Chimpazilla   Judges ⚖️

Very interesting production style here! The heavy reverb and the flutter and wow over the whole soundscape puts me right in the middle of the mall in the middle of the 80s. Very cool! I do agree with proph that this reverb sounds cold, almost icy, perhaps it's too crisp? Is this a plate or spring reverb perhaps? It has a metallic feel. The reverb lacks warmth (hence the coldness!). The amount of reverb is fine, as this is what was intended, but the character of the reverb could definitely be more pleasant than this. This isn't a dealbreaker for me, just an observation. Heck, maybe I'm at the mall in January and it's snowing outside. What is a dealbreaker for me is the repetitive nature of this arrangement. First of all, it plods. The energy of the piece stays the same from beginning to end. The drum groove is exactly the same all throughout the piece, even with the kick being dropped out here and there, the snare and hat patterns never change. I do appreciate that the lead instrument changes throughout the arrangement, but the bass, plucks/mallets, backing elements and vocal clips are the same from beginning to end and it just feels so repetitive to me. Some variation in the soundscape elements, writing, and drum groove would greatly improve this arrangement. The source is definitely plastered like, all over this, so we're all good there. I love the concept! But the repetitive/static nature of the arrangement, instrumentation and writing are blowing it for me. NO

Yeah this isn't lo-fi, it's just EQd harshly at 3kHz and it sounds muffled. Emunator can definitely provide better advice here, and explain the process, but proper lo-fi involves different types of processing, EQ and saturation than just cutting off the top end. There are entire plugins dedicated to lo-fi production. The first one that comes to mind is LO-FI-AF by Unfiltered Audio. The arrangement is very conservative, and although it has some nice adaptations it could really use more personalization and variation. The instruments and drums all sound very robotic and stiff. The piano especially needs some humanization. The writing is very repetitive and the energy is static throughout the piece, with no breakdown and the drums play all the way to the last section. The same patterns play over and over and in combinations but they never do anything interesting once established. The ending is brief and disappointing. As for mixing and volume-balancing, I can't even comment on it in its current EQ-obliterated form. I agree with proph that our Discord workshop channel will be a great place to get further advice and guidance on this one! NO

This is super conservative to the source tune, maybe almost too much so, but I appreciate the little countermelodies and additional textures added. The guitar is performed well. It's a nice, yet straightforward, arrangement. I agree with proph about the mixing, it's very dense and very low and low-mid heavy, giving the overall mix a muddy and sometimes boxy feel. I agree with him that some EQ is needed, to remove unwanted lows/low-mids and rumble from the non-bass instruments, vocals and drums, as everything is piling up and clashing in the lows and low mids. Having all these lows in everything also has the impact of stealing your mastering headroom. You'll have an easier and louder master after taming the instruments with EQ, as your limiter won't have such a huge task of smashing everything down. As it stands, this master is being pushed very hard, and also the limit of -2db seems very unnecessary. You can even see on SPAN how the frequencies are heavily skewed towards the low mids, with the high mids and highs severely rolling off by comparison. This is not a good overall balance for the track. I took this snip at exactly 2:13 in the mix. There are so many instruments playing at that point that everything sounds jumbled up and indistinct. I'm very borderline on this because part of me feels it could post like this. But on repeat listens, I feel that the mixing really does need to be addressed to make this completely passable and enjoyable to listen to. Please clean up the mixing and send it right back to us! NO (please resubmit)

Oooo, tough one. This arrangement is great, performances are great, but as the other Js have mentioned, the mixing is a problem. It's odd because the track sounds well enough balanced overall. There are enough lows, mids and highs. But it sounds.... so off. I think what has happened here is that the instruments have been EQd in such a way that all of their low-mids have been removed. This includes the vocal. So the guitar, piano, and vocals all sound unbearably thin and anemic. Any mid-highs and highs on these elements have been hyped, or they sound hyped as a result, causing the overall mix to sound almost painfully bright. The vocal should be the star of this mix, but due to being harshly EQd like this, the vocal melts into the soundscape and becomes lost (among several elements all screaming in the same frequency range), causing me to be unable to understand the lyrics. It's a shame because this really is a well executed arrangement, but the mixing is putting it under the bar for me. I suggest re-balancing and mixing this from the ground up. Start with just the bass and drums, then add in one element at a time, making sure the elements don't compete in frequency, but also not EQing them into oblivion. NO (please address the mixing and resubmit)

