MindWanderer

I listened to this without checking to see who'd voted before me. I immediately hoped it was proph, because I knew he'd do a bang-up job explaining why all those clashing notes were a problem. And even though I don't have his technical background, they immediately leaped out to me. To my less-technical ear, before 2:18, it's mostly the 808 kicks that sound obviously off-key to me. At 2:18, not only is there a strange, abrupt transition, but the notes are clashing a lot, almost constantly, and it's not just a few. Hopefully proph's advice was helpful to you in picking those out and fixing them. If not, please take this over to the workshop for additional help. I also don't agree that this was the only issue, though it was by far the most notable. I found those 808s to be quite loud and penetrating, and the saw pad and saw lead were fighting for space. I did like the structure, though — unlike your first submission, I don't have any concerns on that level. It's a fun concept. NO

I'm with proph on this one. It's very conservative, not really treading any original ground. Sure, the time signature changes, and 4/4 drums are added to give it more of a beat, but that's really about it. The time signature change opened up a lot of space to do interesting things with percussion, riffs, and/or original writing, but the drums are simple and plodding and there's a minimum of new composition here. LT's and proph's comments about the instrumentation are valid as well, but for me it's the writing that's really not the kind of transformation we're looking for. NO

Yeah... I really want to see a Caustic creation pass, but this isn't it. I actually think the constant swapping of instruments works against the arrangement, making it feel random and disorganized. The leads are frequently still bland and don't mesh well with the fairly rich backing. At 0:29, there's a frantic backing effect that doesn't sound good at all. The main thing I think this needs is a coherent vision. Right now it feels like it just randomly swaps synths out for other random synths whenever you felt like it. There's nothing holding it together. I recommend picking an aesthetic and sticking with it, whether it's FM, chiptunes, or whatever. NO

Agreed on all the above. There's more highs but less bass than before, but more importantly most of the arrangement is a wall of overlapping sounds. Everything steps on everything. It doesn't help that there are a lot of parts and a lot of SFX, a lot of which is sitting squarely in the same mid-range frequencies. When you revisit this (which I hope you do, it's a good arrangement at heart), start by muting the SFX entirely. Get everything else sounding cleanly audible first. Then add them back in one at a time, judicously, making sure they don't make any instrument harder to hear. SFX can be fun and add texture, but they're a garnish; don't let them overshadow the entree. NO

There's something about the mixing this time that just doesn't sound right. The whole thing sounds muffled. Most of the instruments sound like formants have been filtered out, making them all thin and flat-sounding. The cymbals, which last time I called out for having all the highs filtered out, now consist of nothing but highs. As a result, some instruments pop better, but some are even more buried. I still like this arrangement, but all the life has been crushed out of every instrument. Please give this another mixing pass. NO

I YESed this before, so I figured I would just be listening to this once to rubber-stamp it. But unfortunately, while bringing up the bass some new issues were introduced. The strings that Larry mentioned are definitely an issue, which I don't recall being as obvious before. There are some weird balance issues, especially at the end---starting at 2:22 there are assorted SFX that are way too loud. And the vox is definitely in uncanny valley territory (though I don't think it crossed the line into being overused). For me, this is actually more borderline than it was the first time around. The mechanical violin in the last minute or so in particular is a real turn-off, and I'd be okay seeing this get sent back for a tweak there. But I'm still leaning on the side of YES (borderline)

