Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Chimpazilla

  1. Rubber stamping this one. The arrangement is great, really dynamic and expressive. The piano sample is just a bit oof, since it is so prominent. The sound is quite tinny and thin. But dang, what a great arrangement. The piano sample being a little low quality does not stop me from enjoying this piece. YES
  2. This mix was done SO LONG AGO. But it still holds up! I hear the love and creativity that went into it, and how well Timaeus and I worked together on it. We had a blast making it!
  3. You guys, am I just missing something here? I totally get not thinking the mixing is sufficient, but I am really not getting the rejection on grounds of it being a cover. I'm not sure why I'm the only one who feels this way and I'm legit confused. Perhaps @Liontamer could shed some light on this? Larry if you think this is truly a cover, I will relent. Thanks!
  4. Ooooooooooo I love this intro, you've set up a spooky vibe immediately with those crushed bass swells. It takes awhile to build to the theme but it's a great ride. I love the stylistic crushing of some elements, while leaving the lead bell sound clean. Changing time signatures here... it seems like the mix goes from 4/4 with triplets to 3/4 at 3:09, either that or it's just written entirely in triplets from that point out, but it's seamless and I love it. The clock ticking is a great bit of ear candy. This arrangement is interesting, changing timbres as it moves along while still feeling totally cohesive. You captured a creepy vibe that I'm really digging. The mixing is good; it's a loud master though, peaking at 0.9db and hitting -6.8db RMS, but it's clean. Really liking this remix! Ok I just listened seven times. YES
  5. WOW this waveform is a sausage, ok let's see what's up. Those toms in the intro are awesome, and the guitar tone is great right away. Oh my this is so loud, peaking at 0.5db and hitting -6.7db RMS, but dang it sounds so huge. There are some elements I think could be mixed more prominently, the chugs are drowning out almost everything else and there are some lovely details getting lost. It's a very busy and dense mix, and as Joel pointed out that is tricky unless you mix things just right, making sure all lows are removed from every element that isn't meant to play low. So the mixing isn't perfect, but this is a really well done arrangement, it's super exciting and I love it, let's do this. YES
  6. Holy cow this is lovely and what a HUGE soundscape. I love the delayed piano that plays throughout, it mirrors the source well while being unique. I would prefer that the reverb/delay would have some of the lows cut out of them though, as low reverb tends to create mud. I'm not sure what the instrument at 0:26 is, is it a brass instrument, if so it sounds quite fake. The choir patch is nice though, and the strings sound realistic. When the drums come in at 1:21, the soundscape opens up beautifully. My only complaints are that the arrangement is on the short side, and that there is a bit of low-mid mud in the mixing from the reverb/delay on the piano. But I love this anyway. YES
  7. This is beautiful and luscious! The mix starts out extremely conservative to source, but it transitions seamlessly into some beautiful originality while still being identifiable. I am loving the instrumentation here. I would love to get a version that is mastered just a bit louder, there is almost 6db of headroom and that's a super quiet master. I agree with Wes that we need a clean ending fadeout, so perhaps you could take care of both things at the same time. YES (conditional on clean ending fadeout and slightly louder master)
  8. What a great arrangement and I love the instrumentation! The vox sound so nifty, and then as Wes said, here comes the absolutely kickass guitar solo. The mixing works well enough (although I agree with Wes about the overly-sizzly crash), but as my fellows have mentioned something is wrong in the master, as you are hitting -9db RMS which is fine but your ceiling is -1.2db which is unnecessarily low and is causing the mix to have a brickwalled feel to it (and the waveform is an absolute sausage). Regardless, that is a nitpick in this case and does not affect the postability of this mix to OCR's front page! Cool track. YES
  9. Wow this is huge! I agree with my fellow Js that this arrangement doesn't move too far from the original, but the stylistic flares added are wonderful. Really well performed. Wow that's a big snare! The vox are great. I know nothing about this game so I look forward to Dave's writeup on this, but the mix itself is good to go. YES
  10. What an exciting direction to take this source, very energetic. I love the soft breakdown with the harpsicord. The lead guitar is mixed on the quiet side, which doesn't help this mix since the lead is clearly sequenced and a bit weak, but you've done quite a good job with it. I agree with Wes the drums are fabulous and I love that buzz transition too. Good stuff, gotta go with it! YES
