DaMonz

Well, this is definitely unusual, and very creative. Both on the arrangement and production fronts. I think the dry mix is a cool design choice that suits this particular arrangement and sound design very well. The syncopation, the breaks, the detail work in the overall progression, all add to what I think is an ambitious but well-crafted piece. The altered "weird" harmony in the theme was off-putting at first, because I'm so used to hearing the source, but after a few times I thought it was a very interesting change. And those jazzy drums in the end were a super awesome surprise! The only crit I have for this track is the abrupt ending, which I think is very close to requiring a conditional pass, just to let a few more seconds of release/reverb/etc instead of chopping right after the last note like this. Although, I feel like everything else fits so well together, so I wouldn't mind overlooking such a small detail. I think this is one of those "special" tracks for which no specific genre guidelines can really apply. And I think it's brilliant work. YES

I agree that production could be better at blending things together here, especially the drums, but I have to say this feels very acceptable for me especially considering the awesome arrangement. I think the guitar playing is on point, the solo at 2:45 is really cool. The energy is really well-handled throughout, things always stay interesting. The two sources are blended together extremely well, and are still very recognizable even with all the great personalization. The guitar's production didn't bother me at all. The bass and kick, although not *perfect*, have enough definition in my opinion in order to make them acceptable. I also agree that the mix gets loud, but I think overall it still has enough depth. It's pretty easy overall to make out what's up front and what are the backing parts. There's room for improvement in making things clearer, but I don't think it's that big of an issue here. Bottom line, I think the arrangement is excellent, and the production flaws aren't that big a deal as to hold this back, in my opinion. YES

This is a tough call for me. I think you did a great job giving a new direction to the source material, and the arrangement is very nicely done, but the production is holding this back quite a lot, in my opinion. The whole track seems very low/low-mid heavy to me. I think the big buildup starting around 1:00 is a very good idea, but around 1:35 it starts to get very messy, and up to around 2:08 things get very muddy and seem to blur together in an overcrowded soundscape. I also think the high-resonance filter applied on the master at around 2:10-2:14 is quite awkward and off-putting. On the other hand, the textures are great, the drums hit hard, and the arrangement is good. Although, as it stands, this is *just* under the bar for me, because of that messy production specifically noticeable in the middle section. I think this may be improved enough for a pass by EQ'ing out some of the lows/low-mids especially in the guitar chugs during that portion, because I'm feeling they're the biggest culprit here. This is very close for me, but not quite there yet. Maybe you could send a revised version to address the issue? EDIT: New version is still a bit hot, but it's definitely better and fixes it for me. Nice work! YES

I agree that the production is definitely what's holding this back, and that the biggest culprit is very probably the compression on the drums. The ride cymbals, the hi-hats (especially the open hits) and the cymbals at around 1:15 and 2:44 take a LOT of room in the mix, and the over-compression makes them feel quite awkward in my opinion. I think toning them down would give much more space to breathe for the other instruments. You could also try EQ'ing out a bit of the mids/low-mids especially on that ride cymbal, I think that could help a bit as well. The drum sequencing seems good, although it's hard to analyze your velocity work with all this compression. Apart from that, it's hard to tell what else could be improved, as currently the drums are overpowering everything else. The arrangement is great, and the fade out didn't bother me as much, although I agree that writing an ending could maybe bring the arrangement value up a small notch, if it's well executed. Source usage is definitely very recognizable, too, so that's great. Bottom line, the arrangement is nice but the drums really need some fixing. If you're unsure about how to proceed, I also recommend heading to the WIP boards if you want some more help. Please send this back! NO (resubmit)

This is very, very nice! Everything in the execution is definitely awesome. There's a lot of great detail work in there throughout, and I particularly like the piano and drums. The synth guitar was also well done, although I have to say a live performance would probably make this even better. There's really nothing else to say on the actual execution, though, in my opinion. Solid work. I have to agree about the source usage, though. The direct references to the theme were good, but, as pointed out by Gario's source breakdown, are not enough to make this acceptable for the submission standards. Please consider reworking the arrangement to make the source more recognizable in your track, as this is definitely very good. NO (resubmit)

