Chimpazilla
-
Posts
3,203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chimpazilla
-
-
Aw, this is a tough one. I really love this approach, and the piano playing is good and the bassline works well. The chord interpretations are super nice. I'm finding the arrangement repetitive though because the soundscape never changes, and more importantly the drums are on autopilot. I really feel like more drum variation would cut the repetitiveness a lot. A proper drumless breakdown in the middle would help too, it would only need to be a few bars long.
The track feels much longer than it is, due to the repetitive feel of the writing and stagnant soundscape. I appreciate the sfx, but they aren't enough to vary the soundscape by much. The arrangement has no outro, no resolution of the ideas, things just.... stop. Disappointing.
The mixing is problematic. The kick seems to be at a good volume, but the snare is so loud and so dry, hats are dry, and the shaker loop is way too reverby. This is not a believable drum kit being played, and that feels distracting. The piano sounds good enough to me. Bass could be a couple of db louder.
I can see why Wes went YES, I really can. The ideas are ace. But I think for me a lot of little things are adding up to a
NO (resubmit)
-
Interesting concept, and I think a mix of the two sources can make a cool arrangement! But this needs lots of work to make it OCR-passable. The render is in mono, and I am seeing almost 9db of headroom. The soundscape and arrangement are super simple and repetitive. Everyone starts somewhere! I agree taking this to our workshop to get further perspectives on what can be improved is a very good idea.
NO
-
prophetik's vote covers everything I would also say about this mix. I don't feel like it's a midi-rip sound upgrade, and I don't hear any sampling of the actual game audio, although the arrangement isn't transformative enough, regardless of the lengthening of the intro and outro.
I actually think this is a great concept which could work well if there was more variation away from the source tune, both in writing and sound choices. But the mixing also needs work. The kick is ridiculously louder than everything else, and the lack of proper sidechaining of elements makes the kick feel pasted (LOUDLY) on top of the soundscape instead of nestled nicely into it. The lead is super quiet in the mix. Try checking your mix on another device, other headphones, in the car etc. and you will quickly hear how out of balance the sounds are. And prophetik had a good suggestion to get more perspectives in our workshop. I would love to hear this again after improvements are made, I think it's a good basis for a remix!
NO
-
I was able to hear the crackling on headphones, and while I am a YES vote even with the crackling, I have to agree it was distracting. I couldn't hear it on my speakers, but for sure on headphones, so I agree with Larry that it wasn't ideal. So, I asked Will if he'd be willing to change it, and he did. Will made some changes to his vinylizer plugin, and altered something in the final chorus so it would sound less shrill. He also wanted me to note the fact that Larry smells.
I may as well let this be my vote, the track sounds awesome to me, so
YES
-
Wow, this is glorious! What a beautiful interpretation of this source, the chord changes give it a very rich vibe, while keeping the feel of the original the same. Beautiful triplets added, really nice embellishments to this theme. Piano tone sounds perfect to me. Wow, love it.
Lots of dynamics in the piece. Could it use a bit of compression, perhaps, but I don't find it necessary.
Actually... I also hear that static. It is such an easy fix using RX, especially since there is half a bar of silence before the piano begins. The noise is there in that half-bar, so it was easy to have RX learn the sound, and delete it. What do you think @prophetik music? denoised wav
YES
-
The soundscape is definitely much more empty than would be ideal, but what is here is charming and well performed. Everything sounds very crisp, which is emphasized due to the lack of a proper bass during most of the arrangement, but the production is on point and mastering is appropriate. Definitely a unique and moody take on this source, I think it is great. I can picture this playing with a video of a sparse camel caravan trudging across a punishing desert landscape. Hhhhm, visualizer idea!
YES
-
This mix sounds great to me! Super energetic and well performed. Arrangement is good. Sadly though I agree with the other Js that the lead melody when it appears is just way too quiet in the mix. If those leads were louder and more prominent, that would help a lot. Sometimes the lead melody is played very wide-panned which is fine, but for me it buries the lead even further into the busy soundscape.
There is a ton of original writing here, and the original sections sound great but together with the de-emphasized melody sections it buries the source material just a bit too much. I don't like to be a timestamp stickler if I don't have to, and really if it is 45% that may be enough. I'm sort of torn here because I really like this track. I think it would be so much better though if the leads were brought up in volume when they play the source melody. Another suggestion would be to add some other element (perhaps a synth or another guitar line) playing or even just hinting at the source melody during the original sections, just plucking those few notes to indicate Lost Woods during those sections. These simple fixes would tie it together for me.
