Chimpazilla

Intro piano is way too mechanical and sounds totally fake. The timbre is nice, so the super-quantized and all-equal-velocity sequencing is quite a shame. With humanization, this intro could flow and would be quite nice and emotional. At 0:30, you've got a soft instrumentation concept here, but that heavy relentless kick just kills it. It's way too loud and rigidly sequenced, giving it zero groove. From 0:30 to 1:48, I'm having a hard time discerning what is playing lead, the instruments are soft and thin and not mixed cleanly (competing for space with each other), as well as getting completely clobbered by that kick. Everything is rigidly sequenced. I don't feel like this drum kit fits with the instrumentation at all. At 1:48 you have a somewhat cinematic soundscape starting up, and the kick and snare are playing a metal style that is decimating the music. Kick and snare are way too loud, not mixed well with the rest of the instrumentation, and the drumkit itself does not match or compliment the other instrumentation. Sometimes combining genres works well but I don't think it is working here. I think you need to decide if this track is meant to be cinematic or metal, and since the writing is cinematic, I recommend replacing the metal-style drumming altogether with some orchestral or cinematic drumming with appropriate samples used. Ok so there's a two-second silence at 3:40, then more rigid piano, very similar to the intro. This outro might work if it were connected to the previous part with some kind of transition, and again the piano must be humanized. The writing throughout the entire track is quite rigid and needs to be humanized. NO (resubmit)

Deia nailed it here. Great concept, and I love the genre adaptation, but the idea needs to be fleshed out a bit more. This track is lacking in instrumentation variety. Since the entire track relies on the guitar timbres (is that lead a guitar or dulcimer?) and only the whistle as countermelody, and with just one percussive element, the track feels like it lacks dynamics and there is not enough differentiation between the sections. The guitars sound great sometimes and super mechanical other times (during the faster passages where every note is the same and at the same velocity). You've written a nice breakdown at 2:57, and some cool soloing at 3:15, but the instrumentation never varies so it all kind of blends together. What about changing the lead timbre for a section, or adding some other unique backing element, additional percussion elements, some sfx, even a pad during part of it, or what about some bass in there somewhere? Any or all of these things would help break the track up and maintain interest. It just needs some more variety throughout the track. NO (resubmit)

This is simple and lovely. The piano is soft and emotional and is played beautifully, and the piano/cello really portrays a feeling of despair. I like the ending with the guitar, high strings and drum impacts added, and even with the sirens coming in I can almost feel the game characters gathering their courage to continue on, as the track concludes on a positive note. Simple sparse soundscape for the most part, but works well to convey the emotion of the game. I think the piano and cello could have been eq'd a little better as they conflict in frequency somewhat, especially noticeable during the long sustained cello notes. The solo cello is sequenced quite well which is not easy to do (I can hear many different articulations being used/layered), although the timing is a tiny bit behind in spots, and adding a few expression swells by automating CC11 would have added a touch more realism. Overall though, super nice track. YES

This track has been played over 12,000 times on my Soundcloud. I have no idea why... I don't even... it must be linked somewhere. I'm hoping it's making everybody happy!

This is a nice chill listen. But for OCR, there are issues. That mallet timbre does sound like it was ripped right from the source. While I feel like some direct sampling is ok, in this track that mallet timbre from the source plays quite a prominent role, and I think there is too much of it. My bigger issue with this track is that it never goes anywhere. The track stays in intro mode until the 2:06 when finally a lead appears. The lead writing and two flutey timbres are soft and mixed too far in the back, and the writing is verbatim to the source melody. At 2:54 you've added a guitar pattern which adds some interest, but it isn't enough as the exact same leadwork is going on in the background (guitar thingy shouldn't be in the foreground imo). That same flutey melody just repeats again after that (at 3:55), verbatim. The drumming sounds very much like one continuing loop. There are a few arp patterns and sfx and things to break up the arrangement here and there, but it's not nearly enough to prevent this from being a very repetitive listen. I feel like the outro begins at 4:39. The track is 6:41 so that's a full two minutes of gradually softening outro. I find myself asking when will this end. Sorry. Nice ideas, but the track needs a lot more development. If in fact the mallet timbre is ripped right from the source, I recommend you make your own similar pattern from your own samples. I'd replace the flutey leads with something more original, mix them more in the foreground, and do some soloing somewhere. Add a really soft drumless breakdown somewhere as well. Could be a really cool arrangement. NO (resubmit)

