XPRTNovice

I think it's absolutely fantastic how clear the improvements are here. I judged this last Sep and loved the arrangement but there were mixing issues and humanization issues with the samples. I'm not going to go over the bodhran issues, but I will say that I agree with them. That needs to back off and chill out and sit better in the mix. I do think there are still issues with particularly the attacks of the strings. If you found a cello player in our INCREDIBLE COMMUNITY I think this piece would really benefit from it, especially since it comes out so far in the mix. And it would solve a lot of the other problems you have with the samples. That's just a shortcut suggestion from me - get a human to do this. Humans are better at it. So. Fix the clipping, smooth out these attacks just a bit more (the best example I can give you is actually the violins in the beginning - do you hear how we have to wait in a slight moment of silence for them to come back in because it sounds like you're just using the basic attack setting on the arco? THAT's the kind of stuff that makes our brain go "fake" because humans don't play like that. Because these strings are so exposed, they take extra work to get right. It's ambitious, but you can do it. We're almost there. This piece is wonderful, I want you to understand that all 3 of us that just NOed this have said that with every vote we've given. We're giving you this feedback not because we don't like the piece, but because all of us can see its potential, and, by proxy, YOUR potential to really bring this piece to a new level with just a few more tweaks. NO (resubmit)

I've never heard the old version! So this is is a PURE VOTE unlike these other TAINTED judges. I feel like I listen to so many remixes where you have your work cut out for you just because you pick a source that is really difficult to develop. With this, you really only have like 3 notes to work with, and even in the original the 3 notes don't even necessarily make sense with each other. So you're coming from a really hard place, here. But then to try to turn it into a 5 minute long dance piece. Man. I feel like I am just hearing those same three notes over and over again for the whole piece, in the same octave, with the same lead, in the same place. I don't even really get a break from that repetitive lead until 3:35. And even then it's a short break before we're back in the carousel of those 3 notes, again, and again. The only thing that makes me hesitate on giving this a NO is the idea that the repetition is kind of genre-appropriate in its own way. But even when you're comparing it to trance music, this is still even a bit too much where by the end of the piece I am starting to feel physically anxious because I've just been hearing those 3 notes for five full minutes. The production is nice and clean. Many dance remixes like this fail in the drum department - you do not. The beats are innovative, varied, and the sections are fun in their own right, but we're about 2 full minutes too long with a source that's only about three seconds. NO

First thing that hits me is the kick drum, which I think might be my least favorite sample in here, because it lacks really any body, so I'm off to a bad impression here. It doesn't really fill out any more than that. We have all this rich tonality everywhere else in the mix, and then kind of a toy kick drum that's not giving the mix the support it needs to be successful, especially with this kind of 80s feel going on. I really enjoy the playfulness of the piece from an arrangement standpoint, but I am going to echo prophetik above that I feel like every section here is sort of a riff on the same theme, even though the source material has a lot more to work with, and there are a lot of imaginative ideas that could be poured into this. Because of that, I feel like I'm listening to the same 15-20 seconds of music over and over again with slightly different interpretation. Even though these interpretations are fun, it's like being told the opening paragraph to a story over and over again with a different character voice each time. That being said, I really like a lot of what's going on in here. It's hard to critique and praise the same element, but I really do love the transitions to different ideas and moods as we go through the piece. All of them seem mostly smooth to me, and the progression from one emotional element to the next left me feeling good listening to it. It just needs more than this one source melody element repeated throughout the piece. You absolutely have the skills to take this to the net level. NO

The vibes are fresh, salty seawater, and I love me an OCRemix that includes so much live instrumentation. Something that I don't think anyone else has said here: the lead guitar sounds really, really close to the rhythm guitar, which I think makes the lead get lost, and it confuses the ear. MAYBE if the rhythm gtr was really hardpanned to give that lead space in the middle you could get away with it, but even a small setting change on your pedal chain would make for a more distinct standout soloist in there. The content of the solo itself could probably use some melodic variation - performance wise I feel like the player is relying very heavily on the major scale of the key of the piece, and not necessarily following the changes in a way that could make for a more interesting melodic line. The drum kit is really missing some body. I think you can achieve the laid back vibe you're going for here but still make sure that we get a good base on which the whole tune can sit. I was iffy on the tightness of the group as a whole, but given the vibe it can be forgiven and maybe even enhance what's going on. The drum kit though does feel very top heavy, and as a result the whole piece feels top heavy because there's just not much to support it on the low end. I'm cool with it feeling like a beachside band that isn't perfectly mixed, but we're too far away on this. This is really really close and doesn't need a lot of work. I think a little beachy OCR is just what we need, but we're not quite there yet. NO (resubmit)

