MindWanderer

I'm in full agreement with proph, except that the creative flourishes were obvious to me right off the bat, and I liked the rhythmic change at 1:18 (which sounded perfect with the honky-tonk piano to me). It's some great Eurobeat, but the production needs work. Unfortunately, I don't think the production is quite a 5-minute fix. The master being brought down from +1.6dB to -0.1 max would be, but there's EQ and balance work to be done as well. The kick in particular is super loud, and it needs to both be high passed and quieted a bit. The leads are consistently too quiet. There are some really complex layers going on in the background, which sound great when I can hear them, but I usually can't. I do think this would be pretty easy to fix, but not quite easy enough to justify a Conditional vote. I still enjoyed it a lot, so I do hope we see it back on the panel! NO (resubmit)

While I think the sound design is now adequately modern — barely — the production is sadly not. The snares crackle like mad, the leads are too quiet more often than not, the kicks are too loud and sometimes cause overcompression, and that's just the stuff that leaps right out at me. Now that you're using a real DAW, you can more easily put some real attention into the levels of the various tracks, and possibly reconsider some of your synth/sample choices. The drums in particular could use better samples, and you can get some less dated synth sounds. The good news is that the arrangement itself sounds really good, you just need to work on the sound quality. NO

There's the bLiNd I know and love! The revision deserves all the praise from the previous submission: excellent sound design, perfect production, and now that the copypasta is removed, there's nothing to hold this back. YES

I really need to play this game! At first, I was worried that a chill, piano-driven acoustic remix of a chill, piano-driven acoustic track wasn't going to be transformative enough. I needn't have been; the electronic approach makes this a very different take. Where the original evokes wonder, the remix evokes joy. It's tough to rearrange something so much and still have it remain a faithful homage; not better, just different. It works in a way I wasn't expecting. A real pleasure to listen to. YES

This wears the influence from Monstrous Turtles! on its sleeve, for sure, but does stand out as a unique take. The voice samples and EDM blips add a unique texture. That said, the voice samples in particular wore on me and highlighted how repetitive the track is. 2:29-4:22 is an exact copy of 0:32-2:25, a full 41% of the track. There's some tolerance for repetitiveness in EDM, but that's too much. There should be some type of progression or transformation in the second loop to make it distinct from the first. I'm afraid this much exact copy-pasta is grounds for a NO

What a vibrant sound palette! I kind of expected the guzheng and erhu going into it, but the soundscape is nicely filled out with sylvan synths. The first half is a little predictable, but a treat to the ears nonetheless. The pad from 2:00 on is a bit loud, and making it quieter would help make the rest of the complex instrumentation shine, but I'd be willing to give it a pass. I'm not personally as keen on the second half. I appreciate the more EDM approach to it; it's full of energy and creativity. But the balance is a problem. The overall soundscape is a wall of noise; there's a ton of detail that's lost because there are so many layers fighting for space. 3:50-4:11 is the worst offender, with a supersaw that just crushes everything beneath it, but the rest of the second half all has the same issue. That's not to mention the sidechaining, which for me is way, way over the top, relentlessly pounding away for over a minute and a half. Fadeout ending, meh. And this section has the offending loud pad as well. I'm really ambivalent about this one. If it had ended at 2:54, I wouldn't hesitate to give this my stamp of approval. Balance could be improved, and using that as ending wouldn't be great, but the first half is easily strong enough even with those issues. But from 2:55-4:44, it's mostly a wash of pulsing saws to me, and I don't think it sounds good at all. Rebalance that section so I can actually hear music and I'll be all over this. NO (please resubmit!)

Starts off with some nice clean guitar over an almost bagpipe-like syth drone. Good sound. Then we encounter some production issues. The rhythm guitar chugs are really loud, especially when the lead changes to a square wave. On the other side, the cymbals are too quiet; the hats are almost inaudible at times and the crashes are muffled. Structurally, it's a fairly conservative cover up until 1:40. It does swap instruments around and add a few layers, but I'm not at all sure it's interpretive enough for OCR. Then at 1:40 it goes completely off the rails for the last 21 seconds; this part is interpretive enough, but it's not coherent. It's also barely 2 minutes long, which is our soft minimum. Soundscape-wise, there's something unnatural and flat about it that I can't put my finger on. It sounds like maybe the bass is filtered just a hair too much, in addition to the cymbals having too much of the highs cut out. Maybe another judge will be able to explain it better than I can. Regardless of this last issue, I do think this needs some production tweaks, and more importantly it needs to be developed more into something transformative in a relatively cohesive way. NO

