Gario

Damn, easiest YES on a piano track I've had to make on here so far. Great handling of the pedal on this - light and cheerful at some points, rich and evokitive at others, and I never felt the pedal bleeding unintentionally. The Harmonies are rich, and the performance is tight and dynamic. I will agree that the volume is pretty quiet on this, but I feel this would lose too much of the great tone of the piano if limiting or compression were applied. Just putting the track in Audacity and maxing the amplifier will give this a 2 dB volume boost without impacting the quality, so I'll be sure to ask if he can provide us with that. If not, no biggie - I wouldn't hold this up even if we didn't get that small levels boost. YES

Pretty tough to follow up both of those reviews, as they're both correct. I love the sound pallete created in this one - those new age arpeggios and simple lead work sound great, and even the plodding pad works well. It just feels incomplete, though - where's the bass? Any percussion? This is such a tease, since what IS here is great, but it's not enough to hold the track up on its own. The popping lead at 0:53 is definitely a surprise, and not in a good way. Be more subtle in your approach to mixing leads above the rest of the soundscape; a leap like that is jarring. Yeah, for the most part I'm repeating what the others have said, but they're right: this sounds incomplete. Give us a bass to tie it together, don't be afraid of some backing harmonies to act as glue to keep the arrangement together. While it's a good idea to drop elements out and bring them back for the sake of variety, if there are only two or three elements in the entire track it's difficult to justify dropping them out like that. Bring in other instruments that fulfill their roles and flesh out what you have here! NO

I think you wanted to do something for Setting Off for the Journey. It was an old recording, so it'd likely be changed a bit. I'll get in touch with you in the PM in a bit about it, the concern only being that Evory actually gave a pretty good arrangement for that as well. If I go for that arrangement I'd count that as you already having a WIP on it, so don't worry too much about it. Good to hear on the other track, though. Looking forward to an update sometime!

I didn't get a chance to hear the prior version of this, but what's presented here is actually pretty cool. I really love the soundscape created by the busy textures and lead work that you have throughout, and the handling of the source material is rather good in this. If there were issues with the levels before, that's certainly not the case now. It's been said before, and I'll repeat it here - that lead is pretty plain. I'll give it a pass because there are some cool things that were done with it (slides, gating), but it does still sound pretty bland. The dryness of that lead in combination with that makes the leadwork, while good, sound thin. It's no deal breaker, but it does bug me through the whole arrangement. Be careful when you have many things going at once; this track has a tendancy to get messy and cluttered when a lot is going on at once, like at 1:58 and 3:10-3:12. When things get really crowded the snare gets completely drown out (which, as Liontamer pointed out, could've been addressed by tweaking the velocities to bring it out more). Those moments sound big and impressive, but they also sound crowded and unintentionally cut out the snare in the process. It's tough, but I think the clutter and drowning of the snare tips this toward a NO, for me. I wouldn't be against seeing this posted as is, but the soundscape needs to be less cluttered when things are really loud, and the drums shouldn't be pushed so far in the background that they're nearly imperceptable in an electronic arrangement like this one. Giving some reverb and/or delay to the lead would help give it some better presence in the arrangement, but it's not as important as the clutter issues that this mix is having. I hope to hear improvements on this soon! NO

Master 'D' is for 'Dance' (Upgraded from the Album) Ah, this old gem (yes, from the old Bionic Commando album). Funny fact about it - I've never been satisfied with what I put on the album. It was too quiet, and it had a few issues with some of the drums being too quiet, etc., so some time after the album was released I did some work on it, keeping in mind what the judges said about it during eval. Then tragedy struck - computer melted, had to downgrade. While I was about 95% done with my track adjustments and I didn't lose anything significant (I was actively working on this track when my comp melted down, so the last finishing touches were not saved), I actually was unable to playback the track on Reason with my weaker computer (it just immediately says "Not enough ram for playback"), so I've been sitting on this one ever since. That was 2013. Today, I want to let it go, submit and be done with it. I think I can take care of individual elements by muting tracks, working on lines one at a time, etc., but I can't compare in my DAW and see how things sound overall. I want to see if anyone on here has some suggestions on what I can improve further before submission. I can still hear a few things (the reverb is amazingly heavy in this, the bass swells too fast, etc.), but this is something that's been stuck in production hell for me since early 2009 (no, it's really that old - this is an older version of the same track from 2009 - 2010!) - I need some fresh ears to help out a bit. Any and all help is appreciated!

