Rozovian

Quick comment. Cool mood. Piano and strings are quite stiff. Humanize. This should probably be dealt with both in sound design (envelopes, velocity sensitivity) and in the actual writing (velocities, timings).

Welcome to the remixing subforum. Yeah, this sounds like a "first remix", but that's cool. We all start somewhere. I've certainly heard worse. I've made worse.
Some cool sound choices. For a more developed sound, think about which instruments should be in the background and which ones should be in the foreground, and use the track level, EQ, reverb, and instrument filter and envelopes to push the background-intended stuff further back. You usually don't need to work with all of these, but they're almost the entire toolset for this. Use what you need.
You have some variations in the drums, which is nice. I don't remember the drums of the original, so I don't know what's yours and what's from source. For good drum writing, consider fills before changes in the track, and consider calming the drums down during some parts and raising their intensity in others. You can do this with a combination of note velocities, and the drum writing itself (adding, moving, or removing notes). A good drum groove is found in both note timing and note velocity, so look into the swing/shuffle feature of your software, and think about which note you want to hit a little harder.
As for leads, think of it like creating something that sounds like a performance. Make little changes, emphasize some melody lines more than others. Too much deviation becomes showy, too little becomes boring. Find the sweet spot. Coming up with your own take on the melodies also helps, but it's not necessary. People are listening to hear your take on the source, so having the source lead melody verbatim is fine. It's usually the other stuff you mess around with; the structure, the rhythm, the backing, the mood, the instrumentation. And when those things lead you to change the lead melody, it'll feel more natural.
I think that's plenty of pointers for now. It'll be interesting to hear how you develop. Have fun.

It's triplets in 4/4. I guess you could make a case that it means it's 12/16, but it's pretty straightforward regardless. Cool idea. I like hearing a triplet beat, and you've adapted the source well to it.
edit: 12/16, not 12/4. Sorry.

Spiccato means bouncing the bow against the string. Staccato means sharply detached from the other notes. Where did you find a spiccato? I've been looking for an affordable spiccato option.
In any case, if you like it, then you like it. I'm not remixing this for you; it's all about the decisions you make in making this. (How do I say this without it sounding passive-aggressive?) The person whose opinion on your mix matters the most is you. All I do is point out possible flaws while you can still change stuff. And I can be wrong.
There's still a mechanical rolling sound to the steel drums. Less annoying, but still there. I would recommend varying velocities more, or making the synth/sampler respond more to the different velocities. A trick I used with Logic's built-in sampler was to make low-velocity notes start later in the sample, so only the high-velocity notes got the louder start of the sample. This trick, I think, would help with steel drums in particular, because they're used in those rolls. If the synth or sampler you use allows for it, make it respond more to velocity differences. Or make the velocity differences greater. Or both. You might also want to slightly randomize or shuffle/swing the rhythm of the rolls, for a more human sound. I don't know what would work best, but you can try everything and just keep what you like.
If you're looking to invest in a really nice steel drum synth, Pianoteq has an add-on for that. It'd set you back a bit, though, 150€ for the basic Pianoteq and the add-on. I like its sound, both the steel drums and the base piano (and I use the Rhodes add-on on almost everything I do nowadays), but it's way too much for a single remix, so if you're not planning on doing a lot more with steel drums, it's not worth it.
I think I've heard enough of you to say you've been improving nicely. Keep at it. You're doing great.
And take your mixes off eval when you get your eval.

pseudoeval, as requested:
Starts conservative. Sound is generally fine, if a bit quiet. One of the synths is a little uninspired, which isn't a problem when in the midst of things but stands out when it's more exposed (the 3:02 one; the 2:10 synth is fine). Some sloppy parts on the guitar. Uses the title screen source also, which should probably be listed when submitting. Some really cool creative takes on the sources during the middle of the track. Bookends with more conservative use of source, but with some creative guitar melodies playing along. Ending could be tighter, and signalled more clearly or earlier.
I don't think this will have any trouble passing the panel, but it has a bunch of flaws that will bother you as an artist (if not now, then later) as well as listeners better versed in the genre than I am. Best advice I can offer is to use a good reference track for instrument levels and EQ. Nice work.

