Chimpazilla

I agree with my fellows that the vocals are sinking this. They are loud, dry, nasal (midrangey), pitchy and wavery. I love the remix concept, but the vocals need another production pass to make them settle into the song rather than riding on top of the soundscape as they do here, and the vocal performance needs to be improved, either through retakes or extensive pitch correction, and proper processing. The rest of the instrumentation is working well, although I agree with Larry that the piano at 0:20 feels bright and out of place. For me it's primarily the vocals that need work since they are the most prominent element in the track. With the vocals sounding better this is an easy yes from me. NO (resubmit)

Cool arrangement, lots of neat ideas here. But the production needs more work. Right off the bat, the bass that comes in is way too loud and dominating, it is pounding my ears at 90Hz. The synths playing melodies and countermelodies are all playing in roughly the same frequency range, and when the soundscape is full such as at 0:32, there is just too much playing at the same time and it is fatiguing to listen to. It feels like not much EQ has been done to allow each synth to breathe within the mix, and everything is stepping all over each other, in frequency and in writing. From 0:33-0:46 I hear a lead, an arp, a countermelody, and the upper end of a very busy bassline, all mushing together. The writing is all super busy and the synths do not have room to breathe. Listening all the way through, there are several sections that are overly busy like that. Despite several areas with very cool filtering and bitcrushing, the mix sounds repetitive because the timbre of the synths never changes all the way through, and sections of writing seem to be repeated wholesale. The synth that is used primarily as a lead is probably better used for a backing writing part; the patch is cool but it is nebulous and does not carry a lead melody well. A lot of the time, backing arps do not fit harmonically with the leads and countermelodies, and there are clashing notes here and there. I don't hear any sidechaining at all on this mix, so the kick barely comes through. Proper sidechaining of the instruments (bass at a minimum, but I sidechain everything in my mixes, in varying amounts) will let the kick punch through, it will add groove to the mix that isn't there now, it will help clean up the mixing, and give you much more clean mastering headroom. Unfortunately I concur with the guys that this mix is fatiguing overall. It is overwhelming due to the full-time busy writing and too many elements playing at the same time and in the same frequency range. This will need to be reworked. Keep in mind that contrast is key in a mix like this. If you have busy lead writing then the backing elements should be simpler at that point (blocked chords or simple supportive writing, not a busy countermelody and also an arp and busy bass writing). If you have a distorted element, then the other elements should be significantly less distorted (distorted lead plus clean backing elements or vice versa). I recommend soloing two or three elements at a time, that will help you decide which element is the lead in that section (and if so, is it cutting through properly?), and also if the elements are fitting together harmonically and rhythmically. If two elements are really competing, you can also use EQ to give lead elements priority (with a possible boost at its fundamental) and then notch backing elements at the frequency where the lead is primarily playing. You can also make sure some elements (typically leads) sit more centered (at least their fundamentals) and backing elements are wider or even use a Haas to completely stereo-ize the sound. The goal is to create a 3D soundstage where every element has its place to shine! Larry said "you can have arrangements with a steady energy, but the dynamism has to come in other ways." He is so right, that's a good way to put it. The dynamism will come with contrast, as I described above. NO

Those chords Flex pointed out are sour indeed. This is a very conservative arrangement, which is fine. But the rigid bassline, synth writing, and repetitive drums give this track a very plodding energy. The hats are sharp, loud, dry, and so stiffly sequenced that it becomes distracting. The synth starting at 0:48 and 2:25 sounds very vanilla and dry, and the writing is stiff and gridlocked. The lack of overall groove due to the stiff and simple bassline and drums bothers me the most I think, same as Flex and Emu. There are arrangement variations as the piece moves along but generally it sounds repetitive to me as the instrumentation never changes. Varying the lead instrument or backing elements or drum sounds/writing here and there would help to break up the repetition. I like this generally though, and the guitar work is very good. But it needs a bit more production love. NO (resubmit)

