Chimpazilla

The reason this mix sounds so crowded and dense is that there are so many elements playing in the same frequency range, and mixed such that they all occupy the same position in the soundscape. The low end sounds fine to me generally. The bass is deep and satisfying. Probably the elements other than kick and bass could use EQ cuts to remove unwanted lows, that would clean things up and let everything sound clearer, but the overall effect is fine in my opinion. Brad is right about the 20Hz content though, it seems to be coming from the keys, most noticeable at 1:15-1:20; when they play alone I can see the 20Hz swell on SPAN. Careful cutting of unneeded lows on everything other than kick or bass will give you a cleaner/tighter low end and more mastering headroom. My bigger issue is what Larry mentioned, that the soundscape, energy, instrumentation and writing all end up being quite repetitive. While there are multiple softer breakdowns, and believe me I appreciate this as it gives the arrangement very good dynamics, the big sections are all essentially identical. The section from 0:04-0:18 repeats verbatim FIVE times. The section from 0:18-0:32 repeats (maybe not verbatim but close) THREE times. That is a LOT of repetitions of the same stuff, played the same way with the same exact instrumentation each time even if there are tiny writing variations. The other sections all seem to have original writing which is great and it does help to break it up, yet the instrumentation and energy are always the same. The ending is.... so disappointing. We get just that tiny synth pattern from the intro, and then that that one final note just seems like a joke, following such big arrangement and ending with very high energy and then just.... bam. Oof. All that said, I really love this! The energy and detail in the mix are very exciting. I love the big bass, huge leads, squelchy synth patterns and pounding kick. You really captured the vibe you were going for! I just think that those sections, most especially the five-times-repeated section, repeat too often in the exact same way. I would ask that a few of those be altered somehow, either with different writing or a different instrument or element added/removed/replaced, for variation. While you're in the file, some EQ work would be a good idea, to make sure to cut unwanted lows out of everything that isn't kick or bass, to keep the low end ultra clean and preserve mastering headroom, and if there's any way to make the laughing details stand out a bit more clearly against the other instrumentation going on at the same time, that would be great (it is obscured by the lead and keys mostly). The EQ stuff is not required for me to pass this, but the repetition has to be addressed. NO (fix repetition of sections and resubmit please)

This is a good metal interpretation of this source, with good performances and good solos, and the arrangement is fine. The drums are on autopilot but there's enough variation to break it up as it moves along. The soundscape and energy never vary as the arrangement progresses though, giving it a repetitive feel. There has been a very harsh high-cut EQ applied starting at 10KHz which makes the mix sound very dull. The mixing is mostly adequate, but I can't imagine why this EQ cut has been applied; it should be removed. The strings starting at 2:11 sound just terrible, there's no nuance to the sample at all and the writing of that part is so simplistic and so exposed. This bad sample does not fit well with the live-played guitars. The ending is very abrupt with no resolution, which is disappointing but not an ultimate dealbreaker for me. I agree with Larry's assessment that the strings/choir need to be humanized or replaced with something more natural sounding, and the mastering needs to be corrected to remove that harsh EQ cut at 10KHz. If there are harsh frequencies in the mix, they should be removed strategically in the mix and not in the mastering stage. Those two changes would add up to a pass from me. NO (resubmit)

The trumpet performance here is truly excellent in my opinion, Brad's specific critiques aside, and the reverb on the instrument is just the right way to mix it. I'm not familiar with these sources but it does sound like the themes are mixed and matched into a cohesive arrangement, although MW used the phrase "connective tissue" and that's a great way to describe what is missing, making the source connections and also transitions feel much less solid. I appreciate Brad's knowledge and insight on this arrangement. I don't understand every nuance of music theory the way he does, but I feel like he describes perfectly why this track feels so awkward and why it isn't a good fit for OCR. As I listen to this, I'm struck by the competence of the performance but also by the extreme emptiness of the soundscape and my mind tries to fill sections in with padding or other instruments. It is very hard to obtain dynamics and emotional flavor in a mono-solo-instrument track such as this; at least with a piano there can be chords in addition to lead lines. I think it is a bold undertaking and the performance is amazing, I just think it is too empty to stand as a full arrangement for OCR. NO

This is another one of those amazing source tunes that is super hard to remix due to lack of any real motif (other than random arps coming in and out of the soundscape). That said, this arrangement does a great job of representing those arps! The feeling of foreboding is very present in the arrangement and instrumentation. There is a huge amount of hard-panning here, which I am really not a fan of. Always makes me wonder if my ears are broken. The arrangement is mostly a very empty soundscape. There are cool sounds happening and I appreciate the white space employed here but I feel there are lost opportunities for even more instrument variation, sfx, surprises and ear candy. Not a dealbreaker, just a wishlist item for me. The mixing is adequate although there is occasional 20Hz rumble stealing headroom. The mastering is very quiet and the track spends the bulk of its length 6db below peak. This won't matter for YouTube as they compress/normalize everything, but downloads will cause people to have to turn up the volume. I like this ambient take on the source theme. There's nothing super memorable happening here, but it is certainly a cool listen. YES