Opened with Gregorian chant, okay, you got my attention. ...And then it's immediately almost a cover of the original, with extremely similar synths and the reverb turned up to 11. Wow, the reverb is just annihilating everything; add the thick pads and you can hardly hear anything else. It's just a wall of noise. And it's loud; I had to turn my volume down 25% because it was hurting my ears. It does introduce a few smidgens of original content periodically, and at the 2 minute mark there's an original bridge (with some shrill pads that hurt my ears even with the volume turned down). But mostly it's a very conservative approach overall. So I'm afraid this is problematic on two fronts. One, the structure and instrumentation remain similar to the source material. Two, the production needs some improvement: reverb needs to be tuned down to make the palette less muddy, instruments need to be rebalanced to make all instruments audible and the lead stand out in front, and the piercing pad needs to be turned down a few notches. Don't ever think of submitting as "wasting our time," though. We're here to judge, yes, but also to provide constructive feedback. We volunteer to do this work because we love it and we believe in OCR's mission. As long as people are submitting what they believe to be their best work in good faith, we never mind taking the time to listen. We share in your appreciation of the medium and your joy at what VGM means to you. Never stop creating. NO

Crunchy is right: the kicks have a noticable amount of crackle to them that I personally found distracting, and pump a little bit, too. I was a little surprised to open this up in Audacity and see that there was plenty of headroom at all times, because it sure sounds like it's hitting a hard limiter and getting distorted. The grungy synth used as a pad doesn't help; it adds some texture but mostly it just adds white noise. That said, after playing this a few times, the approach made so much sense that it had me doubting myself about whether it was really all that different from the original. (It totally is.) Quasi-industrial grunge is a perfect genre for this, and the additions fit in completely naturally. The performances are on point, too. This is one of those remixes where the remix could become more iconic, in some peoples' minds, than the original. I do really dislike the grittiness, especially of the kicks, but I won't throw a hissy fit over it, and everything else is great. YES

The opening sounded overly simplistic to me, so I had concerns to start off with. Then some nice harmonies, okay, we're getting somewhere. The glitching was a smidge too glitchy for my taste, but it served to add an interpretive element. Percussion was simple and definitely didn't seem like it came from the same chipset, and it was too loud, but good energy. 1:07 is a great example of where the snares in particular are too loud; some of the detail work here is almost inaudible. 2:02-2:21 is also poorly balanced, and several parts are unclear. The one thing that prevents me from passing this wholeheartedly is those loud snares. While I'd certainly prefer to get a version with that issue corrected, I don't think it's quite a dealbreaker; I can hear most of what's going on, and the production isn't otherwise problematic. Good writing carries this over the bar, IMO. YES

After listening to this track a few times, I was fully prepared to come back and add my YES to the YESes that just already be here, and was surprised by the only existing vote being a NO. Sure, the kick is pretty loud, but that's the only complaint I was going to make. Well, the ending could be a bit more satisfying. But it's a great arrangement, with great performances. The trumpet is superb, the bass is funky, the concept is unique. I could justify calling this a Conditional on the kick having its volume cut by a bunch, but it's not required to earn my YES

I have almost the opposite reaction. I love the little riffs that subvert the source material, and really enjoyed the arrangement, for the most part. It is out of ideas at 2:29, for sure — back to the unmodified source material and then the lazy fade out. Changes in lead would be welcome, but there was generally enough to hold my interest. The big exception is the percussion, which runs out of ideas about two seconds in. Virtually no changes except for about 15 seconds that drop the hat (and are otherwise unchanged). Of greater importance is the production. This has the same issue as the last several Pixel Pirates tracks I've evaluated. It has the same mushy, narrow soundscape, with overlapping frequencies and a lot of white noise, especially a pad with way too much reverb. There's a lot of work to be done here to make each instrument crisp and audible, and the soundscape full. Also, the beginning of the track pops in mid-note for me. Rendering error maybe? But it needs a bit more breathing room to avoid that glitchy sound. NO

This is indeed a fun approach, using EDM synths and an energetic groove to create something exciting. However, there are a few things about this that would need to be improved for us to accept it, IMO. Production. Many sounds conflict with each other and make things harder to hear. The biggest issue is the white noise that runs the whole time. From the seagulls, I assume it's supposed to be ocean swells, but it sounds more like a crowd to me. Either way it's too loud and muffles many other instruments, especially the pads. Also, the lead that starts at 1:15 and 1:53 is too similar in pitch and timbre to several other instruments and comes across as too quiet. 0:33 instroduces a rhythm instrument of some sort; I can't even tell if it's a piano or a guitar or what because it's so muffled. It's too conservative. The structure is mostly the same as the source track, measure for measure. The instrumentation is changed, but the notes are nearly the same, in the same order. The drums you added, which are a big part of why this is interesting as a remix, are too static. They're the same pattern for nearly the entire time they play, with only brief exceptions. It's fatiguing. "Fanfare" at the beginning sounds like a direct sample from one of the games. Square Enix doesn't allow us to accept arrangements with samples. I personally have had enough of "Fanfare" cameos to last me a lifetime, but if you really want to use it, you need to create your own version. So, good start, good ideas, but needs improvement in both production and arrangement. NO