This opening is legit. Haunting and beautiful. Vocal line is well done. The flute sample really stands in stark contrast to the rest of it, as its not well humanized and of not great quality. Attacks and releases of this sample are really abrupt and stick out really far in the mix because of it. Especially when you have this very clean vocal line, the flute really tanks the feeling. I hear a lot more care taken to humanize and blend the strings in the background, but the lead instrument of the piece doesn't seem to get the same attention and it makes for a sort of anxious, stuttering performance that doesn't allow me to enjoy this otherwise very nice soundscape. I have some similar concerns to what I think are the french horns in the background, where they sort of explode randomly into and out of existence as though the modulation automation had an unnatural spike. The attacks/releases Arrangement wise, I'm also going to say that I don't know if we're passing the bar for interpretation here. Other than the intro and a few embellishments in the flute, we essentially have a 1:1 cover here. I'm sure that an argument could be made subjectively on that point. We have a little key doodling at 1:45 and 2:14 but for the most part this feels very much like the original to me. This would be a really amazing opportunity to reach out to the incredible community of musicians we have at OCR just waiting for someone to hand them a tasty flute part. I would be more inclined to pass this with a better main instrument performance, even considering the weaker interpretation score, but right now for me I can't pass this one. NO

I actually had trouble figuring out which was the source and which was the remix for the first minute or so, which can be effective in some cases, but in this case we have the same key, tempo, instrument - it's essentially a copy of the original for the first 30 seconds. Sometimes that can feel like an homage, but only if it's brief and only if the rest of the track is a departure. In this case the arrangement basically takes the source as written and ads a few new elements to it, mostly in the form of background marcato strings, and this is a pattern for most of the arrangement. Not that it's not well done, though sometimes there are elements of those marcato/staccato strings that are too far out in front, but there's not a lot of innovation going on here, and when it does, it's mostly established and then set on repeat. The vocal performance section in the middle is very fun. The sample pack could probably use a little more care and feeding when it comes to make it sound more human, which is not something I'd normally harp (no pun intended) on if not for the fact that it's so exposed. Because it's out in the open like that, you need to really sculpt that sample to the maximum of its capacity to get it sounding as human as humanly (pun intended) possible. I hear more fun developments from singer to the end, but it does come off repetitive, and more like a sound upgrade as Hemo posted above than an arrangement. NO

Hey there! This is really good production of a track that is lacking enough content to pass the bar. I try to never read other judges' opinions before I start, so it's even more poignant that everyone above points out what I'm about to say below, which is that we have 4 bar phrases repeated throughout the piece that just lack content. Track feels underdeveloped, with a lot of repeats; the first 1:20 of the song is actually only two different 4 bar phrases that are repeated. Once we get into the meat there at 1:20, I'm enjoying the groove....but we immediately fall back into another 4 bar phrase that's just repeated 4 times until 2:00, at which point we get another 4 bar phrase repeated 4 times. My satisfaction with each change you make doesn't last, because I'm quickly put back into the rinse and repeat. Lead that came in at 2:44 was fun! That's what I've been waiting for the whole track! Yes! More of this! Give me content, tell me a story with your music, my man. Paint me a picture. What we've got here is just the canvas. But then shortly after that wonderful display of raw potential, we're out. And we're out by just sort of stopping a repeated 4 bar phrase at the end of it. Overall this feels like the skeleton of a song (that could be really good) and I really want to encourage you to keep going and develop this further. NO (resubmit)

I love the Casio printer style intro followed by like, dime-store handheld music samples. This is a fun way to start a song. verbally yelled "fuck yeah" when the guitars came in - but I do have to say that I think there's something that could be Eqed in there to make them come out a bit; I think we've got too much in the 200hz range on the EQ there, and maybe not enough in the highs. Because you have the synth covering those Freqs, carving out some space for the guitars would really make them come out cleaner and more powerful imo I could use a tighter EQ on the kicks, but this is a nitpick. Maybe a bit more punch by hitting that 2k hz range a touch or even a little bit of compression on that sucker to make it really punch out. I think that problem with the kick stands out a lot at 2:20 when it's essentially the only thing holding up the lead synth there; if it was punchier and more powerful, that whole section could come alive a bit more. Making me wait for something to print out before the drop at 3:00 was genius My literal only knock on this is the guitar EQ and some bass resonance after 4:00 that COULD be my room, but my room is professionally treated and tuned. This is a great arrangement, clearly above the bar, fun as hell to listen to, and an instant add to my OCR Workout Playlist that doesn't exist yet but should. YES