  11. I know what you mean, how hard it is to make sequenced solo piano sound real! I have undertaken the same challenge and I was told that for the most part it sounded natural. On this mix, I think it sounds lovely and natural enough, until the faster bass notes start up at 1:42. They are almost tolerable until 2:02 when they just become too much. It sounds like someone is hammering away at the keys. I think it would be incredibly hard to make writing such as that sound non-sequenced. In the second half of this arrangement, the illusion of it being a real piano is unfortunately ruined. I love the variations on the motif, and I feel like the right hand of this arrangement works very well. Perhaps you could look into substituting another lower instrument for the ferocious keyboarding that takes place from 1:42 onward? I would love to see this posted in some form! But it's not quite there yet. NO (please resubmit)
  12. Wow, what an interesting take on this source! I love this concept. I love the change from the 4/4 original to such an upbeat 6/8. The mixing is the weak point here, with elements not sounding very clear, and the drums could be louder. As it stands now the mixing is very flat and lifeless. The sample quality isn't the best, with the brass being particularly dry and fake-sounding, and the strings aren't too strong either. I'm not to sure about the vocal sample. The overall master is very quiet, but even so I hear there are points where the compression is almost too strong. I feel like most of these issues (including sample quality) could be fixed with cleaner mixing, most importantly clearing the lows out of everything that's not bass, low brass or bass drums. The ending is on the weak side. But the creativity of this arrangement wins the day for me. It feels like it really fits in Kokiri Forest! This is going to get some NOs due to the lifeless mixing and fake samples, and I may change my mind, but for now I have to go with it. YES
  13. I'm sorry but I can't let this get rejected purely on being a cover. First of all, the complete genre change over from chiptune to rock/metal is a major personalization to these sources. Secondly, there are LOTS of bits of writing variation here. There are TWO sources being integrated into one cohesive arrangement. As my fellow Js have pointed out, the performances and mixing are great, no issues there. I am enjoying this track! The mix is very conservative, but to call it a straight-up cover seems wrong to me. I do hear that the ending got cut off, but that would be a quick fix to fade it out properly before we post it. I like it! YES
  14. I must agree with my fellow Js entirely. What you've got here sounds great! But it's too sparse and slow/dreamy with not enough interest or development to support a five minute arrangement. The drum groove never changes, neither do the background chords, and the bell motif is super simple. I'd love to hear this again with the drums having some variance and maybe some fills, and some countermelodic elements or arps or other elements of interest added as the arrangement moves along. This is a great start but not enough substance to stand as an OCR remix. NO (resubmit)
  15. I absolutely adore Michael's other experimental or "musique concrete" submissions, but this one, I just don't know. Maybe I'm just not getting what's being done here, but it sounds very messy to me and not in a good way. The timbres sound very vanilla and the heavy compression/distortion just makes them sound crushed and broken rather than stylistic. I'm also having trouble hearing enough source; I would need to do a timestamp to make sure there's enough. But my impression of this is that it is jarring rather than entertaining. I'll be very interested to see what other judges think. NO
  16. I agree with Joel that, compared to the rich soundscape of the intro, the soundscape becomes almost jarringly thin when the first metal section arrives. But wow, I really like the meshing of the various styles. I disagree that this makes the mix non-cohesive; the theme continues seamlessly throughout the track and the style changes are welcome surprises. While I wish the mixing was a little more consistent throughout, I don't find it to be a dealbreaker. There is so much here to like and I'd like to see it on the front page. YES
  17. This is a fun and epic track, and well produced although it's loud/sausage-y and peaking at 0.9db. The mixing is well balanced. The master is very clean, but the peaking above 0 might mean compression artifacts on YouTube. Other than that I have no complaints, it is a very well crafted, exciting and enjoyable track. YES (not conditional, but it would be nice if the master didn't exceed 0db)
  18. What an awesome concept for this silly source tune, I love this! The performances are great, the island vibe is totally achieved. 6db of headroom is too much, though. Some normalization would surely do the job, as Wes mentioned, as it does not need more compression. I am having an issue with the bass though. On my setup, when the bass plays a G, I am getting punched in the brain at about 45Hz, enough to give me a headache. I applied a gentle notch filter on that frequency and it was more listenable. I would request that this be done, it will lower the boominess quite a bit. My brain thanks you in advance. Irie, mon. edit 10/9/20: Fixes applied, full YES vote achieved! YES
