paradiddlesjosh   Judges ⚖️

Hey there, Matt! I'm going to co-sign with proph and Emu. The production on this track is the largest contributor to its shortcomings. The drums lack punch and are just buried under the synths and, to a lesser extent, the guitars. There's a massive buildup in the low mids (around 300 Hz) that makes the whole track sound muddy and the lead guitar and synths are competing for the mids bandwidth around 1-3 kHz. There's also that sudden drop in guitar volume in the left channel around 1:02 that proph mentioned. Sounds like a floor tom is causing clipping in the first B section (1:06-1:41), then another peak clip at 2:28 from the entrance of the reverb-heavy synth lead for the solo and more clipping at 2:58 on the fill heading into the final B section. Speaking of that synth lead, it utterly dominates the mix for the entire solo. Simply put, I'd need to hear more attention paid to volume balancing, EQ, and compression for this track to be ready to post. It's worth pointing out that your arrangement's quite good! While the structure is conservative, I think your solos keep things interesting and let your voice shine through. To echo proph again, your sound palette works great for the style. The vibes are right, so let's fix the mix! I recommend joining the OCR Discord and looking for feedback in the #workshop channel and/or the Office Hours Weekly WIP Review on most Wednesday evenings. NO (resubmit)

Howdy, RHYTH_TWISTED! Closing this one out by adding a quick co-sign with XPRT and proph. Really solid production and vibes, just need to hear more of your personal touches on the arrangement of things. We'd love to hear some more from you soon! NO

Hey, I remember this one from DoD too! What a crazy time Alien Month was. 😄 This is my first foray into hearing anything from Super R-Type and now I feel like I've been introduced to the whole OST! Loud master aside, the groovin' metal adaptation of these themes fires on all cylinders. "Solo Sortie" seems to have the most overall development of any of the sections, and the transition from it into "Counterattack '91" is likewise the best in the medley. The half-time feel going into "As Wet as a Fish" in the drums is a major highlight, though, as is the shift into "A Submerging Titan" at 3:52. I dislike the sound of the toms at 4:37 (filling from "Dream of a Labyrinth" into "Return of the Creature"); it sounds like they've been aggressively high-passed. Not a fan of the slam transition into that fill, either. Overall, though, there is clear intentionality in the flow from track to track. So having said that, you're probably going to think I hated it, Gregorio: I'm ultimately falling in with proph. The arrangement, although carefully navigated through the various themes, plays it too conservatively. The melody lines as a whole and most of the backing elements (guitars, bass, orch hits) seem like they're playing 1:1 with the source material for the duration of the piece. Which is a shame because the performances are quite good! If it doesn't compromise your vision, I'd YES a revision that has stronger transitional elements, more personal touches in the arrangement (like the half-time drums in "Wet as a Fish"), and/or a recurring theme or at least a callback to a previous track. (To Seph's point, both of the Metallica medleys he linked to use one source as a bookend for the arrangement.) OCR's no stranger to medleys, from CHM's "Unsealed" to TheManPF and friends' "wily theme;" "Unsealed" for its repeated callbacks to "Dark World" and "Hyrule Castle" and "wily theme" for using the "Dr. Wily Stage 1 BGM" as a through-line for all sorts of shenanigans. NO

I remember this one from Smash Month, only now it's just the instrumental! Hits a little different without Naop's interview with Dweller over the top. Hard to believe it's from a source tune that's only about 25 seconds. Your arrangement flows a lot like something off The Weather Channel: strong start, builds well (particularly the extra bar going into the solo at 1:30), strong finish. Using the source outro to make a bookend intro and outro was a great choice, doubly so for extending the ending. I'll second proph's nitpicking about the level of the bass, and I'm not the biggest fan of the kick and snare sounds, but these are also nitpicks. What's here is above the bar. Hook this onto the Tornado, strap in, and ride it onto the front page. YES

