Chimpazilla   Judges ⚖️

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

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

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)

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)

I think this is really cool and fun! Thanks Brad for checking on source use, that makes it easier, although it already sounds like enough to me, especially given that the backing chords/bass is used a lot. This is a really weird, unique and cool take on this source. I always listen to tracks in Cubase, and the master on this track is hitting a peak of +4db! I don't actually hear any overcompression artifacts, which surprises me. It is possible that a limiter has been applied with a 0db ceiling; some sounds are just fast/loud enough to escape the grasp of a final limiter, but 4db peak really surprises me. Since it doesn't sound overcompressed, I am going to overlook this, and I am hopeful that YouTube limiting won't bring out any artifacts. YES

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

How did this get so far down this list without a vote from me? I mastered it, and I probably figured that made me ineligible to vote on it but I think we decided that wasn't the case, so here goes, finally. I apologize for this ridiculous wait time from me. I love this arrangement so much. Mo has such skill at creating an extremely varied soundscape, in every regard: energetically, instrumentally, emotionally, and with ear candy for days and days. No one element ever gets repetitive or outstays its welcome. Mo is a talented musical storyteller. The feel of this arrangement is slow and purposeful, and... HECTIC as all heck... at the same time, what a cool ride. *And the sidechaining in this mix is so good that it brings tears to my eyes* And hey, the master sounds really great too! YES

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

Well I really dig this. It's sparse as all get-out, with only a few patterns of each element throughout the piece, but they are combined in different ways throughout the track, mostly. There are two sections of the track that repeat verbatim, and they are the two original sections (no source), from 1:02-1:32 and 2:21-2:51. It does feel repetitive, but also very cool and hypnotic. The drum groove is so simple but clearly that was the intent here. I don't actually feel like it needs anything more added, the sparseness was the plan. The section leading into the outro, starting at 2:53 has a lot of harmonic dissonance, it's weird but cool. The actual ending is just a dropoff, but it seems consistent with the rest of the piece. As for source use, I find it to be enough, but I am counting the bassline as source, whereas Brad does not since it is just two notes. For me, it is enough. Perhaps I am being too lenient? I'm not counting the little transition motifs since I don't recognize them. I come up with 63% source, counting it this way: 0:00-0:15 bass notes of opening chord 0:15-0:27 opening chords 0:27-0:31 first part of source melody 0:31-0:42 bass notes of opening chords 0:47-1:02 opening chords 1:34-1:48 opening chords 1:50-2:20 opening chords 2:53-3:08 variation on opening chords, lots of dissonance 3:08-3:22 opening chords However, I am concerned that this arrangement is using actual audio from the source song. Those chords from 0:15-0:27 (and the other places they appear) as well as the bit of motif from 0:27-0:30 sound like they may have been ripped right from the game audio. I would need to have it confirmed that they are not ripped from the source song in order to consider this remix valid. Ok so I actually ripped the source audio myself and layered it together with the remix in the above-mentioned sections and here's how it sounds layered together (there are two little filler chords in there, but it seems clear the rest is a rip): Sanctuary_aLTTP_with_game_audio_layered.mp3 The concern about source audio being used, plus the repetition in the arrangement, and the dissonance in the final section, all adds up to a NO from me, although I actually really enjoy listening to this piece. 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)

Ooooooooooooooo. This is utterly luscious. The beautiful long-release-heavy-on-the-reverb arps and chord beds are then mangled, tastefully, with glitching and sudden surprises. I always say this, but this will not be everyone's cup of tea..... but for me, it is a delicious chai tea with just the right amount of honey and cream and some spicy cinnamon sprinkled on top. The mixing and mastering are appropriate, and there's really not that much here to even mix. The first synth is very full and almost too mid-low heavy in the intro (hitting me hard at 300-400Hz making it sound just a tad boxy) but since there isn't anything else competing with it, it works. I think the source use is fine, it is just the source arps laid out as they are in the source, as Michael said sometimes in arp form and other times in chord form. I'm not doing a timestamp but it feels more than adequate to my ears. YES

