XPRTNovice

I'm going to echo a lot of the other judge's opinoins here, but at the risk of sounding unoriginal, we're on a grid the entire time for this piece and it makes it feel not human at all, which sometimes can be OK if we're in a genre like EDM, but for something like prog metal (and I use the term lightly) we need something that doesn't sound programmed. We can get a little messier with the programming here with some automation and some light touches within the instruments to get them to sound a bit more performed and a little less programmed. Second, there are some mixing issues that I am going to call out that need to be fixed, particularly in the bass. There's massive mud going on around 150-200hz in the bass. I have a finely tuned space and it's resonating pretty hard in here. The bass really was fatiguing my ears by the end of this piece like I needed to turn the whole thing down. And as a result, you've got your drums a bit buried (particularly the kick) and the whole thing comes out unbalanced. I don't need to cite a specific section here because it's fairly pervasive to my ear. There are several sections where it just sounds sparse, particularly the introduction and the ending. Some of this, I think, will be fixed by your humanization, believe it or not, because our ear will be perceiving different performances and even though there's not more instrumentation, it'll SOUND like there's more instrumentation. But, you could probably also use more instrumentation, particularly in the ending. There's so much blank space in the soundscape, and also in the rhythm, that we get the sense that it's thin and incomplete. A very cool interpretation of this source, but we've got some work to do. Good luck! NO (resubmit)

I really like the idea behind this but there are a couple of things that are making me give this a NO. First, the hardpanning. If we're going to make a soundscape, but only use 10% of the field, we're not really making an ambient track. Instead I get the feeling like I'm a little paranoid because nothing is in my center perception. There's TONS of room here to expand and try new and different things, which leads me to point number two. The interpretation. I don't feel like we really intepreted this at all; most of what we've got is in the same key, tempo, and flavor as the original, with better sound files. While I don't necessarily need you to tell me a story in a piece like this, I do need to feel like this is a new take. In this case, while I really do ENJOY listening to this take, I don't feel like it's substantially interpreted enough to hit above the bar. NO

omg this piece has SUCH a fun vibe, there's a lot of good happening here! But ultimately there are a lot of volume issues that are honestly maybe 30 minutes of work away from making this a clear pass. Examples below. Guitar melody at 1:09 could use some EQ trimming of the low/mid freqs so that you can bring out that melody without adding mud to the mix. I love 1:20. Just so happy feeling. Same melodic issue at 1:35 with the piano; its overtaken by the background instruments and the bass especially. You can trim EQ of that piano to give you more headroom to bring it out. 2:00 is a perfect mixing shine for me; I love the flute and trumpet and they are balanced perfectly. But then we get the loud drums popping in at 2:15. But 2:00 is the kind of balance you should shoot for throughout the piece. To me the mixing is the thing that's pushing it below the line. The drums are way too far out in front for me. But I LOVE the attitude of the piece and the guts of it; I really just think this needs some volume adjustments to pass. NO (borderline/resub!)

Alright let's get down with the Funktertale. I'm going to echo a lot of what people said here, namely that there's SO MUCH GOOD going on here. The character of the piece is awesome and I can tell you put a lot of heart into making it. I DO think the piece is too long, arrangement wise, and a lot of the fat could be trimmed without hurting the piece. In fact, it would probably enhance it. The guitar really needs to be humanized - it doesn't feel like a lot of attention was paid to making the performance sound believable, and it absolutely needs to come out more in the mix. Satriani wouldn't be in the background like that! And I feel like that's the the way the guitar goes through most of the piece. It's too much in the background, and too robotic. There were parts in the piece where I actually lost it entirely, and couldn't pick it out, but when it came back in it was clear it was supposed to be the star of the show. There's a lot of other comments here that I think are too buried in detail - the mix is near passable IMO but needs more attention paid to the articulations, the lead guitar, and I think you could benefit from killing a couple repeats. You could easily kill a minute of this piece without losing its power. Maybe this is the author in me, but I'm almost always trying to cut things by 20% on my first editing pass when I'm writing - I think you could benefit from that here. NO (resubmit)

