Gario

The orchestration is quite good in this, as I'm starting to expect from you. However, this track sounds less like a combination of the sources and more like a slide show of each source. The pacing suddenly changes to match the source that you're arranging. Given how nice the orchestrations are (especially the first one, with a Gailic flavor to it), it's a shame they don't sound more like one piece. The instruments are humanized pretty well in general, but the strings and brass can use a little more TLC in that department. The strings tend to swell for each note they play (stringed instruments only tend to swell like this in the beginning of a phrase), and the piano playing & brass is pretty mechanical. The flute work is great, though, as well as the xylophone parts that you have throughout. It's not bad, but it sounds more like five pieces rather than a single, coherent piece. OCR is looking more for coherent pieces of music rather than a medley of small arrangements, so I'm afraid this won't be accepted. NO

Sweet chip work - got a lot of wanky flavor, and I love it This is a pretty bouncy mix, though I agree it takes some time to get to the really good parts. Fortunately, that opening part wasn't exactly "boring", either - it has enough flavor on its own to hold people's attention until it gets to the meat of the track. The chip work is quite awesome - it uses some nice polylines, slides and overall stylistic arpeggios that marks a good chiptune. I think there are enough different leads used throughout that keep listeners on their toes, but I agree that perhaps the track sticks with the chips a little too much throughout. The production is alright, though far from perfect. The mix sometimes has elements that stick out, such as the synth at 0:54. The drums are fairly boring. The snare is a little quiet, and the sidechaining to give the bass space is a bit distracting. When the snare comes in at 1:17, it has a loud click as it first enters - it sounds like an error with the volume envelop, since it sounds okay for the rest of the strikes. Be careful about moments like that. It's not perfect - there are certainly things that could be improved, but I agree with Sir_nutS that this is still a really cool arrangement. I think it's just above the bar - hopefully others on here agree with us. YES

Sick metal, brah. *throws the horns* I checked, and the sources are in there. It starts with some Explorer, follows with La Mulena, segues into Fearless Challenger, leading into Curse of Ocean (not Curse of Iron Pipe - that doesn't exist :P), then ends with a nice bookend from Explorer again. It's has a minor case of medley-itis, but the form makes sense, and the sources lead into one another well enough (bookending it with Explorer helps tie it all together). The lead sticks out a little, but it's not a big deal. Despite my minor gripes, it's easy pass. Solid metal, decent arrangement, great work. YES

Mmm, this is some beautiful orchestration. The strings have a little swell in each attack that could use some humanization TLC, but otherwise the instruments sound very well done. The little bits of orchestration throughout really make for a rich arrangement of this source. That being said, this tends to stick very close to the source. The background has some elements that make it sound more rich, but overall the structure, chords and instrument choices are quite similar to what was present in the game. I very much enjoy this arrangement, but it's too conservative for OCR. You do solid work, though, so I'm glad to hear you giving us so much, and I hope to hear more from you soon. NO

Listening to this, and then reading Deia's comments on it, it's pretty easy to see where she's coming from. The synth tends to be mixed too loud, where it overpowers everything else (including the vocals), and those drums are pretty boring throughout the mix. The singing portions are also arguably too quiet in this arrangement, even aside from being drown by the synths. These elements really need to be balanced better before getting a final mastering, in my opinion, as mastering the arrangement would only serve to amplify these elements that are off. I disagree with the vocal portion meshing with the rest of the style of the arrangement, though - it sounds like the arrangement as a whole has a lot of disco influence, in which it actually seems to be pretty fitting overall. The vocoded portion that pops in from time to time, though, is very difficult to understand. That becomes a problem when the other vocal part plays off of it in a sort of antecedant/consequence arrangement (like at 1:06 - 1:10). You should work a little on making the vocoded part more legible. As mentioned earlier, those drums are pretty boring. This arrangement really asks for more than a simple four-to-the-floor beat throughout. Play with the bass pattern at least a little, from time to time. The style doesn't really allow for the beat used to be used throughout, like it is here - it just ends up sounding lackluster and lazy. It's a good arrangement, but it's not quite there. The mixing needs to be adjusted, the vocoded portion needs to be legible and the drums need some more variety in the basic pattern. The mix is quiet, but I understand it needs some mastering so I won't focus on that. Do those things and I think this could pass, but for now I'm following Deia's vote on this. --