This is a really nice arrangement of this source. Source material is readily apparent. The mix has great energy and really embodies the emotion of the source and the feeling of determination, while giving it that added rock/metal edge. I'm finding the track well produced with one exception. The lead guitar that is playing the main melody (beginning at 0:37) sounds very low-mid heavy and almost honky to me. That honky tone really bothers me, most apparent at 1:39-2:07, where it is the most exposed. The tone of the guitar solo starting at 2:07 by contrast sounds just about perfect to me. When that low-mid heavy tone begins again at 2:32, the honky sound is almost startling against the nice tone of the solo. I feel like the leads are generally far enough forward in the mix, I'm only bothered by that one timbre. I wonder if we could get a version with this tone eq'd a little better prior to posting. edit 6/27/14: I won't hold this vote up. I've listened again and yes, the drums are a bit weak. The snare needs to have a heavier tone. The drums are quiet in general, crashes are soooo far back. I personally feel there is enough variation in the drumming, but yeah, let's get the timbres and volumes where they should be. And please re-eq that one lead. Track isn't far from passing, let's hear it again quickly. NO(resubmit soon plz)

Happy birthday my friend!

I've done my own assessment of the source's main-melody note progression, vs. that of the remix, and I come up with this: source progression: A-B-C#-D-D-C#-B-A-Ab-A-B-E (0:01-0:03) and A-B-C#-D-D-C#-B-A-A-Ab-F#-Ab-Ab-E (0:06-0:09) remix progression: E-D-C#-A-B-C#-B (0:19-0:22) and E-D-C#-B-A-Ab-B (0:24-0:27) Larry's right, no match. The only place I've found a legitimate match is here: source 0:19-0:24 = remix 0:40-0:49. Nine seconds. Guys, we have totally dropped the ball. The original NO votes are all primarily aimed at production which needed improvement. Now that the production is improved in this version, we have all engaged in groupthink and assumed that source was fine. Larry is right, this is a no-go. Changing my vote. Still, cool original song.

I have been agonizing over this track. It is a really well produced and groovy track and I love it. But I know these source tunes really well and other than the opening vocals and the five notes of the Delfino Plaza backing progression, I cannot hear the sources in this mix. And I've really been trying. I can't seem to pick out that "Gelato Beach string countermelody" that you've mentioned from 0:38-0:50. Is it the motif you've written in that section (which appears throughout the rest of the track) or is it the countermelody? I just don't recognize it after many, many listens. I keep hoping if I come back and listen again after a few weeks, I'll hear it... but I just can't. I feel like it shouldn't be this hard to pick out the source usage. I'm sorry. If the source use is there and I'm just being dense, I apologize, but you've hidden it just a bit too well. You've really captured the feel of the groovy island fruit-seller stand (while giving Piantee Joe some serious attitude!), and I really enjoy this mix. I hope maybe Larry can confirm the source use on this one, if he does, I'll change my vote. NO

There is definitely repetition going on here, but I'm going to forgive it because liquid DnB. I love the way you've broken down the source and used the parts. This is such a creative take on this source and it is mixed really well (yeah it's washed in reverb but I'm a fan of that). If this doesn't pass, I'd suggest just varying some of the verses/breakdowns somewhat in writing or instrumentation. I'm gonna give this a borderline only because of the repetition, but I totally dig this. edit 7/16/14 - There seem to be some pops in the render around the 0:50-1:01 mark, perhaps we could get a better render before posting if this passes. Some of the percussion in the track also sounds like render artifacts but I think they are intentional, it would be better without these. The kick is quite loud, but for me it's ok. YES (borderline)

