jnWake

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

I love hearing a remix of such an old and obscure tune. The original is also quite a banger! Anyway, we begin with some fun SFX into the bass of the original. I dig the synth bass used. The main melody soon joins in on a synth with a ton of reverb. At 0:21 we have a key change that's also in the source. So far we're following the source pretty closely in what feels like a "remaster". On this section you add some fun new backing elements. At 0:33 we move to the next section from the source, still keeping the "remaster" feel. I hadn't mentioned it until now but I dig the drum sound, it's super punchy. 0:49 continues the trend of keeping the structure and melodies of the source while improving the sound quality and the backing. To not repeat myself too much this continues for quite a while, until the original's track material ends around the 2 minute mark. Here we finally get some arranging that's different from the source, first with some cool bass and then some fun modifications of the first main melody around 2:29. Not long after that the track ends with the same SFX from the intro. On the production side this is great, I don't really have many nitpicks. Percussion is punchy, the samples picked sound good and everything sounds clear. My only nitpick, and this could just be personal preference, is that there's a lot of reverb and that can make things muddier than they should. Not a big deal though. On the arrangement side, though, we have issues (for OCR's standards at least). For the first 2 minutes this track is basically a "remaster" of the original, you kept the same structure, melodies, genre and tempo of the source, mostly upping the quality. Don't get me wrong, this is a very valid approach to VGM remixing but it's simply not what OCR looks for. Overall, while this sounds great, the arrangement is too conservative for OCR standards. As an "expanded remaster" of the original track this is basically perfect but it's not what the site looks for. If you ever feel like doing something more akin to the final minute of the track I'd love to hear it, but for now, the decision is... NO

Begins with a similar instrumentation as the original with vocals and piano, but immediately sounds much darker. While the original focuses on a major 7th chord here you seem to be going for more of a minor sound. Two things jump at me right away, first is that this is a very quiet mix, on the intro it's averaging -16 LUFS and much later it only goes up to -14, not a dealbreaker but I'm used to things being louder. Second is that the percussion is very low, for a mix like this, that seems to be aiming for a groovy feel, you need that percussion to punch, not to be some quiet thing on the background. Anyway, for the first 20 seconds or so we basically have a repeat of the vocal pattern with some minor piano variatons. At 0:28 a bass line enters and the percussion becomes more alive with some extra hi-hat work. I really like that bass pattern, sounds super cool. New patterns repeat for a while, with some variations to the soundscape at times. At 0:57 a guitar comes in (there's a nasty pop sound right at the beginning of its part) doing the chorus melody. However, the bass/percussion don't change, so it doesn't feel like the track is moving to a different section that strongly. Eventually, more instruments join the mix and things start becoming quite crowded. Around 1:54 you drop a large portion of the instruments for the "french voice" section, but the backing is still the same. At 2:24 we get a guitar solo, cool! This lasts until around 3:20 where we basically return to the intro for the track's end. On the arrangement side, there's some cool ideas (like the bass line) but this is extremely repetitive. Drum pattern and bass line basically don't change since the 0:28 mark and the piano line is also extremely similar for most of the track. The main variation is the addition of the chorus melody around 0:57 but even that melody gets repeated several times after its introduction. On the production side there's room to improve. First, percussion should be more present, right now it's very quiet. Second, the mix gets very busy and, as pointed out by prophetik, there's a lot of stuff crammed around the same frequency range. I also think this would benefit from some careful EQ around the higher frequencies, the mix sounds extremely dark right now. Overall, this in an interesting piece but I feel it needs more work. Backing elements are way too repetitive and the mix needs more clarity and punch. NO