The vocal is indeed flat a lot of the time, and the vocal is mixed behind the soundscape rather than in front where it should be. The vocal needs to be louder, and I recommend making an EQ notch in all other instruments wherever that vocal fundamental is, no more than 1.5-2db, but that will help the vocal cut through. I prefer this method rather than boosting the vocal with EQ as sometimes that can make the vocal sound odd, but you can experiment with both methods. As for the pitchy-ness, I agree with Brad that Melodyne or similar could be used to address the most pitchy syllables and that would help a lot. I think Autotune would be too much and would not fit with this soundscape at all! Great arrangement and performances. Mixing and mastering are adequate. The vocals (mostly the softer ones over the acoustic sections) need to be pitch corrected, and mixed so they sit up front a bit more. NO (resubmit)

Drums are mixed very quietly, especially the kick, I can barely hear it. I think the kick just can't cut through the wall of guitars. I hear the snare more clearly but it sounds muted. It's odd, I hear and feel sidechaining, at least on the bass, but when the compressor hits I can't hear the kick that is driving it, I only hear/feel the dip. This is super noticeable to me in the section from 1:50-2:27. I honestly cannot tell if this is purposeful sidechaining or a pumpy effect from a hard-driven master, but either way it feels very unnatural to me. Either way, that section is extremely dense and crowded. All sampled instruments sound uncanny. The guitars sound very rigid and dry and the piano sounds unhumanized with all velocities identical (luckily there isn't too much piano in this arrangement, but 0:13-0:15 is a prime example). I wonder if adding more reverb to each element in the mix would soften the overall effect of the sampled instruments somewhat. The concept and arrangement are excellent! But the samples sound so stiff and dry. The guitars are the biggest offender, with every note sounding identical, and especially because they are so loud and prominent. I agree with Larry that live performances aren't required, but in a mix that features guitar so prominently, there needs to be a bit more nuance in the sequencing. Again I think a touch more reverb on everything (in varying amounts, and with varied pre-delay amounts) would go a long way toward making it all feel more natural overall. NO (resubmit)

The intro ocean sound gives what could/should be a super-clean soundscape a lossy/hissy sound, and this goes on for nearly half of this super-short track. The ocean feels like it is right up front in the soundscape. It would feel more natural if it were mixed more softly and cleanly such that it sounds like it is in the back of the music, not in front of it. The brass sample used in the intro is extremely uncanny. The delayed pluck is nice although quite plain. The supersaw lead is very vanilla, and lacks clarity and is overtaken by distortion. This huge saw covers up everything else happening in the piece other than the kicks. The kicks are great, as is the bass; low end of this mix sounds great. Everything happening above the lows feels smooshed together and lacks distinction. I like this arrangement generally, but it is too short, and both drop sections are identical in every way with nothing added or replaced. The mix drops off abruptly at 2:49 without resolution, with only one portion of the pluck phrase from before being repeated solo. This is a very lazy outro, given that the arrangement is so short and repetitive, and feels very awkward since the fullest section just dropped off a second before. This sounds like a wip and not a completed arrangement. More work is needed to make this arrangement solid, and the mixing needs another pass to clear up the soundscape. NO