I love this concept, it's a great source to remix, but I have to agree with Larry almost entirely here. Lots of great ideas, but they are just doing laps around the track. (did I just do that? yeah, I totally did) Mix jumps right into third gear and just stays there. (oops I did it again...) The arrangement is just too repetitive. I'd love to hear at least one breakdown section where the chord structure changes. I wonder how this track would sound slowed down a whole lot, and with some really cool wubs happening (you've got a few cool sounds that make me think some bass tomfoolery will be happening, but it never does). This is just an opinion here (and no wubs are required) but this mix feels too fast imo. That bass is awesome but it is competing with the other instrumentation and feels too up-front. Maybe try eqing down some of the bass frequencies above 600-800ish Hz, just somewhat. Also you could widen some of the other instrumentation like the e-piano a little more, leaving the bass mostly alone in the middle. Snare/rimshots are too loud and their patterns are too repetitive. Claps/shuffly thing are a touch loud/dry. (I love that shuffly thing) Fadeout ending is a total copout. I hope you'll take the opportunity to expand this. I'm a huge fan of sfx, what about some engine revving and fun racetrack stuff? Or is that too hokey? NO (resumit)

This arrangement does play rather close to the source, but I think there's a lot of personalization here. I agree with Larry about the snare, it sounds like you wrote just a few patterns and breaks, then copied them over and over, giving it a robotic feel. Also the snare is too up-front, and if you take some mids out of it, make it sound less woody, it won't feel so in-your-face. What bothers me more is that relentless hat pattern, it never stops and it is always the same velocity. As for the strings and brass, the opening strings sound just real enough to be considered real, but their attacks give them away as fake. In this case it might be better to either use a better string sample and humanize it right, or switch to a more obviously synthetic timbre. Same exact crit applies to the brass happening later on. The guitar work is excellent. I like the lead synth work although I'd prefer a bit more modulation (like more noticeable vibrato) on the timbre. So yeah, improve the snare, vary those hat patterns (drop them out completely at 2:08 for example), and decide whether you want realistic or more synthetic strings and brass. I'm looking forward to hearing this one back. NO (resubmit)

Larry has covered the issues quite well. Everything in this piece is fighting for frequency space. The lead guitar is loud enough but could use some higher-end crispness, and the backing is pretty indistinguishable. The drums don't have much presence and they seem to have just melted into the background. The arrangement is pretty cool though, very energetic. That organ writing sounds discordant but not off key as Larry thinks, I think the organ writing is ok and is an interesting interpretation of that part of the source song. The track begins very abruptly, as if the very beginning was cut off. That happens to me sometimes unless I add a couple of blank bars at the beginning before I render. That said, I think it would be better to start the song with something a little less abrupt, a snare pattern or one simple guitar riff or something to introduce it a bit. I really like this arrangement, clean up the mixing, bring the drums and backing elements out and separate them using eq, make sure the intro isn't chopped off, and I think this is good to go. NO (resubmit)

The soundscape seems to be lacking in bass in the intro, and then when the bass hits at 1:07 it sounds a bit muddy and too loud, making quite the contrast, so instead of the bass being a welcome addition it feels overwhelming and out of place. Taking the mud out of the bass somewhere between 250-400Hz will help a lot. Many of the synths used in the track do sound quite generic. The sequenced lead synth has quite a bit of high-end resonance, as does the backing synth playing countermelody. During the softer sections the percussion, crashes and 8-bit sfx are a little loud and have too much in the high frequencies and they don't sit as nicely into the soundscape as they could. Arrangement-wise, the intro is quite nice, but the rest of the track feels quite repetitive and predictable with very similar verses and breakdowns. There is some interpretation on the source melody but somehow it isn't enough since both drop sections are so similar in writing and instrumentation. NO (resubmit)

...Um, what? Sorry to hear it. I'm still hoping to hear some interesting takes on this song!