Opens up with a fun descending synth over the E minor pentatonic scale. Soon after, synth strings and a percussion enter. At 0:15 we have a synth doing a "F#-G-F#-E-D-E-F#-B" line which is technically the same line the choir does in Aquas (the line there starts on A but it's the same pattern). Now, the feels are completely different, you're doing the line on the 2nd of the scale here, while Aquas is doing that line on an A phrygian scale so it begins on the 1st of the scale and features a minor 2nd (it's also harmonized on 5ths, for an even more different feeling!). We're of course open to reinterpretation here so I'll "allow" this as source usage but it's so so different it's almost a technicality IMO. Anyway, this line repeats a few times until 0:36, where we get a more straight percussion oriented section. At 1:03, the melody returns until 1:24. I haven't mentioned this until now, but the soundscape you created is great. Really nailed the underwater feel you mentioned on the write-up. Love all the details on the sound design as well. In any case, 1:24 features a sound design oriented break, pretty cool. At 1:48 we return to a steady rhytm and there's now a synth playing a (5-1-5) arpeggio. The rest of the instruments seem pretty similar to the section around 0:36. Around 2:36 there's another break and the main melody returns and plays until 3:24 (from 2:39). Then, the track ends with a few synths playing the main ideas of the track. On the arrangement side, this is a neatly crafted atmospheric piece. There's not many elements on the track but they flow well and you manage to keep interest alive with breaks and subtle variations. It's a bit repetitive, but that fits the genre/mood you were going for. On production this is great, I really don't have much to nitpick. Good samples, good sound design, good percussion. Really well done. However, as the other judges mentioned, this deviates way too much from the source to fit OCR's criteria. The choir melody from the original is represented (in a very transformed way) as the only melody on this track and plays 3 times for a total of ~86 seconds (21+21+44 as per the above breakdown), which is less than 50% of your 225 seconds track. We could count the 5-1-5 arpeggio entering at 1:48 but that's way too much of a stretch IMO, even more than the melody I'm already stretching to count. Really well done track but it definitely needs more clear source usage to reach the front page. NO

Begins with a heavily modified voice and some static effects. Around 0:30 a bright synth starts playing some scale-ish melodies that seem to hint at the main chord progression from the original (Em-D-C-B). A synth doing a potential variation of the main melody joins in on the second repetition with a kick drum rhytm and then a third synth starts playing a backing melody from the source. Additional elements keep being added over more repetitions, including a synth bass, pad and synth lead. The kick also has a fun effect where it becomes more present over time. It ends up quite chaotic but, as the elements were introduced one by one, it's still enjoyable and understandable. All of this leads to a "break" at 1:47 where there's less elements (hence the break) but the chaotic rhytm is kept. Ironically, less elements highlight some balancing issues. Bass/kick seem to be fighting for space, with the bass suffering the most as it's very hard to understand what it's playing (very wobbly sounding). I think at some points there's an additional synth bass doing some dubstep-ish flourishes but there's so much in there that it's not really easy to hear. Similarly, on the melody side of the arrangement, there's often 2-3 elements all clashing with each other. Around 2:25 there's a rhytm change into a straight 8ths bass line, welcome change of pace. Once again the mix feels busy, even when there's not that many elements there's a lot of clashes and things are hard to hear. Surprise sax at 3:14! Nice performance by Lucas, it's interesting that the sax line is doubled by synths, not sure it's actually necessary (given how busy the mix is already). Things start calming down and lead to a chiptune interpretation of the source for the end, with the modified voice ending the track. On the arrangement side, this is an interesting approach to a very simple source. Original track has only one noticeable melody and 2 backings that provide the chord progression, so it's not much material. Here, you do a nice job of bringing a lot of variety into a source that doesn't really have much. Fellow judge prophetik makes a nice point about how much source is actually on here, but I'd say my take is different. Scales starting at 0:30 seem inspired by the celesta-ish instrument from the source (playing some simpler scales), but we could argue if this one counts or not. However, said melody is played almost straight by the synth that joins at 0:59 until the break at 1:47 (although it gets drowned out eventually). Section starting there also features the same melody and continues there until 2:54 at least (with the main melody also being there from 2:35). Main melody returns from 3:04 and is kept on the sax solo until 3:33 at least. For the next minute of the solo there's not evident source usage IMO. Finally, 4:23 until 4:52 is also clear source usage. I'd say there's heavy source usage from 0:59-1:47 (48s), 1:47-2:54 (67s), 3:04-3:33 (29s), 4:23-4:52 (29s). Adding all of that there's 173 seconds of source usage in a 306 seconds remix, so 56%! As an aside, beyond calculator antics I do feel that the entire remix being based on the chord progression from the source (down to the B major) also helps since, at the very least, it's always echoing the mood of the original. On production there are heavy balacing issues. The track is often extremely busy, at times it feels intentional and it works (like from 0:59 to 1:47) but most of the time it simply feels like a couple elements are taking a lot of space and leave little for the rest. Generally, I'd say the drums are the main culprit, as they're loud and there's also a lot of reverb, which tends to take a lot of room. Bass is also another issue, they seem very mid heavy and that also takes a lot of space from the instruments doing melodies. That said, even if these issues were fixed I think you should also look at the balance between synth parts, there's many of them focusing on similar octaves so balancing them will be challenging. You could consider moving some melodies to different octaves to separate them easier. Overall, this remix has a really cool vibe and a very creative approach to a source that's extremely light on material. However, I think the mix needs a second pass focusing on clarity, right now it's just way too hard to grasp all the different elements going on, with the drums and bass often eating a lot of space. NO

