Chimpazilla
-
Posts
3,203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chimpazilla
-
-
I'm pretty sure Sky Islands theme was inspired by the Skyward Sword Lanayru Desert theme, at least that's what I hear every time I'm in the Sky Islands. Just sayin. *plots dual-source remix*
I'm afraid I am in agreement with MW. As lovely as this is, and it truly is lovely, the source connections are just too tenuous and there is a lot of variation on the source motifs that take this arrangement away from the TotK source song. I did a proper timestamp, Larry-style, since I know this source so well, and even counting the extreme variations (both melodically and rhythmically) on the source motifs, I counted 101 seconds of source on a 324 second arrangement for a total of 31% source.
I love it though! I hear some bells that make me think a Blupee is rushing by me after I've just (sadly) impaled yet another Bubbulfrog.
On the mixing side, everything is mixed well enough but the wind ambience should have the inaudible low mud EQd out of it as SPAN is showing me too much activity below 40Hz with occasional spikes at 20Hz, yikes! There goes that mastering headroom.
Regardless, I really love this one and I feel so relaxed now.
NO
-
Mix opens with a huge amount of reverb, and I love it! It sounds great against the more crisp perc groove. Love the laid-back, dreamy synthwave feel of this. Arrangement is a nice mix of both sources; they go together well. Lots of writing variation throughout even while keeping the soundscape the same. Arrangement is pretty repetitive, but it works in this context and there are enough details added along the way to keep it fresh. Love the subtle wubs happening at 2:32-2:33, kinda wishing there were more like that (if there are more, they are more of a texture than a feature, i.e. I can't hear them). This arrangement would fit perfectly in any 80s movie. Mixing and mastering are working well. Simple and effective, luscious and dreamy.
YES
-
I agree with my fellow Js. Super simple/repetitive drum groove, very dry. I really like the glassy synth and the ambient vocal pad. That dry drum groove sticks out like a sore thumb against the more reverby elements; they don't sound like they are performing in the same room, not cohesive. The arrangement is repetitive, more so because the drums repeat for such a long time. There is a short section where you drop out the drums, but it's not enough, there must be more variation, and those drums desperately need some reverb to sound cohesive with the soundscape. The writing is overall very simple and there's nothing too exciting happening. Both the intro and outro consist of nothing but that same drum groove, making the arrangement sound even more simplistic and lacking sophistication.
The sounds are well balanced, other than the high hat which is ridiculously loud. Not much bass presence in the mix either, but overall the mixing isn't terrible.
I agree with the other Js that you have the creative chops, this is a great place to start from. You just need to learn some more mixing techniques and also arrangement techniques. Hit up our workshop for further assistance. Keep working on it! This shows promise but needs more for OCR.
NO
-
WHERE. IS. THE. BASS. Seriously what happened here. Sounds to me like this was produced in a room with bass interference issues, or with a room-correcting software not turned off prior to render. There is a comical lack of lows in this mix. The bass sounds great and there's a nice beefy kick there too, but they are cowering in the corner instead of being loud and proud.
Other than that, I find this remix great. I love the synths and instruments used, the vocals added, the noodling around on the lead. Super fun arrangement. Ending is a bit abrupt but it works.
Easy pass for me but the mixing has to be addressed to bump the low end. A multiband compressor to bump 125Hz and below on the bass and on the master (gently on both so not to overdo it) to bring out the entire low end should do the job nicely.
NO (fix low end and resubmit please)
-
I do trust that Brad knows what he's talking about. However, I guess I don't know music theory well enough to feel the source connections or to wrap my brain around that entire first 1:40 referencing source in the slightest. If it is there, it is too nebulous for mere mortals. The outro seems to be source-free. The middle section is clearly identifiable, and I agree with Larry's timestamp totally.
I love this track! So spooky. It's a great arrangement, well produced and instrumented; the choirs, cello and piano are a perfect match, with the spooky violin tremolos and scrapes and atmo really cementing the vibe. It is mixed well, could be mastered slightly better for more impact but this works.
