Gario

This is a pretty epic sounding arrangement. I like how big it eventually gets - it really trys to sweep you off of your feet. Really great sound to this. That being said, there are a few elements that could use some improvement. The guitar tuning in the beginning, first and foremost, is sharp. It otherwise sounds pretty good, but it's sharp for the entire track, so you need to be careful with your tuning. The other parts sound pretty well in tune, so it sticks out quite a bit. That particular guitar is also very wet, with that heavy delay and reverb. You could do with a little bit less delay and reverb on it while achieving a similar effect, without sounding like a flood of sound (which muddies the track a little bit). The drums up until 0:33 sound very busy, considering how calming the guitar is at that point. It's up to you, but it feels unnecessarily dense, at that point. At 2:40, your lead guitar uses some extreme slides. Considering how slow they are, and how long they take to slide into their appropriate note, it sounds like the wrong notes are playing at those points instead, which I'm sure isn't the effect you were going for. I like the slides, but be sure to make them happen a bit faster; if you take too long on them, they don't sound right. Otherwise, it's a pretty slick arrangement of the source. It's a close call for me, as I really like what you did here. I think this is still a pass, but I could see this swinging the other way, due to the tuning and really heavy slides in the middle of the track. For me, it's not enough to take it below the bar, but if it doesn't pass consider taking a look at the parts I mentioned above. YES/BORDERLINE

Damn, this is a powerhouse of a track. You really go all out, with that jazz/funk/dubstep fusion in this, it really is pretty amazing you managed to fit what you did and yet have it come out as a coherent piece of music. The source is there, but you transform it in so many ways it never gets boring. The panning on your e-piano is a bit distracting on headphones. It's fortunately not too extreme, but it's noticeable due to how quickly it pans back and forth. The sidechaining on your theme carrying synth at 0:35 is also a bit of an odd choice, especially considering how much ground it covers with its soloing. Neither of these are dealbreakers - both of these could even be personal preferences on my end, so I can't knock you too much for it. There are a few production choices that I don't agree with on this one, but it's otherwise very solid, production-wise. I think this is a great track, overall - it's due time for another Icecap remix on this site. YES

Well, this is a very interesting sounding arrangement. In reading the prior comments, I could easily understand the NIN comparisons - it has the ecclectic combination of synths and guitars that really defines NIN. Since Nine Inch Nails is awesome, so is this arrangement. The guitar is pretty lacking in both realism and punch. Due to the synth-tastic nature of the arrangement and the guitar being more of an additional spice rather than the focus of the track I think it's not a dealbreaker, but it IS the weakest element of this track. Finding a guitarist willing to cooperate with you to play those parts out would improve the entire experience. That being said, you do a lot of pretty cool things with the interactions between the instruments - the pointalistic interaction between the synth and guitar at 1:08 is very clever, for example. The ending is weak in this track, but I could consider it an ending, nonetheless. It's not the best, but I don't think that breaks the track, either. I think this is above the bar, but only just. I'll give it my thumbs up, but depending on how others vote on it I may be willing to switch. For now, though: YES/BORDERLINE

I really like the guitar representations of those arpeggios, but the track doesn't seem to do much except repeat those arpeggios. There's more of the track that you could explore, and there's a lot of room for expansion on this track (Sing above the guitar? Use a solo instrument to play the melody, and introduce variations and solos?) What you have seems to present a very solid backing to a good arrangement, but on its own it's lacking variety, and it sticks too close to the source. As far as the production goes, I actually like the tone on the guitars. At first I thought the beginning guitar didn't have enough highs to fill the space, but with that second guitar later it makes sense why - that one has too much in the higher EQ range. The reverse reverb that you have layered on the guitar part is pretty distracting, too, and it takes up a lot of the soundspace that you have. You could certainly use something like a high-pass on it, as well as balancing the high EQ range for the guitar that has that reverb applied to it. The strings at the end are a nice touch, but with all of the effects on them they sound a bit out of place, especially since they don't occur anywhere else in the track. The beginning has a good deal of silence, too - on a final cut (like this was intended to be) you should cut out the first ~9 seconds of silence. It's a good start, but it doesn't feel like a complete piece, quite yet. Fix the reverb & high EQ balance, expand the arrangement so that it doesn't rely on the repetitive form that you gave it and cut the silence from the beginning. It's a really soothing track, and I actually could listen to it forever, so I'd like to see this resubmitted with the changes mentioned here. NO

