Rexy

I have not heard any of the revisions prior to this one, so I'm rolling with the one I see here. I'm liking the approach with the theme variation, the breakdown, the brief referencing into the sisters' battle theme, then back into a theme variation at the end - and all the melodic florishes that I am hearing and the change of tonal moods have broken the sources enough for them to be their individual thing. I can't fault the writing direction - keep that as it is. But the thing I noticed first when listening is how muffled the entire mixdown is. Joe mentioned the comparison to a pillow, which makes sense with the scooped mid secton that I'm hearing. It's interesting because I'm able to hear everything in the mix as standalone instruments, but the flat impact tells me that those holes need patching before it's ready for primetime. Whether it be tweaking anything on the master chain that might be causing it, or adjusting EQs on instruments with tones in those ranges, anything that can be done to add those values again can bring this over the bar after all the time it's spent like this. I can definitely vouch that this is almost there. If it fails this time, then another mixdown pass is all it needs to hit the mark. NO (resubmit)

I can confirm that the source quota fit the scope well, even with moments with the A section's chord progression being the only usage present and entire parts of the arpeggio getting cut away in favor of a half-time approach. It can be "building blocky" as Larry said, but that is the nature of progressive trance - the slow builds into the crunchy bass, then the dip into a second faster groove and into the outro. But as long as everything evolved within that framework, that is not a concern to me. However, that half-time groove established at 1:14 went back in at 2:27 and 3:40, restoration of the A section and all - and again for the ending at 4:38. And that standard A-section as it was appeared five times throughout under different textures. This is something that I can't chalk up to the genre itself due to the sound choice of that FM-sounding bell synth. The rest of the mixdown is already strong, with the beefy drums, bass and rhythm parts. But this bell not only sounds louder than everything else, but also has such a bright tone to it that I'm hearing more of its resonance more than its pitch. This is something I would've liked to have heard an EQ cut to get rid of the resonance as well as any other layers to add some warmth, but the way it repeated phrases as it did added up to one big issue. I do like this, but the bell synth's mixing and its patterns need more TLC before it's ready for the front page. I hope you still have the project file, because this is otherwise a sweet homage for a friend. Keep going! NO (resubmit)

I love the direction as well. I felt like it lured me into a false sense of security with an adaptation for what sounded like a single Game Boy as opposed to two, and then all of a sudden, it started developing with a busier soundscape and textural shifts to make this two-variation direction work. That also makes me feel confident that you are getting a whole load of mileage out of LSDJ, no thanks to the careful attention to noise shifting and texture/pitch manipulation on the fly. The Sherm variant is on point, the sudden Streets of Rage SFX was unexpected, and the choice of differing harmonies from the OG makes this a strong sticking point for me. Now, repetition-wise, the only thing that feels like a problem for me is the drum writing, which has the same pattern outside of fills and breaks. The tonal elements around feel like enough work as the sum of their parts for me to consistently see them as dealbreakers, but the basic boots-and-cats-and-etc setup runs its course very quickly. Drumwriting isn't easy to work on, but studying other potential ideas for grooves and figuring out how to implement them into your software is a good idea. Similarly, with six channels of pulses and two of noise, the mono sound also feels like it's hurting the mixdown so much, to the point that I'd like to hear the details of each individual channel rather than them mushing together. From what I saw in the LSDJ manual, there should be a way to mute individual channels and put them all into a single DAW, then tweak their properties (panning, EQ, other effects) from there - which I'm under the impression is how gravitygauntlet mixed down some previous work of yours. It's a fun fakebit arrangement, and it'll be amazing to see on the site, but it needs some repetition re-work and another mix pass. Know that you have a great network to assist on the latter when required - you've got this. NO (resubmit)

The "liberties" you were worried about are okay, so don't worry about those! The melody was loud and clear until around 1:45, and the arrangement map was simple for us to follow along and understand what you've done. Adapting an atmospheric light-hearted source into a dark synthwave feel is an excellent example of taking something in a different direction, and combined with the writing's execution, your writing fits together seamlessly. But then there's the production to take into consideration. Performances are on point, and I didn't mind the hard pan on the guitar as it's a solid way to separate it from the sax and flute. But these three leads have so much prominence in the mix that any side-chain effects (yes, the pads get pushed down subtly) are difficult for a casual listener to pick up on. Though some of my fellow Js mentioned mud being a problem, from the presence of the leads, I feel it *doesn't* have much warmth coming into the soundscape, currently covered by the pads and percussion. One way to address it is to find a way to give more power to the kick and snare, which, at this point, don't cut through the pads as well as I'd like. That would mean adding a stronger side-chain on the kick and making some EQ tweaks elsewhere to get the snare through. Cap that with finding a way to get the leads to sit better on the backing track, and several minor mixing issues are holding it back. For now, this is something that I can only see on the front page with another mixing pass. But trust me when I say the "liberties" in the arrangement are okay, so never stop taking those liberties in future projects! :-) NO (resubmit)