I'm more borderline than the other two Js and I even considered going YES. Honestly if we were to be told that the files were gone and no changes could be made, I may even flip to a YES vote. I am interested in @Liontamer's thoughts on this one, I wonder if Larry thinks this is passable as is?
NO (borderline) (resubmit please)
-
Wow this is ambitious! It's a full, energetic mix, instrumental performances are all awesome. Vocals and lyrics are great. Vocal is a tad strained at the highest highs, but is generally pleasant to listen to. Vocal could be a touch louder, as others have pointed out, she does get drowned out in the busiest sections. Other than that, I think the volume balancing is good, mixing is good (especially for having so many elements, everything is audible), mastering is appropriate. What a creative take on this source. I'm loving it, easy vote.
YES
-
The 808 is purposely detuned! I'd prefer it less detuned, but it works just fine here and is a genre-specific production choice and not an error.
This rapping and singing are amazing, really well done. The vocal sounds a tad thin to me though, and dry. Could probably use a little compression and a gentle touch of reverb. But it works well enough.
The claps and percussion sound super hot and sizzly, uncomfortably so. And the claps are indeed too loud, and too up front (easy fix with a little reverb).
The production isn't perfect, but this is an awesome remix. Source is evident throughout, lyrics and vocals are fresh, creative and extremely well performed. Love it, gotta go with it. It is indeed a banger.
YES
-
I love this mix so much! I love the combination of sounds, the big filtered saw bass blast from "Depths" together with bells and mallets and the breakbeats. Lots of ear candy, attention to detail, a few reverses here and there. The composition is great, mixing and mastering are on point. The foreboding vibe of the depths is captured perfectly here. This mix is really well produced. It is a wonderful listen!
But... aside from the big "Depths" bass blast, and the use of bells and mallets, a few piano notes, and the occasional trilly flute from "Dive," I cannot recognize any source. I really want to YES this but I can't make out enough source. Interested to see what other Js can come up with. So far here is what I come up with.
At 1:45 there is motif from "Dive" (0:09 in source video), this is the first identifiable motif I come across in the arrangement.
At 2:45 I hear motif from "Dive" (0:17 in source video)
At 2:52 there is a four-note bit of motif from "Dive" (0:23 strings in source video).
I know there are more snippets in here but they are cleverly buried. The bass plays a motif here and there (for example the section starting at 0:55) but I can't tell if it is from either source or original.
I am absolutely a super strong YES on this if we can identify enough source.
?
edit 1-11-24: With the breakdown gaspode provided, and reading Brad's words below, I am in agreement that the source is represented quite well enough, especially given that the primary source "Depths" is so non-melodic. I would be so sad if this mix didn't make it onto the site for the reason of "not enough (melodic) source." I'm giving this my blessing and can't wait to see it posted here.
YES
-
Chris said I should recuse myself from voting on this resub, since I stuck my nose so far into the production of it. I will honor that, but if you guys think I can vote, my vote is a hearty YES.
I made an error when I listened to his original submission. Cubase decided to be evil and put the wav into "musical mode" without asking or telling me. Having not heard the piece before, I had no way to know that the speed was off. As a result, I heard it too fast, comically so. My comments in the vote reflect this. Listening to the original at the correct speed, my vote would still have been NO, however, but not as strongly so.
Chris reached out to me to clarify something I had said in my vote (not even related to my error in playback speed!). We got to talking, and we came up with some ways to improve the sound of his piano and reverb. Doing a fully-sequenced solo piano piece is very difficult to get right, but he persevered with the humanization, which was hugely improved with the new piano patch and revised reverb. He did a great job I think! Then I brute-forced him to let me master it. I think the result is miraculous.
The composition of this piece is glorious. I listened to it infinity times while working on it with him, and each time it brought emotional tears to my eyes. He filled the arrangement with such beauty and emotion, and his humanization work pushed it well over the top. The combination of themes is absolutely seamless. It was a joy to help him get this arrangement sounding its best and I appreciate Chris's trust so much.
-
I love this arrangement, and the vocals are a wonderful addition and they make this interpretation of this source so completely unique. I think the instrumentation is great. I love the total vibe change at 1:58.
