Rozovian

eval:
Soundwise, the first thing that bothers me is the level glitches in the 0:30 buildup. It sounds like a compressor is being fed way too strong a signal. Maybe you need some lighter compression earlier in the signal chain, and softer compression on the output. Maybe you need to clean up the low end. Hard to say.
The next thing that bothers me is sound design. The ostinato synth at 0:34 isn't great, nor was the choir earlier, but the lead at 0:48 is not a good fit. That they're both rather loud doesn't help, either. Next enters the drums, and they're another step down in sound. Which is a pity, because you set it all up so well with the bass, pads and glitchy sounds. The drum writing is also not that great, not very effective. They don't drive the track, but they do draw a lot of attention. And not in a good way. I'd look into redoing the drums entirely. Sound design, writing, purpose in the arrangement.
The arrangement itself is fine. Source is used well. No huge surprises, but some interesting inserts and nice performance aspects to some of the lead melodies. It has some stop-and-go moments that stand out as cool design choices. The glitches get a little annoying at times, when the lead should be the focus and the best element in that part of the track, and it's not. The glitches then distract from the lead. They don't add to the track like that, when they're fighting the lead for my attention. Something as simple as lowering their level would help.
I think that's the problem with this. Too many elements fighting for attention, being too loud or too upfront, doing too much, drawing attention when they shouldn't, not knowing what their role in the arrangement and mix is.
I think this would get you a NO, RESUB. The arrangement is good enough, and many of the sounds themselves are fine. The mixing and drums need work. I'm not sure you need any changes to the sound design besides the drums, as the instruments I've noted as being not that great might fall into place once the mixing is cleaned up.
Cool stuff. Keep working on it.

Let me start from the top. Reverb isn't realism. A perfectly dry performance with a half-decent piano sound will sound more real than a robot playing on a real piano. The most important thing is performance, and it's more important to the music than the sound of the piano itself. So let's not worry about the sound as much as the performance.
A real pianist will not hit every note exactly the same velocity. But it's not random either. The suggestion to imagine playing the part is good, you can even pretend your desk is a piano, and figure out the velocity levels from there. Be mindful of how hard, how quickly, and for how long you "press" a "key". Also, listen for any changes in velocity layers in the piano sound. If you can hear a different sample between two close velocities, it's not a good piano. But you can use it to your advantage. Decide to use velocity layers to emphasize or de-emphasize particular notes in a phrase. I know I did this with a Majora's Mask remix (got NO'd, but for other reasons). The piano becomes very emotive that way, it feels like a performance with just this one change. I don't know about this particular VST, though, it might be better than that.
A real pianist won't use perfect timing, even if they wanted to. Some notes will trail behind the beat, others slightly ahead. There might be a slight swing to it all. Again, pretending to play a piano on your desk might work here. There might also be a keyboard->midi tool in your DAW, that lets you use the computer keyboard to record notes. It'll get you the timing needed, though the computer keyboard doesn't read velocity so you'd have to do that manually. But you were gonna do that anyway.
Those are the two important ones. But velocity has to actually do something to the sound itself. Some pianos have a setting for how strongly note velocity affects the sound. There should be a small but noticeable difference between notes that are 20 velocity levels apart, and a very noticeable one with notes 40 velocity levels apart. If there isn't, you'll probably want to use a different piano. Obviously, there'd be huge differences between extreme values.
Provided the piano is responsive to velocity, this should be enough. But if not...
A real pianist will use the piano's pedals, depending on what they're playing. Among the midi CC, there should be sustain. A real piano can have three pedals: sustain, sostenuto and soft. I doubt (but I don't know for sure) this particular VST has support for the other two, but sustain is a given. If you think the writing would benefit from sustain, use it. I would recommend starting the "on" level a few ticks into the first note, and switching to off just before the end of the measure/beat, on whatever beat you want to change it. This is optional, however, and given your piano piece is an element in an electronic mix, so the sustain might just make the piano too dominant.
Then there's reverb. If you want the piano close and clear, make sure to keep the dry/wet mix strong on the dry side, and make the reflections rather late.  Experiment with the settings. Large or small room? Near or far from the listener? Reverb-y or dead room? These would all be available in a decent reverb plugin, but the piano VST might just have a single reverb knob. I recommend using a separate reverb, so you have more control. In general, for an electronic mix, I would try a large room (size), close to the listener (long pre-delay, more dry than wet), and a fairly reverb-y room (high reverberation/length, medium-low damping)... but it depends on what the rest of the track is and how the piano should fit in there. Finally, there's also track level (volume), which will help fit the piano into the soundscape too.
Reverb isn't always the best solution. In some cases I might try a rather small, soft, or quick reverb, and use a delay instead for making it big and atmospheric. Maybe a compressor with long attack (~200ms attack) after the reverb and everything else. Sometimes I'd want a really dry (no reverb, few other effects) sound, but filter out the low frequencies for a bright but brittle sound, or filter out some of the low mids to take out the body of the sound. You can use EQ to do that. It all depends on how exactly you want to use the piano.
It's okay if it sounds like a real musician on a fake instrument. A fake musician on a real instrument is usually not what you want. But you gotta make that real musician part at least plausible. Good luck.

