Gario

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

Holy shit, that intro fucking nails it. One of my favorite, underrepresented sources from this game and this arrangement sweet-spots the best part of it, from the get-go. If you ever want to get on my good side, that's one way to do it. The rest of the arrangement is pretty standard fair, chunky heavy metal arrangement with some cool leads and soloing. It's pretty good overall, but those first forty seconds are divine. Just deep, heavy bass, subtle arpeggio, subtle use of the source playing above it with that clean nylon. Beautiful. Now that I absolutely gushed on it, let's get into the production, which save for the beginning is a little more questionable. The first thing one can notice right away is that it's a quiet production - compared to other metal tracks on this site, it's very quiet. For the sake of listeners on the site who listen to multiple metal tracks at a time, the overall loudness should be comparable to what others have produced, else they will get sudden jumps in volume listening to other tracks after hearing yours at an appropriate level. Listening to the track, it sounds like you're losing a lot of soundscape real estate in your lower end. You have a solid bass, a rhythm that's heavy in the bass (which sometimes acts as a lead, as well). On top of that, there is no side chaining at all on the bass drum, which completely eats what limited space you have in getting louder before clipping sets in. I'd suggest clearing all of this space up by playing with the EQ on the rhythm guitar a little bit - give it less bass, and lower the impact on the low pass that you're probably using to give it some more upper EQ to compensate a bit. For the more bass-y instruments (like the bass and rhythm), utilize a little bit of sidechaining to the bass drum. Not too much, like in a trance song or anything, but enough to give you more headroom so you can make the song louder. At 1:47, you double the lead at an octave below. Considering the bass issue that I mention earlier, I'd suggest not doubling that lead an octave below - it creates mud, and give you less space to create a louder mix. As a general rule based on the physics of sound design, bass has a larger waveform than mid-and upper EQ, so you need to handle it sparingly. Use it when necessary, as it's important for the foundation of any piece of music, but handle it carefully, as it just eats up the amount of sound that you can get in a track otherwise. As much as it pains me to do this (again, amazing intro), due to the loudness issue, as well as the underlying bass issue that takes up all your soundspace, I'm going to send this back to you this time around. PLEASE resubmit it with the fixes to the overall loudness and less crowded lower spectrum, though, as this is a really good arrangement of my favorite source, and I'd hate to see this fall by the wayside. NO/RESUB

For most people, this isn't a concern due to the nature of attempting to profit off of arrangements (very tricky to do, due to licensing fees and such), but OCR has this page this page that answers your questions in full legalese. Hopefully clears any question on ownership and distribution you may have.

Damn, this is good. The bluegrass plodding and sax soloing all come together to make this one a great arrangement. The source is slow'd and steady, but it's still there, and the embellishments on it fit very stylistically with it, essentially transforming it from a fast Appalachian banjo track to a slower, more blues oriented bluegrass song. It's great. The EQ on the lead guitar is a little on the high-frequency side, but I think that adds to the authenticity of the piece - that tinn-y sound sounds appropriately bluegrass, to me. That organ is a little too loose on the performance, though. I'm sure it's intentional, but it feels like it's just missing the beats rather than giving it the swing you were going for. That sax is awesome, even though the first note it holds on is pretty flat. Great playing all around. I think it's a great track, and I'd be happy to see this one on the front page. YES

I really like this arrangement - very soulful, and the 'hip-hop' part is tempered with a great classical guitar. It works amazingly well together... and then it's over. It's not just that the song is short, though - nothing wrong with a short song - but it doesn't sound complete. The track builds up to something great (having an introductory section that lasts ~42 or 56 seconds, pending on what you interpret as "introductory"), and it pays off great with that hip-hop + guitar portion, but that's more than a third, or even almost half of the song invested into a build-up. The structure is quite unbalanced, leaving the listener a bit confused. A good rule of thumb to apply to song structure is about 25% maximum for an introduction, or 20% maximum introduction & ending, otherwise the song will feel incomplete. The ending also doesn't do it any favors - it just sort of ends. This exacerbates the incomplete feel that this song gives off. The production is quite good. The instruments are alright, too, though the violin could use a little better humanization, considering it's used as a solo & duet instrument. The vibrato is static - either personalizing the vibrato using the volume envelope or utilizing whatever tools that particular VSTi allows for adjusting that would help a great deal. The attacks on the violin also swell for each note, which kills any sense of phrasing that a real violinist would have. Utilize that swelling attack only in the beginning of a phrase and decrease it for the rest of the notes in the phrase; this will make it sound considerably more human. The drum pattern is very fitting, but it does sound like it's on autopilot for the portion that it's in. Use some fills, and don't be afraid to change it up, even just a little bit. I actually love this arrangement, but it doesn't feel finished. With an introduction like that, you need to give it some more meat. It's tough to give any helpful advice on that front, as that's something that could be taken in many directions, pending on where you decide to take it. While you do that, though, humanize the violin as I suggested, and make the drums more interesting. I do hope you send this back to us when you're done, as this sounds great. NO

