paradiddlesjosh   Judges ⚖️

That's a pretty solid use of the multi-tongue articulation in the trumpets right at the jump! The result is much better than trying to brute-force staccatissimo 16th notes at tempo in terms of realism. proph nailed all the major points on this one already: the strings are sorely lacking in realism (especially the solo violin) and the arrangement is overly repetitive. There's also too much of the original audio for an acceptable OCR submission. As an additional note, I'd sub the piatti (crash cymbals) out for tambourine during the A section: in a physical orchestra setting, it will be much easier for the percussionist to keep the tambourine balanced dynamically with the rest of the ensemble and the part as written lends itself to aux percussion like the tambourine for that reason. If it wouldn't compromise your vision, we'd be more interested in a version of this arrangement with more variation in its presentation and less of a reliance on the original BGM. NO

This entry for DoD's Koji Kondo Month was so much fun! I really enjoyed the lyrical nod to the Rabbit Joint Cover during the LP and once again in revisiting the track for a vote. While I don't necessarily agree with the advice that you should mono and center your sub-150 Hz elements (we don't live in the heyday of vinyl record pressings for music distribution, where that was a technological necessity), I agree that the bass and drums can both pull back about 2 dB and the mix balance would be better for it. Ultimately though, I've got to side with my other Js. The "Águas de Março" quote is too long a span of non-VGM material for OCR, especially without a strong tie-in of the VGM source material during that segment. It's simply not in the letter nor the spirit of the Submission Standards. That doesn't change the fact that you've made a fun send-up of an OCR classic. NO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my previous vote, I felt the production issues that proph and Chimpazilla touched on were the only elements holding this track back from being posted on the site. And it sounds like those issues have been resolved! The arrangement was never in doubt. Between the new accompaniment approaches in the keys and bells, the string elements and vocals, and the clean electric guitar, there's plenty of personalization in this to sell an otherwise straightforward take on the source material. Nice work! YES

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

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

"Krook's March" in a major key? Sign me up! Piggybacking off of Hemo for a second, this arrangement is indeed super fun. I'm personally not bothered by the vocal delivery on this track. While I can certainly point out some phrases that stick out oddly as a native English speaker (e.g. "Promised to not leave you there" is usually said by native English speakers as "promised not to leave you there" because it doesn't split the infinitive and for this song, flipping the positions of "to" and "not" improves the prosody), I'm happy to have lyrics and vocals in the one language I can read, write, and kinda sorta speak well. 😄 It seems like we're all in agreement here that the mixdown is far from ideal. The vocals compete for clarity at 0:45-1:01, the chorus at 1:36-1:52, again at 2:14-2:22, and leading into the second chorus starting from "For myself..." at 2:45-3:05. The biggest contributors to the clarity bottleneck are the cymbals (especially those open hi-hats) at 0:45-1:01 and 2:14-2:22 and the synth lead in the left channel in the choruses (1:36-1:52 and 2:45-3:05), with the lead guitar doubling the melody on the last one from 2:45-2:48 also obscuring the vocal line. I think these non-vocal elements can come down 1.5-2dB to make space for the vocals without negatively impacting the rest of the mix. The same can be said for the tick-tock clock. With that being said, I'm siding with the Ys. While there is definitely potential for a cleaner mixdown, this is above our bar. YES

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)