MindWanderer

Yeah, "flimsy" is a good word for that brass. It's excessively bright and unrealistic. The strings also have mechanically consistent attacks and decays, and the reeds have an inhuman vibrato. The orchestration is fine, a little vanilla but more than adequate; pretty typical for a Tripp mix. But I agree that these samples need more work before they can do the job. NO (resubmit)

Yep, seems fine to me. It's a complex and dynamic arrangement, solid work all around. Realism is well above our bar, including other Bluelighter remixes that we've passed. It's on the quiet side, but I don't think it's quite so quiet that raising the levels should be mandatory (though it's close; a Conditional would be fine by me). YES

Yeah, the playing is superb, but there are both production and arrangement issues here. Rexy and LT made some good recommendations about mud, clutter, and repetition, but I have a few additional comments. The rhythm guitar transition switches jarringly from lead to bass at 0:10. It's so abrupt, and such an odd choice, that it almost sounds like two arrangements pasted together there. There are also some off notes in the rhythm guitar that sound like mis-plays, although they could be distortion; I caught some at 0:24, 0:51, 1:33, and 2:04 at least. I'm also not sold on the original material at 1:09-1:29. The transitions into and out of it are abrupt, and it's very different, making it sound more like a medley with some other source. I wasn't crazy about 1:40-1:50, but at least the transition out of it works. Finally, that conclusion... it's neat (although it crackles badly), but it's severely at odds with the rest of the piece. I think it would be really neat as a bookend--starting the arrangement as well as ending it in this style--but just as a conclusion I don't think it works. I thought the final synth note was fine, though. It's a solid first effort, but it definitely needs some work. Clean up the production, switch things up a little in the second loop of the source, take another look at the solos and their transitions, and think about revising that intro. And of course it needs a real name. It sounds like a lot but you have the meat of a good ReMix here; the hardest part is out of the way. I hope to see a revision! NO (resubmit)

I agree with Rexy about the levels, for sure. More importantly, the accordion pumps significantly, and it's really distracting. The repeated section didn't bother me so much; my threshold for repetition is about 25% of the mix, so 1 minute out of 5 is fine by me. The key change for the comping also seemed fine to me, and it didn't feel out of place to me at all. And sure, the timing was off, but it's close enough; loose but not sloppy. It's a fun arrangement overall, and I don't think many of the issues described above should be enough to hold it back. I do feel like the levels need to be addressed, and I don't think simply slapping a limiter on it will do the trick, as that will likely make the pumping more severe. I think it's borderline whether you could fix it in 5 minutes, but it's possible and I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt. YES/CONDITIONAL (levels and pumping)

A strange source and a strange remix. Source seems fine though I really don't want to have to try to stopwatch this. There's lots of dissonance and chaos, but it's intentional; I have mixed feelings about whether the intention is enough to excuse it. Same with the lo-fi quality to some of the synths (the intro, and the lead/pad that starts at 2:44): they're unpleasant but intentionally so. Some of the leads are oddly thin, especially in comparison to the rich accompaniment. 0:55-1:54 drags a bit but it's not egregious. So, I definitely don't like the remix but I'm not 100% sure that it's bad. I'm having a very hard time being objective about this one. I'll see what other judges have to say. Update: This now has 3 NO's, and I'm certainly not going to hold it back when I'm this ambivalent. I'm personally fine with the source usage on a subjective basis, for what it's worth. I'm happy to let it be a NO overall and see what a resubmit looks like if we get one.

I personally think LT and Rexy are being too critical here. Sure, the choir and the strings won't be fooling anybody; both attack and decay are notably mechanical, and that's sure some robots singing at 3:10-3:13. But for the most part they aren't too jarring; there's some attempt at humanization and we've heard much worse. The arrangement and balance are great. Like Larry, I can see this going either way, but I'm erring on the other side. I think it's passable. YES

I'm going to disagree with the above, but only in focus. The realism of the instruments, especially the strings, wasn't up to where I expect it. They weren't mechanical per se, but many of the instruments had really odd attack and decay envelopes, fading in or out in unrealistic ways. This also had the effect of making the instruments sound out of sync with each other. Also the reverb across instruments wasn't consistent, making them all sound like they were recorded in difference spaces. With so many instruments involved, especially a string ensemble, they'd need a large space to play in, and many of them sounded more like they were in a small, sound-dampened space. Also I'm not as sold as Larry on it sounding less unfocused over time. Some of the noodling, especially the organ solo, really seemed like it was doing its own thing and didn't go with the rest of the parts. The flute solos work better, since almost everything but the percussion drops out. The bass piano being panned left was a little distracting, and there wasn't anything on the right to balance it. The ending was a little abrupt and felt like a change of tone from the rest of the arrangement. So yeah, even with more source I think this needs a few realism tweaks before you re-submit. The rest of my concerns are fairly minor, and I'd forgive them if they were the only issues. The arrangement is a lot of fun and I'd love to see a revision, though. NO (resubmit)