Interesting combination - bunny and boss. They work pretty darn well together, though - the bunny theme has a certain amount of drama that you bring to the front when you incorporate it, which is pretty cool. I think the arrangement works well. As a side note: the piano in the beginning of the track seems to be a variation of the Bunny theme. It follows that same shape as the bunny source, but adds a few extra notes for the sake of interest and/or variety. I think it all checks out pretty solid. The orchestration is pretty sweet, but there are a few elements that don't ring well for me. The piano sequencing sounds a little stiff - there's little dynamic variation, and the notes all sound too quantized (save for the slowdown at the end of the intro - that was nice). I agree with Larry on the brass, as it sounds static and mechanical, as it stands. The choir sample sounds weak, especially when the vocal stabs come in. They just don't have enough power behind them to make an impact. I really like the soft mallets on the Marimba at 2:13, though - it gives a nice solid backing to the track. I forgot that you could do that with the Marimba, and you sequenced it in a pretty convincing way. I think I agree with Larry on this one - it's very close, but I think the humanization could use some more TLC. Great direction of this one, though! NO

Shnabubula! Yeah, that piano sound does not serve this track very well, especially at the beginning. When the piece gets more dense toward the middle and the end, it doesn't sound nearly as troublesome, but in the beginning it's far too dry and exposed. The performance is amazing, as expected, but it does meander a little bit, and that Fur Elise portion actually doesn't mesh at all well, for me. It could be personal preference (others here seem to enjoy it), but it's very distracting due to how famous it is, and honestly doesn't sit the right way with me as far as being so prominent in a VGM arranging site. Mmm, it's a very good arrangement, and either without the Fur Elise portion or with a better piano sample (or a real piano) I feel this would've still passed for me. With those issues in combination, though, I don't think I can pass it. NO

Well, this is a fun arrangement. You take it in quite a few directions, but I think it works well together. It sounds unexpectedly dark at 1:40, but then you tie it together using "Slide Show pt.1" at 1:57 to bring it all together, with the part 2 coming later to blend together into a nice little bit of drama in an otherwise upbeat track. I like it, nice work blending your sources into something cohesive. The sample quality and mixing, though, is really killing this one. Your strings are very much mixed into the background of this one, even when they carry a theme. The instruments themselves sound like they're from the Playstation era - they all strike their notes the exact same way, no matter what, which makes it sound very mechanical and stiff. Instruments normally articulate their strikes in a different way when they start a phrase, are in the middle of playing a phrase and when they end one. For example, strings often swell into their first note a little, have no swell for the notes in the middle of a phrase, and often end a phrase with a little fading in the volume. These tiny details make an arrangement sound more like real humans performed the music, which your arrangement is sorely lacking, right now. It's a shame it misses on the humanization, too, since the actual orchestration is spot on. It's a great arrangement with some wonderful orchestration, but the instruments don't sound real at all. The melodies often also get lost in the mix, as well. If you obtain better samples and/or humanize your instruments better, as well as mix the arrangement in such a way that the melodies come through better, I would see this as an easy pass. In it's current state, though, not so much. NO

Very tasty arrangement - chips for life, yo. I love the doubling that you incorporate throughout, such as at 1:22-1:32, it's just perfect. Source is very clearly there, and you play around with said doublings, solos and such to add your own spice to the whole thing. The production is clean, and the drums sound very healthy in this version (apparently that was an issue in the first submission). I feel that the synths sometimes get a little heavy on the right speaker - probably imperceptibly on monitors, but it's noticeable on headphones. It's not a dealbreaker, but it's something that distracted me a little. Otherwise I found everything to be easy to hear and well produced. Great arrangement, solid production, I'd say this would be a great addition to the site. YES