Really liking this in a lot of ways, but I def think the rain needs to get pushed to the back gradually here so that it's not stealing the thunder (no pun intended) from the rest of the great arrangement that's playing out in front. Chimps suggestion to EQ it to carve out some space for instruments may work well, you may even experiment with automating the EQ so that it gives way over time. The 2:40 transition was definitely abrupt, and I feel like we're getting mixing issues right up front. That pounding kick is punching through the whole mix for me, and the lead guitar could come out a bit as well. Crash cymbals at 3:10 were distracting in the mix as well. We rebalance at 3:25, and for about a full minute I kind of feel like we meander without a clear direction, and then back to a massive slam at 4:35. I still feel like there's something off with that kick as we get here, like it's punching through too much. The lead guitar at 5:25 is in a much better place than the previous metal section. From an arrangement standpoint, I feel like this could stand to take like almost a 35% cut and it would still retain the story you're trying to tell. I get a lot of repetitiveness in here, and a lot of not really knowing where we're going or why we're going there. At 7:17, with essentially only two sections, I found myself in love with the chapters, but not with the book, if that makes any sense. It's just too much of itself. Honestly, I think this one needs a big haircut, and there are enough mixing issues that I'm going to give this a resubmit. NO (resub)

I really like the lo-fi vibe going on here, and was grooving with the piece for the first minute. It's a settle-back kind of piece, and I respect the choice to not go bonkers with throwing the kitchen sink in there. That being said, there's not enough here. Mixing is solid - nit pick is that the drums and bass are too far forward, but only by a pinch. Enough to muddy my ears, but be gentle when tuning it back. It doesn't need that much adjustment. Ultimately I have to agree with a lot of other judges on this one; I need more of whatever this is. This 100% is in Quentin Tarantino's version of Majora's Mask, but also sort of suffers from the same problem that most of his movies do; it meanders and doesn't really get to the point. With a track that's only 2:45, though, you have some room for experimentation and fun - a B section would be awesome here. NO

Man this has such a cool 80s vibe. It's happy and spunky with sparkle with the right amount of lo-fi stuff going on. I personally have no beef with the general midi/old OCR sound; I think the throwback is intentional and you made a choice. 0:57 though, what's going on with that organ or piano in the back? It sounds like it's like...out of tune? If there's some kind of pitch warble on there in the FX chain, I would turn that off or pick a sample that doesn't do it. It's the right timbre, but it actually sounds disonnant, which does not jive with this piece. It actually might be the bass. It could be a mix of both? It's hard to immediately tell, but something is happening with the bass and that piano that makes it sound not right. Drums are generally rinse and repeat for the entire song until that breakdown at 2:35 3:15, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be listening to - the lead is buried WAAAAY back in the mix, almost like it's a karaoke piece. If you're making a saw lead statement, make it. Make sure we're hearing the story we're supposed to be hearing. Piano at 3:45 is too harsh and in the front, and that harshness continues through 4:20 and buries what is otherwise an underwhelming wolf-howl of a lead that fatigued my ears by the time it was done. The piano outro is great, though there's some mud going on at about 400hz. To me though, the song was over at about 5:04, and the rest of the arrangement threw me off. It feels like it ends for 30 seconds or so, and it would have made more sense in context to just kill the piece there after the piano thing. There's so much good going on here, but it needs better attention to detail in the mixing before it's passable. NO (resubmit)