Yeah, source connection works for me. It's significantly transformed but recognizable, and there's plenty of it. Checks pretty much all the boxes arrangement-wise, a very fun retro synth interpretation. Tricky to balance the chill progression with the driving energy of guitar+synthwave, but I think this does so. The ending feels a little empty; it's an almost exact copy of the intro, so it's meant to be a bookend, but there's something unsatisfying that I'm having trouble putting my finger on. It just sort of trickles off instead of having a climax or a proper ease-out. It's also a tad weird to have that car-rev opening without a callback at some point (either the climax or the conclusion). Bass is meaty, but there's a lack of presence in the highs. Several of the synths (leads, sweeps, pads, and the call-and-response bits) are clearly intended to cover that part of the spectrum but lack the high-end shimmer, as do the claps, and I'm not hearing hats at all. There's 10 seconds of silence at the end that doesn't seem to have any reason for being there. None of my crits are dealbreakers, though I sure wouldn't mind some more oomph in the highs. A solid and unique approach to a simple source. YES

That's a great writeup from LT, covers almost everything I was going to say. The cymbals are hot, the mixing was inconsistent, and the switches in and out of lo-fi style were jarring and seemed random. There was also a weird key change at 2:25. And I did appreciate the return of the dueling guitars at 4:37 (and some nice driving percussion there as well; this whole section was a highlight for me). I also didn't have a problem with the vox mixing, but did have a problem with the organ, and whatever that is at 3:43-3:53. There's a lot here that I like, including the arrangement as a whole (other than the key changes and some of those transitions). Dialed down to just the rock stuff, this is stellar. There are just some sections that don't work so well. I feel like this is very close; there's just enough that I feel really ought to be cleaned up a bit. I wouldn't mind this passing, and I look forward to what other judges say, but for now I'm going to come down on the side of NO (please resubmit)

I had a lot to say about this, but Larry and Rexy already covered it all. They've given you plenty of good advice to work with, so start there. NO

I'm not quite as happy as Rexy with the piano sound; the reverb sounds way over the top to me, especially in the low end. There's so much tail that it gets more than a bit muddy. It sounds like it might be the same treatment as your Undertale mix, but in that case the arrangement was melodically top-heavy, and the discordant bass added to the uncomfortable atmosphere, so it was forgivable (though, looking at the old thread, I did call you out on it at the time). This time it's much more of an issue: not only does the bombastic arrangement not provide an excuse for dissonance, this arrangement is much more skewed towards the mid-to-low frequencies. I love the arrangement, and it's a very clever use of a limited source, but this time I can't give that low end a pass. Gario suggested last time that overuse of the sustain pedal was the big culprit, so take another look at that; hopefully that'll be enough of a change without needing to look at the arrangement. NO (please resubmit)

Funny that LionTamer felt this was more like the deepest depths of the ocean than the original; I feel exactly the other way. The lighter tones of the remix give me the impression of sunlight filtering through the surface of the water, while the deeper sounds and whale-like pads of the original sound like they're happening deeper underwater. Anyway. It's certainly pretty, and the production is more than adequate. Despite its ambient quality it doesn't seem overly meandering or long; when I did check it thinking it really ought to be ending about now, it was. Source usage is clearly fine. It's true that it could stand to be a bit louder, but it's not problematic. A good arrangement all around. YES

Ditto on the levels, I had to more than double my volume compared to the last thing I listened to, almost as high as my computer could go. However, that isn't the only production issue. NutS is also absolutely right about how muddy the climax gets; 4:36-5:11 has far too much going on with nowhere near enough EQ; it's a wall of sound and white noise. 2:12-2:32, with the wind sweep effect, and the mini-climax at 3:36-3:48, are also both problematic. The rhythm guitar in general has persistent problems with getting drowned out and turning to mud. The arrangement is pretty good for such a short, simple source. You add a lot of variation to it that keeps the listener engaged despite retreading the same motif over and over again. It reminds me strongly of some of the Silent Hill soundtracks. The first half seemed source-light, but it's constant from 2:36 on, so it's clear on that front. I like the general approach and the arrangement quite a bit, but IMO the production issues are more than a Conditional fix. NO (resubmit)

I personally don't feel the need to stopwatch this. There's plenty of explicit use of a good chunk of the source melody, and the uke arpeggio is clearly referencing the xylophone. Subjectively it seems well over the top in that regard. I also personally feel like my fellow judges are nitpicking the performance. It's not perfect, but it isn't sloppy either. It's clearly more than competent, and I don't feel like our bar needs to be higher than that. The minor performance flubs do stand out in such a minimal mix, and I do think they'd be less notable if there was more in the way of accompaniment, but at the same time I think adding more layers would be a disservice to this arrangement as well as to the artist's intention. It works with what it is. I respect the concerns, but I think this does far more right than it does wrong. I'd be happy to accept it as-is. YES