Sure, start with sheet music. Some of us do. Some of us use our ears and guess. Some of us download a midi file. It doesn't matter what we start with. It only matters what we end up with.
If you're just starting out, it doesn't matter anyway. It'll take you a while to get good at this stuff, so anything that helps you is a good thing. But once your skills are on the level where you can get a remix approved by the panel, you might find yourself limited by starting from something too similar from the original. This applies to sheet music, midi, and your own transcription of the original. Doesn't mean you can't do it, just that it's more difficult to make it your own arrangement. But it's a later concern. Just get started and have fun.

Sure, start with sheet music. Some of us do. Some of us use our ears and guess. Some of us download a midi file. It doesn't matter what we start with. It only matters what we end up with.
If you're just starting out, it doesn't matter anyway. It'll take you a while to get good at this stuff, so anything that helps you is a good thing. But once your skills are on the level where you can get a remix approved by the panel, you might find yourself limited by starting from something too similar from the original. This applies to sheet music, midi, and your own transcription of the original. Doesn't mean you can't do it, just that it's more difficult to make it your own arrangement. But it's a later concern. Just get started and have fun.

eval:
The piano is quite mechanical. Humanize it.
The drums are boring. Create a better groove, eg by varying hihat velocities and adding some percussion loop to the background. There are many solutions to this problem. Some better than others. Don't think you need a hundred percussion elements and a messy drum pattern to make it work. Just give it a little more life.
The whole thing sounds quite loud. Find some posted remixes with a similar enough sound or style that you can compare levels to. It seems that at the skill level you're at right now, you've got the tools and know how to use them, you just don't know _why_ and _when_ to use them. Find some good reference tracks from ocr's recent years, and start comparing. How loud should the bass be? How bright should it be? How about the hihat, the kick, the rest of the drums and percussion? How about lead, secondary melodies, pads? Is the bass too indistinct when the rest of the insturmentation plays, does it need the reverb gone at those points? Is something too prominent and needs some eq cuts and reverb to be pushed back? What stands out in the wrong way?
Basically, learn to listen.
Source is there, sufficiently interpreted, and I think the arrangement, albeit messy, is okay. There's some weird (or absent) transitions that could be improved. The abrupt changes _sometimes_ work here. Ones I think must be improved: 0:31, 1:15, 2:00, 2:34, 3:10-ish, 3:22, 3:28, 4:13. I might have missed one, so consider all of them, whether they work for listeners or not.  Sometimes, the problem is that the transitions lack signalling, sometimes that their timing seems off by a measure or two, sometimes that the change in sound or rhythm is too great, sometimes just that the next part just begins without any change to the drums (a crash is often enough), sometimes there's just a jump in levels because of the overcompression. Find the problem, diagnose the problem, solve the problem.
The writing at 3:20 seems too messed up, though. You might want to go with conventional writing and glitch up the sound instead.
There's a loud and annoying glitchy sound towards the end, like a mouse squeek. When it becomes a regularly occurring thing like that, it's more annoying than interestingly glitched.
I think you're ending on the wrong note. It feels like the notes were just cut off arbitrarily. Ending with just the bass is fine, but I'd end on a different note, possibly at a different point in the loop too. If you really want to end on that note, write the preceding notes differently so it makes more sense.
Your questions:
Excessive sidechaining - Not hearing any sidechained compression, but the whole thing is too loud.
Overcompression - Yes.
Cluttered sound - Not terribly so (except around 3:00, which is a mess), but you should probably separate the instruments with EQ,. Consider which ones are foreground and which ones background, and process them accordingly. Make subtle (or not so subtle) EQ cuts in the background instruments so the foreground instruments have more room to play.
Not ready for ocr yet. Seems like you've got all the right pieces for it, in sound design and arrangement, you just gotta shift them around a little. As for mixing, the best advice I can give is to listen and compare.

