Gario

EVAL
...
... holy shit, this is a 54 minute epic symphonic poem, isn't it? The largest track I've had to judge was a 20 minute Tomb Raider track (though that had more sources - something like 30 to sift through), so this is off the charts. Before I even begin, would there be any way to break this up into significant movements (much like most traditionally long music, from Requiems to Oratorios to Symphonies), then request they get released together as something like a single song album similar to other traditional music releases (like Haydn's "The Creation", Briton's "War Requiem" or any of Strauss' tone poems)? That would scare the judges FAR less than seeing a 54 minute single track pop up on their radar! It's not impossible to post in at least some form or another, but you'd likely be stuck in panel limbo for years with something like this as a single track rather than an album.
Furthermore, you must post timestamps of where the source was used, as well. Fortunately, this is a widely known soundtrack so I can personally verify that the sources are well represented for much of this, but that's not a given among the rest of the staff. From a basic listen I can at least tell this is within our source usage bar, but we still need to know exactly what sources you used in this, what games they're from, where they were used in the arrangement, etc.
*Ahem* On to the (actual) eval!
First thing to note, this is a really, really good arrangement, with some solid orchestration, to boot. When I'm really familiar with the material it stands out just how the motifs are interweaved throughout, as well as how you transformed them to keep them fresh. Being that I've not played all the Zelda games I do feel like I'm missing out, though, and a lack of a detailed source reference in the post (what games, what sources, preferably where each is used in the arrangement) makes it impossible for me to double-check to see if it complies with OCR's requirements. It sounds great regardless, but you ARE responsible for posting what sources you're using specifically. Upon a rough, uneducated listen I think I can hear the source clearly in more than 50% of the track, but without those sources or timestamps it's nearly impossible to tell for certain.
Is that some Holst "The Planets: War" inspiration at 43:46? I think it is, don't think I didn't catch that - that chord at 44:39 in particular is iconic.
From what I can ascertain, the strings do sound a bit artificial, which keeping it real does impact the track. They're not the worst (they might even still be passable for most of the arrangement), but when they're the only thing playing (like at the beginning, for example) it's pretty noticeable. Obviously a live performance is pretty tough to get a hold of for something of this scope (it would be incredible if you could, obviously!), but overall if you ever plan on getting a hold of a better sample library that would do this arrangement wonders. I normally don't suggest purchasing better sample libraries as a fixall solution (not everyone has the dough to spend), but the amount of work it would take to hand-craft the human touches to something of this magnitude would be completely impractical, likely spanning years in personalized edits. Beside that, with your overall talent otherwise that would just be a wise investment; companies in need of composers would definitely take your music even more seriously with solid instrument packs behind it. I hear the articulations, and I hear the dynamics, so a more advanced sample library would likely give it that much more life and push this far over our bar for realism.
On to the other instruments, the woodwinds sound alright, though the brass all sounds extra bright and tin-ny. A small amount of low-pass would help keep them in check. Not too much lowpass, but just enough to make them tolerable to sensitive listeners. Overall the instruments used in this sound pretty good otherwise.
Aside from that, though, it's still quite good - even as is, it would have a good shot on the panel. The thing is, though, simply due to the breadth of the arrangement we'd likely need to release this as an album rather than an individual track. That's not at all a bad thing for you, per se - there's more advertisement space provided for something like that no OCR - but it WOULD mean breaking up the tracks into smaller parts (which affects the tone-poem element of the track). Upon a single listen of this I could parse a few places where segmentation would make sense (31:04 and 48:20, for example, have nice clean breaks one could take advantage of for this purpose - hell, 48:20 - 54:57 makes a great standalone arrangement, in itself!), so this isn't unthinkable, even if it cuts off some of the motivic callbacks sprinkled throughout the entire track. Rather than using the front page as a place to post the entire thing, using it to put up a few of the more enticing stand alone moments (like that ending) and telling the listeners in the commentary to listen to the whole unbroken album for the full experience could be a reasonable way to get something like this posted.
This "album" method also will allow the less realistic moments that cause some issue in other sections of the piece to be covered as "album only" moments, with the juicier, fuller parts being posted onto the front page with virtually no hassle. There are a LOT of advantages to posting this as an album. If you want to go this route, get in touch with me; I'll see what I can do to help make it a reality. You're right, there's not enough music like this on OCR, so perhaps you can help fix this.