Let me start from the top. Reverb isn't realism. A perfectly dry performance with a half-decent piano sound will sound more real than a robot playing on a real piano. The most important thing is performance, and it's more important to the music than the sound of the piano itself. So let's not worry about the sound as much as the performance.
A real pianist will not hit every note exactly the same velocity. But it's not random either. The suggestion to imagine playing the part is good, you can even pretend your desk is a piano, and figure out the velocity levels from there. Be mindful of how hard, how quickly, and for how long you "press" a "key". Also, listen for any changes in velocity layers in the piano sound. If you can hear a different sample between two close velocities, it's not a good piano. But you can use it to your advantage. Decide to use velocity layers to emphasize or de-emphasize particular notes in a phrase. I know I did this with a Majora's Mask remix (got NO'd, but for other reasons). The piano becomes very emotive that way, it feels like a performance with just this one change. I don't know about this particular VST, though, it might be better than that.
A real pianist won't use perfect timing, even if they wanted to. Some notes will trail behind the beat, others slightly ahead. There might be a slight swing to it all. Again, pretending to play a piano on your desk might work here. There might also be a keyboard->midi tool in your DAW, that lets you use the computer keyboard to record notes. It'll get you the timing needed, though the computer keyboard doesn't read velocity so you'd have to do that manually. But you were gonna do that anyway.
Those are the two important ones. But velocity has to actually do something to the sound itself. Some pianos have a setting for how strongly note velocity affects the sound. There should be a small but noticeable difference between notes that are 20 velocity levels apart, and a very noticeable one with notes 40 velocity levels apart. If there isn't, you'll probably want to use a different piano. Obviously, there'd be huge differences between extreme values.
Provided the piano is responsive to velocity, this should be enough. But if not...
A real pianist will use the piano's pedals, depending on what they're playing. Among the midi CC, there should be sustain. A real piano can have three pedals: sustain, sostenuto and soft. I doubt (but I don't know for sure) this particular VST has support for the other two, but sustain is a given. If you think the writing would benefit from sustain, use it. I would recommend starting the "on" level a few ticks into the first note, and switching to off just before the end of the measure/beat, on whatever beat you want to change it. This is optional, however, and given your piano piece is an element in an electronic mix, so the sustain might just make the piano too dominant.
Then there's reverb. If you want the piano close and clear, make sure to keep the dry/wet mix strong on the dry side, and make the reflections rather late.  Experiment with the settings. Large or small room? Near or far from the listener? Reverb-y or dead room? These would all be available in a decent reverb plugin, but the piano VST might just have a single reverb knob. I recommend using a separate reverb, so you have more control. In general, for an electronic mix, I would try a large room (size), close to the listener (long pre-delay, more dry than wet), and a fairly reverb-y room (high reverberation/length, medium-low damping)... but it depends on what the rest of the track is and how the piano should fit in there. Finally, there's also track level (volume), which will help fit the piano into the soundscape too.
Reverb isn't always the best solution. In some cases I might try a rather small, soft, or quick reverb, and use a delay instead for making it big and atmospheric. Maybe a compressor with long attack (~200ms attack) after the reverb and everything else. Sometimes I'd want a really dry (no reverb, few other effects) sound, but filter out the low frequencies for a bright but brittle sound, or filter out some of the low mids to take out the body of the sound. You can use EQ to do that. It all depends on how exactly you want to use the piano.
It's okay if it sounds like a real musician on a fake instrument. A fake musician on a real instrument is usually not what you want. But you gotta make that real musician part at least plausible. Good luck.