eval:
The piano is quite mechanical. Humanize it.
The drums are boring. Create a better groove, eg by varying hihat velocities and adding some percussion loop to the background. There are many solutions to this problem. Some better than others. Don't think you need a hundred percussion elements and a messy drum pattern to make it work. Just give it a little more life.
The whole thing sounds quite loud. Find some posted remixes with a similar enough sound or style that you can compare levels to. It seems that at the skill level you're at right now, you've got the tools and know how to use them, you just don't know _why_ and _when_ to use them. Find some good reference tracks from ocr's recent years, and start comparing. How loud should the bass be? How bright should it be? How about the hihat, the kick, the rest of the drums and percussion? How about lead, secondary melodies, pads? Is the bass too indistinct when the rest of the insturmentation plays, does it need the reverb gone at those points? Is something too prominent and needs some eq cuts and reverb to be pushed back? What stands out in the wrong way?
Basically, learn to listen.
Source is there, sufficiently interpreted, and I think the arrangement, albeit messy, is okay. There's some weird (or absent) transitions that could be improved. The abrupt changes _sometimes_ work here. Ones I think must be improved: 0:31, 1:15, 2:00, 2:34, 3:10-ish, 3:22, 3:28, 4:13. I might have missed one, so consider all of them, whether they work for listeners or not.  Sometimes, the problem is that the transitions lack signalling, sometimes that their timing seems off by a measure or two, sometimes that the change in sound or rhythm is too great, sometimes just that the next part just begins without any change to the drums (a crash is often enough), sometimes there's just a jump in levels because of the overcompression. Find the problem, diagnose the problem, solve the problem.
The writing at 3:20 seems too messed up, though. You might want to go with conventional writing and glitch up the sound instead.
There's a loud and annoying glitchy sound towards the end, like a mouse squeek. When it becomes a regularly occurring thing like that, it's more annoying than interestingly glitched.
I think you're ending on the wrong note. It feels like the notes were just cut off arbitrarily. Ending with just the bass is fine, but I'd end on a different note, possibly at a different point in the loop too. If you really want to end on that note, write the preceding notes differently so it makes more sense.
Your questions:
Excessive sidechaining - Not hearing any sidechained compression, but the whole thing is too loud.
Overcompression - Yes.
Cluttered sound - Not terribly so (except around 3:00, which is a mess), but you should probably separate the instruments with EQ,. Consider which ones are foreground and which ones background, and process them accordingly. Make subtle (or not so subtle) EQ cuts in the background instruments so the foreground instruments have more room to play.
Not ready for ocr yet. Seems like you've got all the right pieces for it, in sound design and arrangement, you just gotta shift them around a little. As for mixing, the best advice I can give is to listen and compare.