EVAL
...
... holy shit, this is a 54 minute epic symphonic poem, isn't it? The largest track I've had to judge was a 20 minute Tomb Raider track (though that had more sources - something like 30 to sift through), so this is off the charts. Before I even begin, would there be any way to break this up into significant movements (much like most traditionally long music, from Requiems to Oratorios to Symphonies), then request they get released together as something like a single song album similar to other traditional music releases (like Haydn's "The Creation", Briton's "War Requiem" or any of Strauss' tone poems)? That would scare the judges FAR less than seeing a 54 minute single track pop up on their radar! It's not impossible to post in at least some form or another, but you'd likely be stuck in panel limbo for years with something like this as a single track rather than an album.
Furthermore, you must post timestamps of where the source was used, as well. Fortunately, this is a widely known soundtrack so I can personally verify that the sources are well represented for much of this, but that's not a given among the rest of the staff. From a basic listen I can at least tell this is within our source usage bar, but we still need to know exactly what sources you used in this, what games they're from, where they were used in the arrangement, etc.
*Ahem* On to the (actual) eval!
First thing to note, this is a really, really good arrangement, with some solid orchestration, to boot. When I'm really familiar with the material it stands out just how the motifs are interweaved throughout, as well as how you transformed them to keep them fresh. Being that I've not played all the Zelda games I do feel like I'm missing out, though, and a lack of a detailed source reference in the post (what games, what sources, preferably where each is used in the arrangement) makes it impossible for me to double-check to see if it complies with OCR's requirements. It sounds great regardless, but you ARE responsible for posting what sources you're using specifically. Upon a rough, uneducated listen I think I can hear the source clearly in more than 50% of the track, but without those sources or timestamps it's nearly impossible to tell for certain.
Is that some Holst "The Planets: War" inspiration at 43:46? I think it is, don't think I didn't catch that - that chord at 44:39 in particular is iconic.
From what I can ascertain, the strings do sound a bit artificial, which keeping it real does impact the track. They're not the worst (they might even still be passable for most of the arrangement), but when they're the only thing playing (like at the beginning, for example) it's pretty noticeable. Obviously a live performance is pretty tough to get a hold of for something of this scope (it would be incredible if you could, obviously!), but overall if you ever plan on getting a hold of a better sample library that would do this arrangement wonders. I normally don't suggest purchasing better sample libraries as a fixall solution (not everyone has the dough to spend), but the amount of work it would take to hand-craft the human touches to something of this magnitude would be completely impractical, likely spanning years in personalized edits. Beside that, with your overall talent otherwise that would just be a wise investment; companies in need of composers would definitely take your music even more seriously with solid instrument packs behind it. I hear the articulations, and I hear the dynamics, so a more advanced sample library would likely give it that much more life and push this far over our bar for realism.
On to the other instruments, the woodwinds sound alright, though the brass all sounds extra bright and tin-ny. A small amount of low-pass would help keep them in check. Not too much lowpass, but just enough to make them tolerable to sensitive listeners. Overall the instruments used in this sound pretty good otherwise.
Aside from that, though, it's still quite good - even as is, it would have a good shot on the panel. The thing is, though, simply due to the breadth of the arrangement we'd likely need to release this as an album rather than an individual track. That's not at all a bad thing for you, per se - there's more advertisement space provided for something like that no OCR - but it WOULD mean breaking up the tracks into smaller parts (which affects the tone-poem element of the track). Upon a single listen of this I could parse a few places where segmentation would make sense (31:04 and 48:20, for example, have nice clean breaks one could take advantage of for this purpose - hell, 48:20 - 54:57 makes a great standalone arrangement, in itself!), so this isn't unthinkable, even if it cuts off some of the motivic callbacks sprinkled throughout the entire track. Rather than using the front page as a place to post the entire thing, using it to put up a few of the more enticing stand alone moments (like that ending) and telling the listeners in the commentary to listen to the whole unbroken album for the full experience could be a reasonable way to get something like this posted.
This "album" method also will allow the less realistic moments that cause some issue in other sections of the piece to be covered as "album only" moments, with the juicier, fuller parts being posted onto the front page with virtually no hassle. There are a LOT of advantages to posting this as an album. If you want to go this route, get in touch with me; I'll see what I can do to help make it a reality. You're right, there's not enough music like this on OCR, so perhaps you can help fix this.

Not a bad question, but that's no-go, as Darkesword said
If it were from one of the Disney characters, though, perhaps sampling a Disney property could be a useful workaround? It feels weird suggesting sampling the largest media company in the world rather than Square Enix, but them's the ropes 'round here.
Otherwise, er, perhaps a good impersonation is in order? Ask around; you never know, someone might really pull through.

Ooo, I really like this. I saw in the other thread (and even dropped this suggestion in there), but listening to this here, the real problematic samples are the two from Sora. Of course the Goofy/Donald samples are not good either for OCR's purposes, but you can look through some Disney material to find suitable substitutes. If those Sora samples are more popular quotes from the game or have some more meaning to the players (Not as familiar with them myself - only played through it once when it came out and once a year ago) you could perhaps speak the parts yourself. You never know, it could be a really cool effect on it's own with your voice speaking Sora's parts.
Sorry we can't actually take Square samples, though - it causes so much unnecessary trouble for people. On an unrelated side note, that Halloween town remix is dope as hell - you've got some real solid vocal chops. It... just autoplayed the Soundcloud list while I was writing this, so there ya go, I'm a fan.

