Chimpazilla

This is a very fun listen! Although the remix sticks very close to the original source arrangement, there have been arrangement modifications here and there, and the last segment of the remix seems more original than midi-rip. Still, I have to agree with proph that overall this comes off as way too conservative. The submission writeup explains that actual source audio has been used and effected. proph said "instrumental replacement" but what is happening here is instrumental augmentation with the literal source audio as a base. I ripped the YouTube video and put that and the remix side by side in Cubase just to be sure that I was hearing that correctly. Both source and remix are at the same 125bpm as well. While it is ok to use some source audio from game songs, and sfx from the game are usually ok (as long as it's not Square Enix), this is way too much use of source audio from the game for OCR's standards. I'd love to hear this again though, with even more arrangement and writing personalization and significantly less actual source audio (like just SFX and nothing melodic). Even so, I really did enjoy this take on this source! NO

Fun source and fun idea for a remix! But I think the guys above me covered most of the issues well. The soundscape is dense, muddy-ish, and repetitive. The same sounds are used all throughout the arrangement, which could work if the writing was varied enough. With the writing being so conservative and also repetitive throughout the piece, the instrumentation, sfx and ear candy have got to be varied and dynamic. Many of the elements are lows-heavy, causing the low end to feel heavy and muddy; some EQ on the midrange elements would help clear up the low end. The drum kit feels weak compared to the rest of the instrumentation. As XPRT said, the kick is extremely weak with zero body. The 8-bit squelches and sizzly crash don't feel right to me, in this arrangement. There's no sidechaining that I can hear, so the mix lacks groove it could otherwise have (not dealbreaker, but a shame). I like the soft breakdown with just drums and bells, with the chippy synth leading us back to the melodic material. The arrangement overall I think is working well. This one would be a winner for me with a bit more instrumentation variation, some EQ to tame the lows on the midrangey elements, and better drum sounds and drum mixing (and a little sidechaining never hurt anyone!). NO (resubmit)

0:00-0:28 is too repetitive, as proph said something else should have come in by 0:14. This same vocal and piano pattern is still going strong until 0:56 and that's way too long. Even with the bassline and drums added, the vocal and piano patterns go on way too long. The mixing is out of balance. The drums are comically quiet. There are a ton of instruments playing during the dense portions of this arrangement, and everything is competing in frequency range, soundstage placement and volume. The drum groove never drops out, once established. Ditto the bassline. At 2:08, the faux brass instrument has a slow attack, making it sound badly behind the beat. The guitar solo is a nice addition! The biggest problem here though is that the instrumental patterns never change, they are relentlessly playing the same patterns over and over, and often dogpiled one on top of the other so that it is a wall of sound. I agree with proph that this is a neat idea, but needs a lot more work to be realized. Writing variation has to be introduced, a drumless breakdown somewhere in the arrangement would be a welcome break from the intense action. The instrument volumes need to be rebalanced and elements need to be EQd so that things aren't competing this badly. I do like the concept, though! NO

Agreed with Brad that this remix is more of a cover right from the jump, even down to the identical snare tone. The genre, instrumentation, tempo, arrangement, structure, modulations etc. are all the same as the source song. It's a very competent cover! But a cover for sure, all the way until 2:00, right after the original's loop point. The synth solo that follows at 2:04 is sick beyond belief, I love this so much. At 2:22, we are back to the source's chord structure but with another awesome solo (guitar) on top of it. This arrangement really takes off after the 2:00 mark! The soft piano breakdown is excellent, although the piano sounds very stiff and sequenced. After the piano, at 3:10, we are back to the verbatim source cover as in the first half of the piece. As Brad said, ending is solid. Brad is right, this is a super fun listen, and a very good cover, but it is too conservative too much of the time for OCR. If the part from 0:00-2:00 included some variations away from the source song, this remix would be a no-brainer YES vote. I'd love to hear it again with those variations made so it can be posted on OCR! NO

I was so excited to see a new Hudak submission here! I mentioned it to Wes, but he said he had seen this submission and he remembered the same submission from a few years back, which was rejected. So I dug up the rejection thread, and the writeup is *almost* exactly the same. Listening to the remix, I am pretty sure the wav file is also exactly the same, based on the writeup and the judges' previous votes. I am going to assume this isn't a resubmission (nothing was changed), and just a re-submission. And so my vote will mirror that of the other judges in 2021. Super cool idea! But way too minimal for OCR. I know this is an experimental track, but I personally would love to hear this as a layer within a larger BotW arrangement of this source or possibly more sources from the game, with proper instrumentation and arrangement in place. NO edit: I see the writeup indicates that tiny tweaks have been made since 2021. I never heard the first version but it seems like this new version is substantially the same.