That's a very solid Genesis source - one of those rarities where the system put out something amazing, it seems. It's always impressive what that machine could do under capable hands. While that's neither here nor there, I always like to give kudos when I hear a solid Genesis source. Anyhoo... Nice use of them chips! Very clean and crisp, and you manage to fill the space sufficiently. As far as the arrangement goes, you seem to focus on some of the more textural elements, and you harmonize the track in a very different manner from the source. It all works nice together, though. There is one gripe that I have on this one - the bass drum is ever present, and it's very weak. For such a track, the bass drum needs to carry the entire song. This drum doesn't have any presence, and ultimately sounds like it's just filling space rather than creating a solid beat. It would've been better to have a meaty bass drum and chain the other elements in order to give it the space it needed. There is some overcompression that occurs in the track, as well, but due to all of the instruments being simple synths it's very difficult to hear - any overcompression ends up sounding like it's a part of the lo-fi atmosphere that you set up. Other than that, this sounds like a really great arrangement. For me it's still a close call due to how present that bass drum is, but you really went above and beyond when it comes to how you handle your synths, as well as how clever the arrangement is overall. For some that drum may bring this below, but I think this one works well enough regardless. YES

Well, this is certainly an interesting arrangement overall. It doesn't take the directions that I expect at all, but it certainly refers back to the source. It tends to avoid the much easier part of the source to recognize from the NES version (the faster moving notes). It's a good thing that you gave a link to the GBA version, as you use a lot of elements that are unique to that version. I'd even argue that this should be labelled under the GBA version of the song, for that reason, but I'll wait until there's another opinion on it. The instruments that are used in this are alright, but there're a few quirks in some that could use improvement. The guitar tone (especially when it's the lead) sounds thin and unimpressive. It's not too bad when it's rhythm, but the lead just doesn't have too much presence with that tone. The synth at 0:36 has a little too much in the upper-EQ range and could use a little low pass, to take some of the shine out of it. I think the mixing could use a little TLC, as some parts pop out unexpectedly, and sometimes it loses focus of what is important. However, I don't think it takes it below the bar, either. Despite what I said, I actually find the arrangement to be refreshing enough to look past some of the issues that this has. There are a lot of unexpected (and awesome) twists that this takes that sets it apart from an average arrangement. Moments like 2:32 really give this arrangement some depth. Mixing and tone aside, I think this has enough substance to inch it past the bar. It's a pretty close call, and I can see it swinging the other way, but I think this is still good enough for a post. Nice work, and great job on continuing to improve yourself! YES

This is a pretty solid arrangement with the proper levels of humanization for the instruments used (nice work on that), but first and foremost this is a very conservative mix. Not only does it follow the structure quite close, it also uses nearly the same instrumentation, as well. It's a very well done remake of the source, but there's not quite enough interpretation of the source for OCReMix to accept it. The mix also was very quiet - I could push 4.5 dB just by maxing the amplify option on Audacity, and could easily double that using basic limiting and a lowpass. For future arrangements, don't be afraid to get as much volume as you can without clipping. It's a solid (if quiet) mix, but it's a very conservative arrangement. While that's not a bad thing on its own, it does conflict with the ambitions of the site. While good, it doesn't belong on OCR. I hope to hear more from you, though! NO

Ah, KingTiger and his rapping. I've been a fan of it for a while, and he brings his A-game, here. The music rightly makes the rap the center of attention, relegating the source references all to the background. It's different from making the sources the center of attention, but at the same time it works well like that. The production is pretty clean, and the vocals are front and center, as they should be. I feel there's more than enough room to bring out other elements in the mix, as it seems like the vocals punch through a little too well. It's a minor complaint, though, and certainly doesn't take much away from the arrangement. To be honest, I don't think chords used from other sources should ever be restricted, as chords are just tools to make a song move forward, and I promise that the chords used in Nemo were taken from something else in the past. The samples, though, should be removed, as they're pretty obviously from Disney, which could lead to some copyright issues (I don't think there's a fair use case that would cover it's use here - not even a 'fan work' as it's not dedicated to Nemo at all). Remove it, and find a suitable replacement, just to be safe. For what it's worth, though, I thought they were appropriately used in this track. I say it's a solid pass, but under the condition that the samples are removed (which KingTiger has already stated would be easy to do). EDIT: Seems good to me, now. Let's get this one up. YES