Howdy, 7DD9! I'm siding with prophetik and jnWake on this one. The dynamic curve on this one feels too narrow IMO, and a lot of that has to do with the repetition in the backing elements throughout (of particular note is the arpeggiating synth that trucks along from beginning to end). 2:17-2:33 has a missed opportunity to pull things back further: it seems like you intended a build here for the "Nuclear weapon launched" drop and because the backing elements don't simplify enough, there's no room to grow. The other Js have pointed out the mixing imbalances on the resonant string pad at 1:35 and the bass. I agree with them: these are hampering an arrangement that does a great job of ratcheting up the dark mood of the source material and demonstrates restraint in delivering melodic content. While I agree with jnWake that the snare at 1:35 could be beefier, the taiko-like percussion elements are super solid. The reverse cymbal at about 0:06 is tasty as well. This track's really close to a YES from me and I'd love to take another listen to this one after another mixing pass! NO (resubmit)

Howdy NoTuX! I'm dropping a quick co-sign in line with the other Js. The biggest issue holding this track back is the current mix/master: like XPRTnovice called out, the flute at 1:15 and the piano at 2:00 are too hot, and the crispiness of the cymbals on the high end could be the result of pushing the limiter too far on the mixbus. I want to emphasize that your arrangement is solid; the transitions you added help maintain an interesting flow through the track. While the ending could be stronger, I think this would clear the bar with another mixing pass. NO (resubmit)

Howdy, Jeremy! I'm giving a quick co-sign here with Liontamer and prophetik to close this one out. The lack of drum fills or groove variations for the bulk of the piece is holding this one back; 1:43-2:08 is a stand-out segment with the new drum groove and, from an arrangement perspective, your piece stands to benefit greatly from new parts like that one. The back half of the track (2:08 onward) is a rehash of the first 1:45 or so, other than the octave move on the melody line at 2:43. And as proph noted, the mix feels overcompressed, and that lead synth gets grating on that upper octave at 2:43. If you can develop the arrangement, give the rhythm section more variation, and dial the mix in some more, you'll have a next-level track on your hands. Please, keep cookin' on this one! NO (resubmit)

Howdy, Jonpon! This will probably sound like I hated this track: I fully agree with proph's notes. For starters, the instrumentation and production simply aren't up to par. The lack of a rhythmic constant makes the intro difficult to follow. The transformation of "Barret's Theme's" A section melody you've given from 0:24-0:48 is nearly unrecognizable, and the dissonant layers underneath aren't doing the section any favors, either. The rapid descending arpeggios in the intro callback from 1:13-1:38 sort out the intro's rhythm problem, but proph's right that a bunch of parts are just stepping all over each other because they're playing in the same range. It seems like the organ is carrying the melody line at 1:38-2:03? I can barely make out the "Barret's Theme" C section melody; without Nobuo's stepwise figuring from the source material, your interpretation is tenuous. The lead at 2:27-2:44 has another tenuous source connection; as a nitpick, I don't agree with the highly active lead line over the top of a pulsing pedal tone bassline and no other rhythm section. There isn't any setup for the ending at 3:32. It's not all doom and gloom, though. The organ lick of the source B section melody at 0:49-1:13 is solid. The segments that truck along like 2:03-2:27 feel great. The reprise of the A section motif at 3:02 works much better than your first statement at 0:24. There's a cool story behind your arrangement. You've got an arrangement with promise and potential here. If you haven't already, I highly recommend taking this to the #workshop channel on the OCR Discord. It's more active than the forums these days, and the folks there can help you take this track to the next level! NO (resubmit)

Howdy, PF! As other Js have noted, no arrangement issues here. While the structure's somewhat conservative, the added falling action segments (2:59-3:10, 6:05-6:33), the breakdown (5:15-5:41), and the re-arrangement of some of the choruses on the back half of the track are more than interpretive enough. Stellar performances all around. I love the contrasting acoustic and clean electric guitar arpeggios in the intro and verses. GotW's flute line at 1:13-1:40 is a great melodic palette cleanser between EK's and PF's verses, ditto Sean's organ at 5:27-5:53 and how it dovetails in the lead electric guitar at 5:54 -- would have loved to hear more of the flute at 4:53-5:16, as it blends into the string line, but this is a nitpick. Like XPRTnovice, I'm not sure whether to pay attention to the organ or the acoustic guitar once the organ enters the breakdown (5:27-5:41), so panning these two against each other for some separation can help -- once again, another nitpick. Zack's bass is a little mids-heavy, but his part serves the track super well and his tone's solid. The programmed drums are solid except for the breakdown; the part isn't impossible to play, but it doesn't sound to me like there's a good reason for the hi-hats to be intermittent (snare flams on the backbeat, linear patterning, etc). Not a dealbreaker, just a nitpick from a drummer. I agree with proph and XPRTnovice on the mix critiques regarding the vocals and drums. You and EK delivered stellar performances, hampered by too much formant and high-frequency content. This isn't as apparent in the verses, but sticks out where your vocals combine in the "Dance like Butterflies" segments (2:33-2:58, 4:03-4:26) and the "...Forests talking insects and birds" passages (4:27-4:52, 6:30-7:12). Similarly, the kick and snare are overcompressed and the hi-hats are too loud. And as proph noted, there's an audible mic pop at 6:20. This is a really close one for me, and unfortunately, I think another mixing pass is necessary before this one's ready for the front page. It's suuuuuper close, PF, and I know you can do it! NO (borderline, resubmit!)