I agree with both my fellow Js above on all points. Those grace notes, including the quick upward run right at the end, are awkward and often not in key, but they are brief. They add to the not-real feel of the flute lead. There is also overly-consistent vibrato on the flute, but it doesn't sound egregious since it only triggers on the longer notes. Other than those issues, the flute sounds pretty good. The brass swells are definitely too loud. Those are the sections that are squared off in the wav because the limiter is having to squash the track at those points. There are almost certainly low-lows in those sections that could be EQd out, giving you more mastering headroom (in addition to just turning the low brass down a couple of db during those big swells). The mastering is also heavy handed, with the track hitting a max RMS value of -7.5db which is EDM territory, and is totally unnecessary for a soft orchestral piece. Shoot for more like -12db RMS, tops. All that said, this is a lovely arrangement. I like the bits of vocal, they add a nice flavor. While not perfect, I think this arrangement passes our bar. In the case that it doesn't pass, I recommend at least EQing your low and mid instruments to remove unnecessary low-lows and rumble, lower the volume of the low brass, and reduce the final limiter gain on the master. I'm borderline like Larry is here, due to the right-on-the-cusp mixing issues, but I am still a YES (borderline)

Very conservative arrangement, in fact the artist did mention that it is a cover. This arrangement is too conservative for OCR, although I like this direction for a spooky remix. Cool listen for Halloween, but I agree with proph that the mix is extremely dense, and I hear the limiter pumping as it gets engaged on the big hits. Very cool idea for a remix but needs a mixing/mastering overhaul and needs to be more than just a cover for OCR, it needs some writing personalizations along with the new instrumentation. NO

I am comparing this to the older version (which I still had on my PC!) and I do find this new version to be quite an improvement in mixing. The soundscape is still intense, but the elements are all audible now. I still really like the idea of this mix and the incredible energy in it. The drums and bass are intense. The shaker and open hat hits starting at 0:12 are way too loud and dry all the way to 0:45. I really like the intensity of the drop at 0:56! The drums and bass here are super cool. But now I am noticing even more how repetitive this arrangement is. Although the mixing is improved, the instrumentation has not been varied at all, and so it feels longer than it is. I agree totally with proph when he said "there's only so far you can stretch the same few things, no matter how much rhythmic variation you give each element." The arp and lead motif are played by the same instruments all the way through, and the lead especially is not a very exciting sound. I think there may be some filter movement on this lead sound but it's subtle. I think even sidechaining this lead would do wonders in adding groove. As it stands, that plain lead lowers the energy whenever it is playing, which is odd to say as the drums are so very energetic. Same at 1:52, and 3:09, the drums are pounding away, but the simplicity of that lead is disrupting the overall groove too much. I suggest varying the lead patch, use a pluck for a section, then switch to something legato, or mix and match. The drum writing is varied and exciting, but since the sounds never change, the drums are adding to the repetitive feel of the piece. Somehow the drum sounds need variation too, maybe change out the snare, or clap, or introduce something else different, vary the toploops, etc. I do appreciate how much effort has gone into varying the writing of the drums, lead motif, and arp patterns. Varying this motif and arp are no small feat, considering the source tune! The repetition of the same sounds for five full minutes is sinking it though. I also think it would be a good idea to trim this arrangement back, each section is much longer than it needs to be to convey the ideas. NO (resubmit)

