Gario

Ooo, nice drums. Although they get repetitive, the bass sounds pretty meaty. Very fitting for a good ol' EDM arrangement. The structure sticks pretty close to the source, but I like what you did with the themes in the middle of the track. There's potential to weave what you composed alongside the original source material and have it play off of itself, which you do a little bit of at the end. The overall soundscape seems a little static. It doesn't really sound like much changes throughout the arrangement. At about 2:20 it seems to lighten up, which is a relief - perhaps a few more moments like that sprinkled in the track would be helpful. The ending ends up sounding kind of hollow, though - the synth you use at the end there just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the track, for me. That could simply be my opinion, though. I like it, though. Nice work - hopefully some of what I said helps.

This is pretty darn good. In the beginning the arrangement feels like it sticks pretty close to the source, but it takes some interesting harmonic liberties later on into the track, and it purposely retains the ethereal quality that the source starts off with (whereas the source builds into something more majestic). It's close, but I think there's just enough reinterpretation for this to pass on the arrangement front. The orchestration is pretty good, although sometimes with the backing textures it feels a bit static. The flute sometimes loses its place in the mix when it goes into its lower range (like at 1:59), though it's not too prominent an issue. The strings sound like their release cuts short from time to time in order to make room for the swelling attacks - listen to the backing strings at 1:10 - 1:12 for an example of this. Let the strings release a little more naturally - reverb alone should have the strings have at least a little sound bleeding into the next, unless you have the strings decrescendo prior to the next chord they play (which you do for other string parts in this track, such as the strings at 1:25). Overall, though, these issues are quite minor - the humanization is very well done in this arrangement. The overall volume of this is needlessly quiet. I can push an extra dB by simply importing the song into Audacity and amplifying it without affecting the production quality at all. A rule of thumb - if you can raise the volume of the track without introducing any production errors at all, you should do so. Otherwise, I think this is a pretty good arrangement. It's conservative, but I feel there are some subtle changes that occur in some of the reharmonization and the retention in the overall ethereal feel that give this just enough reinterpretation, for me. I can see others knocking it down on it being too conservative, but I think it's okay, on that front. Nice work, I hope to hear this on the front page. YES

Mmm, not enough Mega Man Network representaion on here, and this arrangement does a nice job taking the best elements out of the source and running with it. There's also some really great lead synth work, too - there's a lot of little grace notes, portamento tweaks, pitch bends etc., that really liven this up. The sequence that occurs at 0:02 - 0:08 is quite recurring in this track, in precisely this format. 6 repetitions from 0:02 - 0:39, 4 repetitions from 0:54 to 1:30, alternates between it and other source 4 times from 1:30 - 2:08 and finally closes off with 6 more repetitions at 2:59 - 3:35. The pattern is really dominating when it's there. Due to how often it comes up, it really wears on the listener. I'd suggest cutting a few of those repetitions off (perhaps cutting the six repetitions to four, cutting the four to two, etc.), or consider varying the pattern periodically. Right now, even with all of the cool envelope work on the lead, the track becomes difficult to listen to due to the repetitiveness of that pattern. The instruments overall sound like they're lacking in the upper EQ space, a little bit. Some of your more prominent leads could use a bit of an EQ boost in the upper range, to help fill the EQ space that's lacking, at the moment. Overall, it's a pretty decent arrangement, but that repeating pattern really drags this down. Cut some of those repeating sections out, or at the very least change them up so it doesn't sound like the pattern is repeating over and over again. Also, consider brightening up some of the instruments with some upper EQ, in order to fill the space a little better. NO

Pretty much that. With practice, you become good enough to get most sequences down with one or two listens, but it takes a lot of just going out there and doing it. In the mean time, slowing things down isn't recommended, as that means either the pitch slows as well, or confusing artifacts mess you up (like slowing down with Paulstretch, or something similar). Either pull individual notes out like this, or set the part on repeat and dictate notes one or two at a time. You'll get it, soon enoungh.

I think you might be mixing up some terminology, here. You're likely looking for me to make the melody and background elements more distinct (they're "vying for attention at the same time", at the moment). If I mix the background elements down, the melody and the background square won't fight for the same melodic space. That was the point that Nikanoru was making, and I agreed to give more space to the melody by simply mixing the background down a little bit. That would have nothing to do with counterpoint, though, which would literally be changing what notes are being played instead (which wouldn't fix the root problem). Panning could work too, actually, but the way I achieve a fuller sound for the melody and some background elements (like the other organ) is to pan delays on both speakers set at different feedback levels (mixed appropriately lower than the actual synth). I can still pan something if I want to (I do it at various points in this song, in fact), but I would need to be careful not to clash with these already panned elements. Just an FYI to show that I'm listening, but there actually IS a reason I'm avoiding panning the elements presented that you couldn't have been aware of. I do appreciate the feedback, though - there are things that my ears have gotten used to that people's comments have made more clear, for me.