Wow, talk about some tasty texture. I agree that the mixing is a bit off (theme being mixed into the background at moments like 0:34, background elements getting lost behind the bass at 1:50, etc.), but these aren't dealbreakers for me. It would be amazing if the mixing was crisp and clear, but it's okay as it stands. The energy is pretty high on this one. The section with the vocals and pads works very well in breaking up the piece, but otherwise the second half of the piece lasts a bit too long, fatiguing the listener toward the end. The stretch from 1:50 - 3:50 begins to sound the same at the end, as the texture doesn't change that much, the beats remain static and the harmonies are recycled throughout (3:10 - 3:19 being the only break in harmonies). The bass (not the wubby bass, the rhythmic one) repeats that same pattern over and over in that time frame. I'm glad to see Larry post that time stamp, as there is quite a bit of original writing in this one. I agree that the three step bass-line and harmonies help link this to the source in the long stretch without the melody, but it's still a bit of a stretch. The arrangement is well organized and fun to listen to, and it's got just enough for me to connect it to the source. It's a tough call. The production isn't quite enough to bring this down below a YES vote, but that whole second half drones quite a lot, too. I think it's still a pass, but it's a very close call, for me. YES/BORDERLINE

I've got to agree with Deia on the two thirds being great, the first third being questionable. The intonation issues in the beginning are quite significant, while later in the piece the performances improve dramatically. The pacing in the beginning could work alright, but it sounds like you're getting comfortable playing the music together before things really snap together at past the 2 minute mark. The mistakes sound like you're getting warmed up before really getting into the meat of it. I really like the arrangement, and I like both the slower and more upbeat aspects of it. However, the intonation issues last for more than a fifth of the piece (the cello, violin solos, and their duets, in particular). Everything after that part is awesome, but I feel the intonation issues last long enough to take the performance a bit under the bar. It honestly sounds like you have the chops to blow this out of the water, based on the rest of the track, so rather than give specifics on what you should do, instead I suggest running through the arrangement a few times with the group, recording each time, and picking the best out of each recording, as far as intonation, feel, etc. I like it, but I think the intonation of some of your slower solo moments need improvement before this can pass. Great arrangement, though, filled with energy. I do hope your group resubmits it with the intonation fixed! --

Not sure if this is an eval, as the first page isn't updated. I'll give my thoughts on it anyway, 'cause I wanna. I still like SFX (rawr), but Rozo is certainly correct - there's certainly a difference between using just using SFX and using them in a way that makes musical sense. Lots of effects throughout this one, and they're at least rhythmic. Not 100% on their use (there IS an excess of them throughout), but that's mostly a subjective opinion. The ring sound is piercing, though - low pass that sucka. There's a lot of fluctuation in the volume, making the track sound a bit unbalanced. It sounds like you're taking the volume knob and trying to find the correct levels throughout the song, which is unusual. Unless you have a reason to fade out or in (like in anticipation for a drop, or as a transition), I suggest keeping the levels more steady. If you want to humanize the sound by imitating the slightly different volumes that occur when a person hits two or more notes, that's likely better done with the velocity of the instrument rather than the mixer volume. Dat dirty bass, tho. Nice dirty bass. Nice soloing on those leads. Surprisingly good use of the panning. Sometimes the harder panning on the leads when they alternate is a bit distracting, though. I like it, but don't make that pan so hard. Hopefully some of that helps.