No source link, no source comment. I'm not gonna go hunting down the source for every remix. The remixer can supply the link themselves.
But clearly I should play this game at some point. Seems like it's got great music.
eval
I think the middle minute's drum rhythm is a bit repetitive, as the track gets stale towards the middle.. Yes, despite the cool rhythm. The transition to the last part also doesn't quite make sense to me, and should probably be signalled better in the dynamics and writing. I'm not saying it's out of place, it could work, but it currently doesn't.
It currently feels like 2 separate tracks, one after the other. It might be a good idea to let some instruments carry over, a percussion element or the low strings or something. I suggest you try something like that to make the track more cohesive. An intro in the same style as the ending part might also do it. There are many solutions to this problem. 
Repetitiveness is a problem in the ending part as well. It shouldn't take much, just a variation to the melody or a change in the overall dynamics, an instrument entering or dropping out. Again, a problem with many solutions.
It also sounds like the lead and drums are too loud compared to everything else. I'm having trouble listening to what's going on in the background. You'd best check this against some other posted remixes in a similar style.
Not yet ready for ocr, but it's a short and sweet track that has potential. Needs work on the mixing and on making the track more cohesive, as well as reducing the repetitiveness.
edit:
Link supplied. It's fairly conservative in material, but the structure is handled creatively. No complaints regarding source. Well, that source. Is the ending part from a different source? I can't connect it to anything in Liontamer's source. If so, that means integrating it into the main track is all the more important, as the arrangement otherwise turns into a medley of two disparate parts. That's a type of arrangement that usually doesn't pass the panel.
Also, I noticed on this listen that some of the shorter notes from around 0:35, probably on the clarinet or whatever that is, stand out as particularly loud. Instances of individual notes being too loud appear later as well. It's an easy fix once you spot it, reduce velocity or automate a reduction in track level. But you gotta catch 'em all. And you gotta find them first.

eval
I think you're right about the samples. If the original samples are cool to use, there shouldn't be a problem. Let's hope the panel agrees.
I'm normally the guy complaining about voice clips and sound effects in tracks, but this is tastefully handled and they're integrated into the track well. It all makes sense. Check their levels though, the clips seem rather loud at times, and there's sometimes a noticeable different in level between two clips.
Not much else to say. Source is there, handled creatively. Nice groove, cool sound design.
I'm sure there are nitpicky details go hunt down, but I don't have any. I wouldn't be surprised to see this posted. It hinges on whether the use of the samples is cool with ocr or not. And of course, the ending silence. Nice work.

A softer take on the source. Sweet. Nice sound.
Structurally, it's really similar to the source. It gets mnore interesting once the rest of the instrumentation enters. There's more dynamics, more texture, more going on and more differentiating it from a plain cover. The very conservative first half might be an issue on the panel, but it's difficult to say.
Put it in a playlist with some posted remixes, other orchestral works, and compare levels. Is this _too_ soft in that context?
If it's just down to source usage issues, my go-to response is to just sub it and see if it passes. Check levels and sub it when you think it's sounds good next to posted mixes. Pass or no pass, I think it's lovely. Nice work.

eval:
The piano is quite mechanical. Humanize it.
The drums are boring. Create a better groove, eg by varying hihat velocities and adding some percussion loop to the background. There are many solutions to this problem. Some better than others. Don't think you need a hundred percussion elements and a messy drum pattern to make it work. Just give it a little more life.
The whole thing sounds quite loud. Find some posted remixes with a similar enough sound or style that you can compare levels to. It seems that at the skill level you're at right now, you've got the tools and know how to use them, you just don't know _why_ and _when_ to use them. Find some good reference tracks from ocr's recent years, and start comparing. How loud should the bass be? How bright should it be? How about the hihat, the kick, the rest of the drums and percussion? How about lead, secondary melodies, pads? Is the bass too indistinct when the rest of the insturmentation plays, does it need the reverb gone at those points? Is something too prominent and needs some eq cuts and reverb to be pushed back? What stands out in the wrong way?
Basically, learn to listen.
Source is there, sufficiently interpreted, and I think the arrangement, albeit messy, is okay. There's some weird (or absent) transitions that could be improved. The abrupt changes _sometimes_ work here. Ones I think must be improved: 0:31, 1:15, 2:00, 2:34, 3:10-ish, 3:22, 3:28, 4:13. I might have missed one, so consider all of them, whether they work for listeners or not.  Sometimes, the problem is that the transitions lack signalling, sometimes that their timing seems off by a measure or two, sometimes that the change in sound or rhythm is too great, sometimes just that the next part just begins without any change to the drums (a crash is often enough), sometimes there's just a jump in levels because of the overcompression. Find the problem, diagnose the problem, solve the problem.
The writing at 3:20 seems too messed up, though. You might want to go with conventional writing and glitch up the sound instead.
There's a loud and annoying glitchy sound towards the end, like a mouse squeek. When it becomes a regularly occurring thing like that, it's more annoying than interestingly glitched.
I think you're ending on the wrong note. It feels like the notes were just cut off arbitrarily. Ending with just the bass is fine, but I'd end on a different note, possibly at a different point in the loop too. If you really want to end on that note, write the preceding notes differently so it makes more sense.
Your questions:
Excessive sidechaining - Not hearing any sidechained compression, but the whole thing is too loud.
Overcompression - Yes.
Cluttered sound - Not terribly so (except around 3:00, which is a mess), but you should probably separate the instruments with EQ,. Consider which ones are foreground and which ones background, and process them accordingly. Make subtle (or not so subtle) EQ cuts in the background instruments so the foreground instruments have more room to play.
Not ready for ocr yet. Seems like you've got all the right pieces for it, in sound design and arrangement, you just gotta shift them around a little. As for mixing, the best advice I can give is to listen and compare.