This must begin with an apology. Posted May 14th. Not sure when it was set to eval, but I saw it August 17th, you confirmed it's still on eval on September 3rd, and now it's October 21st. That's 160 days. That should not happen.
Please, please just PM us when we're slow. We've promised to eval. Hold us to it.
--
Structurally, the arrangement is rather simple. Prelude -> prelude with vox -> prelude with strings and rock -> source-derived melodies with violin and metal -> prologue that starts in a break. It's a bit of a medley, in how sharp the transition from source A to source B is. There is some references to it after 4 minutes, but those could be a lot earlier too. 
The repetitions of the Prelude make it feel a lot more repetitive than it needs to be. You're essentially repeating the same musical idea, with different rhythms and backings, for 4 minutes. The rather mechanical sequencing of the piano doesn't help the minutes it's there, nor does the simple drum beat. Making those sound more human, more like a performance than computer-played sheet music, would do a lot for the track.
The instrument choice is a little odd. Piano, vox, strings; sure. Electric guitar and metal drums; sure. All of that together? It can work, but it has to be handled differently. I can imagine a pretty intro with the first stuff, a switch to the metal instrumentation, a pretty break, and more metal at the end.  I can imagine the metal providing backing for the violin, or the vox or strings supporting the metal. Here, the elements feel disparate, like they accidentally ended up on stage together and are doing their own thing to the same song without listening to each other. That's an arrangement problem. When do which instruments do what together with which other instruments, and why?
Instrument levels could be more balanced. At 3:18, the violin is really loud compared to everything else. Something to watch out for. I can also hear some compression problems, most noticeable in the crashes in the metal sections around 4 minutes in. Find some good reference tracks and compare your mixing to theirs. Good reference tracks are immensely useful. My music improved when I started using them. Find something in a similar style and listen for how each instrument sounds: how loud is the snare, how bright, how heavy; how loud is the lead, how bright, how big...
The sounds themselves are fine. I think the cymbals are the worst, and they're not horribad. I like the metal+violin combo, and there's a lot of cool things that can be done with it. You're on to something good here.
No bass? The track's frequency balance seems a little lacking in the lows, despite how the guitars try to fill that up. The stereo balance is sometimes a bit off-center too, which might not be a problem on speakers but is rather annoying on headphones.The Prologue part sounds too fast. You could solve it by slowing everything down, but that would make everything longer and the Prelude parts worse. I would consider a tempo change at the point of the break, just as the Prologue starts. If it works, great; if not, don't use it.
The areas in which you can improve: more human sequencing, less repetitive arrangement, more balanced instrument choice/arrangement, track levels, compression, and frequency balance and panning.
This is not an ocr-level track, but in the half year since it was posted, your skills might have improved to the point where you could make one, especially if you now know how to deal with the issues I identified here. Next time you've got a track on eval, PM some evaluators if you end up waiting more than two weeks, okay?

Welcome to ocr.
Just about any decent DAW will have VST/VSTi support, so you'll be able to run the vast majority of plugins with that. There are lots of good free plugins, so starting with REAPER's unlimited demo and getting used to its workflow can be done without spending any money at all.
Komplete is excellent. I have a previous Komplete, and use something from there in just about every track I make. With my style of music, it's mostly FM8 and Battery, but for something fitting your jrpg-style intentions, I'd probably be using Kontakt a lot. I tried to figure out what exactly K11S contains, especially the Kontakt instruments, but can't find a page explicitly listing them. You get the "Factory Selection" with it, whatever that means. If it doesn't seem like you're getting the stuff you need from K11S, consider the standard K11. Also consider options from other developers, eg IK Multimedia and Magix. I use their stuff from time to time. But third-party libraries overwhelmingly focus on Kontakt, so if you're looking to expand your library later, Kontakt gives you a lot more options.
You say you're not interested in big orchestra, but you want to make FF/CT style music. You do realize a lot of that music is orchestral, right?
When it comes to the synth stuff, K11S should be fine, and there are plenty of good, free synth options available too.