Co-signing with Proph and Emu on this one. I'm hearing masterful spittin' on the mics, clean production, and clever beatsmithing from y'all. Unfortunately, we don't count sampling the source material as overt source material usage. It's definitely a banger, though, and has an audience outside of OCR. If it doesn't compromise your vision for the track, we'd love to see this one with more prominent use of the WarioWare, Inc. source material. NO

Howdy, tibone! There's a lot to like about this track: the proggy meter shifts, the vibe, and the tasteful use of the washy phaser, for a start. You've struck a good balance between original content and overt source usage. The phaser-y snare build into the 5/8 segment at 2:35 is a highlight moment for me, along with the bookend intro and outro. While I'm not a fan of the abrupt tempo shift from the shuffle sections into the faster straight 4/4 segments at 2:02 and 3:25, the change-ups keep things fresh. I want to acknowledge the pain points my fellow Js have previously pointed out. Like I said previously, the tempo shifts at 2:02 and (less so) at 3:25 are abrupt--not ideal, but not a dealbreaker to me. The drums have too much room/reverb, the kick has too much beater attack and not enough bottom end, and the snare has no punch, but these are nitpicks. The bass could certainly stand to come down an octave (or the first harmonic, one octave up from the fundamental, EQ'd down) for better low-end goodness, but it's also not a dealbreaker to me. I disagree with Liontamer regarding the quantization, but I get where he's coming from: a standout moment for me on this subject is the guitar solo from 3:48-4:01, if only because you were rushing ahead of the beat and the accompaniment remained static behind you. Given that synthwave is a more electronic-focused style, timing humanization isn't a priority (though it is for soft prog), so I'm willing to hand-wave that aspect of it. In the future, though, some tempo automation to nudge the virtual instruments to your playing tempo will keep things feeling cohesive, and that's easier to accomplish than playing perfectly on the grid yourself. Overall, the track isn't perfect, but it's above the bar. YES

Agreed with Hemo, cool vibe on this one. I'm reminded of the Metal Gear Solid OST in the intro, and then once the drums and piano come in for the head at 0:48, it's more like Silent Hill. Solid production as well: parts are all audible (the guitar solo is less clear than expected, though that's more so due to the pitch overlap between its part and the piano and less so the mix) and the sound gels. I might come across as harsh when I write this; as Larry and Hemo have pointed out, the arrangement isn't very transformative and the guitar solo (2:40-3:40) and the trumpet/sax duet (4:26-4:58) don't sound integrated into the material at all. The lack of drum fills and variations within the patterns cause the parts to feel static, and it doesn't help that the heads (0:48-1:30, 2:40-3:40, and 4:26-4:58, the B section of the source material) sound identical to each other except for the leads. Elements like the synth vamp from 1:36-2:34 and the EP segments from 3:44-4:05 and 4:59 to the end help keep the re-intro segments fresh, but it's not enough to offset the lack of development on the heads. I'm co-signing on this one: the vibes and the mix are great on this one, but the arrangement's just not up to par. NO

