Gario

Hmm... I'm really feeling the opposite on this one. The beginning was pretty neat - almost had a '28 Days Later' effect with that guitar tone and lighter steelstring for the arpeggio. The later portions of the song sounds like the weaker side of the arrangement on this one. That's not to say it's terrible (the arrangement has some pretty cool things going for it overall), but I did feel it wasn't quite as well executed as the introduction. Getting more into specifics, the tone of this is set up really well. The dark bass against the arpeggios and thin steel theme creates a great deal of tension, preparing the listener to the heavy rendition of the track. The plucking of the bass strings sounds a little inconsistent - some strikes are more... er, striking than others, but it's nothing that's breaking the song overall, here. I didn't have an issue hearing the tuning of the bass, myself - it seemed to be playing the right notes in tune. As the guts of the track comes in at 1:15, the issues that more generally afflict the track become apparent. The steel string arp that was supposed to be tying the sections together just gets drown in the mix, to the point that it shouldn't even be there. Interestingly, there is a section later where that part returns strong enough to overcome that rhythm, so if you want an idea of how to balance it look to 3:51 (I know, one has overdrive/distortion and the other doesn't, but just use that as a reference to the mixing balance). When things pick up at 1:23 the mixing gets a little better, but throughout the track themes are drown by that rhythm guitar. The music at 2:07, for example sounds dense and muddy, making it hard to hear the main line. The performances are alright. I feel the playing is just a little too loose, though, such as at 2:23 & 2:31. It's not bad, but the guitar runs sound like there's a hint of hesitation behind them. It's not much, but it does make the playing sound a little looser than it should. This isn't the end of the world, but it's still noticeable. There are also some artifacts in some places (such as the fingers sliding up the strings & other guitar setup noises at 1:10 - 1:15) that should've been cleaned up post production, so I'd highly recommend cleaning those sounds up. The arrangement is pretty good, overall, so my biggest gripe is that the mixing often throws the rhythm guitar too close to the front, and when things get especially busy the soundscape gets crowded and messy. On the bright side, though, these are all issues that can be fixed post-production, so I don't think there's a need to re-record any parts (unless you want to tighten up the parts I mentioned earlier), but I do think the mix needs to be cleaner before I can pass this one. I do hope to hear a fixed version up here soon, though! NO

Had I known about it, I might've gone. One day heads up won't give me time to prep for it, though. Alas!

Mmm, Tuba. Not enough of dat Tuba soloing action around here, and you do a pretty good job. Aside from a few flub'd notes, you hit the right notes with a nice warm tone, so great work on that. The breathing does disrupt the experience somewhat, but I understand that Tuba is certainly one of those instruments that takes too much air to circular breath so that's unavoidable. Two suggestions on how to alleviate that issue as much as possible, though: first, find a place that would not be too disruptive in the arpeggio to breath, and be consistent to that point (say, for example, the third note of the third arp on the run up, and the fourth note of the last arp on the run down). Second (and this is even more important!), don't play the notes that are missed, but instead continue with the music as if you played them. Missing a note due to breathing is glossed over by the listener, as they can imagine what was supposed to be there without any trouble, but messing up the meter by stopping to breath is disruptive. Prioritize playing in time at the cost of a note or two rather than stopping the music to breath, then continuing again. It really is cool, though! Not often that you get a solo instrument like that on the WIP boards, and it always sounds cool when it's done well!

