound you've got. That's why I don't use low-quality sounds to sketch out my music - I don't want to get used to that sound and struggle to break away from it, as you now do.

So, the current state of things: Music - Being evaluated, looking good so far. Art - We have a few unfinished pieces left, but the art is looking great. We don't mind more artists and more art (can't have too much art), provided the artists' style is consistent with keiiii's, or that they're prolific enough to produce enough work to stand on their own in the official trailer and other promotional stuff. Trailer - I need to check with Jose if he's still on board for this, otherwise we'll need someone else for this. Some animation skill necessary. Website - We need someone to do the coding. We have a nice looking design, we just need to make it a website.

I think the main problem I have with the 1:51-2:03 transition is the organ-like synth that follows. Other than that, it's a fairly good breakdown, something I guess my wording didn't quite convey. It's just something you do a lot in the track. 0:40, 2:00, 3:20. The copious amounts of reverb and delay on the melody there keeps it from losing atmosphere. If you make the other transitions, the problematic ones I listed in the other post, and find a more fitting -- Timbre isn't just brightness, it's all the component frequencies, which includes various resonances in real instruments, various qualities of the human voice, and all kinds of filters of basic waveforms. Absynth's waveforms are additive synthesis, where you change the amplitude and phase of each harmonic overtone. That easily gives it the qualities of organs, as well as some vocal qualities to the sound. When you've got a glitch-industrial-demoscene-y sound going, the organ-like sound doesn't quite fit in. I can't put this timbre/sound design stuff into words, I just know when it's working and when it's not. Kind'a like how people who don't know anything about music can still tell that a guitar is out of tune, even if they don't know which strings or by how much or what direction. I suggest you replace it. The rest of the sounds form a cohesive soundscape, perhaps in part because you don't create very complicated sounds (afaik), so the much more complicated sound stands out as not fitting in. You can try to de-complicate it in Absynth, or just make your own sound from scratch. Whatever you do, take a backup before messing with the sound too much. You should always take backups before implementing anything someone tells you to, in case you misunderstand, or they are idiots, or both. An option is to start the 2:00 part with a different synth and fade the organ synth in as the track progresses. That's if you don't want to repalce it entirely. It's an option. -- The kick isn't necessarily bad, but it has this weird bump to the 200-500Hz area (big round numbers because I haven't checked exactly). When you say you programmed it yourself, are you saying it's a synth kick? My guess is that it's the EQ that's doing it, something you did to your sound to give it the qualities you heard in the Cheetahmen remix, but without having the right sound to begin with. The EQ is a chisel - it cuts (and, magically, boosts) the sound that's already there. If the kick lacked energy in the 200-500Hz area, it would be better to layer another kick sound with the desired qualities in that range than to force it with EQ. Or, ideally, layer them first and then add a less drastic EQ boost to the desired frequency range. The problem is less noticeable on my speakers than on my headphones. It might be fairly close to the Cheetahmen remix' kick, but it doesn't fit your sound design as well as that kick fits that remix'. Also, on comparison, I noticed your track is rather soft. An aggressive kick fits an aggressive track, but yours doesn't have that aggression. It's not just that your track is softer, but also that the sound design isn't aggressive. Yours is more brooding, more creepy. You'd have to change a lot of your sounds to justify a very aggressive kick.

