Chimpazilla

Contributors
  • Content Count

    2,687
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Chimpazilla

  1. I have to agree with Rexy in full, she nailed it. I love this idea, "pseudo-surf" is a great term to describe it. The mix is way too hot, this much clipping is unacceptable; the track needs an entire re-balance and mastering with levels not exceeding 0db (but preferably more like -0.3 at least). The arrangement is short and repetitive, in writing and instrumentation, three playthroughs of the same material, and the ending is an abrupt drop off. I agree with Emu about the drum breakdown, great idea but it sounds too basic to carry of that section solo. Cool ideas but this needs more work. NO
  2. The piano is lovely. I love the drum work too, but I'm finding it repetitive and relentless, I wish for a breakdown somewhere, longer than five seconds (2:27-2:32). I agree with Emu that the length of the track isn't supported with quite enough variation, but honestly I think that would be remedied by dropping the busy drums down to minimal or nothing for nice long-enough breakdown segment to let it breathe and then rebuild the energy. The mastering has to be brought down for sure, there is audible distortion when the snare/kick/hat hit at the same time. Please fix and send it back, it's really nice! NO (please resubmit)
  3. The intro with the strange piano is odd. The tambourine/hat loop feels very stiff, repetitive, plodding and out of place, and the pace is too fast while the piano and accordion play whole notes. That loop never stops, it is relentless. The flute is quite nice, best part of the mix so far. I like this arrangement, but that tambourine/hat loop must cease at some point during the track. I think that bothers me even more than the production problems because the arrangement never gets a chance to breathe, it needs a breakdown without that loop. Perhaps some variation with another loop, one with a different energy level, at some point would also be good. Great ideas here, but there's a bit more work to do on this one. NO
  4. This is a REALLY fun arrangement. Sadly I have to agree with my fellow Js that the samples just aren't strong enough to carry it off. All the brass, the piano, and the banjo just sound thin, stiff, and unhumanized. As Emunator said, I can totally appreciate how hard it is to get a humanized performance from VSTs, most especially brass which has such attitude and sass to it when played live. You did a pretty amazing job with what you're working with, but ultimately these samples sound too stiff and thin because they are 100% exposed. I'd love to hear this again with better samples, but dang, I love the arrangement! NO
  5. Gonna just quickly co-sign with my fellow Js. Awesome jazz performances here! Mixing works well. The arrangement starts out super strong with Song of Storms, but dang, where did it go? This arrangement really isn't a fit for OCR standards. If you wanted to revisit it with more Song of Storms I think it would be a great addition to the site, but as it stands, there's just not enough source. Cool listen though! NO
  6. I love Lavender Town so much, it's creepy on so many levels. You've taken that theme and given it a whole new feel while still keeping it plenty dark. This mix is utterly lovely. The production is fantastic. Love the drums, love the strings. Enjoyable listen and very easy YES. YES
  7. I love this. I wish it was longer, much longer but at least two minutes. That said, wow this is fun, you packed a LOT of arrangement and ideas into such a small package. Vocals are on the dry side but it works here. The guitar starting at 0:55 could be quite a bit louder, it is much quieter than the vocals or the lead in the outro. Even so, if it's long enough for Larry, I'm going to give it YES #2. YES
  8. I love this source so much. I love what you've done here, and it all works for me except the piano. With this source, that piano absolutely has to work. This sample sounds weak and dry and needs some humanization work. Get that done, and then it's a yes from me! NO (resubmit please)
  9. I think I have to agree with MW here, entirely. This arrangement doesn't feel transformative enough; the writing, arrangement and instrumentation sound very close to the original. The piano arp sounds stiff and robotic. The choir is what is pushing me over the edge the most though, towards a NO. It just sounds so fake, the midrange is hyped, and it starts and stops so abruptly. This one isn't quite OCR worthy. NO
  10. In the intro, the piano sounds very rigid and some of the chords don't feel right. Whoa, those horns. They are definitely too loud, and the samples are weak. In the section starting at 1:07, the track peaks at 2db, which is way too loud. It sounds very overcompressed overall. It seems like no final limiter was put on this track. I appreciate the arrangement ideas, but the samples aren't strong enough nor are they sequenced well enough to pull it off. This needs quite a bit more work. I agree with prophetik that hitting up the workshop could be beneficial to getting this track up to OCR standards. Cool ideas, keep working on it! NO
  11. I agree the overall level is too low, with the track hovering around -4 to -3db peak much of the time, with a max RMS of -16 which is super quiet. The track isn't blowing me away creatively, but I agree the performances are nice. The bass writing is very simple and repetitive and doesn't add any excitement to the track. The drums are bringing it down a lot for me, with a super simple pattern and underwhelming production. It's a sweet little tune but needs a bit more oomph. I think an upgrade in the drum writing and production would do it for me (along with a slight bump in the master level). NO (please resubmit)
  12. "I felt this needed a little more substance, but it was close and the creativity of the take here shouldn't be sold short." This, for me too. This mix is super creative and fun to listen to even though it's fairly droning. The source tune has so little to work with that a remix of it will require some extra melodic elements to make it work. I think the bass is mixed well enough, but melodically it isn't enough to carry an arrangement this long. The metals that you have playing the lead bell sound from the source aren't melodic at all, just rhythmic. What about adding some kind of leadwork over parts of the track, not necessarily replicating that bell lead from the source, but what about some unique synth soloing? I think that would be awesome and would really personalize this arrangement too. TL;DR Just needs MOAR. NO (please resubmit)
