jnWake   Judges ⚖️

Some of the Star Fox 64 themes have such weird melodies, Venom being a standout in that sense... In any case, we begin with some pads and voice clips. Backing is doing material from N64 Venom. Source quotes at 0:27 become quite evident. There's some fun toms (I guess?) here, with tons of effects applied that make them sound quite interesting. As usual in your tracks, there's A LOT going on in terms of sounds. Things build-up for a bit and it starts becoming very very LOUD, the waveform shows the limiting very clearly and the LUFS stabilizes around -7dB with occasional peaks of -5 and such. Around 0:55 the Venom 64 usage becomes even more evident with the additional synths. We get a transition with a voice clip around a minute in and then focus on a quick synth bass. Really love the dark electronic sound of that sample. At 1:22 the source returns and we get some nice moments of heavy electronica until a more syncopated section at 1:48. After that we get more heavy electronica with additional synths and tons of loudness. While the mix is clear sounding it also feels very heavy on the high frequencies (easy to check with plugins like SPAN). Section with violins at 2:16 is fun, nice change-up. We then return to more quotes of Venum with a lot of percussion and such. Around 2:51 there's a break and we move to SNES Venom for a few seconds before a cool variation of Venom N64 with Venom SNES as backing. Track then continues with quick changes and all sorts of Venom quotes. This is kinda like prog EDM at this point! At 4 minutes we get another voice clip transition and then we return to the mood of 1:22 and it's loud and busy as hell. There's another voice clip transition and the melody from 2:16 returns before the track closes off with some stabs. On arrangement this is super cool, I have no idea how one would label this but I'd describe it as dark prog EDM. Source usage is clear and there's a lot of fun and creative usages of the original themes. Some transitions are a tad abrupt but I don't really mind them, I feel this generally flows well and is quite interesting to listen to. Well done! On production I'm mixed but mostly because of one particular thing. Let me start with the positives though. Sound design is great, there's a lot of cool effects and fun treatment of the samples (like those toms in the first minute). Percussion is punchy and the bass, when it matters, stands out great. I also generally feel that the mixing is well done, with most individual things being easy to hear. There's 2 things that bother me about the production though. First, the mix is very very heavy on high frequencies and that makes listening to the entire track a little tiring on the ears. You use a lot of synths and it's easy for all those bright sounds to layer together and create a huge mass of shrill sounds that can get rough, I'd recommend trying to balance it out by ducking high frequencies on many of the samples. My main gripe, however, is that the master is ridiculously loud. A look at the waveform will clearly show that the limiter is being quite aggressive and checking with a LUFS meter indicates very high levels for most of the track. As a reminder, submission standards claim "Volume levels should be normal compared to the average recording". Overall, while I think the arrangement is very very cool and the production is 90% there, I feel this needs (at least) a second pass on the mastering (although looking at balancing the higher frequencies would be great too). I understand that electronic genres want to be very loud sometimes but IMO this is way too much, especially for the length of the track. NO