Lovely intro. The rain is too loud and prominent, feels like it has too much lows and oddly sounds... dry. The intro goes on a bit long as MW said, there are additions such as the pad as it moves along but it feels repetitive, especially since the rain is so consistent, with no variation in it at all. The heavy section at 2:35 is not signaled in the slightest, so even though I was looking at the upcoming wave sausage on Cubase, I jumped out of my chair when it hit. Give a girl a transition please! Into the breakdown at 3:21 and the rain is still going, do I hear some thunder? I can't really tell if it is thunder or a stray low, it is just indistinct and muddy. This breakdown section is simple but lovely... but simple. Same guitar and pad from the intro, but the pluck addition is nice. At 4:29 you made me jump again. Those drops are jarring instead of impactful, since there is literally zero transition or signaling what is coming. I can cheat with Cubase since I can see it coming, but people on YouTube or downloading for casual listening are going to jump hard. That second drop section feels really long since the energy never relents from 4:29 until 6:45. Over two minutes of balls-to-the-walls. Then, fadeout ending. (not a dealbreaker, just a lost opportunity for resolution, in my opinion) The mixing is adequate, especially for this genre, although during the heavy sections, everything is playing including that lovely little pluck and it is buried so deeply that it adds to the wall of sound rather than provides contrast (which it could, and should). The drums sound very good overall to me, although the snare sounds a little muted. This is a lot of little issues that are adding up to a resub for me. I don't believe everything on my punch list needs to change, but my primary request is to please signal the drops with something. Either a sfx or some sort, or guitar glissando or other melodic element, reverse-cymbal riser, or even half a bar of silence, just something! Additionally, the rain sfx should be turned down a bit, and perhaps remove some high-mids out of it so it doesn't sound so crisp (I believe that is what is making it sound "dry" to me which is so ironic). That all sounded negative but honestly this is a great track fully of dynamics and excellent performances. If it passes like this I won't be upset, but I think it can be improved and it will be more memorable, exciting-rather-than-shocking that way. If I am being an old fuddy-duddy about the jarring drops, I can own that, too. NO (please signal transitions, and turn down and EQ rain sfx)

I put an instance of Cubase's multiband imager on the track, and Larry is hearing it as too wide because everything is panned super wide, especially noticeable at the fullest sections, such as at 1:16 as Larry mentioned. That's when the low brass begins. The low brass sits wide, which can be disorienting. The range between 150Hz and 1500Hz seems to be panned the widest according to my imager, and yeah that doesn't feel quite right. Dialing that whole range down from 100% (as mixed) to about 40% (on my imager) makes it feel more natural. Even the lowest lows (sub-150Hz) occasionally go wide. The wideness of the mid-lows/low-mids also makes the piano, when it is exposed in the intro and outro, sound much less intimate than it would if it were slightly more centered, since it can't really be located in the stereo field, it's everywhere. (of course, fixing this would be done on an instrument basis, never with an imager, I'm just using that to check) Other than the stereo field issues, I really like this beautiful track. The instrumentation is rich and full and emotive, the dynamics and energy are exciting and engaging, and the arrangement is beautiful. The samples are used well enough; a tad uncanny but not enough to detract from the piece at all. Like Larry, I would not have noticed that if it hadn't been pointed out since it is not egregious. The mixing and balancing are fine, as is the overall master. Lovely track. My only other issue is that the render cuts off the final tail. Is this conditional-worthy, anyone think? We could ask for another render, or one of us could simply fade the end out, or we can leave it alone. YES (should we ask for render with complete reverb tail?)

The mastering is indeed on the gentle side for a track like this, with 1.3db of headroom and -13db RMS, and the lowest lows could stand to be a hair louder, but dang, it does not need to be pushed harder, especially since YouTube is going to compress and normalize it anyway, so overall volume is really not an issue. WOW what a track, starts out gentle and then shows its teeth hard, with all of the distortion and bitcrushing, all while a gorgeous glassy synth plays the melody. I love this arrangement. I don't know these sources, I feel like there is plenty of source in this mix but I'm not timestamping. I really love all the delicate bell tones and softness, contrasted with some of the heaviest EDM sounds possible. This one melts my face! YES

Resub from 2015, wow. I don't know what was wrong with the original submission, but this one sounds amazing. Kicks are supposed to be loud, it's psytrance! It's a super busy soundscape, but I hear everything clearly, the bass and all synths are audible. I have no problem with the balances. Lovely deep sidechaining. Some of the sounds are definitely on the sharp side, nearly abrasive, especially at the fullest sections, but I can move past it just as Larry can. I love the detail in this mix, lots of ear candy, unique writing and fun transitions. Love it. YES

Ooooh I love those little chiptune interludes! I agree with Larry, very un-Western source. This arrangement is so varied in writing and in instrumentation: badass guitar work, plucky chiptune, groovy synths and keys, killer drums. Everything is mixed extremely well and cleanly, and the master is done just right too. Larry may have been caught off guard, and nothing may be making sense around here, but in the best possible way. This is a truly excellent remix. And I am so pleased that Larry chose not to lie, that's important too. Great work guys, let's go! YES

Orchestration sounds amazing to me right away. "Late attacks" well maybe, but barely noticeable (not like sudden attacks!). Soundscape sounds lush and full. I love the transition at 0:53 with the bells and sfx. The deep brass sounds terrific, these samples are used extremely well. What an emotive mix of sounds in this piece. Oooh the piano sounds nice as it enters in the background. This arrangement has amazing dynamics and energy. I love the various bass sounds and sfx combined with the orchestral elements. The transition at 4:05 is too loud, same at 4:37. The reverse cymbal transitions are so loud and they go into compression-artifact territory. That whole section is too loud. Of course it is purposeful and provides an awesome climax but it wouldn't feel so oppressive if those cymbal transitions were not SOOOO overdriven. This is my only complaint, and not enough to ask for a resub but just a note for next time. Really nice job on this one. Beautiful arrangement, full of feels. YES

