jnWake   Judges ⚖️

That reference track is fun, I dig the vibe. Ok, so this starts just like the reference haha, on a different key apparently. There's definitely more reverb on the plucky synths though. Percussion enters at 0:16, it's more subdued than I'd imagined given the reference. Source melody enters at 0:32, joined by some really cool vocal chops (they were present earlier but they take a bigger role now) and a bass. Vocals and melody clash at times here, maybe some smart panning would help. At 1:05 we move to the second melody, also on guitar. At 1:36 we move to a new section, some interesting chords/harmonies here. Mix is quite muddy here. 2:08 is a it of a break with another source melody. We then return to the original melody until a somewhat sudden ending at 3:16. This is definitely a trip... Unlike chimpazilla above I don't have much qualms with the repetitive nature of the arrangement as I feel you do a good job of swapping instruments and melodies despite the general mood being somewhat static. I feel the arrangement nails what it's going for. That said, if you wanted to modify the arrangement, a good/fun trick would be to imitate the reference track on the quick key changes, always sound fresh even when melodies/sounds don't change much! However, I do have issues with the production. I don't have really have more references of the genre other than the you shared so I may be off the mark but I feel the usage of reverb isn't really doing its job. In my view, the intent of the reverb is to make the soundscape feel bigger, especially on the percussion. Here, however, the reverb is instead applied heavily to everything, creating a ton of mud on the soundscape and making the melodies and chords hard to hear. On another note, I feel the kick and snare should be much more present on the mix. Overall, this is a really cool concept and while I really enjoyed it I feel some extra work is needed to make it shine. Tame/modify the reverb so that it's creating the feeling of space you want but without it burying the melodies/chords and consider giving the kick/snare more presence (this one is probably just personal preference). NO

Ah, such a classic tune, definitely one of the best classic Mega Man tunes. Quick note before starting the breakdown, this seems to be mastered with a -6dB peak for some reason, we don't ask for that here so you can go ahead with a standard master aiming higher! Begins with piano doing a slightly sadder (less blues-ish) interpretation of the source's intro, lovely. Sound quality immediately catches my ears, it sounds very muffled and some notes are hard to discern (there's a left hand arpeggio around 0:04 where the left hand is basically mud). In a fun swerve the band joins in at 0:13, I really like that change since I was expecting a full piano solo rendition of the intro but instead we get an energetic feel quicker than the original. Sadly, the mix keeps sounding muffled, like proph mentions above there's a lot of content in the lower frequencies and few in the higher ones (you can easily check this with an EQ plugin and I'd recommend having a reference track to compare). After a small break we get the guitar lead at 0:30, I like how it sounds, I was expecing something bad given your write-up but I think it sounds great. Anyway, we get some source melodies on guitar after a few bars, I really like the mood you created here, it's emotional but hopeful. At 1:10 there's a repetition of the main melody on different instruments and at 1:24 a small piano break followed by a quick build-up and then a guitar solo. Still enjoying the guitar work a ton, although there's parts where the lead guitar randomly decreases in volume for no apparent reason. Another repeat of the main melody at 2:09. There seems to be some sort of glitch at 2:29 and at 2:36 I'm pretty sure there's some artifacts, is it possible you actually rendered this at very low quality for some reason? Anyway, near 2:52 we move to another piano break and the track quickly ends. I think the outro could've had a few more bars of development as it feels sudden (and you can let the final note ring longer!). On arrangement I really like this! Maybe it's my bias but piano driven rock is such a mood. You did a great job adding your own touch to a well loved original and ended up with a cool take. Not much notes from me on this, except for maybe developing the end a little more. On production, however, this really needs more work. It sounds muffled and low quality, and the mix itself is also muddy. The rhytm guitars are completely buried on the mix for example. It's usually tough to balance piano with guitars thanks to some overlapping frequencies but it's definitely possible to make it work. There's also a few glitches and audio artifacts that should be fixed. Sadly, while I love the arrangement the production is way below the standards at the moment. Please hit the #workshop channel on OCR's Discord because I need a polished version of this remix to exist! NO

Like seph, I hadn't heard the source before, surely a banger. Anyway, this begins with a clav doing the main chord progression and is quickly joined by bass and percussion. Immediately noticeable is the low volume of the master. At 0:15 we move to the first melody of the source, played pretty straight from the source, although the bass line is different. On that note, bass is very overpowering on the mix, should be tamed with EQ, especially on the low-mid range. As a probable consequence the kick ends up being quiet on the mix. At 0:30 we move to the second melody of the source, once again played very straight. In your take, thanks to the electric piano, there's a bigger focus on the chords but I can't shake the feeling that the remix is very very similar to the original so far. 0:47 introduces the third section of the source and my feelings don't change, bigger focus on chords but still sounds pretty close to the original. Next we repeat the intro and move into a piano solo. Nice writing here. We then get an organ solo, it's less exciting than the piano one IMO but it's still fun. At 1:37 we return to the third melody and we get a couple repeats of the intro until the track ends. On arrangement, I feel this one is extremely close to the original. While you put more emphasis on the actual chords on the writing, changing the very dynamic bassline from the source into a (still dynamic) bass line that marks the chords clearly, the end result isn't a big transformation. The solos are appreciated as a change-up but IMO more should be done to clearly set this apart from the source. On production there's a couple issues. Most obvious is the mastering, the track is very quiet. Mix also needs a refinement, especially on bass/drums. A track like this needs a punchy drumline with clear kick and snare (this one manages to cut through the mix but I agree with proph that it's very heavy on the fundamental). For bass I'd advise some taming of the mids in general (especially the lower ones) and would also suggest some love in higher freqs, maybe some distortion, saturation, whatever. Overall, I think this one isn't ready yet. While I think it's enjoyable and it has fun aspects (like the solos), the arrangement is IMO generally too close to the source and the production needs polish in the bass/drums department. NO

