Chimpazilla

Cool and unique take on this source right from the get-go. I feel like I am in the jungle, in space! I'm not a fan of hard panning, but it works here mostly since the sounds being panned are so similar. I do hear some very piercy glitch effects as Larry pointed out and I agree that it could at least be EQd down a bit in the highest frequencies, but it isn't ruining my listening experience. Your ears may vary, and there are people who can hear dog whistles and they may find the glitches to be painful. This really is such a neato arrangement with tons of energetic dynamics, interesting timbres, ear candy and good variations on the main theme. Mixing and mastering are working well. YES

Mastered. LOUD. True peak 1.5db with lots of clipping happening. Ok so what a cool concept for this source. The source tune is already frenzied and this remix actually intensifies the frenzy but in a well-controlled manner. What a fun mix full of unique variations of the theme. The sound palette gets a little tiresome after awhile but the writing and energy changes keep it fresh. I'd love for this to be mastered better, I think a nice loud mix can be attained by doing some EQ work (making sure there are no low-lows playing from anything other than kick and bass) and strategic multiband compression, and this mix is a bit loud in the crunchiest frequencies, but everything is audible and I hear no clipping or artifacts. This mix could be just that much more impactful with a mixing/mastering cleanup but not enough to send back for that. I adore the monstrous kick. Yeah this is super fun. YES

The first minute and a half are indeed a nice buildup although the bass patch could be tighter and faster-release as it is playing in between kicks; as it stands now the bass has a flabby/loose feel and could really be more impactful if tightened up. I'm also having trouble identifying the source bits so I'm glad you included timestamps. The sound palette is on the vanilla side as Larry pointed out, which isn't a dealbreaker unto itself but the soundscape is on the repetitive side with the exact same elements all the way through. The mixing isn't bad but feels rather flat. This is a very busy mix and in the fullest sections many of the sounds are competing in the frequency range and soundscape placement. There is some very good filtering on the saw and other sounds, I like that a lot. The lead at 2:32 is plain and simplistic, and piercy. Some filter movement or delay or vibrato on a long LFO would help. Those chords at 4:31 are weird and disharmonious. The drum groove is weak, especially the clap as Larry mentioned. In the busy sections, the clap cannot be heard at all. The transition at 4:40 is jarring and it appears again verbatim at 6:14. I get why Larry said this arrangement feels like a work in progress, it just lacks sheen overall. Although care has been taken to layer the patterns in varying ways to make an interesting arrangement, the same sound palette all the way through the piece makes it feel overly long and repetitive. I'm more borderline than my peers here because I think the arrangement works well generally. I suggest smooth out some of those transitions and adjust awkward chords at a minimum, but I'd also like to hear this mixed quite a bit cleaner than this, and some variation in sounds used as the piece moves along would also be on my wish list. NO (borderline, resubmit)

I agree with Larry and MW that the mixing is on the muddy/smooshy side, and that's a shame but everything is audible. What a fun piece, awesome performances, full of energy and personality. YES

I know I have listened to this before now, it's completely familiar even though I never voted on it until today, and I remember that I did try to vote on this but I was immediately hit by how little source I heard. Now I have listened through three times with Larry's timestamps and he is correct, there isn't any more than what he heard which is 46ish percent. I think this could be remedied super easily by adding some source motif into some of the more empty passages, most especially 1:27-1:49 where there is nothing but the two chords over and over. Take some instrument we haven't heard yet and hint at the source motif there. Make that section build a little bit too. That will also go a long way toward reducing the repetitive nature of the sounds and arrangement. It won't take much more source to get this arrangement over the 50%-source mark. I don't hear anything dealbreaking with the production; the overall sound is on the lo-fi side but it feels intentional. If you shave off the lowest of lows (sub 25-30Hz) you will be able to get a louder and cleaner master, you could even bump the lows a little bit on the master (after shaving off sub 25-30Hz) and have a tighter sounding low end with minimal or no mud. I love the triplets, I don't hear this as 6/8 just 4/4 with triplets but it's very cool either way. I like this arrangement, just needs more source. The ending sounds lazy, but it works well enough. NO (please add more source and resubmit)