Remixers, we still want track notes and bios and things like that. We have some. From surprisingly few of you.
And if you're concerned that we might be mastering and including the wrong version of your track, get in touch asap, preferably with a wav of the track. Long-running, big projects managed by amateurs, sometimes have problems getting the right file in the right folder. So that has probably happened here at least once. 'Nuf said.
Next project I'm running will require wips and wavs and things to be properly marked with versions and dates and stuff. And all communication consolidated to one place/format. And a much smaller project. Like, three tracks total.

Remixers, we still want track notes and bios and things like that. We have some. From surprisingly few of you.
And if you're concerned that we might be mastering and including the wrong version of your track, get in touch asap, preferably with a wav of the track. Long-running, big projects managed by amateurs, sometimes have problems getting the right file in the right folder. So that has probably happened here at least once. 'Nuf said.
Next project I'm running will require wips and wavs and things to be properly marked with versions and dates and stuff. And all communication consolidated to one place/format. And a much smaller project. Like, three tracks total.

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.

Quick response, don't have my good headphones with me. I'll elaborate on the things I don't need another listen for, and get to the rest at another time.
The drum kit's panning is wide. That's usually how drum kits are panned, but it breaks any illusion of being in the same space as the orchestra when the hihat is coming from off to the side and other elements are coming from the center or somewhere else. A drumkit that is physically as wide as an orchestra is ridiculous, and this panning suggests that's what you've got in the track. I realize I phrased that crit poorly. Should have emphasized that it's about the stereo panning. If you have a stereo widener, see if it has the option to reduce stereo width. Don't overdo it. I recommend using headphones for this.
Speaking of headphones, the bass rumble is horrible on decent headphones. I don't mind a subtle low end presence, but it gets way too loud for my liking. I recommend you find a standard listening level that you use both for the main mixing work, and for listening to your reference tracks. The effects of the low end are often not obvious on low listening levels, so make sure the lows in your reference tracks sounds good on the level before settling on it.
And speaking of reference tracks, those will be useful for figuring out how loud, bright and prominent percussion elements et al. should be. I know it's difficult to recreate the sound of a different orchestra, especially if you don't have the same sample library (or the real orchestra and venue and recording setup...). Still, for the relative balance between instruments and reverb, between instruments themselves, and the frequency balance of each element, good reference tracks are very useful.
When it comes to the many small timestamps, I think those might stand out more on the aforementioned reference listening level on headphones. Some of them stand out a lot, others just enough to bother me. I can list exactly how each of them bother me, but for your own critical listening development, it might be better to listen to the track yourself, on headphones and with appropriate level, and try to identify what I've pointed to. Your call.
--
On one hand, you do come off as a bit rude. I get that you don't mean to. I think it's because of the terse responses, and the seeming unwillingness to take the feedback and try to understand it. My own attitude to feedback is to try to understand everything, and to apply what you agree with. E.g. why did I list 2:31 in the timestamp list?
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with asking for elaboration, clarification, specifics, further advice, and whatnot. It's easy to get caught up in our own understanding of something and to explain it in our own way. When we aren't being clear on something, do point it out. The goal is to give you good feedback. If we're not doing that, let us know.

I wouldn't say there's no oomph at all, it works quite well actually. I would expect a louder crash or a bit of a pause just before hitting, but it works fine as-is, imo.
eval:
Yeah, it's got issues with frequency overlap muddying up the track's mids. There's also part of the arpeggio where the middle (the one most repeated) cuts through better than the others, making it stand out a bit too much, so it sounds like that's a set of random off-beat 8th notes.
I'm not a fan of the higher-pitch lead. It's too simple. It's not expressive enough, doesn't do anything interesting with the melody either. Either of those things would help make the track more interesting. At 1:42 I'm distracted from the melody that enters because there are so many other things bleeping around in roughly the same frequency range. You could clean that up with different mixing, different sound design, or different writing. And I think you'll have to do at least one of those. 
There's a lot of panning going on around that part, too. It's a little annoying, but if the panned track was softer, it shouldn't be a problem.
The ending is abrupt. You just stop playing new notes. There are many ways to end a track, but justing stopping like this is not one of them. Rarely, anyway. It often works to end the track on the first chord in the chord sequence. In this case, minor scale, you could end on i, III, or possibly VI (first chord, which is minor, or third of sixth chords, which are major). I would recommend the first.
Other parts of the track similarly end with instruments just dropping out. That's something worth looking into. As is repetition. I don't think this is too repetitive for ocr, but I think it's needlessly repetitive regardless. You can do a lot to vary up a track, like having an alternate set of chords for some of the repetitions, an alternate take on the melody for some of its loops, even just a change in the articulation of the lead can change things up enough.
You've got pretty good drums and nice buildups, and the overall structure of the track works well. You've still got a bit of work left to do on this track before I think it would pass the panel, but you're off to a good start, with all the important elements in place. Nice work. Keep at it.