Solid metal arrangement, overall, though it's a pretty conservative take on it. There are one or two fills that break it apart from the source, and the style is certainly different (western festival dance-ish to metal), but it's still very strictly true to the source. Arrangements that stay true to the source are great in their own right, but unfortunately OCReMix expects more personal interpretation of the source. The drums are mixed pretty quietly in this track, too, and it sounds like the snare head could use some tightening up in the snare. It's a great metal track, and it certainly deserves the praise it got (from Grant Kirkhope, no less!). Unfortunately, I don't think it's a good fit due to the conservative nature of the arrangement. Great work, though, and I hope to hear more from you, regardless! NO

Very sweet arrangement! The guitar/chiptune combination works very well with this source, and it has a great amount of energy that the arrangement holds onto throughout. I think Chimp hits a few good points on this, though, and I'll reiterate them (as well as add a few thoughts myself). The arrangement, first and foremost, has a very similar combination of instruments throughout - chip lead with guitar + other instruments backing it. It's a great combination, but strictly adhering to that for four and a half minutes makes the song all sound the same, which starts to get boring for the listener. I hear you do some sweet guitar leads at the end, there, so I know you can pull off the guitar taking over the lead from time to time, to break up the soundscape a little bit. There are other ways to do it, too (changing the duty cycle of the lead from 12.5% to 25% or even 50%, for example), so please explore at least a few ways to change the instrument arrangement up, from time to time. Another point that's brought up is the clutter in the middle of the mix, which Chimp rightly points out. When I work with chiptunes I often find that the range that I initially place the instrument in is similar to what the backing instruments are. I suggest raising the lead up an octave, and checking out how that affects the overall sound. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how much that alone would clean up this track, and it will give the guitars some more room to work in. There are other ways to clean up the mix, but that would probably be the fastest and most effective method, in this case. I also found that the guitar portion is pretty lightly mixed throughout the arrangement, probably because you heard the conflict - hopefully my suggestion helps give you some space for the guitars to be mixed a little bit louder. That bass square also punches throughout a little too much, so be sure to mix that down a bit, as well. I really do enjoy this arrangement, but I think we need to send it back for just a little bit of TLC in the areas that we pointed out. I hope to hear a resubmission soon! NO

Great track, great arrangement that's squished by the limiter. The hard panning is pretty extreme, too - probably done to give the mix some space. There isn't much to add to what Chimp said, as it's an amazing arrangement otherwise. Lower the master volume and don't slice the mix as much using a limiter and this'll pass with flying colors upon resubmission. Fixing the panning would be nice, too, though again that's not a deal-breaker in this - the extreme panning often balances itself out in this mix, so it's not as extreme a problem as it is in some arrangements I've heard. NO