I remember this track - I thought this made a great anthem for the album. I never would've guessed it was supposed to be for the second album... Still works, though. "Are you badass? This album totally is!" *ahem* Anyway, interesting history aside, this was a pretty cool arrangement. I didn't have the honor of hearing the previous version of this, but the production on this one sounds fairly solid. Brandons vocals deliver, the guitar is pretty solid, the drumming works well in the style... It's a metal song, and it gives just what you need it to. I thought the lisp was oddly hilarious, for some of the vocals. It sounds intentional, and it works well enough for me. Some of the drums sometimes get lost due to what sounds like either overcompression or deliberate sidechaining. It's mostly the crashes that get lost - they sound like they fade out when there's a lot going on. It's not too big of an issue, but if you listen for them they sound a little odd. Interesting use of the source, in this. Using the source for the verses and solo, and using some more original content for the chorus (I don't recognize those chords from the source in the "Are you badass?" portions from the source). Fits really well together, though - actually makes me wish the source used that part. Nice work on the arrangement. Fading crashes aside, I think this sounds great. Great work on the resub! YES Edit: A quick source breakdown, upon popular request. Mix: 0:00 - 0:16 Source reference: 0:08 - 0:16 (Guitar part in the background is used as a looped pattern) 0:17 - 0:48 0:08 - 0:16 (Guitar part in the background is used as a looped pattern, sung over) 0:48 - 1:05 Didn't see source usage 1:05 - 1:19 Didn't see source usage 1:19 - 1:27 0:31 - 0:40 (Guitar part from source is arranged) 1:27 - 1:57 0:08 - 0:16 (Guitar part in the background is used as a looped pattern, sung over) 2:28 - 2:43 0:15 - 0:31 2:43 - 3:13 0:15 - 0:31 (Solo is based on squealing guitar in source) 3:13 - 3:29 0:08 - 0:16 (half, as the licks are used in the second half of each phrase - counting as half source used) 144sec / 240sec 60% source usage I think it checks out on that front.

You got a nice meaty drum to start with, so that's good. The side chaining on this one is pretty brutal, though - you don't want that pulsing effect to happen on all of your instruments like that. It can create a cool effect on the bass and sometimes the pads, but on everything it's just distracting. The drum beat seems to drone throughout the song, too. You use a few fills, which help, but don't be afraid to utilize different hat patterns, or add a bit of a different flair in your snare pattern from time to time, as well. Aside from the drums, most of your instruments sound too quiet. There's little bass, and the pads don't fill the sound space very well, even despite the heavy side chaining. Your melody carrying instruments seem to be mixed very far behind your drums and other instruments. The arrangement is pretty straight forward. I find it a shame personally that you really only use one part of the source - there's about a minute of really awesome stuff that's happening in it, and you stick with about ten seconds of it throughout. That's up to you whether or not you use all of the source, but man I do miss all of the tasty chords and themes that the source uses in your arrangement. I hope some of this helps!

Mmm, this is pretty smooth. Nice recording setup - it all sounds very clean and polished. The performance is pretty tight, and the solo portion works very well with the source backing it. I like it, and hope to hear you post more

MOD EVAL Wow, there's certainly a lot going on in your favor, as far as this arrangement is concerned - those drums, all of the big moments you have playing throughout the track, and especially the subtle synth work and gating/stutter effects you have sprinkled throughout, they're all great in this track. Source is very recognizable, but you really bring some big orchestra flavor to the mix. The orchestration that you add behind all of this helps make it your own, and the moments that you hold back really give this track a lot of push and pull that the original didn't have. Your instruments sound pretty good... for the most part. The strings could use some better humanization at the end, though - they seem to all individually swell. You don't have this issue throughout the track, though, so it may have been intentional (or maybe you got lazy at the end :P), but if you're going to make a phrase with the strings they really will only swell in their first note, then they'll play the rest of their phrase legato. You'll get a more real sound from the strings if you don't swell for every note. The ending sounds pretty good otherwise, but it does seem to cut off right at the end. It would sound better if you let the notes at the end ring out rather than cutting off at the end. For future posts, I'll recommend providing a link to a higher quality (192kbps+) for the sake of giving a clear review on quality - it's tough to determine if artifacts that could pop up in a track are coming from Youtube's compression algorithm or from the track itself. I couldn't download it, so I couldn't take a look at the production in as much detail as I would've liked. At 1:30-1:33, for example, the strings sound like they have a little 'pop' for each note they hit. It's possible that Youtube messed up the track a little in compression, but it's also possible that the samples you used there have an artifact in them that causes that little popping sound, such as the sampler starting too late in the sample, or the release cutting too quickly for each prior sample. On the panel it'd likely get a YES, with a conditional to fix the cut-off at the end, though you'd have absolutely no issues getting a pass if you fix the strings at the end and the little production pops, as well. Great work on it, overall.