Orchestral sounds is something you'd best look elsewhere for. Depending on your needs, something like the Kontakt factory library (part of Native Instruments' Komplete; I highly recommend you get Komplete rather than just Kontakt) or an old library like Miroslav might be good enough. I use them - but I don't make much orchestral music. Or you might want to save up a few thousand bucks for the really big orchestral packages. It's difficult to say without knowing your needs. And none of that's free.
Logic should have everything you need when it comes to electronic sounds, though.
If you're only a few years into this stuff, just now going from GB to Logic, I'd recommend something like this:
1) Learn Logic's instruments, how to get a decent performance out of them. This is free, now that you have it. Find their limitations, and figure out what it is you need from future purchases.
2) Get Native Instruments' Komplete. You get Kontakt, which you'll probably want for future libraries, as well as its basic sound library which includes a wide range of instruments and a lot more options than Logic's own sampler has. Find its limitations, and figure out what it is you need form future purchases.
3) Decide whether to build a library out of smaller purchases (that usually run in Kontakt) or one big monster of a library (often its own plugin). If you're not at this point drawn towards orchestral music, you might find that you need better drum samples, or a good fake/sampled guitar, or more synths, or brass for jazz, or... something else. Figure out what you need before you start spending any money.
While there is free stuff out there, I'm not sure I'd bother with it myself. These days, the tools I use the most outside of Logic's own stuff are Pianoteq (mostly the e-piano add-on), Omnisphere 1, a couple of things from Komplete, and a couple of SampleTank things. That's for e-piano, pads, various uses, and drums, respectively (with overlap). But I started with just Logic's own stuff, and that was years ago, before Sculpture and Alchemy. I think my 5 first remixes were done with just Logic's built-in stuff back then, though I can't say for sure.
Sorry to not answer the question, but it's difficult without knowing your needs. Even then, it's difficult to say whether a new tool is the right way to go, or just more skill with the tools you've got. What do you want to make? 