I never listened to the first version, but it seems all the issues with highs, lows and crackle have been fixed. I find no dealbreaker production issues, and I don't see any egregious frequencies on SPAN. I am glad I don't have dog-whistle ears. The arrangement and instrumentation is pretty straightforward and doesn't change once it gets started, but this is a dreamy romp through the source material and the arrangement does what it sets out to do. Really nice. YES

I absolutely dig the soprano sample and I think it is used very well just as-is. Anything more realistic would not have this creep-factor. The instrumentation here is HUGE and lush and full and varied, and it is mixed extremely well. Hemophiliac's low vocals add just the right level of human padding in the lows. The deep bell with the soprano sample make for such a mystical soundscape with all those deep strings and brass, very Harry Potter-esque. The moving/gated/panning brass starting at 3:04 is super cool and even compliments the vocal vibrato at times. I love this! YES

The overall drum groove and pacing still feels rather static, but there are enough variations to make me happy. The filtering at 2:22 is a nice surprise. What a fun little ditty this is. I love the other cameos. It's wacky and weird and I'm enjoying this! Mastering is still very tame, coming in at -2.5db peak, but it'll do. I... want... to.... master this.... myself.... hehe. Things are balanced well and it sounds fine. Yeah this is cute and cool, let's a go. YES

The bass is loud, and simplistically written. Lead that begins at 0:07 is super loud and piercy and dry, with no interest or movement on it, and it plays the exact same motif all through the arrangement. It sounds more to me like a placeholder lead until a better sound can be found and more interesting part-writing can be written. Although this entire arrangement is extremely simplistic and repetitive, I think it could work, if that primary lead sounded better and had some variations in writing, rather than always being the same thing. Also some filter movement or other effects happening periodically would really help. But as it stands, this arrangement consists of just a few loops layered in various ways with zero changes to them over time and it is too simple and repetitive. Why not add some other element in the second half, like a pad or different lead or something, dropping something out at the same time so the soundscape isn't overcrowded. It just needs more interest as an arrangement. NO

There's a HUUUUGE amount of sub-40Hz mud throughout the entire intro and outro. That can be remedied by a simple lowcut of the lowest frequencies (below 25-30Hz is usually a safe bet and it'll still be plenty bassy). I was expecting a sub-blowout based on prophetik's screenshot, but I didn't hear anything dealbreaking on my good setup. The track is mastered very loud (-7.5db RMS) without sounding that loud, and the reason is that low-end, inaudible mud. Lowcut that out, and your mastering will be more solid and won't need to hit that high of an RMS value. The lead guitar could be a tad louder as MW said, but other than that I find the mixing to be adequate. This is a fun, energetic cover of this source. Performances are solid. YES (conditional, lowcut the mud first)

The production is indeed better, but the vocal still sounds somewhat separate from the backing. The playing style is still loose. There is nothing inherently wrong with that but it can feel disjointed and distracting together with a spoken vocal. That said, I agree with my fellow judges that this track could work well as an instrumental. I agree entirely with DarkeSword that the emphasis in this mix is on narrated vocals vs. music, and it doesn't really fit with the rest of the OCR catalog of music. NO

I agree with DarkSim entirely. What a cute arrangement, the merging of sources works really well. But the mixing needs another pass. The drums sound heavily high-passed and they lack any kind of high end, they sound very dull and muddy. That snare should snap! The bass writing is terrific but I can barely hear it. The e-piano sounds nice and clean in the intro, but at 0:10, suddenly every element is playing and it feels like revealing too much too soon. Perhaps that first section can be a little more mellow with a couple elements dropped out. The backing pad and drums are mushing together to make a smeary wall of sound. There is some kind of airy fuzzy pad that begins at 0:40, that is amplifying this smeary effect. The little plucks on autopan sound clean and I wouldn't change those. That solo is absolutely wonderful!!!! That part of the track really shines. I like this arrangement tons, but the mixing needs to be fixed. I would start by putting an EQ on all the elements to make sure only kick and bass are playing in the lowest frequencies (100-ish Hz and below). The drum kit needs to sound cleaner than this, make sure your highs on the drum kit are not being cut off. And you may want to rethink that airy pad if it cannot be mixed to sound more distinct. I do want to hear this again though, cleaned up! NO (resubmit)

