MindWanderer

Agreed with Gario and Rexy. The arrangement is pretty cool, but the soundscape starts off a bit on the muddy side and gets more severe as it goes on. By the end the bass backing is almost a wash of white noise. I did feel like the original writing from 2:00-2:15 was a bit odd. It's much brighter in tone than the rest of the remix, so for me it breaks the flow. This is just my personal preference, though. The issue holding it back is the mixing. NO (resubmit)

I don't mind the percussion being mechanical, but I do mind how up-front it is, as well as the sidechaining that NutS pointed out. There's also a crackle from 0:52-0:59, 2:22-2:29, and 2:39-2:49 caused by clipping (which Rexy pointed out). You're clipping by about 0.8dB in those sections, and by about 0.3dB in several other sections (though it's less audible). This is a killer arrangement, and I had really high hopes for it, but you really need to bring the top down, especially on the snares, to let it breathe a little. That will address both the sidechaining (which bothered me much more than it did NutS) and the clipping. NO (resubmit)

It's weird, and it takes a bit to become recognizable, but it gets there. There's a white noise wash throughout that is both distracting and reduces the clarity of the overall mix. I don't think it's a dealbreaker, though I'd much prefer if it were removed or at least toned down. Otherwise this perfectly fine, a nice departure from Rebecca's usual style and an interesting take on an unusual source. YES

Absolutely gorgeous playing, and the original sections are sublime. The elephant in the room is, of course, source usage. The timestamping was very helpful. The source melody is used as backing, of course, and some sections are pretty liberal (2:07-2:22 took me a couple of listens), but it's all there. I don't have any problems with it on this front. Great work overall, and I'm looking forward to seeing this posted. YES

This is an excellent orchestration of a theme I admit I didn't even notice when playing the game. Excellent use of the full acoustic space, effective use of multiple layers without ever trying to do too much. However... it is extremely conservative as an arrangement. Up to 0:40 and from 1:27 on is a fairly simple cover, leaving only about 47 seconds of interpreted material. On the other hand, since the arrangement is only two minutes long, 47 seconds is a substantial chunk of it (over 1/3). On the other other hand, it is only two minutes long. I'm ambivalent about this one. Two minutes is usually the minimum length we look for, and then only if the arrangement does a lot in that period. And this sort of squanders 60% of that time as a cover. But the rest of it is really good! It doesn't feel incomplete, and I don't think that lengthening it for length's sake would be an improvement. I'm also not sure what other direction you could go with it. We'll see what the other judges have to say, but I'm leaning towards accepting this one. There's really good stuff here and I don't have anything constructive to suggest to make it meet OCR's expectations any more closely. I'd rather take it than leave it. YES (borderline)

This is some pretty solid electro, if a little by-the-numbers. Production is mostly fine, though the sidechained pad is a bit loud (and overused) and some of the leads are a bit quiet. The sine arp is a little too over-present, too. I don't think anything is dealbreaking, though. Not the most memorable remix but I don't see a strong reason not to post it, either. YES

A neat little jazzy number here. Great performances and some fun riffs. It does go off track for a while but, without timestamping it, I think it's clearly a Dark Star arrangement throughout. I do have one complaint: There's an extremely high-pitched sweep pad, pretty close to the limits of my hearing, almost in dog-whistle range. It's not there the whole time, but it is there most of the time, and it's driving me absolutely nuts. I imagine not everyone will even be able to hear it, but for me, it makes this impossible to listen to. Slap a low-pass filter on that one synth (I don't have a spectrograph handy but I'm guessing somewhere around 10kHz) and I think this is great. YES/CONDITIONAL (on elimination of ultra-high frequencies) Edit: I clearly have better high-end hearing than my fellow judges, because I can still hear those high frequencies in the intro, where it's exposed. But they're very quiet as well as brief, and I'm not sure I'd notice if I weren't looking for them. Good enough. YES