I'm not a big fan of Mitsuda's music. He's got some good stuff and some stuff that I just can't get into. This soundtrack seems to be one of his better ones. Just saying I've never heard the sources before so my take on source use isn't that of someone more familiar with them. The use of Insecurity is there. it's a very small part of the source, but it's there. The use of the Opening is more liberal and thus not as easily recognized. For a remix with so much original writing, that's a problem. The Omega chord progression stands out and I think it's identifiable enough... at least when it's been pointed out to me. Even if I was familiar with the soundtrack, I'm not sure I'd make the connection from just hearing the remix. Source usage is likely going to be a problem. I'm not sure what ocr's stance on using small pieces from multiple sources to make a single remix. A ReMix doesn't have to use everything from source to qualify, but there has to be a lower limit of some sort. I know multiple sources have been used for little cameos in completely unrelated remixes, but their sources are rarely listed as such. Rexy does this a lot. I suppose it comes down to whether it makes sense for the arrangement... and I'm not sure it does. As for the arrangement, the overall structure is nice and original. The transitions at 1:22 and 3:17 aren't very smooth, and the 1:51-2:03 part is essentially a "drop everything except melody, start over with new chords"-type change. While a cool concept, I don't think the execution is up to par. imo, anyway. Then there's the ending that just... ends, without any punctuation or signaling beforehand. The drum loop just stops. Not very smooth. The arrangement has a fair amount of those kinds of clunky instrument exits. Arrangement isn't quite up to par. It's original, which is fine, but it's simplistic in its source use, uses very small parts of the sources, and doesn't move all that well between some of the parts. Then there's some technical problems. I like the sound design overall, but there's a few instruments or sounds that bother me. The crash at 0:37 is not only rather raw sounding, but there's something off about its timing, too. Your leads are a tad loud. Since you've got them in the high registers, they cut through quite well on their own. Their lower notes aren't quite as audible, but a velocity-sensitive modulation routing thing could solve that. The pad at 2:02 doesn't quite fit the sound so far. It stands out in a bad way. It's not really my style of music, so I can't comment on the finer details, but I do find the drums to be a bit too simple for my liking. I'd layer the kick instead of having this weird mid-low tap sound to it. Could be an overdrive or something on it to make it more raw, but it exaggerates the wrong parts of the sound. I'd also add fills in a lot of places, especially before a change to signal it to the listener. I just realized how long a post this already is. I'll answer your questions and then summarize. Source usage? Difficult to say. It's there pretty much throughout, but I'm not sure such small pieces count as valid source usage. Only one way to find out, I guess, and that's having a judge listen to it. Or several of them. You'll know after you've submitted. It's very difficult to say if the interpretation qualifies for ocr. Boomy snare? I've got no issue with the main snare. Maybe it's a tad lacking in mids, but nothing problematic. A background drum somewhere? Didn't stand out enough to be a problem. Crash and cymbals? At least one that still stands out. White noise effect? Whatever you've got at the ending, I like it. It's the sudden stop of the drums that bothers me with the end, nothing else. Too much reverb? I don't think so. There's lots of it, but I think it makes sense for the style. Leads to simple? No, I think they make sense for the style. Lead writing gets old after a while, though. -- Arrangement has some clunky transitions, but the overall progression works well. Can't say about source usage because I'm not a judge. I'd very much like to hear if someone familiar with the soundtrack can pick out the sources in a single listen or two. Lead writing is simplistic and repetitive, which I think suits the style but there's some for some variation and potentially additional source references. A few sounds don't fit, either the wrong timbre or just not mixed right. Not taking the source usage question into account, I guess it'd be a "no, resub". The technical and arrangement issues aren't too difficult to solve. It ultimately comes down to whether the judges feel this is acceptable source usage or not, and that's not something I can answer. I like the mood and sound design here, so I'd very much like to have a more polished version posted on ocr. Fix what you agree with and sub it. Good luck.

Challenge yourself. For learning synths, make a song using only presets of actual synths (no samples). Think of all instruments in terms of timbre rather than as synths, samples, or recorded instruments. Read about how different kinds of synthesis works. Create an initialized patch of a relatively easy synth. Experiment with it. Make your own instrument patches for it. Make a song with only original patches. Make a song without any added effects so that all the mixing (eq, levels, reverb) has to be done in the synths themselves, preferably in a synth that doesn't have its own effects so you're just using the filter and envelopes and other principal parts of the synth to mix it. I did stuff like that, and I can now create the kinds of sounds I want. I tend to use FM8 these days for most of my synthesis needs, as it suits my style, but Omnisphere and Logic's built-in synths are just as useful. For freebies, I recommend TAL's synths; Elek7ro II and Noisemaker are versatile but not too complicated. FL should have some built-in synths you can use, too.

So true. When I'm having a creative period, I start a dozen new tracks, and most of them are just tests for me to get an idea out and hear how it sounds before I can decide that it doesn't work. The few tracks that survive go on to be one of those go-to tracks I'm working on from time to time. Occasionally, one of those really grab my attention, possibly after years. I picked up an old remix of Faron Woods from Zelda TP the other day. Changed the genre and the track just clicked. Should be done, shortly, and I might finally have a new, finished track to submit to ocr. My previous take on it takes back to 2011. Just try things out. Find a source you like, and do some things with it. If it doesn't keep you working on it, move on to another track, another source, another idea, until you find one that just clicks and you know what you want to do with it.

Sound effects. Great. Not a fan of them, most of the time. They're annoying. There's some cool rhythmic uses of them here, but not enough to make me like them. Not everyone will. The melodic parts here are really loud. If they're high pitched, they already cut through a lot, so they don't need to be as loud. The many shrill, ringing things could be less so. It also sounds like the track is missing mid-range instrumentation. Though the bass get rather high at times, something in the mid range would probably help with the balance. Sound design seems to draw a lot from the fm synthesis of the original. Cool. It runs the risk of being cheap sound design, but I think it's a cohesive sound design aesthetic, so I don't mind. Structurally, this track is all over the place. On the whole, the sound design and recurring elements keep it together. Source is there, and I like the arrangement. But there are parts where it feels a bit aimless. The big change at 2:02-2:12 is one of the stranger parts of the track, but it soon finds some familiar elements again so I don't think it's a big problem. A more clear direction might help, but that's difficult to create out of an existing arrangement without messing it up. Mixing is a mess. I have concerns about other parts, and I don't like sound effects, but I don't think the other things are problematic to the extent the mixing is.