This is so loud from the very first second. Opening piano is very loud and rigid/plodding, and with too many lows (needs a lowcut). The supersaw that comes next is so heavily distorted that it sounds overly fuzzy, overcompressed and pumpy. The bass also has buzz that is barely audible over this giant saw. At 1:24 there is only bass and kick playing with the occasional piano stab, and that bass sounds so plain and boring. The returning piano still sounds too gridlocked and bass-heavy (and bass-reverb-heavy too). The writing in this remix is repetitive, changing back and forth only between supersaw and piano, with the same writing patterns each time, with no other elements added or removed. The kick sounds too heavy and intense. The bongos sound repetitive, rigidly timed and they stick out of the mix because they are the only thing mixed cleanly. The mixing overall is a heavy wall of sound. The master is cut off above 15-16kHz, which means this mix lacks the highest highs (sparkle and presence), but the mid-highs and highs are so overhyped that it is fatiguing to listen to. The abrupt one-piano-note outro also feels lazy, giving the arrangement no resolution. Quite a bit more work to do on this arrangement, in terms of writing, instrumentation, and mixing. NO

The strings are uncanny but used well enough I think. That string decay cutoff at 0:52 is odd. Most of the instrumentation here works well. The flute has vibrato on it all the time which sounds unnatural; a slow vibrato build would be better, but the flute isn't all that exposed. I really like the humongous bell acting as a bass instrument although I feel it hits a little too heavy compared to the rest of the instrumentation. Most importantly the reverb on that bell needs to be lowcut. Low reverb = mud, nearly always. Regardless, the mixing is adequate, and these are nitpicks. This is a cool, vibey remix. YES

This is definitely the extended DJ mix with the long intro and outro. The Stickerbrush arp doesn't enter until 1:17 or so but then it is clearly recognizable. No source from 2:06-2:20, after which the chord progression from the source begins in the breakdown, plus little bits of source arps, which is lovely. The breakdown is gorgeous but feels a bit long for a trance track; I think some light percussion could have been introduced earlier. The build back into the core beat is well executed. As MW stated, solid trance, it does what it says on the tin. Mixing and mastering are well done. Nice groovy, varied, danceable track. YES

That's one beefy kick! Almost too big, aaaalmost. I love the concept of this mix, the 90s influence is heavy and cool. I love the vocal clips, shouts, synth-braam hits, sirens and coin noises. The mixing seems fine other than the fact that the highs are soooo hyped and loud. I put a high shelf on it at 10k Hz, 3db GR and the mix is much less piercy. The whole thing is mastered on the hot side, with the peak exceeding 0db. I'm not sure about the source use going on here so I'm going to come back to this a bit later and (hopefully another J will have checked for source use, I know, how lazy of me hehe). On first listen, the arrangement feels source-light to me. Regardless, I do feel like the highs need to be tamed before releasing this. Otherwise this is super fun. Even for such a long arrangement, there isn't any copy pasta that I can discern, and it feels fresh all the way through even with the same instrumentation. ? until I'm sure about source use, but probably a NO (resubmit) until the highs are tamed Edit 3/28/23 - I really like this one, but since my peers have confirmed my suspicion that there isn't enough source I'm going to close this out with my NO. I'd love to have Larry also give it a listen, just to completely confirm this. But if you can get the mixing cleaned up and if you can add some more bits of source, this one would be good to go for me! I liked it. NO