Oh shit, I've literally always spelled it OCRemix. I am ashamed, but I probably will continue to do so since while it's not in the 'DO' section, it's not in the 'DON'T' section, either.
YOU CAN'T STOP ME DARKESWORD!
(except for official things, where I guess I can do it riiiight)

Not sure if he frequents OCR anymore, but @Ramaniscence is the owner of the site. If the issue persists, you should figure out a way to get in touch with him.
Also, totally still waiting on them to upload my Deus Ex submission I turned in five or so years ago - tell em' to get on that shizz, while you're at it.

ThaSauce Network on FB might be a faster route.  I think Starla might be someone else to contact too.

I was very curious how one could make FF7's battle music into an elevator style song, and this did not at all disappoint. The switch to major was a smooth move, and the bouncy, overly active accompaniment really gives this that elevator music feel. That poppy organ was probably my favorite instrument in there.
As far as places where you could expand, improvements, etc., I suggest building in a bit of an introduction. It sounds like it just pops into existence; with a small bit of introductory material it it'd prepare the listener a bit better for what you've got, here. It might also help generate some ideas you can use later in the track, too, as an added bonus. Obviously my opinion more than anything, but if you're looking for ideas that's a thought.
The mix is a bit busy in this. The production is otherwise great, but if someone isn't familiar with the FF7 battle theme the overall track would be difficult to follow since every instrument is mixed more or less in the same place in the mix. Bringing out the instruments that are playing a theme the listener can grasp helps make the track sound more focused and goal oriented. Granted, this IS elevator music, so this meandering aesthetic might actually work to your advantage in this case, but it's an idea of an alternative direction to take the track.
Great little spur-of-the-moment track you've got here, though - I got a real kick out of it. 

Privately y'all probably know this, but I'll make it public here once again:
DjP is a smelly doo-doo face.
Also, OCR can monetize my music from the site, just as I said in the prior thread.

Ah, MkVaff, one of the true OG's of OCR lore; he's pretty much up there with Disco Dan and IAmEvil as far as prestige goes.
I'm glad we were able to post this track - it's an entertaining as hell arrangement of an under-represented soundtrack - and I'm excited to hear what you got in store for us in the future.  

You've got some lovely commentary on here, but I'll add my two cents and cap this off with an official mod review.
EVAL
You've gotten quite a bit of energy put into this track - the instrumentation sounds far better than the source while losing nothing in the original source's energy and intent. Of course, when handling the track in a way that's similar to the source you run the risk of being TOO close to the source for OCR's purposes, which unfortunately would be the case here. The notes, the style, the instrumentation, etc., is all very close to the source material, to the point of sounding like a sound upgrade rather than a re-arrangement of the material. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it wouldn't be something OCR could post.
On a related note, the arrangement does a direct loop with no difference between the loops (other than the automated highpass location). It's a bit of a side effect of following a source too closely, but it's still an issue in it's own right worth addressing: if the repeat is nothing more than filler for length then it's not worth having in a stand alone track. In this case it's a method of achieving an almost three minute runtime rather than a meaningful expansion of the track. Give the listener something new to grab hold of if you use such repetition in the future - some new textures, variation in the theme, a variation in the drums, etc..
As far as the production values go, this isn't bad - the overall loudness of the track is about where it should be, and save for the moments where the highpass overtakes the track there's little notable overcompression or limiting artifacts. Those automated highpasses, though, really cause production problems (clipping/limiting artifacts), and they make little musical sense to boot. Techniques like automating the highpass should be used with some purpose in mind, not simply in the middle of an otherwise straightforward arrangement just for the sake of having an automated highpass. It really tars an otherwise enjoyable track.
It's not bad, but it would be stopped right at the gate due to how conservative the arrangement it. Furthermore, the strange use of automated highpass would cause it some problems, as well. While not a bad arrangement, it's not something OCR would be looking for.

Ooh, you want to analyze some remixes for your paper? I can help a bit there when you pick any tracks; I've got quite a bit of experience on the analysis side of things.
As far as the history of VG remixes, I'm not sure when the concept began, but if you want a good starting point of when they really started taking off look no further than file sharing programs like Napster and MIDI sites like VGmusic.com for the American boom. I'm not sure when it started in other countries (like Japan), though, so you might need to do more homework for remix's even earlier roots. OCReMix is at least one of the oldest sites of it's kind, as well (pushing more for high quality Mp3 arrangements over MIDIs to contrast it from other sites of it's time) and gathering them in one place (in contrast to tools like Napster sharing all sorts of music), so looking into OCR's history and influence will be helpful for your paper, as well.
I'm less a musicologist and more a music theorist on these things, so I probably can't help on this topic further than that, but I do hope it's a start. Good luck!

Greetings,
first things first: I'm not a composer. I study musicology and I'm currently planning on writing a paper about VG remixes.
My Name is Gregor, though on the internet I usually go by the name of Samsa. I've started listening to remixes from OC Remix and other sites about 5 years ago and it just got to me back then. When I started my studies I kind of forgot this kind of music (normally musicologists listen to Bach, Brahms, Monteverdi and such), but I recently rediscovered my passion for remixes. So if you've got any information about the history and evolution of VG remixes or if you've got some remix on your mind that's especially great: Send me a message, I'm open to suggestions.
Hope to hear from you soon.