Nice breakdowns, you two. I hear where you're coming from now, Nikanoru - there could be a little less competition for the space in there. If I have time I'll go back and open it up a little bit. Thanks for the timestamp, that helps me focus on what you're hearing. Funny enough, I actually adjusted the volumes at the second version of that later in the track, which is likely why that isn't as much of an issue. I'll give that bit a pass again, as far as balancing. I hear the issue with the pads, Timaeus. I'll see if I can balance them a little better - the original had them quite quiet, so I may have overcompensated them in this version. Thanks for the criticisms - I will do what I can to make this even better. Oh boy. I would suggest you investigate counterpoint a little bit, if your point is to avoid conflicting motion (you could mean otherwise, but that's how it reads) - your point is literally the opposite of what you're supposed to do, with good counterpoint. Contrary motion (e.g. voices moving against one another) is literally the best method of motion, and should be what you strive to achieve whenever possible. Similar and imperfect parallel motion are your methods of compromise, when counter motion isn't possible anymore (perfect parallel motion is strictly forbidden, by the way). Counterpoint is literally the art of making voices sound independent while still working well harmonically. Good voice leading follows the same rules, so it's also useful for creating as pleasing a motion from chord to chord as possible. It's... literally one of my areas of specialty, from college, so I will set the contrapuntal record straight any time I see it come up on the forums. But yeah, for the love of Counterpoint, use contrary motion whenever possible. If anyone ever has questions about it, by the way, I'm literally always up to discuss it. *end rant* Apologies if that seems a little wordy, but counterpoint errors is one of my biggest pet peeves. Just ask Rozo or Willrock - I've had historic clashes on these forums on it, in the past.

Face meltage action, in this one - like the source, this track is pretty intense. The overall execution is done well, and the drum work is spot on. The mixing of the rhythm guitar seems to overwhelm the other instruments just a little too much. The lead guitar sounds a little underwhelming, but that square lead gets pretty drown behind the rhythm guitars. Figure out a way to bring out those leads - they're important. The soloing in the middle (particularly at 1:59)... I'm not feeling it. It feels like random, uncoordinated noodling that often gets out of key. I'm a little torn on this, though, as there are classic metal guitarists that do this very style of soloing in their music, too (Slayer, for example - I can't stand their solos, either), so it's hard for me to say if voting that down is actually a bias against the genre, personal taste or an actual issue with the song at hand. It's a tough call. The mixing of the rhythm guitar knocks this a little, but not quite below the bar. If someone more familiar with metal can confirm whether or not this is personal bias or an actual issue with the solo, that'd be appreciated - my vote hinges on that. -- EDIT: I'll go with Larry and Deia on this one - if the solo doesn't bug them, it won't affect my vote, either. "Slayer solos" always irked me on a personal level, but that's a personal preference, not objectively a problem. YES

Haa, that title made me laugh a bit. I think it's a perfect title, myself. Damn, you've got some great chops on you. The guitar performances are on point, and the overall tone sounds perfect. You certainly give the source a great remake, with what you have going here. The drums are a little bit quiet (they could be mixed closer to the front), but they sound great, too. They're just too quiet, is all. While you have a personal ethic to stick as closely to the source as possible, OCR is a site that encourages some reinterpretation of the material that is being arranged. We appreciate covers and fully respect the work that you do, but it's not the type of arrangement that this site is looking for. You stated that your goal was to make something that the panel enjoyed, and at least on my account you succeeded - it was awesome. It's just not what the site is looking for. If you ever decide to do something more interpretive, though, do send it this way, as you've got the chops to get something on here, if you ever wanted to. NO

May Hiroshi rest in peace. It affected everyone who grew up with the Nintendo, so it's appreciated to hear what others have offered up in his honor. Picking a source from Nintendoland is a good choice for honoring the man himself. While the source is short, I could see it being expanded in such a way that it could fill three minutes or so without getting too repetitive. Filling out six is a bit overambitious, for reasons that Sir_nutS point out. In fact, there's very little to add to what Sir_nutS said - the reliance on repeating the source does not carry the track, the fadeout ending does nothing to close the song out and the overcompression in the production is overpowering. Sir_nutS does as good a job as I could in detailing that out, so I will defer to him on those points. The one other issue to bring up is the use of your more realistic samples - they need some humanization TLC. The strings are all set at the same dynamic level, and the attack on the sample swells every single note, which is something a performer would never do. When incorporating 'real' samples, making it sound realistic is always a consideration. Glad to hear people doing what they can to honor Hiroshi's passing, but for OCR's purposes this needs some work before this can pass. Pay attention to the levels of repetition in the arrangement and mask the source better, from time to time, in order to make the arrangement feel fresh (and consider cutting the length so it's easier to keep it interesting throughout). Take a look at your mixing levels and make sure that you don't overcompress your track. Humanize your stringed instrument better, and give the track a more solid ending. I suggest posting this in the workshop forums - the people there would very likely help you out, and they may have other useful things to suggest for the track, as well. NO

