paradiddlesjosh   Judges ⚖️

Howdy, Worlder! I didn't have a chance to get to this one the first time 'round, so let's have a few listens. Oof, proph and Emu weren't kidding about the extra low-frequency content -- specifically in the side channels (content happening in the left or right channel that is different from the content in the opposite channel). While most producers aren't pressing their works to vinyl records these days, keeping the low-end stuff (bass, kick drum) as mono as possible can help maintain mix headroom and give those elements a strong presence -- especially on systems with subwoofers. Now, I could be wrong about this: it sounds to me like the low-freq side channel content is mostly reverb and the bottom end of the chippy arp from the intro (maybe some of the rhythm guitars too, but it's a much lesser extent). If it's reverb, a high-pass filter will clean this right up (and don't be afraid to take the filter up to 400-500 Hz; reverb is great for giving a sense of space in a track but it muddies a mix up really fast), and the same can work with your rhythm guitars to a lesser extent (80-120Hz). If there's some other instrument generating low-end content (like that chippy arp synth in the intro), that should get high-passed to just below the fundamental frequency of the lowest notes it plays; this'll give your kick and bass the space they need. Separately, I'm with proph that the drums in particular are lacking punch. Some of this is the "internal mix" of the drumkit -- hi-hats and crash cymbals are louder than the kick and snare (e.g. the bomb blast pattern from 0:58-1:12ish, the half-time breakdowns at 1:15-1:27) due to either velocity or volume balance, maybe both -- some of it is sample selection, and some of it is a lack of compression and saturation. The extra club kick layer at 3:10 helps that segment compared to the first half-time breakdown at 1:15, but the snare is still anemic. It's unfortunate that we're being so hard on the production elements of your track, because the arrangement is well above the bar. The writing has good energy management and interesting twists on the source material -- the build at 0:58-1:14 and the evolution of that bassline from 2:38-4:00 are some highlights for me. And although I agree with proph that the guitar intonation issues detract from the experience at 1:58-2:35, the part itself provides a refreshing break from the frenetic passages that come before and afterward. This one's still not quite there yet, Worlder; please keep cooking on this one! You're closer than you think. NO (resubmit)

I'm siding with the other Js on this one, tibonev: the timing is too loose on this track to ignore, particularly in the arpeggios from 1:27 into the guitar solo at 1:39 and the quick shaker hits at around 2:13. I'm on board with your arrangement of the source material and there are some segments like your solo and the octave arpeggio runs (2:26-end) that are well executed; this one could be a slam dunk with the timing adjustments or re-takes in place. NO (resubmit)

Howdy, Jonathon! I'm gonna give a quick so-sign with proph and LT: you've got a good production here; it's just not what OCR's looking for. This'll definitely have a fanbase among VGM enthusiasts on YouTube and likely Twitch as well! NO

Adding a quick so-sign with my fellow Js. One thing I'll point out as what I see as a detriment to this track: as well-established as the synthwave vibe is, there's a noticeable amount of repetition in each segment. Let's take the double-time at 1:26-2:05 for example: outside of a very subtle filter shift on the lead instrument, this whole segment sounds to me like four repeats of a four-bar phrase. Without fills or variations, these phrases grow stale quickly. And considering the melody line is carrying over from the build of the previous section, it's already worn out its welcome before the section is over. When LT is talking about the relative lack of complexity and sophistication, this is a big part of it. And I agree wholeheartedly with proph: the lack of a definitive ending is a big dealbreaker. There's a strong start here, Noga Project; this track needs focus on the fine details and trim before it's ready for the front page. I second LT's suggestion about joining the OCR Discord server or checking out the Workshop forum if you're looking for advice or more options about finishing this one or making your next big track. NO (resubmit)

I also missed out on this track on its first time 'round the panel. Thanks for sticking with it, Eric! The string build in the intro is quite long, but I'll live. I agree with proph, XPRT, Seph, and Hemo regarding the articulations on the flute and the trumpet holding back the humanization of those two instruments. I wouldn't mind the approach so much if the shorter notes weren't so short and detached: the stop-tongue marcato is so short, it's practically staccatissimo. The piano from 1:04-1:30 sounds timbrally more appropriate for a dance tune than the orchestral piece you've made, though the part is brief and in the background. I could see a world where this part is covered by the harpsichord instead, especially since that instrument appears in the recap of this section later on underneath the trumpet. The triplet descent in the pizz strings at 1:32 is the worst offender for the part in terms of realism, but otherwise seems serviceable. I agree with LT on the brass being anemic at first; overall, the second half of this track feels stronger in execution than the first half. I'm very borderline on this one. The arrangement's conservative but offers embellishments and personal touches. The mixdown and master are appropriate for the style. Really, the flute and trumpet programming are the only real downsides here. Ultimately, I gotta come down with the other NOs, but this one is really close! NO (resubmit)

@Liontamer Larry, it sounds like you feel that way about the drums because the parts have no transitional markings. No fills, nothing so much as a crash cymbal on beat 1 to mark the new segment like a capital letter marks the start of a new sentence. There's no connective tissue joining the segments together. We gave you more depth on this one during the NO SHOW, H36T. The biggest drawbacks of this track are that the back two-thirds are too repetitive, the vocals don't feel integrated enough into the arrangement, the drumkit on the back two-thirds has internal mix issues (hi-hats are way too loud and forward for the context) and isn't humanized, and the piece as a whole isn't interpretive enough by the standards. This track needs more H36T! NO (resubmit)

We said a lot during the NO SHOW, so my vote here is going to read a lot like proph's. I also thought the guitars coming in at 1:00 were a massive highlight, as well as the bass at the end. The EP running the ostinato sounds great and the drum parts themselves are fantastic in a vacuum. Unfortunately, the arrangement's repetitiveness and the inhuman, all-heavy-hits-all-the-time drum programming are massively holding this one back. There's a good bit of work to do to take this one to the next level, but it's a really good start. We encourage you to hit up the #workshop in the OCR Discord -- lots of helpful folks in there who can help you find your way. NO (resubmit)

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