Literally thought I had accidentally opened the same submission to judge twice because of the email. Same problem with the snare on the last song. It's on autopilot, way too out in front, and not a good choice for frequency. This song suffers from the opposite problem as the other, in some ways, in that I feel like there's way too much going on in parts of the spectrum (the high end) vs not having enough fleshed out. The cymbal on top at 2:08 has the same problem as the snare, and now that I'm hearing them both together I can't focus on anything else in the piece. I don't necessarily have qualms with this from an arrangement perspective, but with the drums as they are, I can't say this is above the bar. But we have some production problems here - the consistently pan-delayed hihats, the snare, the crash - they're really hurting things. We need a fuller mix with better selections of instrumentation and a better mix of them before we can talk about passing this one, IMO. I don't want to leave this piece behind without saying anything positive, so I do want to say that I like the general vibe you've got going on here. It's very Mega Man, while still being original enough for my tastes. With a little more attention to detail on the production, I think this one will flesh out nicely . NO

Felt like the freq spec dropped out at :54 and didn't really come back in for 30 seconds. That snare is on autopilot and is sticking out pretty hard in my ears. 100% with prophetik on this one. When that thing is going, it's hard to focus on anything else - there's very little variety to it, and its soundscape sounds a little trash-can-lid. Got major transformers vibes at 1:50 The break at 3:00 is being murdered by this snare. We also have about a full minute here where very little seems to be going on, and its quite repetitive, until 3:50 where we get into the last bit of the song. In general, yeah, we gotta fix the drums, particularly the snare, and we gotta kill some of the repetition in the arrangement and fill back in some of the frequency spectrum that feel empty. I think that honestly could solve some of the arrangement problems by simply adding variety in the instrumentation - it would fill out the arrangement AND fill out the sound. NO

Audibly chuckled at Brad's graphic of the loudness. You certainly squeezed the shit out of that lemon. I also audibly yelled "fuckin A" at the first choir hit. Excellent entrance. Guitar playing is on point. The lead up to the first drop at 1:07. Is awesome and this is giving me such incredibly good Blind Guardian vibes that if you told me it was their track, I wouldn't even bat an eye. The instrument at 1:40 (tin flute, eqsque) is an awesome choice, very contrarian to the style and weirdly fits perfectly, BUT I think that given that you have so much other incredible performances in the rest of the song, its synthetic nature threw me off. It's such a small part that it would absolutely be worth your time to get someone to play that live, because it would add an incredible element to just that one moment. In the parts later in the piece where the tin whistle (I'm still not sure it's that) is in the background, it's camoflaged enough that it can survive, but when it sticks out, it really sticks out to my ears. Your guitar solo could stand to come out a bit more at 3:45. It's excellently performed, but it's just a touch back to my ears that I start losing some of your great noodling, especially behind the close-in-the-freq-spectrum trumpet stabs. My only other nitpick is that your combination of sounds for the excellently performed guitar countermelody at 5:20 ish is clashing with the tone selection of your hardpanned rhythm guitars. I lose the finesse of it, and it's such a good idea (and such an excellent contrast). I think there are a few ways to solve it, but I'll let you play with it if you want. If I it were my piece, I would probably automate an EQ carve-out of the ryhythm guitars to make room for that noodling because the noodling is more important. This thing is an absolute fucking banger. YES

I like the soundscape here, it's simple, easy to listen to, but I feel like we might be lacking a bit in the interpretation department to get this above the bar. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though! That means this piece has more potential, and I hope you have a ton of fun bringing it there. Before 1:00 the melody I think needs to come out. It's buried back there, and it probably needs another 2-3 db of volume to really qualify as a lead. The section after 1 has a nice groove to it, and I think may be the most full part of the song, except I'm not really getting the sense of anything being a "lead" until 1:40, where we drop back into the melody pretty much exactly as the source is written. Your mixing and production is on point, though it's coming out a little soft to me. Even just a quick normalization pass on this would eke another 3db out of the whole track, which I think it needs. Overall, though, this is feeling more like a sketch than a finished arrangement to me. We're mostly sticking to the source, particularly the melody, as it was without much interpretation behind changing the vibe a few times. The soundscape sounds a little sparse, like there is room to make some stronger choices to fill the space. I can tell there's absolutely potential here and I would love to see you finish this! NO (please resubmit)