Hell yeah Fire Emblem Heroes! I haven't played in years but I still remember some of the music. Ok, so this begins with a calm pad and some arpeggios. The arp is somewhat reminiscent of the ones in Howling Gears but not that much. I like the vibe during the first minute, the "Shout" inspiration is clear in the percussion (love that track by the way). Bass enters around 0:52, I can feel its presence but hearing the actual notes is fairly challenging. From what I can tell, the chord progression doesn't seem to be any of the sources' (at least, not directly). Guitar enters with a simple pattern a bit later, I love its tone and what it adds to the track's sound. Rhytm guitar joins at 1:50, sounds cool but I feel the soundscape is a tad cluttered by now, maybe some automation to drop the percussion in volume a tad wouldn't hurt. There's some nice effects and a break at 2:30 with synth strings and a synth bass. At 3:10 we finally get an easily identifiable source quote on guitar. Really cool soundscape here, I particularly enjoyed the jump at 3:50 to a higher octave. Around 4:30 we return to the riffs and melodies from earlier in the track. Still a nice vibe. At 5:10 we switch into a slightly different vibe for the final riff. There's more of a bass focus at the end and I can now tell it's playing the bass line from Howling Gears. With how hard to hear the bass is I'm not sure if this has been going on for the entire time or just now... Anyway, I'll first talk about production. Generally I think this sounds great, most samples sound nice and there's a lot of small details on percussion and transitions that are neat. There's some times where it gets cluttered, not a dealbreaker but some automation to help the listener focus on the more relevant parts would be a nice idea. My main issue is the bass, I can tell it's there but it's VERY hard to hear what it's playing, which is especially relevant since it seems to be the main bringer of source material. On arrangement, I think it flows great. First couple of minutes create a nice mood, then we have a break followed by a new section and then a reprise to close. It's a long track but it manages to keep my attention and interest. The main question with this one will be source usage. Section from 3:10 to 4:30 is, without a doubt, playing the source, but the rest is much harder to notice IMO. As I mentioned on my write-up, I only really noticed the bass was quoting the main Howling Gears riff on the ending where it's playing isolated. Counting bassline as source usage would bring us closer to this being eligible for OCR but, being honest, I have such a hard time actually hearing the bass that I can't reliable count where the source bassline is present. I'll make my best effort here (based on your source usage description): Bass from 0:52 to 2:30 is doing a similar (at times equal) pattern than the main Howling Gears riff. To note, the chord progression here is completely original and the bass riff is clearly not the focus of this entire section (unlike the source where the bass pattern is very clearly highlighted). Bass from 2:30 to 3:10 is doing the same notes than in Howling Gears B section. 3:10 to 4:30 is clearly using the Howling Gears main melody (slight variation at least). There's some elements that you pointed out in your description I couldn't really hear like: Super saw/synth string (doing a diminished interval in the original) being present from 0:33. Same for the guitar chugs. Main arpeggios from the intro being taken from the sources. The descending arpeggios that play at times seems relatively similar to the ones that play on Howling Gears B but curiously you didn't listen them as source usage in your expanded description (but did list them on the first description). Counting the elements that seem taken from the source, we basically have source material present in some form from 0:52 to 4:30, basically 3:30 mins of a 6 minute track. While this is technically more than 50%, the standards state: I don't really feel the bass section from 0:52 to 2:30 is identifiable and dominant so, to me, it feels wrong to count it just to clear the technical 50% barrier (which isn't even an actual rule, more of a guide). I can only truly consider 2:30 to 4:30 as identifiable and dominant source usage. Overall, while I enjoy hearing this quite a bit and think it's generally well produced, I don't really think it has enough dominant (emphasis here) source usage for it to be posted. Others may disagree but that's my take for now. NO

Ah, this track... I'm very familiar with it and totally not salty. Anyway, this begins with some acoustic noodling to set the mood. At 0:40 we start getting source material, with the transformation of the intro into an acoustic jam. Main melody strikes at 1:05 on an acoustic duet. There's percussion in here but it's kinda subdued. Around 1:30 we get a small break that adds strings into the mix. Love the percussion fill at 1:54 as we reach the second main melody. I really like how it's played with a ton of repeated notes, adds a ton of character. After this we repeat 0:40 and then an extended version of 1:30. At 3:40 we move into a closing guitar solo that has an unexpected volume jump, On arrangement, this is pretty cool. You did a great job adapting an iconic and dramatic source into the "flamenco" acoustic style. As far as I could tell melody and harmony treatment was fairly conservative but the whole genre shift is enough personalization to pass OCR's criteria on my book. On production this is great, particularly the quality of the acoustic recording. The only gripe I have is the volume jump around 3:40, it seems unnatural to me. On closer inspection, it seems it literally happens at 3:43, a plugin throws a quick peak of around -4 LUFS there. Obviously not a dealbreaker but worth pointing out in case the mixer wants to take a look! Overall, a top notch adaption of a classic VGM track. Easy pass! YES

