Gario

FF8 was a system that forced you to learn it's mechanics well, and punished you for trying to do things the old fashion way (that is, grind, baby, grind!). I actually kind of like the anti-intuitive method behind that madness. Also, jeez guys, Curagas and Demis? You're thinking too low, there - Flares, Tornados, Pain, Full-Life - get all those to 100 by playing the shit out of the card games. REACH FOR THE GODDAMN STARS! Didn't think to do the no-encounter thing, though - a good idea, indeed.

Very nice arrangement. The opening was the strongest, with the blend of themes all weaving in and out - makes me wish there was more of that throughout, but as it stands it makes for a nice introduction. While the rest of the arrangement is conservative, it adds all sorts of variation with the orchestration to keep it interesting and fresh, so it's still passable. The production quality is pretty good - I'm not noticing anything particularly glaring, on that front. The instrumentation was very well diversified, and the orchestration itself was great - all this makes for a rich arrangement. I will also note that the phrasing and accents are absolutely spot on (not an easy thing to do), with a few exceptions. The horns at 2:11 have the same attack swell throughout it's run, which doesn't sound deliberate, and the vibrato used on the higher strings at 0:16 - 0:28 sounds copy/pasted, which is fairly noticeable. The trumpets at 3:06 - 3:14 have a little too much swell in the attack to sound like a convincing legato, so it's something you should take note of. This is very nit-picky, but you should be aware of it. As for the low end, that sounds like a release issue you're having. I hear the attacks fairly distinctly, and they're as sharp as you can expect low end to be (that is, not too much), but on some of the faster runs the release overlaps the attacks. This makes it much harder to distinguish when you strike the same note multiple times. I'm going to have to be fair on this one, though, that's also an issue things like double bass and bassoon/contrabassoon have in real life, so I can't in good faith consider this a humanization issue, but rather an orchestration one. A good fix to something like that is to make the accents more staccato for the faster runs and repeated notes in the low end instruments, even in something you may intend to be more legato, just so people can hear the individual notes better. People don't write fast or repeating legato often for bass/sub-bass precisely because it too often just sounds like a muddy mess (as it does here). It has a few issues (arrangement is a little straightforward after the beginning, the specifically mentioned humanization issues, bass orchestration), but I don't think it's nearly enough to take it below the bar. The sample quality could arguably be better, but it's certainly not general MIDI, and the effort that went into making them sound believable really shows. YES

Fuck, this is awesome. Not much else to say, here. Keep it up

I've already given this a full listen for source and quality when I reviewed it for the album, so this'll be pretty quick. Arrangement does wonders with the long source, and the production quality & orchestration is spot on, as expected from Archangel. It's an excellent arrangement that would be well placed on the front page. YES

Great mix, solid arrangement. I enjoyed the Sonic SFX sprinkled throughout, even if I don't quite know why they're there. Source is there, and it has more than enough variation to make it one's own. A pretty easy pass, for me. YES

I like it - got some soul to it, and it's fitting. As far as the repetitive nature of the track is concerned, it doesn't seem so extreme, considering the genre that this is based on. I don't agree that it's fair to knock it down due to repetitiveness, as that feels like punishing a track for the genre used rather than for it's artistic merit. Old school rap is very repetitive, as a genre, and frankly has a tendency to spend even less time on the quality of the accompaniment than was spent here. It forces the listener to bring attention to the lyrics, which in this case are pretty sweet. The production is pretty clean, and the guitar is pretty solid. The lyrics are great, and it works well against the music in the background. I don't feel the mix is a problem, either - instruments are all easy to hear, and the focus (vocals) are in the front, as they need to be. DaMonz brings up an important point on the encoding, though - bring this up to 192kbps and I think this would work well for the site. YES (CONDITIONAL ON ENCODING)

Mmm, this is such a rich orchestration of some great Final Fantasy IX music. Sounds like you really nail's the Celtic vibe of the sources with the arrangement here - lots of wood flute, and some real nice 'big' moments to follow, giving this one some depth. The sources are well incorporated throughout the track, so it checks out on that front, as well. Using "Place I'll return to" to break up the Endless Sorrow source really brings some depth to the arrangement, and how the sources blend from one to another is brilliant. Not 100% on how the last two sources tack on, at the end (it sounds like two different songs, almost), but since they're wonderfully done, as well, I don't feel it takes it down much, at all. The instruments are well orchestrated, humanized properly, and fill the space beautifully. Seems like an easy pass, for me. Great work. YES