My issue is the mixing of the vocals and also the guitar when it is playing lead. The vocals are too loud when they are more exposed such as when they first appear at 0:23. The vocal is totally in my face for a couple of reasons. The most obvious reason is the vocal is too loud when it is exposed. (When other instrumentation accompanies the vocal, the volume seems more reasonable). The other reason is that the vocal tends to be heavy on mid-lows. In the intro, there is heavy emphasis from 250-500Hz and it feels uncomfortable. Also, the reverb on the vocal needs to be low-cut, the reverb lows are adding to the over-emphasis of the lows in the vocal stem.
The male vocal is also too loud and has the same mid-low issue. At 2:15 the female vocal is singing a very low note to accompany the male vocal, adding to the effect.
The lead guitar at 2:25 is also too loud and wow the lows are emphasized. The guitar playing is awesome, but it is drowning out the backing elements nearly completely. I wonder how much this mid-low problem has to do with the lows in the reverb; perhaps simply low-cutting the reverbs across the board will help (along with balancing the volumes of all leads against the backing elements).
I think this is a lovely arrangement with well-performed guitars and vocals. Mastering seems fine. But it needs another pass on the mixing and volume-balancing of the leads (guitars and vocals) against the rest of the soundscape. That'll do it for me!
NO (resubmit)
-
Listening to the source tune, I love the changing time signature and bouncy vibe. Definitely does not sound like a boss theme, let alone a final boss theme!
I'm not a fan of the initial bowed-string soundscape, but I love the bells, and the full soundscape when it opens up at 0:31. The instrumentation is solid yet reserved, great vibe.
Mixing is clean and the soundscape placement of the elements is on point, nice and 3D. Really excellent mixture of instruments and textures. The arrangement stays completely fresh as it moves along, with new grooves and bits of ear candy, while always representing the source material well. This arrangement never loses my interest as it moves along. Even the very fullest sections are mixed well even while (probably) having too many elements playing.
The guitar work is truly excellent. Drums are just right. So much creativity here, all very well executed. I love this so much.
Quick edit for a final thought: now THIS sounds like a final boss theme! ;-D
YES
-
This arrangement is all kinds of amazing! It is full of feeling, variation, lovely details and embellishments. But the piano sample is thin and tinny, and the playing is so gridlocked, mechanical and lacking in dynamics; I have a vision of a player piano rolling along in my mind and that is not good, unless that was the planned concept which I'm sure it was not. In addition, it seems like this beautiful piece would benefit from being played much more slowly. That would also help detract from the mechanical feel. Ideally, the pace of this piece would speed up and slow down, if this is live-played (if it is all sequenced, there isn't much to be done except apply a tempo automation which will 100% not sound natural).
I admit I am not sure if this has been live-played, and I can't see anything about that in the writeup. It sounds sequenced to me, which is terrible in the case that this WAS live-played.
It seems there has been no mastering applied to this file, and no final limiter. The wav slams over 0db again and again, peaking at 3.6db, and I hear the unfortunate crunching when it happens. Needs a final limiter applied, and gently so.
Love the arrangement so much, but the piano and mastering needs to be fixed.
NO (resubmit)
edit 12-19-23 after this closed out: I'm a fool. Cubase imported this wav in "musical mode" meaning the file played too fast for me. How shameful. That's why I heard it like a player piano, stupidly fast and extra big-ass mechanical. I still would have voted NO, but not as strongly or obnoxiously as I did above. I've already apologized to Hemo, but we've been working together on his resub for several hours and the resub is going to blow everyone's doors in, it is so so good.
-
I don't hear any overcompression artifacts either guys, but ya gotta admit this is a weird waveform!
-
This is not a good looking waveform, it is brickwalled with over 6db of headroom. Why oh why?
I have not heard the original submission so this is my first hearing of this arrangement. Nice sounding bells right away. The lead bell is very loud when it arrives at 0:18, compared to the bass and drums.
At 0:54 it is just bass guitar and drums, and the bass sample sounds very simplistic, dry and exposed all by itself. Having some backing element or some kind of sfx or just another element to add interest to such a simple section would have helped add interest and nuance to that part of the arrangement.
I like the buildup that follows, with the reverby bell and filtered-in vox choir. The Christmas bells are lovely! Although all the bells are so loud against the bass and drums.
The drums are mixed quietly, the samples are simplistic and the writing pattern is repetitive. The kick is barely audible over the bells. The mixing here really isn't ideal, the volume balancing is not good and the bells feel disconnected from the bass and drums as if they are not part of one track.