Aw yeah, we've got Jorito's kickass arranging teamed up with S4L's kickass singing. It's not necessarily something I knew I wanted to have happen, but saying it out loud... Yeah, it's something that I want, and this delivers. The arrangement is pretty easy to recognize (though it's filled with a slick energy), and the production is pretty solid. It's a pretty dense arrangement, so it does feel a little crowded when all the music and singing is going at once (like at 3:46), but even in those moments it seems like you can still hear everything that's going at once pretty clearly. Yeah, needless to say I'm all for giving this the front page treatment once that album is finished. YES

Salutations,This track will be part of the Secret of Mana: Resonance of the Pure Land album.Remixer name: JoritoReal name: Jorrith SchaapEmail: Userid: 3899 ReMixer name: Smooth4lyfe1987 Real name: Joey Ofori Email: Userid: 33213 Submission information: Name of Game(s) Remixed: Secret of Mana Name of Arrangement: Masters of Mischief Names of songs arranged: A Curious Happening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsHyWOfYsXg) Link to the remix: Comments about the mix: Way back when pu_freak was still leading the Secret of Mana album, I had a bit of time on my hands and needed a musical outlet for it. I vividly remember playing and finishing Secret of Mana on an emulator somewhere in the late nineties, but somehow I forgot a bit about the music. Going over the list of unclaimed tracks, I felt that “A Curious Happening” had a nice funky feel to it, so I went ahead and claimed it, not fully sure yet what to do with it just yet. Fast forward in time, a wild deadline appeared! Time to get busy, so I started jamming out some ideas. I ended up with this funky backdrop where I intentionally chose to go for a kind of retro FM-synth-meets-chiptune vibe, rather than the more obvious acoustic instruments, because I felt it would work better and would be easier to pull off well. For climax I added a part with messy distorted drums and screeching (bass) synths, just because it felt like the track needed a bit of extra spice. Even though it stands out when compared to the rest of the track, I love the contrast and tension it brings. Of course I had the crazy idea early on to add raps to that same climatic middle part of the track. Since I can’t rap, and the Eminem vocal placeholder vocals () I put in there were funny but getting old, I reached out to Joey (Smooth4Lyfe). We quickly started working out some ideas on how we could pose the Scorpion Army (this is their theme song in the game) as the comic relief and a band of bandits whose plans always fail. Joey did a great job in writing catchy lyrics to drive home that concept and we even added some extra vocals and ad libs to spice up the track even more. For me, this was the first time ever I worked with raps in a track and even though it took a few tries to get it in its final form, I'm really happy with the final result. I also dig how the narrative and the arrangement work closely together to tell you what a bunch of loosers the Scorpion Army are. Collaborating on it with Joey was a pleasure and his vocals really make the track shine where it needs to! Here’s what Joey has to say about it: I really liked working on this project. It was a new experience for me coming up with lyrics with a game I'm not 100% familiar with, and working with Jorito to turn it into a finished product. Overall I think it turned out amazing and I'm very happy with the final result! Lyrics: Intro Allow us to reintroduce ourselves you know that We’re the Scorpion Army Breaking all the rules just to get to the top but You know we ain’t no dummies Some people wanna think we’re the comic relief I mean We don’t try to be funny Thinking it’s a joke but we’ll get the last laugh But let us first make a plan get ready! 1:40 - 2:02 We the Scorpion Army We the type of dudes that will ruin your party Takin’ candy from a kid without saying sorry Oh we’re naughty naughty Money and the Power just give us the world We the Masters of Mischief In case you missed it You mess with us and we’ll give you the business Oh no! Looks like our plan is ruined again So close but we just never win It ain’t fair, come on! 2:48 We’re the Scorpion Army You better know the name We’re the Masters of Mischief You know you want the fame Better give us your money You know it ain’t a game Gonna rise to the top now The Power we will claim 4:00 - End We’re the Scorpion Army and remember that. Source breakdown: 0:00 - 0:38 - intro, bell-like arp plays the same line as the atonal marimba-like instrument in the original 0:38 - 0:44 - buildup, no source 0:44 - 1:02 - melody from the source (0:21 - 0:41), without the ending but a repeat of the first line 1:02 - 1:12 - breakdown from source (0:41 - 0:52) 1:12 - 1:31 - melody from source again 1:31 - 2:09 - uses the breakdown chord stabs in the chipsounds 2:09 - 2:57 - solo part, bell-like arp from the intro + breakdown chord stabs in second half 2:57 - 3:16 - buildup 3:16 - 3:36 - melody again 3:36 - 3:45 - buildup 3:45 - 4:03 - melody improv + repeat of melody from source