Interesting source to cover, it doesn't that have much material but a neat atmosphere. I think prophetik above did a good job describing each section so I won't expand much there. I generally agree with his take on source usage, your track is taking musical ideas similar to the original, like 3 note arpeggios on several sections making "melodies" with the highest note of the arpeggio, but at no point plays the source in a way that anyone would clearly pinpoint it being a cover. For example, on the intro you're doing a 3-2-1 "melody" on F minor while the source does 5-6-4 on D minor (plus the 3-4-2 flourish to end each phrase), you then change the "melody" to a different one that still doesn't clearly echo the source. The synth arpeggio at 1:08 is the closest to the source since at least it has the 5-6 interaction, but it's a minor part of the track so even if it counted as "source usage" we'd be left with an arrangement that's largely "original". As an aside, on the 2:03 you're layering a synth playing a melody on C# minor over the F minor arrangement and it doesn't really sound good to my ears. I'm assuming you're doing this contrast intentionally but it doesn't land well IMO. K, so on arrangement. First, this isn't fit for OCR on its current form as its not really an identifiable cover of the source. It'd definitely need retooling on that side to clear our submission standards. Besides from that I think the arrangement's quite good, sections are well constructed and it flows well. I do agree with proph that it's fairly repetitive though, there's potential to add some extra touches on repeats to make each section feel unique. I don't have many notes on production, I think most elements sound good and are easy to hear in the soundscape. Only instrument I felt could use some extra work are the low strings, it lacks some clarity that could be achieved with more attack on the sample or maybe layering an staccato string playing the same lines. Overall, I think this is a solid arrangement with good production. However, it feels more like an original song than a clear cover of the source, which disqualifies it for OCR. If you intend to resubmit it you'd need to rework the arrangement to make the source usage more clear. It'll be challenging with a source like this but there's elements that could be highlighted and expanded even on such a short track (the 5-6-4 "melody", the 3-4-2 flourish at the end of each phrase, the #7 that gives the arpeggio a harmonic minor feel). For now though, the vote is: NO

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

mo.oorgan and 6 minutes, insert "Ah shit here we go again" meme but on a positive note. Anyway, we begin with some pad/SFX with "cave vibes". Actual track starts at 0:29 with a crystal-ish synth doing a slightly modified version of the source's melody. Electronic percussion sneaks in slowly and around 1:00 it turns into dnb/edm (not an expert on electronic genre names!). I'm not too sold on the lows, seems quite busy around 50-60 Hz and quite draining on the ears even. Source stays but on a minor role during this section, with some source melodies playing every few bars. We keep on a similar vibe until a cool "regular" percussion fill around 2:25 that moves us into the second source melody. I found it a bit odd that the "regular" percussion only did a fill to then disappear but I guess it's fine. Around 3:00 there's a very atmospheric break with a soft pad and a lead. 3:25 sees the return of source melodies while still keeping the same atmospheric vibe. There's an electronic percussion fill and around 4:00 we return to dnb/edm, clearly featuring the source once again. There's a prominent tom on the beat that I don't enjoy much, it sticks out a ton and plays on every single measure. We continue on the same vibe as the track progresses, with source melodies coming from a pretty piano around the 5 minute mark. At 6:00 there's a small break and then the track ends with a standard electronic fill. On arrangement this is good, definitely a lot more subdued than what I expect from mo. It's a nice and chill electronic journey, keeping mostly the same vibe for the whole duration, but there's also enough breaks and variations to keep it fresh. I think it could have easily worked as a 3 minute track but I don't mind it being 6 minutes. It's a great track to have in the background. Larry timed the source usage above so we're clear on that but I didn't have any doubts about it being enough myself, as most sections clearly feature the source and the only ones that don't are the intro SFX, the 3:00 break and the ending. Production is, as usual, stellar. I'm not a big fan of the 50-60 range on this mix but I got used to it while listening to the entire track and it's nowhere close to being a dealbreaker. Most of the samples used here sound excellent and there's a lot of cool sound design effects and transitions. Overall, a nice chill jouirney with great production and enough variety to sustain the 6 and a half minutes. YES

