Chimpazilla

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

What a creepy source, and you've captured it perfectly in this adaptation, I love it. The master is quiet which tends to be an issue with all of your submissions. Wow this is a short arrangement, I would have loved one more crescendo section leading into the outro. It would be great if the volume could be brought up before posting, but it isn't enough of a problem for me to hold it back. YES

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)

I'm not sure this qualifies as trance. I like the concept and I have no problem with the heavy reverb on the piano. I do hear the resonance in the outro but I find it more cool than problematic. My big problem with the track is the static nature of the arrangement. As Larry pointed out, after the build at 2:07 there is nothing new added and we are back into the same slow groove as in the first half, with the same spacey background synth keeping the soundscape feeling identical. The track would burst to life with a double-time section or some proper trance with an arpeggiated bassline beginning at 2:34. As it stands, even with additional elements added in the second half, it just feels enough on the repetitive side for me to request a resub. NO (resubmit please, borderline)

The lows and mid-lows are too loud, and the reverb is too strong, especially in the lows. That said, WOW. The variations you came up with on this short source are phenomenal and the performance is superb. I love this so much! Let's do this. YES

This track feels great, so relaxing and upbeat at the same time, with good pacing changes. The master is indeed on the quiet side. I agree that the snare is a bit snappy which puts it outside of the soundscape. I do love how the track evolves and yet keeps the same feel. The production is done well enough. Very enjoyable and immersive track. The ending could have used one resolving chord, but this works well enough YES

I agree with the crits of all my fellow judges, the instrumentation is simple, the mixing could be more clear and the sine and bass patterns are overused as is the sidechained pad, but none of that is dealbreaker to me. It's a fun tune and I think it belongs on OCR. YES

I love the concept of this SO much, it fits the sweet melancholy of this source perfectly with the sad yet hopeful vocals and ethereal droning background. I am so torn on whether this should pass, solely on the vocals. There are just enough pitchy moments to consider holding it back, and I know you are addressing this on your future vocal tracks. I also think going forward it would be good to do something more interesting with the vocals as the track moves along, instead of just leaving them alone in the middle with one reverb setting the whole way through. But ultimately, this track hits me hard in the feels, and I believe it will for others as well. Let's do this. YES

As a medley, this flows very smoothly, the transitions are great. I think the instruments are serviced just fine and I love the electronic accents. The track feels like an epic tale. The production is very good and the writing and detailing are on point. Nicely done, I hope you will agree to have it posted despite what happened with the game behind the scenes. YES

Whoa that slap bass is FUNKAY.... love it. I wish the piano weren't panned totally right, but the track is balanced well enough. I feel like the track hits a little strongly in the mid lows, but nothing terrible. The writing and performances are super fun. The arrangement does feel samey after not too long, but there is plenty of varied writing and embellishment to make up for it. Source aplenty. Not a fan of fadeout endings, it feels like a cop-out 99% of the time to me, but I'll live. Overall I'm loving this. YES

I agree with Larry. The arrangement is very simple, but it works and the transition is smooth. It's a short but sweet evocative track. I agree with the crits about realism, particularly the harpsichord as mentioned, and I also think the low end is boomy. If this doesn't pass I'd ask that the low end boom be tamed. But as it stands, I think it's good to go. YES

I really like this track! It's super fun and energetic and the mixing works although I agree that the master is quite on the loud side. This is really borderline for me, but copy-pasta is a dealbreaker for me. Change up those identical sections just enough to distinguish them from each other, and send it back please! NO (resubmit please, borderline)

I like this arrangement a lot, but I think the issues are still holding it back. This is a high energy mix and starts out with every instrument blaring, which is a lost opportunity to build excitement starting from a tamer soundscape and writing. You are using many instruments that play primarily in the same frequency range, and they sound very crammed together and the mix is fatiguing as a result. You have so many elements playing at all points in the track which is also fatiguing. I recommend you take each part of your track and decide where elements should play and where they should be silent. For example you have a choir pad that never takes a break, what about dropping that out for a section or two, that will add some nice contrast and dynamic range, and the choir pad will be more interesting later on when it returns. A lower-energy (possibly drumless) breakdown would also help expand the dynamic range of the track (not necessary, just a suggestion). As for the mixing, you'll need to address EQ and stereo placement so the instruments aren't all bunched together and competing like this. There's still some more work to be done here, but I think it will be well worth the effort on this track and future tracks as well. NO (resubmit)

I REALLY like this arrangement, there are some great ideas in here, great energy dynamics overall, the little triplet section at 2:59 is awesome. The production isn't getting the job done though. All the sounds are very vanilla, all drum elements and synths too, and the bass is apologetically quiet. Give this another pass at the production, improving the synths and sounds and balance, and this one will be a yes from me. NO (resubmit)

