paradiddlesjosh   Judges ⚖️

@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)

I voiced my agreement with Hemo and LT during the NO SHOW. I do agree that the tenor sax is mixed too far forward and that the alto sounds much thinner. That said, I think what we've been presented is above bar from a production perspective -- especially considering the quality of the arrangement is so high. I doubt any of us would say no to another take of the tenor solo with the same vibes and fewer dissonant notes, but the take we have is more than good enough to my ears. The programmed elements (drums, bass) are solid, tasteful, and genre-appropriate. Kupos--I mean, kudos y'all! YES

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)

When I heard this one before the DoD Live Play, I had no idea that there were two sources involved. Using the guitar ostinato from "Somewhere in the Woods" to thread into "Snow, Lots of Snow" made for a seamless transition. Speaking of sources, no question about source usage: we largely get a straight playthrough of source A and source B, but you've transformed the first source tune from 4/4 into 6/8 and explored new textural approaches on top of a genre transformation. Acoustic guitar enters at 0:28 with the piano ostinato from the intro of "Somewhere in the Woods," and we get the upper register chord movement from that source's A section when the toms enter at 0:36. Another guitar provides the B section melody (done by a layer of piano and a synth with some lovely portamento in the original) at 0:53, leading into the source's C section melody at 1:27 after bringing the sparse bottle blow + claps texture from the intro along with restrained drumkit. The guitar ostinato from "Somewhere in the Woods" then becomes the ostinato for "Snow, Lots of Snow," highlighting a clear connection point between these two tracks. Heading right into the second source at 2:35, more guitar gives us the upper piano and bell melody of "Snow's" intro (the slides on the guitar are a nice touch!). At 3:03, we get the piano melody of "Snow's" A section in the guitar in a texture very reminiscent to me of one of the "Main Theme" variations from Final Fantasy VII Rebirth with the reverb-sploshed tremolo in the background. Another round of the A section with the Sigur Rós toms at 3:14 builds into a cathartic B section at 3:31, ending in a climax of guitar and drum stings of the motif from the intro and B section at 4:00. The guitar ostinato returns at 4:13 to bring the whole thing home with sparse chords and birbs. It goes without saying that the live-tracked parts are well executed. The guitar and bass parts are a perfect fit for the genre and the tones are immaculate. And textural shifts like the claps in the intro, the marimba in the "Woods" C section, and the tremolo in the "Snow" A section help tie the piece together. The drums also do a phenomenal job of guiding the arrangement, maintaining restraint through the C section of "Woods" at 1:27 and opening up in the payoff of "Snow" at 3:31. We Js mentioned it during the NO Show: the blown bottles seem to have a slow attack and drag against the claps at 0:10, also against the guitar and bass at 0:35. It comes with the territory for the instrument, though you can nudge your tracks forward slightly or use negative track delay to compensate if everything's otherwise in time. Not a dealbreaker in any case. Seconding Hemo on the Sigur Rós-coded toms at 0:36 being too loud -- "Gobbledigook" has the same idea, but the drums are pulled further back in the soundscape. When they return at 1:11 and 3:14, they're in better balance with the rest of the track; this is probably more to do with the texture being thicker than any change in volume. At the end of the day, this is a nitpick. Nice work! YES

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)

Oh, I remember an earlier version of this sub! My only critique of the arrangement is the ending -- something doesn't sit right with me about the falloff into the tremolo string crescendo. Apropos of a synthwave track, I get a chill night-time drive vibe throughout the piece. Drum and bass part writing are solid, and I appreciated both the piano break at 0:57 and bass breakdown at 1:56 for their changes of pace. I also want to shout out the melody line trade between the trumpet and synths at 2:30-3:15. The ending is less than ideal, but in my opinion, the personalization and flow of this piece is above board. I disagree with the NOs on the production aspects, particularly regarding Tsori's trumpet in the mix. I had little trouble making out the trumpet's melody line at any point, even when there's line interplay (0:43-0:45 between the trumpet and synth, the trumpet dovetailing into the right hand of the piano at 0:57, trumpet and synth again at 2:54-2:57). If anything, the worst offender of this line balance is 2:16-2:30 and even here, stacked with the piano and synth for a new texture, I don't find this egregious enough to say NO to it. Beyond the trumpet's place in the mix, I can hear lots of reverb, but not so much that it detracts from the listening experience. Nothing screams "dealbreaker" to me about this track; what's here is good enough. Nice work, Hemo. YES

