Chimpazilla   Judges ⚖️

This is a premaster. Before busting this remixer on frequency holes, I put some quick mastering on the track and it sounds immensely better. Proper mastering can cover a multitude of sins. Even so, I had to crank up the low-lows with my multiband compressor to get it sounding bassy enough, so the low end is definitely mixed too softly and tamely. But why submit a premaster to OCR? This mix definitely needs a volume rebalance. Bass is too quiet, leads are too quiet, mids are too loud, there's a wide-panned pad that is way too loud. The drums are comically quiet. I can barely hear the kick, there seems to be zero sidechaining on any element in the track (oh the humanity!) and the snare and hats are too quiet. The drums consist of one loop repeated over and over which makes the drum groove too repetitive. A good DnB beat should have many, MANY fills and variations throughout the track, and the drums should be mixed loud and proud. The total lack of sidechaining means this arrangement does not move or groove, and that's a darn shame. The instruments are placed oddly in the soundscape. The pad is super wide, and the pad includes a lot of low-mids, and low-mids sound awkward and muddy when panned this wide. It would be better to have the pad mostly centered, with its high-mids and highs appearing more wide. Same for the leads. Leads are centered 100% here, it would be nice to hear the upper end of some of these leads having some side presence. Snare and hats also live 100% in the center, with no side presence at all, so they sound weak. In fact, that pad feels especially odd to me. So, I decided to listen to the track in mono in Cubase to see what is happening. In mono, that wide pad disappears. Like, 100% disappears, not just a little but totally. Whatever has been done to this pad to widen it this much has made it go out of phase. Anyone listening to the track played back on a phone speaker will not hear the pad at all. The most obvious instance of this starts at 1:01. Check out the mixdown in mono and you'll see that pad is inaudible. Despite the mixing flaws, there are a lot of cool ideas in this arrangement, and great synth sounds. The intro could use some kind of sfx or atmo to go with the chippy arp, it sounds very simple and plain until the first pad comes in at 0:10. The ending is disappointing, there is a bit of a cooldown as the drums filter away, but then there is no resolution and it just ends. It feels like at the very least it needs that last note of the phrase to feel complete, as the white noise whoosh is playing. I love the concept of this, and I think it can be great with improvements. I love the shift at 2:02 to chiptune, then back to the regularly-scheduled soundscape at 2:12, awesome idea! I agree with my fellow Js that repetition is a problem, but that could be addressed with a few extra arps, countermelodies, varied lead patches, sfx coming into and out of the soundscape, or more filtering and effects. But primarily the mixdown needs work: volume balancing and placement/panning of instruments. And some sidechaining would be nice. NO

The more I get to know midtempo the more I like the genre. I'm a sucker for huge, heavy sounds, a pounding kick and deeeeeeeep sidechaining. The sound design in here is extremely good, lots of unique bass and synth sounds. The mastering on this track is heavy as heck but I don't hear any overcompression. There's something about this track that bothers me. While everything here is very cool, I'm also finding it more static and repetitive than I'd like. Once an idea is established it just stays in the same gear for a long time. The squelchy synth beginning at 0:20 is so cool but it never really develops. I'm waiting for that sound to filter and pan and go all in and out of my ears doing unexpected things and it just stays right where it is the whole time. I find myself imagining all the cool things that sound could be doing but isn't and it's leaving me wanting more. I don't know how to better describe this. It's not wrong per se, just unrealized potential. Starting at 1:41, I am hearing that lead synth pattern is slightly off-timed compared to the percussion. Maybe it is the delay on it? I can't be sure but there's this awkward off-timed thing for me. (edit: I see proph had the same gripe about this timing) At 2:31 we are at a breakdown. Cool sounds, again, but they aren't *doing* anything other than what they start out doing. At 3:02 there is the coolest sound I've heard yet, soon to be layered with many other very cool sounds. The mixing of all of this is rather good even though it is dense. I can hear everything clearly. But the soundscape is so repetitive to me. I feel weird even saying that but it's true. As busy as this soundscape is I feel like it is holding back from busting out to some really fun places. I hate to add another ? to this vote but just like prophetik, I'm just not sure yet. Is this over our bar, probably. I'm going to think on this. edit 4-7-25: Listening again, I stand by everything I said. The sections are long and static, but they do change as the piece moves along. It's too cool not to pass this, so let's go. YES