The thing is, those other choices aren't as attractive options.
While it's true that like I said, OCR isn't the end-all-be-all of VGM remixing and that a lowered bar wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for a hobbyist website, it is by far and away the VGM community — a very niche thing btw — that cares the most about what it does and I think this is mostly thanks to being somewhat of a "gated community" as you describe it.
An anecdote that I think demonstrates this, I very recently managed to get offered a deal with a new production music company. That's a great example of a "gated community" in music as many don't generally accept unsolicited submissions at all. Sure, I COULD have gone to AudioJungle or something like that (which I think only recently added some sort of quality control) where library-music composers go to die and have my tracks buried among a sea of others, BUT this way I'm among people who are pros at what they do, can and will give me real advice because they and their clients demand a certain standard from them, they have connections that can get placements in stuff that people will actually enjoy, you have people representing you across the world, etc. and your odds at success are a lot better than if it was just you out there in the wilds — alone.
Now you might say, "Yeah, but that's about music for money and OCR isn't about that!" To which I say, ignore the $ aspect and you'll see it's the same thing — a somewhat exclusive community creates opportunity and is a more enjoyable experience.
OCR is the only VGM community I am aware of who: Hosts panels at things like MAGfest, puts out multi-disc albums of remixes for free, has had numerous of its users go on to become professional composers; has what easily amounts to thousands of hours of music from nearly 20 years back available on YouTube, with millions of plays total, each one DJP has written a mini essay on, and all for $0.00; launched its own record label, collaborated with Capcom to produce the first official fan-made community Megaman album; it supported the development of the definitive VGM virtual instrument, developed by community members; and about *ten years ago, they made the first entirely fanmade soundtrack to a video game.
This is only made possible by having a power structure of some kind. While it's true that OCR is a gated community, they are always willing to let people in. Everywhere else? It's either an open floodgate or the gate is electrified.
*OMFG I was 16 when this came out and was before I actually discovered the community. Holy shit, I'm getting old fast.

I don't write purely symphonic/orchestral music because my computer is so terrible that my program shuts down when I try (it's a very poor computer nowadays) and I don't play guitar well enough to make metal music. I'm not withholding these genres for other's sake - I made this choice because I recognize these current limits. Being unable to make certain music due to what you have access to is a part of life for us poor peoples.

Oh, a newcomer! Welcome to OCR!
Bringing over an Asgore arrangement for your first outing? Good choice - that was a great soundtrack, with this being a solid penultimate boss music track. You nail the notes, as far as I can tell, and I can hear some interesting things done with some of the textures in the background (like the guitar part). Sounds like you had some real fun with this one.
The samples used, are they out of the box from FL studios? You probably know they sound stiff and unconvincing, but I'll mention it really quick once again. I'm personally terrible at handing out advice on this topic (being an oldschool Reason user, I never had to deal with VSTi's), but Zircon made a guide a while back that has some good advice on how to expand your music library on a budget (or free, even). You seem to know how to handle your instruments well enough to where expanding your library will be greatly beneficial (even with freely available tools).
Thanks for sharing!

Oh boy, this might be my first experience with being a jdgfgt on the forums. Almost makes me feel like I'm a legit judge now. I'm so happy this day has come.