Begins with some pretty electric piano lines for the first 40 seconds or so. Nice sounds on the piano and the pads. At 0:40 we get the classic arpeggio from the original plus some frantic percussion as the piano fades away. There's a pad doing some ethereal crunchy chords and other effects as well. Small break at 1:20 and after a build-up we get the main melody of the source at 1:40, once again backed by frantic percussion and a very wobbly bass. The chords are so ethereal (with some quite spicy) and the bass so wobbly that it's hard to make much sense of the harmony here. For this section the kick's also more aggressive, in a way that gets distracting. At 2:16 we move into the second melody from the source on another break from the percussion. A percussion with a very odd sounding snare enters a bit after and then at 2:55 we return to the main melody, now with an additional melody playing on synths. On this section to me it feels like everyone is playing their part but not really interacting, the bass seems to be doing its own thing, the 2 melodies aren't really harmonizing each other... There's another break at 3:33 with a return of the intro piano. A new build-up starts at 3:53 and around 4:11 we get another repeat of the main melody section, with minor differences from the previous ones. On arrangement, this is an interesting combination. Taking the calm melodies from Corridors of Time and pairing them with a frantic percussion and bass behind creates quite a contrast. There's also an array of crunchy chords on the backing pads that amplify the contrast, like taking something familiar and putting all this weird stuff on top. On a personal note the combination didn't hit at all times for me, the extreme wobbliness of the bass makes it very hard to understand what notes it's playing, making me mostly confused. Similarly, the additional melody added at 2:55 didn't really do it for me. That said, I think you had a goal in mind and nailed it. Besides from that, there's a definite issue with length/repetition, from 2:55 until the end we basically repeat earlier musical ideas without much variation, I think closing at around 3:53 would've been perfect. On production I don't have too many notes, there's some odd picks for kick and snare in a couple sections but I don't think I can call that an objective negative. Similarly, the percussion seems way too upfront compared to the rest of the soundscape to me but that may be part of the intended contrast. I'll note, though, that with the track's length and the repetitive drum patterns the kick becomes grating to my ears by the end. Overall, this is something definitely out of my wheelhouse but I can respect the intent behind it, you created an interesting blend of sounds. However, I have issues with how repetitive it is (impacting both arrangement and production) and there's parts of the soundscape (mainly the wobbly and unclear bass) that could get extra polish. NO

Definitely remember this one from DoD, "Krook's March" is also one of my favorite tracks from DKC2 although I'd have never expected a cover like this! Begins with a clock ticking and a guitar riff/chords, with a tone that sounds fairly sharp (probably heavy around 2kHz). At 0:08 the source usage and direction becomes clear, it's now on a major key! At 0:10 the classic low strings riff from the originals plays on guitar, it sounds rocking and I dig the tone. At 0:19 we get piano and strings turning this into a very happy mood. Vocals appear at 0:27, they're kind of buried in the mix. 0:44 we move to a second verse, here the bass at times has a clacking sound that's distracting. I love how the changes to the source sound at 0:53. Another riff from the source at 1:01, the calmer mood helps the vocals stand out more but they're still fairly low volume. 1:18 we have a pre-chorus, the bass clacking keeps being distracting and we get a nice build up to the chorus! And what a chorus it is, I absolutely love it. After the chorus we repeat the intro, the first verse and we repeat the 0:53 and 1:01 sections (with some extra elements). There's another pre-chorus and another chorus after. At 3:05 we have a guitar lead/solo and then a repeat of the riff at 0:10 but with only bass and that eventually leads to the outro. On arrangement this is simply top notch, taking such a dramatic and tense source and turning into a happy anthem is just genious. The chorus is simply lovely. There's absolutely no question about source usage either. Production is, as previous judges have noted, the main talking point. Vocals, which should be the highlight of the soundscape, simply aren't standing out enough. As an ESL I'm not often trying to understand what people sing so I don't mind if I can't understand the words at all times but I'd definitely love the vocals being louder. My main other gripe is the bass, there's a weird clacking on its sound that I find extremely distracting. Overall, this is a really great arrangement that has some issues on production. For my vote I'm gonna side with those on the YES side since, while I feel there's definite potential to improve the mix, I also think it's above the "hobbyist" bar. YES

Begins with a drum loop and a synth bass riff. I can see what you mean by "80s" feel in the description but I'm not sure I'm getting those vibes necessarily, especially as 80s music tends to be big on room and space while this sounds quite dry. At 0:10 an organ plays the organ break from the source and is then followed by a synth string-ish sample playing the A melody. The melody gets harmonized at 0:34 and, as proph pointed out, some of the notes in the harmonized sound a tad off, although if I'm being honest they don't bother me much. There's a percussion break around 0:50 and the extra samples have a ton more reverb, making my earlier point on dryness more evident. At 0:58 a new section begins and eventually the organ melody returns and we have something of an organ solo for a little bit until it's joined my a synth melody. I liked how you had the snare return at 1:35 for a burst energy and a smart transition. Around 1:37 a new bass riff begins, joined once again by the organ melody. There's some notes and variations that sound odd in here, like 1:52 (and its repetitions). B melody plays here on synth and then, over more or less backing, C melody plays on organ until the track ends. On arrangement, this has some fun ideas, changing the track into something more rhytmically upbeat is cool. That said, there's a fair amount of repetition in percussion/bass writing, with basically 3 riffs (0:00-0:50 is one, 0:58-1:37 is the second and 1:38 'till the end for the last one) for the entire track, each getting repeated a lot (second one at least changes with the chord progression though). Some of the harmonies play notes out of the key and the 3rd riff plays some odd notes here and there, but I'm honestly not as bothered as proph was by this. Generally, I enjoyed the arrangement. Production is for me the main sticking point as the sounds are for the most part very basic. As an example, the organ has very little modulation, which is a staple of the instrument. Leads are similarly very vanilla with no modulation. Bass sample(s) is also very basic, I love synth basses but there's more you can out of the sound on the production side to make it shine. Drums are also a little basic, the snare sound is a little cheap but I think it's usable if you at least add more 80s appropiate reverb, the kick however is too bright, it needs more oomph on the lower frequencies. Overall, while this is a fun arrangement it could use extra polish on the production side. I don't think you need to outright replace all your samples, but work on adding more life to the writing through articulations on organs/leads and see how you can make bass/drums shine on production. NO