A very creative and well-performed metal arrangement, but there are some notable issues. It opens with strings with mechanical timing and velocity, sounding very fake. 0:11 introduces a guitar that's hard to hear, mostly buried under those strings and the piano. The flute at 0:20 has the same problem. 0:30 brings in... I can't quite tell, it sounds like a drum roll? It's just bass white noise that's eating up a lot of bandwith and frankly doesn't sound good at all. 0:50 has a brief section played by a terribly fake sax, and 0:55 has just given up and uses a synth. At 1:00, several instruments come in, and the production issues are compounded; the soundscape sounds surprisingly muddy for how few instruments there really are. 1:22 brings in a guitar that sounds 1000% better than any of the other instruments. It's done a disservice by a drum kit that's overpoweringly loud, though. This section is much better than the intro, but the synths are still muddy, and the bass doesn't sound right, either; I can't put my finger on why, but it's very thin and doesn't carry the bass end of the spectrum enough. It's also a little schizophrenic, swapping between different guitars very quickly and often in the middle of a section. Ending at 3:02, which is 48 seconds of very quiet noodling with a whole lot of reverb and no conclusion. The guitar work is great, and the overall structure is mostly good except for the strange and disappointing ending. But the sampled instruments, and more importantly the production throughout the whole thing, aren't up to our standards. I recommend taking this over to our workshop for some help improving the clarity and realism. NO

Bold of you to orchestrate a piece like this! It's not the richest orchestration; most of it has presence in either the mids or the mid-highs but not both, and rarely much in the mid-lows or the highs. It isn't painfully thin, but when you get to a section like 2:42-3:13, which is clearly arranged to be firing on all cylinders and just isn't, it feels unfulfilling and incomplete. Its simplicity also makes the artificiality of the samples stand out---you did a pretty good job with it, but when they're this exposed, every little flaw stands out. Still, the instrumentation isn't badly done, the overall structure is solid, and production of what is there is clean and full. The only thing that needs to be fixed is the beginning: the very first note is cut off, which causes the track to sound like it's skipping or hiccuping. A re-render with a fraction of a second of whitespace in the beginning will fix that right up. I redownloaded to address Larry's concern, below, and I don't hear this issue anymore. However, see below... YES/CONDITIONAL Update 5/22: LT seems to be right about source usage. It does appear to come up about 4 seconds short of 50%. Now, normally Larry and I are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to 50% being a dealbreaker. However, in this case, there are original themes used as consistent motifs that do not appear in the source material. 0:00-0:11 and 1:03-1:33 are, arguably, more fundamental to the composition as a whole than the LotR motifs. And even when the source music is used, it's often just the triplet arps, which I would not count as "dominant." So I'm actually flipping my vote. NO Update 8/16: Eh, I still feel like the original motifs are more dominant than they should be, but I guess it's a borderline issue, and there are little touches that tie back into the source. Sure. YES

Starts off as basically a sound upgrade, but it's quite an upgrade. The vocals add a ton of richness to the palette. A little bit of a breakdown, then some riffing on the soundscape without adding any real melodict writing. Not the most interpretive arrangement, but some gorgeous orchestration all around. You lost me at 3:12, though. Everything from there to the end at 4:15 — a full 25% of the arrangement — is the ending, consisting of unsettling ambient sound. It goes on for quite a bit longer than it needs to. I don't have any other major complaints. It sounds great, and there's enough layering and riffing to it to make it more than a simple sound upgrade. I'd love to hear more creative interpretation in the arrangement, but I won't insist on it. Just needs the 24 seconds of silence trimmed off the end. YES

For most of Rebecca's remixes, I just end up writing, "Yep, does everything she always does right, just her usual small missteps, good enough." Not this time. These instruments are way too robotic across the board, and it's not even close. Extremely mechanical timing and articulation, with bizarrely short decays on several instruments. And of course it's comically quiet, with nearly 5 dB of headroom; I had to crank my volume all the way up to hear this decently. I'm sorry, but this was just severely disappointing. NO

It's a perfectly servicable, simple EDM take on this track. Nothing revoiutionary, but it does everything it needs to do. Lots of tasteful transitional effects, the synths are robust, the soundscape fills the space. The one thing I'm not crazy about is that at about 2:47, it gets noodly and aimless until it fades out. It feels like you ran out of ideas almost a minute before the end of the piece. I don't think it sinks the piece, but it does make me not super excited about it. YES