I really want to pass this; easy pass for me if there are just a few more easily-identifiable references to source in the intro and outro. Edit: nah, nothing needed in the outro, unless desired. Outro is fine, works well to conclude the arrangement.
NO (soooo borderline; please add more identifiable source and resubmit stat)
Edit 8/14: I hear what you guys are saying about the three-note pattern in the source. In the remix, there is a three-note pattern, but not THE three-note pattern: not the same notes nor played in the same way. Are we counting numbers of notes as source now? I am becoming intimately familiar with this source because I am obsessed with it now and I actually started working with it in Cubase yesterday. Those cello notes in NO WAY are source to my ears. That said, I do still really like this mix and casual listeners will too. Our listeners aren't going to be checking for percentage of source use, so while they may wonder what they are listening to for the first 1:30 of this piece, the middle more than justifies it. In my opinion Larry's timestamp still stands, 40% source. But it's a great piece and if it passes I'm completely fine with that.
YESish (not enough source for me but ok)
-
I agree totally with Wes and Larry. This arrangement is awesome and full of creativity and shows real promise, but the sounds and mixing are just not up to par. It seems like the more you mess with this track's sound, the worse it gets. There are times to abandon track, fall back and regroup, and try new things. Sometimes a track is so enmeshed in outdated skills and ideas that it will actually hold you back rather than allow you to move forward, if you continue to agonize over it. I say this from harsh personal experience! Been there, and done that. Heck, sometimes I still go there, and do that, but I am able to pull the plug sooner if something's a fail.
You are going to want to be sure you have the best listening equipment possible, whether that is excellent headphones or monitors in a treated room. Listen to reference tracks on your equipment to make sure you know what you are hearing. Then spend time really digging in to learn mixing techniques. I think you did a good job with the automated effects, but your basic EQ is overblown. You say you've done "high and low pass filters and shelves on each individual track" and it sounds very overcooked at this point. What's left is all mids and mid-highs. There's no need to mess with every sound so much with EQ, other than reducing low mud out of elements that aren't kick or bass. If something sounds particularly bad or problematic, don't hesitate to replace the sound with something more musical and pleasant, rather than spend too much time trying to tame the sound.
You'll want to be using better sounds, either synth or samples or whichever you have access to. You'll benefit from using a real DAW (if you aren't already, it isn't clear to me anymore which software you're using). If possible, you may want to find a tutor to teach you basic sound choice/design and mixing techniques. One of the best things I did for my own process was choose someone whose music and production I really respected, and I reached out and asked him to mentor me. He was flattered, and he ended up being my teacher off and on for about three years. What he taught me (including how to be brave and trust my own decisions) allowed me to really level up in my production.
I really do think you can do this, as this arrangement is still very good in my opinion! But it simply must sound better. I relate totally to what Wes said about going through this process as a new producer. It can be frustrating, sometimes even humiliating... but if you hang with it and stay open to advice and keep seeking knowledge and practicing skills with mini-wips, you will advance.
I hope you can feel from all of our votes on this track that we believe you have real promise. Please don't give up, but dive in and learn how to get it done right. We can't wait to hear the results!
NO
-
I've heard this many times as Wes has been working on it, and I've loved it at every stage. As usual, the bells, pads, choir and sweepy elements are on point, and I'm in love with the badass growling sustain bass. The filtered saw lead has personality for days. The live violin is an absolute delight and so well performed. I love this arrangement which hits me right in the feels. Mixing and mastering are top notch. (edit 8/15/23: I mastered this so long ago, in January of 2021. I literally forgot this was my master, as most often Wes prefers to do his own mastering.) I'm glad to see this finalized and submitted!