I see in the previous vote that the Js had a problem with repetition. I haven't heard that versions so I can't compare but this version is also quite repetitive. Not quite dealbreaker repetitive for me but right on the cusp.
I think I need a few more playthroughs to decide if repetition, simplicity, unbalanced mixing and the strange brickwalled mastering are passable or dealbreaking.
? just not sure yet
Edit 12-19-23: Larry's vote reads as a clarification of everything I was hearing and feeling. I re-read my own vote and I share his thoughts exactly, and my vote needs to be a
NO (resubmit)
-
I feel like there are some disharmonies here and there, just enough to bug me. Examples: 0:32, 0:51, 2:11-2:31 (what is that arp doing?), 3:23. Really there are too many instances of harmonic dissonance to count. I also think the transitions between mismatched chords are not smooth and they feel very clunky harmonically. The bass and also the primary bell arp are causing this for me. I would be very interested to see what @prophetik music has to say about this. Brad, am I hearing this wrong or do you agree?
The bassline's writing is very busy which doesn't work well under so much other busy writing, and the bassline writing is aimless as well and often the notes are out of key. The bell arp plays continuously and loudly during a lot of this arrangement, and it eliminates any possibility of hearing a lead when it plays since it is so up front. All of this busy and disharmonious writing is bugging me after two full playthroughs so far.
The soundscape is nice, but the mixing isn't great because everything wants to be upfront so the mixing lacks depth while still sounding clear/clean. The arrangement is generally good. But since the instruments stay essentially the same throughout the arrangement (and with the busy writing) it feels repetitive to me after awhile. Most of the time I'm not hearing any dedicated lead (not that this is absolutely required, but it makes the mix disjointed to listen to, and I suspect this is more to do with mixing than writing). This soundscape and writing is just too random and noodley for me, and the disharmonies put the final nail in it. I love the concept, but I think more attention needs to be paid to which element takes the focus at any given time; there is just too much competing to be heard throughout the majority of the arrangement.
NO
-
This is a lovely cover, but yeah it is a cover until the three-minute mark as others have pointed out. After 3:00 it is entirely original, making this an awkward arrangement for a remix. The little bit after the fakeout ending is really not needed, imo.
The guitar playing is beautiful although I agree with Brad about the tone, it is a tad sharp. I also agree that the hammer-ons sound like errors.
I really like what's here, but the arrangement is too conservative for OCR.
NO
-
I haven't heard of Nujabes before; listening to some of his tracks on Modal Soul now. His style is heavy on smooth jazz, simple/repetitive drum loops, lo-fi production, piano loops. The production sounds so minimal and dry to me, feels very flat. I get the aesthetic, but I gotta say I'm not a fan of it.
Ok on to the remix! Wow that's a warbley piano. The piano playing is fantastic, I love the interpretation, but it is really making it hard to pick up on the source song. And this is a source I know extremely well (too well, it is an earworm). The source motif is more implied than played. I can definitely grok the source from 0:00-1:04 and 2:19-2:43, even thought it is super sparse. From 1:10-1:55, this section is 100% interpretation, and while the playing is ace, I get no recognizable source in that section. So that works out to 53% source, if all of the sparse motif is counted.
This is going to be a tough sell. I understand the vibe you were going for, now that I listened to a few Nujabes tracks. But a simple, repetitive beat paired with an unchanging backing soundscape played in an energetically static way typically does not pass on OCR, unless other elements of interest are added. This is a very simple and repetitive arrangement. The snare is so dry and upfront, and the piano sounds like it is playing in another room. The piano playing is very good, the piano sample and its effects are on the odd side. I will be interested to hear other opinions on this.
What happened at the end? In the middle of playing, with no slowdown or resolution to the ideas, the track just... ends. This is a dealbreaker for me, even if I overlook everything else I have mentioned.
I'm not really sure how to suggest improvements, since this was such a specific vibe being emulated. For me though, this arrangement is not developed enough for OCR.
NO
-
Opening bass sound is super simplistic, and there is minimal other stuff going on at the same time, so it is exposed. I like the beefy beat when it hits, but the drums and synths are sounding really vanilla.
The arrangement, as others have mentioned, is generally good. But overall the soundscape is just too simplistic. The drum samples are really basic, and the drum groove is repetitive when it plays. Also, Wes is correct that the pacing of the piece is off. The groove pattern of the drums would suggest that something bigger is coming, but it never delivers.