Wild World title theme is so pretty... Begins with a piano doing the chords from the intro and is soon joined by a percussion. Sound quality does a bit of a disservice to the track early, as the piano sounds low quality and the drum samples aren't great. Particularly, the snare sounds too snappy for the mood of this track, I'd imagine a warmer sound for this. Main melody enters around 0:19 on the marimba/epiano combo while the regular piano does the guitar arpeggios from the original. Source treatment seems very straightforward here and actually reminds me of the Smash Bros. Brawl cover of the theme, although yours is slower than the Smash take. Small moment to relax at 0:42 and then we continue with the B melody. Around 1:08 a second loop begins and there's a solo by the duo starting after a few repetitions of the intro. Drums doing double kick fills near 2:03 it's a little funny. 2:18 has another loop begin and there's a tease of a big change around 2:38 but we return to the main melody (there's a similar tease around 3:04). Track ends kinda suddenly on 3:23 with a lingering piano chord and I dunno why the track extends to 3:53 after it. On arrangement, you took the chill original and gave it a small burst of energy with the new instrumentation, but you didn't do particularly big changes to how it plays. Melodies and chords are kept almost intact and although that is a valid approach it makes me question if it's enough for OCR. I also feel the structure of the arrangement is rather repetitive and not particularly exciting, being basically ABABAB with the second AB being a little different as it has a solo instead of the regular melody. On production I'd say this has some shortcomings but is generally fine. I like the sound of the epiano/combo but the piano and drums leave a bit to be desired. I can tolerate the piano as the low quality nature gives it some warm characteristic but the drums don't really fit the tracks vibe, especially the snare. Overall, I think this isn't there yet, particularly I think the arrangement could be developed more to add more of your own touch and also avoid repetitiveness. I like the chill but slightly energetic vibe you went for though, so there's potential here. NO

Certainly a fun idea doing a remix fully on a Yamaha RM1x! Begins with a fadeout straight into the source's intro. You use a standard beat here rather than whatever the percussion is doing on the original. That said, the drums sound quite dull with almost no punch and their writing isn't particularly varied (there's a snare fill you use A LOT during the track). Source usage is super conservative, with the remix following the original's structure with no variations until the break at 1:40. On the section around 0:55 I hear some artifacts on the track, almost as if it was clipping. Break around 1:40 is very appreciated as something fresh but then at 1:54 you bring a very high pitched sound that's honestly very annoying to hear... and it plays for a loooong time. There's some cool ideas and variations on this section but they're almost drowned by that one annoying sound. After this the arrangemet basically repeats itself and then on the end it noodles over the main riff. On arrangement this needs more work to fit OCR's standards. Outside of the section starting at 1:40 the entire remix is basically doing the source 1:1 with a different percussion. Besides from that the arrangement is extremely repetitive, overusing the main motifs of the source. As prophetik said, there's definitely space to either change up how you use the original's riffs or to simply cut the length. On production the track shows the limitations of the way it was made. Sounds are dated, most synths are very simple and unexciting. Drums lack punch and the writing doesn't help, repeating the same beats and fills for most of the track. There's some synth samples that are extremely heavy on high frequencies and get very grating, like the arpeggios on the main riff and the annoying sample at 1:54. Overall, this isn't near the bar for OCR yet. There's fun ideas here, especially on the 1:40 section, but both arrangement and production need refinement. NO

Random comment, I played on a cover of this same theme just a couple months ago: https://unknownpseudoartist.bandcamp.com/album/songs-of-phantasia-a-metal-tribute-to-tales-of-phantasia. Anyway, this begins with a drum fill and then straight up double kick metal, nice! First part plays pretty much exactly like the source, until 0:17. From what I can you're using Shreddage for guitars here, it's always hard to do convincing fake guitars... I think you do a great job with them but I feel they sound too clean. One thing I've noticed on my attempts at making decent fake guitars is that real ones are always not that clean, there's more noise/reverb than what Shreddage produces. Second riff is also almost identical to the source, but the drum beat is different. Third riff (0:25) is also quite straight from the source until 0:45, there's some notes on the sampled lead that sound a bit odd (0:29, 0:32, 0:34). I do appreciate that you tried to make the best out of the's sample articulations though. For the final riff there's some small differences in timing, but it's still fairly conservative. From 1:01 onwards we don't follow the source on the same order anymore, there's a couple repetitions of riff 1, then a weird take of riff 2, then a repeat of riff 1, then a solo over riff 3 with some quotes of the first main melody. Around 1:45 riff 4 returns and for the ending we have a repeat of riff 1 with some variations over the main melody. Arrangement will be the sticking point here, as noted by the above judges. The first half is pretty much a straight cover from the source and, while the second has some variations, it still has fairly straight takes on most riffs... Besides from how conservative the arrangement is, it also lacks any sort of direction to me. Second half feels like random quotes of the previous riffs but it's not really leading anywhere. On production this is good enough to me. I have some nitpicks about the sampled guitars, they're honestly rarely as good as the real deal but they're fairly well programmed here. Drums I think could be punchier, both the kick and snare are a bit tame, they need more grit and snap so that the track's punchier. Bass is also fairly quiet except for riff 4, I'd like more of it on the mix. As chimp noted, the drums' hats are all very quiet, those really need a boost. Overall, this is a fun tune but it definitely needs more arrangement to get posted. Production is good enough IMO but there's still some adjustments that could make it even better! NO