I also agree that the first minute or so is pretty good, but the rest of the track definitely needs a lot of work. The timing issues/incoherent rhythms are the biggest dealbreaker in my opinion. This is mostly noticeable from 1:15-2:15 with the huge rhythmic clashes between the guitar, the bass and the drums. This really needs cleaning up. Next issue to address in the list, I think, should be the structure. As it stands, the arrangement feels very disjointed. The break at 2:13 could have been a good idea, I think, but then the pace is suddenly picked up for just a few seconds at 2:23 before blurring out to yet another break. All these very different transitions back to back felt very weird to me. I also think the three major parts of your track (the intro, the middle section and the progression to the ending) currently don't mesh well together and don't feel like a single, cohesive arrangement. I think this could be fixed at least partially by working on your transitions between these different portions of the track. Production-wise, I like most of your synth choices and sound design (leads, pads, the choir at the end), I liked the lead guitar's sound, and I liked the first drum set (the more "electronic" one). Some parts sound pretty blurry and messy though. There's a lot of reverb, particularly on the leads, which in my opinion takes too much space in your frequencies and makes things difficult for the other instruments. I recommend EQ'ing most of the lows out of your reverb patch, and maybe even reducing its decay a bit. Also, the second drum set (from around 1:30, especially the snare) and the bass could use some more attention in the mix, as they're pretty weak currently. I have to agree with Mr. NutS here, as I also think this needs a lot of work. Don't give up, and best of luck! NO

Whoaaaa the lows! I think the bass and kick should definitely be the first issues to address here. Mr. NutS gave excellent advice there, and on the overall production, and I couldn't have said any of it better. I strongly recommend using all this advice in order to improve the balance in your mix. As for the arrangement, I think you're on the right track for sure. There's a good sense of flow, there's a structure, there's an intention, and I like that a lot. I generally like the ambience in your track. I do agree with Larry though that there are very little contrasts, and I think this devalues most of the variation in the writing. This may be a side effect of the production issues, and might be partially (or completely) solved along with production fixes, but I slightly doubt it. I think it would be a good idea to review your arrangement's structure, and identify the intended energy levels of each part. After doing that, you might have a better idea of what could be done to accentuate those intentions (by adding instruments, altering the writing, etc.) And about the Stickerbrush thing, I think it may not have been intentional? It *is* the same pattern, but I wouldn't be that surprised if it was just coincidence. That specific part did slightly clash with the chords played by the other parts and sounded a bit unnatural to me, but it's a nitpick. I think this is a great start, but definitely needs a lot of work. I'd love to hear an improved version eventually. Best of luck! NO (resubmit)

Hohohoho! Ahem. I agree that the humanization needs quite some work in order to make this really believable, especially the intro choir, the strings and the drums. And that xylophone run near 0:28, hot damn! That sounded robotic to me. Hi-hats velocities seemed particularly mechanical when it gets excited near 2:10. I also agree about the production being low-heavy and getting blurred during the busier parts, but it didn't bother me as much as the humanization issues. Other than that, definitely a super awesome arrangement that easily makes up for all the issues, for me. Source is still very recognizable, and I'm loving how the structure was elaborated to adapt the style. Room for improvement on humanization and production, but still definitely over the bar for me. Nice work! YES

Okay, this definitely needs a lot of work. I agree about the bass taking too much space, it's the first big offender to get noticed. The biggest issue though, in my opinion, is definitely the arrangement. The same lead does the same melody again and again, which becomes stale pretty quickly. The lead in itself is pretty fat, with these low octave layers, which may be conflicting with the bass at some points. I think such layering should be used with caution for that reason. Also, more expressivity like pitch bends and vibratos could help give more personality to the lead. I strongly recommend listening to some WillRock for a good reference in writing synth leads. I also think you should look into adding more variety to your soundscape, like counter-melodies, backing pads and arpeggios, etc. Overall, as it stands, the arrangement has little going on in the melodies and harmonies, and sticks very close to the original. The tempo slowdown was an interesting idea that I think should be explored further, though. On the other hand, I think your drums sound pretty well, there's a nice punch to your kick and snare sounds. I think that was the strongest aspect of your remix. Bottom line: the arrangement is too conservative and empty, and the bass and lead need some serious production fixes. Please don't give up, there's some cool potential here. I suggest looking for advice in the Workshop boards, and/or asking specific people for advice about how to improve your arrangement and production skills. Best of luck! NO