Seven sources AND it's a remix of a remix.... uh, ok! Since I don't know this OST well (I know, shame on me, I have no excuse!), and Brad and Larry have already voted, I'm just going to vote on the mix itself. I also didn't like the suffocated vocoded vocals at 0:33, (and again at 5:18) but when the real vocals come in, they are clean and clear, perhaps too clean though. I think adding some more processing to the vocals would be good, not to mutilate them but to make them mesh with the soundscape better. I think this arrangement is really ambitious and cool. The instrumentation is good, the strings sound full and well sequenced, and I like the orchestral sounds against the guitars and synths, and there are tons of little glitches and fun ear candy. The guitar bits are performed well and so are the vocals. The arrangement is great, super creative and fun. I completely agree with Larry though, regarding the production. That clap is comically bad, so simple and dry. The drums overall are mixed way too quietly. The vocals could definitely be louder in the mix, and there's a low-heavy feel to the midrange instruments giving the overall soundscape an unnecessary boomy sound (those elements need their lows tamed with EQ), while the bass itself is too quiet in the mix. The vocals (especially the male vocal) have too much low end presence (example, "you" at 1:18 sounds way boomy). This mix could definitely use another balancing/mixing pass. And the piano sounds too stiff and gridlocked, needs a bit of humanization. I don't hear or see the final limiter going nuts as Brad does. I don't see any clipping in Cubase or on SPAN (remember to turn off "true peak" if using SPAN, and if Audacity has that parameter turn it off) and I do not hear overcompression, but I do hear the master is doing some unwanted pumping whenever the kick hits. I don't hear any sidechaining in this mix, and sidechaining (at the very least, of the heavy/low elements like bass, deep strings and pads) would clear up room in the soundscape and reduce the heavy load when each kick hit happens, which will reduce the burden on the final limiter and eliminate that pumpy thing happening in the master. (fast attack and release on the sidechain compressors, 3-ish db gain reduction, ratio of 2:1... keep it subtle but that will really clean things up in conjunction with some EQ on the low ends of things) I was actually planning to pass this even with mixing flaws but reading back what I wrote I don't think I can pass it in good conscience after having said all that. I love this though, and it will be an easy pass for me when the mixing/balancing/master have been improved! NO (please resubmit)

Oh gosh. Nine minutes, ok wow. I think I am going to organize my thoughts into bullet points. It still may sound stream-of-consciousness, but bear with me. Too ambitious: These arrangements are humongous; this one is the longest one yet, of the ones I have heard. Starts with a ton of voiceover work, nearly two and a half minutes of spoken vocal before anything really melodic arrives. That may be cool for a story-type video or audio drama, but it isn't really great as a standalone arrangement for OCR. Stiff sequencing: The piano beginning after the two minute mark is very robotic, having no humanization at all. The organ has the same problem when it arrives. The choir, when it is exposed such as at 4:34-4:55 the choir sounds like an oppressive wall of sound rather than an emotive element, due to having a fast attack and long release, no swells, no motion to it, just a block of fake-sounding, overly loud, choir sound. Mismatched melodic and rhythmic patterns: There are many written patterns in this soundscape, and often they are clashing melodically as well as rhythmically. At 2:45 as things are just getting started, there's a drum beat and brass and a synthy thing, none of which sounds good together and the patterns are confusing rhythmically and melodically. At 5:43, the soundscape is simple and sparse, but the patterns being played by drums and bass/synths just feels awkward. Starting at 6:18, it finally makes sense and I can hear and feel a nice 6/8 time signature. However when the choir joins back in at 6:36, it feels less groovy and more wall-of-sound. At 7:08, once again I cannot connect to the pattern until 7:22 when the drums return. But at 7:22, there are backing chords that aren't helping me make sense of things, and the melody writing feels so hectic and random. Melody lines lack melodic contour, as the notes jump around randomly. An example is 4:07, the melody is so jumpy all the way until 4:33. This may be literal source writing, but it doesn't fit nicely with the other writing here, it sounds forced, like the melody is being shoehorned into this part of the track. At 7:22 all the way to the end, again the lead melodic writing is too random for me to follow, it lacks proper melodic contour and ends up sounding super confusing. This may be verbatim source writing, but with so many sources combined like this, it does not work melodically or rhythmically. The choir starting at 8:21 is playing a pattern that is way too busy for a backing element/pad, and together with the random sounding bassline and lead writing, it is making my brain melt trying to follow along. Too many source songs combined: It is too difficult for mere mortals to sort out all these combinations, lead from this source, bass from that source, choir from something else... and it doesn't always work together melodically or rhythmically. And these are not simple sources, they are complex orchestral pieces each unto themselves, so combining writing from two or more of them at once is going to be an almost impossible task. Tons of spoken vocals, often interrupting the flow. Not a dealbreaker, it just adds to the piece sounding overdone. The mixing is fairly decent considering how many elements play together at any given time, but it is nearly impossible to get a clean sounding soundscape with so many instruments in similar frequency ranges playing together so much of the time. As it stands, the mix sounds majorly overcooked to me. I am so sorry to be giving such detailed feedback that I'm sure will be viewed as negative, but I will say again what I said on an earlier track I voted on. I recommend starting with much shorter/simpler source songs, and build out an arrangement with a simpler instrument palette and simpler writing, with fewer patterns playing at any given time, while learning about combining sounds that work well together, and writing that compliments each other rather than conflicting or making the patterns too hectic. You definitely have strengths in arrangement crafting, just gotta revisit some basics to make it work right. NO