Considering the circumstances, I would like a moment to address a few topics that came up on here. Wasn't able to do much yesterday other than snipe one or two points on the FB thread due to work, so consider this a more overarching response. I don't hand these walls of text out too often anymore, so enjoy!
First and foremost, OCR is most certainly not the end all, be all of video game remixes; the kind of music posted on here is clearly stated on DjP's mission statement. There is great music that can't be posted on OCR due to his personal vision for the site, so if someone says that something amazing didn't get posted on OCR I will absolutely believe you. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, either; it's his site, and great things certainly has come from it.
I feel sometimes people forget this point on both sides of the aisle; a few more passionate members sometimes say something isn't good if it doesn't pass OCR's muster while others state OCR judges hate good music when a song doesn't pass. Neither of these things are true, and on my word I can say I've known the current staff long enough to say they understand that, as well. At the risk of sounding like I'm strawmanning, if anyone makes these bad faith assumptions about the staff they should reconsider their opinion.
Okay, just wanted to get that out there on full display.
Second, I've seen a few posts on here upset at the time it takes to judge a track. While last month was admittedly slow likely due to more than one album being evaluated and posted on here (Sinphony and Candy Corn II, baby - we actually do have to judge every track on albums, which takes time), overall I'm a bit hurt that no one really acknowledges the process has sped up over the last year, with the topic of this thread being a great example. Y'all know that the time between submission (as in, he sent it to the inbox) and judgement was literally eight days at most, right? Like, he posted in the thread that he was submitting it soon on May 26th, and the judgment was completed on June 3rd, right?
I'm calling bologna on this complaint; I've personally worked my ass off to get the inbox and panel to the point that the wait for judgment is on average three months at the moment (again, slow down happened last month due to an influx of albums - it used to be closer to two months from submission to judgment on average, save for tough tracks on the panel), so I take particular offense to this blindness on the improved judgment speed, here. There's likely no better time to put your music on OCR to get more timely feedback, so please stop saying it takes over a year to get evaluated on average on here. Everything that was submitted in 2016 or earlier has been judged (with a single exception, for those astute enough to check). We're in a pretty good spot as far as inbox and judgment speed goes; it'd be nice for people to start recognizing that.
Thirdly, specifically on this submission... I can see why some may be upset at my judgment, but there's another half to the story that'd be missed if you didn't know I was personally involved in the WIP thread helping him out. Being that I act as both a judge and a somewhat active workshop evaluator (less so nowadays, much to Rozo's chagrin, I bet) I sometimes make reference to what I've said in my evaluation in my judgments. Whether or not that's bad practice is debatable (the confusion in this thread being a decent case against this), but in my view the artist is the most important one to understand the feedback; generally no one else has easy access to the music so no one else needs to understand it.
I've seen a complaint or two on this discussion saying that I shouldn't consider the flute at all in my judgment, and you're absolutely correct - I shouldn't. If you feel judges should never consider personal taste in music when judging something then be vindicated in the fact that you're correct! The catch is that I made absolutely clear in my WIP evaluation that this was personal taste and would in no way impact the judgment; Brynolf actually requested comments specifically on the flute, so I gave him my opinion on it. In the judgment I acknowledge that his track overall improved from when I eval'd it, even while teasing that he didn't make any changes to the flute. My vote had nothing to do with the flute in his track, and everything to do with the copy/paste of about a third of his track (which I missed when I eval'd it - that was a mistake on my part, and I still feel bad about that).
You can disagree that the copy/paste is a problem, but I stick by this decision. Anyone can feel free to argue this point either via PM, FB or Discord with me if they'd like since I don't want to crowd this thread too much on my reasoning (in fact I'd love to do that; there's some interesting reasoning behind why this is an issue). That's not to say I dislike that song at all - far from it. I personally really enjoyed this track in every other aspect, and still hope that he resubmits it with some minor changes made to address the issue as it would be a wonderful addition to OCR's front page. I can't drop the QC aspect of my judgments just because I like a track, though; it's one of the larger downsides of the job, to be honest.
Finally, on the consistency in judgment brought up in here... yeah, it can be a little inconsistent from time to time. That's because of two aspects: we're humans on the panel, and there's nine of us on there with varying experiences and opinions. On the first point, humans ain't perfect, and with anything that involves judgment of anything our imperfections will play into it. This applies to literally everything, not just OCR; for example, apparently you never want to be judged in court prior to lunch, because when everyone is hungry they're more likely to rush the verdict against the accused. To mitigate this aspect, there are many of us on there to cover one another's mistakes; more people means there's more chance that judges will catch each other's mistakes. Of course, this also means that different people will vote on different tracks, which unfortunately means there will be some variation in judgments due to different people voting on different tracks; that can't be helped.
Those are my $0.50 on the topic at hand; hopefully it's a somewhat informative wall o' text. No hate to Hoboka for the thread or anyone else involved, either - we coo'.

Wow, this is a bit of an obscure track. It's very easy to pull the source out of this track regardless, and this arrangement transforms the source into something more light hearted and fun.
The guitar part that comes in at various points in the track (such as at 0:10) is mixed a little too loud in the track, but otherwise I don't have much to critique on this one. It's a great little combination of instruments that just has a lot of fun with the source, and I love it.
Short judgment, but there really isn't much to be said - it's great.
YES

As much as I hate to admit it, if people are percieving that it's slowed down then there's something that we need to fix or address.
I can personally say it's considerably faster nowadays than it was a year ago (save for last month since as mentioned earlier an influx of projects slowed us down a bit - you can personally verify this, Rozovian :P), but if people can't tell this is the case then we need to do something about that. Updating the judging process thread is definitely one step toward that, which we've talked about here and will fix soon (if not someone else, I'll update it within the week). Of course, the problem with that is it's a manual process prone to staff just... not updating the thread. It's a lower priority item on the list of things to do, so it happens.
Anyone have any ideas of how to make people more aware of the pace of the judge's panel? I might share a few ideas behind the scenes on how to address this (that starts getting into the mechanics of the site, though, which I don't think I should share on here atm), but if people want to share some ideas I would be very much appreciative.
Interesting question, and while it's not the EXACT topic of the thread it's related. There's no official number on the rates of passes and rejections as of late (the numbers shown on the FAQ section of the site is not up-to-date), but I can give a pretty solid estimation based on what I've inboxed over the last year since I archive the tracks on my own hard drive. There will be some direct rejections that I didn't archive since those tracks were either soundcloud tracks without a D/L link, or the tracks were 404'd, so there's probably 20% more direct rejections than I'm giving credit for on here. Be aware.
Out of ~370 tracks I've inboxed over the last eleven months that I have on record:
22% are direct rejections (rejected via e-mail, the track doesn't make it to the panel).
8% are direct posts (passes on the spot, the track doesn't make it to the panel unless the judges object).
The rest (70%) are sent to the panel.
Of those panel'd, I can use my basic memory of what passed and what didn't pass and give a solid estimate of the panel's current pass rate. I could check everything on the site and get a 100% accurate number, but that would be incredibly time consuming - I hope y'all understand. Crunching the numbers, about 50% of what gets to the panel gets rejected.
...
Yeah, that number sounds unbelievable to me too, but that's what number crunching every track that I've panel'd comes up to. Since it's based on my memory of the tracks passing or being rejected it's a good idea to say that this is +/- 10%, so the worst case I can conceive of is that the panel's pass/rejection rate is 60/40 in one direction or another (probably 40% YES, 60% NO, which makes sense when you look in the Judges Decisions forum). That's surprisingly uplifting - I didn't expect that when I started crunching numbers. Based on that, of all the tracks submit in the inbox that I've handled over the last year about 40% ultimately passed on to the front page, with the most conservative estimates being closer to 30% (a far cry from the 10-15% mentioned in the FAQ).
Damn, we're a bunch of softies on the panel, what the hell. Do take these numbers with more than a grain of salt, though: this was a quick numbers-crunch from what I have access to, just to give the public an idea of how things are in the panel nowadays.