Flute and lead guitar are mixed really well, I love the place it sits in the mix. The beginning up to :29 was a little out of character for the rest of the piece I could definitley use more bass throughout, but that's not a dealbreaker. I don't think it's a mastering issue; I think the bass needs to come forward - at 2:15, I start to hear some low end mud probably around 200hz that might be preventing you from turning up the bass without clipping. Maybe do a little EQ sculpting and see if we can't get that bass more to the front on a final pass. The high trumpets come through nice and clean, really enjoying that sound. The arrangement is a touch long; at 3:00 I kind of felt I'd heard what you had to say and was expecting the song to come to a conclusion, then was surprised to see that I was barely halfway through. The section between :30 and 3:00 would not suffer from deleting one loop, especially since you revisit this later in the piece. The ripping guitar lead at 3:35 def needs to come to the front - that was a GREAT little solo but it got buried in the back. The choir secton 3:30-4m is brilliantly arranged, but less brilliantly mixed. The chorus - along with the accompanying lead guitar - should come RIGHT to the front and get in my ear. There are some timing issues within the chorus performance that, while humanizing, are distracting. I hear a lot of the drums and rhythm guitars, but not a lot of the stuff that's actually making the section. The piano arps in the background muddy it up as well. The re-entry at 4:10 is GREAT. Probably my favorite part. 4:20 suffers from a mixing problem again; the lyrics are all the way in the background. I hear mostly brass stabs and drums here. That carries all the way through 5:15 and further, where I am getting lost in the wall of sound. 6:30 needs more lead guitar in front. This piece is definitely suffering from burying the most interesting parts. I love this; I think with some polish, this will be an incredible track, but the mixing stops me from passing it NO (resubmit)

Lots of great stuff going on here. Cool take on a couple of sources that mixes some really heavy metal stuff with more melodic stuff. Drums are overall too loud and chew up a lot of the great stuff going on. 1:45 was a big culprit here. 2:24 as well. There's something going on on the hihat in the L sound of the space at 1:00 that crackles in a strange way - I actually thought someone was stirring something in the kitchen for a while, but I think it was the hi-hat sample getting a little wonky. Listening a second time - I feel like maybe bringing the guitars up, instead of the drums down, might fix some of this. I feel like the guitar chonk-a-chonks are the thing that should be driving the piece, but instead we get kind of a stale, repetitive drumbeat instead. 3:20 I kind of lost a lot of the piece entirely due to everything being slammed together. Have to agree with Liontamer abotu 3:33-4:26. This mix needs work; drums are overwhelming, the parts are blending together in not a great way, the melody is somewhat lost in there. Ears were extremely tired by the time the section finished because of wall-of-sound. The ending has such a great vibe, but I think the transition to it was a little abrupt. I would likely change my mind if I hadn't just been soured by the mix from 3:33-4:26 NO (resubmit)

I have to say I really didn't expect what was going to happen at 1:25 but then it happened and I was happy. This arrangement is supremely weird in the best kinds of ways. My major issue with the piece is basically what many of the judges here have already said; the piece feels thin and underdeveloped. When we DO have the full ensemble, we get good balance and mixing, even if some of the timbres are a little stale, but the in-between stuff lacks depth. It doesn't have to remain powerful - it's that contrast that helps us appreciate the big booming parts - but if you listen to the first minute and a half, and the last minute in particular, it feels like we're just missing a huge part of the sound spectrum. The drums in the beginning feel sparse, as well as the lead, kind of like you were sketching the skeleton of the piece but never gave it the rest of the muscle and fat that go with making a full body, an analogy that I am going to depart from now becuase it's kind of gross. My suggestion might be that if you ARE going to make the choice to be intentionally thin (and I am assuming here) then make it. This tune reminded me of a Trigun track https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-9iDfnBxLA - if you listen around 1:10, you hear this thin drum sound in the background with a full flute over it, but the arranger there made a clear choice, so the listener isn't confused. This is a good piece, and definitely exceeds the OCR bar in many ways. With some polishing, it would be a clear post. NO (resubmit)

*crashes through the wall* FFT SAX QUARTET?! I am honor bound to give some nitpicks, which I will do below. Soprano had a fairly noticeable flub in the first 10 secs. Eighth notes at 1:35 between bari and tenor could have been tighter, and probably could still be tightened with some production. Could have used stronger distiction on Tenor at 2:15 re: triple tonguing or double tonguing. It gets really strong at 2:40 but before then in the lower register it suffers a bit and often sounds like double tonguing instead because that middle note just doesn't come through. If I wanted to really nitpick, I'd say spend some time in editing taking out things like the key slaps that AREN'T part of the notes. You hear key sticks before the final notes, in the middle of the silence on the Alto part. Some might argue this ads to the realism of the performance, like you're in the audience, but personally it distracted me from whatever else was going on at that moment. Espeically since there's so much reverb in the mix (which I might consider toning down, but also could be your choice for that classical sound), the key slaps/other sax noises carry further than they should anyway. But these are pieces of feedback from a sax player with sax ears - on the basis of OCRs standards alone, excuse me while I pass the shit out of this one. Well done. YES