Oh, KH Dearly Beloved. Great source! The arrangement takes some time to get into the meat of the source, but once it's there it's very prominent. It does enough for me to keep me interested, as far as the arrangement, so that's a plus. Interesting way to begin the track. Upon first listen, the bass makes it sound like it's off key, but with a few listens it becomes clear that's actually the submediant (6th scale degree). Interesting effect. That SFX at 0:02 (it's like a ringing sound) tricks the ear in a negative way, making the synth above the bass sound incorrect (even though it's not). The intro harmonies would make more sense without that sound confusing the listener, so I suggest getting rid of it, or using it later in the intro at least (when the listener is used to the harmonies that are playing). The mix sounds very crowded. Lots of high EQ noise coming from the trance synths (2:26). The background pads at 1:55 also have this high end EQ issue - it's bad enough to where at 2:21 the music cuts out when the drums do their fill. It's especially noticeable when you have a sweep or crash fighting for that same EQ space, like at 3:15 - 3:20. Don't be afraid to lowpass some of your synths, as it'll give you more sound space to work with, which translates to clean loudness without needing to over rely on your compressors and limiters. The mix may also be overcompressed, as well, though it's hard to tell if that's an artifact of crowding the upper EQ space or not. Be wary, though, and make sure you're not needlessly squishing your mix by overcompressing it. When all of your synths are playing at once, the more 'real' instruments get drown in the mix. The piano at 3:48, for example, is nearly completely lost behind all of the synths when it's carrying the theme. Mix your important instruments closer to the front of the mix while keeping things like pads and arpeggios more in the background - it'll make it easier for the listener to follow what the track is doing. I like the arrangement, and there's a lot of great energy in this. I don't think it's quite there yet - the crowded upper end of the EQ on the synths and crashes/sweeps, the unbalanced mixing and possible overcompression all bring this one below the bar. That SFX in the intro should also be changed, for the sake of clarity, though that's less of an issue than the others I mentioned. I hope you submit this one again! NO/RESUB

Hey there, welcome to OCR! Glad to see you using the WIP forums here I can see you did your homework and got the notes pretty much all spot on - I can definitely recognize the source perfectly. It sounds like you added some additional licks at moments like 1:23, which was pretty cool to hear. The instruments are pretty plain, though - the source used softer electronic sounds, which made all of the instruments blend better. Those synths are very harsh (especially that lead) - for your next arrangement, I'd suggest branching out and using a variety of instruments. Work on making your instruments blend and compliment one another rather than using the same (or very similar) instruments for all of the parts. If you like doing straight covers, you're definitely doing a great job - covers are pretty sweet. It'd be pretty cool to hear a little more personality in the arrangements too, though. Take something that others composed and add some of your own ideas to it. It'll add something that others haven't thought of before, and turn it into something new and interesting! Those are my thoughts on it - hope this helps!

Hey there! Welcome to OverClocked ReMix - it's an honor to see you around here! OCR actually has a history with composers in the industry arranging great music for other games, as well as composers arranging their own video game music, so I'm happy to say it's perfectly within the bounds of the site (and it's always a little exciting, too!). If you want to submit something either for Larry's call-out or simply getting your music posted on here for its own sake, the instructions (format, e-mail to send the submission to, general parameters, etc.) can be found here. I'm excited to see what you have in store for us!

I like this one - it really took a sparse, empty source and made it into something new and fresh. High recommendations from me.

Hmm... Tricky. This is a very conservative set of mixes, for sure. Very well done, no doubt, but conservative. Production is impeccable, so nice work on that front. I'm all for the rather empty sound design, on this one - it works well, all things considered. The little talking bass adds a really cool twist to the track, and it fits the theme perfectly. The portion at 0:58 - 1:20 are nearly copy-pasted from the earlier section (save for the SFX at 1:15) - it would've benefited from at least a little change, there. At 1:20, though, I like the different drum pattern - that gives it a very different feel than the first section, and it segues into the next section very well. The fade out ending is a little lame, though. It sounds like you could've done more with the track, there, especially considering how conservative that section is. It's close, and I can feel Larry's issue with it. I think there's just enough variety from section to section to pass, though it's really close. Take note of the areas that I pointed out, though (0:58-1:20 being copy-paste, fade out ending, conservative second part), if this doesn't pass - it's very close, and I could see it swing either way. YES (BORDERLINE)