I suppose I can go through these one by one, see if that helps: 1.) Much like many things in life, it's not what tools you use, it's how you use em'. Soundfonts are acceptable, as long as you can handle the instruments in a manner that make them sound either realistic or interesting. I know that Darkesword has a few tracks posted that used older or free soundfonts, so I know it's at least possible. 2.) FLStudio, to my understanding, prevents you from saving a project, but is otherwise fully functional. It's pretty good to learn with, but that does become a hindrance when it comes to making more complicated projects. If you're on a budget, I hear Reaper is an entirely free DAW demo which only limits you by giving you guilty reminders of how you should buy it one day. It's very good, comparably as good as FLStudios. 3.) As far as samples are concerned, it's certainly a case-by-case basis, on here. There are a few certainties on here, though: Square Enix samples are off limits, due to the company's request a few years back. There are a few sites (like freesound.org) that offer some absolutely free to use without credit, so that's a viable, safe option (I use them quite often in my own arrangements). Others have used various SFX from other sources, so it's not strictly forbidden, but using too much can raise a flag or two if the samples are from obvious sources (other songs, movie clips, etc.). It's something you can play by ear, or you can use those aforementioned free samples, if it makes you more comfortable. 4.) Well, glad you asked! Take a look into our workshop forums - look at what others do, read what others have said to the music that's posted there. If you're working on some things, feel free to post them in there, and posters on here often will give you great advice that'll help you learn and grow. OCReMix is a great resource for learning your craft, so check the forums out!

Well there, welcome to OCR! I do hope you find what you need here. As far as this arrangement goes, this isn't a bad start - the energy is high, and it plays around with all sorts of goodies (like the little glitchy moments in the melody from time to time - very nice). The arrangement does have a few flubs as far as harmonization goes (such as at 1:06 and 1:17), but overall it matches the source fairly well. The arrangement sounds a little bit static, from time to time, due to how you keep the same sort of energy playing throughout the track. I like the meatiness of the bass drum, but it does seem to drone on, after a while, so watch out for that. There are moments in this track that just get too dense. Be sure to be careful about that when you're arranging music - you want the elements to be distinct. 2:42 is an example when there's too much going on for the listener to hear anything that's going on - mixing parts like that to where the important elements stand out while the background elements are still clear is tricky, but it can really make your work shine. I'm sure others on here will also have helpful information for you, as well, so I hope you do hang out, give others feedback, share dat sweet, sweet music, etc.

Haha, oh man, I can totally feel where you're taking this, and I love the concept. I didn't think this would sound great as a Bach-toccatta fugue style track, but you've convinced me that it could work. I love most of the ideas that you present in here, and I'd argue even when the arrangement is a little more stilted it works for the style you're shooting for. The style seems to constantly be in flux with this track, though. The organ polylines that plays throughout rings 'Bach', but then there are other elements that take me out of the arrangement. The drums, the vocal clip, the synths, etc., all seem to be reaching from different genres and styles, and in this case I don't think they mesh very well. While I'm not one to say pick a style and stick with it, you do need a little more focus on what elements you deem important, and work on making those elements stronger rather than stacking other things on top and seeing if it works in the end. Part of what contributes to this idea that the instruments and styles don't mesh is partly due to the differing levels of quality and reverb that each has. The drums are incredibly dry in comparison to everything else, for example, and the synth is pretty vanilla and uninteresting (as far as sound design goes - it has some really cool themes and lines). I personally think the vocal synth is okay, myself, but I can see why Chimp would say it's pretty fake sounding, as well. I think there's an exporting error in the very beginning, there. As far as the rest of the production goes, it has some pretty noticeable clipping throughout the track. Looking at the waveform it's easy to see it hitting the ceiling all over the place. You need to pay attention to your levels and make sure you're not clipping, there. I do have to say I still enjoy this track quite a lot (the arrangement is, again, very clever), but it has some issues that hold it back as far as production and instrument quality goes that I can't ignore, unfortunately. NO