The concept involved in this is a good idea - mix the dungeon theme, castle theme and Jesters music together - and it's a bit unexpected that they could go together. There's enough in this arrangement that connects well that convinces me that it could work, which is pretty cool. That being said, the production, mixing and sample choice leave the arrangement wanting. First, the samples all seem to be fighting for room over one another throughout the entire arrangement. While there's technically no clipping due to the compressor that was used, I'd put money down that with the compressor turned off there would be plenty of clipping occurring throughout the track. A big part of this has to do with the mixing - your instruments all sound like they're trying to be the focus of the mix all at once, which leads to none of them standing out at all. When you mix, you need to mix the most important elements in the front of the mix, while mixing less important elements (textures, arpeggios, etc.) more in the background by setting their levels lower than the important elements. The instruments that you use are confusing, at times. The trumpet and drums make sense - they sound like trumpets and drums - but I hear an instrument that sounds like it's supposed to be a guitar, but instead sounds like a messy synth. It would be better if you go either way, and go that route hard. Either get a more convincing guitar sample (which is admittedly hard to do) or get a guitarist who'd be willing to help you out. That sample doesn't do you any favors. On the topic of the instruments, the trumpet sounds mechanical. The sample itself doesn't sound great, but it could be workable. The sequencing, however, sounds like a machine is playing it. The volumes all sound the same, and all of the attacks are static. You should take a look at how instrumentalists would play a trumpet and do everything in your power to imitate it. As far as the arrangement goes, it's a bit hit-or-miss. There are quite a few moments that I thought worked well - that transition at 3:33 legitimately gave me chills, how well the themes mixed together, and how haunting the castle theme sounded slowed down. However, for a good part of the arrangement it sounded like you were sticking the sources side by side, which doesn't showcase how well the sources worked off of one another. There are a few missed notes, as well (the run at 0:43, 0:50, 0:58 & 1:06, the 6th note, or second to last note of the run, is sharp), but they're small, and easy to correct. Overall, I think the idea has potential, but I don't think you hit it consistently enough in this arrangement for us to post. You would do well to use the forums a little bit (despite your mentioned aversion to it), in particular the WIP workshop portion of it. People would love to help you make your vision clearer, and you could possibly find someone willing to offer their help with the guitar part that I mentioned earlier. I wish you the best of luck on this one, as there are some parts that I really loved in this. NO

Quite a beautiful approach to this track - you treat the sources with a certain tenderness that I can appreciate. Kristina is correct, though, on both the panning and ultimate volume issues. Hard panning the piano is distracting, and the mix is much too quiet in comparison to the rest of the music on site. Understandably, when Audacity (or whatever mastering program you're using) maxes the volume out it'll signal that any more volume will cause clipping, because at 5:05 the music maxes the volume out for a split second in the left speaker. If you don't hard pan and let some of that sound spread to both speakers you'll find you can get at least a little more volume out of the track without even using compression or limiting. That aside, the recording itself has some artifacts, due to where you places your microphones during setup. If the volumes are raised to the appropriate levels, the hammers in the piano that strike the strings become incredibly distracting. It's a soft 'thud' that occurs when every note is struck, and when the volumes are raised significantly they become overpowering. I'm afraid there isn't an easy or quick fix to that problem, either, since it's entirely a recording issue. If you're up to playing it again there are a few good ways to get a good sound, and one option is you can set the microphone(s) so that they're more set in the middle of the resonating portion of the piano rather than the hammers (if it's a Grand or Baby Grand). If it's an upright you might instead opt to set the microphones behind the piano - that's where the strings are. I hear you can even remove the back panel for a more solid sound with an upright, if you want a clear sound with it. I like the arrangement, but the recording is too quiet, and raising the volume artificially introduces artifacts (the hammers striking) that cannot be ignored. I'm afraid if you want this to pass the panel you'll likely need to re-record it, but if you're up to doing that hopefully my suggestions above are helpful. The panning is a moot point due to the need to re-record, but if you do so don't hard pan your parts as much, as that's distracting. The arrangement was pretty solid, though, and I did enjoy the piece, so great job on the performance and arrangement. SUPER LATE JULY-ALMOST-AUGUST EDIT: Having played through Undertale now, this is a very appropriate arrangement to the source. While I'd still vote NO due to the issues above, I thought I'd share that this arrangement does a great job touching the heart and soul of the source nearly perfectly. I would love to hear a cleaner performance of this. NO

