Rozovian

Snare panning is a little weird, that's all the crits I have. The track is both dramatic and pretty. Great stuff, good luck with it.

Piano is a bit thin, it could use some more lows or mids. Even when it plays on top of the early rock stuff, I can hear how thin it is. Lead drowns a bit in the rest of the stuff, give it a little volume... or add distortion/overdrive/something to it. Also, it faded out a bit too soon at 2:22, should have lasted/faded a little longer. Before 3:33, the lead there could use some vibrato or something to make the sustained note interesting. That's really all the crits I have. great stuff man.

I agree with OA on everything he said there. And... Bass seems to clash at times, like 1:00-1:10. And the saw lead could use some additional mid-range frequencies, it gets a little thin as spread as it is. Try cutting the lows with EQ and setting a medium-resonance mild cutoff on it, cut down until its sound is thicker. Alternatively, try some random effects, see if an overdrive, distortion, delay, flanger, something could get it some extra phat. Very promising stuff, C.

Instrument choices aren't the greatest, and the mixing is newbtastic. The arrangement is interesting tho, so it's not all bad. About the arrangement... there's a number of places where notes are clashing I recommend listening it through looking key conflicts and tweaking the writing for those parts. Most of those times I think the organ is involved. It also doesn't sound like a performance, it's just notes. This is something you should deal with once you've used some better samples on it. This sounds like general midi, which is bad. See what free samples you can find and use those, there's free resources all over the net, and I recall the ReMixing subforum here having some links. As for the actual mixing, it's a later concern. I recommend that you look up some tracks that have a similar arrangement and/or instrumentation to get the feel for how it should sound. Mixing is a wide topic, but the basics are "don't expose your instruments too much", "if it's not interesting, turn down its volume", "separate stuff", and "make sure you have both width and balance". The tools to use are, respectively, reverb, volume, EQ, and pan, several of which serve more than one function. Anyway, the arrangement is far from the midi rips that occasionally appear here, so your track is certainly worth developing. Good luck with it.

The new bass you're using doesn't sound nearly as interesting as the old one. Your pads are too loud. Electronic bass drum is ill suited to something otherwise fairly acoustic sounding. Dude, add a shaker loop to keep some high frequencies in there when you don't have anything else. Just softly, like the stuff you already had there, but... more. Work with the adsr setting on your instruments, their cutoff, and their EQ. When working with the EQ, the main purpose is to cut frequencies that they share with other instruments, to separate them from each other. There's something in the track's sound that's totally newbtastic, but I can't say exactly what. It's a mix/instrument tweak thing. It's there from the veyr first note and throughout the track. Could be stereo presence/distance perception stuff. Try adding a reverb on the first instrument, as well as dropping its attack. Can't promise it'll sound better, but it might. On the plus side, whatever you've done with the EQ, the track isn't muddy anymore. Success!

Reverb on the hats (intro) is way too strong, and it might be having a bit too strong high frequencies. The source fits the style well, or perhaps it's the style that suits the source. Either way, it's good. The lack of a steady rhythm might be something of a problem. You're also a bit low on lows, you need more bass. Use a multiband compressor on the master where compress the bass the most. See how much you can boost the volume after that without causing clipping (easy way out: use a limiter and boost the volume a few dB). It's cluttered in some parts, see what you can do about that. Progression works, tho I found the intro poorly suited for the genre. Altho the piano is pretty, you should start transitioning to a more synthy soundscape. The speed-up is a well needed introduction to the main part of the track, but the transition from slow piano to rave (like I'd recognize rave among other electronica genres) could be smoother. Introduce the rave elements earlier. Or perhaps I'm just whining about that because of the lack of bass in the mix. Might work better with more bass. Close to 3:00 a new interesting sound comes in, but it's kept in the bg. Bring it forward more, bring the rest of the clutter back. It's interesting enough. There's what I think.

The sound quality in this is terrible, tho some of that could be due to the low (106kpbs) bitrate. Rewrite the drum (should be drums) from scratch. Considering you only have a weak bass drum in there, the loss there isn't big. Transitions are nonexistant, and the melodic content is repetitive. It has no harmonic support, no rhythmic support, and not a very interesting progression either. These are things you'll need to work on. Also, the rhythm is also a big staggering, probably an attack inconsistency between the drum and the synths. Listen for it, and fix it. It's repetitive, poorly mixed, and needs a complete rewrite of the drums. Still, the key change to all minor chords is interesting, and certainly worth exploring further.

Improvements, a lots of them. Or, significant ones. Voice work... See if you can get someone who sounds older and more convincing. Sorry man, you just don't sound _that_ old. Also, I'm not, and probably never will be, a fan of speech (as opposed to song) in music. You can't change that, tho. I'm wondering if you could add voice an octave under the processed singing. It's a little too high for its own good, imo. Then again, just dropping it would be like dropping a lead - it loses its edge. I suggest you add another voice an octave under. Whatever man. Improved - good.