Track starts off sounding like the newbiest stuff ever. But I like the instrumentation. I like the sound. Nothing wrong with blatantly chippy and simplistic synths, if used right. Drums fall somewhere in between appropriately simple and plain newby. An old drum machine sound and oldschool tracker drums are two possible options for the drum sound design. This falls somewhere in between, and doesn't quite work. The drums ruin the aesthetic the synths have, and makes it sound more newby than chippy. That said, there's performance-invoking things you can do even with chippy synths. Level changes between notes, for example. There's a certain appeal to the raw mixing, but I think it needs a touch more balance in track levels. The rhythm around 0:30 seems to invoke Minecart Madness. Cool. There are some bizarre spikes in the soundcloud track overview, and I have no idea what's causing it. They might be a problem. Hard to say. Source usage is clever. It reminds me of Israfel's Glass Cage, which is one of my favorite tracks. The structure of your track is a bit weird, though. There's plenty of cool things in here, but I have no idea where the track is heading, and the track seems just as clueless as I am. Having a climax, a grand finale, a reprise of a "chorus" would give you something to build towards. I see nothing wrong with the 2:25-end part myself, but most of the stuff before that have been random cool things, which does not make for a cohesive arrangement. Not to write your arrangement for you, but having a clear chorus part there and going from there into the 2:25-end part would give a bit more direction to the track. All the parts before that chorus could then build towards it, teasing the listener with pieces of it. It's one possible structure for the arrangement. Cool take on the source, nice synth aesthetic, raw mixing, aimless arrangement, ill-fitting drums. Also, why haven't I noticed this thread or received a PM about this track if you've been awaiting a mod review since April?

For those having problems getting a mod review, there are some quirks of the new forum software that complicates things. In the old forums, it was just a matter of selecting mod review from a list of approved and predefined thread prefixes. Now you have to write it yourself... and spell it correctly. Here's a few tips on how to get it right: 1. Spell it with a hyphen. Mod-Review, mod-review; uppercase or lowercase doesn't matter, but whether there's a space or a hyphen matters. The quick link for mods has been updated to cover all these spellings, but if a mod just clicks on the tag, they'll only get the threads with the tag spelled the same way. The old forum had it spelled with a hyphen, so we'll stick with that. 2. Make sure to check the "Use first tag as prefix", as that's the most visible way to mark your thread for mod review. Also, make sure to enter mod-review as the first tag in the tags field. 3. You change tags in the Full Editor. 4. If these things don't don't change anything or if you still aren't getting a mod review, PM a mod or two directly. We're here to help. Let us know if we've missed your thread (give us a week or two, though, but if it's been a month, PM us). -- And while we're at it, do you think there are too many pinned topics on the board?

Any feedback? K. Your mixing and sound design is pretty basic. Nothing terrible. Nothing stellar. It sounds like a very conservative take on the source, essentially a midi rip. Can't be sure, not familiar with the original. For a remix on youtube or pretty much anywhere, that's fine. If you have any ambition of getting it posted officially on ocr, though, it'll have to be your own arrangement. Kudos on remixing a fresh new game.

Summer's probably over now. We're out of excuses. Sorry it's taken so long to mod review your track. Synth lead is a little too loud imo, the violin too muffled. Drums are really intense, you could probably scale that back in some places to let the track rise and fall more in less obvious ways that it currently does. That'll give them some variation, too. Overall track level is a little on the soft side, so there's room to make it a little louder. Just don't overdo it and get yourself a whole bunch of compression problems. I've played a fair amount of Brawl, and this is one of my favorite sources. It's been a while, though. There's enough source for me to recognize it, but it's spread very thin and serves mostly a background role. I might be missing some of the subtler uses of the source hidden in the otherwise original melodies, but it seems to be a mostly original track built on the staccato strings from source with a few melodies taken from there as well. In other words, I don't think the source is dominant, as per ocr's standards. Orchestral elements are lagging slightly behind the beat (as is often the case). They could probably be brighter to stand out a bit more once the drums and bass come in. This applies to the violin lead as well, which could also use more humanization and the illusion of performance. Piano doesn't sound human, either. Humanization; performance; expression. Both in the melodies and the chords at the end. Needs some production tweaks, and source needs to be dominant. Close, but not ocr-ready yet, imo.