This is pretty neat. Listening to the source, this is quite the change from the upbeat, more electronic arrangement from the game. I appreciate the sense of flow that this arrangement has - the orchestration knows how to change from light to heavy, using this to shape the arrangement in a way that the original just couldn't. This track does a great job using the space to produce something... er, special. The orchestration is quite good, but the sequencing of the instruments is fairly mechanical. Instrumental lines don't utilize dynamics that often - instruments are made loud and quiet in order to create those aforementioned moments (which is great), but dynamics can and should change from note to note in order to shape phrases and lines of music, as well. The choir sample is pretty obviously fake, as well. It sounds like a sample I might use in some more electronic music I create, but in this context you're trying to imitate a real orchestra, so it takes the listener out of the experience. Watch for that flute, as well - it's quite piercing when it comes in at 1:40. The production seems alright, but pay attention to when many things are playing at once, such as at 2:16. It becomes to parse the instruments out when some instruments are so dominating in comparison to others, and everything sounds like a mess. Tweaking the dynamics or mixer at points like this could help considerably when trying to clean up the soundscape, when it gets crowded. I have some issue with the choice of chord progression, such as with the piano at 0:27. Moving a chord in it's entirety up and down simply using transposition makes for some blocky chord progressions that feel stiff and unnatural. Some genres can get away with it to some degree (Rock & Roll or Metal, for example), but orchestra isn't one of them. I would suggest looking into learning a little bit about voice-leading between chords - it's not mandatory (many listeners don't catch these things, honestly), but I think it'll help you improve considerably if you learn a thing or two about it. Ultimately, I really do enjoy the arrangement, but the execution does leave a lot to be desired. Listen to more orchestral music, study how instruments use dynamics to phrase their melodic lines, their articulations, etc., as this will help you make more realistic productions in the future. I hope this helps, and I hope to hear more from you! NO

Haha, man I really am missing the boat on this. I've been pretty crazy-busy in life, lately - moved, super tight work schedule, etc., so while I wanted to comment I've been weigh'd down by too much. I'll say this, though - the sound of this has improved considerably. The soundscape does sound more full, so nice work on filling that out. Now, about the off notes that I mentioned earlier. To detail them out, here's a list of things to pay special attention to: - At 0:31 there's a flat note. - At 0:41 - 0:58 the melody seems to lose any sense of meter, which makes it sound like it's meandering. - 1:02 has another flat sour note. - 1:36 - 1:42 gets out of sync with the meter again, though it corrects itself at 1:42. - 1:51 actually misses a note from the source, which throws the melody out of sync with the meter again. These are very important things to be listening for. The sour notes are simply being out of line with the key that you're playing, or playing a conflicting note against another that's playing (it's out of key, in this case). The 'out of sync metering' concept is a little more complicated: a track like this one is played in 4/4, so if you get out of sync with this it just leaves the listener confused and lost. The drums amplify this issue, as they are in lock step with the meter while the theme gets lost at these parts, so the conflict is more poignant. At 1:36 you begin the theme on the wrong beat, which messes up your otherwise correct timing following that, and at 1:51 a missed note has a similar effect. I want to point these things out since, as you've said before, you're still learning. In short time you'll be able to hear these things more clearly in your writing and avoid them altogether, but for now these timestamps will help you know where to look in this, and what these issues sound like, in return. You're production skills are quite good for a beginning artist, but production is only half the story, here - compositional technique is important, too! I hope this helps a little bit, and I'm sorry I didn't come in sooner about it.

Solid metal goin' down, here. Very loud, dense, and the performances hit all the right places. The backing instrumentation, while not perfect, does compliment what you have going down in this fairly well. Chimp runs down the potential issues that I would have with the track quite well, but I don't agree that they're deal breaking issues, here. The string part, for example, has an issue with realism in the beginning, as the attack swelling is handled in an odd manner. String sections may swell the first note of a phrase, or they may swell a note periodically for effect, but from 0:07 to 0:21 ever low note has that distinct swelling attack, which doesn't sound realistic. This improves later, so it sounds like a purposeful choice rather than an accident, but it's one that doesn't reflect how a line like that would be performed. Other than that, though, I found the humanization to be decent in general. The track is certainly overcompressed. I don't agree that this breaks the entire track, but you would've done better to sacrifice a little volume for the sake of decreasing the levels of compression you have going on in this track. The mix often gets crowded, and as Chimp mentions there is a noticeable amount of artifacts that come in due to the overcompression. That all being said, I don't agree that it's quite enough to turn this into a NO vote. The arrangement works well with the source, utilizing the creepy nature of the source to both create quiet and heavy moments in the song, and it breaks itself up quite nicely throughout. There's little repetition, and the performances are very well done. I think the good outweighs the bad in this, but do pay attention to what Chimp said, there - she's not wrong, and you would do well to pay attention to what she said for your next track. YES