It's fine, Slimy - not every song will appeal to everyone. This track is very busy, and the focus on the melody was intentional; I can see how that could be unappealing. I still appreciate the comments, though.

Gario, here! I feel like I need to abuse my privilege for a bit, so suffer listening to my arrangement from the Castlevania compo at the beginning of this year. It's an arrangement of Beginning from CV3 and some plant area... thing from Castlevania 2 for the gameboy. I put in some Bloody Tears (Castlevania 2, NES) for good measure, as well. The original ReMix had issues having a very dull sound (no highs, lacking lows), and the organ tended to sound like a square wave, so I beefed the high end and gave the organ more space in the arrangement, and it sounds pretty awesome, now. It's pretty bouncy, by the way. After giving it a pass in the WIP boards, I figure it's ready for submission. Have fun with it! Sources: (Note: I linked the Castlevania X version of 'Beginning' - it's the version I pulled most from, because it's just a better version...)

Damn, that brass work and swing are sexy as shit in this. I dig.

Updated the link, I think it's a-go for submission. I gave it a few listens, and while I didn't the specific part you mentioned, Nikanoru, I did hear a few parts after that got pretty cluttered due to organ reverb. As far as the loud melody Slime mentioned, I wasn't catching where that was an issue. Even if it didn't sound like it, the soundscape is actually pretty dense - a bit difficult to add any more chords or pads than there already are. Not much I could think of doing that wouldn't drastically change the style of the song. Thanks for the listens and comments!

Oooh, this is pretty fun. This is the round that I sadly didn't participate in, but you did a pretty darn good job with the sources. Kind of wish CV3 Beginning was a little more recognizable... that was my source. *grumble*... *Ahem* The overall energy keeps the music moving in this pretty consistently. There's really little to break the motion of this track, though, and since the energy remains pretty consistent the whole song feels a bit static. The beginning and the end have a small pause in the energy through dropping the instruments and drums - more moments like that throughout the song would help give the arrangement more "peaks" and "valleys", as far as musical drive is concerned. While I like the sidechaining, there's really never a moment where the music doesn't sidechain heavily. I personally don't think sidechaining that heavily is wrong, per se, but I do think the technique is overused in the track, which contributes to the static energy the piece provides. The drums are also a constant presence, and they don't change very much at all. Change those things up - be willing to play with the beat a little, or drop the drums from time to time. Play around with the hats and snare. Do something that jerks the listener in a different direction from time to time - it's important to keep the music interesting throughout the arrangement. The vocals are pretty good, but they're a little unrefined. The notes that you hold sound like they waver a little bit, such as at 0:30. I think they're still passable, but there's still room for improvement. I really like the difference between the dry vocals for the verses and wetter vocals during the chorus, though - the differentiation really helped break the music apart. At 2:42, you need to bring out your 'L' in "Blood" out a bit more. I'm not catching the 'L' sound every time the word 'Blood' comes up, and my immature mind hears something that makes me giggle ("butt smells so sweet", hee hee), instead. Overall, the diction is pretty good, but I thought I'd point that out - probably not what you want your listeners to hear. Your production values are quite good, and the lyrics are really cool. The style works well, but the static nature of the arrangement hangs this one up a bit. Change up the drums, be willing to let go of the side chain from time to time, etc.. The vocals are alright, though they could be landing on the notes a little tighter, and while most of your diction is great, bring out the 'L' in 'Blood' a little better. I'd like to hear an update to this, as it's a pretty slick arrangement otherwise. NO