The melodic writing is either completely verbatim to source, or it is noodley, with nothing much in between, making this arrangement melodically awkward. Brad is right that the arrangement is missing countermelodic elements, pads, or any kind of fleshing out of the textures, and this lack gives the arrangement a repetitive feel.
There are moments of disharmony, such as at 2:25, when the tails/reverbs of the previous notes mush into the next section.
The glitching is awkward when it appears. The glitches are not signaled by anything before they start, and because they happen abruptly they sound like rendering errors rather than a cool effect.
I can see why Larry gave his YES, a lot has been done with very simple synths and sounds, and the arrangement works well overall. But ultimately, with writing and sounds this simplistic, it isn't enough for OCR in 2023.
NO
-
That's. A. BIG. Kick. So big. So, so big. WHAT DID YOU SAY you'll have to speak louder, this kick is just so so big. I mean omg, what a big kick this is. Did I mention the big kick?
Those are some huge saw stacks. So many frequencies. All of the frequencies?
Master is LOWD. Sounds crispy, but could be all the saw frequencies? There are so many of those. They are a little hyped in the high-mids which hurts my ears a little.
The mixing could be better. A lot of these huge saw sounds are overly shrill, abrasive, as Larry pointed out. The volume-balancing is fine, but some of the shrill could be tamed and I'd be a little happier.
The arrangement is stellar, the mixing of these themes is terrific. The writing is great. Lots of fun little variations as the piece moves along. A little repetitive here and there, but not dealbreakingly so, for me anyway. I love it.
And huge kicks are the best kind of kicks.
YES
-
(Listening for "first hit of the kick sounds way out of time") That first kick hit is on the "two and." It's not out of time, and does not sound out of time to me. Interesting choice, adding some nice groove.
This isn't the greatest kick sample though, it is so low, adding mostly sub content to the soundscape and missing any kind of top end that would make it cut through better. Other than that, I think the drum writing is fine.
I like this sweet little tune. I do agree that the trombone doesn't make the best lead, perhaps the flute would have been preferable, with the trombone playing countermelody primarily, instead. I like the piano/bell combo. The arrangement of the two themes is really nice.
The mixing is not ideal, to be sure, but not dealbreaking to me. If this does not pass as-is, I recommend replacing the kick with something that cuts through better, and make sure to EQ it so it isn't too sub-dominant. The other Js have also made some very good observations and suggestions. But for me, it works well enough as it stands now.
YES
-
The mastering is on the loud side, coming in at -7db RMS (and looking like a waveform sausage), but I don't hear any overcompression artifacts.
This is a DENSE soundscape. Lots of elements, as the other Js have pointed out. It is tough to mix a track with this many elements. It is way too busy for my taste, but it sounds like it is mixed as well as possible, considering how much is going on. This mixing is not ideal, but not dealbreaker for me.
Absolutely epic mixture of these themes, arrangement is terrific. Guitar performances are wonderful. Choir is a bit overbearing after awhile, but fits well.
YES
-
Cubase and SPAN are telling me the peak max is 1.9db, so something has gone wrong with the final limiter in the mastering of this track. I don't hear any artifacts, though.
This is a tough one. The guitar and piano performances are very good. I love the concept. I'm not in love with the lead synth because it doesn't quite fit with the rest of the instrumentation in my opinion. Overall, the track is produced well. The drums are on the tame side, and the kick is barely audible.
There is something off about the energy of this arrangement for me. I agree with MW that the arrangement doesn't seem to know what it is doing as it moves along. I agree with DarkSim that it is rambling at times, and he also said there's a restraint feeling to the production. I feel like there's a restraint feeling to the arrangement as well, like reining a horse to walk when it really wants to run, if that explains it.
None of my crits are dealbreaker for posting this mix on OCR, but I'm not as enthusiastic about it as would be ideal.
YES
OCR04656 - *YES* Super Metroid "Brinstar Depths (Sin City Mix)"
in Judges Decisions
Posted
This mix sounds clean and badass! The arrangement is straightforward, mirroring the source tune in that way. Very conservative arrangement, almost too much so. Sound palette is perfect, feels like a mix of trap and synthwave. Like Larry, I would have liked a little more variation in writing, sounds and ear candy, but what is here is excellent. Some drumless/bassless breakdown would have been nice, something heavily filtered or bandpassed or wispy/creepy would be cool to break up the sameness of the bassline. But dang, this just sounds too wicked good. Let's go.
YES