I'd give this somewhat more credit than all that--I was chiefly the one who argued against this being a NO OVERRIDE--but it's still substantially an embellishment of the original audio rather than an arrangement. That said, I did really enjoy a lot of what you did with it. The dubstep layers in the first half were fun if not transformative, but when it turned more synthwave-y at 1:50, you definitely got my attention. The sidechaining in the entire second half is way over the top, but the original synth riffing you added was pretty darn great. If that had been layered on material that was also your original interpretation of the source material, it would have been a killer arrangement. So yeah, it's pretty cool, but it's not what we look for. If you ever decide to redo this without using the game audio (or at least, much less of it), I'd love the chance to give this another shot. Sadly, though, I have to give this a NO

NutS nails everything I was going to say. The soundscape is strangely thin and flat for orchestral, with minimal reverb and what sounds to me like aggressive EQ. The arrangement is killer but the sound is weak. NO (resubmit)

I'm a lot closer on this than Rexy and LT, but I also can't argue with any of their points. Your choruses are so close to being fine, source-wise. They use the source's chord progression and rhythm, and the backing instrumentation is also reminiscent of the source. It would take so little tweaking to incorporate the source more directly into the backing there; I'm honestly confused as to why you didn't when you knew that source usage was a concern. The vocals, too, are so very close. I love your emotion and tone, and you're on-key more often than not, but enough is off-key that it's a problem. I'd cut you slack on at least half of the specific moments Larry called you out on--they're not perfect but they're not all that far off, no vocalist is perfect, and I for one appreciate a bit of authenticity over being auto-tuned to pitch-perfection--but there's still plenty that's far enough out that I can't excuse it. It was overall good enough that I still really enjoyed it, and I'm very glad you submitted it, but I'm hard-pressed to argue that it's ready for prime time in its current form. I very much want to see a revision back on the panel. NO (please resubmit)

I'm not quite as enthusiastic as my colleagues, but no doubt that this is a quality arrangement. My biggest complaint is with the saws, which were far too loud and caused some pumping, but they didn't break the mix as much as they might have (although when they're steady, at 3:48-4:12, there's definite room for improvement). The kicks often caused a bit too much ducking as well. Otherwise, it's an elegant blend of chiptune, EDM, and instrumentals. YES

Yeah, there's definitely some overcompression in the louder sections. The sidechaining in 4:13-4:26 is especially painful because the deliberate pumping is amplified by the overcompression. However, overall the production is solid and the arrangement is stellar. YES

Go for it! There aren't quite enough tracks completed to justify even an OCR-I and everyone with an open claim right now is dragging their heels.

How do we not have a "Power Plant" remix on the site already? This was on my short list of sources to remix myself once I had time to sit down and get remixes done... sigh.... Hugely catchy beats had me tapping my feet the whole time. I could have stood a couple fewer loops of the main hook by about the 1-minute mark; this feels longer than its 4 1/2 minute length because it does drag a bit, but it's all enjoyable. I feel exactly the opposite as Larry about 2:15-2:30; I'd have liked more of that to break things up a little. Sure, the bass could have used some more presence, but I didn't feel like it was a huge omission. This one's a keeper. YES

I adore this source (how is there no Rescue Rangers on OCR yet!?!), but I mostly have to agree with LT's assessment. The panning seemed fine to me, even on headphones, and I'm not sure about what Larry meant by using more of the theme, since this uses nearly all of it already. However, but the energy is definitely lacking; it's a bit slower than the original, but more importantly the percussion is plodding and thin. The lead synths are quiet and lack depth and impact, and some of them are overly wet and muddy. And it's over just as it's getting started. It's a good starting point, and I did enjoy the approach, just not the execution. I'd love to see this taken further. NO

Funny enough, I still think this sounds very much like a Sir_NutS mix. It has the mellow pace of the source material but it still has the quality synthwave soundscape we expect. Other than the sound clips at the beginning and end, this is pretty much exactly what I would expect from this combination of source and remixer. And in this case, that's only a good thing. YES

Yeah, the tail of the reverb cut out, so that's a mandatory fix. And the ending in general was indeed disappointing. Otherwise, this is pretty much exactly what one would expect from Andrew under a time constraint: nothing groundbreaking but fun and competent. Not thrilled with the name--had to read it 3 times before I could tell it wasn't just the name of the source--but it'll do. YES/CONDITIONAL (on letting the tail fully fade out)

Definitely a face-melter! Cyril and HeavenWraith deliver exactly what you'd expect. I'm not crazy about the off-key vocals, and I sat on this vote for a while thinking about them, but for the style they're not inappropriate. The bigger issue is source usage. Rexy asked Chernabogue for a source breakdown, and as you can see, there are several sections flagged as "loosely" or "very loosely" based on the source material. And that's putting it mildly. Even the "loosely based" ones come across as more "inspired by" to me. The connections are tenuous at best, and even with the breakdown I have a hard time hearing them. 83 seconds of it are obvious. The solo at 02:06-02:56 is my biggest concern; it starts off with the source material, and then goes noodling off into unrecognizable territory. Even if I count half of it--which I feel is very generous--that's still only 47.8% of the arrangement. Even though this is great from a musical perspective, and I hate to turn it down, I can't for the life of me hear enough of the source material in this to count as "dominant," even knowing what to listen for where. NO (resubmit)