Well, this is definitely very interesting! And a lot of fun! I really like the varied textures throughout, and all the unexpected changes in the structure felt appropriate to me. Super cool ideas, forming a strong and daring arrangement. And thanks for the source breakdown! My nitpicks are in the humanization. Piano wasn't so bad, but the velocities in the drums are quite mechanical, and the strings weren't very convincing in the sequencing (although I really like their place in the arrangement, I'm really just talking about the articulations and envelope). Other than that, I don't have anything worth mentioning that hasn't been told already. Great work for sure! YES

Everyone knows OCR has nothing but techno shit EDIT: More seriously, to answer the original question, OCR is basically the main reason why I know how to make music.

Hot damn, that source breakdown! That's very helpful, and I'm hearing the source in most of the parts you specified. I'm not sure about the Sand Canyon parts though, that seems a bit far fetched to me, but the count is still juuuust over 50% even if we don't consider those. I think source usage is okay here, but it's very borderline so I think someone else should also check it in depth to make sure. Otherwise, I'm definitely hearing the Birdland influences, nice work on that! I'm loving the fretless bass, it definitely is a key instrument in order to get that sound, IMO. Good leads, too! Overall, a well-produced, strong arrangement. Really nothing to say here, I think it's great work. Unless someone else points out that source usage isn't appropriate, this is most definitely a YES

Not much more needs to be said here. The strongest point is definitely the energy of the arrangement, lots of awesome sections, most of them flowing really well. I have to agree about the 1:28 section sounding slightly out of place, though. But the real dealbreaker is the production, which is muddy and unclear during the whole track. IMO, just a production fix should be enough to bring this over the bar, but I do recommend trying to improve the blending of the themes at the select stage portion. I know it can be difficult to keep working on a track for so long, but please keep at it, this has definitely plenty of awesome! NO (resubmit)

This is nice! I'm liking the guitar performances overall throughout the track, nice work there for sure. I think the biggest weak point here is the drum writing, mostly noticeable during some fills that felt awkward to me (0:58 and 1:31, for example), and the velocities on the hi-hats sounded quite unnatural at times. I also thought the snare sounded a bit weak. Although, the arrangement is great and holds together very well in the big picture. Structure has plenty of variation and flow, and source is quite easily recognizable most of the time. Bottom line: drums could have used some improvement, but the great arrangement and guitar playing keep this above the bar for me. YES

Yep, I agree with Mike's vote entirely as well. Great work on the arrangement and production, with slight room for improvement in the mixing of the vocals. Source is also still very recognizable, so this is an easy pass for me! YES

Just chiming in to say that we're actively working on getting the SMRPG album ready for release, and we're getting *very* close to have all the required assets!

This is gorgeous! Although I agree about the humanization issues on the piano, choir and harp, this is definitely a beautiful expansion of both sources with a lot of awesome personalizing touches throughout. I really like the melodic and harmonic explorations, the arrangement is great and easily makes up for the humanization problems. Easy pass for me! I'm looking forward to hear more from you! YES

Yes! FFT! We need more of that, for sure! The first things that struck me in your arrangement is that the mix is very unbalanced, and the soundscape is pretty empty most of the time. There are parts like 0:40-0:50 and 1:59-2:11 with a big focus on the lows/low-mids, with those distorted guitar chords, that I think definitely lack definition. Things blur together even though there's very little going on. Other parts like 0:51-1:05 have the lead guitar super exposed, and feels very bare-bone. The harp is a nice touch to bring more of the original's feel, but I think it's too harsh and dry to accomplish this well. I think 1:06-1:57 and 2:24 onwards contain a lot of good ideas for making an interesting soundscape, and are in my opinion the best parts of your track as it currently stands. Although some mixing fixes would definitely help with the balance, I think the whole track needs work on the arrangement to flesh things out some more. I suggest trying to add more backing elements (maybe pads, more spacy guitar chords, orchestral detail work, etc?) to help you build a fuller atmosphere. Maybe using more percussive elements could also be an interesting idea to explore. On the other hand, I really like the ostinato bass pattern taken from the source, with accents on each downtime, and I think that could serve as a strong basis for your track, if the aforementioned issues were fixed. I think you have a cool concept, and I'd really like to hear an improved version. NO (resubmit)