Orchestral sounds is something you'd best look elsewhere for. Depending on your needs, something like the Kontakt factory library (part of Native Instruments' Komplete; I highly recommend you get Komplete rather than just Kontakt) or an old library like Miroslav might be good enough. I use them - but I don't make much orchestral music. Or you might want to save up a few thousand bucks for the really big orchestral packages. It's difficult to say without knowing your needs. And none of that's free.
Logic should have everything you need when it comes to electronic sounds, though.
If you're only a few years into this stuff, just now going from GB to Logic, I'd recommend something like this:
1) Learn Logic's instruments, how to get a decent performance out of them. This is free, now that you have it. Find their limitations, and figure out what it is you need from future purchases.
2) Get Native Instruments' Komplete. You get Kontakt, which you'll probably want for future libraries, as well as its basic sound library which includes a wide range of instruments and a lot more options than Logic's own sampler has. Find its limitations, and figure out what it is you need form future purchases.
3) Decide whether to build a library out of smaller purchases (that usually run in Kontakt) or one big monster of a library (often its own plugin). If you're not at this point drawn towards orchestral music, you might find that you need better drum samples, or a good fake/sampled guitar, or more synths, or brass for jazz, or... something else. Figure out what you need before you start spending any money.
While there is free stuff out there, I'm not sure I'd bother with it myself. These days, the tools I use the most outside of Logic's own stuff are Pianoteq (mostly the e-piano add-on), Omnisphere 1, a couple of things from Komplete, and a couple of SampleTank things. That's for e-piano, pads, various uses, and drums, respectively (with overlap). But I started with just Logic's own stuff, and that was years ago, before Sculpture and Alchemy. I think my 5 first remixes were done with just Logic's built-in stuff back then, though I can't say for sure.
Sorry to not answer the question, but it's difficult without knowing your needs. Even then, it's difficult to say whether a new tool is the right way to go, or just more skill with the tools you've got. What do you want to make? 

I'll take something left over, or opened up, once I'm done with sd3 stuff. I think I'm flexible enough by now to be able to make something out of any source, and I've played with the soundtrack a bit for aocc so there shouldn't be anything completely unfamiliar anyway.

Basic music theory isn't the same thing as formal music theory. You can learn this stuff by messing around with the program, trying to recreate the music you like to listen to, following guides and tutorials, and through getting feedback on the music you make. "Music theory" sounds daunting and complicated to a lot of people. It's really just a system of explaining why some things sound good. If you can make something sound good, you know music theory. At least some of it.
Knowing how to play an instrument is 0% necessary. But it helps. It makes learning faster, it's useful for working out melodies and developing ideas, and it teaches you the capabilities and limitations of the instrument.
Get FL, or REAPER, or some other music software, and start messing around with it. Make notes, make sound, and see where that'll take you. We have some guides and other threads that can point you in the right direction when it comes to this stuff, too. Welcome to ocr.

Progress is being made. I had my own unrealistic expectations on the pace of the mastering, but we're well on our way with that. It's one of the last things left to do. That excitement I had earlier this fall has subsided, but I have a feeling it's on its way back.

eval:
There's some odd timing choices that I think could be smother, but other than that I really like the writing here. Starting the whole track at a later part of the source was a great idea.
On the other hand, the mixing is horrible. Horrible. Level, eq, panning, reverb; they're are your friends, don't be afraid of them. The 1:45 bit is especially bad in this regard. I can't tell which instrument I'm supposed to listen to.
The sound design is cool. Really cool. You just gotta bring out the right instruments out of the messy mix to let all the elements really shine.
Source is there, handled creatively atop the original chord progression. It works well, both recognizeable and clearly made your own.
I don't think you'd need to do much more than clean up the mix and maybe sort out some of the note timings in the early parts of the mix, and then it's ready to be subbed imo. Nice work.

Well, since you asked so nicely...
I agree with the crit about vanilla sounds. They're not terrible, but when not much else is happening they get a little grating. Like at 0:25-0:40. The same notes played the same way each loop. Once the reverse crash comes in, it feels like a buildup, but it should feel that way earlier. There are things you can do with automation (feels like the kind of place I'd automate an opening low-pass filter), but you can just start with low-velocity notes and increase the velocity. That makes it feel more like a buildup. If the synth responds to different velocity by making notes more muffled and soft at low velocities and brighter and louder at high velocities, you can get a lot of dynamics just with velocity edits like that. The point is to make it feel like someone's playing, like someone's putting some emotion into a performance. Right now, it feels like a loop of notes that a machine is playing. Any of the tricks I suggested should help make it feel more alive.
Note that I'm not talking about humanization, which is when it's made to seem like it was played by a real human being. That's a different thing, and not that important in electronic music. The emotion, the dynamics, the sense of performance is more important than any actual performance.
The sounds themselves aren't terrible. I'd be okay with something using these sounds, but they'd have to be mixed better. (and more alive.) Give each instrument its own space. There are many articles, videos, and other information on how to do this, but the basic idea is to use reverbs and equalizers to push some things back behind other instruments, and bring others more into the foreground. At 2:00 you have a lot of instruments playing, and it gets messy. Making some of them more clearly foreground instruments and others background instruments will make it less of a mess. It's also a way to bring out the big hitters like the bass drum more, if that's the sound you want. Just don't overdo it. That leads to other problems.
I like the arrangement. More dynamics, more life to the sound, and a more focused mix, and it'll be a really nice track.