Howdy, Bluelighter! Once again, thank you for including a source usage breakdown; this is my introduction to the Remember Me OST and this source is a longie. A lot has been said by the other Js already about the sequencing. As Chimpazilla noted, getting programmed orchestral parts to sound realistic is difficult for any arrangement, between sample and articulation selection, the multiple controls to automate or dial in, not to mention dynamics -- it's a lot of hard work. In spots where the low brass is hitting with the percussion (e.g. 0:10-0:13, 0:49-1:19, 1:57-2:19 with the celli and contrabasses, and 3:20 to the end between the brass and the glockenspiel), the brass is consistently behind the percussion. This is a bigger concern to me than, say, the smeariness of the legato strings on the arpeggio runs from 0:26-1:19 -- they're not a foreground element for parts 2 or 3, so a lack of definition isn't a huge deal -- because the delayed brass hits create a feeling of sloppy performance, and I think this majorly detracts from the presentation aspect of your piece. As Emunator mentioned, you can mitigate the lag time of the late attacks by dragging the note starts slightly ahead of the grid. I'm probably going to sound like I'm suggesting you shift your entire workflow for an alternative: you can dial in Track Pre-Delay Compensation in FL Studio so that all the notes on a given track play ahead of or behind the playhead for a given amount. This is especially handy for getting legatos and other long articulations lined up, but it helps with the short articulations as well; you may need to break your instrument tracks into separate sub-tracks by their articulation types to get the most of out this method (e.g. legatos, longs, shorts; or legato, sustains, staccato, marcato, etc) due to the differing delay offsets needed between articulations, but this can be templated and save you a lot of time in the future by not having to fudge so many MIDI notes off-grid on the piano roll. Depending on the sample library/libraries you're using, you might be able to track down the delay offset values in ms using this Virtual Instrument Track Delays chart, but if not, you can experiment with offset values until you find the parts lining up in time with each other. Your arrangement on this one is solid. Excellent use of transitions between parts like the caesurae between parts (0:26, 1:57) and the suspended cymbal-led crescendi (e.g. 0:46, 1:38). The sforzando-piano crescendo leading into part 7 (3:16-3:21) is my favorite for its fakeout factor alone, seeming like it's building to one more bombastic finale yet still delivering a satisfying coda. Like Rexy, I'm fully on board with the 7/4 and 10/4 segments, as they're creative ways of transforming the 4/4 source material. The mix is good, considering the sample library usage. A considerable amount of side-channel content sometimes overpowers the mid-channel, especially in the middle frequencies; in segments like part 3 (0:49-1:19), this introduces some muddiness into the soundstage. But it's worth pointing out that 1) this comes with the territory for a lot of orchestral sample libraries, 2) the way the piece has been arranged, the mix will always lean toward a dark sound, and 3) every section of the orchestra has its space on the soundstage. Nothing is a dealbreaker to me in this regard. Although I'm 100% on board with this one for its clever arrangement and good mix, I'm falling in line with LT, Emunator, and Rexy: the sloppy timing is a dealbreaker for me. If you're not opposed to taking another stab at this one, I'd love to see it on the front page when it's ready! NO (resubmit)