Very interesting arrangement and mix. After listening through this twice, I find myself in agreement with prophetik on all of the points he brought up. The elements don't mesh well together. The bass patch is simplistic with no processing or filter movement on it. The bass has so much tone to it that it plays almost like a primary element (like a lead) when it would probably be better served as a less prominent but supportive element. The bass is so mid-low heavy (having its loudest frequency at about 100Hz) that it sounds oddly muddy, and it sounds low-passed as well. There are synths in the mix that are swimming in reverb (the swirly pad) and other elements like the hats and percussion that are 100% dry so they stick out of the soundscape more than they should. The lack of sonic cohesion feels odd in a way that I'm having trouble describing fully. The same sounds are used throughout the track, and as proph mentioned they are playing the same writing over and over so the arrangement has a repetitive feel. There is a lack of melodic or motivic content in the arrangement, so as proph mentioned, the arrangement is primarily an exploration of textures. This kind of arrangement can work, but only if there is more variation as things move along. The arrangement lacks good transitions. At 0:26, with zero signaling, everything stops abruptly and this huge basslline begins, which feels very jarring. Again at 1:56, a new section begins after a very short break and zero transition. Again at 2:16. And as proph pointed out, no cooldown or outro... it just ends. There are some excellent elements in this mix though. I really like the percussion pattern from 0:56-1:04, and the way that is filtered before coming to a stop, yeah I dig that. I really like that perc sound everywhere it is in the arrangement, it really moves and grooves. From 2:31-2:54 that perc sound changes and varies as it moves along, very nice. prophetik likes that sound too from what I see in his vote! I also agree with proph that this one seems sort of close, because there are in fact a lot of cool ideas going on here, but they just aren't cohesively mixed, the writing gets repetitive and the lack of melodic content hurts it even more. I would love to hear this one again with the mixing improved, transitions added, a proper cooldown and/or outro, and some more melodic content. NO

This may be the most sausagey waveform I have literally ever seen: So.... alrighty then. It hits 100% full force from the first note. It feels very, very loud. I don't hear overcompression, and the mastering tolerances are ok; it's not overcompressed but it's very dense and it feels oppressive. Wide-panned chugs and rhythm guitar, I agree with proph that this placement in the stereo field feels off since they are SO wide and loud. The lead guitar sits nicely centered with side-presence highs when it plays, but the lead only plays for a small part of the track. The lead is the best-mixed element in the whole mix. There's a tiny arp in there which also seems centered which is fine but it is mixed extremely quietly. The drums seem to sit entirely centered other than a few tom fills. This arrangement is relentless and repetitive. At 2:40 there's a break in the action and this section sounds very cool although the dreamy synth instrument is also panned super wide. Why? The chugs are oppressive to me, because they play so much, and also they sound hollow to me since they live almost entirely between 200-300Hz which is kind of a weird zone to have an instrument sounding this prominent and totally stereo spread. The snare also has a hollow snappy feel to it and from what I can tell on SPAN the snare fundamental seems to also sit at 250Hz. So. Many. Chugs. I like this concept but it is just too repetitive with the same writing for much of the time, same energy level (until the short breakdown right before the end) and the same instrumentation all the way through. No real outro or ending, it just stops. I do like this concept but it just needs more development and variation, and some mixing work on stereo placement and EQ of the parts. As I sit here listening and watching on SPAN I notice the correlation meter is going back and forth from positive to negative. Uh oh. So I put the track on mono, and no surprise, the chugs almost completely vanish. Whatever has been done to get these chugs that wide has caused them to go out of phase. That will need to be fixed. NO

Yeah this is cool! The simple yet heavy drum pattern is perfect to accent lots of synth tomfoolery happening on top. Lots of interesting sounds and textures, squelchies and sfx. Arrangement is good, lots of dynamics and energy shifts. The mixing is good, mastering appropriate. Groovy mix, fun stuff! YES