Oh come on, this timing.
Well, I already wrote it, so...
No link to the source, so I'm completely ignoring source usage in this evaluation.
eval:
The sound is blatantly synthy, with creative use of effects not to hide the synth-ness, but to emphasize it. I can appreciate that. That makes for a nice soundscape. But the lead synth and drums are laid raw and exposed on top of that, and don't quite seem to fit. I think the choice of synths don't quite align with the mood of the piece. Many of them seem more at home in a hard, aggressive genre, whereas this track leans more towards classic circus stuff, played with brass bands and steam organs. It's a weird juxtaposition of sound and style, and in this case I don't think it works. Don't get me wrong, the sounds are cool, but they don't seem to fit this particular track.
The writing gets repetitive fast. There's variation in the iterations of what I assume is a key melody from source, but the variations are fundamentally similar and so they don't break the repetitiveness. There's a lot of unison writing and octave doubling, which in itself isn't a problem and makes for some interesting variations, but I find myself wanting more harmonic and rhythmic variation instead, perhaps a different melody used entirely (from the same source or from another).
Voice clips and sound effects don't feel appropriately used. I know I'm biased against them, but they, along with some variations of the melody, seem to be thrown in for the sake of some variation or novelty.
Overall, the dynamics seem to wobble around the same level, with some stop-and-go moments. That can work when there's a cool groove to keep the track moving. The more staggering rhythm and arrangement here doesn't lend itself to those flat dynamics. I'd want a softer section, a louder section, a faster section, a slower section, a more sparse section, a more dense section... Something more different than this.
Mismatched sounds, repetitive writing, and an arrangement that isn't sufficiently dynamic (or varied). I'm not convinced this could make it through the panel. I'm sure it was a fun experiment, but it didn't work out. It might be worth fiddling with, but I'd take what I learned from it and move on to the next track. Work on your arrangement and sound design choices.
And clearly I have a very different impression of it than Gario did.

Progress is being made. I had my own unrealistic expectations on the pace of the mastering, but we're well on our way with that. It's one of the last things left to do. That excitement I had earlier this fall has subsided, but I have a feeling it's on its way back.

Progress is being made. I had my own unrealistic expectations on the pace of the mastering, but we're well on our way with that. It's one of the last things left to do. That excitement I had earlier this fall has subsided, but I have a feeling it's on its way back.

Progress is being made. I had my own unrealistic expectations on the pace of the mastering, but we're well on our way with that. It's one of the last things left to do. That excitement I had earlier this fall has subsided, but I have a feeling it's on its way back.

Epic stuff.
eval:
It seems to hit all the high points at the same timestamps. Probably too conservative. Too much of a cover for what ocr sees as a ReMix. 
Soundwise, the only thing that really bothers me is the rather synthetic bass drop, that doesn't fit the orchestral sound. Nothing else stands out. And that might be a problem. It might need a more clear lead, a more clear mixing, as the whole thing sometimes sounds like a big orchestral mess, more so than the original. 1:46 is a good example of this. This is either solved in the arrangement or in the mixing. Unless you want that less hierarchic ensemble sound.
I wouldn't bother submitting this, it's just too similar to the original. It's a really cool cover, and you've clearly got the technical chops for this stuff. Looking forward to hearing a ReMix from you at some point.