Mmm, I love the blending of electronic and orchestra as an idea - it's something that I like to try from time to time, myself. Good idea, and pretty good implementation. The percussion in the orchestra is spot on - great use of the tympani and glockenspiel. The strings, as mentioned above, have too much swell in their attacks. To make them sound human, only use a little swell on the first note that they play a phrase on, and make the other notes have much less attack. This idea also applies to the brass and woodwinds the you have playing in the background, as well. The piano sounds dry - you got to incorporate a little sustain pedal in there, and play with the dynamics more. It's not called a Forte-piano for nothin'. When the trance section comes in at 0:48, I find the absolute sudden, no-warning approach to be surprisingly effective - it just hits you, in your face, and it gets the listener's attention very quickly. However, this only works once - the sudden cuts and transitions that happen after just sound needlessly abrupt. The drums leading in at 0:54 are helpful; if you incorporate a little more at that transition, and make the trance-to-orchestra transition moments earlier smoother it would make it less disorienting for the listener. As far as the trance portions go, I love that arpeggiation, and the drums have some nice meat to them. The vanilla sounds start to wear on you after a short time, though. When they're blending with the orchestra later, it's effective, but you have long enough stretches of time where you leave the listener wanting some variety in the synths. Consider either blending the orchestra a little more, or incorporating a little more variety in the electronic instruments. The drums, while meaty, lack variety. You do drop the hats and snare from time to time, but it's otherwise the same pattern for most of the track. Spice those drums up, possibly changing the bass beat, hat pattern, etc. The portion of the source that you focus on also seems to be repeated a bit too much. It's a great section, but don't be afraid to branch out, blend other parts of the theme, etc., as the arrangement sounds a bit too repetitive, at the moment. The ending doesn't really sound like it ends... I'd suggest ending it on the tonic, or something, as the ending doesn't quite work, as it stands. I think the idea is really great, and the production isn't bad. The humanization of the orchestra, though, as well as the variety in electronic sounds and drum patterns, do take this one down a bit. The repetitive nature of the arrangement also gets in the way, and the cutoffs past 0:49 are distracting. If you fix those up, this would be a kick ass arrangement. It's not quite there, but I'd love to hear this sent back with those improvements. NO/RESUB

That's some sweet guitar action going on, here. If this were purely a guitar track I'd give it an easy pass - the guitar is mixed well, the performance is spot on, and it just sounds... tight. The drums are mixed a little too far back, but that's not a big issue - they're otherwise on point. The arrangement is pretty conservative, but the guitar licks and soloing over the theme adds enough personal flair to it. The synth work, though, is not very solid, and the implementation consists of mostly following the guitar, where it just sounds like it's in the way. The moments where it echos what the guitar does while the guitar solos over it is alright, as well as the portions where it does its own thing, but even then it's too quiet, and the synth it too thin to be noticeable. It only takes away from your track, overall, and you'd even be better off simply removing it entirely. If you want to keep it, don't use such a thin synth, and avoid simply following the lead guitar - the guitar can handle itself better without the synth. The strings in the beginning (and throughout) are too wet, and they're very mechanical. I like the intro - it's very haunting and sets up the rocking track beautifully - but you must make the strings sound more like a string section - make the tremolo pattern sound like downstrokes followed by upstrokes (having every second stroke sound slightly quieter than the one prior) rather than just having the same volume for every single note. Give the strings some better phrasing, enveloping the volume to shape the phrase (building up a little then decreasing a little for each small section, no more than 6-8 notches, for example). Little things like that can really bring the strings to life, and make that section sound amazing. I really like the meat of this track, but the strings have too much reverb and sound too mechanical. The weak synth unfortunately drags this down, as well. Please make the changes to the synth and string sections, and be sure to bump the drums up a little in the mix, giving them a little more presence. Awesome work, and I'd love to hear this with those changes! NO/RESUB

Nice use of 7/8 and alternating 8/8-7/8, it gives this a whole lot of character. Yeah, the source is followed pretty closely, but as has been mentioned above, the style and shifting meter give it more than enough personality to pass on that front. The bass sounds a little bit too loose for me, but otherwise I think you've got a good, lo-fi classic rock feel to this that I can get behind. That drum playing is freakin' sweet as hell, too. As an artifact to sticking as close to the source as possible, structure-wise, it does sound like it's dragging on a little bit, even at only 2:45. On top of that, you rely on that phased guitar for a solid majority of the song, and it really starts to wear at you over time. You break it up at 1:25, though, which helps a great deal. It's not a minor issue, but it's not a dealbreaker for me, either. This is a pretty sweet track, regardless of my issues with it. It certainly is clever, and it represents the source very well. Sat on this for a while, but listening to it again there's so much going on behind the relatively static arrangement (drums, fading the guitar, etc.) that I couldn't possible say no. Great work! YES

Wow, now this is funkalicious. It's got a whole lot of meat on it - sexy sax, tasty guitar, great drums, backing strings are bodacious... Yes, bodacious is the right word for this arrangement overall. I can't say anything in the production, as it nails the 70's feel pretty much perfectly. I do feel the intro section (0:00 - 0:24) could've been easily half as long as it was, as it lingers far too long. Once the music really comes in, though, the arrangement is quite awesome. Gotta thank Larry for the source breakdown, it most certainly is close, as far as that goes. I felt a little more connection to the source, though, at moments like 2:10 - 2:22 as well - starting from 1:50, the arrangement plays all the source harmonies in all the right places. As it set those harmonies up from 0:28 - 1:38, it's pretty clear that they're from the prior relatively direct source reference - I almost never lost track of the either the source itself or the presence of the the source, regardless of the soloing. It's not clear cut, but it should be acceptable, regardless. It would've been a safer call had the soloing made use of some more of the source harmony, though. Loved it, and I'd love to hear more from them. YES