I'm down with this arrangement. It's catchy and goes to a lot of different places. Some of the synths are a little basic, but nothing is irritating and things switch up so often that it doesn't make much of an impact. Was it intended to reference Ground Man's theme from Mega Man & Bass? The main riff from that emerged in places, especially the ending. Volume is a bit of an issue, though. Overall this is mixed very quietly, with about 2dB of headroom. The main supersaw in particular is very quiet; it's a bit hard to make out when it's trying to carry the lead. That's my only concern, though, and it should be an easy fix. YES/CONDITIONAL (on volume increase, definitely on the master, ideally on the saw as well)

Starts off a little slow, with some subtle use of the main theme for almost a minute, but it gets there. It has a nice groove and beat and takes the familiar theme to some fun places. Synths are a little vanilla and don't vary a whole lot; they did start to get old after a while. In particular, the breakdown from 1:25-2:28 is far too long, with its quiet "leads" and static composition. I've been listening to it on a loop for a while, and when it gets to that middle section I can't help but wish it would hurry up and get through it. Also, the monotonous bass line and limited lead selection are really bringing this down overall. It also doesn't help that the main theme loops starting at 0:47, 2:46, and 3:24 are largely similar to each other, with only some small variation in harmonies and a few small riffs. The wind-down and breakdown also have a lot in common. I have mixed feelings about this one--I do enjoy a lot of it, but overall I think it's too simple and static. Vary things up some more in terms of instrumentation and soundscape, especially if you can add some more complex synths, and I think this will be gold. Right now, however, I'm leaning towards NO (resubmit)

Can't argue with any of that. The production is a little too grungy IMO, but it would still be passable if this weren't so close to the original. There are a few little riffs and frills thrown in, but it's not enough for what we look for. Thanks for submitting it, though, it's a great piece of music and I'm glad I got the chance to hear it. NO

Note: I'm evaluating the SoundCloud version of this song instead of the YouTube one (or the one the submitter provided). The one we got has indeed been compressed, or rather limited. I'm not sure why we weren't given the superior version. Worth following up on if we choose to post this. A lot of it is conservative, and there are a lot of similar arrangements out there, but this does stand out in a few ways. It does progress through different instrumental styles, and the breakdown in the middle is pretty great. My big question is, at 9:28 long, does it have enough ideas to sustain it? IMO, just. The triplet that drives the backing does wear pretty old, but it comes and goes. There are some sections that get repeated, but they're long sections repeated only once, so it doesn't feel repetitive to me. It doesn't tread any new ground but it's a solid arrangement and performance. YES (assuming access to and permission to use the uncompressed version)

It's indeed a beautiful atmosphere, which meshes perfectly with the ethereal vocals. However, as Gario anticipated, I'm finding the static background too much. In particular, at about the 2:00 mark, the droning bass string pad gets just a hair louder, which calls attention to the fact that you've been hearing the exact same thing the whole time. It reminds you again at 3:00, and then closes out with it. The rest of the background could stand some variety, but it's that bass drone that goes beyond static to grating, for me. And yeah, too quiet. NO (resubmit)

Interesting take, changing the dark industrial synths into upbeat garage rock. However, emphasis on "garage" there. Production on this seems... almost nonexistent. I don't hear anything that sounds like EQ or compression. As a result, everything sounds indistinct and quiet. Also, the arrangement gives me pause. The first half sounds like a straight cover to me. The second half sounds almost entirely original. It goes with the first half well enough, so it doesn't sound like a medley or anything, but it gives me the impression that you played through the source once, and then just padded out the rest with random jamming. Which isn't the worst thing, one does hear that approach a lot, but it doesn't feel well thought-out. Also, the ending cuts off the tail of the reverb. I'd be happier if some of the original content was in the first half, or if there was more of a callback to the source material in the second half, even just to bookend it, but the main reservation I have is with the production. Clean that up so that every instrument sounds loud and clear and I think this is probably okay, or close to it. NO