Shovel knight, hell yeah! I freaking love this soundtrack. There are some nice sounds in this arrangement, and a meaty drum that drives the whole thing forward. You do a great job in transcribing it, too - it's all very clearly there. Perhaps it's too clearly there, though, for the sake of getting it posted on the site - it's a very conservative mix. OCR is a site about reinterpretation of a source, as opposed to sticking to the source as close as possible while improving the instruments and sounds. There's nothing wrong with staying true to the source, of course - I like a good, conservative arrangement as much as anyone - but OCR can't accept it on those grounds. As far as the production is concerned, it's pretty overcompressed. You lose a great deal of sound in those drums. You can hear the volume of the entire track pulsate whenever the drums strike, which indicates there's no room for the rest of the instruments to play in. Turn off your compressors and limiters and mix the track in such a way where there is no clipping or muddiness. You have about 2-3dBs headroom to work with, so I think it'll be manageable to clean up the mix. I actually really like this, but I think it's too conservative for the site. You'd do well in fixing the overcompression, too. Nice work, and I hope to hear more from you that's more in tune to what OCR is looking for! NO

Oh boy, I remember this track from the album review I did months ago. Seeing that you disagree'd with my evaluation the first time, I'll elaborate for you what I meant with my commentary. Since this is the same track as before, my vote will likely remain the same, but it's not fair to leave it at that without explaining why. On the first portion, I legitimately missed the source, and I apologize for it. 0:00 - 0:11 indeed does play the source at double time, but it does so without the clusters that define the chords. Sounds like you're setting up for a punk-style rendition of this source, which would've been pretty neat. You repeat the same thing from before in the guitar with the clarinet over it, but it's not the chord progression you're repeating, but rather a solo line of music - the chord progression was the clusters that you left out earlier, That's fine, but the clarinet does not line up with the guitar at all (opening with the intervals octave-tritone-m9th / M6th / octave-m3rd-tritone... etc.). There's little context that could make these series of intervals musically work due to the large amount of leaping involved, outside of a non-tonal piece, and even then the music would need to be developed specifically for these intervals to make sense. If you want to combine the source like this, you need to make them musically work, as they simply don't make musical sense, as they are. Moving forward, I recognize the guitar arps, and the clarinet is an obvious reference to the source. The bass completely messes up the whole sense of what's happening in the source, though - the solid bass was designed to act as a grounding reference that the other instruments were playing against, so it makes sense. You forego it in this arrangement, which makes the arpeggio and theme sound like a clashing mess of sound. The clarinet is also mixed way below the guitar, so it becomes difficult to hear. I'd argue that the clarinet at 0:51 - 1:03 actually has enough reference to the source to be considered source, still - oddly enough I don't agree that it's original writing. The strings at 1:10 really sound quiet, and while they carry the theme they're really lost behind the other instruments. Those strings could also use some humanization, as well, as they sound pretty mechanical. There's no vibrato, the attack swells for every attack (which they do in the SNES source, as well, but that's because of limited resources), and there's no volume variation that phrases the lines well. The strings could really use some humanization. I actually like the groove in this part, but the mix doesn't seem to be very well balanced - the arpeggios and strums dominate, and the theme carrying instruments seem mixed in the background. It gets more interesting as more instruments come in, but the mixing really isn't focused on the important elements, so it loses the listeners. The clarinet part works pretty well at 2:48 - the balance is nice, and the connection to the source is clean and easy to recognize. It's why the other judges like that part - it's clean and balanced. It gets pretty chaotic as everything else comes in, but if the rest of the track was well focused and balanced I could see that working as a sort of everything-comes-in-and-wrecks-your-face part. Slayer loved to do that. The biggest issue that this has, as I mentioned before, is the mixing and balance of the piece. The arpeggios and rhythm guitars should not be mixed to the front in lieu of the theme-carrying instruments. Most of this could still work with the proper mixing balance, but the beginning portion (0:22-1:10) loses what made it work in the source by having a moving bass. That static bass was absolutely critical in the source for making it work musically - without it, it makes no harmonic or melodic sense. The portion before that (0:11-0:22) would need to be rewritten in a way that utilized better line writing and/or follows more sensible harmonies, as that part simply doesn't work, as it's written. The playing wasn't bad, though, and there are certainly a lot of interesting things that are happening in this track (2:48 - end is pretty sweet, for example). Upon a second listen, I still say that this one doesn't pass, but in understanding it better I can tell you more specifically what might help make your vision make more sense for the audience. Hopefully some of my specifics on why many parts don't work musically helps you refine this in a way that works for everyone. NO

