Chimpazilla   Judges ⚖️

One Small Step Just something I threw together last weekend! Not sure how to categorize it but it was fun to do.

We were voting on this simultaneously. Jinx!

Wow, this is really great, so nicely personalized. The performances are dynamite. Arrangement gets a bit noodley so I'm glad Larry did the source check. Could the mixing be tightened up, sure, but nothing I'd call a problem. I'm really enjoying this! YES

I like this version so much better than the original, this mix really sounds like it belongs in the game. Awesome work stretching this near-nothing source into a cohesive and emotive arrangement while keeping the original chip sounds intact. Drums could use a bit more highs but no major problem. I really love this. YES

Source is easily identifiable, and this is a great arrangement! The chippy performances are great. Super good personalization of the writing. Lots of detail packed into a short 3 minutes. Fun mix! YES

I actually really like the "intentionally sloppy" approach here, it's really unique! I think it darn-near works, although I'm hoping for something just a bit different at some point just to show that this was intentional. At 2:16, a bass solo is starting up, and I think this is a great idea! But then the track just ends shortly after this bass solo begins. Ideally, I'd like a much longer groovy bass solo, and then some kind of fun reprise and then an outro. So for me this arrangement falls flat. But the concept is solid. The track isn't mixed very well. The rhythm guitar elements are so loud and widely panned, which feels very odd because they only happen sporadically. The shaker is way too loud and dry. Leads are buried. Bass lacks lows. Drum-wise, kick and snare lack impact while shaker and crashes are too loud. The biggest issue however is that the whole track is mastered much too loud. I'm seeing an overall reading of -5.9db RMS which is in Ludicrous Range for such a mellow track as this, and I'm hearing audible distortion when everything hits at once (bass, kick, guitar). I suggest you remove all mastering plugins, revisit the mixing until things are balanced the way they should be (leads up front, supporting elements sitting in the back), then gently bring up your master limiter until you've got a nice mix that hits around -10 to -8ish db RMS and you should be good. I agree with the other judges that you should utilize our wip forums to get further advice on how to get this mixed right. NO (resubmit)

I have just listened to this awesome song again. The arp is sequenced just fine. It is a complex arp and Will has added delay, perhaps this is why some people are being thrown off? I don't quite get it but I suspect at this point some groupthink is occurring. Honestly I'm pretty particular and I hear nothing wrong with the timing of that arp, it is complex and interesting to my ear.

The track is mastered within normal limits and nothing is clipping. That said, Larry's comment about overall volume is valid and I suspect it sounds too loud because the leads are really loud, dry, and in-your-face. I think I hear some good wubs way in the background but the lead and drums are crushing them totally (or, am I imagining them?). The breakbeat does get repetitive, and I agree I'd love a lead change-up. Even so, the arrangement is good, this is a fun track, I like it. YES

The guitar playing is absolutely luscious in this track. The female vocal is good, but it is mixed slightly dry and up front, so any off-notes are emphasized. My biggest issue is how completely conservative the track is. Just like the source tune, it is guitar and vocals only. The lyrics are the same, the entire feel is the same. As nice as this is, it's too similar overall for me. NO

This is a great sounding track as I have come to expect from timaeus. The source is simplistic, and I'm finding that the remix interprets the source a little more than I'm comfortable with, so that other than the chord progressions, I'm not really hearing this as a remix of the source, despite timaeus's extensive source breakdown. The track sounds great and is an easy pass given enough source, but I'd like to hear a couple more opinions on this before deciding. edit 2/5/16: If the source use is ok with Wes (who played the game a lot) and with Larry, then it's good enough for me! YES

Wes covered the issues really well in his vote. Everything sounds overcompressed even while the soundscape is quite empty. I'm seeing -8db RMS even in the sparse intro, so I know the whole track is too loud. The track does rely on the same loops over and over and the writing is simplistic and repetitive. The guitar lead is indistinct, buried, and totally lacks impact. Mixing-wise, I recommend you remove any mastering plugins, and take every fader down to zero and start bringing them up one at a time, paying attention to how much volume each element needs. You'll need to learn how to use eq to carve out room for each instrument so the frequencies don't clash. Our workshop might be the best place to get some advice. The ideas here are solid, you just have to work on your execution. NO

Track could be mastered easily 3-6db louder without squashing anything, but what's here works fine. I just love hearing someone play piano this naturally and easily. Piano tone and reverb are just right. I love the little unique interpretations here and there, the varying mood and attitude. Bravo! YES

Yeah those vocals though. Haha! Larry's right, they sound a bit stapled on, perhaps because they are dry. That "huh" is worse to me than the "hey heys." Some of the synth choices sound a bit generic to me, but you've written really well with them. The arrangement is dynamite. Really superduper personalization of this theme, while keeping it recognizable. Nice work, fun listen. YES

Wes really covered all the issues here. The sounds are really sweet, but the track is just too repetitive both in writing and instrumentation. Once the groove is established, it never changes. There's no leadwork to grab on to (not that a track NEEDS a lead in order to pass, but in the case where the backing is really repetitive, unique leadwork would really help to freshen it up). I'll add that while that Lex Luger transition sound is cool, it is overused here. My personal feeling is that unique transition sounds should only appear ONCE in a track, twice maximum and only if they sound very different from each other (either done differently, or appearing at very different points in the track). Any more than that and you are really overusing the sound. A final thought, your track really has no intro or outro, the groove just starts at the beginning, and at the end it just ends. The track sounds like a super cool concept wip that never got fleshed out. I'd love to hear it again, more personalized and filled out better. NO (resubmit)

Co-signing with the two gentlemen above entirely. They covered all points. NO (resubmit)