I put it in the bg while talking on irc. Thought it had been playing for forever when only 3 mins had passed. Hadn't noticed any change in it worth noticing. The processing is a little on the light side, you could clear stuff up. I'm not hearing a pad or anything else to cover some od the mid ranges. The bass it getting annoyingly repetitive. The intro sounds out of synch. It's a neat psychological effect, but you might want to punctuate the start better. The ending seems by far unsuited. The melodic content, instrumentation, everything is different. There's no hint of any of that earlier in the track. The track itself doesn't seem to progress. It gets started, and then it's just a repetition+/-layer kind of progression, which isn't much of a progression. Variation makes it more interesting, so have different chord progressions, different instruments, just... vary it more. 3 mins of pretty much the same throughout is not gonna get on OCR without a serious overhaul. Despite being trance, it's way to repetitive. I'm not gonna comment on source, as Martin already pointed out there was too little of it and not enough interpretation of it. It does have a good sound, the instrumentation is cohesive and the track does sound like a lot of effort was put into it. I recommend spending a few days of partial rewriting, tho. Wthe the exception of the bass drum not quite sounding powerful enough (or is just drowning in the bass' bass), production sounds decent. Hats are a little high, bass a little too heavy on the lows... Listen to some other works and compare those kinds of things and you should hear what to fix. So, production is decent, writing isn't. Could be so much better with only some rewriting and production tweaks.

Let me give you a few pointers on how to improve the track. Bass drum doesn't have punch, which you can get by a combination of EQ, compression, sidechaining, and a couple of other tricks. The bass drum you have sounds like it could turn out okay with a few tweaks. Give the bass drum track an EQ boost around 150Hz (about 5 dB), and you should be hearing the improvement. If it clips, you'll have to put a limiter after the EQ (or at the end of the channel's effects). Separate tracks more with EQ. The saw you're using for bass is ok, tho it could get a slight EQ boost around 200-300Hz, and cut below 100Hz. The lead you use throughout could use a bit of an EQ boost in the 800-2000Hz range. The backing keys are okay, but could still use some low cuts, try cutting it under 400Hz with about 10dB. The clap is okay, but the shakers are either missing or way too soft for most of the track. They could also use some stereo presence, so try some delay effects on the hats (be subtle), cut them below 1kHz, and give them a bit of a volume boost, 2-4dB maybe. While on the topic of stereo placement, give the lead some reverb or stereo delay to spread it more. It'll make it stand out more. Adding a pad with a lot of width is gonna spread the track further (which is a good thing), plus it'll add some harmonic support and emotion to the track. Just don't make it too loud, and make sure to make an EQ cut up to 300Hz. I'm noticing you're using a lot of saws. This can give the track a very homogenous sound, to the point of being boring. Vary the sound more (tho not to the point of it losing cohesion). Changing chords and rhythms also work, tho you should be a bit conservative with the rhythmconsidering the genre. That's where my pad suggestion comes in again, it'd get you harmonic backing and change the sound significantly without making you have to alter too much of what's already there. OCR is also very concerned with the interpretation of the source. Adapting it to another genre isn't enough, it requires a lot of creative writing to get the melodies and harmonies different enough. Repetition is a problem with this track, but not as great as the production problems. On the whole, this track is repetitive. It's the same theme over and over, with some change in what other elements there are. In order to make it more interesting, it should ahve a dynamic curve. Dynamics, in this sense, doesn't just mean volume, but rather intensity, or emotional soundscape. The progression of this track is lacking, it's essentially the same thing over and over with a few variations. Listen to some random OCReMixes, listen to how they progress through the track. There are exceptions (I can only name one tho), but they've been close calls with the J's. Progression is important in all music. Note that I'm not commenting on the source at all. I'm lazy. I can't say for sure that the specifics of these suggestions are accurate, but it should get you started on improving the mixing. Honestly, I don't see this getting on OCR in quite a while, but the least you'll get from it is experience and skill.

Had a conversation today with a friend, he showed me some great guitar intro he had on his phone. I said I don't listen much to bands nowadays, more to vgm remixes. He said he wasn't into trance. ...after which I showed him Wanderer on the Offensive and Not So Ordinary People. He liked 'em. Start by wrecking their preconceptions. Should have shown him Blue Vacation too.

Would be interesting to have some research on people's reactions to remixes. I mean, play a few excerpts of a few tracks to them, get their opinions, reveal it's vgm remixes, get their reactions. Would be nice to have that on video. Anyone with a camera interested?