I have no recollection of hearing this before, so I am coming into this without judgments on previous mixes. I agree with Larry that there's maybe too much room in the middle, but I didn't listen on phones. I might consider making that adjustment, but it's not so bad because there are so many elements in here that it does seem to fill the space, as paradoxical as that might sound. There is an overall deadness to the sound here, but it's more in the "could be better" than "Doesn't pass the bar" territory. It sounds muffled, like the whole tune is coming at me from behind a pillow. This I think is the biggest overall problem with the piece. I like the variance of the leads and the instruments, swapping between leads in order to keep the relatively simply melody interesting. The ending was nice; I enjoyed you playing with the tempo there and having it feel like it came to some conclusion rather than just dropping out. To me this passes the bar, despite the adjustments I suggested above. YES

SUPER solid, full mix. Really utilizes these expensive speakers. The groove is nice, good pace. You know your way around the genre for sure. There's a but. I gotta say though it's a touch repetitive, especially since we're really only playing with one slice of the melody for almost all of the arrangement. Not just a touch. It's really repetitive. We basically have one melody that we hear throughout the song, and though we switch lead instruments, often that lead instrument goes for a full minute of repetition before moving onto something else, and then we don't really get much of a break before coming back to that very same melody over and over again. By 2:45, I was really, really tired of hearing it. By 4:30, I had to stop listening to the song. There has to be something that can be done with the interpretation for that lead that makes it easier to listen to, because right now it's giving me the impression of a doorbell being rung over and over again. The source is repetitive, yes, but I've seen lots of things done with sources that are half as rich as this. You can split the lead in half, you can double time it, half time it, add harmonies. Add flourishes. Right now it's a copy/paste of the original, and then copy/pasted many times over. NO (vary arrangement and resubmit)

Intro: okay, I'm groovin. I'm groovin. We've got chiptune, it's lo-fi, it's fun. Enjoy the bass coming in at :50. Not too much, still stylistically appropriate, followed by a HELL OF A DROP. I enjoyed that a LOT. It was so atypical and interesting to my ear, and then we kick this shit right in at 1:18. Got actual goosebumps there because I was not expecting it and it was very well done. The drums are starting to fatigue my ear here just before 2:00 - I think it might be because we have so much high end in this arrangement. With a it more low end that might temper out, or you might drop the chipsnare by a paltry 2db. Also loved the drops/hits at 2:35. Enjoyed how they played on the earlier thing you did, but added a little variation. Overall, I think my brain wanted a more full soundscape of this piece, with more of the frequency spectrum being used, but that might be a stylistic departure that you're not wanting. I try hard to say less of "this is how I would do it" and more "this is what it makes me feel" so there's that. While I agree with Brad on the "missed opportunity" - which is somewhat what was trying to say above about wanting some more fullness in here - I don't think we can equate a lack of potential to missing the bar. YES

So this is my first introduction to the debate around this subgenre, and I have to say I don't quite get it. I'm able to parse out everything with my ears. Yes, it's heavy, yes there's a lot going on, but to me, everything has its place. My only critique on this side would be that the drums, particularly the cymbals, are too far back, but it's almost a nitpick. My main beef with this piece is the length. It doesn't give me enough story to bear repeating so many times. I'm huge on brevity, and my gut tells me you could literally cut almost 50% of this piece without harming it. I understand the lean towards almost an Opeth level of length, but to me it fatigues my ear and breeds disinterest. By the time 3:45 came around, I couldn't believe I had only finished half the song. This is where maybe I could understand a stylistic/philosophical discussion of "I want you to be washed in these 4 measures for 4 minutes, the monotony is the point" but I'm not sure I'm on board with it. Then the song just sort of...ends. We don't get a build that's very different from what happened before it - we essentially get another serving of the first half of the song relatively unchanged, followed by a sort of random hit at the end. For me, its arrangement, but I'm borderline on it. The piece feels like a treadmill - even if it is a well-mixed, fun treadmill. Given the discussions above, maybe there's something I don't understand about this subgenre, but there needs to be an ending to this piece. NO (resubmit)