Aw yeah, I love you guys. You probably know that from the WIP board comments, though - I do have a tendancy to gush a tad. The arrangement for this is incredibly fun, easy to recognize and ultimately even more playful than the source material. The skaw style goin' here is full of flavor. It's not without it's issues, though. Chimp is correct in pointing out the muddy presentation, as well as the relatively dry synth work that's present at 1:09 (it's not bad, but it does feel inconsistent with the rest of the track when it's too dry). I feel that the mixing also has it's ups and downs, contributing to the 'muddiness' factor that we're hearing. The balancing of your lead guitar, for example, is alright in the beginning, but when all of the other elements come in at the mini climax at 0:47 it gets drown a little by the other instruments. The saxes at 0:58 are underwhelming behind that pad, as well. A lot of the production and mixing is well done, but the quality is inconsistent throughout, as far as balance and mixing is concerned. The overall performances and arrangement outweigh the production issues, though. It's still a great tribute to Undertale, and I think it would work wonderfully on OCR. Awesome work! YES

Is this a resub? We have an active version of it still on the panel, but it's a different length here - might be a version 2 that he submit later.

EVAL Haunting. The atmosphere is dark and easy to get absorbed into. The arpeggio sounds relentless and menacing, while the rest of the sounds above it really add to the creepy atmosphere. The drums coming in at 1:32 are dirty and driven, without losing the fragmented aspect that the track held before. The only thing that might ding you in the panel is the relative lack of upper-midrange and highs in the general EQ. When you have an instrument that utilizes that range it sounds fine, but in general you save that space for special instruments (like the one that comes in at 0:33). It's a nitpick, but overall you could've filled that space better with the instruments present here - the piece otherwise sounds a little dulled. There's a good deal of silence at the end of the track. It's minor, but I think you could cut everything after 4:45 in order to clean up the track a bit. Those are small complaints, though; overall I think this track will pass the panel, as it stands. I say send it off, after cutting the track at 4:45 - it's a pretty slick track that I can easily see passing. Good luck!

Gotta go with Kris and Larry on this 100%. The guitar sample doesn't work well as a substitute, the snare and crash are weak, and the overall sound design of the synths sound plain and uninspired. Overall, the sound design choices really hurt this track. I've heard better from you, so I know you're a capable musician. This arrangement, though, is a miss in many ways that Kris and Larry have detailed better than I have. Seeing that I'd probably just repeat what they said, I'll defer to them for the details. NO

Neat arrangement of the track, and interesting choice of source. It's very ethereal, adding to the haunting effect that the source had. The instruments overall are very wet, heavily relying on reverb in order to achieve the haunting effect that it has. While the layers of reverb does give it that ethereal feel to it, all of those layers of reverb just make the whole track sound like a wash of sound. It's not exactly pleasant to have the layers of reverb turn the song into sound soup. The piano is mechanical, as Chimp mentions. The reverb does well to mask it, but because overall the reverb is causing a series of other issues along with it, I suggest looking into how to humanize a piano better, as well. Be mindful of the dynamic range of the piano, learn how to emulate the pedals (especially the damper pedal), learn how to create convincing phrasing, etc. Without the heavy reverb the mechanical nature of the piano will be exposed, so it will need to be fixed. I agree with Chimp on the relatively repetitive nature of this track, as well. The constant presence of that piano and using it as the backing of the track eventually gets old. It's a great place to start, and it's a nice launching point, but since the track doesn't really develop past that point it never really feels like it develops. The saw at the end sounded like it was getting ready to do something new, and then the piece just... ends. The arrangement leaves the listener wanting for both variety and the resolution of the ideas present. There isn't too much more to say on this - everything is just too wet. The over-reliance on layering reverb pretty much kills this track, so if you want to continue with this idea, clean up that reverb to manageable levels. The arrangement needs some work, as well, developing past that piano part as well as having a satisfying ending, as the incomplete idea that it ends on leaves the listener wanting. NO

Damn, this was pretty kick ass. Love the approach on this one - the singing is clean and crisp, and the whistling... just slick. The accompanying guitar, sax and male singing backup singing just meshes perfectly. The only thing that I can say about it is that the mixing might be a little bit cluttered when everything is going at once, but I'm hearing everything well enough throughout. Send it off to the front page (when the project is done), this is some great stuff. YES