Starts with some beach/ocean SFX and musical elements get added around 0:19, which I believe correspond to the first flute lines from the source (before the iconic melodies!). Some voice samples from the game are layered in as we continue on a slow electronic vibe until a break at 0:57. There's a build-up here with the main Dragon Roost melody playing on a crystal-ish synth while more SFX plays on top. Around 1:17 it settles on a beat for a short bit and at 1:35 it introduces a different one. There's also a neat harp and finally at 1:57 the main melody takes the spotlight. The bass gets buried a little on this section since the low end gets a bit overwhelming to me, there's a lot of content there. At 2:17 the melody ends and we continue for a bit with the backing and the 0:19 melody getting the spotlight for a bit before the main melody repeats. Soundscape here is very busy, there's A LOT going on but, somehow, most things seem easy to hear. It's overwhelming though. 3:03 introduces a bit of much needed "peace" (relative to the earlier section) but then 3:24 actually delivers on a calm moment featuring the B section from the source. More layers come in and a wild transition moves us back into the 2:17 harp, which gets a cool detune effect as a transition around 4:05. There's another instance of the main melody taking the spotlight and then the track ends with the beach/ocean SFX from the intro. Arrangement is wild, there's plenty of different interpretations of the source and different electronic dance-ish moods in here. Generally the transitions are cool with a lot of fun sound design ideas. As a personal preference I wish it wasn't changing all the time since some sections feel they could've gotten more development. I also feel the track could have like 50% less samples/sound effects and it wouldn't lose that much, but I suppose the chaos is the intention as well! On production this is quite interesting, the sound design elements are quite well done with a lot of fun SFX usage and other techniques to create cool transitions (like the ones at 3:53 and 4:08). That said, I do feel there are several moments where it gets OVERWHELMING and there's space to make the soundscape a little easier to digest, for example the combination of a steady kick with a busy bass AND a simple bass all going on at the same time on the 1:57 section is something that could be worked on to be easier on the ears. Similarly, there's points where there's a lot of material on higher frequencies that also can be grating on the ears (for example I found the combo of high frequency stuff around 4:14 to be too much). Overall, very interesting piece! Arrangement is wild and fun and the production, while having some balance issues, does a good job of supporting the craziness with cool effects and transitions. YES

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

If you like randomly good soundtracks in Pokémon games, I recommend Pokémon Quest! You already took the time to make a source breakdown so I'll try to not repeat much from the description. We begin with some nice airy pads and a pretty synth lead. Percussion enters quickly with a fun groove that's kinda chill and upbeat at the same time. Drumkit sounds great here, very punchy and clear, although the hats are a bit washed out. We move to Pokémon Sleep with more interesting percussion over some nice melodies and at 1:14 we get a fun rhytmic section, I think you used less dissonant chords than the source here, a good move IMO. At 1:39 we get a change to double time that sounds really cool! Being a bit nitpicky I think this section could have extra oomph, the hats are super washed and I'm missing a sharp contrast. Something like background arpeggios or a dynamic pad/chord stabs could be a fun idea as well. After a cool chord progression we move into Aether Paradise for a bit of a break. Melody at 2:11 is a bit weird. At 2:30 things get a tad more intense, there seems to be 2 different leads competing for attention and I'm finding it hard to focus on a clear melody. Around 2:58 we slowly transition back into Eterna Forest, the chord progression at the beginning here suggests something darker coming, which caught me a bit off guard when the chill forest melody returned. There's a repeat of the Pokémon Sleep material in what almost seems like a copy/paste to me. Missed opportunity to add extra variation or maybe even a keyboard solo. At 4:30 there's variations over the double time melody from 1:39. Finally, track ends with some pretty piano stuff. On production this is excellent, almost no notes really. Percussion is punchy, samples are all high quality and everything sounds clear. We know what to expect from you after all this time! On arrangement this is mostly excellent as well, with my only gripe being the "copy pasted" repetition starting at 3:23. It'd have been fun to have some twists on the returning material, otherwise I feel the track could've easily lasted 90 seconds less without much loss. Overall, awesome job! Excellent production and a fun arrangement despite my only gripe. There's no doubt this deserves to be on the front page. YES

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

I voted on part 1 yesterday, so it feels right to vote on part 2 now! Anyway, we begin with Vah Medoh, this section is calm and has a slow build-up. There's some Ballad of the Windfish cameos I think? We transition to the next tune pretty smoothly, but the 2 sections feel very disconnected still. At 2:12 you begin doing the transition to City of the Sky with some cameos of another tune from Link's Awakening and arpeggios quite reminiscent of the Final Fantasy prelude. It's a pretty cool transition to a source that's basically just chords. After a while we move to Astral Observatory (kinda reaching with the sky connection here), with kind of a non-transition to be honest. A cute flute transition leads to the Rito themes which are beautifully played Honestly, I think most of my comments from part 1 apply here. Every section is beautifully performed, but I wish there was more of a connective tissue between sections. It doesn't feel there's any overaching structure in the arrangement, we simply move from one source to the next, there's no tension/release or anything of the sort. Vah Medoh feels like a build-up but there's no pay-off. I understand this is a medley but I wish there was a bit more to it. That said, it does conform to OCR's standards since the transitions are great for the most part. Production is still awesome, everything sounds beautiful. Just like on the previous section, the exaggerated panning can be odd. Overall, another easy pass! YES