I already voted on the first iteration so I won't make a long breakdown this time. My main issues at the time were the unbalanced volumes and the flute. Volume issues seem to have been fixed, I don't think there's anything catching my ear on that front anymore. That said, the track is overall a lot quieter now and it's arguably even too quiet, sitting at -15.66 LUFS. Now, on the flute issue... I remain skeptical sadly. I noticed some weird articulations are now removed but it still doesn't sound natural to me. One of the first examples is the very first articulation 0:33, it sounds extremely mechanical. 3:03 still sounds weird. There's some additional elements now as well. There's a piano on the background a few times which, as pointed out above, sounds completely unfitting. It's more of a ragtime honky tonk than something to use in an orchestral arrangement. I do appreciate the attempt to flesh out the background though. There's also now a trumpet lead replacing the flute on part of the second half and it has similar issues to the flute sadly. The articulation I pointed out from 0:33 seems almost copy pasted at 1:48 for example. I'll remain with my original vote for now. Production has improved on original issues but the orchestra in general could sound better. More natural attacks on most instruments would help, there's a distinct lack of proper legato which makes everything sound fake. NO

Begins similarly to the source, with a loud electric bass doing the low notes. Right away there's something off in the sound, I'm not sure if the bass sample is slightly out of tune but it's just not fitting correctly with the rest of the instruments. I'm fairly confident it's playing "correct" notes though... except for 0:12 where it plays a very unfitting C. At 0:13 a percussion enters but the bass is so loud that it gets buried quick. I'm still hearing the bass as being off here, but now I'm more confident it's actually playing at least some wrong notes. At 0:25 we move to the next section and my impressions are more or less the same. We change to a new section at 0:39 and now things are definitely not fitting together, the pads, bass and keys seem to be playing different songs entirely (0:44 for example is very dissonant). Fun breakdown at 0:52, would've been a neat way to introduce and keep a guitar for the rest of the arrangement. There's a repeat of the first part and then on the second one there's some sort of piano solo over the backing that I commented not fitting well together. The 0:52 breakdown repeats and then we get a repeat of the main melody over a spicy chord for the end. On arrangement, this is a fairly conservative take on the original. You got creative with the backing around 1:25 but other than that it seems very similar to the source, on spirit. Like I mentioned above, there's various spots with potentially wrong notes that should get a second look, especially the entire 0:39 section. On production, this is kinda getting ruined by the bass. It's so loud that it drowns out everything else and makes it hard to judge whether the rest of the mix works or not. From what I can tell, the piano tone seems overly bright but I'd need to recheck the mix on a more balanced version. Overall, this needs more work to get posted. As prophetik recommended, going to the Discord's workshop to get suggestions would be great. I'd focus on nailing the arrangement first, taking care of potentially wrong notes and finding out how to make the source "yours" by adding more original ideas/variations. NO

Original is indeed a very chill piece! Your take begins with a piano/pad combo doing the main chord progression at a faster pace. I enjoy the sound of this combo. At 0:14 the main flute melody is played on a synth, I think adapting the track to a faster pace sounds great so far... However, we eventually reach 0:27 and all balance is lost. A drumkit enters at an insanely loud volume and completely drowns everything else, with the LUFS reaching -5 (which is extremely loud), and there's even clipping on my DAW. Even the waveform looks kinda silly here: As far as I can tell, the background keeps the same parts from the intro here. There's a breakdown around 0:52 with a fairly intense snare for some reason, then a build-up and more loud drums at 1:08. I dig the rhytm idea here. There's been a recurrent synth arpeggio on this percussion sections that sounds off-tune/off-key, unsure since it's hard to hear. 1:33 has a similar break to 0:52 and at 1:43 the main melody returns and then the drums return at 1:57. We then repeat the break and build-up of 0:52 but there's a fake-out and at 2:41 we get the percussion "pay-off" again. As before, the overwhelming volume doesn't make it that enjoyable... At 3:07 the track ends abruptly, with even the tail of the sounds cutting off abruptly. In terms of arrangement this is fairly basic, I really like the idea of speeding up the original but you kinda exhaust all your tricks in the first 25 seconds. There's definitely space for chord progression variations or incorporating more of the source's melodies. I like the idea behind some of the percussion breakdowns as well, but I don't think they're enough to sell the arrangement alone. Production is, however, the main issue here. The track is extremely unbalanced, with the percussion being so loud that it makes the track very hard to listen to, even clipping at some points. It's hard to critique the mix behind this unbalanced approach but I'd take a look at the higher frequencies since the mix sounds shrill (but this may simply be a consequence of the loudness). Overall, while I think there are good ideas behind this, the production is not enough for this to pass. First, look at balancing the percussion with the rest of the track. Second, check if there are ways to make the arrangement more interesting as right now it's way too simple. NO