Fun source, and the arrangement does some really fun stuff with it toward the middle. The instrument choice is pretty interesting, but it's hard to hear how well they mesh overall when the production is as it is, at the moment. Not sure I'm following the random sound effects in the middle of the track (2:37 - 3:28), though - doing that for a short time can give a cool, almost Hendrix sound to it, but that part goes on for quite some time - I'm not so sure that works for that long of a time. While the electric violin part is a neat addition, most of the instruments in the background are extremely close to what the source is. Drums nearly mirror the source, and the bass mirrors both the instrument and notes in the source. There's not enough change from the source to make this pass on OCR, as it stands. The entire mix sounds like a muffled mess. It's like there's a heavy low pass on nearly all of the instruments. The eletric violinand the lead suffer the most with this, and it just makes the whole track sound... wrong. I couldn't even tell there was a guitar in there the first time around, due to this issue. You're going to need to redo your EQ, low pass and mixing for the whole track, here, so all of the instruments are more clear and balanced. The entire production (mixing, EQ and low passing) needs to be completely redone before this can be considered for the front page, and you need to work out the arrangement so significant swaths don't sound just like the source. OCR has a music workshop forum that would be able to help considerably on the production front, if you'd like some further advice on these things - people on here are more than happy to help, on that front, and I believe you'll find their collective experience useful. NO

The arrangement is top notch - nails the source, and does a lot of cool things with it, with all of those metal solos, leads and fills. Virtually nothing I can add to it, this is awesome. The production seems fairly tight on this one, other than being a little overcompressed. Considering the genre it's okay, but you should consider not relying on the compression quite as much, if you want the ideal balance of "Loud" and "Clean". There are a few moments where the synths seems mixed a little too loud compared to the rest of the track, which give it some balance issues (such as at 1:51 and 2:49), and the synth is frankly too thin to be brought to the front and not sound strange, but that doesn't take much from the track overall. The production could be a little better, but it's certainly passable. YES

Hmm, this sounds pretty darn close to the source. The piano (and even it's effects) sound ripped from the source, with nothing but added drums for the first half of the track. The middle sounds like the melody of the other source was just put there - if another source is to be added, some integration between sources is ideal. Right now it just sounds slapped in the middle, which doesn't cut it. There are some added harmonies later toward the end, but it sounds more like you're trying to improve the source rather than make it your own. While on their own covers are fine, it's not what OCR is looking for in submissions. The entire track sounds both too loud and too empty all at once. There's not enough actually filling the soundscape, and yet the instruments that are there are all overcompressed, causing significant distortion throughout. The piano's high delay causes a good deal of muddiness on it's own - the delay is clashing with itself. Turning the delay volume down would help a lot. At 3:15 the extra high bass EQ just takes away any sort of headroom you could have otherwise - you could instead have a wind SFX or something to achieve a similar result without creating a messy EQ that the other instruments need to fight with. I'm afraid this track doesn't pass due to considerable production issues. The arrangement, while not inherently bad in and of itself, isn't something that OCR can consider due to the standards of the site. I highly recommend giving the tracks that are posted a listen, to have a clear idea what levels of quality and originality are acceptable to the site. There is a workshop with plenty of musicians who would be more than happy to help you with any track you are working on, giving you feedback and advice. NO

This is quite an interesting track. Considering how bare the source is, this is a pretty impressive arrangement. It manages to keep it just interesting enough to hold people's interest. While it is a bit repetitive from time to time (having entire sections copy/pasted, even), I think it works to the track's favor, as your builds that create anticipation all resolve in different, interesting ways (like at 1:29 compared to 2:15, for example). The drums get a little repetitive throughout, so a little more variety in there would help alleviate the repetitiveness of the track a bit. The straight cut-off ending really hurt this track, though - even letting the instruments drop out over a few seconds or just letting the reverb fade would be better than straight cutting the track short. It just sounds like a mistake, as it is. Production: The mix sounds a little bit hot throughout. A little bit of low passing on some of those particularly bright instruments (especally that arpeggio) would help a great deal in making it more palatable. A few section have a noticeable "pop", when you go from loud to quiet, as well (like at 1:42 and 3:20). It could be an artifact that comes from gating a millisecond too late. Whatever it is, Other than that it was alright. That ending really kills an otherwise neat arrangement - it just can't be ignored. The slightly hot levels, popping and particularly bright arpeggio bring this down just below the bar, as well. It's otherwise great, though, and I would love to see a resub with those issue fixed. ---