@zykO @Jorito @DjjD @Sbeast @Amphibious @Alephmale @Quinn Fox Alright, the time for the first REAL deadline is creeping up on us, so it's about time for me to start acting like a project manager and get on people's asses about getting something in, here. Aside from @Eitzpii (I appreciate you coming in with progress!), my PM box has been pretty empty, over here. So a week and a half from the deadline, here I am to remind you all that yes, your first WIP deadline is coming up. It doesn't need to be much - any progress that shows that you have some idea what direction you want to take your track will be enough for this deadline, but give me something, here! I appreciate @bLiNd coming in to let me know his track will be touched up (it's still one of my favorites, looking forward to it!), and @Moseph has gotten in touch via PM some time ago about his tracks, but I still need to touch base with @PabloComa @XPRTNovice @Cyril the Wolf and figure out when they want to get their finished WAVs subbed. I love your stuff so far, but if you won't be able to get your tracks finished this year for any reason (you feel it's not representative of your current skill level, lost the project files, etc.) do let me know so that I can open the spaces up for others who may be interested. Communication is key! If you don't make the deadline, it's not the end of the world - just get it in as soon as you can. However, understand that if someone else comes in and drops a WIP for the track I will take that instead, and you'll lose your claim. Initiative is important, here - I love you all, but if someone else shows that they're willing to give their all they will get my attention. We're not there yet, though - I may get plenty of tracks flooding my inbox and nothing will open up. That's my hope, so let's get to it! Yes, I know I said compo stuff, and I've basically gotten stuck on an incentive to participate in something like that. While I'm mulling over that in my mind, if someone has some ideas as to what could be used as incentive for something like that it would actually be quite helpful. One idea I had was skipping the inbox, but... well, I shot myself in the foot there, as we're actually caught up at the inbox now. A spot on the album is pretty much a given, so that's not necessarily a decent reward, either. Album keys for OCRecords? Maybe - I'm not against putting in a few dollars to get people excited for this. Any ideas from the loving public would be appreciated. Alright, hope to hear from y'all soon!

To be honest, if an arrangement is pretty close to the source for ~1:00, then adds some creative interpretation for the rest of the 3 minutes I think that's well within the bounds of OCR's standards. It's conservative, but there's enough life in this to have it stand out. It would be nice if the beginning were more interpretive, but as long as a significant portion of the track is interpretive I think that's enough. Humanization is probably the largest setback that this track has, but it's not as significant as I initially thought (back during project evals). The most problematic instruments are the backing strings - very often they have a long attack for every note change, even when swelling doesn't make sense for it to do so (look at 0:33 - 0:43 for a clear example of this - the second note of each phrase really shouldn't swell like that). The articulations for the other instruments are not optimally humanized either, but rather than swelling they just all sound like they have the same stiff, sharp attack. The dynamics are carefully handled, though, and 90% of the time the stiff articulations are actually appropriate, so it's not something that sinks the piece for me. To be honest, I think Deia pretty much summed up the humanization concerns in fewer words, so if I'm too wordy just refer to her review. Overall I believe it could be better, but I don't think there's anything in this that drags this below OCR's bar, either. For music in the future, though, pay attention to your articulations and make sure that's how it would be performed live - it'll take your orchestration to the next level. YES