Wow the marching-snare drums are loud right away, and the drums sound like they were mixed in a box. It feels like there is a bandpass on the intro drums, all midrange. In fact the entire intro sounds very boxy with the exception of the loud white noise sweep. The staccato strings and choir sound ok except they are on the quiet side, with the marching snare drowning them out. The synth that begins at 0:36 is painfully loud and piercy, becoming more obscured as the other synths join in. Arrangement is conservative yet with plenty of personalization. The white noise sfx is quite loud whenever it occurs. This is a very short arrangement, and a fadeout ending is somewhat of a disappointment especially in an already short mix. It's a good fadeout as far as fadeouts go, but it takes up nearly 25 seconds of a 2:25 piece. Honestly I can see this passing as is, it is a cute little remix with lots of variation and personality, but I feel like it needs another pass at the mixing. The intro should sound less boxy, and that opening synth after "here we go!" could be filtered in so it isn't so sharp/loud/piercy right away. Mastering seems fine. NO (borderline, resubmit)

I forgot how much I love this source tune, I haven't heard it for awhile. The intro is a slow fade-in followed by a very flat off-key sounding timbre at 0:22 which sounds out of place. At 0:42, a lead synth starts, and it is playing in such a low register and it mushes together with all the other sounds playing at the same time. At 1:10, several synths, guitars and piano are playing at the same time, and the varied writing and sounds are conflicting with each other terribly, sounding like a wall of disharmonious sound. I think it may be very difficult to mix these instruments clearly since so many of them are in the same frequency range. The soundscape is just too busy with too many similar sounds, and a lot of them are buzzy in different ways so the buzzy-ness stacks up. The arrangement itself is fine; it is conservative yet has enough personalization to stand apart from the source. I really like this arrangement, but the sound choices, flat mixing and hectic part-writing are tanking it for me. Good luck with the rest of this vote! NO (resubmit) Edit 4-3-23: Listening to the revised version, that first lead has been pitch-corrected and that helps a lot, it doesn't feel so wobbly and out of tune. I still don't think it is the greatest lead sound. I also still don't care for the lead that begins at 0:42; it feels like a backing element to be played in the bass range, it does not sound like lead material to me. Both of those leads feel like they are tacked on to the soundscape rather than nestled within it. Some EQ and reverb could be used to fix that. I still feel like there are too many elements playing at the same time. I think my favorite part of this mix happens at 2:11, the guitar that starts up there and the big crescendo that follows sound like an epic surf-rock arrangement. I'm just not a fan of the other sounds, most especially the two main leads. Still, this is a cute arrangement, noodly as prophetik said, with lots of personality. That said, I hear those pops that MW mentioned between 1:40-1:58. They sound like rendering errors or perhaps a compressor or distortion plugin behaving badly. These should be removed before posting the track. YES (conditional, remove the pops)

There are additional musical themes incorporated into this arrangement. I hear the "I Love Lucy" theme from 2:11-2:20, and "When You Wish Upon A Star" from 2:20-2:26. This is a unique submission. I have never heard a remix presented to OCR in this way (Js, Larry, are there others?). I agree with Larry that the vocals are mixed way too loudly and sharply, with tons of sibilance and uncomfortable piercy highs. The vocal line sounds forced and unnatural to me, clearly being read instead of more naturally/gently spoken. The reverb on the vocals is also quite different from the instruments' reverb, so the vocals feel awkward in terms of placement within the soundscape; they are sitting on top of the soundscape instead of nestled into it. The musical arrangement has plenty of the three source tunes listed (and in addition, the other two I mentioned above), but the playing style is rather loose. I hear the crunchy noise Larry mentioned right before the outro, that should be cleaned up if possible. The singing in the outro is pitchy and the toy piano is piercy. At a bare minimum, the vocals need to be mixed better into this soundscape, and the piercing frequencies should be addressed. I am going to withhold my vote at this time. I'd like to see other responses to this, and also let the concept percolate in my mind a bit more before committing to a vote. edit 3-13-23: I wanted to see a few more evaluations before I made my decision, and MW's and Joe's words help me clarify my own feelings on this. I cannot tell what type of reverb was used on instruments or vocals, plate or spring or whatever, but I can definitely tell they are different, making the vocals and instrumentation sound like they aren't in the same room, so it feels awkward. Joe said the reverbs are fast, and that would explain in part why things sound so "sharp" overall, in addition to accentuating the timing differences in performances. Joe agrees with me that the timings of the performances are sloppy enough to be just under our bar. And I still feel that the mixing and volume-balancing need to be addressed (vocals are too loud, there is emphasis on a a mid-high to high frequency that sounds painful). A suggestion for mixing the vocals in: Figure out what the fundamental of the vocal is, it is probably somewhere between 1000-1500Hz, and make a slight EQ notch in the other instruments (between 1-3db, medium-ish Q) at that frequency to allow room for the vocal to sit in the mix and cut through in a way that it sounds more nestled into the soundscape vs. tacked on top. If done correctly, you won't need such a loud volume on the vocal to cut through the mix. I can probably deal with the loose performance timings if all the elements were mixed/balanced better and consistent reverbs applied. NO (resubmit)