Alrighty, you panel abuser, you. You really go all in with them sound effects - very inundated with them, in fact. I'd argue perhaps just a touch too much so, but I think that's personal preference - you make artistic use of the sound effects, having them accent the beats appropriately. The bass pattern used throughout gets a little repetitive throughout, but the song is short enough (with an appropriate break from it in the middle) to where it doesn't quite grate on the listener. Just something to be aware of. The production on this is pretty hot, though - it's overcompressed to high heaven, with plenty of moments of clipping to go along with it. The waveform is hitting the ceiling constantly throughout the track, which makes the track sound crowded and needlessly loud. Fortunately, you stylistically side chain the bass and drums throughout the track, but it's still very overcompressed throughout. The lead that you use throughout sounds like it has some pretty oppressive highs, contributed by the reverb you used on it, and it sounds very compressed on its own, to boot. It sounds like it's being played underwater the entire time, and it kind of hurts my ears with all the high frequencies that punch through. I like the simplicity of the arrangement, though. It's pretty straight, which gives you room to do whatever you want around it, so you used that room to goof the hell off. I like goofing off, so it works in your favor. Do make sure to cut some of the space in the last 6 seconds of silence on this track. It's minor, but it seems like a mistake, otherwise. It's alright, but I don't think it's there, quite yet. The production needs another pass on it; remove the compressors and limiters on the master track and mix it in such a way that it's not redlining on the mixer. After that, you can compress to boost the volume a little, but don't squish the mix too much, either. The lead synth should not pierce through as much as it does, and the ending silence should be cut out. With that being done I could give this a pass as I like the arrangement, but as it is I send it away with my best regards. --

Solid choice of sources (well, source - you had no say in the other one), and you pull them apart and put them back together again in a way that transforms it into something completely different. Full props for that - your handling of the source is great. Your singing is solid, but the vocoded effects make it quite piercing. You should give the vocoding synth a nice lowpass and cut some of those extreme highs out of it. As was also mentioned by Sir_nutS, the lyrics are also rather difficult to understand. Upon a few listens, I actually really liked them - they have a sort of romance novel-like charm to them - but it's certainly difficult to understand. I notice the lack of drums throughout a solid portion of the song (save for some light hats), and the use of only a bass drum later. I found that to be an odd choice, especially considering the complicated two-against-three rhythms that are playing against one another. I wonder why you chose not to introduce drums, as on its own the listener sometimes gets lost as to where the the beat is, or what the meter should be. It was a bit disorienting, for me. While you don't have to include drums (that's a compositional choice), I'd suggest you consider it, as it was easy to get lost as to what you were doing in half of the track. A decent drum line would help make it easier for the listener to follow. The vocoded part hurts my ears with those highs, though, so be sure to fix that with a low pass. Sir_nutS seems to have some solid ideas for making the lyrics easier to understand so I'd defer to his advice on that part. I like it, and I hope to hear it again on the panel with those improvements. NO

Stevo unplugged! It's a nice, warm arrangement of an adorable source. That source kind of reminds me of the poor engrish present in the World Ends with You soundtrack. Fun stuff, and the overall tone of this is chill and relaxing. The guitar work is pretty rich, but the vocals could use some work. Overall, they sound rough and unpolished. While that's not an issue on its own, the tuning of the notes is often off. It's flat, in general, with a few moments where it really stands out (like at 2:07 "Everlasting" and 2:14 - 2:16 "Company"). The vocals are also very dry, in comparison to the guitar part. I know it's 'unplugged', but there's not even any room ambiance in the voice - it doesn't mesh quite right with the guitar. The mixing is alright, and the production is otherwise pretty spot on (considering it's going for the acoustic sound). I like the little references to the Katamari Damacy theme in the bells in the background. The lyrics work pretty well; I appreciate that it doesn't sound like a direct translation - that would've been janky, otherwise. This is good, but the vocals aren't up to snuff, in this one. You'll need to give the singing another shot, and be careful about your tuning. You have a tendancy to go flat (as most adults do), so watch for that. Adding a hint of room reverb on the vocal track would be appreciated, too, as it will help the voice blend with the guitar part better. I hope to hear this one again with improved vocals sometime soon. NO