I remember this one from DoD! Deserved medal for sure. Begins, as your breakdown says, with "Solo Sortie". There's heavy guitars and dark synths right from the start. Right away this is pretty loud, ranging around -9 LUFS. Drums seem a tad overcompressed but they still sound good. Love the guitar tone, the riff at 0:15 sounds really good. A synth lead enters around 0:27, it sounds great but it gets buried in the mix a little (especially around 0:44), maybe it'd be a good idea to automate the rhytm guitars to duck when leads are playing (or layer the leads an octave above). At 1:08 we reach the B section and my feelings are the same, sounds rocking but the leads get lost. Source usage so far is quite conservative, but the adaptation to metal adds personalization. At 1:42 we move to "Counterattack '91". We keep on kinda the same style, heavy rocking guitars with dope synths on top. Like the first source, this one is covered very faithfully. At 2:24 we reach "As Wet as a Fish", I appreciate the chord progression making the transition smoother around 2:22-2:23. We go a bit slower on this section, although the drums are still very compressed and the rhytm guitars very loud, it'd have been a nice spot for a change of sound palette. At 3:08 we move to "A Submerging Titan", a smooth transition despite not much build-up. I like how the introduction of the new riff is on "build-up" mode, makes it pay-off nicely at 3:23 (are there guitars and synths layered here? I love the tone). Finally the synth lead shines here! 3:53 introduces "Dream of a Labyrinth" seamlessly, nice job there. The riff here sounds great on guitar. Around 4:39 we move to the next source: "Return of the Creature". It's a sudden transition this time. Gotta be honest here, I really dislike how the toms sound, they're insanely sharp and sound like if someone was getting slapped. Luckily they don't last long and we move to a simpler, more enjoyable beat. I can't find much new to say here, this section keeps the same elements as most of the track. In any case, at 5:55 we move to the final source: "To the Next Zone". The triumphant mood is an appropiate send-off for a long track! On production this is top notch. I have some minor nitpicks about drum compression and the volume of the rhytm guitars but this is, no doubt, above OCR's production requirement. That said, I do wish the mix wasn't so hot all the time, it can get tiring. Arrangement will be the main point of contention for this one. As per the submission standards: "Your submission must have a strong focus and direction. Medleys must sound like a single song, not multiple songs pasted together". Is this achieved here? Most transitions are solid and don't feel jarring, which is a plus. Genre is consistent among the entire piece, another plus. If anything, the main minus I have here is that there are no recurring themes to glue the arrangement as a more cohesive whole. OCReMix has posted medleys similar to this one in that sense, like the famous Unsealed. I also wish the arrangement had more variety in sound palette, the synth samples are basically the same for the entire thing and there's no real break in the entire track, with the slowest section still having strong distorted guitars in your face. Overall, this is an amazing track! Rocking and powerful, well produced and although the arrangement is a medley I think it sounds cohesive enough to meet the criteria, as the transitions are mostly well handled. That said, for future medleys it'd be cool to introduce some form of recurring theme to glue the arrangement even better. YES

Starts with some pretty piano and strings. As a random comment, the style here reminds me a lot of an artist from Dwelling of Duels called valence (https://www.dwellingofduels.net/artists/valence/). The strings sound very washed out, it fits the mood you went for but it may be a little too much. Regarding the samples themselves, there's times when the attack between notes sounds odd and unnatural (0:19 for example), I'm not sure if there's much you can do about it but I wanted to point it out. Anyway, the arrangement for the first minute or so is very conservative, as far as I can tell it's identical to the source (with the exception of the added strings), even if played slower. Around 1:20 we get a choir added and you added some nice extra melodies for the loop transition. At 1:37 we get a repeat of the loop, now with the extra choir, wind lines on top and some modifications on the piano line. At 2:20 we get the B theme from the source again and a lot of the personalization is gone since it's back to being a very straight cover. There's some cool counterpoints on the strings though. After this second loop is done the track ends. K, so arrangement will be the main thing here. You noted it on the write-up and both me and prophetik above noted it on the reviews... this is very conservative. You changed the instrumentation, which is always nice, but the melodies, chords and structure are almost untouched (except for the transition between loops). I think there is definitely space to differentiate this more, you did a nice job in the section between 1:37 and 2:20 but I don't feel that's enough to clear OCR's bar. Personally, I'd recommend you to work on the structure of the track, right now it's "just" 2 loops of the source that don't really go anywhere. Try to imagine the track having a direction with build-ups and breaks, maybe the piano stops for a section and that changes the dynamics, I dunno, there's many things you could do without changing the soul of the remix. On production this is fine, the piano sounds pretty and everything is easy to hear but the orchestral samples are only passable. If there's any chance to get collabers on board it'd be awesome but, of course, that isn't a dealbreaker. That said, I'd take a look at how you're processing reverb, some samples sound very washed out and unnatural, like the strings and choir. Overall, while this is a pretty take on the source and has some nice sounding additional elements it's too conservative for OCR at the moment. I'd love to hear a new take with extra personalization or a more original structure. NO

Begins with a few percussion hits and then comes the source's intro. Right away this sounds a little off, the bass is playing static E notes while the melody (covering the higher guitar part from the source) is on C# minor. Now, E is part of the C# minor scale so it's not like it's dissonant but it sounds odd, you'd generally have the bass on the root for a riff like this (like the source does). It's of course valid to have a different approach but it needs to lead somewhere otherwise it just feels wrong. The percussion pattern is also fairly strange, with "snare" hits on 2-3-4 but not on 1, creating a beat that's not easy to follow. At 0:27 we move into a higher pace for the second part of the initial melody. The percussion pattern is even weirder than before, it's not really fitting for any kind of EDM mood. This section continues for a bit, following the source's melodies until we reach the next part of the source at 1:01. Similarly to the intro, the bass is playing D# notes that don't really fit the melodies on top. At 1:05 we get a few melodies from the source but one of them seems to have wrong notes (the one starting at 1:08 features a regular D which doesn't fit the key this cover has attempted to be in). 1:11 has the arpeggio section of the source, which inexplicably keeps the upbeat rhytm. Finally, we move to the last section from the source. The note at 1:29 (A#) seems unfitting. Finally, at 1:49 the track simply cuts-off, without a real ending. I don't want to sound mean while saying this but this cover is way below the bar at the moment. On production, the synth samples used are all very simplistic, we usually ask for a more modern sound. Percussion samples are also simplistic but, more importantly, unfitting. The "clap" you used for snare won't really work on a proper arrangement. On arrangement there are several issues. First is the fact that the bass and melodies rarely fit well together. Second is the fact that there's several wrong notes in the arrangement. I get the feeling you got hold of some MIDI files of the original and kinda slapped them together haphazardly, not taking proper care of keeping everything on the same key, which is why the move to C# minor caught me off guard at the intro, since the original is on F minor. Third is the percussion writing, if you want to make trance or any form of EDM you need a beat that's steady and easy to follow, a snare hitting on basically every quarter or 8th note is not that. Finally, for OCR standards we ask for more interpretation, this track was very conservative in regards to source usage. As prophetik said, you should give the Discord workshop a go and ask for help there, especially regarding basic arranging and production tips. NO

I suppose I can clarify a question right? The piano is sampled, it's Native Instruments' "The Maverick". I didn't add too much processing, a tiny bit of EQ/Compression. I don't think this would change the votes so it seems fair to share haha.

