Chimpazilla

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

Simple and lovely. It does follow the source quite closely, but as Larry said, the live performances and adaptation to string quartet are enough to distinguish it. I also would be interested to know how many performers were in on this, or if it was multi-tracked. Either way, it is glorious! YES

WOW this track is loud. Some cool ideas here for sure! I like the bass ideas you've got going on throughout the track. Nice glitching too. You've followed the source quite closely, no problems with source use here. That main saw lead is pretty loud when it first appears, but it is soon devoured by the upper end of the bass antics, as well as a lot of crashes and/or hats in the same frequency range. There's a square-ish arp that begins at 1:37 that is completely obliterated by the upper bass crunch and all these crashes and hats. Somehow the leads need to be separated from the upper end of the bass, and maybe a few less (or softer) crashes/hats, because the competition between these sounds all in the same range is exhausting. I'd suggest some very careful eq notching on the bass to let the lead come through cleanly, as well as using a nice long predelay on the lead's reverb. You have done some very nice soloing with the saw lead at points like 1:23, but the lead timbre is rather plain and during the times when the lead notes are longer, the lack of any modulation or vibrato is evident. So do some eqing to separate the sounds a bit better, maybe do some modulation on your main lead, and let's hear this again. edit: 7/30/14 This version is mixed significantly better. The upper end is still a bit busy but I can hear everything clearly now. Nice work! This is a super detailed and fun mix and I'm glad to now give it the big YES

I just added this edit to my vote (unfortunately my answer is still no on this one): edit 4/20/14: I have listened to the newer version multiple times over the past month, and as much as it pains me to say, I still find it overcompressed, and it still has some balance issues (sometimes the violins are too loud, the snare is too loud, kick is too loud/compressed). It is a great track other than that. I sure wish you could take one more stab at the mixing, but I understand that you can't, so sorry about that.

This version is definitely better. You have addressed several of the issues I had: the bass sounds louder/better, the mixing is cleaner and the leads are more up front where they should be. The drumming sounds better too. The rhythm guitars still sound extremely weak and thin, and they aren't really impressing me, but they seem to fit within the mixing of everything else and they aren't causing any mud. I think it's a pass now, and I still love the creative writing and arrangement. edit 6-4-14: Yep, this is a cool song. Production is a pass. Track is too liberal though, Larry's evaluation is correct. NO

Comparing this to the previous version, there's a lot of improvement in terms of mixing, I'm hearing a lot more separation of instruments now, it's not all crammed into the middle, and the bass is hugely improved. Nice work there. But that snare is KILLING this. Whoa, tone down the volume, take a bunch of mids out of it, and try varying the velocities. Your hats are also a touch too loud and upfront. But this is very nearly a pass now. You might want to find one or two people you really trust to help you discover mixing errors before you submit tracks, as this will save you time going through this judging process! I feel like one more trusted set of ears on this would have found your snare problem in a heartbeat. NO (resubmit)

This version is much better. Vinnie is right, you did take all our advice into account and it shows. There's more dynamic variation now. I still find that main lead a bit bright and fatiguing, but there are other softer sections that provide a brief respite from it. I agree with Vinnie it's a bit long overall. Still, it's a good track. YES

This version is SO much better!!! It's not sounding nearly as repetitive to me due to some new writing and textures. The track is mastered quite loudly, but I'm not hearing any dealbreaking overcompression issues so I'm not worrying about that. Those rogue hats have been tamed, and now the percussion fits and is nicely supportive. I love it! YES

Wow, this is super cool! So much detail in this mix, so many different textures. Awesome pounding beat and varied bass work and effects. Just enough wub wub. I love this so hard.

No Brandon, you can keep your self vote. It's ok. I just wanted to set the record straight that I said you could, not that you should. But I'd say, only do this if you REALLY feel yours is the BEST entry, and not just because you "want to win." Fair enough?

To set the record straight, it was me who said "Brandon, you could have voted for yourself." COULD have, not SHOULD have. There are no rules against voting for yourself, and Brandon's FFCC compo had the same flexibility. However, anyone who actually DOES vote for himself does so at his own peril!