The source actually being a recreation of an actual piece of music? Not sure which one, myself - there's a lot of music out there to compare against, and it's not any of the more famous ones, to my knowledge. If you were to try and look, though, I'd suggest looking at Bach, or at least sticking to Baroque artists, as that's the style Gauntlet is imitating. The track sounds like it's using a particular conposition technique that's very common from that time (sequences, for the win), but I don't recognize it as any particular song. I'd go on a limb and argue that the source is inspired by, but not a recreation of, a baroque-era style piece. As far as this arrangement goes, I think it's simple, but fun. It takes some liberties with the material, adding things like arpeggios and different harmonic resolutions in various places in order to keep it interesting. The dubstep portion breaks the track up in the right place, too, which keeps the ideas pretty fresh. It's a short track, but it gets all of its ideas across in about the time necessary to do so. Past 1:34 the track seems to repeat the arrangement from earlier, though, which feels a little lazy. The wubs come in at the end, but for a good portion it's simply rehashing what you've already done - there's almost certainly some way to vary that part from the beginning. I like the hip-hop lead used throughout - it's simple, clean and effective. The square and supersaw work alright, too, as long as they don't hold notes altogether. From 0:00 to 0:18, for example, everything plays in a pointilistic style, so things don't clutter. However, when things all come together, like at 0:19, the mix starts to suffer from overcrowding (especially with the lead landing in the same range as the other instruments). Other areas where the mix gets overcrowded are 0:30-0:58 (the square should be either mixed down, or notes should be more stacatto), 1:22-1:33 (Supersaw shares a similar space with the dub, so they compete for the same EQ space). The drums are alright, though the snare is a bit weak. You should use a sample with more presence rather than just the claps for most of the track. The snare used at around 1:00 are nearly unnoticeable, unfortunately. This is a pretty good track, but it could use some adjustment to the mixing, as detailed above. The arrangement shouldn't utilize as much copy/paste at the second half, and the snare should use a sample that punches through the mix better. I think with those adjustments it would be a good track to post. NO

Yeah, from what I gather, the source is primarily in both the harmonies that are played, as well as the fact that they come from sweeping strings, like they are in the game. It's arguable that the guitar arpeggio also follows the harp from the Demon Souls game, and the cello sometimes refers back to the melodic leaps that occur in the source. RoeTaKa readily admits that there's a lot of original material above the source harmonies. I think what he was going for was keeping the "soul" of the source through using the harmonies, and expanding on it from there. This is a tricky call - on the one hand, the source really only HAD block chords in it with a small cello part in the middle, so "just including the chords and referencing that cello part" actually means nearly including the source verbatim. On the other hand, the original material above it sort of makes it his own thing - chords are universal, after all. I can see why everyone is having trouble with this one, as it's a pretty grey area whether or not the chords alone would qualify as "source". There are a few parts that really go out in left field too, though - from 4:00 on the material transforms to something that I don't really recognize from either source. As it's a close call already due to what's mentioned above I'm going to give this a NO, but I'd like to see some more official feedback on whether or not chord usage from a source that is pretty much just chords qualifies a track as a remix. -- EDIT: I feel like the error on this one - Emery seems to have grasped the source connections better than I did, and I'm glad for that. The material is from where he says, so that leaves no doubt from my mind on this one, since it does sound great, after all. Awesome work from RoeTaKa! YES

Mmm, interesting chord choices. Not a sequence that I particularly like - that cluster you use throughout sounds a little sour to me - but I can't fault it for much other than a pedantic melodic clash in the texture prior (piano texture uses a lowered 5th right before the cluster hits, leaving a weird combination in the ear). I do wish you branched out with the chords in this track, though - there are a lot of opportunities to explore many different chord combinations with the two themes you used, but you stick with the same progression throughout, save for at 1:46 - 2:03 and 2:38-2:55. Even if you enjoy the combinations, variety is the spice of life - the underlying structure ends up sounding too static. The portion at 1:46 - 2:03 doesn't really make musical sense. The chords don't seem to have any direction behind them, and the lead just noodles around, loosely playing the Sigma portion. I wasn't clicking with that at all, I'm afraid. Sigma's theme also is played out at 2:30, and the chords don't seem to work well with it there, either. That theme is not clicking in this arrangement at all. The production on this is impeccable, though. The growls sound amazing, and the synths all sound perfect for the track. A lot of the pointillistic sampling that occurs in this blend very well together. Overall, the textures and synths create a very nice, cohesive soundscape. The vocoded vocals add a nice touch to it, as well, and the subtle pitch rise on the Megaman death sound is a nice, subtle touch. Drums are on point, strong and solid. This is a tough one for me, because the overall production values and custom synths sound great, but I'm really not clicking on the arrangement. If it were just the chords, I'd brush it aside as personal preference, but the non-changing nature of the chords makes the underlying structure sound static, and the blending with Sigma's theme just misses. I'm leaning heavily on a NO for this, but I'll give it a day or two to sink in a bit, see if I'm missing something on the arrangement, or see if someone else can make more sense of it in a following judgment. EDIT: I'm still not feeling the chords, but everyone else seems to think they rock, and upon listening to them again there's really nothing objectively wrong with them, either. The issue is probably personal taste, in this case - there's really nothing else that I have against this (the overall production values are amazing), so I think this deserves a pass. Nice work on this one. YES