Slightly off topic, but the Battletoads arcade game would absolutely satisfy any 'Toads fighting craving you could have. That and Battletoads + Double Dragon are the only games that really don't focus on variety puzzles and instead focus on the fighting. To be fair to the NES, though, there are plenty of sections in each stage that involves beating up baddies, as well - only a few stages are really puzzle/racing/obstacle course only. I personally like the variety aspect of Battlemaniacs, personally, but I totally understand where you're coming from.

In the original Battletoads I couldn't do the wall-riding unicycle game even with save states, it's absolutely unforgiving with its mechanics. It's FAR more forgiving in the SNES Battlemaniacs game, even though it's still pretty tough.

Snake level! Yeah, fuck that level. Especially on 2-players. I CAN beat that level on single player, but that's normally where I give up if I'm doing a casual run of that game.

What's specifically dissonant? The high note is consonant, it's the accordion behind the high note that's dissonant. It's a major 2nd against the bass that resolves into a major 3rd at 2:10. Dissonant doesn't mean bad - all passing tones, neighbor tones, suspended tones, etc., are dissonant, as is the case here. In fact, music really can't exist without dissonance, as that's what creates motion (literally, without ANY dissonance all music would be the root open fifth without a changing chord - that's the only thing that's absolutely not dissonant, in theory). The fact that mixture was incorporated prior, which used a lowered 6th (relative to the key of G) makes the normal/raised/natural 6th even more poignant. Interestingly, if I were to be formal and put my theory hat on technically the dissonant 2nd above the bass wasn't approached and resolved in a way that makes tonal sense (leap into the dissonance to create the 2nd, steps up instead of down to resolve it - some more obscure music theory rules comin' at ya), but I would never look at someone's music from that angle as this isn't a theory exercise... That does make the dissonance stronger and the resolution a bit weaker (which justifies Mind Wanderer's note that it was sour to some extent, actually), but again I don't think it's problematic. Just dissonant and interesting. To clarify 'raised 6th', in the key of BbM (which you modulated to earlier - it's the relative major to Gm, which makes it a form of primary mixture) the 6th of GM is lowered (as is the 3rd and 7th). At 2:10 you're cadencing in the key of GM (dominant chord DM being used) straight from BbM, and while the highest and lowest note is 'D' (the 5th scale degree) I certainly do hear an 'E' under the highest note, which eventually moves to 'F#'. That 'E' is the dissonance, and because prior to this moment the track was in BbM, which normally uses Eb in it's scale. Thus, the 'E' is a raised form of the Bb's 'Eb'. That's the 'raised 6th' I was talking about - it's raised in comparison to what was happening prior, not in comparison to the original key signature. The chromaticism behind all of this gives the part a little more color, and honestly fits the theme of a carnival anyway. So yeah - perhaps that will help clarify what I mean by dissonant, and perhaps why Mind Wanderer thought it was sour. Oh, as far as the zaniness of a carnival goes I really do recommend Charles Ive's 'Central Park in the Dark', it's literally right up your alley, and might actually give you some ideas for something like this (or similar in the future). One of the greatest American composers, and it's almost a template for something like this. ... I also maaaaaybe trying to share one of my favorite composers ever, too, so... Yeah. Check him out.