What a strange arrangement! Some nice acoustic guitar, then the lead becomes this vanilla saw with stylish portamento. Then it gets all wubby. The second half is even stranger, with a lot of original material and distortions of the source material. I'm not at all sold on the sound design or structure. Both synth leads are pretty bland; the first one especially stands out because it's layered on all those acoustic instruments. 1:06 onwards almost sounds like an entirely different track, with only brief hints at similarity to the first part. Also, nearly everything from 1:06 onwards leans on that same lead, and having no lead changes in an EDM-ish piece like this is both unusual and fatiguing. I'm having a hard time deciding how much of my dislike is objective and how much is subjective. Certainly the more objective metrics of production clarity and source usage are fine. The sound design is great other than the leads, but of course leads are a big deal. And while it's disjointed, it's not so disjointed that it feels stapled together. So I'm going to lean on the side of YES

Oh, my, yes. I'm afraid I lost interest in this after a minute, and by the 2-minute mark I was double-checking to see how much longer this was going to go on. There's a lot more material to work with here, so mix things up and branch out a little. Great fundamental idea, just needs to be fleshed out more, especially for something as long as 4:30. NO

DarkSim nails this one. You have some great ideas here, but ultimately this is a sound upgrade and not the kind of transformative rearrangement we look for, plus this has several production issues that need to be resolved. I don't have anything to add to the above. I recommend taking your work over to our workshop forums before submitting next time. You're clearly on the right track here with orchestration, but structure and EQ would benefit from a round or two of input. NO

I'm not feeling it. The orchestration is perfectly serviceable, and for once the volume levels are acceptable, but the instruments are mechanical, especially the tremolo strings. The overall structure isn't much of a departure from the source material. There's no ending whatsoever. Sorry, but I feel like this falls short. NO

Fantastic metal/orchestral arrangement, but I'm in hard disagreement with DarkSim about the mastery. Even though it's hard limited at exactly 0 dB, you can clearly hear crackling when the volume hits that wall, and I'm not just hearing at a handful of spots. Other than 1:32-2:10, this is a real sausage fest. I'm not saying this can't be loud, but it can't be so loud that it's pumping, crackling, and otherwise distorted. And I don't think it's a 5-minute fix. That makes this a NO (resubmit) UPDATE 8/2: Well, I was right that it wasn't a 5-minute fix, because clearly this revision took more than 5 minutes, and it's not fixed. It's much better, but the kicks still pop and the bass still pumps. It's gone from "egregious" to "needs to be better" IMHO. UPDATE 9/13: Now this is produced by someone who knows what they're doing! Still a little tinny and/or crushed at times, but much, much better. See how much nicer this looks? YES

I'm largely in agreement with the above. EQ could be improved, especially in that resonant section everyone else mentioned, but I don't think it crosses over into dealbreaker territory. YES

I don't feel like this is all that bad. I do think that the production has a distant, tinny sound to it, which makes it sound as if it were recorded far away in an open-air venue rather than in a studio or orchestra hall. Combine that with the sample quality — which isn't the worst, but definitely does sound fake — and it gives the impression of being from the score of a PS1 or PS2 game played quietly on a TV. Not great for standalone audio. I echo the comments on this being a little too conservative as well. I don't think either issue is necessarily a dealbreaker on its own, but they're close. Combined, I think this one does need some more work before we can accept it. NO

Right off the bat, this is far too quiet. It can't be more than Conditional based on that alone. I actually think the sample quality, brass included, is well over the bar, although the vocals get a bit uncanny in the high range. And while the arrangement is certainly conservative, I think the added harmony lines, trills, subtractive sections, and (sometimes) changes to leads, as well as the extra energy added by changing the percussion parts do enough to qualify this on transformational grounds. I do think balance is way off, though. When the lead is a woodwind, it's often drowned out by the other instruments, sometimes to the point of being completely inaudible. It's fine when it's brass. So while I don't agree with proph on any given point, I still agree this needs work, specifically in the mastery department. Volumes need to be tweaked across the board, both for individual instruments and the master. Fix that and you'll have my vote, at least. NO (resubmit)

Classic Bluelighter piano work. Great interleaving of the two sources into a seamless arrangement. Gorgeous work all around. YES

I kind of liked the original, and was looking forward to seeing what you did with it. Unfortunately, proph is right: it's simple and underdeveloped. The source isn't super complex, but it is lengthy, and has some solid harmonies, chords, and textures, none of which is true about this remix. It's a very thin soundscape: you've got a lead, a loud, boomy kick, some tiny snares, a pretty quiet ambient pad, and sometimes a counterpoint. Most of the synths are very simple ones with not much in the way of harmonics. The result is an overall sound that comes across as empty and incomplete. I could comment on the arrangement as well, but I'd just be copying proph. NO

Very clean synth jazz. Nothing groundbreaking here, but it's a straightforwardly enjoyable piece. Solid writing, solid production. I can't see any reason not to post this. YES

I'm in agreement with all of the above, plus I feel like the arrangement itself is underdeveloped. It relies on the same supersaw as the lead almost the whole time, making the whole thing seem static and stale. If I skip around through the track, it pretty much all sounds the same. There's also no ending to speak of. So yeah: mastering, instrumentation, and overall structure are all things that need work here. NO