As much as I hate to admit it, if people are percieving that it's slowed down then there's something that we need to fix or address.
I can personally say it's considerably faster nowadays than it was a year ago (save for last month since as mentioned earlier an influx of projects slowed us down a bit - you can personally verify this, Rozovian :P), but if people can't tell this is the case then we need to do something about that. Updating the judging process thread is definitely one step toward that, which we've talked about here and will fix soon (if not someone else, I'll update it within the week). Of course, the problem with that is it's a manual process prone to staff just... not updating the thread. It's a lower priority item on the list of things to do, so it happens.
Anyone have any ideas of how to make people more aware of the pace of the judge's panel? I might share a few ideas behind the scenes on how to address this (that starts getting into the mechanics of the site, though, which I don't think I should share on here atm), but if people want to share some ideas I would be very much appreciative.
Interesting question, and while it's not the EXACT topic of the thread it's related. There's no official number on the rates of passes and rejections as of late (the numbers shown on the FAQ section of the site is not up-to-date), but I can give a pretty solid estimation based on what I've inboxed over the last year since I archive the tracks on my own hard drive. There will be some direct rejections that I didn't archive since those tracks were either soundcloud tracks without a D/L link, or the tracks were 404'd, so there's probably 20% more direct rejections than I'm giving credit for on here. Be aware.
Out of ~370 tracks I've inboxed over the last eleven months that I have on record:
22% are direct rejections (rejected via e-mail, the track doesn't make it to the panel).
8% are direct posts (passes on the spot, the track doesn't make it to the panel unless the judges object).
The rest (70%) are sent to the panel.
Of those panel'd, I can use my basic memory of what passed and what didn't pass and give a solid estimate of the panel's current pass rate. I could check everything on the site and get a 100% accurate number, but that would be incredibly time consuming - I hope y'all understand. Crunching the numbers, about 50% of what gets to the panel gets rejected.
...
Yeah, that number sounds unbelievable to me too, but that's what number crunching every track that I've panel'd comes up to. Since it's based on my memory of the tracks passing or being rejected it's a good idea to say that this is +/- 10%, so the worst case I can conceive of is that the panel's pass/rejection rate is 60/40 in one direction or another (probably 40% YES, 60% NO, which makes sense when you look in the Judges Decisions forum). That's surprisingly uplifting - I didn't expect that when I started crunching numbers. Based on that, of all the tracks submit in the inbox that I've handled over the last year about 40% ultimately passed on to the front page, with the most conservative estimates being closer to 30% (a far cry from the 10-15% mentioned in the FAQ).
Damn, we're a bunch of softies on the panel, what the hell. Do take these numbers with more than a grain of salt, though: this was a quick numbers-crunch from what I have access to, just to give the public an idea of how things are in the panel nowadays.