It's a very pretty and well done rendition of the source. Sounds like you live performed this on an old school keyboard, and it works pretty well with those timbres. You utilize some pretty sweet arpeggio sweeps - very romantic. The arrangement is most certainly conservative, though. One specification of OCR is for an arrangement to have some deal of interpretation on a track, and while this is a nice arrangement it sounds more like an upgrade from the source rather than your interpretation of the source. There are some cool elements that help make it stand out, like those mentioned arpeggios, but it's not quite enough. As far as the performance goes, there's a certain amount of hesitation that you have between chords. A little hesitation and rubato from time to time can give a certain amount of emphasis on a part of the song, but doing it between each chord makes the performance clunky, as if you don't know what notes you want to hit next. When playing a song, be sure to move from chord to chord smoothly and with confidence - it'll improve the performance dramatically. The ending cuts out, too; it would feel more natural if you let the notes ring out before cutting off the track. Nice work, I enjoyed it. I can't pass this on the site due to the rules of submissions for OCR, but it's very well done. Hope to hear more from you, with more interpretation involved. NO

It's-a Mario, gettin' judged by-a Gario! Us 'arios gotta stick together, eh? Right away I'm getting a solid Iron Maiden vibe from this. Your vocals are very 'Maiden, and the heavier sections are also reminiscent of their music. The more unplugged section in the beginning sets the mood very well, and the slow build into something more really works. The production is very clean, and the mixing is really good up to 1:29. I'd have to say the distorted guitar overpowers the voice just a little bit. Your voice is awesome - it should be up front, especially since the guitar is just playing rhythm there. I can still hear everything fairly well, though, so this is a minor point. I have to agree with Deia on the transition to Chrono Cross - it's too quick and sudden. It also seems a little slapped on there - no reference prior, and it only lasts a short time afterward. The excellent arrangement prior to that helps push this track forward, though, and the performance and production are still spot on even in this section. Not quite a dealbreaker, but it was close. Awesome work, I think this is above the bar. Next time you want to introduce a second source, though, integrate it throughout your song better, and be sure to transition in a bit more of a convincing fashion. YES

This track has some really nice energy behind it, and it never lets up. The textures and synths you use work great against the drum and bass style you've got going, and I'm loving every bit of it. The drums are nice and meaty, too, so great work on the style and presentation. The arrangement is pretty conservative. I think it has enough change in energy and style to pass regardless, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to incorporate a little bit more personal interpretation - the track cuts it a little close, on being conservative. The production is a bit questionable. The leads that carry the themes get drown by the rest of the track, and the entire thing sounds pretty overcompressed. You've got about -3dB of headroom, so fortunately there's plenty of space that you could decompress the track with. The ending also cuts off a bit. You may have been going for a clean cut off at the end, there, which would've been alright, or you might've wanted the delay to play out on that last synth, which would've also been okay. Cutting off the delay midway sounds like a mistake, so it should be corrected. Overall, I think it's a great track, but it needs to be decompressed, and your leads need to be mixed more to the front without disrupting the other instruments. Do that, and fix the ending, and I could see this being posted. NO

How have I never heard of this game or source...? I need to play it sometime - if the rest of the soundtrack is even nearly that good, I'm seriously missing out. Damn, getting a lot of KateTheGreat19 vibes from this one. The performances are spot on, and it's quite a rich arrangement overall. All of the performances nail it, and I'm glad to hear all of the people you managed to get in collaboration. The mezzo-soprano vocalist could be mixed more to the front, as she gets slightly lost behind the other instruments from time to time (in fact, arranging the instruments so they didn't occupy similar ranges would've been a good idea overall). You can still hear her, though, and honestly it's a minor point against a great arrangement. Awesome work, can't wait to hear it on the album (and on the front page). YES