Very interesting combination of instruments. Chippy goodness to chippy sources, I'm always a sucker for it. The different harmonizations are absolutely great on this, and the drums add a nice dimension to the track. Quoting votes are so last month, but I'd like to say Chimp pretty much hits this on the head in her vote - mixing is inconsistent, and the triangle/bass causes distortion with the drums big time. The triangle itself specifically is mixed uncharacteristically loud, for a track like this, so consider bringing the level of that instrument down a bit, as well as sidechaining a little to the drums to give it space. The drums themselves, while I like them overall they are generally repetitive. The fills are great, and there is some variation with the open hat, but overall it didn't feel like it was enough. It's a great drum part, but it's a great drum part that eventually feels like it's droning on. Change the pattern up a little bit - variety is the life spice, and all that jazz. The second half of the track that covers the Mario 1 segment makes some odd choices when it comes to the stereo spread of the theme. It's not bad on it's own, but it contrasts negatively with what was done prior. If you like that effect, incorporate it more with the section prior, though I PERSONALLY think it would be better to leave the melody line without the spread, but it would work fine either way. Some of the SFX throughout the track (the brass hit, the stuff at the end) hit pretty loud, when they come in. Too loud, really - bringing the SFX down to the levels of the rest of the track will still have the surprise factor that you're going for with it, while giving the listener a little less ear bursting. I've said a lot, but I do like this track, in the end - it's clever with it's harmonizations, and the little additions here and there really make for something enjoyable. I've got to side with Chimp on the mixing end, though, and the stereo spread is inconsistent and disorienting. The loud bursts of sound also contribute to taking this below the bar, so fix those things and send it our way again - I'd like to see something like this posted. NO

Believe it or not, I didn't think this was terrible. Granted, it's not good, with the midi repetitive piano and odd distorted sound choices later, but it IS old OCR - standards were different back then. The drums were actually surprisingly fitting, considering I was hearing comparisons to bad tuna being thrown in here - they have a swing to them against the more straight melodic pattern of the source. It creates a legitimately interesting (and good) effect, once you start swinging with the drums, but it's easy to be thrown off by them, if you're not ready for em'. Not something I recommend to a casual browser of OCR's music, but I legitimately mean it when I say it's not THAT bad. Tonally, it's fine (not too many off notes), rhythmically it's very interesting (neat idea setting a triplet rhythm against the straight theme) and it does have enough source for OCR. It's interesting and shows off a very different way to approach a song, so it could be worth giving it a listen, even if it isn't something you'd listen to casually.

Wow, for a first time around, you really did a good job on this. Really quickly I do notice that some of it sounds a little off in comparison to the source (sorry for the lack of specifics - I'll likely come back to this), but the production isn't half bad. Sometimes the soundscape sounds empty, especially toward the middle of the track, so beware of that. Not a bad start, though! Funny that you began with Kuwanger, there - that was my first remix on Reason, as well.

I want a Konami Noah's Ark mixflood. Oh yeah, I went there.

Haha, well this IS a "remix" in the most technical sense - you re-mixed and balanced the tracks from the SNES. It's certainly not a "ReMix", but that's fine. Very interesting. For what you were going for, you did a pretty good job. This is just the place you'd post something like this; as long as you make clear what you're doing (which you did) it's just the place to show off your mixing work.