I mean, yes, we're all in agreement here on the mastering side of it. Needs to be louder, I'm turned up quite a bit just to hear everything. But I have some other production/arrangement critiques. The repetitive cello lick that starts at around 2:00 goes on forever, and is the most prominent part of the arrangement. The strings often sound out of place, with the entrances/exits of them being really abrupt. The cello dominates for a huge part of this arrangement, but doesn't really have much to say. I'll be honest, I love this arrangement. I think it's absolutely beautiful, and I feel sad that I have to NO this based on what I'm hearing. This is really ambitious, but the strings overall kept kicking me out of the arrangement. The attacks and releases need to be smoother, more carefully planned, specifically because you have them as such a prominent part of the arrangement. The highs are often really high, and the cello/dbl bass sticks out like a sore thumb through a lot of the arrangement. The real issue here is overall blending. The 1:33 violin sustain is very loud compared to the rest of what's going on, and hardpanned to my left ear so it's just sitting there out in the open. The drums and vocals, to me, are mixed the best, and they're the feature of the piece, but the foundation sustaining them isn't working. I want to emphasize how much I love this, and how ambitious this is, but we're falling really short in the mixing department for me on this one. NO (resubmit)

Okay, so, this arrangement is awesome. Personally I don't care if you're trying to fill the shoes of the references you named, and I'm not going to judge whether or not it passes the bar based on whether or not you hit a target. I think this is a great interpretation with a lot of really fun interesting things going on. But I am going to no it because of the mixing. If you ARE going to go for this hybrid EDM thing, the sound has to be full and vast, with a lot more punch and substance. Right now, I feel like we're really missing a lot of the bottom half, almost like you carved it out intentionally in mastering, since it seems to be missing in all of the instruments, not just the ones that should be providing that bottom end. This arrangement has so much power, but it's hamstrung by the way you put it all together. I don't care too much about the panning, but I do care about the way that it's taking a lot of incredible instrumentation and sucking the life out of it with EQ. My issue with giving feedback is that I am not entirely certain how to do it because it's SO busy and there's SO much going on in SO many places that I can't really pick out specific things for you to add foundation to, but I would start with the kicks and the bassline. Also, watch how many times you're stacking pads, and watch how they're EQed as well. I hear several of them stacked on top of each other, so what that does is skew the curve to the right, and suddenly we're missing a lot of stuff. This is a really great arrangement, I know this can be incredible with a little bit of work! NO (resubmit!)

Man thank you for introducing me to this cool ass source. I've never even heard of this game, and this is an 8-bit BOP. This is a great mix. I love the vocal callouts, I love the mixing. THe track is full without being overbearing. We've got some good room to dance without the repeats being draining on my patience/ear. We get a nice break at 1:21 for a few seconds as we build back in, with the chiptuney stuff in the ground being fun. And oh look a modulation. Nice. I'm really not a dance guy, and repetition bothers the hell out of me, but it's funny to me that I'm at odds with other judges on this one re: repetition. Could you have done more with the last third? Yes. Would I have loved to hear that? Yes. Do I think you should do it? Yes. But does it make it so that it doesn't pass the bar for OCR? Nah, I don't think so. It's a YES from me. If you WERE to try to turn this from a B+ into an A, I would just nod to the comments of the other dance afficionados here - variety, storytelling, and an ending worthy of the first two thirds of the piece rather than the sort of flop-over-dead one that you've got in there right now. YES

Okay. This arrangement ROCKS but needs mixing fixes bad before it passes the bar for me. First note suffers from being a copy paste and we get like, half a measure in there. LEft-panned guitar solo is jarring, too far in front and...left panned. Should be much more center. Fixed a bit when the ocarina ?? synth? second guitar? comes in on the right side, but it's still very imbalanced, and having all the important parts come out almost hardpanned left is really distracting. When more instruments come in at 1:06, it fixes some of the panning for like a second, but then we get another strong instrument (the sax) ALSO being panned to the left, keeps me leaning one way on my chair in not a good way. These pannings can be automated to move the balance around as the song requires it so that we're never feeling like the song is lopsided. Love the instrumental performances all around. Very solid. 2:09 saxophone feels like it's missing a huge part of the soundscape and you need to add that EQ back in. If I dropped this into a parabola, I'd see a gigantic lack of data below 1k, and then when the solo ends, we sort of mysteriously get a change in the EQ and it all of sudden appears on the right side of the sound spectrum with no clear transition as it fades away. Not sure what was going on there. Great solo though 2:35 guitar suffers from Left Ear Syndrome again. The ending is the part of the song where the arrangement falters. The rest of it is so great, and then we get the sense at the ending like everyone just sort of decided to stop playing. The kickdrum alludes to more coming, and then just sort of stops. But to me, it's the panning of this that really needs fixing. I would have passed this track easily without it, so I think it just needs some adjustments. NO