Arrangement: The arrangement is very conservative. It's not a cover, though, and the break at 1:46 helps a great deal. The ending was quite clever, too. It's close, but it still works alright. The orchestration itself is pretty great, but the instruments are a bit too mechanical, especially before the 1:00 mark. There are volume variations, but those variations tend to be sequential (like the notes were copy/pasted, and just shifted to different notes), which creates noticeable patterns in the sequencing. The horns and woodwinds all have an attack that swells - when wind instruments play lines of music they tend to play legato (that is, there's no noticeable space between notes). You need to adjust the attack envelops of the brass and woodwinds so they don't swell from note to note; this swell only works for the first note of every phrase. From an otherwise good production, that mechanical feel does take this track down. I actually really love it, but I don't think it can be posted, quite yet. While the slightly conservative arrangement can be overlooked considering the overall quality otherwise, the instruments are a bit too mechanical for Overclocked ReMix. I could see this coming back with some fixes to the sequencing, though, and having this being postable upon resub. NO / RESUB

Well, this is a straight up interesting take, from the get-go. It's haunting, yet it drives the source forward relentlessly. It's obvious that the dissonance is intentional for the sake of atmosphere, and I love it; not all music has to be 'pretty'. The voice leading, though - how you move from chord to chord - throws me off a bit. While the dissonant sound isn't so much an issue, how you get from one chord to the next doesn't quite click 100% throughout, making the chord changes sound a bit janky. I like the dark direction that it was taken, though, and the harmonies used do enhance that atmosphere created in the track, so in this case I feel it's not a deal breaker. The overall production quality is pretty good. A few of the instruments are a bit low quality (like the choral strikes placed throughout), and the string arppegio in the background don't sound very humanized, which can occur when there's a lot of copy/paste without adjusting the velocities and attack envelopes individually. These issues are not breaking the track completely, though. The mix sometimes drowns the melody, as well. Overall, though, this doesn't do enough to take this below the bar. This one's a close borderline "YES" vote; while the voice leading could be a lot better, the less traditional harmonies help mask that. The track produces a solid, creepy vibe, even with it's flaws, which is what I think the track was going for, and I thought that was neat. YES / BORDERLINE

The arrangement is spot on - a very creative, eclectic take on a great source. The guitar work is actually pretty good; stylistically I think the looser performance is justified, though there's one funny note at 0:36 in the background which caught me a little off guard. It's barely noticeable, thankfully, and doesn't bring this track down much, but be sure to correct mistakes like this next time you submit a track. As far as source goes, this easily checks out, and there's more than enough creativity in the arrangement for a spot on OCR. The production is pretty good - it's well mixed and clean. It only complements the fine arrangement. The lead guitar could be mixed a bit more in the front, and a few moments where all the guitars play together gets a little muddy, but these are rather minor, overall. Great work. YES

Believe me, I was too. I may still do something, but it won't be a part of this competition.

Nope, literally didn't even get home last night, let alone be able to work on a mix on my computer. Sorry, but I'm out this round.

Neat. Well, extra time may or may not help - I'll certainly not be able to achieve my original vision with this one, but MAYBE I can give you guys something, with an extra 24 hours. I can't make any solid promises on this one, though, I've not been able to do very much this round (even though all of the sources are actually amazing, this round).

EVAL Alrighty, some eval time! You have some really solid instruments in this one, and they mesh quite well together. The source feels like it's there pretty solid, as well, so it would pass on that front. I feel it gets a bit repetitive, though - moments like 1:30 - 2:00 are a bit hard to justify. If you need a repeating line like that to build into something else, cut the repetitions in half, as they go from interesting to sounding lazy in a hurry, if you're not careful. That fade-out ending also isn't going to cut it. It sounds like you really want to continue, but instead just cut the listener short. Get a real ending on it. As far as production goes, the track sounds thin. Not really enough bass in general (moments like 1:07 are alright, though), and the center range of the track tends to sound lacking. The instruments that you have don't fill up the space enough - some reverb, delay or the inclusion of just more would help quite a bit. The drums are really a centerpiece of this track, though. So much variety, and a whole lot of interesting combinations, to boot - I like them a lot. This probably would get to the panel, then would be nailed on these points. Hopefully this helps you out!