Hello! Would you mind if I pop in for a bit? I really did enjoy this track on the panel, and I was one of the three that judged it, so I'd rather help out on here than leave it on that sour note. I also like relevant but no-less terrible puns, so be wary. Going point by point: - I agree with you - what I hear is dissonance, not sour notes. It's a strong dissonance for sure (specifically, a melodic dissonance, utilizing a raised 6th in the Wurlitzer melodically against the chromaticism in the organ), but it resolves appropriately. Had that been his primary reason for rejection I personally would have asked him to reconsider. - While there are no 'electronic gaming machines', per se, there are certainly sound effects that sound like pinball machines (such as at 2:14, for a specific time point). It's an honest mistake if we think it sounds like old fashion gaming machines when the sound effects are specifically blips and bloops from fortune telling machines from a carnival, so hopefully you understand. Nominal differences aside, MW's main issue with the SFX (like at 2:14, or the brass at 2:18) is that if the background SFX has pitch it very well could clash with the music you wrote unintentionally. It doesn't bother me too much specifically (it sounds like Charles Ive's 'Central Park in the Dark', which I personally really love), but it's not something everyone is used to. Whether it's advice you want to heed is up to you, but it's a valid point to bring up (because technically there IS tonal clashing with the SFX and themes), so it's something you should make a conscious decision on, not an incidental one. - Listening to this again (as I didn't catch it in my review), the percussion is indeed very quiet. The snare roll is purposeful and at a good level in the mix (as it sounds like something from a carnival performance), but I didn't know bass and hats were even in the mix until looking at it now. I personally don't mind either way (as the track sounds fine with no percussion, honestly), but if you wanted the percussion to contribute to the arrangement take note that I legitimately didn't hear it outside of the snare. - I can't speak for the other judges, but I didn't hear any looping points either. As there's really no rule against a loop point on a SFX that's not likely a deciding factor on your arrangement regardless; the comment directed at loop points was used to support a larger point that the background was too dense as far as SFX use, which is something I did agree with. - I think the panning was sufficient, personally. I will note that with the SFX being as prominent as they are, it makes it difficult to hear the panning in the instruments throughout, but that's not an issue with your panning or spread. It'll likely be something that won't be considered an issue if the SFX are less dense (so you likely don't need to worry about it), but that doesn't make it justified to comment on it. We're all human after all, even on the panel. Seeing there are no mentions of SFX density in the grievances here, I suspect the larger concern that the judges shared unanimously wasn't in as much question. For me, the overwhelming presence of the SFX were overpowering the arrangement, which was the only thing that turned my vote sour. My colleagues pointed out some details that could potentially cause concern once that's addressed, but in comparison those are smaller points behind the larger concern. Hopefully that helps clear up any questions or concerns.

Apparently, all you do for that part is walk across that opening In the Turtles game - jumping just messes you up. Not that I recommend trying to play through that game either, that game was balls-on difficult. I could beat the dam at least, but forget about anything PAST that stage.

This transforms a track that by its nature is pretty low key and transforms it into something much grander. I'm loving the overall large sound that this transforms into - it surprises me that the original didn't transform this in that manner (I haven't played Dark Souls 3, so I couldn't say another track in the OST does so). MindWanderer is correct on the production issues, but I don't think they're so excessive as to sink the arrangement. Be careful with your big instruments coming in all at once next time, though, as the combinations of the big bass, the large brass swells, etc., are the primary cause of the worst hot production moments in this. It's not perfect, but I think it's still within the bar as is. It production does hold this back from the front page, though, pay attention particularly to 2:17 - 2:42 - that's the area of most concern for this one. Otherwise, great work! YES

Mmm, short and sweet, I think this one tells a really cool story with it's style. The violin performance really pushes a meloncholy feel that the source isn't normally known for, but it totally works here. Right when the arrangement starts to get stale, the piano and variation on the theme in the violin part really helps keep things interesting up until the end, so nice work changing things up at just the right time. A few nitpicks - the panning on this feels unnecessary. It's not hard panned or anything, but the violin does feel like it's panned to the right too much, even compared to the panning of the bass. It doesn't sink the track, but it's a little distracting. At 1:15 the low note of the violin sounds like the bow missed a bit - not a big deal, but it does sound a little careless to keep something like that in the performance rather than re-recording that short section. The levels of this track are extremely low, and there's no reason for this to be the case. Just using Audacity I can push 8-9dBs without any limiting or compression, and without introducing any new artifacts. Raising the levels that much would allow this to better match the levels other OCR tracks have on site, so please raise your levels on this. Yeah, otherwise I think it would be a good fit, so I think a conditional YES is good here. Put this in Audacity, push the amplifier option on it and send it back and this is good to go in my opinion. YES/CONDITIONAL