As much as I hate to admit it, if people are percieving that it's slowed down then there's something that we need to fix or address.
I can personally say it's considerably faster nowadays than it was a year ago (save for last month since as mentioned earlier an influx of projects slowed us down a bit - you can personally verify this, Rozovian :P), but if people can't tell this is the case then we need to do something about that. Updating the judging process thread is definitely one step toward that, which we've talked about here and will fix soon (if not someone else, I'll update it within the week). Of course, the problem with that is it's a manual process prone to staff just... not updating the thread. It's a lower priority item on the list of things to do, so it happens.
Anyone have any ideas of how to make people more aware of the pace of the judge's panel? I might share a few ideas behind the scenes on how to address this (that starts getting into the mechanics of the site, though, which I don't think I should share on here atm), but if people want to share some ideas I would be very much appreciative.
Interesting question, and while it's not the EXACT topic of the thread it's related. There's no official number on the rates of passes and rejections as of late (the numbers shown on the FAQ section of the site is not up-to-date), but I can give a pretty solid estimation based on what I've inboxed over the last year since I archive the tracks on my own hard drive. There will be some direct rejections that I didn't archive since those tracks were either soundcloud tracks without a D/L link, or the tracks were 404'd, so there's probably 20% more direct rejections than I'm giving credit for on here. Be aware.
Out of ~370 tracks I've inboxed over the last eleven months that I have on record:
22% are direct rejections (rejected via e-mail, the track doesn't make it to the panel).
8% are direct posts (passes on the spot, the track doesn't make it to the panel unless the judges object).
The rest (70%) are sent to the panel.
Of those panel'd, I can use my basic memory of what passed and what didn't pass and give a solid estimate of the panel's current pass rate. I could check everything on the site and get a 100% accurate number, but that would be incredibly time consuming - I hope y'all understand. Crunching the numbers, about 50% of what gets to the panel gets rejected.
...
Yeah, that number sounds unbelievable to me too, but that's what number crunching every track that I've panel'd comes up to. Since it's based on my memory of the tracks passing or being rejected it's a good idea to say that this is +/- 10%, so the worst case I can conceive of is that the panel's pass/rejection rate is 60/40 in one direction or another (probably 40% YES, 60% NO, which makes sense when you look in the Judges Decisions forum). That's surprisingly uplifting - I didn't expect that when I started crunching numbers. Based on that, of all the tracks submit in the inbox that I've handled over the last year about 40% ultimately passed on to the front page, with the most conservative estimates being closer to 30% (a far cry from the 10-15% mentioned in the FAQ).
Damn, we're a bunch of softies on the panel, what the hell. Do take these numbers with more than a grain of salt, though: this was a quick numbers-crunch from what I have access to, just to give the public an idea of how things are in the panel nowadays.

As much as I hate to admit it, if people are percieving that it's slowed down then there's something that we need to fix or address.
I can personally say it's considerably faster nowadays than it was a year ago (save for last month since as mentioned earlier an influx of projects slowed us down a bit - you can personally verify this, Rozovian :P), but if people can't tell this is the case then we need to do something about that. Updating the judging process thread is definitely one step toward that, which we've talked about here and will fix soon (if not someone else, I'll update it within the week). Of course, the problem with that is it's a manual process prone to staff just... not updating the thread. It's a lower priority item on the list of things to do, so it happens.
Anyone have any ideas of how to make people more aware of the pace of the judge's panel? I might share a few ideas behind the scenes on how to address this (that starts getting into the mechanics of the site, though, which I don't think I should share on here atm), but if people want to share some ideas I would be very much appreciative.
Interesting question, and while it's not the EXACT topic of the thread it's related. There's no official number on the rates of passes and rejections as of late (the numbers shown on the FAQ section of the site is not up-to-date), but I can give a pretty solid estimation based on what I've inboxed over the last year since I archive the tracks on my own hard drive. There will be some direct rejections that I didn't archive since those tracks were either soundcloud tracks without a D/L link, or the tracks were 404'd, so there's probably 20% more direct rejections than I'm giving credit for on here. Be aware.
Out of ~370 tracks I've inboxed over the last eleven months that I have on record:
22% are direct rejections (rejected via e-mail, the track doesn't make it to the panel).
8% are direct posts (passes on the spot, the track doesn't make it to the panel unless the judges object).
The rest (70%) are sent to the panel.
Of those panel'd, I can use my basic memory of what passed and what didn't pass and give a solid estimate of the panel's current pass rate. I could check everything on the site and get a 100% accurate number, but that would be incredibly time consuming - I hope y'all understand. Crunching the numbers, about 50% of what gets to the panel gets rejected.
...
Yeah, that number sounds unbelievable to me too, but that's what number crunching every track that I've panel'd comes up to. Since it's based on my memory of the tracks passing or being rejected it's a good idea to say that this is +/- 10%, so the worst case I can conceive of is that the panel's pass/rejection rate is 60/40 in one direction or another (probably 40% YES, 60% NO, which makes sense when you look in the Judges Decisions forum). That's surprisingly uplifting - I didn't expect that when I started crunching numbers. Based on that, of all the tracks submit in the inbox that I've handled over the last year about 40% ultimately passed on to the front page, with the most conservative estimates being closer to 30% (a far cry from the 10-15% mentioned in the FAQ).
Damn, we're a bunch of softies on the panel, what the hell. Do take these numbers with more than a grain of salt, though: this was a quick numbers-crunch from what I have access to, just to give the public an idea of how things are in the panel nowadays.