Damn, a nice Bravely Default mix, blending it with some Dancing Mad. You can't go wrong with such a combination, and you got tones of spirit and energy through and through. It's a great arrangement, blending the themes nearly flawlessly. I'm agreeing with Sir Nuts on the guitar tone - the type of distortion just doesn't mesh well with the rest of the track, in general. I've got to give exception to the solo, though, the tone was much more acceptable in there, but not really anywhere else. The mix is a bit tricky in some spots, as mentioned above, but I don't think these things take nearly enough away to take this below the bar. I'm giving this one a pass - great work on it. YES

Nice theme to the source - I agree that the arrangement is incredibly fun. It evokes just the image intended, and since it really incorporates the source through and through, I'd say it's an easy pass on arrangement. As Chimp and Emu both mentioned, though, the samples are mechanical throughout. The wind samples are especially noticeable, though, as virtually no one would play a wind instrument like that. For longer notes, performers include subtle amounts of vibrato. Many samples incorporate this on their own, but for samples that don't you need to add a very slight, subtle wave of pitch bending to emulate this. Both the trumpet and the pan flute would improve immensely from this. Most of the other instruments are not quite as noticeable - you do pay attention to dynamics for the most part, which helps make them sound a bit more lively. However, if you copy/paste textures, those same dynamic changes can get repetitive, as well - changing the dynamics from one run to another even just a little would improve the humanization quite a bit. The organ causes a few problems against your other lower instruments, as I hear a few pops signalling either clipping or limiting issues (like at 3:14, for example). Mixing it down a bit against the other instruments would probably help. The reverb also sounds a little much in the context of the other somewhat more dry instruments, and lessening the reverb a little would also help clear up any clashing it currently has with the other instruments. The piano has just a little too much reverb, as well - it compounds with the delay and clashes with itself a bit too much. It also seems to lack in dynamics even more than your other instruments. Give each little run on the piano some real dynamics change from note to note, as it sounds very mechanical otherwise. I feel the mix is a little unfocused overall. The bass and harmonies tend to overpower the melody, which makes it sound a little cluttered, especially after 3:09. Mix your textures more into the background, bring your melody lines out more, and make the bass a little less dominant. I agree that this one doesn't quite come over the bar, due to these issues. The track is still great, though, so I look forward to a resubmission. Give the woodwinds some vibrato to give them life, vary the dynamics of your textures a little to improve the humanization, mix the textures and bass more into the background and let the melody stand out, and make sure that organ doesn't cause any sort of clipping or limiting issues. NO/RESUB

I have to say that this is some truly gorgeous playing on that piano - it's very late-romantic in style, which is perfect for this source. Rich texture, great harmonies and just the right amount of dissonance to give this a ton of flavor. Source is most certainly there, too. I absolutely love it. Now, a few things do stand out on this one. First, the piano itself is considerably out of tune. If you're going to make a recording, a well tuned piano can make all the difference - some of the notes are sounding borderline wrong, strictly because of the tuning. Chimp has also mentioned this, and I'll mention it again, the production value on this is fairly low. There are a lot of artifacts in it that sound like little pops (1:14 is a good example, but they're there throughout), which is likely due to clipping. It could be a mastering issue (a master volume could be set too high, for example), but I suspect it might be artifacts in the recording itself. If your engineer could fix it by adjusting the master levels and/or limiting it properly, great, but if it's the recording no amount of sound engineering will get rid of those pops. Proper microphone placement and adjusting the input levels until you do not red line on your loudest moments in a performance is absolutely key, as a recording with pops and clipping itself has few fixes that would get rid of pops completely. In post production, once you get rid of the clipping and popping noises, giving the track a little bit of a boost in the highs would help make the sound a bit more crisp. To be honest, for a piano track the lows sound acceptable, but it does sound a little squished in the soundscape in the higher end. I really love this track, but in this condition this has to have a NO, for now. The performance was spectacular, though, and the arrangement was great, but the production in this one was poor. If you can't fix it in the mixing, you may need to re-record the track (with mics and input volumes adjusted properly, and a tuned piano). once you brighten up the sound a little with post production EQ work, and this one would probably be in great shape for a resubmission. I do hope you resubmit, because this was a great arrangement. NO/RESUB

Hey there! Welcome to OCR! Nice track you have going on, here. I'm not all familiar with the source - you take it and resample it with a beat under it? It sounds pretty good, in general - for what you did, it's a pretty cool mix. Production is decent, and all the sampling is spot on. As its your first post, I'll very quickly clear a few things up, as far as WIP boards usage. If you'd like attention drawn to your track, a title for the post that refers to what source your using is very helpful. A generic "Got a kickass remix ;)" leaves a lot of people hanging, which tends more toward them ignoring it than giving it a shot. Another thing about the WIP forums is that it's often (but not always!) used in order for people to get a good idea for what's submittable to the site per the site standards, if you ever so choose to submit something - you get much quicker feedback than waiting the time it takes to get on the judges panel. I only mention this because if this is highly sample'd you'd be hard pressed to submit it on the site, as it would go against the standards of a submission. That being said, the WIP boards are also a great place just to share your work (which is what you're doing here), so don't worry about site standards, if that's the case! It's still a great use of sampling, and a nice beat under it to boot. I like it.