Starts with strings on Dm and a voice joins soon after. The voice actually highlights a F# but it doesn't really clash too much. At 0:32 we get a flute playing the first main melody of the source, transposed one tone below. There's some embellishments here and there (which honestly sound more odd than good). For the backing you have strings and a brass (I noticed you changed the bass line, giving it more of a major feel), but it honestly sounds a little empty. Volumes aren't very balanced here (and this will be a running theme): flute is very loud, strings are very low. Around 1:02 we get the second main melody from the source, still on flute. There's more movement now thanks to a string playing bass. Source treatment feels very conservative here, almost 1:1 outside of flute embellishments and bass movement. There's another vocal break before we return to the first melody, now with a big brass backing. Volumes are wild here, brass gets extremely loud at some points. A church organ also joins here and takes the background spotlight on the next section. 2:13 has a repeat of the second melody, but there's more reinterpretation this time. There's a final repetition and we're done. Arrangement is fairly conservative, source treatment is almost 1:1 outside of some bass variations and flute embellishments. There's, of course, the voice adding some originality. Anyway, I like how you change the instruments playing the backing, it's a nice touch considering the lead stays constant on flute. That said, the backings themselves tend to be very simple, which isn't a dealbreaker but it'd be nice to have some extra attention to detail there (the bass on the 1:02 repeat is an example of where you nailed adding a more "complex" element on the background). I have more issues with production though. First, volume balancing is off, sometimes the backing is too low, other times way too loud. Parts like 1:48 and 2:03 are good examples, as is the whole church organ section. Second, there's the "flute issue". Vibrato gives it life but it generally sounds so uncanny valley that it's quite distracting, especially on more complex articulations like the one right at the end. Overall, nice cover of a pretty source. Production definitely needs a second pass though, especially the volume issues. Not sure how much of the flute is fixable without completely redoing everything but I think that, at least, the weird passing notes and some of the worse sounding articulations can be modified. NO

What an odd source you picked, very fitting for Halloween! Anyway, this begins exactly like the source, with more modern sounds of course. There's a very deep menacing bass and some heavy saw synths setting the mood, with a bright synth on the back and the main melody playing as well. Some hand percussion joins on the second repetition and starts adding elements on each repetition. Mix here is quite busy, all elements are loud so nothing truly stands out as the "main element". In fact, the main melody is arguably the least present element. It's also a loud mix. Around 0:44 we move to a second section that's similar to the second section of the source, although the timings are slightly different. Around 1:00 we move to a new section, based on the 3rd one from the source... Basically, we're keeping the same structure as the original. Mix continues to be very busy and it's hard to pick out the main melodies. There's a new section at 1:27, once again following the source's structure. After a little less than a minute we reach a break/transition at 2:24 and then the track ends on some bright synth arpeggios/melodies. On the arrangement side, as other judges pointed out, this is more akin to a "remaster" than a "remix" (at least, this site's definition of "remix"). Structure of the cover is basically the same as the original (bar the ending) and melodic elements are almost 1:1. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a valid approach, but OCR is dedicated to posting stuff that reimaginates the source in some way. For example, if structure/melodies/chords aren't changed much, maybe the genre is changed and that adds enough of a new spin for a cover to fit the site. Here, however, you went for the same "genre" and mood than the original. On the production side, I enjoy the samples you picked, they're fitting for what you set out to do. There's a constant creepy/unsettling feel that's very well done. I also enjoyed the small sound effects you used in a few places (like that bass dip around 1:56). That said, the mix itself is extremely busy, everything is super loud so it's hard to focus on any particular element. It's a "wall of sound", but not in a good way. Overall, this is a nice "remaster" of the original. However, that's not really what OCR posts. That said, there's definitely space to improve the balancing on the mix. NO