It may be called "Super Star," but the meat of this remix is the SMB1 main theme in a minor key. I can't say I've ever heard an upbeat key-changed take like this. Some classic EDM that just works. It's a one-trick pony, really, but it's a really good trick, and it's explored to the fullest. You clearly had a vision in mind, and absolutely realized that vision. I do have some criticisms. Basically the entire second half of the arrangement is the ending, and it would have been nice to do some more exploration of the theme before jumping into the climax. The star theme in particular wasn't really utilized. The fade-out ending is fine in this case, I guess, but it does emphasize the feeling that you ran out of ideas halfway through. The soundscape isn't quite as full as it could be; bass is a little light, and everything but the lead is smushed into the mids — not so much that you can't hear every part, but enough that they're not as clear as they could be, especially the harmony line. Still, no dealbreaking issues here, and it's a lot of fun. YES

Well, this is an... interesting mix. I'm going to guess the idea is that it's a sort of narrative, where Celes is represented by the opening flute, and that the instrumentation changes each time she finds a new party member? If so, that's a cool idea, but I'm not at all sure it works. This is absolutely all over the place, with samples and synths constantly flipping in and out, changing genres every few measures. It doesn't help that many of the synths are bland, generic ones; some of the instrumentation is just weird (like the SID arpeggiations in 0:32-0:48), and the instrument samples are generally fake-sounding. I think something like this could work, but it still needs to be coherent. Pick a genre and stick with it — Peter and the Wolf is a famous example from classical music, but I can see it working in electronica or other genres as well. Choose instruments/synths that go together so you can work them in and out smoothly rather than abruptly changing leads all the time. Maybe increase the length by adding original writing, or mixing in another source, so that you can fit the whole "cast" in there. Thanks for sharing this creative idea, but NO

Yeah, no concerns regarding this as a standalone piece. Production is slightly imperfect but fine, and the arrangement is dynamic and engaging. The one thing that gives me pause is that it's awfully similar to Ben's in aesthetic and instrumentation. But it is more involved, and as Larry said, the 2:19 section referencing the original track instead of Ben's remix was a cool creative decision. It doesn't excite me because it is so derivative, but it's very well done for what it is, more than serviceable for the hack, and is fine per our standards. YES

Great grungy tone to begin with. Sort of Daft Punk, but more gritty, and then there's the piano. It does sound pretty saturated, though; it has fidelity almost like an audio cassette, and the instruments don't have a lot of room to breathe. Of course, this is designed for vinyl---I don't know the medium well enough to know whether that means it'll sound just fine, or if the loss of fidelity from production and medium will compound and sound awful. ...I say this, then saw that the crowdfunding campaign is long over and is due to be shipped out next month. So I guess that ship has sailed in any event. Despite clocking in at over 8 minutes, there are a lot of original ideas here. There's really only one repeated section (2:02-2:54 and 7:00-end), though it's a long one. But overall, the whole track is on a really slow burn: the intro runs until 0:52, followed by another build-up that goes until 1:48; the real meat of the arrangement doesn't start until 2:02! Some entire remixes aren't that long. The bridge in particular, 4:12-5:48, sounds great but is a whole minute and a half of basically the same thing. That said, each of those long sections does have a progressive nature, and is far more than just a loop. They're longer than they need to be, but they don't really demand to be cut. I think it would have been stronger with cleaner lines and by getting to the point a little quicker, but it stands just fine as it is. I think your backers will be pleased. YES

It's a beautiful arrangement, and I feel like you successfully captured the emotions and expression you were going for. However, production needs some notable work. The thing that leaps out the most is that balance of everything is out of whack. The instruments you're using as a pads, first the tubular one in the intro and later the wash at 1:45, are extremely loud and resonant, and they distort the entire space. They're compressing the timbre of the other samples and making them sound extra-fake. At 1:03, when more parts are added, there's just too much going on. The soundscape is crushed and distorted. The high-pitched lead and other instruments cut through like a knife, and are too shrill to listen to. At the climax at 2:33, you have the same problem, exacerbated even worse; there's actual clipping here, and it makes a mess of everything; it's distorted, bitcrushed, saturated, and muddy. You certainly have the creative chops, but please take this over to the workshop and get some help with the levels and EQ. I think there might also be an issue with the humanization, but it's hard to pick out when there are larger issues at play. NO