Hmm... This is closer than I thought it would be, especially considering it's McVaffe/McVaff. I like this, but stepping back and listening to it with a fresh pair of ears I can hear MindWanderer's concerns about this being static. For me, the instruments very often carry the same role throughout the entirety of the track, which even for a 3:15 track makes them get pretty boring. Variety of material seems to be there, though; the drums change up enough, even to the point of having a meatier, more interesting set halfway through the arrangement, and the patterns never combine in the same manner twice throughout the arrangement. The energy level doesn't change very much, but the content certainly does. The static overall energy level and stale usage of the instruments does bring this down a bit, but with clean production values and a decent handling of the source (not TOO reinterpretive, but definitely has some neat layering and subtractive arrangement in there) I think it would still work out well on the front page, though again it's a close one for me. Nice to see you around here again, McVaff! YES

Yeah, I'm not going to add much to this since I think MindWanderer is pretty solid on this. The groove and harmonic pattern is too static, and while the flute soloing at 2:18 was a relief it isn't enough to keep the listener interested in the track. The production is light on the mid range EQ, but is otherwise alright, so it's more about breaking out of the groove that the tack establishes more often to keep the listener interested if you want to touch this up and resubmit. Short vote is short, but there isn't too much to add to it than that. NO

Solid orchestration, as usual, and you have a lot of cool, subtle changes throughout that keep a relatively overmixed source interesting. It's quiet, but that's more due to a wide dynamic range than anything else - I'm alright with that. While the production is pretty good, there are some issues with the execution that you should be aware of. Overall, the mix suffers from the instruments being particularly wet throughout. I understand that this is the 'Land of Dreams' and all, and a pretty wet arrangement is fitting, but the level of excess in this really leaves the soundscape sounding pretty messy throughout. 0:55 is a particularly egregious example; even taking the super-wet sitar out of the equation, every instrument has a release of at least a half second, which really clutters the soundscape. The vocals and bowed strings have pretty mechanical releases, as well. I've heard other songs of yours that handle these instruments better, so I know you're capable: the strings have an attack that swells too much and a release that is non-existent, both being issues that make them sound fake. The vocals only really have the swelling attack, but that still makes them sound pretty artificial. It's a tough call, but I'm leaning on the other side of the vote just a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if this passed, but there's just too many small things that add up to a NO for me. Just cleaning up the excessively wet soundscape would swing my vote, and improving the articulations on the strings and vocal parts would be a boon to the track as well. NO

Interesting approach to the source - the arrangement really does take it in a new, interesting direction. The production on the track is definitely an issue, though. MW pointed out the mechanical instrumentation (which is definitely true - the sequencing of the instruments are definitely stiff), but a more consequential issue here is that the track suffers from a great deal of overcompression. There are quite a few instruments in this that take up all of your sound space (like that bass and piano), so when other instruments come in to compensate the compressor smashes everything to compensate. If you'd like to submit this again, fix your levels on the mix so that pre-mastering there's no clipping. Putting the music through a compressor does not remove issues that are present beforehand - it only causes different issues to crop up in their place. You'll also need to pay attention to how you humanize your instruments; using volume envelops for dynamics and adjusting the attack envelop for articulation can help give a lot more life to the performances. The arrangement is pretty sweet, so I hope we can hear this again with those improvements in mind! NO

This definitely has Timaeus' usual quality in production, and while pretty straight foward the arrangement works well. The orchestration is done well, and while I could nitpick the humanization (sometimes the articulation swells too much for faster string runs), it's certainly well above OCR's bar. Nitpicking even further, I also have to mention an instrument suddenly popping out at 3:31 in the left speaker (sounds like the Didgeridoo), which is pretty distracting for headphone users, especially since there's nothing like it prior or since. Not a big deal at all, but just be careful with mixing artifacts like that in the future is all. Repeating what I mentioned in the first post, this WAS submit prior to Brandon's issues, and this IS a part of his Assassin's Creed album, so before we post (assuming this passes) we should ask Timaeus whether that affects his choice to have the track posted, but if there's no problems then I'm all for giving this front page lovin'. YES