Tindeck.com for hosting, it convenient to download from, and I haven't read any complaints about uploading to it either. Using free stuff shouldn't be a problem, with the possible exception of the DAW itself. Refer to the guides subforum, and try google with more specific keywords. If all else fails, ask in the ReMixing forum for a good piano sample.

I heard the version you linked to. Your own dang fault if you linked to the old version. It's hard to say what you've improved on since the submitted version without hearing that one, but I listed stuff I felt could still be issues.

*scanning for sarcasm* Probability 30%. margin of error, 80%. Seriously tho, there's always a risk of a corrupted file... And of screwing up the perfect settings, or deleting the perfect writing.

Good stuff first? No way. Production isn't far above midi-quality, you need better samples, as well as learn how to process them. The writing gets repetitive after a while, and could use more source content (tho I only remember tetris A and am too lazy to look up the other one). It lacks progression, it just loops aimlessly. You could add tempo changes, all kinds of bells a whistles to get it into the right... feel. It needs more passion, more fire, moar beef. Instrumentation, pacing, velocities, that stuff could significantly improved an already successful adaptation to a very underrepresented genre. There you have it. Production is lame. Creative stuff covers the area from decent to impressive. Check the guides on OCR for some info on how to improve the processing, but see if google or anything else can lead you to decent samples for this. Might be that you could tweak the stuff you've got into something passable, but for a really awesome paso doble track, you need samples that are more than just passable. Summed up: production meh, adaptation awesome, needs progression and better samples. Has pwnsome potential.

Haven't heard remixes of this source before. /sarcasm Way too close, and a lot of the sounds aren't processed AT ALL, it seems. The autopan on the rhythmic backing should be countered by something else, it feels like the balance is off half the time because it pans too far. Nutri gave your some pretty good feedback, let's see if there's something he didn't mention... Backing pads could be tweaked to be cleaner, or you should add some glass noise or other grit to other stuff. The drums _could_ work, but you'd need to fatten up the clap significantly with reverbs and all kinds of effects. I suggest chorus+delay+reverb+compressor, that should get it better. Layering or replacing it with a more suited sample would probably be better. The bass drum could lose a number of notes, as it even plays on top of the clap. I do recommend changing them both for something more suitable. Ending is bad. Is that really an ending? Sounds like you just run out of writing and left it there to fill in later. There are a number of remixes of this same source, so you shouldn't have any problem finding stuff to compare it to. Note that these have all made significant changes to the progression, arrangement, writing.. something, or else they wouldn't be on OCR. See what you can do. I think you've got some things to learn, but I also think you'll pick them up quite fast. Good luck!

That arpeggio synth is way too heavy on the lows, I'd stop the lows on its EQ around... 6dB, or so. Opening its cutoff towards 1:55 would be cool, tho not too much would easily screw with the ambient nature of the track. The actual bass you have seems to clasha little with the otherwise synthetic soundscape you've got. I'd add an instrument to replace it with, but not remove the bass until I'm sure I've found a good replacement. Taking a backup before doing anything like that is usually a good idea anyway, so do that before anything else. Bass solo was a nice break from the repetitive nature of the track, but it could use some more variation in soundscaping. Changing octaves, chord progression, instrumentation (without losing cohesiveness) tend to vary the soundscape quite well, and changing the rhythm of the drums and bass would change it further. I think it needs some more variation. Source seems to be there, but bringing a lead (an ambient lead) from the mud of the mix, playing the melody would certainly improve mnost listeners ability to remember the theme. Honestly, I forgot it after I listened to your piece, so without changing the ambient nature of it, try to bring out the melodic content more. Pretty good, but it can always get better.

Sound quality is terrible, piano seems granulized. Find better hosting. Please. The actual music, however, is pretty good, but a lot of the processing is lost in the file compression. Better hosting! You'll probably have to rewrite parts of the SoW to get by the judges, but it does make a good opening and ending. The creative bits require very little more work, imo. Production is impossible to comment on accurately with this sound quality. Okay, no more sound quality/hosting comments. Source is there, well interpreted, well written. See the second paragraph. Impressive stuff.