Interesting original for sure! Seems to be in a fast 6/4, with sections of 3/4. Fun stuff. Remix opens so sparsely with just piano flourishes and a ton of silence. I hear why that first instrument to come in set proph's teeth on edge, I'm having that same effect, and even more when the first wind instrument begins. After the harp flourish there's a plucked instrument that literally hurts.... but not as badly as the following violin.... yowza I am 1:30 into the piece and my ears are bleeding from all the screechy sounds. And I am headed toward a literal brick in the waveform, next. I like the buildup beginning at 2:33, the subtle bassline and squelchy synth sound great. The string pad sounds mid-heavy and overly full. I really like the piano reverses leading into the heavy section. When the beat kicks in, so many elements are playing, wow is this dense. The whistle is screechy, and I feel like too many melodic patterns are playing at once, what is the focus here, I can't tell. There's a 4x4 kick, but without any sidechaining, the soundscape lacks groove, it is just a massive wall of sounds and patterns. The drum pattern is simple and repetitive the entire time it plays. The drum pattern's simplicity makes an odd contrast against the overly busy and dense and melodically hectic instrumental soundscape. At 4:29 there's a very sudden modulation to a higher key, which is interesting but almost totally unsignaled (other than a short cymbal/drum riser). The drum groove stays exactly the same as the previous section, and the violin is making my ears bleed. It cuts through, but I wonder what you had to do to get it to cut through this incredibly dense soundscape. I am overwhelmed. There is also a gated synth pattern playing during this section, that doesn't fit with the rest of the instrumentation at all in my opinion. At 5:52 there's another modulation and this one is extremely awkward to my ears. There's a change in the rhythm and time signature here too. 6:06, another modulation. The outro arrives quickly after that, and I'm hearing a synth pattern that doesn't seem to fit with anything I have just heard, and I wonder if that was playing during the previous section too, although it is so dense I can never be sure. MAN this track is loud. -5.9db RMS is the highest number the track hit for me in Cubase, and that is like.... heavy EDM loud.... it's just too loud. But the worst aspect for me is the screechy sounds, this is unpleasant to listen to. All that said, I love the concept! I also really like the arrangement, although it has so many modulations and some of them are executed too suddenly and/or awkwardly. This will require a mixing overhaul to get it to a listenable state, as well as making those modulations make sense. NO

The guys explained this situation so well, especially prophetik; I could pretty much copy and paste his words here as my own vote. We do not post remixes that contain the actual game audio, and from what I am hearing, that original audio is in here. The opening bass is so plain, simple and exposed. That sound effect first heard at 0.05 is so loud and abrasive. The patch playing bass starting at 0.05 is also abrasive but could work as a transition element, but it's not a strong patch to carry the bass all the way through the piece. I like the DnB approach here though! To make a track like this groove properly would require some strategic sidechaining, and I hear none happening here. The synths are not the greatest, and the drums are too quiet compared to everything else (something sidechaining would help a lot, in addition to volume balancing). Otherwise, the mixing is fairly ok. Strange outro (which seems to include a lot of inaudible rumble), but it seems like the track is intended to loop. Overall, original audio must be removed, that's an automatic dealbreaker. Synths need to be mixed better or replaced, especially the harsh sounding elements including that sfx at 0.05. Although there's a good little breakdown at 0:41, it is still the source writing (and possibly actual audio) but that is the right arrangement idea. The arrangement and writing need to have some variation, interpretation, personalization away from the source tune more than this, to be postable on OCR. NO