Very chill indeed. Until the sax joins, the whole thing has a very '80s synth tone to it. I was actually surprised that so many different high-end VSTs were used in its creation, since it has such a cohesive aesthetic that sounds like it could have been made on a single piece of retro hardware. I'm a little torn. On one hand, we generally frown on compositions consisting mostly of vanilla synths, which this certainly does. On the other hand, it sounds like the synth choices were all very intentional; they're cohesive, chosen well for their roles, and used well. But back on the first hand, there aren't a whole lot of different ideas present until three and a half minutes in when the sax joins; it sounds like you're working with a limited sound palette rather than making an intentionally simplictic decision, and I find myself losing interest. The soundscape is quite thin. There's a deep sub-bass pulse that's sort of like an 808 kick except that it has a longish sustain on it, and it's the only thing in the lows, with nothing in the mid-lows except the formants of one of the chime synths. Production seems clean and clear, though. There's no question in my mind that this would have been fine if it had been submitted 15 years ago. But to me it just feels a little primitive and rough for today's standards. I feel like it needs to fill up more space, and make more interesting instrumentation decisions before the final third of the arrangement. NO (borderline)

This is some toe-tapping house-style riffing for sure. Tons of fun. Not the chiptune I expected from the title, but I guess it's a reference to your musician name instead. Production isn't perfect, but it's plenty servicable. The soundscape is a little thin in the highs and in the mid-lows (it's fine in the subs). Arrangement-wise, it's a bit odd that there's piano in the breakdown but not in the ending, so it's sort of an awkward half-bookend. That's more of a stylistic criticism and nothing objective, though. Good stuff, can't stop listening to it. Let's share the love. YES

Gritty metal with a bit of symphonic flair. One of my favorite things. What's not to like? ...well, a bit, actually. The orchestral elements are generally too quiet throughout. The brass and string section starting at 1:06, in particular, isn't loud enough for the melody line, and is overshadowed by the drums and bass. The backing chugs are too loud in general, but it especially stands out there. Even the drums are louder than they need to be for this mix. The crashes in particular cut through everything like a knife, but the snares eat up too much bandwidth, too, and even the kicks could be toned down a hair. There's also mixing issues during the two-guitar sections, like at 0:56: they step all over each other and become indecipherable. Some stereo separation at least, if not some EQ, would do a lot of good here. I was waffling on passing this, but when I got to the climax at 2:30 I'm afraid I tipped over. There's so much great arrangement work going on here, but the balance is so off that you can hardly hear any of it. (Also there's 13 seconds of silence at the end that should be trimmed out.) Killer arrangement; production needs another pass. NO (please resubmit)

This opens with some very vanilla, subdued synths. It takes a full minute and a half for melody to kick in, and when it does, it sounds thin and underdeveloped. Very simple, with just a basic waveform melody, bass synth, piano accompaniment, and retro synth drums. I'm afraid it still does sound repetitive, as well. I can hear the differences between the loops, but I have to be paying very close attention. But the instrumentation never changes even once, except for one filter automation at about 4:05-4:09. It sounds to me like this whole thing was created using exactly four channels. That's the bare minimum from a technical standpoint, but you really need more going on for today's standards---and even by the standards of yesteryear, this would be pushing it. I'm afraid this needs more development, more transformation, and more dynamism to begin with. It will also need more depth of sound, but that will come after working on the instrumentation and arrangement. NO

I don't think I've ever heard a remix inspired by a painting before. It's fascinating to hear your inspiration broken down. For all the changes, the impact is still pretty similar to the original. The Celtic and Norse instruments are replaced with synths, but they're all synths of a similar timbre and used in a similar way. The big exception is the new age arp, which is entirely new, but doesn't stand out because it's also commonly used in the same sort of genre. There's a muddiness to the entire soundscape that I think might be caused by all the layers of sweeps and white noise. It all sounds unclear, like it was played through a cheap speaker system. Some of it sounds outright distorted—the flute-like synth that starts at 1:55 is a notable example, but it's frequently true of your main cello-like lead as well. Then there's the ending, which is similar to the original but more abrupt and doesn't end on the tonic, so it sounds incomplete. I love the creativity that went into this, and it's a very cool idea. But I don't think the execution is there, and I'm not convinced it's interpretive enough for what we look for. The production definitely needs to be cleaner, and some more deviation from the style and organization of the original would be very welcome. NO