I love the creativity of this. The harmonies and twists on such a beloved source definitely gave me feels. That said... it's awfully repetitive. I hardly noticed at first because I'm really into the source, but the 8-note refrain gets repeated verbatim over, and over, and over, and by the end I couldn't overlook it any more. The opening twists it a bit, but it quickly settles into the same version. It goes back to the variant in 1:46-2:05, followed by a respite from 2:05-2:24, but that's it. There's a ton of variety in the accompaniment (although the single triangle used sort of as a kick gets very old), but the main 8-note melody is used a whopping 44 times! The two simple variations used in the intro are used 18 times put together, and the last part of the source is used 7 times. Looking just at the melody, this is actually more repetitive than the already short source. Even though I enjoy this a lot, a big part of why I enjoy it is because of the source material. If this were based on some other soundtrack that I wasn't attached to, I'd come down hard and unequivocally about this level of repetition. If I'm going to be objective and consistent, I can't treat this any differently, so I have to give it a NO

This is pretty weird even for vaporwave. I've seen the genre described as "dystopian elevator music," but this is so bizarre, dissonant, and fast-changing it's hard to tune out. It makes the listener feel uncomfortable rather than pacified. It's tough to separate my subjective distaste for the result from any objective criticism. There's distortion, but it's intentional. There's dissonance, but that's intentional too. It's short, but you wouldn't want it to be any longer. The source is definitely dominant and all the parts are clearly audible. It does everything it sets out to do. Why anyone would want it to do that is beyond me, but that shouldn't affect the decision, IMHO. I never want to listen to this again, but I can't think of any reason not to give it a YES

Man, I love this source, and this is an excellent metal cover of it. Definitely a remix I didn't mind listening to repeatedly. That said, it is pretty close to a cover, very conservative overall. It's not quite identical structurally, but it's close. Cutting out the vocals changes the the way it sounds, bringing supporting instruments into the foreground, but it doesn't change the fact that they were there to begin with. The production could stand to be improved as well. There's some overcompression, causing pumping in the louder sections. The lead guitar is getting somewhat muffled by the rhythm guitar and percussion, and could use some EQ work to cut through the mix better. Thanks for sending this in, and I definitely enjoyed it, but I don't think the arrangement is quite what we're looking for, and even then the production would need another pass, IMO. NO

The challenge here is that the source is only 44 seconds long, and 15 seconds of that is a loop. Trying to make a 5-minute arrangement out of that without being repetitive or adding substantial original content is tough. This is a noble effort, to be sure. The orchestration is solid, and each repetition is approached in a different way. The choir versions are especially engaging. Unfortunately I don't think it's enough. It still comes across as repetitive, partly due to how many of the repetitions use woodwinds in general and flutes in particular, but even with different instrumentation it would still feel same-y. The pacing and depth are similar throughout. The ending is also pretty inconclusive, which adds to the feel. There's a lot of really good stuff here, I just think that as a whole, it doesn't do enough to hold interest. NO (borderline)

Cinematic piratical grunge rock, not something I expected to be listening to today. And yet DusK pretty much nails it (as one would expect). Absolutely nails the feel. That said, there are some misses. The fiddle is much too quiet when it's used as harmony--I heard only a few seconds of it on the first listen, except for when it's the lead. I don't hear the hurdy-gurdy at all. Some of the noodling goes a little off the rails, but never for long. I have mixed feelings about the fade-out; it sort of sounds like the intro to a movie, segueing from the opening sequence to character introduction, so there's a bit of an excuse there, but it's still a fade-out. None of the issues are really substantial, except that if you wanted the pirate-y instruments to be audible during the guitar-led parts, this would need to be reworked. I think the arrangement works as-is but that subtlety is lost. YES (but check-in with DusK to see if he wants to tweak it before posting)