  19. Michael your creativity continues to amaze me. What a unique take on this source, you achieved what you set out to do perfectly. I adore this glitchy style and you've really mastered the artform of it. I agree with Wes, when the organic piano comes into the scene, the contrast is glorious. At 1:01, the "secret" sound totally seals the deal for me. I love this! YES
  20. This is a quiet master, but not overly so as with other submissions. What a unique, interesting and emotional take on this source! It's very creepy and mysterious, and has a Harry Potter vibe. The soundscape and writing are rich and varied, the arrangement is very dynamic and it holds my interest throughout the track. As Rexy pointed out, the articulations aren't perfect, but what is here gets the job done extremely well. I love this! YES
  21. I like this! The mix is definitely clipping, although I don't hear artifacts per se, it needs to be brought under 0db because YouTube compression will probably bring out artifacts. There is no reason it needs to be mixed this loud. The synths do sound simplistic but effective for this genre. The highs on some of the white noise sweeps goes into painful territory briefly, and there are a lot of them. The progression of the track goes on for quite awhile without anything incredibly interesting being introduced, which is ok but not optimal. The transition into breakbeat wasn't as jarring as I was expecting after reading Rexy's review, but I admit I'm glad I wasn't dancing to it at the time! Overall I think this is pretty solid, but the length of the track really calls for more interest as it develops. At an absolute minimum, the mastering must be brought under 0db. NO (resubmit please)
  22. Yep, another mix with huge headroom. Other than that, I really like the instrumentation used in this conservative mix. I particularly like the low breathy instrument paired with the mallets, flute and harpsichord, the contrast is just lovely. I find plenty of variation from the source including lots of Rebecca's signature flourishes. I think the two themes transition well. The track is simple yet effective, a relaxing and fun listen. YES
  23. Ah, the source is easier to hear on this one than on other remixes submitted by Michael (whew!). What an interesting mixed approach here. This mix has an 80s vibe too it, as well as a gorgeous Asian flair and also a chiptune feel. The synth guitar adds even another element to the feel of the track, and the humanization of the guitar is done well. I like the various percussion and white noise blasts. What an eclectic mix of sounds. Super fun! YES
  24. Michael tends to remix somewhat nebulous sources which makes it difficult when the remix is very experimental and also nebulous (and even more so when the judge isn't familiar with the source!) but his approach is one that I happen to enjoy very much and find interesting and cerebral. I do hear that source arp throughout the remix. Some of the timbres in this remix are stylistically crushed and grating, as the bell sound (music box?) that morphs leading up to 1:13, this won't be everyone's cup of tea and I can see why MindWanderer said what he did about that transition. The bell lead starting at 1:13 has that wonderful clicky attack from stylistic compression, I love it but again not everyone's thing. That bell sound is quite low-mid heavy, almost enough to be painful but not quite. All that said, I have no requests for anything to be fixed, I think it's great just as it is. edit: I'm going ? for now because I'm not sure there's enough source. edit 10/9/20: I am revisiting this. I still really like this track. The intro does take too long to ramp up, with pure silence for almost eight seconds. Ultimately, the only connection I can hear to the source is in the source's backing arp, which is heavily interpreted throughout the remix. I don't think this one quite meets our standards. I would love it though if you would revisit the mix and make the source connections stronger, because I really like this track very much. NO (please resubmit)
  25. I LOVE the approach to this remix. The heavy well-produced glitching, sampling and sub bass gives a wonderfully calming and yet unsettling atmosphere. The piano artifacts fit in perfectly. This sounds amazing on my setup and the soundscape is huge and varied, that perfect combo of full and empty at the same time. The short vocal section is a very interesting, thought-provoking and intimate interlude (wow, your great-grandfather!). This is the kind of track that I really dig but it won't be everyone's cup of tea. I find the mixing and balancing of every element ideal. I love the reverses too. I hear how much effort went into the production of this. I'm not a huge fan of the abrupt ending with no resolution, but it goes with the disjointed theme of this track. I'm concerned about source use and this is going to require a timestamp check. I'm going to give this a yes on creativity and production, pending the timestamp analysis. YES
  • Create New...