MindWanderer   Members

I feel like this is more conservative than my peers are giving it credit for: the first half is pretty close to a cover, then there's basically no transition into the second half, which has some original takes but also retreads a lot of the same material. I'm willing to call it over the bar in regards to interpretation, but not by a comfortable margin. Mixing, on the other hand, sounded fine to me. I tested with multiple headphones, and the lows seemed clear enough on even my bassiest ones. There is a lot of nuance to the rhythm guitar that's lost in the mix, though; a pass that makes that line in particular more audible would be welcome. Not essential, though. I do hear those dissonant moments. I'm not as well-educated as proph, but there are way more parts in this remix than there were in the source for that section. In the original it's pretty much just the lead vox, the xylophone, and the pad. I definitely hear something clashing with the accidental that isn't in the original. I think it's the bass, but it's so busy it's hard to tell exactly. Overall I don't hear more than minor issues here. I'm in agreement with Emu and djp: YES

Nice clean production with some fun sounds. It is, however, very conservative, with a similar style and energy to the source material. The percussion is different, of course, but overall the impressions it leaves are basically the same as those of the original. I don't overtly have a problem with the level of repetition. Nothing is exactly repeated until 3:29, leaving 49 seconds of verbatim repeated content out of a 4:24 track, which is pretty high but not above the 25% where I necessarily have concerns. The choice of where to put it is unfortunate, though: the climax of a song should definitely introduce something new to build energy, and not only is it a 1:1 repeat, but it just ends thereafter. There are voice clips, but they're sparse and I agree that they detract from rather than add to the overall remix. And if you expand to content that's repeated with small additions or subtractions, you're looking at everything from 2:01 on, half the mix. djp's right about the bass: There's a nice meaty kick filling up that space, but it's the only thing that is. I'm borderline on this. No one issue is a dealbreaker, but the conservatism, repetition, weak ending, and underdeveloped bass are all of concern. I think that, added up, it's enough to ask for a resubmission. NO (borderline, resubmit)

I'm a bit sad that LMMS didn't pull through, but FL is certainly more commonly used. You're continuing to show improvement. The soundscape is much better balanced, there's a welcome change of pace in the middle to maintain interest, and some of the synths, such as the bass, arps, and sweeps, are pretty cool. However, many synths, notably the percussion and saw leads, are still pretty thin and vanilla. Some of the sweeps are too loud, and are causing some severe clipping. 1:12-1:23 is absolutely crushed to death, and 2:02-2:33 isn't much better; it's positively crackling. The big finale starting at 2:17 has no highs, making it seem weak. I'm also not a big fan of the robo-voice announcement transition; it's a classic cop-out best left in the past. Still, it's not horrible. The arrangement is better than many of the older remixes on the site. If it weren't clipping, it would be a credible imitation of them. Our standards are higher now, though. Do more with the lead so that it's not the weakest synth in the lineup, make the ending the most exciting part, and watch that clipping, and you'll be well on your way. NO (resubmit)

I'm in the "not enough" camp, too. It's a nice, chill groove, and it's certainly transformative in terms of style. But it's basically minor variations of a loop of the first 30 seconds of the source. It's very repetitive. By the end of the first minute you've heard everything the remix has to offer. I wouldn't call it a cover, but it's short on content. Edit: Allow me to tone-police myself, as I realized I came across as excessively negative: I do really enjoy the groove here, and while the lo-fi tone is a matter of taste, it's executed well. It's good "loading screen" or "elevator" music, for a minute or so. I have nothing but praise for the foundation created here. It just needs to go further. NO

I don't feel like there's a source disconnect here at all. The connections from 1:38 and 2:56 of the remix to 1:09 of the source leaped right out at me. More importantly, the whole thing feels like a cohesive whole that's clearly derived from the source material. It's not like there are huge chunks of original writing here. This is indeed some nice, mellow, rich synthwave. No glaring production issues that I can pick out, and the arrangement is solid. I have no concerns putting this on the front page. YES

Mmm, Daft Punk meets SMW. If they ever made a sequel to the Super Mario Bros. live action movie, this would be a great track for it. At least the first half; the second half's lead is more traditional 8-bit stuff. It is super, super short, though. It feels more repetitive than it is because it's over so quickly. It's a build-up, then a rise, and then that's it. It doesn't come across so much as repetitive as incomplete. If the current fade-out ending transitioned into a breakdown or other mellow cooldown section (and again, you can look to the Tron soundtracks for inspiration), then back into a climax, this would be <chef's kiss>. I kind of want this to get sent back because I want to hear what the rest of this remix would be if it were finished! But it's not going to be me who does it, because this does meet our standards for length, as unsatisfying as it is. Production is fine, it's creative as hell, and fun to boot. Absolutely please let us know if you ever decide to add more, but I have to give this a YES