The beginning is pretty big-sounding, and it really sounds like it's leading up to something. I like this approach - the variation on the rhythm works well, and the drums sound appropriate. It continues to build with that harp portion, and again the variations on the rhythm are quite interesting. The big drums that this track eventually leads into are satisfying, though considering the build-up it's not quite as explosive as I was expecting. The payoff was alright, but the extra long intro wasn't quite justified. After such a large build-up, it'd be nice to see the structure accomidating more chords, more harmonic density (e.g. something more than the bass playing the root note and whatever notes the theme provides), but the song remains harmonically static for five minutes. This gets very boring very quickly. Ironically, while the harmony stays static, past the intro the track also seems to interrupt the flow of music quite often (that is, there's too much change in pacing). It stops, then is going again, then slows down, then goes again, etc. This makes the arrangement feel jerky. When transitioning into each part, don't be afraid to let it simply transition without any silence or instrument dropping out, from time to time - this'll give you the option of smoother transitions, so you won't over-rely on the instrument-dropping transition. The production in this is okay. Personally, I think the sidechain'd lead sounds alright, in the context of this style. A lot of pop influence, which utilizes the chained lead enough for me to recognize that this is a stylistic choice, rather than a mistake. I thought it added an interesting layered rhythm to the lead - personally, I liked it. That being said, there are moments where it works better than others; at 2:53, for example, it lasts for so short a time it doesn't seem to make sense, while at moments like 3:07 it lasts long enough to make an impact. If you utilize it, make intentional use of it, don't just use it throughout the song on a whim. Those drums are pretty tasty. It's relatively simple, but it really leaves a mark on the arrangement. You vary it up with hats and such enough for it to remain interesting, though personally I feel with the chaining effect you could've taken advantage of it better by including a small variety of beats (as opposed to sticking strictly with four to the floor the whole way through). That's up to you, though. The strings used in the beginning don't sound very humanized. No vibrato for long notes, each attack has a swell that's unnecessary and there's no dynamic variation. When creating a sample of something 'real', always consider whether or not that's how someone would perform it in real life - if you're not convinced, the listeners won't be, either. The primary reason I can't pass this is the arrangement, in being too harmonically static, not expanding past the repeated use of the theme and the constant start-stop method of transition you utilize. The strings should also be humanized better, and you should consider re-evaluating the sidechained leads a little - if you're going to go for them, make them sound intentional rather than simply using them everywhere for space for the drums. NO

A very sober take on a relatively bright source... I like it. Good source, too - I feel like I have to get that game sometime soon and see what it's all about. The source is very clearly in this, but you do a good job making it into something unique. It's short, but it does everything it sets out to do. I love your choice in harmonies, by the way - sensible, subtle and rich in flavor. The production on this one feels like there's a low pass on the master track. The highs and upper mids sound almost cut off completely, which makes the entire track sound rather dull. You should allow more of your upper EQ range to pass into your mix, or in the case where you haven't low passed this consider brightening up the track using some EQ. It doesn't sound right, with all of those lows and no highs to give it a clear, crisp sound. The strings feel like they needs some TLC in the humanization department. When you string phrases together (no pun intended), you allow the attack to swell for each note, which isn't how a string section would play a phrase. There are parts where the swell works fine (like the notes at 0:55 - 1:00), but other parts where it's distracting due to breaking up what should be a phrase (0:52 - 0:55). Your other instruments don't seem to have as much of a humanization issue, so fix those strings. I love what you do here, but the extremely heavy use of the low-end EQ and the strings bring this one below the bar. Balance your EQ on your lowpasses better so it incorporates more of the high end, and fix up the humanization for the strings better and I could see this one passing. NO