I remember this one from DoD! Begins with the source's intro on electric piano and some percussion/bass. Right away something sounds odd on the drums, very airy. At 0:13 we move to the B section of the source with melody and chords on guitar. Vibes are immaculate here, really nailing the beach sound. Siolfor's tone is great. I also really dig the additional percussion Delux added, he has a talent for adding the right sounds! Unfortunately, there's some issues with the mix. First, the drum is lacking in power, the kick is extremely quiet (almost to the point of not being there) and the snare has no body. Second, the volume balance is off, with the rhytm guitars being too loud. Guitars in general also sound too dry compared to the rest of the ensemble. As an example, the electric piano lines get quite lost here. At 0:37 we move to the C theme and there's now marimba on the mix, fun! I enjoy how you mixed up the rhytm on the second repeat. At 1:02 we're back to the B melody with a guitar harmony at times. There's a guitar solo and a little after we get a repeat of the intro. There's another repeat of B later, now with marimba on the backing as well. 2:26 has a fun percussion break, love it! 2:37 has a bit of a marimba solo but it's mostly octaves, wish it was a little more elaborate. There's yet another repeat of the A section and an intro repeat to close things out. On the arrangement side, this is very conservative. There's definitely no question about source usage here. However, the instrumentation and structure does a good job of personalizing this so I have no complaints there. My main nitpick with the arrangement is that some of the backing instruments do extremely basic lines. As a simple example, on the 0:13 section the electric piano seems to be doing single notes on the backing, when it could be doing chords or maybe even simple arpeggios. As an aside, the arrangement is quite repetitive and although it's not a dealbreaker for me it'd be appreciated if there were more differences between repetitions, particularly of the intro and B melodies. Production is my main issue here, with both volume balancing and the drumset being the main issues. For the first one the fixes are simpler, toy around with guitar volumes until the track sounds better balanced. For drums though things are tougher. The kit sounds very airy and lacking in power. I went to my DAW and started playing with a high shelf and noticed that there's a ton of high frequency content and that if you start removing some of it the drums become very quiet. Similarly, there's very little low frequency content. I fear the drum recording itself may be causing the issue, which would be a hard fix. In the past I've encountered similar issues with live drums and opted to layer a drum sample over the live ones, but it can be time consuming. It may still be worth a try to fix the drum issues through EQ though (especially if you have tracks for each section of the kit). Overall, this a is a very fun track, immaculate beach vibes. Performances are great and the arrangement, while repetitive, is also pretty good and nails what it's going for. However, the production definitely needs a second pass for this to get posted on the site. NO

Very challenging source to cover, not that many melodies to latch on to and a big focus on rhytms and chords, but it's also fairly long so there's a lot of material. Interested on seeing how you approach it! K, so we begin with strings doing the source's main chord progression before some percussion joins in, with some quite loud cymbal hits. Around 0:26 we get the main arpeggio motif from the source. There's a bell/triangle sound that's a little piercing on higher frequencies. Around 0:37 we get a horn melody that sounds a litte late timing wise (easy to notice at 0:45). Around 0:49, after another fairly loud percussion build-up, we move to one of the source's "riffs". I like how you shared the melody between different instruments, but the brass section is buried on the mix, making it hard to hear at times (at 1:06 for example). The mix in general gets muddy here, there's a lot of parts and some get lost. 1:19 has a bit of a break with fun orchestral writing and some motifs returning on celesta. Love the tension created with the horns here. At 1:58 the intensity starts increasing and we soon get another of the main riffs on brass. Like on a previous section they are somewhat buried on the mix (I feel the sample may not have enough attack to cut through). At 2:43 we move to a different section, still keeping the intensity and we return to the riff from 0:49 for the end. On the arrangement side this is quite solid, the source is pretty complex and doesn't have much melodic material but you managed to use what was there in smart and recognizable ways. I liked how you added additional voices on horns to add variety and I also liked all the orchestral flourishes you added. Really well done here! On production I have some issues. First, the percussion tends to have very distracting peaks that make the volume of the track spike in unpleasant ways. Second, when there's many instruments playing it gets muddy, making it hard to fully appreciate all the details you crammed in. The brass doing the lowest riffs suffers here since the sample doesn't cut through the mix. I understand that the issues with samples may be dealbreakers for some (and you got great tips to improve there) but I'll side with those that feel it sounds good enough. Arrangement is really good and the orchestral writing is top notch so this deserves a pass IMO. YES