Starts off very promising, if a little quiet. At around 0:25, when the first set of drums come in, I'm really feeling it. At around 0:55, the main drums come in, and they're not good. There's compression issues all over, the snare is a tiny short snap with the body of the sound buried under everything else. Mixing DnB loud is difficult, I know, I'm trying too. But this needs work. Sort out your low end, sort out the dynamics of the drums. Look into sidechaining if you haven't already. The sound design is rather good. Even the drums could work if just mixed differently. But there's two problems with the sound choices. The strings lead used is nowhere near convincing enough to work, and it's especially noticeable on the short notes. The other problem is before 3:00, with some chippier things and a more sitar-like synth, and while I don't mind the chippy bits, the sitar stands out a bit too much and doesn't quite fit the rest of the sound. On the flip side, the lead synth, the synth ostinato, even the accordion-like synth choices are all really cool. Not sure about the piano at the end. It sounds like a single sample. It sounds like a single-velocity/single-sample thing, and I'm not sure if it's intentional and cool or sloppy and bad Also, the ring-y sound behind it is a little shrill. Creatively, it doesn't take any great liberties with the sources. The bass is different, thus the chords are different, but the melodies seem to be mostly the same, if not simplified. There's some obvious changes to structure to fit DnB, and those work well. The track flows rather well, although as the sequence of melodies is the same as the source, it's more a matter of the genre adaptation not screwing up what worked in the original. The mixing is the main thing that's holding the track back. Get the drums and bass in order, and it'll work a lot better, and it'll be easier to overlook the other things. After that,. it'd be a welcome addition to ocr and to my own playlists. That said, there's no reason to not try to find solutions for those issues as well. I'm looking forward to hearing this finished. You're not done yet.

Yeah, Jamison's DnB is something I'm also a fan of. I've been trying to hit that style myself, but I can't make it as good. Besides suggesting you have a look at my remixing guide (it's in my sig) for more general remixing advice, I've got little to say about the production side of DnB. So let's talk sources instead. The most versatile sources tend to be the rather simple ones. Koji Kondo's music is often this, and NES- and SNES-era music is often this. Ironically, the Super Mario Bros theme is _not_. I got started on Super Metroid, Red Brinstar in particular, and I've got a DnB mix of it I'm working on (and failing to be satisfied with the mix). It's a source with a simple backing pattern that can be used in different ways, and a few lead melodies that play over it. Another commonly remixed track with similar qualities is Corridors of Time from Chrono Trigger, also with a simple backing pattern and a lead on top. The benefit of using sources like this is that the backing pattern is often distinct enough to use to build the rhythm of the track with, along with the drums, but simple enough that you can do a lot with the bass things underneath (Ekaj's take on Red Brinstar, for example, has a great bass sequence). The melody of course has to fit the mood of the genre, or be malleable enough to work there. Sometimes that means taking a melody and putting it in a different mode or scale. Breaking the rhythm of a melody and adapting it to a different rhythm means you have to figure out what the important notes of it are, and how to time those to the new rhythm. This is more art than science, and one of those "I know it when I hear it" things. I encourage you to experiment with this. For a take on melodies, I suggest you look at what WillRock did with an upbeat, major key Pokémon track. Both Will and I have a tendency to mess with melodies; my approach tends to be to cut them into tiny pieces and put those pieces to new uses, while Will tends to jump around chords and modes to adapt the melody to new things. Either approach could work for DnB. I suggest you download the chiptune archives from ocr or other sources and listen for interesting sources. What you're looking for are tracks that have elements that could be adapted to DnB. Naturally, there's nothing magical about chiptunes that makes them better suited for this than any other kind of music, but the melodies are a lot more accessible than in non-chiptune compositions, and there's insane amounts of chiptunes to examine. If you're less inclined to look for music yourself, go on YouTube and search for people's favorite VGM lists, and listen for elements that you can use. Once you find something, have a closer look at that game's soundtrack and see what you find.

There's some high-resonance filter things that's a bit painful on headphones. Careful with stuff like that. Nice instrumentation. Arrangement doesn't suggest an ocr-type track, but there's some nice use of the source's first four notes in the background. Transition to Lost Woods doesn't work, clashes too much. Consider a different key for that part. 2:15 transition is as bad as in the source, and nothing interesting save for one new note in the ending delays happens after that... so much like my own attempt at this. Great choice of source. It's a little tricky to break from the pattern and structure of the source, so it's not easy to remix. Not sure trip hop needs a lot of new arrangement, but if you're aiming for ocr, you do need more that this. I'm gonna dig up my wip of this source. This inspired me. Thanks.