This approach is simple - a sleaze rock adaptation, emphasizing additional note density and a similar swag-sounding bassline. The arrangement did its job just by changing the overall style of the source tune through a straightforward ABA structure. The only thing I mused over were two instances in the first half (0:25, 0:49) where it sounded like the fills were a bar too late and didn't have the impact getting in delayed as they were. However, if the Beatles had gotten away with it before, it would not have been an overarching concern and could have been seen as stylistic. The short length also comes with debating the overall production shaping. However, your attention to room ambiance on the bass and electric guitars and some firm down tuning on the snare drum is commendable. They contributed to the track's overall personality and got past any issues regarding panning or overall instrument selection. I did notice the limiter doing its work from looking at the track's waveform, though the amount of processing meant giving away to "amp stuff" as some of the previous judges had already mentioned, as opposed to artifact concerns. It's a minimal approach, yes. But despite its quirks, it cleared the bar for OCR for me. Let's go. YES

A judge's aim isn't to identify whether it hit the artist's brief or not—which Flexstyle touched upon—but actually whether it hit the site standards. And on a creative level, I like what you did with it. Yes, it has a more simplistic approach with some interpretive variations on the primary source and the battle theme's usage as a bridge—but in this case, simplicity works. To break it down even more, you put the opening notes of the melody on the gated synths at 0:14, overlaid it with the melody, and kept it this way throughout the build that ended at 0:54. You then got the melody at complete focus at 1:08 with the half-time drums, changing to four-on-the-floor kicks and gates at 1:24 and repeating both ideas with different synth layers from 1:38 onwards. The cute 8-bit break at 2:06 turned to more of that half-time sound when interpreting the primary source's second half. At the other side of the battle theme at 3:38, most of your second interpretation had no percussion and more of those Mega Drive-style bells for a more spacious finish, give or take a brief section at 3:51 that briefly went back to that initial main source presentation. I am also okay with how your bass and pad (try to) work together, and it doesn't detract from your overall vision, either. So, while that checks out, the production, on the other hand, still needs some work. Yes, I love your choice of effects and overall sound design, so that should be fine, but the mastering still needs work. As previously mentioned, there's no low end here, and the bass, in particular, is trying so hard to poke out from the rest of the instrumentation. Chimpazilla mentioned an excellent technique for doing EQ cuts on other instrumentation to get it to shine through, in addition to side chains when necessary. The little bits of bass I am hearing are trying to push through the sub-frequencies, which would typically rumble under an actual present bass at a higher octave and get the subwoofer to really work, if anything at all. It makes sense to mention EQ cuts on other instruments because when you're writing several dozen stem projects like this one, it makes sense for you to understand where your fundamental frequencies (aka pitches) and harmonics are so you can choose what you want to emphasize/minimize and EQ the rest of your instruments around your cuts and gains. It'll no longer be a case of piling up a lot of virtual performers on the same pile on a stage and more of squeezing them neatly for the sake of performance. Angelique, this is a creative idea, and I am all for this submission, making it onto OC Remix. However, it needs another mixdown pass before I feel confident about its inclusion. Again, don't give up, and keep being you. :-) NO (resubmit)

I haven't heard any of the previous versions, so I'm just going to say it as I hear it. Remember, Angelique, *we mean nothing personal*—we really want to see you grow as an artist. Quite frankly, this source sounds like something I would've tried to make an arrangement of much earlier on in my life, so I empathize with you. Anyway, here are my thoughts with the judge hat on. The biggest positive is that the sound design is impeccable. You have a great selection of bells, percussion, and acoustic-sounding instrumentation to develop a haunting atmosphere. I could not detect any mixing issues that may have been in the previous two versions - though Zack's guitar at 2:31 sounds like it got overprocessed to the point of clipping. It's not a dealbreaker considering how much space there is in that part of the track, plus it could equally pass as vinyl crackling because of it - but it's a good idea to keep getting used to your gear, get some good monitoring headphones too if you don't have any yet, and understand more about how those dots connect. As for the arrangement, it made perfect sense to turn it into a mellow jam and twist it around with a more electronic feel, so I do not need to worry about source quota. Though, like with Larry and Chimpazilla, the lack of melodic and harmonic focus has given me mixed feelings. I understand you wanted to go for a more additive arrangement, but it's best to think about what chord you would like to hit at any time and ride your elements around it. At the very least, you did mark your stamp on the source, which is indeed what we're looking for - and believe it or not, I've seen other dissonant works get posted on the site based on the strength of arrangement, so this should be no different. Despite the elephant in the room with the dissonance, this is barely postable as is - so fuck it, we ball. But Angelique, the best advice I can give you is to read all your feedback, stop doubting yourself, and use those words to build your skills up. You've got a lot of support, so use it well. :-) YES (borderline)