Solid metal, brah. Overall, it's well produced, the guitar timbres are appropriate for the style, and the performances are pretty solid. It's a great direction to take that source, and it works great. There are a few smaller issues that I can pull from this, though. The crashes throughout the track have a habit of panning from one speaker to another. On monitors it has little effect, but on headphones is sounds strange, and I can honestly think of no case where metal crashes should pan like that. Either stick to one side or center them, but don't change the panning during the performance, it makes no acoustic sense for them to do so. The background elements at 1:47 don't quite come through, which is a shame as they add another dimension to that part of the song. While the mixing is overall decent (important elements are upfront, background elements are in the back), I feel the background textures don't quite pop out enough, there, so a small pass on the mixing to bring things like that out a little bit would be beneficial. The rising guitar that starts at 2:00 is panned a little to the right (probably just how that guitar part is normally panned in the track). On headphones it's a little distracting, since it remains alone for a significant amount of time. If something like that is exposed like that for some time, it's better to center the panning during that period. The chord at 2:53 sounds wrong - the major chord sounds like it should be a minor chord, if it were to match the key it's being played in. I sound like I'm just hammering on it, but everything I mention here is a minor point - I simply bring it up to help improve you tracks in the future. Despite my incredible amount of nitpicking, I feel this is still a great metal arrangement of the source, and should be a welcome addition to OCR's metal library. Nice work, and I hope to see it on the front page. YES

Pfft, it's always nice when people make this job easy. Andrew and Stevo made my job easy, here - great arrangement, great performances, great production values. I have nothing but good things to say, here - the guitars are clean, backing instruments complement everything great (piano and marimba are well incorporated), and the change in pace midway is a great way to keep things interesting. Great work! YES

No crits? Aw, you're no fun. The drums being removed helps, but I'm still feeling the other issues that were present still tilts this below the bar. The missed notes were a really easy fix - I'm particularly surprised nothing was done there. I think my prior vote still stands - details on other judgment, minus the drum issue. NO

Mmm, I like this arrangement. I'm with Sir_nutS on the arrangement - it knows when to push forward, and when to hold back. The dynamics shape the piece in a manner that really drives it forward, and the source is quite clear, so great work on that front. On a personal note, I really enjoy some of those clusters you used in the beginning - very tasty. The strings at 3:06 have some strange voice leading. It's minor, but they seem to utilize parallel fifths, at that point. I normally wouldn't mention it, but the rest of the track seems to have pretty good voice leading, so it stands out as a little strange, for me. The mixing and production do have issues, though. While the orchestration is quite good, the mixing tends to get cluttered to the point that the themes are not brought out in a sensible manner, while background elements (such as arpeggios performed by the strings) get more volume than they should. These issues are especially apparent at the beginning (oboe gets lost behind swelling strings), 1:50 and 3:27, where the melody is very difficult to pull out from the overwhelming background elements. At 3:27, there's also noticeable moments of overcompression, as well. When the music gets loud, production quality drops significantly due to this overcompression, which is no good. With all due respect, I'm going to have to disagree on the commentary on this not having correct articulations and humanization throughout, though - while there are a few moments that could use some attention to the articulations, for the most part this shows considerable attention to what attacks and articulations should be used where, does so correctly, and has a great deal of attention paid to the dynamics throughout. The instruments have attack swells when it would be appropriate to do so (like the block chords in the beginning), and the arranger actually changes these values whenever phrasing the lines to lesser amounts, which is the correct handling of such instruments. The staccato strings at 2:34 show a good deal of focus on the control of the articulations of these instruments, as well as the release of the solo viola at 2:32. The legato strings are performed as they should be - unless there's a reason for the strings to swell (such as the chords in the beginning), string players will perform their phrases legato. That is not a mistake in humanization. That being said, the viola at 2:18 does have an unnecessary swelling attack for each note, which makes the phrase sound more disjointed than a performer would normally handle it. The piano at 4:03 (the block chords, in particular) also does sound pretty mechanical - every hit is the exact same, at that part, which really wouldn't happen in a live performance. While I feel the humanization is at pretty solid levels, the mixing and production issues that this arrangement has still puts this below the bar. I really do enjoy this arrangement, though, and I hope you come back with this after fixing the production and mixing issues we've mentioned, as well as addressing the humanization issues that I mentioned above. The voice leading where I mentioned would be nice to correct, too, though that's not mandatory. NO

Aaahahaha, don't scare the children, indeed. Nice story to back up the album - no idea what the producers were thinking, as most of this is really quite cool and un-scary, lol. Really solid stuff, but coming from you that's almost always to be expected, at this point.