Great job here. Production is clean as hell. Arrangement wise this is great. Lots of variation in the theme, and it's a fun take on a classic. You always get the sense that you're in the theme, but you also take lots of liberties and departures that keep it interesting, even with a piece pushing 7 minutes of content off an essentially 45 second theme. I think if I was being picky, you could have shaved a minute or so off this piece without losing strength of content, which is always a good choice to make in my opinion, particularly in the section starting at 4 minutes ish. That felt like kind of a repeat of some of the beginning to me. I would have liked the melodic voices to come out a bit at 1:00 or so, as I was really kind of just getting the bassline. This ended up being my biggest critique throughout the entire piece, as I felt like I was more often than not just riding on that bassline, and I was wanting more of the source to come through. Making it subtle like that is definitely a choice though, so if that's the choice you wanted to make I won't hold it against you from a judging standpoint...it feels intentional, it just didn't necessarily jive with what I wanted in the piece. The drop at 1:45 is satisfying and well-built. Vocals are on point and haunting, but again, I feel like they could have come out more to the front. I understand that the feature of the song is kind of the bass and rhythm, but I wanted more of the melodic voices up front in this section as well. Overall though, this is a clear pass for me with just some eyebrows on some of the stylistic choices. Great job. YES

The intro is LIT. I'm not on board with the criqiues about repetetiveness because I think mentally we've all honestly heard this song enough in our lives, and the source seems to repeat interminably. But the interpretation is solid, as is the arrangement, production, instrumentaion and mixing, with a lot of different takes on the melody. It's not exactly theme-and-variation level interpretation, but it's enough that it captures the original and does some fun stuff with it. No, not the most interpretive and innovative arrangement of this tune that I've heard, and could it maybe use a bit of a work-over for tightness? Probably. Stylstically, I think the fade-out is unnecessary, and doesn't jive with the way the rest of the piece was composed. This should end definiteiylve and largely, and you've got the chops. Fading out kind of also psychologically adds to the idea that it's repetitive, as that's what happens when you fade out, you know? So, I'm passing this, but I really do think some tightening up of the arrangement along with a banger of an exit would really help this thing soar. YES

This is really in your face pretty much the entire time, with a wall of noise. I don't get the sense that the instruments are mixed appropriately either from a spacial perspective or a volume perspective; it's like I'm listening to a metal track in mono, and that wall of sound just crushes you until 1:30. After that, it gets a bit better because we have some drop outs in instrumentation, but it crowds again by the time 2:00 rolls around and really doesn't stop. Stylistically, I get that this type of metal is by definition a little dirty, but this really just kind of comes across as a wall of sound to me that makes it hard to listen to, and certainly not for 8 full minutes of what seems to be quite a bit of repetition. NO

Was a little worried at the exactness of source usage in the beginning but then I entered a middle eastern club at 0:25 The singing is produced really well, these beats are hot as the desert sun, and the source usage is inventive and snappy. This is great stuff. This could have been a direct post in my opinion. If I were to offer the pickiest of nits, I'd say maybe that the lyrics could have come out just a touch, particularly the male. I occasionally lost diction because it was buried in the mix, but stylistically this fits. I feel like there was a story being told in the lyrics that I wasnt' able to quite grasp, and I would have liked to hear it a bit more. YES

Man MQ just doesn't get enough love. This Bossa version of this is fantastic right out the gate, with a really great groove, good mixing, good production, and excellent performance. Agree with MindWanderer that this probably could have been a direct post. Really love that guitar tone too and the solo.