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

My main problem with this arrangement is how simplistic it sounds. The intro is just adding an element every four bars, which isn't all that interesting. The secondary kick and the snare sound so loud in the intro, with just the bassline and some hats for company. Two kicks are probably too many kicks. Once thatrelentlessdrumgroove.exe is established, it does not vary much throughout the piece, other than a few 4-bar sections where the snare is dropped out. The bassline is the same throughout a good chunk of the arrangement. The writing is all very stiff and gridlocked The church organ is so loud when it plays, and it doesn't fit well with the bassline underneath it. (some sidechaining would probably help glue it together with groove) The writing does seem to be almost entirely from Nightmare although the other themes are worked in pretty well as cameos. The Nightmare content is extremely conservative, especially since the instrumentation is so similar. Could this be a midi-rip? The arrangement just feels so stiff and the transitions are weak or non-existent. The drum groove and general energy of the piece feels so static. Elements enter and leave this arrangement without much transition so the changes feel too abrupt. At 3:00, the drums and synth arp patterns stop dead with no signaling and we just have the first kick, some hats and the organ. The hats and then the kick drop away in predictable intervals leaving just the completely conservative organ chords, then the arp from the miniboss battle comes in and it feels completely tacked on with zero transition rather than sounding like a logical ending to the piece. I like the concept of this a lot. It does sound very conservative to the Nightmare source, I think varying the instrumentation somewhat would help, as would bringing some more unique elements into the soundscape: some ear candy, some atmo, transitional elements etc. to make it more unique and groovy. I also feel that the drum groove gets old as it stays the same for so much of the arrangement, giving the arrangement an overly repetitive feel. The intro would also benefit from some ear candy or transitional elements so it isn't just "I'm adding one thing every four bars" which sounds way too simplistic. 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

I didn't vote on the previous version so I'm coming to this fresh. From 2012-2025... that's a loooooong time to work on one arrangement! I am a huge fan of unique and varied time signatures. In this arrangement there are many changes in time sig which leaves me unable to find the beat consistently, leaving me feeling disoriented. There isn't a kick in some of the drum track, and in some sections there is only a top loop. At 1:33, a trap-like drum groove begins, with the kicks and claps each playing a busy and inconsistent pattern, and I am more rhythmically confused. None of this is "wrong" technically of course, but for me it means I cannot connect with this arrangement rhythmically at all, it's more of a random-sounding mishmash of instruments and drum sounds. Just trying to get a grip on the time signature changes, I hear 6/4 from 0:00-0:14, 7/4 from 0:14-1:00, 4/4 from 1:00-2:07 (at 1:33 there is one beat dropped, again at 2:07, giving one measure of 7/4 each time), 7/4 from 2:07-4:16 (outro). That is a lot of time signature change and most of it is not signaled at all, nor is it supported well by the drum groove. I agree with prophetik that lack of melodic/motivic content is hurting this arrangement, it makes the ideas harder to follow. Combined with the changing time signatures and busy/random drum track, the lack of a lead melody to focus on makes this even more nebulous for me. When there is a lead instrument such as at 0:30, it is hard-panned to the right. I'm not a fan of hard-panned leads, especially when there is not a countermelody or something to balance it on the opposite channel. The arrangement feels repetitive as it moves along, as the soundscape and instrumentation stay roughly the same throughout the piece. The drum sounds and writing stay the same during most of the arrangement. I don't feel like the trap kick, snare and clap fit well with the rest of the instrumentation which is more dreamy and whimsical. The drums are mixed very quietly with only the snare sounding audible enough to me. I really like the transition at 1:16 and the chords and arps that follow until 1:33. That section is beautiful and mysterious and feels cohesive to me. The delicate simple pattern in the background is keeping the rhythm for me and I can follow well in that section. The mixing isn't too bad overall, other than the kick, clap, percs and bass being too quiet in the mix, and again I'm not a fan of the hard-panning of the prominent plucky elements. There are many good ideas in this arrangement and solid synth choices, and I like the combination of these three themes, but the arrangement doesn't feel fully realized to me yet. I'd like to hear some more variation in the soundscape, even some unexpected ear candy or filter effects would help break it up. I'd like it if the drum sounds and writing made a bit more sense with the rest of the writing and instrumentation, and I'd really like to hear the drum groove support the time signatures rather than make them harder to follow. Some better transitions into and out of the various time signatures would help. The drum elements and bass should be brought up louder in the mix too. 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