A chamber medley of dungeon themes, interesting! This one starts pretty odd, with the "Sanctuary Theme" being played by a clearly high passed string section but it's suddenly stopped by some voices that I can't really understand besides a "play it properly", so I gotta assume the intro is some kind of joke/bit. Anyway, after some metronome hits the proper arrangement starts. It's not high passed anymore but it still sounds fairly dry. Arrangement starts with "Dark World Dungeon", first pretty recognizable but by 0:56 there seems to be a lot of original material on the highest sections while the source is mostly present on the lower strings. On 1:25 the source usage becomes more evident again and there's some fun modifications of the main bass melody to adjust for the "atonal" writing. A new section begins at 2:03 with a string playing a simple F#-G-B "arpeggio". I can't really place this as coming from any of the sources, however some of the bass movements seem to be referencing the original Zelda Dungeon Theme (very clear at 2:19). Things continue in a similar fashion with a return of the 2:03 "arpeggio" and the original dungeon theme (or variations of it) played on different parts of the string section. A new section begins at 3:13 with material that I can't directly place as coming from the sources (a F#-A#-C-C# arpeggio) but there's glimpses of the sources (on bass at 3:19 and 3:23 for example). A solo lower string plays a Dark World Dungeon melody before the track closes with a quick chord progression from the entire ensemble. On the arrangement side this is a very interesting piece. It's quite transformative, taking the sources and playing around with them a fair bit while also adding a lot of extra stuff on top. There's some writing that seems to be original but by my description above there's more than enough source in here to meet the OCR standards. My only nitpick with the arrangement is that the 3 main sections (0:37, 2:03 and 3:13) feel a little disconnected, but it's not a dealbreaker. I'm not super hot on the "joke intro" either, as I don't feel it has any real pay-off but it doesn't really hurt the piece. On production, I feel it's a little dry. It's been pointed out by some this is appropiate for chamber music so I'll just point this out as a personal preference thing rather than a true negative. You did a great job with the VSTs, they sound very convincing even if some articulations or note releases reveal the truth. There was clearly a lot of care put into the sound of the ensemble and it shows! Overall, this is a great tune. I'm not sure really what's the point of the intro joke, but the arrangement that begins after that is pretty impressive and deserves being on the front page! YES

Wanted to start by saying I really love the enthusiasm I get from the write-up with the lore mentions and all! K, this one begins with some strings and pads setting some ambience, with some melodies based on backing strings from one of the sources. I like that the strings sound appropriately synth-ish to give the space vibe. At 0:55 some dark synth bass hits, teasing the main riff of the same source. At 1:25 the beat drops but, sadly, the bass itself seems to heavily drop in volume/presence so we’re left with a surprisingly soft soundscape instead… I’m really missing some more oomph in here, be it some punchier drums, some distortion on the rhythm synth, more bass, anything! A lead guitar joins a bit after and we then move to a different section, with a new riff on synths. There’s a few repeats before we move to a new section at 2:45. There’s some neat bits of sound design in all of these sections with the pads that sweep over the track, I dig that. On this new section we get some atmospheric build-up again, with melodies of the other source on strings. 3:45 continues this, now with some actual bass which is sadly very soft in the mix. On the arrangement side this is pretty good. The medley nature could be argued against it but you do a good job of transitioning between sources and the genre is cohesive all the time so the source A → source B structure doesn’t really bother me. I also like how you shift between more atmospheric sections and more energetic ones to keep it varied. Sadly, I don’t think the production is letting this shine, mostly because the low end is very lacking. There’s basically no bass on this track and that is a bummer since you’re going for a very electronic vibe, which really needs a good bass (as an example, look at how the sources you picked approach it!). It’s extremely noticeable on the first major transition since you use a very loud distorted bass to introduce the first energetic section (1:25) but then basically drop the bass from the mix so the energy levels drop heavily. Drums are also nowhere nearly as energetic/punchy as the writing is asking for. The synths doing the main riffs are also super soft. Those riffs are asking for something dirtier. Finally, I think the lead guitar is also a little dull sounding. On the bright side, I really like your work with strings and pads, they sound awesome and there’s a ton of small details on the sound design that I loved. Overall, I think this needs a second pass on production to get posted. To really nail the vibe you're going for you need to improve the bass and drum mixing as both are very lacking in power, we need that "oomph! As a “tip”, I looked at the EQ of the track and you can notice how the lower frequencies only really activate when the kick hits. Moreover, if you grab an EQ and boost the lower end (around 100hz) you’ll basically hear no bass instrument. NO