This is a crazy, frantic remix with lots of personality and energy. It's extremely goofy which fits the theme of the original. It's definitely conservative in terms of style, instrumentation and energy. I think it's a lot of fun. I agree with prophetik that the mastering could be stronger, but I disagree totally that there is too much sub content or not enough highs. Honestly I don't hear that, nor do I see it on an instance of SPAN. The bass seems to live at 130Hz, and while I don't hear mud, it's not a bad idea to EQ other instruments so they aren't interfering too much in the 130Hz-and-below range (something to be aware of for next time). I do see that the EQ is hard cut-off at 16k Hz, not sure why? But I don't think that is killing the high end at all (and may in fact be cutting off a lot of painful fuzz!). This is a busy mix and while the mixing/mastering isn't perfect, I find it adequate and everything is audible. I like the transition into the sped-up finale a lot! Fun stuff, let's go! YES

I also haven't heard the original but it's very cool! I love this idea for a remix too, and there are many excellent ideas presented. I agree with Larry, it has that silly Mario 64 feel which is really fun. I happen to love sfx in a remix and I like how they are used here. Unfortunately I agree with MW and prophetik that the repetition is just too much. The drums are the biggest offender. The breakbeat is super cool but there needs to be a break from the pattern sooner than 2:22, after which there is just a simple fadeout of the mix. Changing the lead timbres at some point would also break up the repetitive feel nicely. The production is good. The mastering is on the gentle side, but works well enough and everything is punchy and audible. I don't think it will take too much to get this arrangement firing on all cylinders, really a breakdown section with slower drums, somewhere in the middle, would do it for me, although an additional countermelody or a swapping of the lead sound for something new halfway through would be appreciated too. NO (borderline, please resubmit)

What an amazing idea to take the Stones' lyrics and translate them to Latin. I am digging the 6/8 feel that you achieved with the drum beats, it is subtle but adds a tremendous amount of groove to the piece. I agree with MW that the drums sound over-filtered if anything; certainly they are not too loud. To me the drums fit in fine, and could even be a tad snappier. The orchestration here is great; all instruments are sequenced and humanized well enough. This is a very full and busy mix, and I also agree with MW that there is a lack of overall mixing depth; the lows could be lower and highs could be more present, but this isn't a dealbreaker. The choir is an interesting device and adds nice texture to the layers of soundscape. I love the little squelchy synth bits. What is this, vocoding? Oh cool, what an unexpected and interesting element! Did Daft Punk drop in for a cameo? The guitar at 3:48 sounds excellent. I wish it were a little more audible. It can be difficult to mix an orchestral arrangement as often it sounds like a giant wall of sound since so many elements are doubled/tripled/quadrupled/etc. and many elements play in a similar frequency range, so while I wish the mixing were cleaner, I'm not disappointed by what I'm hearing. Outro is a perfect wrap-up to the piece. This arrangement is too creative and well crafted not to go with it. YES