Very nice use of subtractive arranging throughout - it's easy to add things to a mix in order to introduce your own personal touch, but it takes a good deal of skill and subtlety in order to hold elements back in an arrangement in order to evoke a different feel. The introduction utilizes the textures and harmonies without the lead above, which is effective, and the climax doesn't bring everything in at once until later. It gives this arrangement more time to build up to its bigger moments than the source does. Very nice - conservative, but adds a lot by holding back. The production is alright, though it's relatively heavy on the low end and lacking on the high end. It sort of makes the whole song sound like a lower quality Mp3 rendition of a track. Sometimes that heavy low end causes some mud (like at 1:59), but it's not quite enough to take this below the bar. To answer the question on the difference between 1:20 and 3:05, there are some different textures and instruments in the background, and the arpeggio isn't held back like in the first playthrough. 3:05 sounds a little more rich than 1:20 does throughout, due to those differences. Subtle, but there's enough different to make it distinct from the earlier portion. Very well done, and upon closer inspection there's quite a lot that has been done with this. YES

Well, that's certainly different. Giving it a careful listen, the source is certainly there - but only just. You hide the melody and themes of the source behind quite a bit of orchestration, and you change up the harmonies completely. The sources are recognizable, though, and just where you timestamp it, too (thanks for that, btw). A suggestion for future arrangements, though, if you go a similar route: don't mix the theme carrying portions into the background too much. It's not only the judges that have to recognize the source, but also whomever is listening to it if/when it gets posted on the site. The production is acceptable, and most of your instruments are humanized well enough. Not too much that I can add to what Deia said on that front. Clever use of the source overall. Nice work on transforming the sources in this manner, it keeps us on our toes, over here. YES

Very nice bass work, and a great arrangement - the source is pretty clear, and it fits very well in this style. Lyrics are very cool - reminds me a lot of Offspring in both content and vocal style. The performance leave me wanting, though - you tend to land on notes flat. Most of it is alright, but you need to fix your missed notes (like at 0:26 "Lost" and 0:54 "romances"). The balance of your vocals with the rest of the track are also skewed - they should be mixed more in the foreground than they are. I'm pretty much parroting what the others have said, but there isn't much more to say on it, since the rest is great. Personally I feel the drums are appropriate for the style, so they don't bother me at all, but making them a little more defined wouldn't hurt the piece, either. Yeah, fix the vocal performance and mix them in the foreground more and it'll be an easy pass for me. NO

Damn, that's an awesome track, and I want to see this on OCR badly - the staple pure percussion piece, while phenomenal, is the only one of its kind on the site, so far. I think we need a track like yours to help fill that gap. The production is precisely what it needs to be - clear and strong. There's a lot of power behind this that I absolutely love, too, as well as moments of tension that you just can't get with a more traditional song. That being said, it's true that we can't accept a track that has about 70% original writing in it - hard to call that an arrangement, at that point. I do have some suggestions, though, that may help. In a percussive piece like this one, there are a few elements that you can pull out of the source without taking away the subtlety of the sections you provided. Timbre and instrumentation is one thing that you can pull (the taiko drums and washboard are significant int he source, for example), and that pulsing 3+3+2 rhythm is something that you can utilize in more subtle ways in order to link back to the source, or you can even reference the two measure 3+2+2+2+2+5 pattern that happens at 0:10, for the sake of variety. You can do a lot of things with recognizable patterns of rhythms in order to evoke the source appropriately enough. If you want some other really good ideas for what you can do with pure percussion, study some African drum circles, or listen to some of the more percussive music from Steve Reich - clapping music is a great study on what you can do with something as little as a rhythm, for example. I love it, and I hope you take some of this advice to heart and kick some ass with a resubmit. We need more music like this. NO