This certainly covers both Shield Sheldon and X-Hunter base solidly, and they sound pretty good on their own. As a cohesive track, though, it doesn't really mesh very well - it sounds like one source was strapped onto the other with little consideration for how they sound together. As far as how the two sources are arranged individually, I'd argue the Sheldon source is a little on the conservative side, as well, though you do a lot to make the X-Hunter source interesting and exciting with all of the variations and liberties that you take with it as it progresses. As far as the production goes, it works alright. The synth that segues into the X-Hunter stage source has a ridiculous amount of reverb on it, which is more distracting than anything. I felt the drums were fine, overall - they have enough variety in them to keep the interest high, though the bass drum could use a little more presence. The bass work is great, as well - you have some nice chops, there. Overall, aside from the few production critiques that I had, the primary issue with this is that the sources don't really make one coherent piece - it sounds more like two tracks put together. It would be much more preferred if you blended the sources together in such a manner where it makes one piece of music rather than having a track sound like two individual songs one after the other. If you make come connections in the arrangement that link Sheldon's theme to X-Hunter, and some references to the Sheldon theme in your x-hunter portion I think this would have a decent chance getting posted. NO

The arrangement sounds very interesting. You do things with the source that I never thought to do with something like this, and it's really neat. I think you get full marks for creatively reinterpreting the source while having it remain recognizeable. There doesn't seem to be too much focus in the track, though - it just adopts one idea, finishes the idea, then moves on to the next idea. There's really little that binds the piece together as one coherent track, outside that it references the same source. The instrument quality is a little too basic for OCR, though. As per the site standards, I'm afraid these don't qualify as reasonably sophisticated synths.While I'm personally a very large advocate for chiptune music, for me to personally consider them the music would need to be written in a style unique to chiptunes (such as music from Shnabubula, Zef, Danimal Cannon or Rushjet1), and this doesn't meet that requirement. These ideas could be better represented if you decided to utilize either more sophisticated synths, samples or real instruments. I like a lot of the ideas that you present in here, but I can't pass this due to the lack of focus and use of basic instruments when there are better instruments to represent your ideas out there are available. I do recommend taking the ideas of this track, though, and creating a coherent, polished track, though, as it does some very unique things with the source that I really enjoyed. NO

Oh, "Air Guitar", eh? Same name as one of my favorite versions of this track from Muthapluckin' B. I'm sure you didn't know that, but it's pretty interesting that the same name popped in. The more you know! While you don't HAVE to change your track name (as it doesn't conflict with anything on OCR), you might consider it, just so if people look for your track they don't come up with his instead, stealin' your track views. Anyhow, this is a fairly solid (if standard) rock mix of Air Man, and it hits all of the important points. The arrangement stems from the source, then introduces a bit of soloing and closes it off proper. It sticks close to the source, but introduces some neat changes toward the middle, as well as giving some solid soloing, so it has enough interpretation for OCR, as well. Simple and to the point, and there's nothing wrong with that. The production and mixing is a bit more sketchy, though. First and foremost, that bass is far too loud - it just dominates the soundscape, and doesn't leave you any room for anything else to come through clearly. The mix doesn't seem to allow for the synth to come through very well, when it carries the theme, nor does it give any space for the pads to come through at all (I missed them completely the first time through, in fact). The drums and rhythm guitar are mixed just about right, with the lead guitar being a bit too loud. The mix as it stands doesn't have the most important elements sticking out appropriately, and it has other elements dominating, which doesn't give you any room to correct this. The loud bass and leads also contribute to some clipping that comes up from time to time (such as at 1:33, for example). Balancing your mix better will likely reduce the clipping, but you should also master your mix with a little bit of headroom available (~0.5dB) so that you have the space to limit, compress and ultimately master your track so it sounds polished. The arrangement is alright, but the production and mixing could use some work. Once you fix those issues up I could see this working well on OCR. NO