I can't say that I agree. Those two-note hits aren't a standard chord, but they don't sound detuned or off-key to me. It's probably some mode I don't know the name of. Maybe another judge can label it, but to me it doesn't sound like a problem. The kicks seem nice and boomy to me, though I don't have a listening setup with really strong sub. The snares actually sound a little light in the highs to me, for a snare. If you haven't guessed by now, I like this a lot. I do think it's a little repetitive, as DarkSim implied---the intro is quite long, and the main themes do get iterated on a bit more than I'd like, but it's very minor. Overall this has a great sound and is a lot of fun. Is that a One Must Fall 2049 reference at 3:22, or just a coincidence? This gets an enthusiastic thumbs up from me. YES

What a great source, and what a great arrangement. This arrangement style is exactly the sort of thing I love most about OCR: a straight up expansion of the source material that takes everything that's great about it and just makes it more. That said, I do think this would benefit from a few tweaks. Balance isn't great: the arps in particular are pretty loud and squash the dynamics of everything else. 1:13-1:28 is a great example of how not to mix: since it's a breakdown with the melody line taken out, the arp and the harmony line are fighting for exactly the same space, and they're drowning each other out. You have a lot of space in the mids that you're not using and could be, and even the bass could be a bit boomier. As for percussion, the kick is good, but the white noise "hats" and "snares" sound weak to me. Most of the mix only uses those "hats" and the kick, so there's not a lot of percussion going on at all. 1:50-2:19 also bugs me a lot, with the rhythmic notes so very far behind the beat, they sound like they're just done wrong. And then that ending... you need an ending. Something. Anything. This is a lot of fun, and I enjoyed it a great deal. It just needs some tweaks, IMO. I definitely want to see this back! NO (please resubmit!)

I agree with a lot of Kris's opinions, but not all of them. I don't think the mixing is that bad. I can hear all the parts, although the lows and highs are underused. I also don't think sidechaining is necessary by any means---it can be used to emphasize a beat, but having a strong beat isn't mandatory. And this particular fade-out ending works for me. I do agree that some parts could stand to be quieter, notably the piano, and the growl could be used more judiciously at times: it's super loud at 0:45-1:10, for instance, and it's off the chain loud in 4:00-5:00. There's just too much growl going on there. I also agree that the Mario voice effects are so clean that they really pop out in a bad way. 5:00-5:35 also has some crackling sounds that sound like a rendering artifact. You're not clipping, but this part sounds like it is. So I don't think the mixing is "tanking" this per se, but I also don't think it's up to our standards. It does need some EQ and balancing work to not be so overwhelming. NO (resubmit)

You're right, this is an awesome source track! Thanks for sharing it. It's a tough act to follow up on. The first thing that leaps out to me about this arrangement is a lack of low-end. The kick is deep and meaty, but the bass, while pitched lower than the original otherwise-identical synth, doesn't have as much low end to it. There's not a ton of presence in the highs, either; most of your synths are crowded into the mids. They're still pretty clear, but the soundscape is thinner than it needs to be. Second, while there is a decent amount of original writing here, mostly it's a reinstrumentation of the original (except the aforementioned bass, which was kept from the source). And I get that it's hard to reinvent such a long, complicated source without writing a 10-minute track. But that is what we ask for. I think I can live with the second issue, given how much is going on with this, and you do have some original writing and parts. But the former needs addressing. The bass just needs some EQ work, although the trebel could stand to be filled out by parts that aren't in this version. I do hope to see this back, though; it's a great source track, a solid arrangement, and a good foundation. NO (resubmit)