I love this concept! But proph is right, it's just too repetitive. The groove and energy stay the same all throughout most of the piece starting at 0:00. The arrangement could use a proper (drumless, ambient) intro, and the drum groove and sounds should morph and change as the arrangement moves forward (adding percussive loops or sfx or something to change the energy here and there). The writing needs variation, and there are many sections in here where an original motif or solo could sit on top of the soundscape (this is actually a perfect source to do such a thing with). So many great ideas here, just needs more variation and interest, and some lead motif work would really be nice. I do like the drumless breakdown, followed by a doubletime drum beat with a few cool fills, that's the right idea. Having a few more interesting fills and drum groove/sound changes in the first 2 1/2 minutes would also help. The mix is super dense, I recommend using EQ to make sure nothing is competing too terribly, especially in the low end and mid/high mids. I don't hear any sidechaining, this soundscape would really be grooving with some sidechaining on almost everything. Primarily, less repetition of the same phrases and ideas and instrumentation, and more unique ideas and writing, and this will be an absolute banger. NO

This is definitely much closer to the passing zone. That new cello sample sounds divine..... but the vibrato on it is too fast. There shouldn't be vibrato starting up on the short notes, this gives the effect of having vibrato on *every* note which sounds really fake. If you have an attack parameter for the vibrato, I suggest lengthening it enough so the shorter notes get zero vibrato while the longer notes get some vibrato at the end. Example: at 0:30, those first three notes should be vibrato-less, and the fourth note should get some vibrato at the end. Otherwise though, yeah I dig this sample. Also, proph is right about the boominess on the cello's reverb. Cut the reverb off around 500Hz, there is no need to hear reverb lower than that, and it makes it sound unnatural and boomy and loud when the lowest notes play. The last two submissions of this had way too much headroom even though the waveform looked smashed. In this resub, there is no headroom, and the peaks are completely cut off starting at 2:01 when the big bass drum comes in. That drum is hitting at the same time and same frequency as everything else in the lower frequencies, and during those hits the lows pile up and cause a spike, and then when you master the track the spikes get overcompressed, causing clipped-off, mangled peaks and overcompression artifacts. Two things should happen: use EQ to make sure the bass, other drums, other low elements have a small cut at the frequency of that big drum (actually you might want to make sure your midrange elements don't have stray lows either, this adds to the pile-up), and on the mastering side, don't set your ceiling to 0db, set it to -0.5 as that will ensure nothing actually clips. Either way, reduce your final limiter gain so it's not smashing so hard against whatever ceiling you set. You can look at your waveform after mastering and see if anything has been bricked, if it looks like this it is too heavy-handed: Do you see how the peaks in that section are squared off? That's overcompression, and it happens whenever all those lows hit at the same time. All that being said, I still dig this arrangement! It's so emotional and I agree with proph about the choir, it's cool and spooky. This one's close, just get the vibrato on the cello dialed back a bit, EQ the cello's reverb to remove lows, and get the mastering in the right zone to avoid clipping/overcompression, and this one's a YES from me. NO (resubmit)

Hhhhmmm... it is concerning when the artist deletes his link to the track mid-vote, without comment, but ok, YouTube it is. This is a very cute idea, I love the concept. But the arrangement is super conservative, and repetitive. This remix is two playthroughs of the same material, back to back. The guitar samples sound good, although the vibrato on the lead enters the same way at the same intervals, which makes it sound uncanny rather than charming. I think the sample works just fine in timbre, but varying the vibrato timings would help. The overall mixing and volume balancing sounds generally good to me, although I agree with my fellow Js that the low end could be cleaned up just a bit with some EQ so the low elements don't compete. This arrangement is borderline too short at just over two minutes, and the repetitive nature of it (two identical playthroughs) is dealbreaker, but I enjoyed listening to it nonetheless! NO