Another DoD month an... wait, this track isn't from DoD! First time I submit something unrelated to the Duel in uh... probably 10 years or so... Anyway, this track comes from the "A Stop on the Route - Piano Tribute to the Pokémon Series" album by the VGM Pianists collective (which I happen to be a part of) and that you can listen to here (https://open.spotify.com/album/6lA0QMJAKHbv6hKgX4OC6x). It's a piano solo, which also makes it my first submission of this kind! Source covered is "Lake" from the 4th generation of Pokémon games, a chill theme with some fun chords. Given the nature of the arrangement I'll refrain from doing a long source breakdown since it's evident for the most part. I hope you enjoy my first true attempt at a piano arrangement! Games & Sources

Wasn't expecting a source like that from Doom 2! Anyway, this begins with a pad playing around some notes with a background sweep. Seems to be either B or E minor. Around 0:18 we get a kick hitting on all beats but we get a quick (maybe a little jarring?) change-up intro triplets around 0:30. Now there's a clear Em-Bm progression, which is featured on the source. I like the pad here. Chords die around 0:48 and we keep with a steady B on bass for a bit but there's now a "snare". There's some neat touches of sound design on the percussion. At 1:00 we finally get the main melody from the track with some small variations in how the melody's played (plus some slightly different chords). Pads and hats fill the soundscape at 1:15 and at 1:32 we get some more elements into the mix. There's a repeat then and I'm now noticing that the percussion has been doing basically the exact same loop (which is very short) for over a minute. Around 2:30 we reach a break with a solo synth bass doing some triplets and then at 2:50 there's a big transition into a completely different section, featuring the second main melody from the source. We're now in standard 8ths and the beat here is really cool... However, around 3:10 we're back into a triplet feel with a synth bass riff of sorts and then a little later back in a straight 8ths feel with some pads. Main melody returns around 4:01 and there's a solo of sorts at 4:30. Finally, there's another break at 5:00 for a section without percussion and a few ominous chords 'til the track ends. On the arrangement side, I'm torn. I really like the variations you did of the source material, melodies were kept very similar to the originals but you did fun stuff with the chords. However, the structure of the arrangement is a bit all over the place. It's cohesive (arguably repetitive) for the first half but from 2:30 to ~4:00 it feels very unfocused, changing between ideas without much direction. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of cool ideas in here but this feels like a collection of ideas more than one arrangement. On production I don't have many comments, I think you did a great job there. Maybe my only nitpick would be that the kick in the first section (around 0:18) is too aggressive for the soundscape, very clicky when there's basically nothing else going on so it sounds jarring. Besides from that I liked the production, a lot of fun sound design touches and nice synth samples for the most part (arguably, the least exciting sample is, ironically, the one doing the main melodies). I'm torn here because I really like how this sounds and there's a lot of cool ideas, but I feel the arrangement needs some refinement, the first section (0:00 to 2:50) could be trimmed down a little and the sections between (2:50 to 4:01) could get a little more time to breathe and develop. NO

Begins with the source's intro modified into more of a harmonic minor feel and some electronic percussion. There's a classic electronic snare roll transition and at 0:10 a bass and a lead enter for a few more seconds of build-up. We go full rave around 0:20. I'll be honest here, the clap sample isn't doing it for me, the soundscape feels very empty here. There's a small change around 0:45 into another snare build-up and at 0:56 the first main melody of the source hits, practically unchanged from what I can tell. After another snare build-up the rest of the band joins in for an additional repetition. At 1:42 we get a simple C-G#-B# transition into a piano section (seems to be based on 0:36-0:48 from the source but it's very liberal in that case), which is followed by yet another snare build-up. A synth takes up the main melody here, which I can't recognize from the source honestly. 3:02 introduces a new section, now on C minor. We begin with a fun synth and percussion combo (different samples from before, which creates a nice change of mood). A piano melody joins at 3:13, based on the source section at 1:00. After a snare transition we hit rave mode again around 3:23, this part sounds great. At 3:59 we transition into a new section that quotes the section from the source at 0:48. Somewhat fittingly, the track ends with a snare roll. On arrangement, there's a lot of interesting stuff in here. I like how you modified the intro melody to give it a darker sound. In terms of source usage this seems very clear to me, except for the section from 1:42 to 3:02. Still, even if that was original there's more than enough source in here. I have some nitpicks though, mostly with percussion. As you may have noted from the write-up above, there's A LOT of snare roll transitions, I understand they're typical of the genre but there are surely more ways you can do a build-up transition. I do appreciate that a few times you left a small silence after the snare roll, adding a bit of variety. Similarly, and I may concede this one as personal preference, there's a lot of repetition in rhytm here, with the kick hitting on each beat for what feels like 90% of the track. On production I think this is solid but I don't think the claps cut it as a percussion element since they get lost in the mix most of the time. As other comments, I feel this could use some extra compression/limiting on the master, it's fairly quiet for the genre and there's some small volume bumps due to SFX that'd be cool to iron out. Finally, although the kick is definitely present I feel it could get a bump in the <100Hz range, I'm missing that sweet low end bump from it (bass is eating most of that space). Overall, this is a solid electronic piece. I have some qualms about the arrangement and minor production nitpicks but I feel this is above the bar. YES