YES
-
I'm loving this modern synthwave soundscape! Fun arrangement with varied sounds as the arrangement moves along. The writing is nicely personalized while keeping the original material recognizable. I am enjoying the drum groove and fills, although some more varied drum writing here and there would have been welcomed, for example the section from 1:02- 1:38, that would have been a good opportunity for a slightly different kick pattern, perhaps even 4x4 for that section until 1:38. But what's here works.
Overall I love this arrangement and soundscape. Mixing and mastering are on point. Love it!
YES
-
This arrangement is lush and lovely, although quite repetitive. There is a ton of reverb, but also some low-mid mud in the instruments (which is also getting reverbed), making the master too loud. Some of the delicate detail is lost under this wall of mid-lows. Ironically, I don't hear a lot of actual lows in the track, other than the odd swell (such as at 3:23). I also see on SPAN that there isn't a whole lot happening above 5KHz. This mix could sound much fuller by using EQ to make sure unwanted lows are removed from elements that aren't meant to play in the lows (typically kick and bass and similar). Plucks, piano, strings, pads, choirs etc. often have useless low-end content that should be removed, which will allow for a cleaner/fuller master. Also, the correlation meter is bouncing back and forth indicating that some elements are going in and out of phase which can cause issues with the mix and master, and sometimes with mono playback (iPhone speakers etc.).
Regardless, this arrangement is lovely and engaging and full of feels. Very nicely crafted track, a delightful listen.
YES
-
I love the mashup of all the foresty themes, either in tiny cameo motifs or longer sections, they all go together perfectly. I love the tawny owl calls. This arrangement feels very whimsical and magical. The winds performances are great. The track is very nicely orchestrated and arranged, and mixed well. The master still comes in on the quiet side, but much closer to a normal value than usual, and YouTube will compress it anyway up to a normal value. This is really lovely and may be one of my Rebecca-favorites! (could the fact that I'm a Zelda superfan factor into it, maybe!) My only crit of this arrangement is that the ending is rather abrupt, dropping off at a melodically awkward point where my ears are expecting resolution but there isn't any. One final chord could have served as an outro. Other than that, I love it.
YES
-
Thank you Larry for your source timestamp. Omg that explanation video Trevor, I don't think anyone has ever done this before, and I absolutely adore you for this.
This version, while on the quiet side (you took my "reduce your limiter ceiling" comment too seriously!), addresses my concerns from the initial submission. It now sounds exactly as I had thought it could, which is excellent.
I still love this arrangement, let's do this.
YES
-
2009 is way before my time! Let's see what we've got here. Ok listening, I really love this vibe! Sounds like a great concept but it isn't fully fleshed out. The beats are simple and repetitive, although there are drum-writing variations so that is good. Piano sounds good, but the sequencing is stiff and robotic. I really like the sounds used, but it is mixed so quietly, and possibly not mastered at all as the peak max is -7db. I don't really hear enough source connection although I'm not timestamping it.
This is a long arrangement, especially considering that the sounds used remain the same all throughout the piece. That said, it could serve as the skeleton for much more to be added; perhaps some fun sounds, sfx or effects, or more and varied writing, additional instruments, surprising solos or cameos, etc. The arrangement has no outro, as the ideas simply stop very abruptly with no resolution.
Overall this arrangement sounds like a wonderful initial sketch but isn't well enough filled out to stand alone as an OC ReMix. Since this mix is as old as it is, I would suggest beginning something new. Often it is hard to modernize something that was started so long ago, as the old existing ideas are cemented into your mind, at least it is that way for me.
NO
-
Mix opens strong with lovely deep bass presence. Grunge guitars sound great when they start. As one by one more elements are introduced, the soundscape becomes oppressive. By 3:33 I am getting a migraine.
I love the idea of all these different elements together, and I actually think it is mixed fairly well considering how many instruments are playing, but with so many elements in the same frequency range all playing top volume, it is a wall of sound. There is no easy way to mix this many elements together without making it exhausting. This may be one of the hardest genres to mix well, with such a dense soundscape. During the busiest section, I hear a wall of guitars, machine-gun kick and percussion, strings, choir, and a bell. That is a LOT of sounds at once all fighting for the same frequency range. Honestly I love the idea of this, but I can't quite make the execution feel ok in my ears or brain.