Let me rewrite your first post:
What I really dont understand  is how some people will always mention how a piece sound poorly mixed. Yes, bad mixing can sound unfocused or flat. But even when the song is really good, people still comment on how it doesnt sound "mixed well". But what yall need to understand is most people cant mix a song really well, or have access to really good listening equipment or a good effects library. If try to make everything "well mixed" by hand, it will take hours and hours and hold up song writing. The only way to fix this is by buying a flat-response studio monitor, and have at least 2 years of audio engineering under your belt, but most people starting out dont have that skill.
I mean, if you listen to some songs made by Nintendo, you'll see they have the same problems as most other music made on a computer. And no one cares about that. I think we shouldnt focus to much on mixing instruments as long as the music is not repetitive.
The same could be said about any aspect of music. Yes, it's nice if the song is good. Yes, people don't always care about the sequencing or mixing or whatever. But no, that doesn't mean it's not a problem, or that we shouldn't point it out and encourage people to solve it. Especially when that's the purpose of the post-your-music boards. You post there for feedback. If the feedback says your music is mechanical to the point where it bothers your listeners, then you should do something about it, right?
I know it's a bit of a slog sometimes to learn and improve, especially if you already think your music is pretty good. Same for music that you hear good things in, and don't hear those bad things people are talking about. It sounds like a non-issue, because it doesn't matter to you. But as you get better at this stuff, it will matter to you. I don't listen to my first remixes on the site, because I hear so much wrong with them. I'm sitting on half a dozen otherwise finished mixes because there are small annoying things I'm not happy with, thing I know will bother me later if I don't deal with them somehow.
I don't think the music needs to be realistic, but it needs to have an illusion of performance. My basses are often just quantized to a groove. That's enough illusion of performance for them, most of the time. But that's in mostly electronic music. Other sounds need other levels of performance illusion. That illusion of performance provides groove, dynamics, emotion beyond what the notes themselves provide. And that's important.

Dude, your track isn't mastered for the album. If its levels, frequency balance or other things about it aren't in line with all the other tracks, and/or if there's too little/too much silence at the end of the tracks in regards to the following track on the album, then it needs to be mastered. I don't think you seriously think mastering equals loudening, nor that loudening is the only thing mastering is about, so why suggest that?
Also, we had a thing in the first post about not sharing your tracks. Not cool, 2011 Brandon.

I tried reading the thread, made it a few pages and then gave up. Screw it. I'll just add my two cents:
If it can be clearly shown how much money is being made, whence, and where it goes, and thus that there's no profit (as opposed to revenue) made from it, I'm cool with YT ads. Both on my remixes, and on any I listen to. I'd want to be notified of it first, though.
Regarding albums, I'd say director's prerogative. Makes things easier to manage. I'm cool with the sd3 project having ads on its remix vids. But not on the trailer, because it's essentially an ad itself. And I feel the same way about other albums' vids.

It's not good if it's boring, DMT.
I hoped I wouldn't agree, but it _is_ a little boring. The drums, the thick synths... it's the same intensity for most of the song. It could have more variation in dynamics. That comes from both the writing, the sound design, and the mix. For example, you can leave the rest the same and just take the drums to half-tempo. Or you can drop out the pads for a bit. You can filter out all the bass for a bit. You can have a big delay-y breakdown at some point. Or any combination of these and other variations. It keeps the track from getting boring when things happen in the dynamics. I don't think the track needs a tempo increase, but something as subtle as 1-2 BPM more can make a big difference in how the track feels. That's in case changes to the dynamics don't do enough.
I like the general sound design. I'm a sucker for old synth sounds. The one exception might be the lead synth, which gets a little whiny at times. You could use a second lead for some parts, for variation.
Cool stuff.