What a strange source... Begins with a voice clip and the main arpeggio from the source on synths. There's fun sound design here as the initial synth sample, which is a bit percussive, is quickly joined by a very fuzzy one. At 0:12, bass and percussion join, creating an oppressive rhytm. Around 0:27 we get the sax melody on a quiet synth that's kinda buried in the soundscape. At 0:55 there's a small break before we continue with the same buzzy arpeggio + buzzy bass + heavy percussion mood. At 1:33 we get another melody and there's a snare added to the percussion. It's kind of a weak snare but it does fit, although it could be beefier. At 1:35 a buzzy pad synth joins the background and takes over the soundscape, it's super loud. Around 2:17 there's another stop in the rhytm, more similar to what we had on the 0:12 section, until that exact section repeats. At 2:31 we get a very random cut for a "nuclear weapon" voice clip that leads into a section with more buzzy synth pads doing a heavy melody. We then return to the intro arpeggio and the track ends. On arrangement I dig this, I like how you transformed the somewhat jazzy source into a very oppressive synth piece, which is a good use of the odd chords in the original. The track flows well IMO, having a few breaks here and there so that it's not constantly in your face (conceptually at least). It's a challenging source to cover and you did well IMO. On production I feel more mixed. On the positive side, I really like your synth work, there's a lot of great sounds in here and clearly a lot of effort putting into how they evolve. Now, there's 2 main issues IMO. First is that the track has very little variation in volume. Most of the track seems to hover around the same level, which lessens the impact of the small breaks you put in some sections (like 0:55 and 2:17). Second is that there's some elements that take over the mix at times, like the bass at 0:27 (completely burying the lead) and the buzzy pad string at 1:35. Overall, this is an interesting remix. The arrangement and production have a harsh mood that I really like, but the lack of dynamics and issues with some samples make me feel more mixed about it. After several listens and pondering my decision, I'm gonna reject this, hoping that there's a chance for you to revisit the mix/master (for more dynamics) and, especially, tame that synth pad around 1:35, it's very grating on the ears. NO

Long one! I'll try to make a shorter breakdown. Begins with a harp plus some winds in B minor doing the motifs from the beginning of the piece until a soft choir joins. It keeps building up and creating some tension until 0:57 where the focus moves to strings. I like that you don't rush to things and let the chords rest, even those with more tension. My only nitpick here is that it feels it should get louder on the biggest chords, it feels like it's going to somewhere grand but it kinda stops middleway. Around 2:17, after the string chords, we reach a new section with winds+strings. It's fairly quiet. Around 3:20 there's a big increase in volume with brass, flute and more. It gets a little muddy until we reach another rest at 4:20 approximately. Like before, we have some slowly evolving strings and eventually some percussion that hints at something to come. At 6:03 there's a volume increase as the harp returns, we then get some brass and some nice dissonant chords around 6:32, things continue to increase and then... a pause? Neat! We stop for a few seconds and the main melody finally kicks in around 7:05. I was expecting it to be more epic honestly, maybe a more lively percussion or something like that, other than the new melody it felt like it kept the same vibe than what came before, which was a bit disappointing after such a cool build-up. Climax lasts around a minute and then the volume starts to decrease until we resolve in E major. K, on arrangement this is fantastic. The writing of the orchestra is really cool, a lot of awesome chords and moving parts. To be completely honest I do feel some of the build-ups are too long, especially because the track starts slow, builds-up until a rest and then does this at least 2 more times, so by the third long build-up I did feel some tiredness. I also felt the final climax could've been more grandiose, it's fine as it is but the writing was hinting at something even bigger. On production I don't have that many comments, the programming sounds great and, because of that, the orchestra sounds lively. There's that issue at 7:22 pointed out above but, although it definitely sounds weird, it doesn't bother me that much. Maybe my main nitpick would be the overall loudness of the piece, the only part of the track that is truly loud is the climax at 7 minutes in, before that the track is generally very quiet, even on the crescendos. It could definitely use a bump in the master. Overall though, this is very well written piece that sounds great. I have some nitpicks about the arrangement and production but nothing that comes close to putting this below the bar. YES

Before listening to the remix I listened to the source and wow, that's a nice way of making a track that evolves, awesome! Anyway, this begins with some simple percussion and then a guitar playing D-Bb chords (I believe, I find it a bit curious you're going for the Bb since the source goes for the dorian feel but it's still valid!). I played along on my keys and I'm pretty sure the guitar isn't properly tuned. Bass joins soon after and around 0:27 a guitar enters playing the main melody. Some notes on production here, the drumset sounds very dry and not super punchy, it struggles cutting through the mix. Bass sounds very clicky and it's way too loud, it definitely needs some compression and some EQ to tame its tone. We get a few repeats of the melody until 1:01, where we change chords and key, just like the source. I'm very curious about the chords you picked here, which I believe are D# and B. The first one fits the melody (descending D-C-A) if we think of it as major but then the B doesn't really fit and, at least to my ears, it sounds kinda wrong. At 1:13 we return to the first melody and have an increase of intensity on the drums, just like the source. Sadly, the mix here is extremely muddy and it's very hard to tell what's going on. I like the drum playing itself but the mix isn't doing it any favors. You do both versions of the melody and actually use the source's chord progression for the second one, making me more curious about the unfitting progression earlier. The madness takes a break at 1:49 with a return of the 0:27 approach but for the variation we return to the fast paced drums. Finally, at 2:25 we get the source's ending section, covered in a very faithful way and then the remix ends. On the arrangement side, I have some criticisms. One is that the first minute takes too long to build-up, with several identical repetitions from 0:27 to 1:01, you could definitely add variety there. Second are the chords on 1:01, they simply don't fit the melody well. Finally, I think the treatment of the source, outside of that particular chord change, is quite straightforward. I think some more interesting guitar writing, for both rhytm and leads, could let you craft something more unique. Production is, however, what's really putting this down. The mix is very muddy, with the bass in particular sounding extremely dirty. Sections with the fast paced drums are very chaotic and nothing really cuts through the mix. As an aside, the tuning on the guitar is definitely off. As a positive, the drum performance is sick. Overall, I dig the idea of covering this source with a standard guitar/bass/drums band, but both arrangement and production need more polish. Work on a cleaner mix, fix the guitar tuning and try adding more interesting guitar lines on a second version. NO