You'll want an organ or pad, something to fill out the bg. You'll also want to deviate further from source, interpreting it more. You wouldn't want sharp transitions, like at 1:17 and 1:24.You also wouldn't want the crashes to be the loudest instrumenjt in the mix. Maybe I'm just projecting. Throwing in the zelda theme was a good thing, and it didn't feel like a filler, it melted in well. Can you write stuff in between that sounds like the goron theme, but really is a transition from that to the drums only section following the theme cameo, something that you could play over the solo bit. Reusing it after 3:30 seemed more like a move of deperation "I have nothing else to put here!", you might want to make the first iteration of it more of a transition. You're improving, buddy. There's a lot of interpretation here, but for 4:40, you need more. It gets repetitive, dull, and the mixing needs work. You also need some additional instruments to level out some frequency balance issues, not to mention process stuff better. Take a backup, play around with reverbs, delays, compression, pan, and volume, see what space effects you can get without overdoing any of it. Then, go back to your saved version, take a new backup, and start implementing those new effects. Add some additional insturments to level things out, and write the transitions and backings. By then, your track will have improved significantly. The progression was nice, and it was relaxing to listen to, but OCR wants more elaborate, more professional stuff. You're heading the right direction, this is more cohesive and interpretive than your previous wips (those I can recall). This is a track that, with the right writing and processing, could get on OCR. Huge improvement!

I got excited (no, not _that_ excited) about this track when I read the Js' decision. They've covered a lot of what you need to fix about it, so I'll see what I find as standing out. See if you can add some frequency width to the guitars, they do sound dry. Crashes could be abit more aggressive, try compressing them with a long attack (they'd need to be separate from the rest of the drums). Guitar solos should be more rich, so you need to fix their sound. Also, the first guitar melody, second half of the track, felt a little too far panned. Vary the source melody more. Spin it into another chord, change the rhythm and repeat previous notes, see what you can do to redo it. The intro abss drum could get a bit of a bass boost in some narrow low range, but I'm not sure where. Also, don't overdo it, a few dB would be enough. Also, don't be afraid to add some embellishment to the flute melodies, as well as little cameos of the flute in the orchestral break. Source is there, but could probably still use some variation, especially in the intro where it's playing for three iterations, there's lots of room to make even larger changes to the melody and rhythm of it. You did it well after 2:20, so why not before? Overall, you got a borderline YES, and two RESUBs last version, plus a lot of helpful crits and tips from the J's. That's good. Make sure you won't have to make a third run at the J's, fix this track up good. Seems like you can get past them once you've fixed this up.

What Radiowar said. Also, way too long an intro unless it'll get really catchy later on. And tempo changes, what's with them? They're not subtle or gradual enough to happen smoothly, so they chop the pacing. Slowly increasing or decreasing can work well, imo, but that's not what you've got. Once you pass the 1-minute line, the whole track improved significantly, but it's still facing the repetition problem. We've heard the backing melody, and the new backing synth isn't interesting enough to hold out attention for 15 seconds of the same loop. Too early to say much, but this should give you some idea of the good, the bad, and the ugly, about your wip. You've obviously got some interesting ideas, so I want to hear an update of this. It's more convenient for everyone if it's an mp3, tho.

It has a chance of getting on OCR, I think. it has reverb, it has a good sound. The drums don't always feel entirely real, vary their writing and velocity a bit more. The sounds is pretty good considering it's youtube. I recommend tindeck.com for future hosting, tho, especially when you submit something. I could hear the source easily. It's not a lot of rearranging, but it's certainly a rewrite, full of embellishments and rhythmic changes. There's little I can think of that could get this a NO, but I recommend checking with a judge before submitting it. Beautiful stuff.

Sound effect-ish noises in the intro, and an overall lofi feel... Crazy panning, really sharp bass... Interesting but not enjoyable, imo. Sorry man. I'd cut it a bit shorter. Once it gets started, the backing rhythm is a bit distracting from the horns. It's a bit too reliant on the beat and the bassline, both of which get repetitive a bit too soon, they're also loud and distracting. Mixing them up with something more fitting a big band might work, at least for part of the track. It really bothers me that they're so prominent, as the rest of the track sounds great... the stuff I could hear, anyway. Voice acting is decent, tho not quite sounding like the old doc. Singing was amusing. Voice acting does make it a bit cheesy, and not having heard either of them until quite late in the track made them feel a little out of place. Throw some into the intro to get it a little more interesting and to introduce them earlier. imo, anyway.

Got bored. Listened. Got bored. And then it suddenly got great. Some rhythms got a little repetitive, you could change them up, subtly. Hats are a bit loud. Harmonic backing is a little low at times, you could raise it to provide actual backing and not just atmosphere. The 80's chords you've got in the bg at times might even work in the foreground as a "lead". Snare could punch through a little more, you could EQ a peak to it to get through some of the heavier backing. Kick gets lost easily, compress it a little harder, maybe give it a peak. Overall, it's a little on the light side of balanced. Didn't hear the earlier version that according to zircon was muddy and had too much bass... well, this one ha stoo little. Fix that. You need more bass frequencies, boost 'em or drop some mids and high. I heard a bass in there, but it's kind'a high. You might want to add one, low volume, an octave down, only providing low-range frequencies. Source is there. Great stuff, but I'm not really surprised.