I have to agree that the source is definitely not being used accordingly here. I also agree some parts sound a bit aimless, but overall this is well-produced and well-performed. The deal breaker is definitely the source usage. The arrangement seems to be using source as more of a starting point, rather than a basis for the whole track. I strongly recommend following Larry's advice here! NO (resubmit)

There's lot to love in here. The funky backing guitar, the sweet, sweet organs (nice usage of the rotor speed changes), the cool E. Pianos. Some nice synth lead action as well. Although, I also agree that the vocoder is a pretty big problem. Maybe I'm biased because I'm used to hearing stuff like Daft Punk in which the words are (mostly) easily distinguishable, but I do recommend trying to clear it up. I also think that the structure of the arrangement started feeling aimless after a while, and I suggest taking the time to rethink the value of each section of the arrangement to try and rework the structure to keep things more interesting throughout. I think this is very close, so I'm really hoping you'll send in a reworked version! NO (resubmit)

This is awesome! Great intensity throughout, great sound quality, with plenty of personalizing flourishes. One of my favorite touches were the cellos from 1:14-1:46. The horns, the percussion, the strings... Everything sounds great to me! The somewhat short length leaves me wanting for more, but I think that's a good thing in this case. More ReMixes, please! YES

Yep, I also agree with everything Kris has said here. I have to say my personal main issue is with the lead, which could really use more expressivity and variation throughout. I think it's a great base for an interesting lead, and I strongly recommend looking into using pitch bends, occasional portamento slides and vibratos to add more personality to the writing. I also recommend trying to move your lead higher at some point in the track, maybe even just by shifting the melody up by an octave, to kick epicness up a few notches (be careful doing this, though, as going too high and too loud can become harsh on the ears). Another idea to add more variation could be to add a second lead sound with which you can alternate the melody, to move the colors and textures around a bit. I suggest listening to some Willrock, who is an awesome reference for synth lead writing. I also agree that the low bass is a good start, but it lacks definition, which I also think could be fixed by layering it with a higher sound. Kris's advice on the structure is also spot-on, and I strongly recommend using it to attempt improving your track. This is a good start. Best of luck, and I'm hoping to hearing this reworked! NO (resubmit)

I concur! It's an awesome feat to expand the original in a very similar genre and successfully push it even further like you did. The highs and lows in the structure are extremely tasty, and the sound quality is excellent. Lots of expressivity all along, lots of personalization, with the source still very recognizable. There isn't much else to say that wasn't already said here! Super awesome stuff. YES

I agree with almost all of Mike's vote. I think the deal-breaker is indeed about the vocals, but I personally don't think the performance is the main problem. It may not be *the perfect match* for that track, but that's asking for a lot. My problem is with the mixing of the voice. The backing track is beautiful and well-executed on its own, but it feels like the lead vocal wasn't given nearly as much attention in the mixing efforts. It's not blending in the rest of the track at all. I feel like some EQ work could be done to help with that, and I'd suggest taking a look at the low-mids particularly, seems to me like that's where most of the weird stuff is happening. I also think the vocals could use a bit of reverb to blend in more. Reworking the overall levels by putting more consideration in the vocals could also be a good idea to try and blend them in better. Maybe Mike and Kris are right, and what this needs is a different voice, but I do think it might not be the case, and that it's definitely worth trying to rework the mix with the current voice. NO (resubmit)

Also listening on headphones, I agree that Version 1 is much better. My main problem with the panning in Version 2 is that all the leads are always to the far right (guitar and violin), and the backing which is much more mid-heavy focused on the left side. I think this makes things feel very unbalanced very quickly between both sides. Although I agree that Version 1 has some mixing issues (especially with the low-mids being particularly crowded) I feel like the arrangement very much makes up for that. The writing is excellent, the guitar playing is spot on, the flourishes are all awesome, the sequencing is great. The structure is very nice, the direction is clear and works definitely well for the source, which is still very recognizable even with all the personalizing touches. Bottom line, I agree that the panning in Version 2 is deal-breaking, but Version 1 is enough of an improvement to make this very acceptable to me, along with the awesome arrangement. YES