Listening again, my feeling is that the primary factor causing the mix to sound this overwhelming is distortion used on every element. All that fuzz is compounding into a wall of audio assault. If the instruments were mixed more cleanly, distortion used more sparingly (less of it, and on fewer elements), and if surgical EQ was used so that the fundamental of each element was emphasized during the busy parts (for less frequency overlap), it might work (or at least work a little better).
I think my feelings match that of MW the best. I'm very borderline on this vote, because the arrangement is excellent. It is full of creativity and varied sounds used. I can't bring myself to put a NO on it, though. I can't quite articulate what to suggest to the artists to make this work, other than what I said above.
The mastering is also way too hot, and that surely does not help things, as it accentuates the super-crispy high end as well as removing overall track dynamics, all of which adds to the sonic fatigue.
All that said, and I hope it was helpful on some level, we are a hobbyist community at the end of the day. This arrangement is truly excellent and epic, and while the mixing pushes the boundaries of what is sonically comfortable, it is adequate for the genre. I agree with Wes's praise of this arrangement, it comes in strong and feels competently crafted. I'd hate to not have this arrangement on OCR because we are asking for mixing changes that may not help enough, or that might change the artists' vision of what this track is meant to be. Ultimately, gotta go with it.
YES
-
I don't know these sources, but what I hear in this mix flows really well and doesn't sound like a medley. The arrangement is full of variation and surprises, while sounding cohesive throughout. The screamo is executed well. This does seem to be one of the hardest genres to mix well, without exhausting the ears of the listener. There are sections of this arrangement that go harder than others, but overall I find everything audible and not overly fatiguing, probably because everything has NOT been distorted to death, as is the norm with this genre. I'm enjoying this track, it's heavy and creative and fun.
YES
-
Ah, a 100% 8-bit PvZ arrangement! All the sources are clearly identifiable, and although the arrangement does move along like a medley, it is cohesive. I'm not a super big fan of 8-bit mixing, but I believe this is mixed/mastered adequately for the genre. Despite the instrumentation not changing all the way through the piece, it never loses my interest as it moves through the various source tunes. The swing section is fun and I believe the original Loonboon source does in fact have swing! At least in the piano writing. This is a clever multi-source arrangement and I like it a lot!
YES
-
Wow, what an arrangement, I love this so much! So many details, interesting timbres, writing variation. So many cool arps, growls, ear candy. Mixing and mastering are very good. But yeah, we are going to need the artist to timestamp the source material for us to compare, because it really sounds like an original track inspired by the Beep source and not a proper remix of it. I hope to be proven wrong so we can post this excellent mix.
? (YES if source can be supported)
11-8-23: Editing my vote to a NO after my peers have not discerned any more source than I did. But Flex gave excellent advice of finding a complimentary source to use for added motif/melody/other for more source representation.
11-9-23: Editing again, after following along with Larry's timestamp. I appreciate Larry's work so much, and I agree with the timestamps, but THAT IS SOME BRAIN DAMAGE. I really dislike remixes that end up this far away from recognizable source use. Larry said he does not require a casual listener to say it is recognizable but I disagree wholeheartedly, I think THAT IS THE POINT. I am not familiar with these source tunes, so I am a casual listener to this remix, and for me there is no connection WITHOUT DOING THE BRAIN DAMAGE of a timestamp. It is possible to blend up a source tune(s) TOO much in a remix. This is my opinion. However, my opinion on this is not going to affect my vote, not on THIS track anyway. The feel and vibe of the remix captures the source vibe well and that makes all the difference for me; not every liberal remix does that. It's an awesome track that should be heard.