Ah, Kirby boss themes, my beloved. The world needs as many remixes of them as we can get! For reference, I’m gonna refer to the track as having A, B and C sections on the review, each section representing the main 3 parts of the source’s loop (in order, naturally). Chiptune arpeggios to start, following the source’s A chord progression. As far as I can tell there’s no arpeggios like this on the source, so this is a neat start! Some pads join in quickly and then we get a hint of the main melody on a whistly synth around 0:20. We get hints of a build-up here but it instead leads to another build-up at 0:40, with a bassline following the chord progression until, finally, the beat drops around 1:01. Drums go into some sort of breakbeat pattern while a synth repeats the A melody. On this section the mix is a little muddy. We then move to the B melody on a different synth, with a less busy soundscape now. Section C hits next, in a section that feels a little calmer because of a simpler bassline. After a transition we get various repeats of section A, first on chiptune, then with the “busy soundscape” and then as a reprise of the intro until the song ends. On production I’m a little mixed as this feels unbalanced. Main example is the 1:01 section, where the main synth is completely overshadowed by the drums, bass and pads (partly because it starts at a lower octave). However, there’s also lack of balance between sections as, for example, the one at 1:21 is kinda randomly much lower energy with both bass and drums being super low in volume. At 1:42 the bass is once again super loud and this all creates a very unbalanced soundscape. On the other hand, I do enjoy the sounds themselves, I like how the drumkit sounds in general (although a beefier kick wouldn’t hurt), the synth leads sound good, as do pads and the synth basses. Arrangement is pretty close to the source, I think all chord progressions are kept the exact same from the original, as are the melodies. However, I think you added a lot of your own touch with the instrumentation, like the breakbeat drums and small details like the chiptune arpeggio in the intro. That said, there’s definitely space for more personalization like, for example, adding some flair to how the original melodies are played (especially the section A melody that is played like 5-6 times during the track). Overall, I don’t think this one currently passes the bar, since production issues hold it back. I really hope you're able to go back and fix those for another attempt as this track is great! NO

I'm a new judge so I haven't been here for the previous versions, which means I come with 100% fresh ears! This starts with some choirs and a church organ doing the main melody of the source before we get a quick drum transition into a more electronic vibe at 0:13. Around 0:28 a new melody enters, which as far as I can tell doesn’t come from the source even if it’s similar in style. At 0:42 we get the B melody from the source on electric piano while a synth bass follows the original’s chord progression. We then get a reprise of the intro before another electronic break around 1:08. Around 1:23 a synth plays the A melody again and then some sort of synth solo follows. 1:47 has a breakdown similar to 0:42, changing the lead to a synth now. We get another intro reprise for the end, closing with the D major/minor progression from the source. On the production side I have some mixed opinions, I think you did a pretty good job with some of the basses and pads, especially when you added extra effects to make them feel more alive. However, the same isn't true for other elements like leads, which are often very basic sounding. Percussion I'm mixed on as well, kick is somewhat punchy but the snare doesn't really cut through the mix well. Drum writing is generally very basic (mostly kick on 1 and 3, snare on 2 and 4), but I did like the fills you added every once in a while. On the arrangement side I'm not sold at all. There's no issues with source usage, as it's evidently there for most of the track. My issues are with the structure of the arrangement, as it constantly shifts between energetic parts and breaks, never truly building up to anything. Similarly, it constantly shifts between sections A and B from the source but never truly expands on any of them. As a result, it feels like a collection of reinterpretations of said sections more than a song that flows between different parts. Overall, I think this needs work on both production and arrangement fronts. On production, focus on sound design of the less sophisticated parts, they could really use a level up. On arrangement, try to imagine the song having a clearer direction instead of simply moving between A/B melodies/moods. It'll end up sounding more cohesive, which is its main flaw. NO

One of the most fun collabs I've joined! After Emunator sent me an early WIP I responded with a ton of bullshit improvised over it and, shockingly, a lot of it actually made it to the final product. My favorite part is (surprise!) the piano solo around 2:22. I wrote the first half, Emunator wrote the second and I did the final recording, so it was actually a co-written solo, which I think is super cool!