Right from the jump, this master is way too loud. There is no reason for a mellow/jazzy track to be mastered this loud and it has no dynamics as a result. I do love the jazzy-vibed concept of this mix. The drum groove is a particular highlight! The piano performance is excellent. The instruments and drum kit all sound ok to me, and the volumes sound well balanced, but I do hear the clashing that has been mentioned in a few sections. From 0:09-0:23 the reverbs and delays are running together leaving a mush of clashing soundscape trailing behind the fast piano playing. You may not need this much delay in the mix. There's a harmonically awkward turnaround happening at 0:59, and the overlapping reverbs and delays are making it worse. I agree with the guys above me, the mixing needs a cleanup. In addition to taming the reverbs and delays, some EQ work is suggested. Make sure there aren't lows in your piano or other supporting instrumentation playing/conflicting in the low-mid bass ranges, and I agree with XPRT that the bass could also use some EQ to remove some low-mids. On the reverbs (and delays), make sure lows are EQd out also. These mixing fixes should clean things up nicely. I don't agree with the guys though on the drum mixing, I find the balances of the drums fine if not a bit quiet in the mix! I think the drums are fine as-is. Awesome concept and remix! It just needs some mixing love to keep things sounding crisp and clear. You may also want to turn down the final limiter gain also for a more reasonable master volume (something more like -12 to -11db RMS, the mix currently hits -7db RMS), although the EQ changes we have suggested will most likely give you more mastering headroom anyway. Please do these things and let's hear this fun remix again soon. NO (resubmit please)

This is indeed a straight cover, for the most part. The instrument/genre adaptation does count, but musically it is a cover, which can be fine as long as there are personalized sections added in, like an original breakdown and/or another big section with more variation on the writing or pace or something. While not required, some kind of longer and more purposeful intro and outro would also help this arrangement shine. As proph said, what's here is fun! It's short though, arguably 2 minutes is not enough time to get the ideas across in a prog-rock piece. On the production side of things, the drums could come up a bit in the mix, the snare and all the hats are very tame and weak with minimal highs, kick could punch through a bit better. I think things are balanced fairly well other than that, although at times the lead guitar comes in too loud, such as at 1:18 and again at 1:46. I also agree with proph that I'd like to hear a bit more bass in the mix. NO

Those drops are waaaaay too loud, coming in with zero signaling, suddenly nine decibels louder than what came before. That right there is enough of a dealbreaker to sink this mix. I loves me a good loud kick, but holy heckballs this is absolutely ridiculoud. The arrangement should have soft sections followed by buildups, hinting at what is to come, you don't want your listener to leap out of his chair hearing these drops. There are no builds here, just the soft sections and then WHAM my ears are raped. The sections are repetitive within themselves, with nothing too interesting happening once the patterns are established. I think there great ideas here though! I'd love to hear more melodic development, I don't actually hear the source motif anywhere, I think adding that motif plus some variations over the repetitive sections would greatly add interest to the arrangement. As prophetik mentioned, the arpeggio that appears here and there in this arrangement does not really match with the melodies and harmonies you have going in the other instruments. It certainly does not hold water trying to act as a lead. In that final section, the faux-hardstyle, that vocal bit is amazingly too loud also. So this entire mix needs a volume balance as a starting point. But yeah, resist the urge to try to win the loudness war here! There is no need for that, and it's much more jarring than it needs to be. NO

This arrangement re-imagines the Animal Crossing Wild World Title music in a more instrumentally dry and straight ahead manner, taking rhythmic inspiration especially from the original Animal Crossing Title music for N64/Gamecube. Featured is MIDI arrangement and recording only created in Bitwig Studio. The overall structure of the original track is maintained, yet lengthened. Instrumentation is changed and does not vary throughout. One of the key features of this track is the unison marimba/electric piano melody, separated by octaves. The melody is then harmonized at key points in synchrony with the rhythm section. Then it returns to unison until the next point of synchrony. At 1:25, we see a chromatically colored, original solo of the marimba/electric piano lead with bebop inspired phrasing over one chorus of the song. At 2:35, we get a glimpse of an abrupt ending... and then we continue until the final point of suspension. The original ending of suspension is kept not only for preservation, but to evoke the feeling of "the world keeps moving on." I feel the original composition is playful, but melancholic, and is preserved in the arrangement. It's a tune that's close to many and reflects life and the people you meet. Games & Sources Animal Crossing: Wild World - Title Screen Platform: Nintendo DS Release Date: November 23rd, 2005 Composer: Kazumi Totaka Original composition:

Looks like a premaster, tons of unused headroom in the waveform. This arrangement is extremely conservative, we all agree on that. But with the 100% instrumentation change, I don't find this conservatism dealbreaking. I agree that the first 80 seconds is almost too conservative, but there's a lovely turnaround 1:26, followed by fuller chords with the choir, countermelodies with the woodwinds, and an even more luscious feel. This arrangement isn't doing anything earth-shattering, but it is utterly lovely and does the job for me for sure. As per our standards I feel that enough has been done here to differentiate the remix from the source tune. If this does not pass, please find a way to add a few more original melodies or motifs or something, especially into that first half. And do some mastering, it doesn't have to be anything major but at least use a final limiter to bring up the overall volume to somewhere around -0.5db peak, hitting maybe -13 to -12db RMS. YES

That's an intense source to do a remix of! Very hectic and wild. The remix is much tamer. I like the idea of doing this as an EDM or trance mix. Right away I can tell that this artist is fairly new at producing. But, everyone starts somewhere! I remember being at this stage myself, very well. I'm not going to go into an extensive critique; this track as the other two judges have mentioned will do better by going through our workshop process either on OCR's forum or in our Discord server workshop channels. There's a lot to learn here. The guys above me have given some great advice already, and you'll get more of that in the workshop and they can give you feedback in realtime as you progress, without having to wait through our judging queue. Good luck, keep at it and hang in there! NO