Chimpsignaled! Alrighty then. I love the Lavender Town theme so much. This is a very unique and cool idea for a remix, I agree with proph on that. This mix is full of fun ideas and effects. Unfortunately I agree with proph about the issues with the arrangement. Each section is repetitive within itself, as each section is precisely 16 bars, with the occasional element being added at the 8-bar point. That makes this arrangement feel very formulaic and predictable, and it's a lost opportunity for development of the arrangement and adding interest. Elements are added or dropped right at the 8- or 16-bar point, making the whole thing feel very plodding and gridlocked. The bass in this arrangement is the "bassline" in the source, but it repeats throughout the entire arrangement, the same way and in the same bland synth patch. The drums in each of the three drum sections are just the same loop over and over. Also, I agree with proph that it's a shame that the melody of the original is never used. There is an arp playing in the drumless sections that alludes to the source arp but without the creepy charm. But the entire arrangement up until 2:33 has no lead melody at all. I think adding that lead motif in, using varied instruments and doing variations on it throughout, would bring this arrangement some much needed life. At 2:33 there is a synth solo which is great. That is the only time in the arrangement when there's an actual lead melody playing. But the writing is only 4 bars long, and these 4 bars of melody/solo writing repeat 4 times for a total of 16 very repetitive bars. Overall, this is a very cool direction to take this track, but as it stands currently the arrangement is much too formulaic and repetitive. It needs more variation within the 16 bar sections, and not everything needs to start right at either 8 or 16 bars. I agree that our workshop Discord channel will be helpful in getting this arrangement where it needs to be. NO (resubmit)

What interesting original source tunes, full of mystery, and so is the remix. I love the emotional vibe that you've got going here, very creepy and melancholy. I feel like the entire first two minutes of the remix are so repetitive; the backing chords (awesome as they are) just repeat over and over, verbatim. The oboe lead with original writing is a nice touch, but it is mixed in quietly and distantly (a lot of reverb and no predelay), and the oboe patch is not very believable. During these two minutes, nothing else of interest is happening, the tabla groove is the same all the way through. There are some drum hits and rolls but they are comically quiet, and with no variation, they are the same each time. Some drum writing variations, and some extra elements or ear candy would really make those two minutes more interesting. I love the weird transition at 2:13! But that same phrase repeats a lot of times. As this section continues, I realize that it isn't a transition but a section unto itself, and nothing else very interesting is happening as this section moves along. That feels like a lost opportunity to really advance the arrangement with additional elements, if not percussion or ear candy, at least some dreamy atmo or textures could come in during this section, to really accentuate the emotional vibe. The filtered vocal during this section does have some loud midrangey frequencies as Emu pointed out. At 3:52 the string patch isn't keeping up with the fast note pattern due to its attack which is a tad too long for that section of writing. Other than that, and the oboe and bass clarinet not sounding real, the rest of the instrumentation works well enough. I agree with my fellow Js that this arrangement has a ton of promise, it is really interesting, creepy and emotional. But it's not quite there yet in terms of production. I agree with Emu that this arrangement could be brought up to par with just a few tweaks and additions. Hope to hear it again! NO (resubmit)

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

I love this theme, have remixed it myself. I also really like this arrangement. I love all the rhythmic changeups especially. I love the creepy synths and sfx, and the reverses here and there. I love the big monster hits in the middle. Tons of fun detail in the arrangement. I agree with proph though that the reuse of the same instruments all the way through is hurting this arrangement by making it feel very repetitive. I believe some of the sections are copied and pasted into the second half with no changes. (if there are changes, they are minimal) Production-wise, this is a sausage. It is indeed slammed from beginning to end. The mixing is dense as heck, and I don't hear any sidechaining in the mix. If any sidechaining is there, I suspect it is only happening on the bass. In a track this dense, more elements should get some sidechaining (in varying amounts), which will give the piece more groove and also clean up your mixing, preparing it for a clean master. I also suspect some EQ would help, by taking lows off of elements like the pads, plucks and leads, giving the bass and kick more room to breathe without smashing the soundscape this much. The mastering here is balls-to-the-walls and just adds to the oppressive feel. It does not need to be this loud. There is so much to love about this track and I would love to see it posted! It just needs another pass at the production to get it sounding its best first. NO (please resubmit)