This, precisely. Otherwise, this is a lovely piece! Please fix the panning and the click/pop and bring the volume up just a bit, and send it on back. NO (resubmit please)

This is a fun, high-energy track. I agree with most of the criticisms already pointed out, primarily the hot, crunch, pumpy, overcompressed master, and the repetitive nature of some of the sections. The most grievous example of this is the section from 2:43-3:26 which is four times longer than it needs to be. On my second listen, my ears feel fatigued from so much crunch in the mid-highs and highs. My two requests are 1. tone down the compression and remove some crunchiness, and please trim the section from 2:43-3:26 by at least half. I like it though, please fix it and send it back so we can post it. NO (resubmit please)

Rebecca I love your arrangements because they always take me to that special mystical place in my mind. I like this track quite a bit, although I agree with the criticisms about overall mastering volume being low. I do hear a few wrong notes, or are they purposeful? The big issue for me is the static nature of the arrangement, combined with the same soundscape used throughout the piece and the same basic beat/pulse. The track outstays its welcome due to the static feel and will probably lose some listeners' attention around the halfway point. What's here is too good to pass on imo, but please take these criticisms to heart for future arrangements. And you know I will master any and all of your tracks for you, it is my pleasure to do that! YES (borderline)

This song is amazing, but other than the basic two-chord progression and a few bits that mirror the source's melody (which is so sparse), generally I can't recognize the source song. Damn... great track, great production, performances and vocals. Love it. NO

I love this theme so much (remixed it myself). This is a lovely, dynamic and interesting interpretation. The instruments are sequenced well enough, although everything feels just a tad dry and in some areas the track feels hot (possible overcompression or very close to it). Still, it is very nice. YES

Oh gosh do I hate to say no to this, because it's clearly not a midi rip, and is performed very well. The mixing is good although I agree that it lacks some highs and some lows. It is the original verbatim though, and although one could argue that the live metal performance is in itself an interpretation, it is still too close. If you wanted to redo this for OCR, you'd need to add some substantial variation and personalization to the arrangement. But dang, nice work, love it. NO

I can't imagine anyone here loves Zelda more than I do, and OoT is my all time favorite game. I do love this mix, but I don't hear enough source. I'm not one for timestamping, but if I listen to a mix and halfway through I actually forget what song is being remixed, that's a bad sign. Just not enough Kokiri here. Very fun listen though! NO

This track sounds good to me, production/mixing is solid enough, but it sounds just like an upgraded midi file. The instruments sound sequenced but I'm not having as much trouble with fakeness as the other judges are (since my ears hear "upgraded midi file" so they aren't expecting realism). Unfortunately, even with embellishments added, the track is much too similar to the original song, even the style is identical. Sadly that makes it not a fit for OCR guidelines. Fun listen though! NO

I love this concept, but this mix really plods. The drums are super quiet and the beat is not very interesting. Some of the bass attacks stick out of the mix too far which exposes the fact that it's sequenced. The lyrics are cool, but the vocal needs some work, either some pitch correction or processing or perhaps some retakes as Larry suggested. The track is simplistic which can be cool but the elements in a sparse track really need to work to pull it off. As Nutritious and Larry both said, this sounds more like a wip than a finished track. NO

I agree with my fellow NO judges here. The concept is dynamite, and the production is tight. The track is way too repetitive though, in writing and in sounds. The beat and energy level stay the same throughout the track. The lead synth and the arp synth are both fairly vanilla, and they don't do anything interesting or ever change. There are too many sections where the lead isn't playing and nothing else interesting is coming in. Gotta give the listener some ear candy about every 8 bars to maintain interest. You could add some filter motion to things as well as change up the instrumentation during some sections. You could vary the beat somewhere or add some kind of unique bridge section. Just needs some variation. NO

I will co-co-sign on this one. The structure is too repetitive with two nearly identical builds and drops. The synths are very generic sounding. Lead synths are way too loud. I appreciate the stereo widening but it is almost too much, making the leads sound very separate from the drums and bass, and the soundscape is not cohesive as a result. I love the bass, the timbre and the writing, but it sounds so small in the center, too narrow and too quiet. Bass should be mono below 200 Hz, the rest of the bass timbre can have some natural stereo spread so it gels with the track. I would also suggest giving your leads a tiny bit of sidechaining, no more than 3-6ish db of GR, to let the leads groove better with the beat, as it is now it sounds very stiff. Great concept, just needs a little more variation for the two builds and drops, and some production fixes. NO