Always fun to see someone playing the parts. The video and audio doesn't seem entirely synched, but that's not so important here.
I'm not a fan of the guitar tone. It's a bit whiny, and seems off-key sometimes. I like the industrial sound here, the combination of sounds and aesthetics from different genres. Well done.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the video game music remixing forum. Here you can get feedback on your remixes, and provide the same for others. Whether or not your remix is intended to be submitted to OC ReMix, you can post it here. 
Threads
One thread per remix, one remix per thread. Exception: albums, see below.
Don't make a new thread just for an update. We're okay with a new thread for a remix you're picking up again after many years since last update. If you can't find the old thread with search or other means, you can make a new thread.
Don't post too many threads at once. It feels like spam, which might make listeners ignore you.
Set the title of your thread with the name of the game. Information such as the song(s) remixed or the genre might also be of interest to listeners.
Use a thread prefix to let listeners know what state your remix is in. Use thread tags to make your work easier to find based on keywords.
If you're asking for general feedback on your music making, you may include several remixes in a thread (please include this in the thread title), but we recommend focusing on a single track at a time. Albums are an exception, of course.
When your remix is finished, and you want to submit it to OC ReMix, follow these instructions. You may also request an evaluation (previously "mod review") before submitting.
Releases
Individual tracks, music videos, and albums of video game remixes can be released here.
Albums
You can release your VGM remix albums here. The one-track-per-thread/one-thread-per-track policy obviously doesn't apply to albums.
If you're looking to submit an album to OC ReMix, read the relevant parts of the Project Guidelines and the Project Guide, or contact one of the Project Evaluators.
If you're already a posted OC ReMixer, or in the To Be Posted-queue, you can post in Community to promote albums you're involved in. That includes VGM, remix albums, and original music.
Hosting
Some online hosting services offer streamed playback of the audio uploaded. The problem is that these sometimes compress the sound quality, which might make the music sound worse than is actually in the file, and might mask some problems in the mix.
Instead, use a hosting service or web space that doesn't do this. Some of them have a streaming option. There are many free services for hosting your remixes, whether finished or works in progress. These are a few that we like.
Tindeck | Box | Dropbox | Google Drive | Soundcloud*
* Uses stream compression, but it's a music hosting site, and some users find the ability to timestamp comments useful.
Feedback
When posting a remix, consider if there's something in particular you want feedback on, and feel free to mention that in the post. You might also want to mention any particular purpose of the remix, such as whether you're looking to submit it to the site or not.
Just like you want feedback on your remix, other people want feedback on theirs. Let them know what you thought of their remix, what they did well, what they could improve on, and they might return the favor.
You can also get feedback by asking people on the OC ReMix works-in-progress irc channel: #ocrwip at irc.esper.net.
You can also just ask remixers, judges, workshop mods, and others by sending them a PM or contacting them by other means. Most people on the site are cool and approachable. We're all game music nerds anyway, aren't we?
Getting feedback
The Checklist
A feedback checklist was developed to cover common problems in remixes submitted to OC ReMix. Feel free to use this to enhance your feedback to others, or to critically listen to your own track. Check (typically with an X) the boxes that apply. Then delete the lines that don't apply, so it's easier to read.
Guides to remixing
Tutorials category | zircon's guide to getting started | Rozovian's remixing guide
Workshop Discussion

Going by my previous eval post, I should be on the lookout for piano humanization issues. Timaeus covered it well, and better than I could have. I don't think it's to an extent where it'd be NO'd on that alone, but worth looking into regardless. For your own development, if not for the remix'.
There's some overall dynamics things that could be smoothed out, or emphasized, or otherwise changed around, but any specifics would go into personal preference. Still, e.g.: The stuff around 0:08 are significantly louder than the preceding stuff. Not individual notes, but a set of them. Around 0:25 things get rather soft, while picking up around at 0:30. How intentional is this? It feels a bit directionless. How do you want it?
The ending is extremely soft, probably too much.
Dynamics on the micro level, dynamics on the macro level. That's still there to work on. Consider looking at the track waveform to get some idea of the overall dynamics of it. it might help you identify where things are weird. If necessary, run a high pass filter over it before exporting the version you're going to look at, just to make sure some bright attacks aren't messing up the waveform view. Just figure out how loud you want different parts to be, and make it sound more deliberate.
I don't think you need another eval for this track. Unless you're going to introduce any new problems, it's just dynamics left. Good luck, and nice work.