Ditto.  Also, usually an artist has his/her own stylistic vision for a song, and that's totally ok.  It's just not what OCR is looking for.  It's been said several times throughout the thread but OCR is not the end-all of videogame remixes.  In fact nowadays there are several ways to get your remixes out there regardless of stylistic vision or quality.  Not that I want to send anybody away at all, but OCR has had a quality and stylistic definition for what is an OCRemix for years and if you want your remix to be an OCRemix it just has to abide by that.
Regarding the bar, it hasn't changed in years and it's in a good place where it is, this is my opinion now and it was my opinion long before joining staff.  As an example to why I believe so, I didn't know about the "big bad koopa dubstep" remix posted in the first page until today.  That people reacted negatively to something they perceived was not up to OCR's quality is actually a great thing.  That means that people expect quality from us, and having the "bar" where it is has created a standard that people expect when opening a link featuring an OCR song.
Regarding judging speed/amount of judges, it's now a fact that more judges don't result on faster queue, on the contrary, when there has been a small team of people who have a good idea of where the bar sits, the queue moves faster.  The queue has been faster than it's ever been in years now.  Sadly, getting it faster is not as easy as saying it.  This is voluntary work, that people do it out of love for what the site represents, but voluntary still, which means that we all have other responsibilities besides judging, and as such we can't possibly have all songs evaluated as soon as they hit our inbox.  This will likely never happen on a system that has actual people reviewing the submitted work, nor here, nor anywhere else.  The current pace of "1 week to 2 months" to get a mix evaluated is, in my opinion, as good as it can realistically get.

Some remixes take longer because of split votes, because the judges are human and thus can't always agree on everything.  This is also very unlikely to change.

Scrutinizing YES votes even more than what we do now (we require 4 YES votes for a pass, only 3 for a NO) would make evaluation take even longer.  Complete counter to what we want.

I don't personally dismiss criticism on the process, and from what I see neither does the staff.  Otherwise we wouldn't be here, reading this.
On the whole PS1 era samples for a song etc, I think Gario summed up my views regarding this pretty well.  Plus, we don't require anyone to go out of their way and get the most expensive libraries out there.  Jorito already gave an example of his own, but I also can think of Rebecca Tripp, who I'm pretty sure doesn't have the most expensive libraries but manages to get on the front page quite consistently, with orchestral, folk and ambient remixes.  Outside of the symphonic realm, you can make ocremixes with free stuff, this is a fact, as I have at least a couple remixes on the site made 100% with completely free tools.  We really don't require perfect production at all.  

Regarding mixer's comments, like Gario I try to avoid them whenever possible because they get in the way of an unbiased evaluation.  Same with the other judges' votes, I try to just scroll all the way down and read them after I've written at least my initial thoughts (but before hitting submit).  Sometimes there's a good story behind the mix and I really appreciate that (this comes to mind) or the mixer's write up brings up some interesting points about how the track came to be or production techniques used, or the other judges have pointed out things that need more of my attention, etc.  All good stuff, but whether the mixer spent a year manually crafting the congas out of cow leather or if his intention was to make the song sound like an authentic Adlib Soundcard track without actually using an Adlib Soundcard has no bearing on whether it meets the expectations of being an OCRemix or not.  Not being an OCRemix doesn't automatically means it's bad or it's good, it's just not what OCR is looking for.
On the transparency side I'd be fine with that once (if ever) the process gets more automated on the submission side.  If at some point the process itself becomes something integrated properly with the website instead of being a manual process at all points (submission by email, separate upload, manual inboxing, manual creation of threads, etc.)  At this point it's a bit too messy to open it up and have it make much sense, IMO. It'll honestly be a lot of clutter plus probably more work for a staff that's already pretty busy.

Finally, I should really be working on the queue instead of writing a wall of text.

I've already quoted this once, but I've got more thoughts on it after sitting on it for a day.
Yes, I do my best to avoid telling people to "get better samples" in their music, but one does need to be careful not to step on the intention of the artist, either. On the one hand it sucks to be told "You can't make it without forkin' the money!", but on the flip side people don't like being told "You can't do something with the tools you've got, but perhaps this different idea you didn't envision would work", either; most people don't like being told how to compose something. There does come a point where you do either need to pay or have some solid musician connections to achieve your artistic vision, unfortunately, so I'd be doing people no favors to pretend otherwise.
More or less just thinking aloud on here, but telling people what they should be composing is definitely overstepping my bounds, too, though in a different way than telling them they need to spend money does. Curious what a good compromise is for something like this - perhaps acknowledging you understand what they want to achieve, explain what would be necessary and give an alternative if the necessary method proves out of reach?
Food for thought.

I've already quoted this once, but I've got more thoughts on it after sitting on it for a day.
Yes, I do my best to avoid telling people to "get better samples" in their music, but one does need to be careful not to step on the intention of the artist, either. On the one hand it sucks to be told "You can't make it without forkin' the money!", but on the flip side people don't like being told "You can't do something with the tools you've got, but perhaps this different idea you didn't envision would work", either; most people don't like being told how to compose something. There does come a point where you do either need to pay or have some solid musician connections to achieve your artistic vision, unfortunately, so I'd be doing people no favors to pretend otherwise.
More or less just thinking aloud on here, but telling people what they should be composing is definitely overstepping my bounds, too, though in a different way than telling them they need to spend money does. Curious what a good compromise is for something like this - perhaps acknowledging you understand what they want to achieve, explain what would be necessary and give an alternative if the necessary method proves out of reach?
Food for thought.