I voted on this in 2022 so I'll use that vote as reference, even though this is a new file. I give you a lot of credit for being this persistent in your resubmissions! I still think this is a cute and well-crafted arrangement, but the sounds and mixing still aren't getting it done. I said in my previous vote that the soundscape sounded "dated" rather than nostalgic, and I still feel that way, although I feel like it has more to do with the writing than the sounds themselves. These sounds come off as very plain and vanilla, and the simple gridlocked writing does not help. The sequencing of everything sounds stiff and forced. The organ in the intro does not go with the rest of the soundscape at all so it sticks out. The volume has been lowered since last time but it still does not sound right. I agree with Larry about the lead at 0:27, it is not a pleasant sound for a lead, it is bland and low-midrangey and it is doing a phasey thing that sounds comical rather than cool. This lead sound just brings the vibe down rather than up. That little section of lead would be completely improved with a beautiful glassy synth or delayed pluck playing that motif instead. I agree with proph that the call and response in that section is very nice. At 0:42, with no transition or signaling, we are into a drumless breakdown, but the bubbly backing synth sounds weird to me, although I appreciate that it has some filter movement on it. The lead pluck sounds very plain and uninspiring here, and the countermelodic patch is very sharp sounding. The instruments in this section do not work well with each other in my opinion. The layered lead at 0:57 has a similar problem. I think I hear at least three patches playing the motif there, and those patches do not compliment each other well. The whole thing together sounds boxy and heavy with low-mids. A layered lead needs to sound like one patch. I recommend choosing patches that sound more similar to each other, and definitely something with fewer low-mid frequencies; something prettier like a glassy legato saw patch. From 1:08-1:23, the bassline sounds very bland and simple. The sound itself is not terrible, but it is missing something. I honestly think that if there was any sidechaining in this mix (I still don't hear any, anywhere), if the kick was sidechained to this bassline and I could hear it ducking the bass, this little section would sound cool, but as it stands now that section lacks any kind of groove for me. The bass here sounds almost off-timed with the drums, but I am not completely sure. I really like the arp that begins at 1:15. That's a good sounding patch. I wish it would do something interesting though. That would be a fun sound to experiment with automated filtering or panning (NOT too much, keep it subtle) or other kinds of effects. At 1:23 the faux-trumpet lead is yet another sound that isn't well suited to play a lead line. It just doesn't sound sophisticated or modern, it has a ton of low-mids, and the filtered attack gives it a quacky sound that detracts from the more serious nature of the writing and the rest of the instrumentation. This trumpety synth is paired with a tiny glassy bell which sounds great but again the two sounds are so dissimilar and they don't compliment each other well at all, it does not sound cohesive in any way. At 1:47, that's the best lead sound I hear in the entire mix. I would love to hear some filter movement on it, that would be super nice. At 2:01 going into the outro, there's a filtered bass patch that sounds amazing. I want more of that kind of thing throughout the arrangement! Then the organ and choir return for a complete set of organ/choir bookends. I'm not a fan of the organ, choir sounds workable though. The drums throughout the arrangement are mostly on autopilot other than the fills, so the drum groove becomes repetitive as the piece moves along. This arrangement could use some stronger transitional elements to prepare the listener for all the shifts in energy throughout the piece. The drum fills are good for this, but there are many other options for transitions to really stitch the piece together and give it nice flow. Some of the sections have no transition at all. Other than that though, I actually think the arrangement itself is pretty great, it has good energy control and arrangement dynamics. One thing I really like about this arrangement is that care has been taken to change the instrumentation as the piece moves along; no one element outstays its welcome and that is a very good thing! I admire how tenacious you have been while working on this over a long timespan. I still think this arrangement is workable, but it needs to sound more cohesive, more modern and more sophisticated. It just takes time to learn what sounds good and how to make that happen. NO

This is my first time hearing this mix, I did not vote on the original submission. This arrangement starts with ambiance recorded directly from the game (drenched in reverb, together with the opening strings), we would need to make sure that it is ok to use the actual game audio in this remix. The opening string part is really nice. The huge bass blasts that follow at 0:56 are great, big and badass. I kind of wish there were fewer of them, or at least if elements could be entering one at a time after each bass section. There are five of them with only the game ambiance audio for company. Having too many of them in a row with nothing else added causes them to lose impact. At 1:26, we are into a beat. There's a rather plain synth playing a pattern together with the buzzy synth (is it the same synth doing the bass blasts?). These two sounds don't sound good together to me, they don't compliment each other well. But then there is the drum groove: a very simple kick, hats and vanilla clap. I get that this simple drum kit is mirroring that of the source tunes, but they sound weak, thin, dry and out of place to me against the heavy buzzing synth. The kick is very quietly mixed and lacks impact. The drum pattern itself is simple and repetitive. In the two source songs, those simple drums fit the 90s soundscape and they are mixed more prominently as well. This section is a huge departure from the beautiful strings in the intro and the big badass bass blasts. The soundscape feels disjointed to me. At 1:41, we get what sounds like surf guitar, it is loud and drowning in reverb, which makes the drum elements sound even more quiet and dry by comparison. The guitar is performed well, but it is another odd addition to the soundscape in my opinion. At 2:55, after more game audio ambiance, there is a violin (synth) that sounds good to me, very moody. But this section goes on quite long without doing much of interest. The bouncy pluck doesn't sit well with the violin synth for me since they have such different vibes (the pluck is lighthearted and playful while the violin thing is moody, so I am emotionally confused at this point). Good transition back into the heavier soundscape at 3:40. But now we have violin, guitar, buzzy synth, and the dry 90s drum kit. I do like the guitar soloing in the final passage before the ending. I love the concept of this arrangement, but I feel it isn't there yet. The elements are mismatched both in timbre and processing, and the soundscape sounds too disjointed to me; it takes me out of the feel of the piece and lowers my listening enjoyment. I think even just rebalancing the elements in volume, and making the reverbs match better so the instruments and drums sound like they are more in the same space would help a lot. I also don't hear any sidechaining on anything. I will spare you the entire sidechaining Ted Talk I usually do, but that would add a ton of groove to the parts of the song that have drums. NO