EVAL Oh wow, I like this. Your orchestration is pretty damn spot on, in this. The sources are clearly there, and even though it's a medley (often frowned upon), this track seems to tell a story with each source. I'm pretty cool with this, on the source usage and arrangement front. The humanization of the instruments is slick. To take it one step beyond, I suggest learning how to emulate different accents and attacks for the different instruments - there are some moments where I feel the attacks aren't quite right. For example, the strings that descend at 2:42 all seem to have the same attack, where an orchestra would really play the first attack with a down stroke, and hold that stroke for the rest of the notes (thus having the following notes being very legato, in comparison). The trumpets and horns doing the same thing at 3:06 can also benefit from emulating the attacks they would use - the line is played so each note sounds distinct, whereas a real trumpet and horn player would phrase that line altogether, or phrase the line with one note of staccato for emphasis on the second to last note (neat effect, but obviously not mandatory). It sounds like you're really getting the hand of orchestration and dynamics, so this is merely an idea to take your music to the next level. Anyhow, it seems wordy, but in reality your humanization is very solid - these are merely suggestions as to where to take your music next. The arrangement is solid. The orchestration is great. You'll probably pass, if you submit this to the panel. Look forward to hearing it there!

Nah, I don't have Audio Cart - I've made my own 8-bit+ sounds for ages (Since at least my first accepted submission, and even a little before that). This track was made in January - long before Audio Cart was available. Really, though, it's just a square wave with the duty cycle set at 12.5, 25 or 50%, as per what the NES would have available. Now you know how to do it, too! Thanks for the comment on the potential clutter, I'll clean that up some more before submitting my track. I think I can make it a touch easier to hear, especially at the part you point out. Thanks for the feedback, and I'm glad you enjoyed it otherwise

Larry, you're an out of touch old man, but that's beside the point. Overall, the track doesn't seem to have very much focus. It follows the source, sure, but since the general dynamic and texture is very similar throughout there's really no build up, climax, etc., that gives the listener any sense of direction. It's just all... the same-ish. I'll acknowledge 2:20 as really dropping down and changing it up, but it's not enough to mitigate the overall lack of diversity throughout the track. The drum pattern really drives this issue home, though - it's pretty close to four-to-the-floor throughout the entire song, but instead of driving the track forward (like that style often does), the slow pacing of this makes it sound plodding and uninteresting. While the production is clean, at 1:36 the theme is held in a light, quiet pad, while everything else is mixed closer to the front, making that part sound odd. The background arpeggio at the moments mentioned by Chimp indeed have notes that are sour. At 0:58, 1:21 and 1:36 the arpeggio part in the background plays notes that directly conflict with the chord being outlined by the melody and pads. Those notes need to be corrected. Overall, the mix feels like it's lacking both in the low end and high end of the EQ spectrum, which gives the entire track a dull, suppressed feel. For the most part, it's simply that the instruments used primarily take up the midrange, so the far ends of the spectrum is just missing from the arrangement, altogether. Yeah, I'm with Chimp and Larry on this, it does feel like a lot of things are off. Hopefully some of the things we're saying here is helpful, though. NO

As an aside, since the artist posted the Workshop eval a few days before panelling it (and because I was late in responding when promised), I gave him my feedback as an evaluation, as well, and he seemed very willing to fix the mixing issues that are present, as well as integrating the Cammy vocals better. I'll see if I can get a better version from him soon.

That's some solid metal performances goin' down, in this track. I'm not familiar with the source, but it actually sounds like quite the hidden gem. This arrangement does a great job covering the overall sound of the source, while playing with the leads from time to time. It's a pretty conservative arrangement, though - pretty damn close to the "too conservative" category, on OCR. The overall mix tends to have the guitars all fighting for the front of the mix, when everything is playing at once. It's not absolutely terrible, but the issue is pretty consistently there. The leads should be clearly in front of the rhythm guitars, which at the moment are pretty loud in comparison to the rest of the mix. The master track could also use a touch of high EQs, as well, as the overall track sounds lacking in that department (Just a little, though - 0.25dB in the high range would cover it). There's quite a few moments in the track where there's really no lead - just texture. While I think those are a nice way to break the music up in a sensible manner, those sections last a bit too long. 1:51 - 2:20, for example, could move to the next section effectively at 2:06. Nothing is really added to justify that second repetition; moments like that sound like padding to a track that's already at a reasonable length. I like this, but little things here and there knock this down. I feel the arrangement could break away from the source just a little more, but more importantly the mix should be balanced so the rhythm guitar doesn't take up so much space, allowing the leads to push through. The repetitive sections that I mentioned should also be truncated - they do not add anything to the arrangement other than length. Tighten those issues up and resubmit - apparently, this game needs some representation on here, and this would be a great track to do so with. NO

Damn, this is awesome as shit. I can recognize the sources right off the bat, but they're all incorporated together seemlessly. The arrangement is amazing. The instrumentation is eclectic (I love eclectic), and those vocoded vocals are amazing. The only thing I can find that could be improved would be the clarity of the vocoded vocals' lyrics, but they're honestly pretty legible, as far as vocoded vocals go. Yeah, easiest pass in a while. Great work, Jorito! YES