Co-signing with the guys here. This is a competent orchestration of the original, and the beat together with the orchestral palette makes it really lively. The track is low-heavy, and mastered extremely loudly, but the sequencing sounds adequate, realistic enough to get it done. But yeah, it's just too short and too conservative to the source tune for OCR. I would love to hear it again as a full arrangement, with variations and interpretations on the source melody! NO

Ah, here we are in the 90s! I love the orch hits. The vocals are very well done, lead and all backing vocals sound great to me. The instrumental though, by comparison, sounds weak. The instruments are quiet compared to the vocals, and as proph pointed out there isn't any kind of padding, the guitar is carrying the burden of backing chords, and it is barely audible. The piano is only ever playing whole notes. The bass is very quiet in the mix. The guitar solo is nice though! The pacing and groove of the piece is very static; the drums play the same pattern over and over with very few changes or fills. Fadeout ending, boooooo! This mix has a lot going for it, I think with some mixing tweaks the soundscape could feel much more full and balanced. But the arrangement is repetitive, and the bigger issue is that it is a straight cover of the source song. It has the same pacing, energy, general feel, same lyrics. Other than being in a lower key, and the addition of the fun 90s elements, it is the same song. That's way too conservative for OCR. Fun listen though, and really nice vocal performance and processing! NO

I'm thrown off by the rhythm right away. The source is in 3/4, and so is the remix (I think?), but the drums are not accentuating the 3/4, it's like 4/4 patterns smashed into 3/4 which is confusing my brain. I would imagine when working on this track, your brain makes sense of it after awhile, but as a first time listener, I'm very confused by the rhythm here. The synths sound very simple and uninspired, and the lead does not punch through as the guys have said, and everything is very dry. I love the concept, and I agree that it is great to hear you branching out! But the sounds need an upgrade I think, along with a touch of reverb on things so the mix isn't so dry. I agree with the guys about the stacked fifths pad, that's tricky to use as when the note changes, it's an entire chord changing and doesn't always go with the rest of the writing. Better to write your own chords. The transitions where the volume is quickly automated down sound awkward to me (at 1:08 and 1:28 1:58). I get the idea, but the execution isn't sophisticated. With the drums, I think the track would groove much better with a pattern that accentuates the 3/4 pattern of the writing, instead of fighting against it which is what I hear and feel in this arrangement. I don't know how better to describe this, but I feel like this is a 4/4 drum loop repurposed for 3/4 and it doesn't work for me rhythmically at all. It feels hectic and lacking proper groove. NO

Co-signing with the guys. What a cool idea this is! I love the cimbalom as a lead, and the choir and strings make a great background texture. But.... that's all there is here for at least 75% of the piece. The sparse instrumentation reveals the weaknesses of the samples as the cimbalom sounds stiff and mechanical, and every attack on the choir and strings are the same which sounds awkward. And as prophetik pointed out, the strings and choir almost always play unison which is a lost opportunity to add some more harmonic spice to the mix. There is some hard panning here that I don't care for. The cimbalom is the lead instrument, yet it is hammering away about 50-75% left most of the time, and some of the lowest parts of the choir seem to only exist on the right. This feels unbalanced to me. The drums sound exciting when they enter at 3:27, but that's a long time to wait for something new in the soundscape. The drums are intense all the way to the end of the piece, and they are very heavy in the lows, as prophetik pointed out, giving the soundscape a muddy feel. Those brass hits at 4:01 sound alright to me, except they feel thin, as if the lows have been EQ'd off. I really love this concept! It is so eerie. But with such sparse instrumentation, all the elements have to be firing on all cylinders and they aren't quite, yet. Just needs a bit more production TLC to get it there. NO (resubmit)