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

Time to break out the ol' stopwatch just to be safe... The track is 2:01 long (120.612 seconds), so to hit 50% source material usage, I should hear at least 60.306 seconds of overt source material. I clocked the string ostinato from the "Opening" starting at 0:09.796 and ending at 0:25.102, where the next section begins. (15.306 seconds) The SF motif (that I estimate lots of folks know from Smash Bros.) from "Opening" at 0:25.102-0:51.429 for another 26.327 seconds (up to 36.735 seconds now) The motif from the "Title Screen" and "Mission Accomplished" from 0:51.429-0:58.776 (not sure I can place the flourish from 0:58-1:01, willing to call that embellishment) for another 7.347 seconds (44.082 seconds total now) Finally, the "Title Screen" callback from 1:39.184-1:55.102 is 15.918 seconds (64.898 seconds) 64.898/120.612 = 53.81% source material usage! The numbers don't lie, and they spell an incredible cue. Put this thing on the front page! YES

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

This track only earned silver last month? Damn, what'd I miss?! 😂 No serious critiques on the arrangement from me. Y'all captured the high school slow dance vibe very well here. The rhythm section is restrained and tasteful. The drop from 2:50-3:04 is well-timed, great setup to push the final guitar lead into the sunset. What's up with that hit around 1:39? I'll second Joe's call-outs about the guitar needing to be more up front, particularly from 3:04 onward. The final minute or so sounds like a struggle between the guitar lead and the additional fx/percussion layers for dominance. Ultimately, though, these are nitpicks. Really solid production, team. YES

Howdy, Argle! Proph and Hemo already covered the nitpicks I'd be pointing out on this one, so I'm gonna co-sign with them. Short, sweet, lots of fun, really dig the play on expectations with the ends of the melodic phrases. Let's get this one on the front page already! YES

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, PRIDASK! This track was used for the 2025 judge test, so although there are already enough YESes to pass this track, I want to share my notes with you. Starting with source usage, this one is relatively straightforward in its approach to the source material. The biggest shifts include introducing the B melody (~0:38-1:08 of “Stickerbrush Symphony”) before the A melody (~0:19-0:38 of “Stickerbrush”) in the form of a drumless chorus before bringing in the groove, the filter-automated noise swish in the break from 1:45-2:02, and the double chorus repeating the B melody at 2:15-3:12. While other judges may have more constructive feedback regarding the vocals, I think the vocalist’s performance helps lift this track from a cover into something fitting OCR’s arrangement standards. The intro does a great job building up the energy – the wind chimes around 0:17 are a nice touch, as is the lowpass filter automation on the plucky synth and the drum fill at 0:42, though the vocal is much louder than the background elements here. The rhythmic tension between the disco drums, the bass, and the fuzzy pad keeps the groove pushing forward. At around 1:00, there isn’t anything to signal the transition from the groove into the verse, and there is a missed opportunity here to make the verse and chorus sonically unique by simplifying the beat somewhat (e.g. dropping out the snare) but the highpass filter sweep on the drums into the fill for the chorus at about 1:14 keeps things interesting. The 808 at the break (1:45) is a nice touch, as is the filter automation here. I agree with Chimpazilla's call-out regarding making use of EQ and compression to make room for the vocals. Then there’s the drum fill we heard in the intro at 2:01 and we’re back into a verse that’s identical to the first one save for the vocals and the lyrics, right down to the filter sweep+fill at 2:15. There’s a double-chorus to follow, and I’m left wanting more variation from the back half of this track overall, but especially on the repeat of the chorus. Another repeated drum fill at 3:11 and we get an outro: one more instance of the fill at 3:46 and unsatisfying ending. In terms of mixing and production, this one is well done. Each instrument has its own defined space in the soundscape, the vocals are prominent, and the drums have a tasteful punch to them. If I have one nitpick: -0.1 to -0.5 dB is a more ideal limiter ceiling, but I don’t hear clipping or pumping, so this is fine. This is a fun track to throw on and move the booty to! The vocal performance is great and the mix is clean; like the NOs, I’m not on board with the amount of whole-cloth repetition in the arrangement, particularly in the backing elements. But like Rexy, I recognize this is sort of emblematic of the style and the vocal performance is transformative enough for the bar. YES

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)