YES
-
I love the luscious wave sounds in the intro. When the drop hits, there is crazy energy, variation and ear candy. The sound choices are indeed old-skool style but everything is used extremely well. The kick and snare could be a little more impactful as Larry pointed out, but everything is audible and full of punch. Great use of glitching and sfx. The wubs are truly excellent. Writing and arrangement are varied and interesting all the way through. Great energy and dynamics in the arrangement. Mixing and mastering are top notch.
YES
-
The string writing is utterly lovely, but I agree with the guys that the sample sounds very uncanny, which could be fixed with volume-swell envelopes and a little more reverb. The strings play a big role in this arrangement, so having them humanized will add so much more feeling to the piece. The mix does sound drier than usual, most especially the strings. That said, the arrangement is really lovely. The live performances are very nice, and I like the vocal-sounding pad that starts around 1:25. Everything in this mix is soft and delicate and intimate.
YES
-
This arrangement is great! The instrumentation works well, writing is fresh and exciting, drums are thick and luscious.
I agree with Larry that a source breakdown would be helpful for us to approve it, so I hope one can be included with the resub. Dang, this arrangement is great, but as the other Js said, the production is too far on the rough side to be passed comfortably. The master is overall too loud and overcompressed; the whole thing is painfully hot and sizzly. During the heavy sections, too many elements have crispy mid-highs, and the hard mastering makes it compound into a wall of sizzle. Larry hears this as lossy because the range from 3KHz-10KHz is screaming so loud. I suggest using EQ to make sure only kick and bass are playing in the lowest of lows (that will help your low end come through better than it does now), and then make sure that only one or maximum two things at a time are playing in the mid-highs and/or highest ranges.
There is no reason for this master to be this loud. -7.8db RMS is crazy loud and smashes the track's dynamics, and the ceiling of 0db allows for clipping, and more artifacts will be heard when the track is uploaded to YouTube as they compress the file further. I recommend a ceiling of -0.5db, and recently I have switched to -1.0db on my own tracks to be even safer.
TL;DR, this arrangement is all kinds of awesome. A source breakdown would be super helpful to our voting process, and the mixing and mastering need another pass for us to approve and post this.
NO (please fix mixing/mastering and resubmit)
-
Mix starts out with promise, although the sounds are dated and underwhelming. At 1:00-1:02 and again at 1:13-1:15 and 1:50-1:52 and 2:03-2:05 there are wrong/awkward chords. Actually, there are disharmonious chords here and there throughout the piece. The instrumentation sounds rather weak and dated, and I agree with Larry about the weak beats. The drum samples are weak and the writing is simplistic. I agree with MW that the production is mid-heavy, lacking low-end strength. The bass is very weak. The piano sounds robotic. The arrangement feels very long and repetitive, despite good writing variation and detail, due to the soundscape being the same all throughout the piece with nothing added or removed and the energy of the piece is rather static all the way through. I agree with Darke about the extra endings, they feels superfluous. More work to be done here for sure, although the concept is solid.
NO
-
My order of operations is very different from Wes's (this is my general protocol). I skip the submission writeup entirely, and immediately listen to the source tune while the remix downloads, which I then drag into Cubase. Once I'm done listening to the source, I hit play on the remix, and peruse the other votes while listening. I begin my vote writeup. Lastly, I read the submission letter!
So, this is a cute source tune. Let's see what the remix is. I have no expectations at this point. Wow, ok this is some seriously dark metal, right off the bat! Let's see what the other Js think. Both of them don't mind the dissonance but Wes thinks the drums are too quiet. I understand this crit but I'm not having a problem with the drums being quiet, in this context. The mix has a grungy production style, which is clearly purposeful. This arrangement is dissonant and plodding, but as Wes said that's a feature, not a bug.
As for the source, I hear it, I think? It is a little tricky because the cadence of the main motif has been altered along with the change to minor from major. I'm not entirely sure there is enough identifiable source here, and I feel it could benefit from a timestamping (Larry pretty plz). As long as source is enough, I'm onboard.