Wow, this is indeed sick! Superduper performance skillz on display. I sadly have to agree that there isn't quite enough dominant source use. My main issue is the section from 1:52-3:04, I only hear a teeny bit of Saria's Song in that section. Interestingly, that whole section reminds me of the Potion Shop theme, could you have been going for that? I'd love to hear this with either more Saria throughout that section, or make that whole section the Potion Shop. As it stands though, this is fairly close at 46% (I'm finding Larry's count really accurate) but I have to go NO just based on our standards. I hope to hear this again! Honestly if it were to be confirmed that the middle section was intended to resemble the Potion Shop theme, I would YES this. It does bear resemblance. NO (resubmit)

I've heard it too. I agree this is one of your best pieces so far, Wes, the atmo is phenomenal. For my money, I'd like a little more leadwork, some motif to latch on to, something that appears frequently throughout the piece. But what you've got here sounds really very good!

Wow this is interesting and good. I'm loving the mixed time signatures and interesting syncopations. This is really well crafted. But ultimately it is much too original. With a source such as this one, it would be really difficult to get a remix that references the source material enough for OCR's standards. Here's what I can timestamp: 0:00-1:02 vocals (backing easily identifiable) and the two riffs from source (62 seconds) 2:13-2:41 the vocals again, the music here is harder to identify with the source and the time sig here is 7/8 (super cool but hard to identify as source unless just the vocals are enough source but I'm assuming they aren't) (28 seconds) 4:22-5:00 the riffs from source (38 seconds) Total is 128/300 or 43% but only if the middle section is counted. I think this falls too much on the original side for OCR. I enjoyed this though, really creepy and really well produced, hope to hear from you again. NO

I agree with Jivey about the vinyl effect in the intro, the repeated loop point in particular is distracting. Once the oboe begins I'm not as bothered by the tone as by the rigid sequencing. The track, and especially the intro, is really sparse, so the rigid sequencing sticks out. Later, the drums and then also the piano and harp are extremely rigid. I like the ideas presented here, but the humanization has a long way to go before it's ready for primetime. As for the arrangement, I have to agree with Andrew that the arrangement sounds repetitive, especially the two passages with the drums. The lead writing varies between those two sections, but the very plain and repetitive drum pattern and the same piano and harp background make those two sections too similar for my liking. The most important thing I would recommend working on with this track is getting your instruments to sound humanized. Make sure the piano and harp notes aren't all the same volume and practice moving them slightly off grid (without making it sound sloppy). Make sure woodwinds have appropriate breathing breaks between phrases. Make sure the drums don't sound robotic, add variations and fills. It's a lot of work to do it right but it really pays off if you learn how to do it. NO (resubmit)

Wow, this sounds very good right away. I like the metal interpretation with the swing from the source. The recording and mixing are very good. The other two judges are right, the arrangement is very conservative. I'm less bothered by how conservative it is, and more bothered by the large amount of copy-pasta. 0:23-1:27 and 1:48-2:52 are identical with only the drum pattern changed between the two iterations. I layered them together to be sure. Also, the render cuts off before the end of the final note and its reverb tail. NO (resubmit)

I think we need a source breakdown for this track. I started one, can anyone jump in and help me complete it? Much appreciated! 0:00-0:07 original intro 0:07-0:55 endless sorrow 0:55-1:22 endless sorrow 1:22-1:41 1:41-1:55 1:55-2:47 the place I'll return to 2:47-3:12 the place I'll return to 3:12-3:32 endless sorrow 3:31-3:46 - Dunno source name, but I know it's in the ending at least (Deia) 3:46-4:04 - Bittersweet Love 4:04-4:15 - Bittersweet love 4:15 - 5:04 Melodies of life 5:05 - 5:36 - 5:36 - End Bittersweet love After 4:15 I'm pretty lost. Help meh. Edit this post if you can help. Thanks.

TEN SOURCES? AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME F' DAT. LIKE SERIOUSLY. No way am I going to go through that many sources and check the little bit of timestamp description (source timestamps? remix timestamps?) written underneath each one of these Youtube videos. Not gonna do it. Na Ga Da. Just nah. Now, if you want to write this out into a proper source breakdown list, in one paragraph, with nice timestamps for both the remix AND the sources, I may check into it. Or not. This almost makes me think we should have a limit on the number of sources used in a track. Not quite, but close. Mike, I have to assume there is enough source here. Please confirm. Badass track. YES (assuming source use)

Brent has the mixing file on this track. Hold up on voting on this until he and I talk about this. Hey Brent, do you want to take a look at the mixing issues that have been brought up? Then I can take a stab at re-mastering it if you'd like, I have learned how to master much better since I've been taking lessons from bLiNd, it might make a good improvement here. Let me know.

I have heard this track develop from a very early wip and it's great to hear it in it's final version. I initially had issues with some of the lead timbres, and I still don't find the main lead to be super strong, it is very thin and it is competing with a beefy background, but the writing and glitching really give it personality. The timbres (leads and mallets) are clearly baby-friendly but the processing is badass. The transition at 1:46 isn't the strongest, the track fades to pure silence before the soft breakdown, some kind of transition or downsweep would have helped. The breakdown builds back up very nicely to the final epic section. The wide saw lead is not my favorite sound, honestly I dislike wide saw leads generally. The idea works, but in my experience wide saw leads have to be processed so carefully so as not to sound cheesy. Luckily this section is brief. The glitching in the final passage borders on being too much... but it works. Overall, I still really enjoy this track and I think others will as well. YES

What a great intro, what a great concept. I agree with Wes though, there isn't quite enough development for this to be a complete, stand-alone track for OCR. I'd love to hear this further developed though, what is here is quite engaging. NO (resubmit)