For the most part, I agree with Gario. There are a few sections that I don't think work so well, though. The lead in 2:11-2:48 and 5:37-6:07 sounds much thinner and more bland, especially in the higher registers, and not only does it not really mesh with the rich retro synth soundscape, it's a bit too quiet. It has some timbre to it, but it's largely drowned out and hard to appreciate; when it gets louder in 6:07-6:37 it sounds much better. It's not a bad little synth, but the nice parts of it just aren't audible. I'm also not the biggest fan of the LFO e-piano chords in 3:19-4:18--the oscillation is a bit strong and distracting--but I can live with them. I was actually mulling over this one for a long time and couldn't put my figure on why it didn't sound right, until I realized it was that one synth that sounded so amateurish that it was bringing the rest down. I think it just needs to be a bit louder so that the texture of it becomes audible. It seems like a small thing but it's really affecting my ability to appreciate the piece. Otherwise I'm on board. YES/CONDITIONAL (on making that one synth clearer)

It's a weird, frenetic source, and adapting it into anything else that actually flows is certainly a challenge. This effort is a little hit-or-miss; 1:23-1:46 in particular seemed out-of-place. It works well more often than not, though. The kicks are a little loud and throbbing, especially in the quiet sections. They really punch you in the eardrums in 0:35-0:58. They sound like they're causing some ducking there, which is excessive and unnecessary in such a quiet section. The hats also cut through the mix too strongly. After many, many listens, I think I'm basically on board, except that those kicks and hats get more grating the more I listen to them. Tone those down and I think this is good to go. YES/CONDITIONAL (on quieter kicks and hats)

Clearly a huge improvement over the version we originally heard submitted for the album. Production is mostly clear, just a little mushy when the reverb gets up there. The leads are suitably emotive now. Overall it's a creative, engaging approach, and I'm very glad it got another pass. A worthy addition to the album and to our library. YES

Ditto on the sound design, it was definitely vanilla and thin. That's my biggest concern. The source connection seemed roughly reasonable; it does use the melody somewhat, and the source does have a distinct harmony that the remix uses extensively. I'm okay with the structure, just not the instrumentation. NO

Well, this is a lot of fun! Despite the collaboration, it's still just about everything I expect from a Jorito mix. It's a great arrangement, with a very creative approach, and really captures the intended feel. The vocals are a little flat and nasal but serviceable. It's also mixed oddly quietly--I see over 2dB of headroom; I had to turn my volume all the way up to hear it adequately, and even then it was a bit quiet. Otherwise, this is pretty darn good. YES/CONDITIONAL (on volume increase) Update 10/17/19: New render sounds great. Update 6/22/20: Larry makes a good point. I think maybe when I was listening to the revision I didn't pay close enough attention to how much easier it became to hear the issues with the vocals. They are frequently nasal and off-key. There's also a lot of enunciation that sounds more like speech than singing, e.g. hard R's and long A's. I know it's been a year since our initial votes, but I'm going to flip and say that a stronger vocal performance really is called for here. NO

I'm going to lean the other way, I'm afraid. I was listening to the source and the arrangement back and forth, and I frequently found myself not even noticing which one I was listening to. To be sure, it's slower, but the ambience and textures are so very similar. I also agree that it's underdeveloped; take out the slow-burn intro and the underwhelming ending and there's barely two minutes of fully fleshed-out content. I waffled on this a lot, but I'm coming down on this mostly for not being interpretive enough. Add in some exposition and/or change up the textures a bit and I think this is golden. NO (borderline, resubmit)

A nice, mellow, conservative take on the source. I'd say a little too conservative, with a lot of it being basically an ocarina cover with a tiny bit of flavor from bells and whatnot, but there are some extra sections thrown in, and a few more harmonies in the second half of the arrangement, that mix things up a little. The ending is pretty lackluster. My one significant concern is that the ocarina is mixed pretty high. It's shrill to the point of discomfort, and when it's doubled starting at 2:20, it's quite hard to listen to. I do have old man ears, though. I'm not quite as happy with this as I usually am with Tripp mixes, but I think this gets the job done. I might change my mind if others also take issue with that shrill production, though. YES (borderline)