Whew this is a long track. I love the "wind/sky theme" for a medley. I'll go for a smaller breakdown than usual here: We begin with Wind Waker's "Title Theme". Beautiful interpretation, very close to the original in arrangement. However, I love how it sounds, every performance is excellent and everything is very well mixed. I'll agree with proph on the choir sample's quality standing out in a bad way among such pretty sounding instruments. After "Title Theme" ends there's a bit of silence and a non-transition "Wind's Requiem", which does transition more naturally to BotW's "Sheikah Tower". Once again, cover seems close to the original in terms of arrangement but it sounds great. "Wind Temple Phase 1" gets introduced around 3:32, very good transition here again. There's some slight tuning clashes on those sections where there's big chords (like 4:10), but nothing dealbreaker. We then move to WW's "Wind Temple", another well handled transition. Some unisons (like 5:00) sound a bit weird. Other judges have mentioned panning and I'll agree that it feels odd at times, it's very noticeable in this section IMO, with the choir for example. We finally move to "Palace of Winds" in a very seamless way. I'd say this final 2 sections are my favorite, as they're more dynamic. I don't feel the end sounds unnatural at all. On arrangement, this is an interesting piece. Several of the sources are covered very faithfully, but they're well adapted to this wind focused ensemble and most of the transitions are really good. If anything, I'm only missing some connective elements present throughout the track so that it feels less like several sources one after the other. On production this is awesome, every instrument sounds great and is very easy to hear on the mix. Only nitpick would be the exaggerated panning at times. Overall, this is an easy pass, good arrangement, production and performances! YES

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

I remember watching that 8BMT a while ago, that second source is indeed quite insane. "The Chase" is an absolute banger though. Anyway, this begins with a classic dnb pad sound quickly joined by the G#-A repeating notes from "The Chase" and a very standard electronic drumbeat. At 0:25, the first melody from "The Chase" plays with some pads and SFX. Around 0:47 we move to the next section from "The Chase", which focuses on a D chord, creating tension. I love the percussion work in here, adding some chaos. There's a quick build-up with a classic swelling sound as we move to the next section: "Mad Luca"! It's kind of a rough transition tbh, mostly because (I think) it begins on B and there's no harmonic preparation for the key change. Now, "Mad Luca" is a completely whack track so it feels a little odd to be calling out the key change but it makes the transition even more jarring than it should. In any case, from 1:11 we start covering "Mad Luca" territory and it's honestly almost impossible to accurately describe what's happening... I like how there's a lot of interplay between different synths during this section, and I also quite enjoy the percussion work here, switching from "nonsense" to having a regular beat for a few bars. We return to "The Chase" around 2:26 in a transition that's surprisingly natural. This riff works well on the dnb style. Then there's a reprise from the 0:25 melody and around 3:03 a reprise of 2:26 with more melodies (just like how it plays on the source). There's a fake-out ending at 3:25 and after that a 40 seconds or so section that honestly doesn't really add much IMO, just a beat and a reprise of the intro pad and voice clip. On arrangement I think this is great. The first minute is a nice build-up to lead into the "Mad Luca" section. I'll disagree with prophetik here, the length of the section doesn't bother me at all and I think the chaos of it, the constant changing of synths and never having a constant beat is a really cool effect. The transition back to "The Chase" is also great so that helps. Main nitpicks in terms of arrangement would be the transition to "Mad Luca" and the final section which, honestly, I'd cut. On production this is great, I have almost no nitpicks. IMO you absolutely nailed the dnb style and I dig the synth choices. If I were to nitpick anything, I think there's some SFX that get a bit wild on volume at times, but it's absolutely not a dealbreaker. Overall, I really like this! Arrangement is fun, production is great. Source treatment is generally conservative but the genre switch is transformative enough for this to fit OCR IMO. I'd love if the track ended at 3:25 instead of the additional ~40 seconds, but I won't reject the track for that! 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