This is a tricky one - atypical sources (two of them), and an interesting style, to boot. The structure of the arrangement is pretty simple (AB, moving from one source to another), but it works well enough. You derive more than enough originality in the choice of style, so you're well set, in the arrangement. Personally, while I don't normally like fade out endings, I thought it worked alright in this case. I can see others arguments that this could've developed a bit more into a more substantial piece, but I don't think it's bad the way it is, either. As far as the production goes, I'm not entirely sold on it. As has been mentioned previously, it sounds a little overcompressed, and looking at the waveform it looks like you were trying to keep it running at ~-3.0dB the whole time. There are parts when everything starts playing all at once (such as at 1:39, and especially at 2:02) which sound cluttered and unclear. Decompressing the track a bit would help give the mix a little more space, possibly helping clear those parts up a bit. I think you need to do some more mixing in those parts as well, but decreasing the amount of compression that's happening in this track will make the mixing easier, as well. The drums sound amazing, but they're mixed a little too far back for most of the track. It's minor, but I would recommend giving them a little more presence in the mix, while you're rebalancing. This one is a tough call - the arrangement is pretty good, and the production isn't the worst. I do think that it could be better, though - the density of the mix and the overcompression tip me just on the other side of the vote. Get those things fixed and I think it would be great. NO/RESUB

As far as the arrangement goes, it sounds like a lot of love went into this. Guitar, synths, fast paced drums, and even some wubs - all it needs is a kitchen sink and it's good to go! It's a very tasty blend of instruments, and I got a real kick out of it. The guitar playing was pretty good and the synths were pretty clear. The wubs were not quite as powerful as I would've liked - if you're going to add wubs, go big or go home. It just didn't go big enough, so they sound out of place. as a result. There are moments in the track where the bass falls behind in the mix (such as at 0:44 - 1:10). It makes the track sound like there's no bottom, at times. It's not a severe problem, but it would've been better had the bass been balanced a little better with the rest of the track. The arrangement was pretty sweet, personal grudge against the source aside (fun fact - I didn't enjoy the source). I enjoyed your arrangement much more than where you derived it from - it was making me dance a little in my chair. Little mixing issues and weak wubs aside, you did a great job on it. YES

Goldeneye music, man that brings me back. I used to love that game, and it had a great soundtrack, to boot. It's a tough one to handle for the sake of this site, though, due to how often it references the 007 theme song. As that does not originate from the game, it can't be counted as source, and relying on it too heavily may cause the separate issue of using too much outside source in your mix. It's not necessarily your fault, as the source makes heavy use of the 007 theme, but this arrangement utilizes too much 007 for the site. Aside from that, even if the source didn't use the 007 theme as much, the arrangement does stick a little close to the source, as well. I'd argue that the guitar and piano do add some nice creativity to the arrangement, but the structure is basically 'Run through the source once', which doesn't quite cut it. I really liked the guitar that was in this track, but I feel it was nearly lowpass'd out of existence. It just sounds muffled - you really need to let more mid- and high-end frequency to pass through for it. From what I can hear, it sounds like there's a huge amount of reverb on it, as well. You don't need to make the guitar that wet, unless you're going for an early 80's sound, or something. The other instruments do not sound humanized at all. If you incorporate "real" instruments, you need to pay special attention to whether or not the instruments sound like it was really performed. There are a few ways to do that, from changing around the volumes for each note to shaping the phrasing using said volumes. Varying the different envelopes (such as the attack value and release value) can also be essential to making the instruments sound realistic. It's not easy, and it takes spending time studying what each instrument would realistically sound like in order to change these values meaningfully. The quick and dirty of it is simple - would the musician play something like that? If not, it's probably not humanized enough. The entire track does seem to have a low pass on it. A little low pass isn't bad, as it clears up some headroom from frequencies that people can't hear, but too much and it makes the mix sound muffled. Lighten up on it for your upcoming tracks. As mentioned by Liontamer, the instruments don't sound like they're mixed properly, as well - instruments that sound like they should be in the foreground (like the guitar) sound like they're in the background, and background elements (like that piano) sound mixed too much in the foreground. It's a fun track, but aside from the humanization and low pass issues, it seems that the arrangement relies a lot on the 007 theme song. While I like it, I don't think this is something the site can accept. I would recommend giving the WIP Workshop a look, as the people in there can help you get a good idea as to what this site is able to accept, as well as help a great deal on your mixing and production. Good luck! NO