Hey there, welcome to OCR! I'll say this first and foremost: the best thing you can do in order to get into making music is to... well, make music! Every DAW has it's perks, and people have made great music using nearly anything (FL, Reason, Famitracker, Milkytracker, Audacity, etc.). Fruityloops is apparently a good starting place, Reaper being a great free option, too. As a guy who studied music theory thoroughly, I'll let you know the ups and downs of music theory. The biggest benefit of basic music theory is that it teaches you a language for communicating musical ideas. It can be tough for others to convey what notes to fix when one doesn't know what the names of the notes are, for example (I should use C instead of C#? What is this magic?!). The more music theory you know and understand, the more concise you can convey and receive advice, which can speed up your learning process. Basically, if you know what notes and chords are, you'll know what others are saying when they claim notes X, Y and Z are sounding off, or when some chords are not meshing well. To be honest, there isn't really a downside to learning theory, but sometimes people can mix up music analysis with composition. Often, people learn theory in the context of older classical music, and how THEY used chords. Strictly speaking, back then there was a "right" and "wrong" way to utilize chords, so sometimes overextending older analyses with your own (or other people's) compositions, you can needlessly be thinking there's a wrong way to write music, when in reality it more comes down to making things that you enjoy. Keep that in mind and you'll only benefit from music theory. Learning an instrument is very useful for being able to... well, hear what you're writing or composing. I highly recommend at the very least learning to sing what you write, as that saves a WHOLE LOT of time when you make music. This might be a more general recommendation, but being able to hum your themes and melodies as you write saves you the time and effort in playing the music back to know how it sounds. There are other more obvious benefits to knowing how to play an instrument (Hey, I can include guitar in all of my music because I ROCK!), but that's one relatively hidden benefit to being able to play your own music back. Otherwise, hang out here, show others your work and be receptive to advice that others may be able to provide. I personally like learning how to use a DAW by doing covers and arrangements of VG music, so feel free to listen to music and see if you can imitate. People on here will likely be able to give you the advice you need in order to move forward on your music (especially if you post your music in the workshop forum), so do take advantage of that. Good luck, and I hope you get the help you need, on here or elsewhere!

Ooo, you have a cool voice. Really could pull off bluegrass, or some other more lyrical or folksy style of song (probably why you're labelled as 'Folk', lol). The guitar playing is pretty slick, too - from "Love like You" it's fitting. The percussion is well placed, too (though sometimes it sticks out just a little much, like the stick hits at 1:40). You have some strong chops. I only listened to one track (which is normal, if you want constructive feedback - gets tough doing more than one track!), but I feel the reverb provided by the guitar and singing are not matching up. When utilizing reverb like that, it's always ideal to make every instrument sound like it's in the same room - otherwise it makes the instruments sound like they're two different performances stuck together artificially. I mean, technically most recordings ARE that, but you've got to give the illusion that it was one performance. It's a relatively minor nitpick, though - otherwise the production is pretty on point. I know the "Originals" forum doesn't get TOO much attention in comparison to the ReMix workshop, but man, if this were a video game arrangement people would be eating it up like crazy. Hope that my little bit of feedback helps, but you're certainly pretty good. I'll give separate (and perhaps selfish!) advice, too: a lot of people look at the VG arrangement forums more than the originals area - if you want more people to hear your stuff, makin' a remix is a good way to catch a lot of people's eye. Am I saying this because I want to hear folk VG arrangements in the WIP boards and possibly posted? Hell yeah I am, but it's also a great way to garner more feedback, too. Great stuff, though! I'm glad I checked it out, and I hope my advice helps.

From what I see it's in the third part of that trilogy, beginning @2:47.

Don't worry, just re-tag it when you feel ready for another eval; I just wouldn't have been able to tell if you wanted another one if I hadn't deliberately removed the tag, and didn't want you to think I was tampering with your stuff all sneaky-like. Re-tag when you do the fixes you want and one of us will eval it again.

Just quietly (or not so quietly, as is the case here) taking this off eval, for the moment, as the track has had an eval, and more importantly is changing quite a bit over a short period of time. Tough to know if what's present is what's planned for submission, or if the tag just wasn't removed. No worries, but just poppin' in for that. For what it's worth, I listened to it and thought the orchestration was bitchin'. Dynamically it's rich, though I think it would benefit from just a little limiting on the master track for those few spiking moments in the track, as it's pretty quiet all around - might be able to get 2-3 dBs without sacrificing a noticeable amount of quality. I can't try for myself since it's a soundcloud track, though. The arrangement is pretty slick. It's a medley, but that isn't necessarily an issue, as long as the parts are arranged in a clever manner, and the track doesn't sound like a few different songs slapped together or the parts don't transition well. I think you'll be alright, there. This isn't an eval, so I'm just giving a general feel for the track, here.