I really love this triplet bassline! Very cool trancey vibe going on here. I hear sidechaining on the bass, I think, but nothing else. Adding some sidechaining on your other elements (pads, plucks, even the lead) in varying amounts will make this soundscape groove all that much better. This is not a dealbreaker issue for me, just something I'm pointing out. The lead that you are using is a rather wide saw sound, and it's not wowing me as a lead. This sound would do better as a backing or countermelodic element than a lead. It melts into the soundscape rather than rising above it to carry the melody. There is definitely repetition in this arrangement, 0:45-1:00 for example, is just the same thing over and over without anything of interest happening there. That's a lost opportunity to do something surprising for your listeners. The lead writing remains the same throughout most of this arrangement with no variation from how the source plays the lead motif. I'd love to hear some more personalization on that motif now and then as the piece moves along. From 1:15-2:30 it is just the same thing over and over with a few elements added along the way but with that lead sound and writing never changing, it feels very long and repetitive. The transition into 2:30 is very awkward with nothing bridging it. 2:30-2:50 is very simple with nothing of interest happening. That would be a great place to add some surprising element like a new arp or sfx or some automated filtered stuff or some weird spoken vocal. Then there's a halftime drum groove over an 1/8-note bassline, then with zero transition we are into a slower section at 3:10 which feels so weird, is that synth doing a swing pattern? I can't entirely tell but the pulse there feels clunky. At 3:30 there is yet another feel and groove. The synth playing the pattern is the same one that has been playing throughout the entire track so far. The autopanning at 3:45 is too fast, it would have more impact moving more slowly across the stereo field. At 4:00 there is a new lead sound, with personalization on the source motif, finally! I like this writing, and I like the lead sound much better than the first one although it's still not a super strong patch for a lead and ends up feeling a little washed into the soundscape. This section is cool though. Zero transition into an extended outro. This arrangement has a ton of cool ideas in it, but it does not sound or feel cohesive to me. There are so many patterns, speeds and vibes, and the transitions between the sections are nonexistent so the listener can't prepare or anticipate the next thing. The sounds are not super sophisticated and they are used very repetitively. I feel like either the arrangement should either be shortened, or more variation should be introduced as these longer sections go on and on. NO

Gorgeous solo piano cover of this source tune. I agree with proph, this is very well done. I also agree with his crits regarding dynamic range, what's here is somewhat excessive and it seems like zero mastering has been applied other than a final limiter with a ceiling set to -0.2db. There is also some content living at 20-40Hz and below, which should have been EQd out since that is inaudible and only serves to steal headroom from your master. Mixing crits aside, this is a lovely, emotive and extremely well performed piece. I love it, and so will others. YES

Ah yes I remember this, and the varied time-signature source song. My big crits were too-quiet master, improper volume leveling and EQ, and lack of sidechaining. The master is loud now, possibly a hair too loud, but it's clean so I'll take it. The mixing sounds so much better this time. I'm not sure I hear any sidechaining, but the kick is audible and things are grooving nicely. I like the weird lead sounds, I liked those before and I still do, they fit the vibe so well. This is such a cool creepy yet groovy arrangement, and the creation of it has an interesting story attached to it. Congrats on the Masters degree, three years late! Thanks for putting in the time to get this mix sounding its best! YES

LOOOOOUUUUUDDDDD. Why? This is a chill piece, it does not need to be this loud. The waveform is a brick, and I hear sizzle that I don't think is intentional. The gain needs to be brought down on the final limiter. I like the dreamy instrumentation, the smooth bass, pads and soft arp pattern. I like the plucky piano-y lead, and the flute lead. This is a nice take on this source, keeping it recognizable and dreamy while adding groove to it. The drum groove does have some variation, but it sounds repetitive a lot of the time, and the groove does not always match the mood of what's happening in the arrangement. If the feel is meant to be groovy rather than floaty and ethereal, some sidechaining needs to happen on the instruments, at the very least on the bass and pads. As it stands now, my mind cannot decide whether this is meant to be soft and dreamy, or groovy. It's a weird emotional disparity. And the drums being mostly the same loop a lot of the time does not help, it doesn't feel natural without more rhythmic variations. I like the ideas here, but for me it does not feel cohesive overall yet. Honestly just some proper sidechaining will make the drum groove gel with the instrumental components, it will be so much more luscious with proper sidechaining done. Please lower the master limiter gain somewhat, too. NO (resubmit)

I was a borderline YES before, and I still am. I do agree with the issues proph brought out. The men's choir has a too-long attack so the notes swell slowly and consistently which sounds awkward. The pizz does not bother me in the least though. The trumpet does sound fake, and I agree with proph about the mismatched articulations, but that isn't enough of an issue to be a dealbreaker for me. The piano is indeed a "dance piano" and the tone does not match the rest of the instrumentation super well, but it is used so sparingly. I am also confused on why zero time to record a flute part can't be found, but I empathize with anyone who cannot find any alone time, that sucks! But for me, this flute does the job while not being perfect it sounds good enough. I still like this arrangement. The big mixing crits I had from before have been addressed. The mastering has been tamed nicely. I am still a YES