I love tracks that interweave two or three sources together to make a cohesive whole. However, the structure is basically A-A-B-A, and each loop of the "A" part (Thunderbird Palace) is basically the same. Even the transitions are the same. I also feel like it's missing a lot of substance. The frequency distribution is all bass and treble, with basically no mids to speak of. While not technically "thin," because it does have a lot in the highs and lows, the soundscape does sound hollow. And since the whole thing is either bass or bass+trebel, it gets pretty fatiguing. I can't say I'm a fan of the percussion, either. It's all kicks and snaps, with one very faint, sporadic snare, and it doesn't really change except for the stutter section, which others have mentioned. There are good ideas, and I do like the core concept here. But I think both the overall structure and the instrumentation need some additional consideration. NO

My personal limit for copy-pastes is 25%. 1:53-2:32 is the repeated section, so that's 39 seconds out of 194, which is 20%. It's also not strictly repeated; I hear some extra horns in the first half and jingle bells in the second half. So that's not a dealbreaker for me. Otherwise, it's a nicely full, transformative arrangement. The original is technically orchestrated, in a very simple, shallow way, but this goes well beyond a "sound upgrade." It's not even really a remaster, more like an orchestral score that would sound appropriate as part of of a movie soundtrack. Much more cinematic than "Pokemon" in my opinion. Sure, some of the instrumentation, notably the string ensembles, can't pass for the real thing, but it's in the ballpark. Overall, it sounds great and I have no substantial complaints. A fine track indeed. YES

Yep, that bass is pretty potent. I listened to it on tinnier headphones at first, and it sounded great. But on my bassier headphones, oof. When the machinegun kicks came in at 1:28, it was indeed hard to keep listening. The arrangement is pretty great, with a delightfully eclectic mix of SID sounds, metal, and assorted random oddities. I love the coverage of an obscure source. But EQ this sucker, please! NO (resubmit) Edit: The "remastered" version is identical to the originally submitted one. After listening to them both a few times and hearing no difference, I overlaid them in Audacity, and there isn't a single pixel of difference in the waveforms. So no change to my vote.

I don't even hear these pops. Maybe my music player is smoothing them out. I do hear a faint white noise hiss that comes in and out; I think one of the performances may have been recorded with not quite enough gating. It's minor, though, and I only heard it when I turned up the volume to try to hear the pops. It's definitely a medley, which I come down hard on, but the transitions are smooth and there's no question about it being a cohesive piece. A beautiful arrangement and stellar performances. Onward and upward! YES

Good work taking source material that's barely a song at all and turning it into something substantial. It's a weird one in that most of this is added material, but there's no question that the source material is used to the greatest extent possible. An interesting challenge met. YES

Can't argue with any of that. It's almost like an HD remaster, but that doesn't do it justice, as it goes well above and beyond. It's clearly a loving homage, retaining the character of the original but making it deep and rich, with lots of additional elements added and remove at different points to retain interest. Lush Tron-like synths, mutated instrument samples, just good stuff all around. YES

I agree with both of the above, sadly. A certain amount of repetitiveness in a trance track is to be expected, but this is a smidge above even that. And even though I'm not listening on headphones with the best bass response, that kick is boomy, and while I love the rich timbre on that bass synth, it does result in a lot going on in that high bass/low mid range. The bass almost seems to change timbre in different parts of the track because it's competing with different frequencies throughout. An EQ pass would indeed help with this. It's creative, it's fun, but I have to agree that it needs a bit more love to make it on the site. NO

I'm willing to give this a little more credit, source-wise. The backing and chord progressions are consistently lifted from the source material. 1:19, 2:02, 2:22, 2:33, and 2:54 are all points where the connection to the source can be made, albeit with difficulty. But while there's a case to be made for more than 25% source usage, getting up to 50% is extremely dubious. I like this a lot for what it is, but I agree that we need something that's a bit more consistently obvious. NO

My first impressions of this were that it's really, really gorgeous. Aquaria already has a stellar soundtrack, and the arrangement and instrumentation choices made here really lift it up. I found myself closing my eyes and just immersing myself in it. On the other hand, my colleagues' criticisms are valid concerns. The cut-off vocal samples, the thin drums in the shallow middle, and the transition at 5:29 all caught my attention. I also didn't care for the bagpipe samples at 3:24-3:45. I'm okay with the rest: the transition at 3:03 was fine IMHO, and the length, repetitiveness, and ending are fine for the genre. But when this nails it, it really nails it. Normally when I listen to a track a few times, picking at the flaws, they stand out more and more to me to the point that it sounds bad to me overall. This doesn't. Sure, the faults stand out, and there are definitely a lot of things that can be improved. And I would love for this to see those improvements; with the recommended changes, this could be an outstanding track even among the rest of OCR's offerings. But is it over the bar now? I'm going with yes. Some notable weaknesses but some heavy, heavy strengths. I'd put this on my personal playlist as it stands. YES

I don't mind a quantized electronic instrument, and the piano and guitar sound fine to me, but the solo violin and ensemble strings sound very thin. I also agree that the arrangement is too far on the conservative side. Not only are the melody and structure very similar, but the general lo-fi, atmospheric, minimal approach comes across as very similar to the original as well. It's not what I would consider "transformative" at all. NO