I agree with all of XPRT's points here. The arrangement itself is good, with good arrangement dynamics. The instrumentation is on the soft side all the way through, which isn't quite working. For example, from 1:06-1:38 you have a heavy kick and bass along with a shuffley-patterned synth and heavily sidechained pad, all of which sound great, but they never seem to kick into full gear and do anything interesting. I can hear this in my mind with some varied percussion and sfx, filtered elements coming in and out, and ear candy making that section really memorable, but as it stands it feels very plain and anticlimactic. Same situation from 1:48-2:21. The drum pattern never changes, and the simple bell lead takes the energy of those sections way down for me. XPRT said it well, it feels more like a sketch than a finished piece. I do think this has a ton of potential though, but the soundscape is very sparse and it just needs more interesting elements especially in the two heavy sections to keep the listener engaged. The volume balancing is mostly adequate, although leads are too soft and quiet. The simple percussion in the track is all in mono. It sounds like no mastering has been done as the track never goes louder than -1.6db peak. The drumless sections sit around -6 to -8db peak which is very quiet indeed. The track lacks any highs other than the snare and hats, no synths seem to have any presence in the highs at all, making it sound lifeless. I would love to hear this again with the sections more fleshed out! NO (resubmit)

I think Wes explained things perfectly here. This is a nice arrangement, but the sound choices are very simple and the production sounds dated. The trap hats are indeed too repetitive (one loop repeated all the way through, no fills or variations) and too loud/dry. The arrangement is laid out very well and has good dynamics, including an intro, verse/chorus, breakdown etc. The drum writing and sounds/processing is probably my biggest dealbreaker, same as it is for Wes. The repetitive drum writing is taking the energy of the track way down below where it should be, and that's a missed opportunity for a very groovy track to exist. Another way to introduce tons of groove is by sidechaining the kick to the instruments in varying amounts (basses and pads get more, plucks/leads/percs get less). I don't hear any sidechaining in this mix whatsoever. At a minimum the bass and pads should get some sidechaining. Again this isn't a dealbreaker in and of itself, but it's a missed opportunity for groove. I think the drum sounds and programming alone are enough to request a resub, so that's what I'm going to do. You've gotten some great advice in this thread, so I look forward to hearing this again with improvements made! NO (resubmit)

This is another tough one for me. I do hear some guitar amp noise, but not enough to be dealbreaker for me. This is a lovely piece, it is definitely ambient, but I find it to be boring. I hate to say that, but nothing incredibly interesting or emotive is happening here for me. It's just the same pad chords repeated, with bits of guitar motif coming and going, and a buzzy synth that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the soundscape. This plays more like a movie cue to me, for a very simple scene, and not a standalone arrangement. I guess I would like to hear more development than this as the piece moves along. It this arrangement sufficient for OCR, I am honestly not sure and I'd like to see another opinion. ? edit 10-23-24: Listening again now, and the amp noise is bothering me since it is so audible when the lead guitar plays. But my main issue remains the same, it's a nice piece but it just doesn't develop enough as it is currently. NO

There is certainly enough source here, the arrangement is fairly conservative, but this is a great arrangement. There are so many ideas here, so much ear candy and variation in sounds and processing. The mix is full of energy and interest. My only issue with the arrangement is that the sections tend to get too long and repetitive, with the same idea being repeated over and over. 3:09-3:35 for example is the exact same writing all the way through, within a larger section playing the same motif over and over in somewhat varied ways. There's something about the production that I can't entirely put my finger on. There is a ton of very hard panning which I don't care for, especially when it is heavy instruments like basses being panned wide. The instruments (other than the guitar) sound very simplistic and vanilla, and there is minimal processing, very little reverb, and the whole mix sounds almost painfully dry most of the time. I am more borderline than proph on this one, because the arrangement is generally so strong. The mixing isn't terrible, things are volume-balanced just fine, but there is something off about the production for me. I'm not ready to commit either way yet, I would like to see another opinion or two. edit: I'm flipping to a NO because the other opinions verify what I was feeling. I do hope to hear this again with improvements made! NO