Uh, this is awesome?! Like, really, realyl, really good. It's mixed well, the performance is an easy ace, the production is great. The arrangement is fantastic. I...just don't hear the source. I don't think on OCR we should have to go and study it in order to make it recognizeable; I understand the remixers intent in slowing down the source and creating something new with it, I've done it myself, but in a case like this there's nothing that tells me on even multiple listens that we're dealing with the source material. But what a great song. NO

Long story short - I love this, but it's not enough of itself. Aside from a keychange and adding some drums, this seems to me to be more of an sound-upgrade of the source than an arrangement. The arp carries for almost the entire tune with barely a few moments rest. But I WILL say that the production is fantastic. I think it's well balanced, and the patches used are great. The space is filled nicely both from a L/R perspective and an EQ perspective; it's full and rich and well done. There's just not enough arrangement here for me to think this is passable. NO

Right away at 0:01 I am hearing the producers hand in a big way in the compression on the lead guitars; I hear them pumping and breathing in a distracting way, even though the performance is good. You don't need it there; the guitars are alone and unafraid and well played, and I don't think you need to squash them. Let them sing! Overall though, I am missing a huge part of the sound spectrum. This track sounds very mid-heavy in almost all the places; I don't get a lot of support from the bass and the kick drum to round out the mix, and the rhythm guitars are also pretty heavy in the mid freqs. This makes the lead synth, although well-played, sound even more intense because we already have so much going on. The flute needs some automation when it comes in at 1:40 - we only get half the phrases because the flute dips down into its lower register and ther. And then at 1:55 we start to get some really messy playing in there; the performance needs to be cleaned up. My ear is really fatigued by 2:15 because I really feel like I've just been listening to mid&high for most of the piece. The timing at 2:40 falls apart at my ear as well between the guitars and drums. That performance needs to be cleaned up IMO. Arrangement is really cool, there are really fun ideas, and we've got some really good talented performances in there, but the combination of timing/performance issues in those spots and me missing half the frequency spectrum is going to no this one for me. NO

Really creative interpretation of these two sources; you weave in and out of them with expertise, keep the listener interested, and avoid a lot of needless repetition. There's so much good stuff going on in here. Man that lead at 1:33 is fantastic. I would encourage you to bring it out when it gets into the lower register through some automation, because there were a few seconds where I lost it in the mix, but that's a nitpick. My biggest issue by far with this piece is the drums. I think I understand what you're going for here, but I think you're going about it in the wrong way, as has been iterated a few times by other judges here. Instead of having a "lo-fi drums" feel, what I hear instead is more of a "badly-recorded-drums" feel, which I know is not the reality nor the intent. Because everything else going on sounds so crisp and clean, and NOT necessarily lo-fi, it really accentuates the feeling of the drums not being up to snuff. It's bad enough that it really hurt my enjoyment of the piece overall and was distracting. But the good news is that I loved literally everything else, and when I say "resubmit" here all I am saying is "fix the drums." Everything else was pretty perfect to my ear. NO (resubmit)

Honestly, I was ready to NO this piece as soon as I heard it because of the drum mixing, from 0:01. It's really janky; the kick drum is very difficult to listen to, and the rest of the piece is buried by it. The spacial mixing seems okay, but I can't even get a good sense of what the piece really sounds like in a lot of places because the drums muddy the whole thing. That being said, christ alive the performances are amazing and the arrangement is off the hook. Timing is tight. Drum performance is amazing. The Yoshi Story ode was incredible. Whistling is impressive. The "Last Lap" motif is fun as hell. I'm like, really sad that I'm going to NO this based on the mixing, but to me it's a hard pass. NO

Damn this is like...lo-fi synthwave and I am here for it. Very cool choices made on the genre and direction of this piece. If I was going to get a little nitpicky, I'd love to hear a little bit more bottom end overall (but especially at 2:10). We had some bassy stuff leading up, and then it kind of drops out for me. Like, I want to be sitting in a big fat 80hz cloud for this piece, because it deserves it, and I think it would make the lo-fi ness stand out in a way that would be goosebumpy. I'd also say the high end instrument at the VERY beginning is just a touch too harsh and could come back in the mix. It sounds better when other instruments come in at 25 or so, but when it starts out it's abrasive on the ears. The kicks need a touch of EQ trimming maybe at like 150hz, that might give you some room there to make it sound fuller on the bottom. I think it's interesting in the way that I'm contrasting with some of the other judges on this one (like Darksim told you to turn the lows down and I'm telling you to make me a figurative cloud) and I think the weird sounds are actuallly beneficial to this piece. but one place I do agree is that I would have loved a bigger ending. This piece is SO unique and SO epic, that I think it deserved more than just a dropout. But that's your choice. Source...I dunno. I'm fine with source usage on this one. It was clear to me that this was an arrangement of the tune, and we benefit from the variations and departures in a way that enriches the original. YES