Ah, great source to use - always been one of my favorites. You clearly use it throughout, and the arrangement is actually pretty interesting. The sounds that you utilize are quite interesting, and actually make for a pretty cool arrangement. The production, though, could use a lot of work. There's a good deal of clipping that occurs throughout the track - most of the instruments that you utilize sound like they're playing far too loud. While this applies across the board, a few instruments are particularly offensive, in this sense - the hi hats and snare, various SFX you sprinkle throughout (like at 1:42), and the synth used at 1:33 are all especially loud. Also, be careful with the bass drum; I understand that this is trap, and the bass drum needs to be powerful, but you can't make it so loud that it nearly causes clipping on its own. Mix it loud and build around it, as that's what you do in trap music, but don't overdo it and cause clipping. The bass tone of the drum is problematic, as well. All of your instruments are loud to a fault, but your bass drum's tone doesn't seem to go deep enough to carry the track, nor does it necessarily match the key of the instruments playing the source - from what I hear, it's a whole step lower than the melody above. It's incredibly important for the bass pitch to be correct, otherwise the music played over the bass makes no sense. From what I hear, I think you could get away with playing the primary tone in the bass drum an octave lower, as well, to give it more presence. The instrument that comes in at 1:03 isn't playing pitches that make tonal sense, in the context of the track. Most the rest of the track makes sense where the pitches are laid out, but that instrument is consistently off. Be sure to fix that so they sound more in line with the rest of the instruments (maybe make them play a whole step lower, as well - that would make them sound alright). Moments like at 0:44 also sound oddly hollow - it's like the accompaniment that you built up prior just didn't continue like it was planned to. This leads to quite a few moments where that flute alone doesn't quite work well (1:19 is another example of this happening). I actually really like the sound design, and when the instruments are working well together I feel this hits the source nice and hard. However, due to the production issues, as well as the pitch issues for the bass drum and the synth that comes in at 1:03, I'm going to have to say NO on this one. Fix the clipping that occurs throughout the track, fix the pitch for the bass drum and synth, and be sure to fill in the more "hollow" moments that I mention earlier, like 0:44. You have some really cool, rich moments throughout (like at 2:24, that was a pretty well filled moment), so I know you can make the track interesting and full when you need to. If you'd like more focused feedback, we have a WIP forum that can give you some excellent feedback, as well - I highly recommend presenting this track there, as well. It's a great source, and you take it somewhere unique, but it isn't quite there as it is. Good luck! NO

This sounds very well arranged - the source is clear, and the direction is well defined. Really, I love this arrangement. The production is not too bad, but I understand where you're coming from on the instruments being too "dense" in the non-panned version. The panning that you have on the initial version does technically solve that, but it brings the issue of extreme and intolerable panning, which I agree is a dealbreaker. The non-panned version is very close to passing, if it isn't just over the bar already (I don't think the lower end crowding is a dealbreaker in and of itself, due to the excellence of the arrangement and performance), but seeing that you prefer the freedom of space that the panned version provides, I would love to hear a revision that incorporated the panning more. However, the issue with your pan'd version isn't necessarily the panning itself, but both the degree of panning and the choice of instruments that you decide to pan - panning the leads is almost universally a bad idea, as it will create an imbalance overall. Lead instruments ideally use a different range than the accompaniment in order to stand out, so when they're hard panned they become distracting. If you center the lead instruments and pan your accompaniment in a way that balances both sides instead that should give you the best of both worlds - a greater deal of control of your soundscape, and a more balanced feel with the panning. Also, panning less hard on the instruments will give you some room for error, if you need it (at the cost of cluttering the sound a little bit), so it's also possible that the best mix is somewhere in between the two versions you presented here, as far as panning goes. I'm going to give this a NO/RESUB - utilize some panning to give you the space you need to clean up the mixing, but don't pan the leads. Moderate panning using instruments that roughly share the same range (like the accompaniment) should give the space you need without throwing the balance out of wack. When this track is balanced properly it'll be amazing - I look forward to it. EDIT: Upon re-listening to it, I don't think the issues I presented for the non-panned version are enough to give this a NO, so I'm going to pass that version. It doesn't change my opinion that a combination of the two versions would be the ideal, but I believe version 1 is good enough for a front page post. YES (version 1)

Three steps, woo. Anyone who's posted a Final Fantasy remix will get a minimum of three steps, as Nobuo Uematsu is two steps away