YES (if enough source)
-
Ping pong delay doesn't bother me in the least, on headphones or speakers, so I will NOT be a two-second NO. I like it, in fact! Thank you Larry for doing a source timestamp. Ooooh, DnB breakbeat time! I love that, and the vocals are cool. What is this bass doing, wow! I love the completely varied breaks being used, they sound so different from each other in a good way. The main breakbeat is mixed well, as the shuffle is completely audible and with great presence. Everything is mixed well in fact. I'm loving that 303 that starts at 1:49 and again at 3:12, nice and squelchy.
This track is mastered extremely loudly, hitting -5.7db RMS, but I don't hear any artifacts. I think it would be easier to master if the sub-30Hz frequencies were cut out (I'm looking at you, pitchbend bass). It's a busy mix, but I hear everything just fine. Lots of fun ear candy and textural variations. I hear the piano at 4:02 just fine, mostly because the tone of it is so different from the buzzy sounds making up the rest of the soundscape. I find this mix weird and cool and fun!
YES
-
Intro is nice, retro synthwave, but without sounding dated. That filtered drop at 0:38 gives me chills, I love it! The theme then filters in and by 0:57 the soundscape is gloriously full and lush. I love the tape stop at 1:15 and the syncopation starting at 1:17. I find this to be a full and fantastic arrangement of the two sources. Some additional drum fills or variations would have been nice, and the mixing and mastering could be even brighter, fuller and more 3D in my opinion, but what is here is working well enough. This is an interesting and varied arrangement, even with keeping the soundscape mostly the same all throughout the track.
YES
-
That extreme panning is a dealbreaker. The instruments are panned too hard left and right. You can create a more cohesive soundstage with gentle panning, and even better by just EQing the instruments so they don't conflict, and/or making some instruments more narrow and others wider in the soundscape. There are phase-cancellation issues with this track and the correlation meter is pinging to the left more often than not. I believe this is the result of the extreme panning of instruments.
Bass is panned so oddly. I hear the top end of it (and some of its mids too) on the right, but the lower/mids of the bass are sitting wide in the soundscape which sounds super weird. Bass needs to absolutely be mono below 150-200Hz so you could start your mixing fixes by applying a monomaker to the bass sound below 150Hz and pan the entire bass 100% in the center.
Also, the writing in this arrangement is very simple, verbatim to the source, and repetitive. The section from 2:26- 3:26 is a full minute of the exact same thing with nothing new added or removed. The main sections are repeated verbatim. The same instrumentation (and panning!) is used all throughout the arrangement. The arrangement goes on way too long, considering it is so repetitive in writing and sound choices. The entire thing is too conservative to source with very limited personalization. The instruments sound robotic and blocky, most especially the pizz strings but the guitar and mallets as well. The drum groove does not change by much, ever, once established, so the arrangement has the same energy all the way through.
I love the ska concept! But this arrangement needs much more work in writing, adding variations and personalization, humanization of sounds, and mixing/panning.
NO
OCR04486 - *YES* Okami "Waka Waka"
in Judges Decisions
Posted
I had forgotten about this luscious source tune, it's been years since I played Okami.
I agree with Larry, the piano lacks a bit in quality, but the playing is lovely. The instrumentation feels overly dry to me (especially the synth that starts at 1:19, that is straight-up piercy to me), but everything fits well enough together and the parts are well written and performed. I also agree that the mix lacks some kind of padding to make it more cohesive, but this is a jazzy arrangement that ordinarily wouldn't have padding per se. The little bits of choir help but it is mixed very quietly. Something more dreamy mixed together with that choir, softly behind it, would really fill out that space and give extra contrast to the arrangement.
What a cool jazzy rendition of this source, with all sorts of time signature tomfoolery, occasional shuffled drums, fun writing variations, and ear candy and surprises along the way. Top notch arrangement of this source, and a joy to listen to.
YES