paradiddlesjosh   Judges ⚖️

Larry already covered the major issues and while there is a preponderance of source material usage this time, the production quality is below the bar. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and the lack of source usage is more than enough to prevent this one from passing. Given this is only the second of two tracks flooded into our submission queue in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO

Craig, this is going to sound blunt, even rude. You might feel insulted. The lack of identifiable source material usage alone would be enough to keep this track from passing the panel. Two brief, straightforward quotes from "Overworld" and half a verse's worth of vocal melody across a 4-minute song do not a ReMix make and no amount of goofy meta-narrative lyrics will change that. And frankly, it's questionable how much of this, if any, is your production. If the drums are indeed GarageBand Drummer, they need more humanizing (velocity variations, nuance, ghost notes, etc) so that the part doesn't sound like a string of loops from a MIDI pack. If the vocals are truly Ace Studio and not a hallucination from Suno, then this, too, needs more effort on your part to craft a believable performance, as Hemo mentioned. This is without mentioning the limiter settings or the warbly shmear on the instruments and vocals. That's all a hard NO right there. Assuming you made this track as you claimed to have made it in your comments on the submission, it needs a massive overhaul before it's ready to be posted here. We have no issue with the use of virtual instruments or effects that utilize machine learning (e.g. SWAM, Ace Studio, iZotope Ozone), provided the track's execution conforms to our Submission Standards (which I encourage you to read and familiarize yourself with if you wish to submit to us again in the future). But we don't allow generative AI elements in tracks at OverClocked ReMix, full stop. We're here to celebrate VGM as a human-created art form, not merely to provide a platform for content. HELL TO THE NO

Howdy Dav! Love me some "Cosmo Canyon!" You're probably going to think I hated your submission. proph's right that there's a big hole around 2kHz in the overall mix. On top of that, the lows and upper mids (50-120Hz and a wide bell around 5kHz) are boosted smiley face-style over the low mids, it looks and sounds like the mids have been artificially widened in the stereo field, and the track has several peak clips. The result is a muddy smear of a mixdown; none of the parts feel like they have a defined space in the soundscape, and they're all competing with each other for a slice of clarity in the upper mids bump. The production quality is too far below the bar for this to pass, even with the best possible interpretive arrangement. Which is a shame, because there are some highlights in the arrangement worth shouting out, namely the samba rhythms in the drums and the solo section at 1:36 that's a stylistic breath of fresh air. I'll echo proph's suggestion of more personalization on the melody line and a more definitive ending (the fadeout is fine, but a real outro would really take this to the next level). I can't say for sure that the recording quality of the parts is responsible for the mixdown, though -- it's hard for me to tell if the parts were recorded poorly or if the EQ and stereo widening are the culprit. In any case, this one needs a production overhaul before it's ready for OCR. If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend asking around in the #workshop channel on the OC ReMix Discord server or the (less active) Post Your Game ReMixes! forum for feedback. There's an arrangement with legs here, Dav; it needs some help getting those legs moving. NO (resubmit)

Co-signing with Chimpazilla and proph on this one. While your arrangement hews conservatively to the source material, I think the little additions like the reduction to the piano and bells at 1:20 before building back into the A section and the approaches to the melodic material on the guitar and vocals elevate this beyond a simple 1:1 cover of the tune. The production is the one big problem that's holding this one back -- too heavy in the mids, the heartbeat is eating up all your headroom, and the -2dB limiter ceiling, while maybe not causing all your production problems, only serves to clip the louder low-end elements (namely the heartbeat and the left hand of the piano). This one's ready for the front page with some tweaks on the mix, Azina! NO (resubmit)

I'm with proph and Hemo on this one. This track feels too repetitive within each section to justify the 5-minute runtime, particularly the drums. Like jnWake and Hemo, I also agree about the lack of cohesion between the elements. While I'm certainly no expert on DnB, I found myself expecting -- wanting -- more bass than we've been given here; I think the wobbly bass starting at 1:40 is an interesting choice (though it lacks power and presence) and without other bass elements, the arrangement goes beyond feeling weightless to feeling ungrounded. Like Hemo, I dig the atmospheric elements and the sampling; I also love the drum patterns (especially the double-tresillo segment at 3:37 with the "weird snare sound" according to jnWake -- maybe it's weird to you, but to me, it's got a nice ring to it that's a change of pace from the tighter, snappier snares we've gotten to up that point😜). The problem for me, ultimately, is that the overly repetitive elements and the lack of low-end are enough to keep me from signing off on this one, Nobel. With some more variation on the individual patterns (or the removal of some repetitive segments) and the addition of another bass element, I'd be on board! NO