This. Why oh why can't EVERYONE do that!!! Thanks Big T! I love the djembe-groove opening. Lows/bass feel a tad heavy for this type of arrangement, and the reverse-cymbal transitions are indeed on the bright side, and there are too many of them for my taste. Other than that, mixing and mastering are solid. Cute little arrangement, lots of variation in sounds and unique writing. I love mixed time signature arrangements and this one is done really well. Fun listen! YES

I see a waveform sausage, let's see what we've got here. Cool intro. Oh ok, that drop is mega cool! I wasn't expecting that. I love the energy at 1:07. WOW THIS MIX IS LOWD. -6.3db RMS is very very loud. With a ceiling of 0db, SPAN shows me there are billions of "true peak clippings." I don't hear artifacts, but there are not a lot of dynamics in this piece. "Animal test 63" came through super dry. I love the drop that follows, that growly bass is awesome. But the mastering is so hardcore that the lack of dynamics really sticks out to me, and the section that should be the most impactful sounds very flat. I'm not feeling that deep bass although it is clearly there, because everything else is playing equally loudly. SPAN looks like a straight line at that point, everything screaming at once. That said, I love the energy, creativity and the fun sound choices in this arrangement. YES

I'm glad Larry did the timestamp so I am not going to worry about source, but I hear it as MW does, tons of source played very uniquely and differently. The playing is luscious, competent and emotive. The piano sample used could be better, especially considering this is a solo piece, but this doesn't detract for me; it is certainly a good enough sample for this purpose. The arrangement has great dynamics all the way through. Fabulous reimagining of this source tune. YES

My son Tom played hours and hours of Minecraft and I always felt this song was simplistic almost to the point of silliness, but it does set a calm vibe that really works in context. It really is a perfect source for Wes to do his luscious ambient magic on, and I daresay his version would be so much more preferable in-game in my opinion. It's a very repetitive source motif loop but Wes has decorated it with so many beautiful and varied elements and gave it infinitely more feels. Love it. Fadeout. Boo! I'll let it slide.... THIS time. Mixing and mastering are just right. And no, (checks files on computer) I'm pretty sure I never mastered this one. ? Wes did a beautiful job. YES

I agree with Larry, and I felt the same about Waka Waka. The piano sample being used is not the strongest one; it sounds very bright, which is fine but it tends to lack body and nuance and comes off as blocky and almost tinny. I think a better piano sample, one that is slightly more velocity-sensitive as well, would be an improvement. I'm not sure if Larry meant that the drum kit or drum writing was plain, but I disagree on both counts, I think the drums are great overall and the writing is varied and fun. My only nitpick would be for the snare to be mixed with a little more snap, it sounds a little subdued, especially in contrast to the super-clear high-hats and crashes. Perhaps it is the lack of snap/sizzle in the snare that is causing the drums to sound "plain?" Bass could have a little more presence sure (I'm a sucker for big/bold bass) but what's here is more than fine. The piano tone and velocity-sensitivity is what bothers me the most in the instrumentation here, but in the context of this full arrangement, it really is a nitpick. What an interesting and varied arrangement; it does play like a medley but feels completely cohesive. The soundscape consists of mostly the same elements all the way through but with nice surprises both in writing and extra sounds. Lots of variation in cadence and pacing too. Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with Shariq that this arrangement slaps hard. Let's go! YES

What a unique collection of sounds, effects, sfx and vocal chops all with an awesome chill vibe. I love weird arrangements like this; they tell a story and I really dig that. We all appreciate the source breakdown, that sure makes things easier. I hear some percussion panned hard right starting at 2:06, and I'm not a fan of that kind of panning. There is also some heavy instrument panning, mostly in the brass instruments and saxophone, which sounds more natural to me since there are two different elements one on each side balancing things out at any point in time. Works really well, in fact! But that right-channel-only percussion makes me wonder if my_left_ear.exe has stopped working. I really do like the eclectic combination of instruments and sounds. The arrangement stays fresh all the way through. Elements are layered in unique ways and everything fits together really well both in sound choices and mixing/balancing. The writing is really creative and fun. Drums sound great when the groove starts up at 1:43. I thought the arrangement was over after the record scratch, but that tapestop outro is the perfect ending to this varied mix. Mixing and mastering are working well overall. Lots of fun, tons of creativity here. Love it, nice work. YES

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

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)