Man what a cool feel you've got going on here. I love the guitar performance and the soundscape you've chosen. I recommend taking just a sliiiight cut on the high freqs of the castanets, either with multiband compression or just simple EQ. They pop out of the mix too much; they're a perfect spice for the dish, but you've got too much of it on there. The TRUMPET solo. YES. Fits perfectly, performed well, mixed in great. When the solos start trading (organ, guitar, etc) I would say bring them out (particularly the organ - the patch you chose there for the organ kind of oscillates back into the background too much and I lose its presence in the main stage of the piece). Nothing dramatic, just a db or 2 to give the listener the obvious impression that the performers are standing out from each other. I'm on the fence here when it comes to the overall sound of the production. I feel like you've got everything in the right place, and mostly at the right volumes except for what I've called out above, but there's something about the mixing of the piece that's holding it back. As some other judges have said, there's a 250hz muddiness that can be pulled out in the bass guitar, which will then give you room to add in some other things and bolster other sounds. You've got so much room on the sides as Chimp mentioned, so USE that part of the soundscape. I am loathe to NO this, but I don't want you to take it as discouraging; I'm begging you to resubmit becuase this piece has incredible potentital with just a little more attention to detail in the mixing. GREAT job. NO (resubmit or else)

Some real guts taking on a source that's essentially four notes repeated over 45 seconds, haha! Intro's got some real power and groove, it put me in the mood right away, and the first drop at :45 was satisfying. Mix overall is top knotch; really kept all this power on a tight leash without letting it get out of control, which is impressive. Great job there. By 2:30, I'm starting to experience some ear fatigue. I feel like I've been listening to a lot of the same. We get our first sort of break at 3:00, but we fall right back into it pretty quickly and I feel like I'm back at the beginning of the piece. I'm going to concede here and say that the piece is great, the mixing is great, overall there is so much great stuff going on here, but it needs a haircut. If you're going to keep it this length (which I don't think anyone recommends) you're going to need to inject some serious innovation into it and really mix up the arrangement. But, I would save yourself the trouble and find the repetitive spots, cut them out, and I bet this piece will sit very nicely at about 4:00. And I might revisit the ending; rather than have it just sort of drop out, you might take the suggestions here about innovating on the source and some up with something creative and interesting. Throw the source out the window for 20 seconds and really blow it out. NO (resubmit!)

Okay, there's lots happening here, but ultimately a great arrangement foiled by mixing issues. :28 threw me; this doesn't feel tightly timed at all and really threw off a great intro. We fall back in at :45, but I feel like I hear more timing issues coming up now and then with the drums. The high guitar lead is too loud throughout this first section, as are the high hat sizzles; I'm hearing a lot of high end not supported by what should be some big fat low ends in this genre. The bottom kind of falls out of the mix around 1:51, almost like it was a totally different track. I know we're sort of switching feelings, but it sounds sparse; all of that stuff can come up to meet us when the rest of the metal part drops out. Mixing issues persist 2:20, we hear the strings way too loud over the guitar lead, which now gets buried in the background. Synth(violin) lead at 3:17 is totally buried, I can't figure out what is being played there enough to even judge the performance. The dump-everything-in-there drum fills at 3:30 kicked me out of the piece, it didn't seem like it fit there at all and I couldn't really hear what else was going on in the mix because it was just so chaotic and above everything else. A fantastic arrangement though; your interpretation of the source is innovative and interesting and the instrumentation is fun, but there are a lot of mixing issues here in addition to the timing mess at the beginning that are making this a no from me. I was left a little bit wanting at the end, but adding some of that low end back into the mix might help this; it felt like it was supposed to go out with a bang, but the bang was a little more like a fizzle. NO (resubmit)