I'm afraid my current thoughts on this mix aren't much different from my original vote. I hear that the mud and mushy reverb dissonances have been addressed, all of that is gone, but this still sounds like an uncomfortably bare and depressing soundscape. There seems to be no mastering on the track as it comes in at -6db peak at the loudest point. The writing is so stiff and simplistic and the arrangement and instrumentation are repetitive. I believe this concept could still work but it would need much more going on to maintain interest. I hear it in my mind with some huge dreamy pads playing varied emotive chords, and more sfx drifting in and out of the arrangement like shooting stars. Right now, as with the previous version, this mix just leaves me flat. Good luck with the rest of this vote! NO

This is indeed an eclectic mix! Filtered intro is cool but simplistic and it drones on a bit. It could be more fun with a few crackles or unexpected filtered noises but what's here works. I like the strings (they have a disco vibe) and guitar although as Larry said they sound fakey. The straight simplistic grid-locked writing all the way through the intro didn't help. I also like the doubling of the melody with the bell in the second half of that first guitar section. The guitar at 1:27 sounds clean and cool. The snare is too loud and isn't the greatest snare sound I ever heard. At the very least, this snare doesn't match well with this soundscape. Whistle lead at 1:48 is neato. The soloing at 2:29 is awesome! The e-piano/organ underneath that soloing fits very well. At 3:11, the soundscape sounds annoyingly empty. Another solo or strong lead instrument would have been nice but whatever is here trying to carry the lead melody is waaaay too soft and weak (could this just be a soft pad?). This section almost feels like you hit mute on your lead writing by accident. There are some moments in the piece where the harmonies aren't working the best they can, for example at 1:22-128 where the strings, bass, and guitar clash here and there, melodically. Also from 1:50-2:09 there is some clashing I can't quite put my finger on. At 2:42-2:50 during the soloing, there is more harmonic dissonance. Perhaps a J more versed in music theory can help me explain this. At 4:02 the bells play a chord that sounds very off to me. I do like the varied mix of sounds used in this mix and the creativity of the arrangement. I love the vocal clips. Overall the mixing is adequate but things could be better balanced and eq'd so that everything is more easily audible. Outro feels cut off at an awkward point since the writing just ends in mid-line, i.e. the writing was duplicated and meant to continue into another section but just came to a stop instead. Would have been better to either write the final portion into a legitimate outro (just altering the very last notes into a finale would do the trick) or let the writing roll on and do a full fadeout. This is a cool little beat with a small section of excellent guitar soloing. None of what I said above is a dealbreaker on its own, but a lot of little things together are causing me to be less sold on this arrangement than my peers. NO (borderline, resubmit)

Larry is right, there is something off with the timing in the intro. The track is 100bpm, so I have lined it up on grid with my metronome, and it all seems to fit except from 0:00-0:07. After 0:07 it all lines up. I wonder if just one note was left out, in the intro, causing this timing difference? It does make the flow of the track feel disorienting. Ok so I just clipped the first seven seconds in Cubase and moved them back one beat and duplicated a note just before 0:07, and now it sounds normal. I wonder if this should be corrected before posting? In addition to this timing issue, I'm going to guess that the timing feels stilted to Larry even further than 0:07 simply due to the odd nature of the arpeggio that plays throughout the tune. The notes jump around in a way that can be hard to follow; the note progression aka "melodic contour" is a little awkward and unnatural. Add to that the timing error in the intro and many listeners may be feeling "off" throughout the entire piece. Other than ^this^ issue, this is a very cute and well crafted remix. Nothing groundbreaking, but cute and varied, and surely captures the feel of the original source tune to perfection. None of the instrumentation is wowing me but the arrangement is fun and creative. I like the inclusion of the underground theme into the arrangement. I agree with Larry, that outro is disappointing. It is the same arp from the intro, wrapping up with one snare roll and then... nothing. Some kind of ending or even a "ta-da" thing would have been fun and a nice conclusion. But yeah I like it. YES (not a conditional, but I'm curious if others want the intro timing corrected)