Me too. I was hoping there would be more ladies in this compo, Rexy it's up to you! Can't wait to hear what the dudes (especially the ones with the LOOOOW voices) come up with for this. Have fun guys/gal!

...No one knows... who they were... or what they were doing... but their legacy lives on...

But will they FEEEEEL the love?

Happy birthday, Dropper of Beats!

This is really very nice. I love the soundscape and the interesting syncopations you've created with the drums and strings. The arrangement plays it close to the source, including the awesome time signature changes, but this mix is nicely detailed and personalized. Love the subtle harp/synth runs and bell accents. I would prefer if some of the piano playing had a touch more groove and some better humanization, in particular the piano sounds quite mechanical during the 6/8 portions, possibly due to doubling the piano with the bell timbre. I like the contrast of the super modern soundscape and sfx with the 16-bit sounds. The mixing is working well. Overall, this is a lovely listen! YES

Wow, some really neat arrangement ideas here, I love how you've woven so many sources in. It does feel a bit "all over the place" but I'm cool with that, as long as there is enough source. It almost seems to start being a medley, but you return to the Clocktown and SoS sources frequently enough to avoid medley-itis, and there is plenty of personalization and unique transitions. I love the dynamics of this piece, it holds my interest all the way through, it flows beautifully and has tons of emotion. You clearly have quite a bit of piano playing talent and I'm impressed. *sigh* Why does the production quality have to be this low? Did you play this into a daw, can you change the piano sample? This sounds like a very ancient stand-up piano, giving the performance a very choppy and restrained feel. There is hardly any stereo separation in the track, I do hear some clipping in the louder passages as Deia mentioned, and overall it sounds like a mono recording from the 1940s. Any way you can fix that up? This could be quite awesome if brought up to current standards. NO (resubmit)

Now THERE'S something you don't hear every day! Wow. What a concept! I never thought I could like a track with so much accordion this much. The flute (recorder?) is a perfect accompaniment, and the vocals/sfx (BURP!) seal the deal. I can practically smell the pub while listening to this. It smells like beer and strong body odor, thank you very much for that. Doddy doddy doddy doddy dai dai doe. YES

I agree with Vinnie on all his points. The discordance could be cool in smaller doses but it feels like too much here. The overall soundscape sounds unnecessarily dense and busy the entire time, and the track is quite repetitive. The DnB drumming is cool, but it is very repetitive and doesn't really compliment or enhance the soft leadwork and gentle padscape you've got going most of the time. The drumming feels out of place, as if it were just pasted on top of a much more mellow track, and it feels like a single loop most of the way through. Some drumming changeups would help, something halftime or slower maybe, with the heavy DnB beat only in a few sections for emphasis. That background textury arp pattern, cool as it is, needs to be given a break, halfway through I've really lost interest because this texture never changes. The lead melody writing is the same each time, verbatim to source, it is very simple with no real interpretation or variation, and the lead timbre is the same throughout the track as well. Vinnie is right about the "micro-changeups," they are nice but the track needs more variety overall. The mixing is quite good and the bass is nice and present (which I like). You could give the bass some more groove and create more interest with some fun sidechaining with a silent kick pattern. Lots more ideas to explore here. NO (resubmit)

Vinnie covered the issues quite well I think. That main synth lead is quite generic and lacks sparkle or any kind of modulation which would have really helped it stand out. That popcorn-ish synth has a bit of low end mud. The drumming is well done, kick sounds good. Snare and crashes could stand to be a bit louder and more present. The guitar performances are all solid. Mixing is in fact a bit crowded and feels a bit overly centered. Pretty straighforward treatment of the source arrangement. Overall though, solid track. YES

LOUD! (waveform sausage) I'd prefer just a drop less master compression. I've loved this since you first shared it with me. I still find the vocals a bit buried and too wide, but those lyrics are great and you've got a great voice, and you've done a nice job with the backing vocals too. All the performances are wonderful, nice job everyone! YES