Opens with some synth strings and heavy bass/percussion playing a B-G-E-G progression (taken from the source) before returning to B. For some reason you left out percussion on 0:21 where a neat A# is played, I think that transition would work better with a drum fill. We then focus on a sort of drum build-up until 0:43, where the main riff of the source enters on synth bass. The sample you picked struggles to cut off at times but as the track progresses you start adding some extra fuzz that makes it clearer. Although the evolving sound is cool I think it starts way too tame and eventually becomes arguably too loud. This continues for quite a while with some extra elements added over time. We reach a break around 2:32, similar to the one in the source. Main riff returns at 2:55 on a weird lead while the bass now highlights root notes, there's some fun variations here and there with how you use the bass or how you play the main riff. At 3:38 a new layer doing the main melody is added. This section lasts until a silly tom heavy drum fill at 4:21 and we move into a new section similar to the one at 2:32 but with more active drums. At 5:07 there's some strings/synths added on top that create a cool mood. This section actually last up until the end, where the snare starts getting more and more dramatic (biiiiiig reverb) until we're done. On the production side I dig this, it's very synth heavy which is always a plus for me! There's definite work put into varying the samples over time, which is especially evident with the introduction of the bass synth. My main nitpick would have to be that drums could be punchier, especially in sections where you up the volume or presence of the bass, since the kick gets almost completely lost in those. On the arrangement side, however, I'm mixed. As something to put on the background this is quite neat as it has fun sounds, but there's too much repetition. In my description on the first paragraph you'll notice most sections last quite a while, the first bass riff lasts from 0:43 to 2:32, the repeat from 2:55 to 4:21 and the final section lasts from 4:21 to 6:16 (the end). Long sections can work if there's enough variety in the writing and I think that there's potential to improve on this front here (prophetik's comment on the drum fills is pretty important here, but there's also the option of changing the drum rhytm more often). Overall, while I do like the track's vibe and how it sounds, I really feel it could use the equivalent of a radio edit since it's just way too long without enough variety to justify it. I'd love it if you could attempt a second version since this has a ton of potential. EDIT: On a relisten, the issue with the drum patterns being very repetitive became extremely obvious. That's also something that definitely needs a revision. NO

Very interesting approach to the arrangement here, let's break it down: Track begins with a pad, bass and an irregular kick pattern (it doesn't bother me as it did other judges though). Things seem to be in E minor here but at 0:26 the B melody from the source enters and there's a big point of contention, since the original is on F major (for this section) and you didn't change the key, which creates a huge dissonance. Of course, write-up shows you actually intended this but I don't think it's effective. Dissonance is a valid tool but I don't think flat out slotting a melody over an unfitting key works without extra effort, it's something you probably need to set up effectively. At 0:49 we move into a new section, with bass and melody on A major, an odd choice after the dissonant part. The beat here is cool though, the hi-hat pattern is very Chrono Trigger-ish. 1:13 seems to be kind of a reprise of the intro that leads into an actual reprise a bit later. A fun drum fill moves us into a new section at 1:38. I like the energy here. The lower of the 2 melodies seems to be playing some liberal variations of the souce and 1:51 echoes one of the chord progressions from the original. A fairly odd synth arpeggio leads into a section with distorted guitar around the 2 minute mark that's basically one riff played over a set of different chords, would've been a good spot for a solo or something of the sort. At 2:27 there's a bit of break/keyboard solo over a static 8ths rhytmic pattern which leads into a repeated arpeggio starting from around 2:45 to 3:01 in a small "drum solo". We then get a reprise of the 0:26 melody but without the dissonance, much more pleasant! Finally, at around 3:35 we reach a take on the source's end of loop section and the track ends. On the arrangement side, this is definitely an interesting piece. Changing Barret's Theme into a "battle theme" is a fun idea. Generally, I think the structure of the arrangement is solid but I have some criticisms. First is the dissonant section. You mention it "compliments everything that comes after it" but I don't really see it, the section right after the dissonance is an extremely upbeat one which is just a big whiplash that makes the dissonance lose purpose. There's some pay-off for the dissonance with the reprise at 3:01 but I feel that reprise would've still worked well without the big dissonant part earlier. Second is that there's a few parts where we basically have a bass part and percussion without nothing particularly interesting happening on top, like 1:01-1:13, 2:03-2:26 and 2:44-3:01. I also have a bit of trouble catching the vibe of the arrangement as it moves from tense sections to very upbeat melodies often. As a positive, I enjoy the general rhytm of the track, it's energetic and fun! On production, there's a big issue with the samples used... they're simply not high quality enough. I won't bet on this but some even seem taken directly from SNES soundfonts, which is a valid approach if you take the time to write and produce them well. Bass, particularly, suffers from this, as the sample picked doesn't really cut well through the mix. Even if you can't find better samples, it'd also be a good idea to invest time into sound design. As an example, the synth doing the backing from 2:27 to 3:01 could really use some effects to sound more interesting. I don't have big criticisms of the mix itself other than sample quality really, the track sounds well. Overall, there's a lot of potential here. Arrangement has interesting ideas but it needs some refinement. Production needs more work, focusing on making the instruments sound better (either by finding better samples or by mixing the existing ones in smart ways to make them better). I'd recommend hitting the workshop on the forums or the Discord and hopefully you hit us with a revision in the future! NO