Howdy, Audiomancer! I’m another new judge, so like jnWake, I’m giving this one a first listen. The other Js have brought up a number of arrangement and mix issues previously, so I’m more or less co-signing on those here. Drums are a specialty of mine, so I do have some notes to add. One additional thing I’d like to note about the organ in the intro is that it sounds like its stereo image was artificially widened. It sounds okay in headphones, but strange in speakers and studio monitors. If you’ve modified the stereo width on the organ, I recommend backing that off about 25-30% – too much artificial width can create issues with mono compatibility through comb filtering and phase cancellation. The closed hi-hat that plays on the beat for the drum groove starting at 0:11 is too loud relative to the rest of the kit; lower velocities on these hi-hat hits plus bus compression on your drums will create a sense that your drums are making up one combined instrument instead of disparate parts or samples. We get the B-section melody at 0:43 on the electric piano. The countermelody synth is too shrill here. Recap of the A section at 0:57 on the organ, it seems to fit better in the mix here. Break down to drums and bass at 1:08; the new drum pattern is a nice touch here – if the hi-hat pattern were to change as well, this would sell the shift even better. The ascending arp at 1:15 is nice; not sure why the drums switched back to the first pattern here, though, because they continue with the new pattern at 1:23 with another recap of the A-section melody. Committing to the bit would greatly benefit this new section. Also, Chimpazilla’s on the money about the relationship between the kick and the bass in this section; this is a prime opportunity to add some sidechain compression if you haven’t already done so, or get more aggressive with it if you have. Drums exit at 1:47 for a B-section recap. As before, the countermelody synth here is harsh at the top end. We get an 808-like drop and slowdown at 2:01 into a false ending; organ and pads come back at 2:10 to recap the A section one more time for a bookend finish. It sounds like a synth plays an extraneous note at 2:21, and then it’s done. The extra A section at the very end feels like copy-paste. I’m going to sound like a curmudgeon here: the nine drum fills you’ve used (at 0:11, 0:25, 0:40, 0:55, 1:06, 1:14, 1:21, 1:32, and 1:45) all sound nearly identical. They’re all built on a similar foundational rhythm and they all take up a bar of time each. It’s a great fill idea but, overused as it is, it compromises the melodic and harmonic changes you’ve orchestrated for the different sections. They also highlight how static the drum writing is overall, with two grooves over the runtime. I’m also hearing mix issues in the lows and low-mids. The bass seems to dominate between 100-350 Hz, which buries the fundamental of the snare. Additionally, the bass and kick sound out of tune with each other, muddying the overall sound. For how short the source material is, you’ve managed to get some good mileage out of it here! At this stage, the lack of drum fill variety and the mix issues are significant enough setbacks that I would like to see them corrected before this one’s ready for the front page. If you haven’t already, I’d recommend taking this one over to the #workshop channel on the OCR Discord server for some ideas if you get stuck. I’d love to hear this one again when it’s ready! NO (resubmit)

Howdy, cosmoptera! Glad to see another newcomer for the TimeShift album. Source usage is straightforward: the intro is a reduction of the source A section, full A section at 1:01, B section at 1:22, C section at 1:40, and A section from 2:02 to the finish. Interesting arpeggio pattern on the intro, something like an inverted double-tresillo. Strings and pad begin to fill out some harmony around 0:10 in – like Chimpazilla pointed out, the rhythm-gated pad’s very wide and phase-canceling, so it just disappears in mono. It’s also quite loud for being a side element. The fuzzy lead synth carrying the melody is shrill at 1:01 – worth addressing with a lowpass filter before mastering the track because this will get abrasive at higher volumes. Missed the opportunity to chop the breakbeat in this segment – the loop isn’t interesting enough to push along to 1:42 with only filter automation at 1:22-1:32 as a noteworthy change. The orchestral hits at 2:01 are a nice touch. So is the full collapse to mono for the chiptune A section before the side channel fade-in at 2:12. This full band recap afterward sounds copy-pasted from 1:01-1:22 – this is an opportunity for a cool countermelody or some other variation to make it stand out from the first presentation of the theme. The drums at 2:43 seem to filter away too quickly in my opinion – having them disappear just before the woosh at 2:54 seems like a stronger finish to me, but this is a nitpick. I agree with the other Js that level and mix adjustments are needed. The drums aren’t loud enough for the genre and the mix is mids-heavy, especially during the full band A-section segments. Your piece has many great aspects – the intro arp pattern, the chiptune segments, the orchestra hits – and the arrangement structure is rock solid. These are outweighed by overly repetitious drum looping, the lack of variety in the return to the A section, the stereo image, and the level balance. Unfortunately, this one’s not ready for the front page without addressing the issues. NO (resubmit)

Opens with a bandpassed cello playing the intro to “Sanctuary Dungeon” from A Link to the Past. Violins and viola enter around 0:12, harmonizing the cello line. The texture seems to fall apart around 0:24, and after some admonishment, we get a count into the meat of “Dark World Dungeon” around 0:35. At first, I thought this was an unintended inclusion from the tracking phase – once I learned the strings are all sampled/modeled, I appreciated this segment for the joke it is. There is some exploration of the texture (“flexibly tonal” sure is an accurate way to describe it) as the violins riff on the tremolo motif of the source. 1:47 sounds to me like some borrowing from the intro of “Sanctuary Dungeon” before a brief pause – this reads like a movement break to me, which might be unfamiliar to listeners without a classical/chamber music background. 2:03 picks up the original Zelda “Dungeon Theme” melody in the viola. We have more harmonic exploration at 2:31 before returning to the motif at 2:42. Another movement break comes at 3:11 and a reprise of the intro bits until the piece is finished. I had no idea this was all sampled or modeled, so kudos for impressive programming. The arrangement’s got a good flow to it – false start and movement breaks notwithstanding – and outside some minor phasing from the virtual instruments noted by the other Js, no mixing gripes from me. Great take on old-school Zelda, shodan! YES

Howdy, Zane! As a new judge, I’m coming in blind to this track too. Thank you for including a source breakdown and introducing me to some VGM I haven’t heard before! Source usage is crystal clear, even without the breakdown in your notes. We get the B section of “Durandal” from the intro to about 0:56, a double-dose of the A section of the same track from 0:56 to 2:39, the “Infinity” theme from 2:39 to 3:42, and a guitar treatment of “Infinity” from 3:42 to the finish. Nice pad and string usage in the intro with the sampled in-game audio. The string glitch-out at 0:53 makes for a great transition here into the bass blasts of the “Durandal” melody at 0:56. I can see where the other Js are coming from about the drums at 1:26. The patterns here are generally good – the driving 4-on-the-floor kick is good for the style and the general palette makes sense, but the drums need some production attention here, for sure. More subtle variations in the patterns are needed; and so is grit (compression, saturation), because these grooves need more flair and impact for the mood you're evoking. Other Js also noted the guitar lacking depth and realism at 1:41-2:39 and when it returns from 3:42 to the end. Seph has specific call-outs as to what isn’t working with your current programming, but suffice it to say the part isn’t expressive enough in execution to sell it. The use of tempo automation and filter sweeping on the transitions into and out of the “Infinity” segment is on point. I’m not as bothered by the string programming in the transition at 2:39-2:45 as Larry is, given the style you’re going for with this piece, but more realism is always nice to have. I think I can make out some shakers way in the back on the guitar-driven “Infinity” segment at 3:42 – these can come up in volume some, and an extra layer like this is sorely needed earlier during some of the “Durandal” A segments. Solid ending, fading back into the game SFX. Overall, your arrangement is great – well-handled transitions, clear sections, and no unintended dissonance. But you’ve got production elements holding this one back, the biggest opportunities for improvement being the guitar programming, the drum mixing, and the drum patterns themselves. NO (resubmit)

First, thanks for adding the source breakdown. That made identifying source usage and analyzing your arrangement much simpler. I’m not making the “Aquaduct” connection underneath the “Ghost Castle” arp until the bass starts the slides while the “Title Screen” melody begins to play. Still, each source is clearly represented throughout your track regardless. Proph already included a play-by-play outlining the arrangement and source usage above, but I’m including my own here. The track opens with the arp from “Ghost Castle” atop mechanical noises and bass sustains. As the other Js have noted, the bass is noticeably tamer than I’d expect for a track in this style. I didn’t have an opportunity to listen to this one on the first go ‘round the panel, but my understanding is the bass was too loud the first time through – seems like you overcorrected here, but I can hear it well enough. There’s a two-beat break and a shift from 6 into 7 at around 0:14 when the arp synth is joined by strings and claps. There’s some filter automation on the arp layers around 0:30 when a plucky synth adds the “Title Screen” melody into the mix. Around 0:45, the pluck synth’s pattern complexifies as the bass adds portamento. There’s a gradual release of energy around 1:00 as the plucks give way to the “Ghost Castle” arp. There’s a bar of 8 subtly thrown amongst the 7 and the extra beat seems to help this spot breathe. At 1:16, there’s a shift into “Aquaduct” and another meter shift into 4/4. The “Ghost Castle” arp gets molded to fit the 4. Excellent restraint on the percussion until 1:33, after the bar of 7, when the beat drops. There’s a mix imbalance in this segment as the pluck synth on the right overpowers the pads on the left until 1:33, where the plucks fall below the pads (note: from my listening experience, this is more pronounced in speakers or monitors than headphones). Hemo’s right that the pluck here is too hot, I’m hearing around 3.5 kHz – if you cut about 2-3 dB around with a medium Q, that would mitigate this issue. The drum groove intensifies at 1:50 with the return of the claps and some hi-hat drills. I’m actually on board with the drums mixwise here; to me, each part’s audible and in its lane. The claps are being used more like claves or a cowbell than like a backbeat layer here, which is probably going to throw some listeners for a loop and cause them to lose the beat, especially once this little foray into a 4/4 groove is over. While an unconventional use of the palette, this part writing choice works in my opinion because the snare is capable of holding the backbeat role without the clap layer. Back into 7 at 2:03 where the “Ghost Castle” arp returns and we get the melody from the same source – as an aside, the arp up to this point has been incredibly helpful for keeping track of the pulse against the intricate drum patterns. The plucks counter at 2:22 with a variation of the arp pattern. A break in 6 at 2:38, and then we’re back to 7 with the “Ghost Castle” melody in the plucks. The descending “Aquaduct” motif returns at 3:12 and flows into a recap of “Title Screen” at 3:27. The drums begin simplifying at 3:42, as does the pad running the “Title Screen” melody, and it feels like the energy is dragging here more than is necessary. But here comes a strong ending at 4:13 and we’re done. Is there a perceived lack of dynamics? The other Js have certainly made a good case for it, but I say Larry’s got the right of it with this track having a narrow dynamic curve. The meter swaps like the bar of 7 around 1:30 and the pause in 6 at 2:38 work wonders for managing the pacing as the track moves through the sources, and I feel the textural shifts more than make up for the slow burn in terms of track energy. As for the production side of things: as noted above, the right-panned plucky synth causes some panning imbalances. EQing the pluck could provide some more arrangement clarity in sections like 0:45-1:00, 1:33-2:03, and the return of the “Title Screen” motif at 3:12 – you might even have enough headroom left over to bring the bass up a couple dB. As it is, I’m not hearing clipping, pumping, or other overcompression artifacts, so this isn’t a deal-breaker for me in the grand scheme of things. I’m going to split the panel here with my first vote: I buck these NOs, too. As Larry mentioned, this one takes a few listens to grok. The production issues noted above are certainly worth exploring, but the arrangement is cohesive and there’s lots of creativity shining through on it. I say this is above board. YES

Short, sweet, a fun listen! I would have liked to hear the trumpet step aside for a moment and allow the violin or the flute to take the melody, but this is a minor nitpick.

Just to clarify: you’d remix material from both series. One team will select the source tracks from one series (one track per game, three games) and the other team will do the same for the other series, and then the sources will be paired up. Each team will produce three mashup mixes, one for each of the three pairs of sources. In the previous two GSMs, teams have taken different approaches to getting tracks put together with regard to whom does what. You might be on a team with three or four performers and a couple of mixers, maybe one team member is good at mastering, and three arrangers; or your team might be five arrangers and someone who plays guitar or something. As long as your team gets their three mashups done by deadline, it doesn’t matter how you do it. :)

Cool stuff! I'll echo Seveneyes's comments as to wanting some of that G-Funk in your remix, at least more flourishes or hints of it. Mixwise, it feels too bass-heavy. I noticed the bassline is feeding into a ping-pong delay, which is a cool effect; if you don't shave off the lows from the delay, though, you'll end up with some unwanted mud and dissonance. Additionally, if you're not already running some sidechain compression, go for it -- you can't go wrong with some rhythmic pumping with this style. There's also an opportunity for some filter automation, which would mix it up a bit for listener interest. Some additional pads or textural fill-ins (sidechain them, too!) are great finishing touches too. Keep up the good work!

Howdy, Audiomancer! The mix is pretty damn good! It sounds like you've been paying attention to the production-related feedback from the judges. With that being said, I feel disappointed by the arrangement. Your drum writing is solid, particularly on the fills and transitions. The drop into a softer segment around the 1:00 mark is a smart choice and communicates a build into something interesting... But the filter sweep into the plucky B section melody without any beat to drive it forward costs your track all the momentum built up from the drop. It sort of meanders its way back to a recap of the A section material -- with some new approaches to the A section material, to be sure -- but there's a huge missed opportunity in the B section. If you like your approach with that bit of material, you could repurpose it into a new intro segment to your arrangement -- optionally, keep this B section segment in its current place as well, but incorporate a beat in half-time feel underneath it with those shuffled hats from the build. Or, you could cut this segment entirely and build right back to the A section recap. The point is your track loses a lot of steam around 1:25 and the recap at 2:04 suffers for it. You've made some great progress with this one; keep it up!