  13. I love that I hear Zelda's lullaby on the clarinet as a countermelody. The piece is repetitive as it would have to be using an 18 second source, but I feel like there is enough variation in how that source is played and by different instruments, and the mix is so light and cute that I'm not finding the repetition to be a problem. I think this is adorable and well produced. YES
  14. I LOVE the 3/4 adaptation of this! That is something I would do myself. I'm amazed the mix sounds this good given the constraints of the factory library, but I'm not hearing anything egregiously bad. I think the track has been sequenced rather well considering the instruments used. I'm impressed. YES
  15. I really like this. I find the lead sounds just a tad on the vanilla side, but the writing and little variations are great. The leads are mixed a little low in volume. I agree with MW that the master is overcompressed, bring it down so it's not distorting and gritty. There is obvious distortion when the sweeps and booms hit as MW pointed out. I agree with ending the arrangement at 5:15. I appreciate that this is a DJ mix but for OCR we don't need all that outro and certainly not the silence afterward. Simple fixes, please send it right back! NO (please resubmit)
  16. Very interesting arrangement ideas here, but I have to agree with the other J's that the production sounds unpolished. The sequencing of the guitar and piano both sound extremely rigid and unnatural. The filter-automated synth is cool but seems randomly used rather than purposefully, and outstays its welcome. The drum loop is very repetitive and is mixed too quietly. I happen to think there are plenty of creative ideas here but they aren't executed well enough yet to get this mix over our bar. NO
  17. This is the coolest thing I've heard in awhile. The bits of source, melodic and rhythmic, are used so well here. I'm not having any issues with frequencies like Rexy is. There are a lot of grating frequencies in here and none of them are bothering me at all in context. YES
  18. This arrangement is absolutely lovely, but that male choir unfortunately blows it completely for me. The patterns the choir is playing are so unnatural and repetitive, and this choir is present throughout the majority of the track. I wonder how it would sound with strings instead of the choir. I can't quite get past the choir to enjoy the rest of the arrangement which is Rebecca's typical level of awesome. Also, the master is very much too quiet. Could we try this with something replacing the choir, and with the master brought up a few db? NO (please resubmit)
  19. Sweet and simple, yes. Slow and ethereal. I love the little reverses, they add just the right hint of mystery to the soundscape. The two themes are seamlessly integrated into one arrangement. I love the little nod to the main Zelda theme at the very end. YES
  20. I agree with what the other two judges have said, the performances here are very good, but nothing mindblowing. The track is mixed well, and sounds good. The problem is that this is basically a cover of the theme. One could argue that changing the genre is enough personalization, but our standards require a bit more arrangement work than just reproducing the source tune in another genre. Adding some sort of wicked solo somewhere in the arrangement would make it work, and would really make this exciting too! I hope to hear this again! NO (please resubmit)
  21. This is a fantastic arrangement, with all the elements well sequenced. I agree that this submission is louder than your usual submissions, but too loud, bordering on overcompression. A lot of the dynamic range has been lost as a result. I think if you can find a balance between this and your too-quiet submissions, you'll be at your mastering goal. I don't think the loud master is enough to warrant a resub in this case, although it's a close call. Cool track. The buzzy ending is a nice touch. YES
  22. I feel like the leads are quite often too loud, the balancing isn't optimal but it's serviceable. When the first arp comes in, it sounds crazy loud, so does the first lead. The arrangement and variation in writing and sounds used is very good. I like the slowdown section, the transition is a bit abrupt but it works. The piano in that section sounds very mechanical but the electric violin quickly makes up for that. It's a fun and unique track. I don't feel like the sub-optimal balancing sinks the track. The track dynamics are exciting if a little extreme. I think the synth guitars are cool. Let's do this. YES
  23. LOUD. TOO LOUD. When the bass comes in at 0:52 it feels oppressively loud. The piano, flute and koto sequencing are very mechanical. There are purposeful buzzing and clipping elements in the track, so it's unclear how much of the buzzing is in the master and how much is in the production, and each of these elements is buzzy in its own way, leading to to a wall of buzz. The track is left with an overall crunchy feeling that feels uncomfortable overall. I believe there is master overcompression happening as well, as I hear distortion especially beginning at 1:52. The ending feels sudden and disconnected from the main track so it sounds tacked on. I like this arrangement but there is more production work to be done before we can post it. NO (resubmit)
  24. I think this is mixed much better than before and everything feels well balanced. I love the sidechaining, it is appropriate and gives the track wonderful groove. The master still sounds a bit hot and gritty but not grievously so. On listening to this version though, I'm struck by how much copy-pasta (or nearly so) is going on in the arrangement. There are three extremely similar playthroughs of the same material separated by well varied transition sections, but other than slight drum changeups, the three sections (buildups and verse) are nearly identical with the same lead and backing elements. I'm finding the similarity to be problematic, unfortunately. Sorry to reject this again. NO
  25. I haven't heard the first version of this so I'm voting on this one afresh. Super cool concept, gives me Stranger Things vibes. The arrangement feels very static to me though, the drum groove is quiet repetitive. I agree that the master is squashed to kingdom come. It isn't a loud mix but the dynamics are non-existent, with leads getting lost into the soundscape. I feel like there hasn't been much sidechaining done on the bass or pads so when the kick hits there is audible distortion. The combination of repetitive feel and master overcompression put this just under the bar for me. NO (resubmit)