There's a debate going on over whether this is in fact a MIDI rip, but for fun I played this and the source at the same time, periodically fading one or the other out to compare. And yeah. There are a few little riffs added but mostly calling it a close cover is an understatement, until the solo at 1:13. However! The second half opens up with a pretty solid solo, and then when the source melody comes back in, it does add enough to make it more than just a straight cover. We historically pass a lot of remixes with a very similar structure--too-conservative first half, original third quarter, suitably arranged final quarter. We have some remixers known for doing exactly that more often than not. What makes this a problem is that the first half is so very, very close to the source, with just a couple of instrument swaps and some very brief and minor additions. The drums and bass in particular are a 1:1 copy, even through the solo. I definitely disagree with the votes that say this is nowhere near personalized enough. We pass things with not much more personalization than this. But I do think we ask for more, especially with such a short arrangement. Expand on what that final 48 seconds are doing and I think that would probably be good enough, but more interpretation in the first half would be much, much better. NO (resubmit)

I'm more in agreement with LT and Rexy on this one. The melodica in particular is really muddy against the guitars and bass, to the point that I had a hard time telling what it was until it got a solo. The whistle cuts through the mud, but that's because it cuts like a knife. If you listen closely to Eluveitie, especially when their own whistle is playing, you can tell that there's some very surgical, dynamic EQ going on. Their guitars and cymbals are cut to make room for the whistle, dulcimer, and vocals, when those instruments are playing. Your cymbals especially are really bright in comparison. The comments about repetitiveness and flow are on point for me as well. There are some parts that change things up, but they're brief and don't do enough to keep this from wearing out its 4-minute length. No concerns about source usage at all, despite your misgivings, and the interpretation is delightful. I do like the brief original content. I'd love to have a revision of this, but this one for me is a NO (resubmit)

Let me preface this by saying that I haven't done any judging in over a year at this point. But given that break: damn, y'all are harsh. The good instruments are really, really good. The worse ones? They're not great, but they're fine. They won't pass for real if you're paying attention, but they aren't hard to listen to and enjoy. If this is a NO, I think maybe our standards have crept up a bit much. YES

I've been thinking about this one for a long time as well, for exactly the same concern proph had. There are some extra bells and whistles here--literally bells in some cases--but adding chimes and a vox pad don't substantially change the nature of the arrangement. It's very pretty, but is it transformative? I'm hard-pressed to argue that it is. The production is one of Rebecca's best but it's just too conservative. NO (borderline)

I'm basically in agreement. It's simple but it's much more vibrant than the original, with a lot of subtle complexity thrown in. If anything it gets maybe a little too frenetic for such a mellow melody. The mastery seems fine, but I've been listening to several much-too-quiet arrangements of yours lately, compared to which this is a vast improvement. Just needs those last 15 seconds trimmed off. Edit 5/26: And done. YES

It won't be as big as I had planned, but I have 6 completed tracks, enough for an OCR-I. Just waiting on one more that needs a rapper; I've been looking but haven't been able to find one. Once that gets resolved, one way or another, I think we can wrap this up.

I like the idea, swingy synthwave. The original writing is actually pretty good. But there are some issues that keep this from shining. First, the sound design. The opening bass with the LFO tuning is too much. A little bit of a warble can be OK, but this is going in and out of key too drastically. The 808 kicks are a critical part of synthwave, and these are thin and used sparingly. The soundscape is pretty minimal throughout. You have lead, bass, rhythm, and percussion, and that's it. You have very little in the mids other than the meaty bass, which is dominating the spectrum. Also, the energy level is pretty much static throughout the track. It just sort of plods along in the middle ground between high and low energy. There's no risers, no drops, no breakdowns. The ending is neither a climax nor a denouement. You need to play more with the percussion and bass lines to keep the listener engaged. I question the use of voice clips and whip cracks. They're so clean they stick out too much, and they don't really add anything. Of course, the whole thing is too quiet. There's 6.8 dB of clear headroom, more if you limited the claps. The melody writing is solid, it just isn't backed up by the rest of the track. Keep at it, though! NO

It's an interesting take, for sure. I've had to listen to it a number of times to try to evaluate it, and it's kind of grown on me. But it's a bit of a mess. The main concern I had with it is clutter. There are a lot of gritty synths occupying the mids, and in the busier sections there's a lot of mud. Take 0:44-0:58, for example. There's what sound like 3 different gritty saws there, all competing with each other as well as the percussion (which is itself gritty, being a combined hat and kick, and is causing pumping). There's a lot going on and it's turning to mush. Even in less dense sections, balance is off. For instance, 1:43-1:56 is just lead, bass, and perc, and the lead is getting drowned out. For all the production concerns I have, this is actually pretty close IMO. I like the arrangement a lot, and the approach works surprisingly well. Just play with the levels and EQ a bit so that the individual synths can be heard clearly, especially the lead. Saw leads can be tricky, especially in a context like this, and need a bit of extra work to get them to pop. NO (borderline, please resubmit)

Straightforward but effective. A lot of it is pretty conservative structurally, but the composition is a bit more than that, especially in the second half. The Ballad of the Wind Fish cameo worked really nicely. The bass line is a bit repetitive, but does get switched up a little from time to time. I'm on board. YES