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

I really like this remix! I have mastered the album version of this track (this subbed version is not my master, though). It is a luscious and mesmerizing soundscape and the arrangement is really well crafted, I especially love all the filtered synths coming in and out of the soundscape, but I have to agree with proph that there almost certainly is not enough source use. Other than a few selected notes from the source tune's motif (in the first 20 seconds of the source as mentioned), I don't detect any source use. If there is more here, I would appreciate a source breakdown and I would be delighted to be wrong, but I'm not hearing it (and I'm really trying, I have mastered several versions of this source for the album so I have become familiar with this source tune). Beautiful track, just not enough source for OCR. NO

The original sounds like something we'd hear from Michael Hudak! With all those little glitchies. This is a very ambitious mix. Larry it can be incredibly difficult to sequence sampled orchestral instruments and get them sounding real (or real enough or REAL™), especially when all of it is exposed as it is here. There are so many parameters and automations to work with and get right, and that's after you've selected a real-enough-sounding sample. I think *most* of these instruments are done well enough. The instruments that sound the most uncanny to me are strings and the brass when they play fast runs such as at 2:01 (or maybe that isn't brass but a deep woodwind?) and again at 2:32. The strings are *almost* keeping up (example 0:26-0:50), that is a lot of little notes being played legato, it sounds ok to me but just barely. Other than those two things, the brass (or low something-or-other) being the worst, the rest of the instrumentation sounds well-enough sequenced, to my ears. There are tons of details in this orchestration, lots of flourishes and runs played by harps, strings, mallets, etc. The arrangement is really well crafted. I like this, I hear that this is the non-glitchified version of this original. I personally prefer more of a drumbeat and electro-effected soundscape, but I think this has been done well enough and it is an exciting orchestral listen. YES

Pop at the beginning can easily be cut off by either the artist or one of us, no worries. I find this arrangement incredible. The mixing is heavy/dense especially in the lows and low-mids but I don't hear any overcompression. I love the luscious soundscape and super hard kick dominating when it hits; sidechaining is perfect. I love the constantly morphing soundscape, the sounds move and have variation even while the soundscape is consistent. Great use of sfx expanding across the entire stereo field. The whole mix is drenched in reverb and that works super well in this context. I especially like the drums here, the hard kick, the trap snare, and the super groovy shaker pattern really add movement to an otherwise fully ambient piece. It's a long arrangement, but it's one that you melt into.... it's a vibe for sure. I love this, count me in! YES

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

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

The drum beat is still repetitive, but it is mixed better so the trap hats aren't so loud and prominent. The drum beat itself sounds groovier with the extra kick hits added. The balancing of instruments is much better here, and the sound design is improved quite a bit, this soundscape sounds full and luscious. I love the vocal clips in the breakdown section, nice addition, it adds emotion to the piece (I'm a sucker for well-used vocal clips). There is a wash of distortion over the soundscape during a good portion of this mix that I'm not a fan of, but it adds movement to the atmosphere of the piece, and it is not a dealbreaker for me (I predict Larry will complain about this!). The mixing still isn't perfect, but this is a significant improvement and I'm happy to pass it now. YES

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

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

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

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

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

What an interesting prog-rock interpretation of this source tune. All the instruments sound great to me, performances are great, elements are well balanced, mix and master sound very good to me too. I love the synth solo! I would never have noticed any problem with the drums, they sound solid and punchy to me. If they are mechanical, there is certainly enough variation in the drum writing so I don't hear anything wrong with them. I love all the time signature and rhythmic tomfoolery. I love the lyrics, they are creative, real, dark and relatable. I have no problems with these vocals. If there is sibilance, I don't hear it, and/or it is covered over by the high end of everything else. This is a wonderful, moody, well-performed arrangement. I love it, let's go. YES

Very cool arrangement, performances are great, I hear the source very clearly too. This is a really fun listen. Reading Gario's complaints, he's not wrong, the lead guitar is definitely too wet (even a longer predelay would help, as well as making sure there are no lows in the reverb on the lead), lead could be a couple of db louder, rhythm guitars are too loud by comparison. But is that a reason to reject this awesome piece, oh hell no, those are nitpicks in the grand scheme of things. This is a very well put-together arrangement. Let's go! YES

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

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