This is really a cool track. It takes something that's creepy and transforms it into something that is chill as hell. The reharmonizations do a lot to get mileage out of so little - making the track less abrasive while utilizing the same textures does a lot of good for this. Reharmonization does make connecting it to the source a bit tricky. That combined with the fact that one of the big source connections sounds like a sample from the source brings up the possibility of this being too liberal, but at the moment I'm strapped for time to stopwatch it. I'll get back to this soon to see if it falls within site guidelines. I'll get back to this sometime soon with a proper vote. EDIT (04/14): Alright, I'm back, and got a quick breakdown of where the source recognizeably occurs in this. I am NOT including parts where the sample is the only place that connects the source. 0:27 - 1:46 - Pretty clear reinterpretation of the source in the melody, even with the reharmonization it's pretty easy to connect to the source. 2:07 - 2:28 - Background texture matches a pretty iconic texture of the source. 2:32 - 2:36 - The first two steps from the source theme in the melody 2:42 - 2:46 - The first two steps from the source theme in the melody 2:52 - 2:56 - The first two steps from the source theme in the melody 3:02 - 3:06 - The first two steps from the source theme in the melody 3:12 - 3:16 - The first two steps from the source theme in the melody Overall: 127s / 217s ~59% source The sections past 2:28 are a pretty liberal connection to the source, admittedly - if that's not considered this clocks in at about 49% source representation. At the same time, the rattling sound isn't counted at all in these interpretations (which is playing throughout the arrangement)... I think there's just enough connection to the source if we were to listen to this without the sampling, so I think this is good to go for me in that respect. EDIT (4/21): Glad to hear Liontamer weigh in on this - it's certainly a borderline case whether or not what I listed counts as source. It's nice to hear some clarifications, and while my vote holds if you don't pass the panel this time around be sure to give the arrangement more clear source connection in the other sections outside of 0:27 - 1:46, as while everything sounds inspired by the source it's a real stretch to count anything in the arrangement as source connection. When it comes to direct sampling, it's discouraged from counting something like that as arranged source, for OCR purposes; an alternative would be to recreate the sample (or something that sounds like that) and use it to give that extra bit of source connection, as well. I hope it passes, but I completely understand if it doesn't. Hopefully this will help with your resubmission if it doesn't pass. YES

Contact Info Remixer Name: TOPiAN Real Name: Ben Hayward Email: Website: topianmusic.bandcamp.com UserID: 34458 Submission Info Game name: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Arrangement name: Electric Nature Song Name: Forest Temple Original Composer: Koji Kondo System: Nintendo 64

Ah, I remember giving the eval for this recently - by the power of my laziness I'll touch up my comments from there and give a slightly varied version of that for my judgment: An all French horn arrangement of Protoman's ballade? I'm definitely digging the idea - it has a diverse range, and the timbre is really rich. The performances are actually quite good, but I do feel there is some issue with syncing your trills from time to time. At 2:16, for example, those trill sound like a wash of sound rather than a trill because the two aren't quite lining up right. It's tough, but especially with those clusters throughout they need to be pretty precise if you want the listener to hear them as something more than background clusters as well. It's not always an issue, but your trill syncing is a bit hit-or-miss. The performance at 0:52 - 0:55 is a little too loose with the tuning, though that's about the only spot where it's problematic, so nice work on the performances in general. At 1:31 - 1:33 the theme has a note that's a step lower. It's not bad, per se, but it IS a bit unexpected. You mentioned in the WIP boards that it was intentional, so there's no issue - I figure I would still point out that it does sound a bit unnatural to my ears, there. Some of the effects are excessive in this; particularly, the reverse delay effect at 3:58 sounds strange, especially considering it's not used much prior to that point. I'd suggest either using normal delay or leaving clean at that point; without any other context or preparation, that effect doesn't work well. It's no track killer, but it does still sound strange because of the lack of context. It's a great piece, though - despite all the nitpicking I've done here, I still think it'd be a solid track for OCR. Great work! YES