INTERIOR. DINER. NIGHT. Rosa and Cecil are at the end of a weekend-long Gysahl Green binge, dark circles under their eyes as tired old women in poodle skirts pour coffee for patrons that probably can't even taste it. A Shelby's alternator grinds outside, unable to start. Okay, so that's the vibe I'm getting from this, which is a fun and original take on this tune. The performance is loose- at some times, too loose, but in a way that kind of ads to its charm. The piece, overall, is really mechanical here for me, almost like a Band in a Box backing track to allow the guitar to do its thing. It's sleepy, and a little sloppy, and the ending sort of just...happens. This feels more like a rehearsal of a garage band than it does a performance. I really do understand why the judges are split on this one, and to be frank I am too. We're barely eking by the length requirement, and even at that 2:13 mark it doesn't feel like much happens in the tune. I am really torn between saying that the piece just needs more *something* and understanding that the vibe/genre/style might be broken if we added too much to it. The mix, to me, is fine. It's produced exactly like this genre should be produced, in my opinion. I'm erring on the side of YES, but with a friendly warning that the target genre is what's saving this; if a piece was this lackadaisical in any other genre, it would be a no from me. YES (Borderline)

Really ace job on the mixing on this one - the dance soundscape is full without being a wall of sound, you've got everything space right. The loudness is a feature, not a bug, and it's managed well by spreading out the source instruments in a way that doesn't make it feel overwhelming. Arrangement wise, it's a touch repetitive even at 2:45, but you vary things up enough to pass muster for me. The source isn't exactly rich with ideas, and you have some nice variety breaks like around 1:18 with the synthy stuff (and tubular bells, nice) coming in. We keep the driving feel of the dance beat throughout the track without fatigue. You also bring in a lot of different soundscapes that blend old and new, like Flex said, which I really found fun to listen to - and I really don't like dance music. Nice! YES

I gotta say, I wasn't really convinced about this one until things got moving around 2:06. We've got a lot of staleness in the mix, the kick drum is flat, without dimension, and the overall performances of everything except the guitar and organ are very programmed and mechanical. The piano sound at 3:01 is overcompressed to my ear, making it sound boxy and even occasionally getting small breathing/pumping effects in there, which kind of ruins the soundscape there. Then, having the piano in the background of the organ, still overcompressed, is throwing me out of the next section. The guitar performances lack a lot of expression, mostly have no vibrato, and the sustain on each note dies long before it should. Don't get me wrong, I really do feel like this arrangement is amazing. It's a beautiful reinterpretation of these sources, the time changes are fun, and the material itself never gets boring. But we've got some mix issues, some mechanization, and some flat samples and performances that keep this below the bar for me. I disagree with other judges that a good arrangement makes up for a lack of detail in the mixing - this track has potential to me, but it's not there yet. NO (please resubmit!)

I'm having a hard time with this one. I'm all about a slow burn and being patient with a piece of music. While I don't really think this needed to be over 6 minutes long, and a significant amount could have been cut without affecting the overall track, it wasn't a dealbreaker for me. My big issue is I feel like I'm missing half the frequency spectrum. The only thing we have going on in the low end for a huge portion of the track is the kick drum. We occasionally have some low synth/strings but they fall out repeatedly, keeping large portions of the mix in the top half of the hearable range. Given the bladerunner-esque soundscape we're dealing with, I feel like there's a lot of missed potential in making this sound full. Given that the piece IS so long, and we have to live in these sections for large amounts of time, to me it pushes it below the bar. Suggestions from me are all in the EQ - the piece just needs more information, and it can be done by either not cutting what you've cut, or adding things in. You can spread out the instrumentation in the stereo field, which then gives you more headroom to restore some of its information without making mastering a mess. NO(Resub)

My feedback on the original was incorporated here! I have no further comments. Nice adjustments. I think I just personally hate jingle bells. YES