This is a solid arrangement of the source, and I really like the overall combination of voice clips, the drums and the synths utilized. It's just a really tasty combination, and it plays around the harmonies of the source to make something pretty unique. I like what you did in the 2:30 - 4:26 section, too... but it gets more difficult to connect it to the source the longer you linger on it. You took the chord progression prior and varied it, which was a great idea, but you'll need to make at least a passing reference to the portion that you're varying periodically in that section for the listener to connect it to the source properly. If you make it a little more clear what portion of the source you're arranging in that part you'll have more than enough source to consider the arrangement a pass, I think. Wow, that's a hot instrument, right in the beginning. Alone, that SFX that you use (first heard at 0:01) just takes up the entire mid-upper range of your spectrum. It's also extremely wet, too (heavy on the reverb!), so it lingers and overlaps itself, as well. That definitely needs to be toned down, along with making the reverb less wet on it, as it's intruding on your production significantly. Overall, there's a considerable amount of overcompression, due to a large bass presence and a hot upper-EQ portion throughout. Side chaining the bass and the bass drum will help the lower end, and a low pass on some of the hats and cymbals will help clean up the upper end, as well - I'd suggest giving that a shot. Otherwise, the crowded highs and lows make it hard to hear everything that's going on clearly. I like a lot of what's going on in this, but I don't think it's quite there yet. The middle section can't reasonably be considered a reference to the source without some tweeking, so the arrangement is a little too liberal, and the overcompression overall really drag the piece down. Toning down the particular synth I mentioned will help a good deal, though, so it's a good place to start. Be sure to balance your lowest and highest EQ better before you compress it, and give that middle section some more apparent links to the source and I think this'll be in much better shape. I hope to hear it again on here. NO

Interesting arrangement, if a bit random. I'm not sure if I'm following the logic behind the form of this one - it doesn't seem to have much direction or flow to it. There are certainly great ideas in it, but they don't quite make a cohesive song. Those samples, though, sound almost general MIDI, in many cases. The bass synth has some nice meat to it, but the slap bass sample, strings, along with many of the samples just don't sound up to par. There are free samples on the internet that sound far superior to what you've used, so take the time to hunt them down and upgrade your sound. The piano sounds great, though, so kudos. The bass seems to be in the foreground of the mix, while leaving things like the theme a bit behind it. Generally the production is pretty clean, but I'd suggest mixing it in such a manner where the melody and important themes are in the front of the mix. While it might be an artifact that comes with using inferior samples, you don't seem to fill the space very well throughout the song. Your bass instruments don't have enough bass, and your leads don't fill the mid or upper range up. Deia's suggestion of using pads would help dramatically in filling the gaps in the song, and I'd suggest looking into giving your bass a little more bass EQ, as well. While I like that specific instrument, I do feel it's lacking a little in the lowest range where it should matter most. Yeah, I don't think I can pass this one, as of yet. It's nice to hear you incorporating both themes like this, and in many spots you blend and transition them very well. Overall, though, it doesn't feel like a coherent piece - it's more like a bunch of cool little ideas taped together to varying degrees of success. The samples also drag this down quite a bit, and the empty soundscape contributes to my vote, as well. Deia has a great suggestion in checking out the WIP forums here - I always encourage people to check them out, as there's always room to improve your craft. Good luck! NO

Interesting take on a very familiar source. I can hear what you're going for on this, and it's an impressive attempt at it, to boot - you're referencing the textural elements of the source, like the piano octave you sprinkler throughout like at 0:29, or the pulsing texture throughout that sounds like the instrument that comes in at 0:46 in the source link. Throughout the track you also reference your rendition of the source throughout (same instrument arpeggiating in a similar manner as it does when it's referencing the source), which is excellent in making a track cohesive, but it's not quite as effective in using it as reference to the source. Emunator lists correctly the sections that make a clear reference to the source, and I'd say there's an argument for at least a little bit more source that's used in it (the aforementioned piano texture, for example), but it's still a pretty liberal arrangement that doesn't utilize very much of the source. Overall, while the production is excellent, the arrangement itself seems to be repetitive. It sounds like it repeats itself with little variation three times, then has a fade-out ending attached. Honestly, due to this it sounds like an incomplete arrangement, like there's supposed to be a lead instrument or singer playing above this backing. It would be perfect used as the backing for something, but as a stand alone track it feels like there's something missing. As it stands, I don't see this one passing. However, if you were to either make the track less repetitive, or get a lead over the top of the track that takes the focus away from the repetitive nature of the track, that would help considerably. Also, while the textural references are recognized, the track would need to make some more obvious references to the source - 50% of the arrangement making clear reference to the source is a solid heuristic to follow in this case. NO