I like the joke at the beginning.... and I have to admit I was happy to discover that those first few notes *were* a joke! I agree with proph that there's no need for that part (or the intro metronome taps) to post with the remix, however. If this is done with samples, it is done WELL. To do such a sparse arrangement using exposed samples, they have got to be near perfect. Bravo on this. And barely any reverb, perfect chamber music style. This is a really well put together arrangement. It goes through many moods and vibes: creepy, lighthearted, playful, melancholy. My only issue is source use. I would love to see a breakdown of source use (and preferably not make one myself). Assuming enough source is here, this is an easy YES. I am going to withhold my vote until i (or someone else) does a source check, but I like it. Edit: Thanks guys for checking out the source content, I'm switching to YES

This is a premaster. Before busting this remixer on frequency holes, I put some quick mastering on the track and it sounds immensely better. Proper mastering can cover a multitude of sins. Even so, I had to crank up the low-lows with my multiband compressor to get it sounding bassy enough, so the low end is definitely mixed too softly and tamely. But why submit a premaster to OCR? This mix definitely needs a volume rebalance. Bass is too quiet, leads are too quiet, mids are too loud, there's a wide-panned pad that is way too loud. The drums are comically quiet. I can barely hear the kick, there seems to be zero sidechaining on any element in the track (oh the humanity!) and the snare and hats are too quiet. The drums consist of one loop repeated over and over which makes the drum groove too repetitive. A good DnB beat should have many, MANY fills and variations throughout the track, and the drums should be mixed loud and proud. The total lack of sidechaining means this arrangement does not move or groove, and that's a darn shame. The instruments are placed oddly in the soundscape. The pad is super wide, and the pad includes a lot of low-mids, and low-mids sound awkward and muddy when panned this wide. It would be better to have the pad mostly centered, with its high-mids and highs appearing more wide. Same for the leads. Leads are centered 100% here, it would be nice to hear the upper end of some of these leads having some side presence. Snare and hats also live 100% in the center, with no side presence at all, so they sound weak. In fact, that pad feels especially odd to me. So, I decided to listen to the track in mono in Cubase to see what is happening. In mono, that wide pad disappears. Like, 100% disappears, not just a little but totally. Whatever has been done to this pad to widen it this much has made it go out of phase. Anyone listening to the track played back on a phone speaker will not hear the pad at all. The most obvious instance of this starts at 1:01. Check out the mixdown in mono and you'll see that pad is inaudible. Despite the mixing flaws, there are a lot of cool ideas in this arrangement, and great synth sounds. The intro could use some kind of sfx or atmo to go with the chippy arp, it sounds very simple and plain until the first pad comes in at 0:10. The ending is disappointing, there is a bit of a cooldown as the drums filter away, but then there is no resolution and it just ends. It feels like at the very least it needs that last note of the phrase to feel complete, as the white noise whoosh is playing. I love the concept of this, and I think it can be great with improvements. I love the shift at 2:02 to chiptune, then back to the regularly-scheduled soundscape at 2:12, awesome idea! I agree with my fellow Js that repetition is a problem, but that could be addressed with a few extra arps, countermelodies, varied lead patches, sfx coming into and out of the soundscape, or more filtering and effects. But primarily the mixdown needs work: volume balancing and placement/panning of instruments. And some sidechaining would be nice. NO