pixelseph   Judges ⚖️

Didn’t do any vocals this round, them spooky noises are all foley found on Splice :)

We love a little Licc every now and again 😂

My favorite thing about GSM is listening to the different takes on the sources that each team comes up, and how unique those takes are between each team. We’ve got a great spread of styles here - classic rock, electronica, emo, psytrance chiptune, doom metal, and funk!! Excellent work from both teams! 6 bangers off the rip, as is the standard 😆

I have been summoned! Echoing proph, I love this arrangement and these performances! It's also just fun to hear blastbeats in Kakariko Village as the climax of the section 😀 Mix is certainly guitar-focused and working with extended scale-length instruments (7- or 8- string guitars, 5-string bass), so the tonal center-of-gravity is lower as well. I can hear every instrument fine enough without having to focus, though the bass guitar's most easily heard frequency space in this mix is between 80hz-110hz. Around :57, you can hear a bit more of the string rattle from the bass guitar that's otherwise covered up by the rhythm guitars; I like to hear more string rattle, personally, because it contains most of the character of the bass guitar, but it's also the first to get cut out of the real estate for the mids. I do think that there's been too much shelved or cut below 80hz from either the bass or the kick drum overall, which is most apparent in the sections starting @ :24 and @ 1:41 before the blastbeats. The arrangement creates a lot of space in these sections that could use that low-end hug. I'm also not a huge fan of the particular reverb choice for the track, but it's stylistically appropriate, so I can let it go. The big 808 slap reveals there's a lot down there not being used, 'cause it carries the weight so well when it hits! :D I also think the hard-panned rhythm guitars are, together, about 2-3dB too loud everywhere except for the blastbeat section starting @ 2:03. They obscure a lot of the snare's mids/upper-mids so we get a lot of the fat-bottomed snare impact and none of the crack - which is more of a stylistic choice, given Mike's stated mixing influences. On OCR, we've got comparisons in Black SeeD's Eternal Rain, whose mix swings more atmospheric black metal; the low-end there is also light, but the drums (particularly the snare) have more room in that mix. I don't personally think it's enough for me to sink the track, but I can see why it would be an issue for other judges. Slap a fade-out on that hard-cut ending, and I'm good. YES (conditional)

Gonna keep this short and sweet. Very interesting treatment of the source, and it's got Lucas's style all over it. I am going to side with my fellow NO judges on this one, unfortunately, even though I think this isn't very far from passable. I do think there's dissonance in this track that could be cleaned up by not making the detuning so heavy, but the crackling is the biggest offender here. The section starting 1:42 is the biggest offender, and you'll probably find the earlier spot around :50 cleans up when you fix it. I also agree with proph that, as a nitpick, the way the ride cymbal is mixed makes it feel separate from the kit in a bad way - it feels exposed and dry even though it's definitely got verb on it. Clean that master up when you get a chance and send this right back here! NO (resubmit)

YOU HAVE UUUUUUNOOOOO I mean hell yeah I’ll sub one for this

Absolutely it will be needed ❤️

I’m in! Happy to be on either team 🤘🤘🤘

This is a solid start! Too much repetition across the runtime, and not enough personalization by far, to meet our criteria, though. proph hit all the same points I was going to make; there's plenty of room for more exploration in here - changing the backing under the solo, adding an original bridge to tie some sections together - that would help make up ground. Seconded on the #workshop channel feedback (direct link to the OCR discord) - it's invaluable for getting ears on your track and feedback making any adjustments you'd like! I'd be happy to give this another listen if it comes back on the panel with some fresh changes, but unfortunately it's going to be a NO (resubmit)

No reason to hold this one in suspense more, my fellow Js have identified exactly my thoughts. I don't think the instruments in and of themselves are bad choices, but I do think something is missing that would make them shine more - whether that's with saturation or other effects would be up to Matt. The arrangement overall works, but individual sections feel plain and last too long; as an example, :42 - 1:25 feels like it's said all it needed to say by :53, such that by the time the pitch ramp comes @ 1:14, I'm pretty fatigued by the repetition instead of enjoying the transition. 2:36 - 3:30 is another example - the section has changes inside it, but nothing in those changes feels like a compelling reason to have the section run as long as it does. The big pay-off at 3:30 loses all its steam for me since I was expecting something like it 30 seconds prior. This isn't too far from passing, it just feels like it's stuck between being a sketch and being fully realized. A tighter focus on managing the low-end and mids as Chimpa suggested, as well as tightening up the arrangement, would get this over the line for me. NO (resubmit)

Two sources that don't have a lot of melodic content - can definitely see why this is presenting source problems with my fellow judges. The piece isn't doing itself any favors by saving the most straightforward quotes of the source until the very end of the piece (the bassline rhythmic structure from Howling Gears being used only on the outro, for example). In times where a source has too simplistic a melody, or its defining features are in other facets of the piece (rhythmic structure, sound design, etc), it becomes much harder to nail down the tie between the remix and the source. And the spirit of Rule 3, as jnWake outlined above, is to make that distinction as clear as possible for the audience. On the panel, we're then tasked to ask, "when I listen to this section, am I making a connection to the source somehow?" Anyway, that's my preamble, onto the vote. It's a rare (and welcome!) vote on a VQ track where I don't have qualms with the production. There is some mud in the low-mids when all the layers start to coalesce (1:51 - 2:30, 3:50 - 4:25, 5:11 - 6:00), but it's not pulling me out of enjoying the track, so I'll live. I also agree with jnWake that the arrangement flows nicely - it certainly takes its time with basically a 2-minute slow burn intro, but the transitions between sections are excellent and the writing straddles the line between enough variance to feel developed and enough repetition to feel cohesive. The biggest problem the track has is source usage, as my fellow Js have noted. Both source tracks have a similar challenge to overcome from a remixing perspective, in that their actual melodic content is sparse to my ear. Howling Gears A has a single actual melodic phrase that I can pinpoint - the diminished leap in the synth. VQ's changed the interval to be something more palatable in the soundscape, but in doing so, I think it changes the character of the phrase enough that it's no longer easy to connect it back to Howling Gears. The arpeggiated runs in Howling Gears B are more clearly delineable, and they're woven in better. That leaves basically the rhythmic structure (the groove), not the notes, of the bassline, guitars, and drums to draw from in Howling Gears. Nidavellir's Shout has the portamento synth line as a melodic figure, as well as the even more melodic melody @ :26 in the source and B section melody @ :48. To my ear, the first 2:30 minutes of the piece is Howling Gears B (the modified arpeggio is the biggest tie, and even that feels tenuous to me), with the guitar coming in with the altered Howling Gears A melody around 1:12. If I am really listening for it, I can hear the Latin groove of the source's bassline at 1:50, but again, it's tenuous. 2:50 - 3:09 is much easier to identify as Nidavellir's Shout from the melody; I can't count the ostinato as the chord it outlines is not unique enough to Nidavellir's Shout. 3:10 - 4:27 comes back to Howling Gears B with the melody front and center in the guitar, and 4:32 - 5:11 returns us back to that modified Howling Gears A. 5:12 - 5:50 has no connective tissue that I can identify, and then we get the groove of the source bassline in the bass from 5:50 - 6:10. Timestamping gives me 233 seconds out of 376, or ~62% source if I include the tenuous spots, ~51% source if I don't (194 seconds out of 376). What it's coming down to, for me, is that I have to strain to hear the sources in this piece when our standards ask for very clear and identifiable - dominant, even! - source use. I think this is arranged and produced well, but all of the connective tissue just doesn't come through enough for me to pass this one. I would need to hear more clearly defined ties to the source, preferably early on in the track (within the first minute or so). NO (resubmit)

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

This one feels like a sketch with potential, not a fully-realized track. The drum programming lacks variation in velocities right from the start, particularly the hats - if the hats are present after the :05 mark, it's impossible to hear them through the fizziness on the reverb from the lead and the phaser on the harmony pad. I also can't hear anything in this track that isn't a 1:1 execution of the source with sample changes and a kick drum pattern added. There are definitely avenues available to build this into something special! I'm going to echo proph that Section 4.2 of the submission standards outlines the bar we're asking this to be above, as well as the Workshop forums on the site and the #workshop Discord channel to get direct feedback from peers - whether it's ways to improve the arrangement, the composition, the production, or even collaborate! I'd be happy to give this one another listen if it comes back to the queue, and I'd be looking specifically for: adjustments to the composition, whether that's a rearrangement of the source's sections or adding moments of original writing; adjustments to the mix, specifically reducing the reverb on both the lead instruments and pad to make room for the rest of the instruments; and adjustments to the programming across the board - adding variations to the velocities, durations, and humanization of notes NO (resubmit)

I remember giving this a listen while it was in the #workshop channel in the OCR Discord early on, and it's come together in a lovely way! Establishes the feel right from the start and maintains it without feeling trite or boring, which I attribute to the arrangement variations in the first half ( < 2:30) and the change to a more blocked-chord structure for the solos in the second half. There's a sense of restraint in the performances, not letting the dynamic ceiling get too high, while keeping that gentle, smoky bar feel locked down to the end. I do hear the saxes rubbing when playing unison, and while they're not totally in tune, they don't bother me enough to send this back for fixes. What's here is above the bar for me, and I'm happy to see another FFXIV track on the front page! YES