Sharing the ones I've uploaded since my last post: I'm gonna share 2 additionals that are on the To Be Posted queue so they'll count eventually!

Figured I could share the stuff I used in my latest track, most of it is stuff I use in other tracks as well. I'll highlight those that haven't been mentioned (I think): Drums Addictive Drums 2. Battery 4. Basically, I start with AD2 sound and then layer some extra stuff from Battery 4 to enhance the kit. I also use Battery 4 stuff for transitions. Synths and similar FM8 Massive/MassiveX Plogue chipsounds for chiptunes. (Here!) Effects Guitar Rig for distortion on bass, guitars and keyboards. ReEQ for EQ, it's a free JS plug-in that has nice functions like side/mid EQ. (You can find it here!) OTT. TAL Reverb. (Here!) Ferric Saturator. (Here!) kilohearts suite (limiter mostly). Melda suite (saturation!). isotope Ozone for mastering. I also use a lot of libraries from Komplete 8 for stuff but I'm a bit lazy to list them all...

Awesome work by minusworld, it was one of my favorite tracks from that DoD month. As a fun fact, it was also the track that made me notice minus' work, which led to us working together the next DoD month!

Hey! I love that you used it for your animation reel! As Liontamer said I published the remix on paid music services so it probably got an automated claim... which sucks tbh. I see you changed the vid already but if there's any way I can help with the copyright claim just lemme know. Meanwhile I'll look at why it got an automatic claim, I don't really want people to be unable to use my published stuff on their own videos or anything. EDIT: Got in contact with some soundrop people and they don't work with vimeo so this is very weird. Do you happen to have a screenshot or anything from the copyright claim?

Your social media powers are too strong haha. EDIT: Lmao I checked and one of the comments was even originally in Spanish. Truly a tamer of lions.

This one got posted fast haha, always nice when that happens! I'm very proud with how it ended up, collaborating with Emunator worked out great and it was super fun. The writeup on the mixpost page has this line as a quote: "Hehe, there is always room for new things, even for the most "overcovered" themes. The 2 tracks go surprisingly well together, don't they?"... I'm fairly sure I never said that haha, was that Emunator?

Wow at the album you linked in the description Larry, it's ridiculous. I can definitely understand the comparison between that and this remix haha.

I mean, OP doesn't mention "basic prompts" or anything of the sort, it just mentions prompts. The "simple" part was by me 😋 There's really 2 points in the OP, one is about the ethics of how the models were trained regarding artist consent and copyright. I'm not sure if OCR's stance would be the same if the models were "ethically" trained or if, for example, a user trained their own model only on songs they made or something like that. There's a second point about the "interpretation" aspect of AI generated music, the "human touch". I think we simply disagree here, I don't think current tools provide much "human touch". Even if Suno allows for more than "a simple prompt", the "human part" is still a low percentage of the finished creation. Of course this could change with time and how the technology evolves but it's my stance on what I've seen of current technology. In the end, it's up to the community to decide how it approaches these things. I think it's fair if OCR decides it wants to focus on music that is created on a larger percentage by the "human touch" and, of course, policies can change over time as technology evolves.

I mean, the rule discussed in the OP is pretty specific, regarding websites like Udio, which are quite dubious (ethically) in how they were trained. OP is not banning all uses of AI in music and points it out clearly. This is not about being technology myopic and saying "AI is the devil" or something silly like that. This isn't about "you can't use tools in music" or anything similar either. For example, I begin all my mastering from Ozone's "smart master" function, which uses AI. I don't see the point in this honestly. Sure, a big percentage of stuff we use in music is, to some degree, a black box (like, I have no idea how an EQ actually does what it does), but the difference in how much control I have between those plugins and (today's) genAI tools is night and day. Although I don't know exactly how my VSTs generate the notes that they generate, I tell them what note to play and I usually have control over a decent amount of the sound properties. With genAI you don't have control beyond a prompt and stuff like modifying an output is basically impossible (with today's tools at least). As for more complex prompts like what you're saying... I dunno, it seems like a technology so completely different to what the OP is discussing that I don't think bringing up it as an hypothetical makes much sense really.

The difference is that when an artist uses paints that Da Vinci used, they're deliberately choosing how they do it. Training and then using an AI is a complete black box where you don't control the output at all beyond a simple prompt.

Echoing the question about the playlist actually existing... In case it does, I can add a few of mine: