paradiddlesjosh

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

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)

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!

Oh, this is a fun one! Interesting use of the panning/mid-side on the walking bassline segments. The vocal samples are a nice touch, too -- this track has big Mario the Hedgehog vibes.

Howdy, Ruku! I'm going to ditto Seph above -- it's a lovely take on the source. I thought substituting the chord vamp in the keys for the guitar motif was a nice touch. Looking forward to the next R-mix!

Howdy, VQ! Also gonna reiterate live review notes for posterity: The judges honed in on the fuzziness happening from 3:25-4:09. It's highly likely to be too much saturation on something. This can be tamed with a high shelf cut around 6-8kHz or by pulling the saturation back about 10%. The modulation/key change into the same section was a great idea that needs the proper preparation for the listeners to stick with it. I think we determined you're going from Ab Major to E Major. Major third modulations are pretty easy to handle as modulations go -- I mentioned going to a shared chord between the keys but you don't have many between these two keys. However, Hemo suggested some tritone substitution action. In this case, do an Ab7 (Ab-C-Eb-Gb) chord into (in this case) a B7 (B-D#-F#-A) chord leading into the change into the E Major (E-G#-B). You can omit the 5ths on the 7 chords (Eb and F#, respectively) if you don't have enough voices to cover the chords -- but keep the 7th intervals spread out to minimize the potential dissonance.

City pop is so fun! I'll write down and expand my comments from the Office Hours voice chat: Outside of altering your basic arrangement framework or the key, the drums plod by the end of the second chorus. The groove is interesting and complex but needs more variation to maintain listener interest subtly. Consider simplifying the beat during a verse or two -- hew the kick to the bass, maybe save the snare and clap for beat 4, roll back the complexity of the hi-hat pattern or drop the hats entirely. During the choruses -- perhaps especially the choruses framing the guitar solo -- use some anticipatory kick drum placements (the 'a' of 3 or 4, and/or the 'and' of 4) for some bars. These extra 16th note spots from the kick create anticipation for the downbeat, ramping the energy up a notch and propelling the beat forward. If it still feels plodding, consider dropping the drums out entirely for a verse and going to just the claps for a couple of bars. Without changing the basic beat pattern, you can also vary the hi-hat pattern by incorporating some open hi-hat spots (beat 4 or the 'and' of 4 are good spots on alternate bars, or go for the disco approach and open the hats on the upbeats). If you keep the 16th note flourishes in the closed hi-hats, try opening the 'a' 16th note between the closed hi-hats.

Howdy, Seth! What a fun source. Gonna attach the source for other folks to check out as well; always good to include it with a WIP so we can be familiar with it. Since you mentioned volume leveling, sound design, and other edits, I'll frame my feedback with those aspects in mind. I generally like your instrument choices for this arrangement, particularly the trumpet and the marimba, and as my name would indicate, I'm gonna zero in on those drums. Volume leveling: once that 16th note double kick and bass pattern comes in (:23, 1:06, etc), the lows from the bass and kick are eating up the soundstage. A dynamic EQ targeting the sub-bass frequencies or a multiband compressor for those segments would help keep the lows under control. Sound design: if you want to hew closely to the sound of the Genesis, consider the sound channel limitations of the system. The drums (kick, snare, toms) will most likely be sample playback from the PCM channel while the cymbals are coming from the noise channel and the PCM isn't super hi-fi. Consider rolling off the super lows (20-40Hz) and the highs (10-12kHz, maybe as low as about 8kHz). Other edits: I think I'm hearing some artifacting in the render, some light crackling in the side channel. You'll most likely be cleaning this up by the end, but it's worth pointing out. Keep cookin'! We're looking forward to hearing more from you. :)

I'm not super familiar with either series and I've got a few events happening in July, but I'm happy to fill in for either team. Let's get mashin'!

Howdy Que! Echoing Seph's and luna's comments, your remix sounds impressive! You managed to get a lot of mileage out of the syncopated bassline of the source's intro. While the pacing of the arrangement is generally good, I think the shortness of the transitions causes the remix to suffer somewhat; you're keeping the adrenaline pumping, sure, but the listener doesn't have a moment to digest the segments. That being said, we're looking forward to hearing more from you. Keep it up!

Howdy, Master Mi! Besides calculating time-based effect durations, you can also use this calculation to place studio monitors in your space. First things first: the speed of sound through a given medium depends on the medium's density (and temperature). At room temperature (20C or 68F), the speed of sound through the air is 343 meters/second (about 1,125 feet/second), slower at lower temperatures and faster at higher temps. To calculate space in time-based effects like reverb and delay, that's 343 millimeters per millisecond (343 mm/ms) or about 1.125 feet per millisecond (1.12533 ft/ms). Next, sound waves radiate from the source -- almost perfectly spherical in lower frequencies and more directionally as the frequencies climb. A spherical room with a radius of about 11.25 feet will have early reflections (i.e. bounce off the walls) at 10ms. Of course, no room is spherical; most are rectangular prisms or combinations of 3D shapes, so you'd need to measure the distance from a given point in a room to all the faces (walls, floor, ceiling) to determine the travel time for the sound to reach that point from the wall and vice versa. Because higher-frequency sounds have smaller wavelengths, they lose energy faster than lower-frequency sounds. For especially large rooms like your cathedral example, it'll be necessary to roll the high frequencies off in your reverbs and/or delays for realism (and lower frequencies for mix balance). I like rolling off at 360Hz (high pass/low cut) and 3600Hz (low pass/high cut) as starting points but play around with these to suit your production. Regardless of the other dimensions, the average height for human males is about 1.77 meters (5.8 feet), while human females stand at about 1.63 meters (5.35 feet) so the time for a sound to travel from human-ish height to the floor is about 4.75-5.1 ms (1630 to 1770/343 or 5.35 to 5.8/1.125). But unless the sound source is facing the ground, most of this first reflection is likely not getting through your HPF. For the distances to other surfaces, convert the distance to either millimeters or feet and divide by either 343 (mm/ms) or 1.125 (ft/ms). It'll be up to you to decide how big you want this cathedral to be and calculate accordingly. You can also fudge those delay timings to simulate a colder or warmer room -- e.g. at 0C or 32F (freezing point of water), the speed of sound is about 331 m/s (1086 ft/s), or 331 mm/ms (1.086 ft/ms), so the time to the floor is about 4.9-5.3 ms. Not much slower for the first reflection, but the difference is more noticeable for further surfaces.

Howdy, Seth! I had to dig up the source for your track; it's always a good idea to include a link to the source for your arrangement as it helps the listeners compare. I can for sure hear Act 1 in your mix; if you also added stuff from Act 2, that would be good to know as well. Slick transition from the original audio at 0:06. The synced slapback delay on the snare and cymbals is a nice touch. Interesting kick/sub fills like at 0:27 and again at 1:08. Good hi-hat work throughout. The lead at 1:16 is a refreshing change-up, though the sustained pitch-bend ending of that lead fell a bit flat for me. Speaking of endings, there's an audible pop at 2:08 and a hard cutoff of the reverb tail. Keep cookin' on this one and you'll have a banger for sure. :)

I'll need to check out Reworks That Matter, 'cuz I want to experience the orchestral elements you cut out. I love the electronic and orchestral elements you've blended with this arrangement. Those timpani rolls are *chef's kiss.*

Howdy, Audiomancer! Dyluck and mo.oorgan provided some effective feedback already, so I'll echo those sentiments. The arrangement's short, fiery, and sweet. I dig the swing on the hats at 1:14. Really helps build that energy back up.

Howdy, Nase! I'll echo the other commenters on the choice of instrumentation -- funk and metal is a great combo and you've achieved a working blend in the mix. I can hear some crash cymbal hits (e.g. 0:45, 0:49, 1:20 and 2:21) that are either very dry or choked. If they are choked hits, they're unusually placed. A live drummer would have a hard time replicating that, so it pulls some realism away for me. Good call on your decision to alter the intro. It's pretty jarring as is, but once it hits the funk, it's gellin'. Good feel shift at 2:14-ish. As others have mentioned, keep an ear on the volume of the slides on that lead guitar. I'd love to see where you take this mix from here! I'm not very familiar with the MS/GG version of Sonic 2, so it's cool to hear some deep cuts and hidden gems--er, emeralds. :P

These resources aren't plug-ins: they're great reference tools! Brad the Mad's Tempo Calculator (Chart, lists given bpm subdivisions as ms and Hz; chart goes from 60 bpm to 179 bpm) Tuneform's Tempo Calculator (converts bpm to ms) MIDI CC List (Chart, lists common CC uses) Virtual Instrument Delay Chart (Google Sheet, lists delay offsets for most orchestral VST instruments; organized by instrument section, brand, library, and articulations). Use these as a starting point and adjust to your project as needed Tap Tempo (Webapp, click or tap a key in time with a piece of music to get its tempo) I was chatting in the Lounge on Discord with folks last night discussing the importance of tools like the tempo calculators: some time-based effects plug-ins (reverb and delay, but also the attack and release controls on compressors, limiters, gates, expanders, etc) have no tempo sync function. If you can convert the subdivision into ms or Hz, you can manually sync your plug-ins to your project tempo/tempi (plural of tempo). You can also use this chart to maintain a relative pulse while changing meters: in the example I gave from a project Seph and I are working on, there's an intro segment at 90 bpm, 4/4 time that evolves into a verse in 12/8 using the same structure as the intro. 12/8 is functionally equivalent to 4/4 with a triplet subdivision, but most DAWs only give tempo expressed in a quarter note bpm, so maintaining 90 bpm gives an incorrect pulse from the click. But if you check the chart, you can see that a quarter note at 90bpm equals 0.667 seconds (666.6 repeating ms, or 667 for simplicity's sake) and a quarter-note triplet equals 0.444 seconds (444.4 repeating ms). Scroll down the chart and you'll find 135 bpm has a quarter note value of 0.444 seconds and a dotted quarter note value of 0.667 seconds: for all intents and purposes, the quarter note value of 90 bpm equals the dotted quarter note value of 135 bpm!