This track is easily a 2000s-era-style EDM adaptation, all with filters and gnarly synths. I approve of the sound design, with synth choices of that era and effects shaping things over time, and those Streets of Rage "uh" sound clips starting from 0:46 and 2:55 made me feel thrilled for apparent reasons. It's so well mixed to do what it did that I can't find any issues sticking out. Let's see the arrangement, though. Luckily, whether it's just the bass and some layers, or more obvious uses of the melody, the source quota is evident, and the build up a semitone at 1:32 made a great segue into some modulation before getting into the source's C section. It's definitely a more vintage approach to interpreting it, and I can be down with it. Of course, there are two weaknesses. I can live with the weak cop-out ending if that is the only problem. But the third minute with copypasta is the big sticking point. I do agree that the section from 2:24-2:54 is too blatant aside from the use of brief harmonies transitioning into the next section, as is the section at 3:10-3:25. I do, however, approve of overlaying the A section melody and B section arp on top of each other starting from 3:02, which briefly happens before the B section goes back to full force at 3:10. Eight seconds cut from Mindwanderer's 70 is still just over a full minute of this stuff, so I would've liked to have seen more done to let this section stick around. Honestly, this track is almost golden, but I want another reason to hear that last stretch rather than copying something over with minor layer tweaks. You could change up melodies, add different percussion, or add different pads—anything. I know you can do this, CJ. NO (resubmit)

I've been hovering over this track for so long primarily because of the reasons behind this split - whether this is substantial enough to see on the site. The genre adaptation spoke for itself - changed up jazzy chords, modified the melody when required, transposed it halfway through, and all the fun sound effects accompanying the overall mood. There are two variations, so on paper, it feels like it shouldn't work, especially with how the ending just petered out with just the shakers and the notation - but we do have two unique textural run-throughs of the theme with different bass patterns, percussion riffs, and overall textures riding the top. I'm all for the change-ups for the BGM. Now, this mixdown, on the other hand, is as dry as a bone. Most of your instruments barely have much reverb compared to your shaker and some of the sound effects. There are attempts at humanization with the piano, but the velocities on the bass and the percussion are both very stagnant. When the percussion is inorganic like this, especially the kicks and snares, it gets difficult to change their tones while making them feel like the track flows. Hemo did mention the idea of changing up samples and velocity, though layering other types of percussion sounds, like claps and other blemishes, could offer them a different tone of life depending on their usage. Additionally, some percussion layer combinations could even fix the dryness problem we've got going on with your percussion. I like the ideas, and the arrangement is enough to sign onto the overall feel. But there needs to be some humanization tweaks to the bass - my best bet is dealing with layers or changing up key switches - as well as livening up those drums. I can see this going either way, but I think, "I want this, but it needs more TLC first." I hope you still have your project file because I want to see you get that sorted. :-) NO (resubmit)

Way to make me feel split for weeks, Jordan. As usual, your production quality is top-notch, with amazing bass and distortion effects, smooth string articulations befitting the tone, juicy effects, and a strong balance that packs a wallop. There's just not much to say about this one other than you know what you're doing regarding the sound design. But then we've got the arrangement, which is a considerable debate. On the first listen, I heard the structure being two loops with slight variations, which isn't too much of a concern on the surface. I have seen the arguments about there being not enough differences, but here's what I've been able to figure out. Comparing 0:13-0:40 and 1:56-2:23, I hear a swung sizzling hi-hat on top of the previously established groove, which didn't change otherwise. Comparing 0:40-1:08 and 2:23-2:51, the build to the drop differs, as is the inclusion of low-passed drums for the first half. Then we got the drops at 1:08-1:35 and 2:51-3:18, and both used different LFO effects. The only identical segments are your loop endings, and considering that's how the track also ends, it does leave us with the impact of a wet sponge. So, there are more tweaks than some of the naysayers have said. However, they are primarily percussive and additive, not so much on source notation. Flexstyle has the right ideas for changing things and keeping the tone as an EDM / dubstep track. Yet, I'm all for seeing more melodic textural changes rather than going for elaborate key modulations or sudden genre changes. I'm talking about sections where we may have more pads and the melody on a piano-like instrument, or having a dubstep bass wub through the A-section melody line, or even a vast dramatic polysynth takeover. Honestly, it was difficult to see where this stands, primarily because I was asking, "Are percussive tweaks enough to make a difference?" - to which I have concluded that this track needs more than that. I'd love to see another version with tweaks done with melodic texture variation on that second loop, which I am confident is achievable. NO (resubmit)

This demake is cute - it would fit right in an old-school Dragon Quest game as a shrine theme, which is appropriate considering Grandpa's role in Stardew. However, the consensus is already clear - it's two and a half run-throughs of the BGM, each with different textures and no compositional changes aside from a key change for the last 30 seconds. Arrangement-wise, there's not enough personalization, meaning we unfortunately can't accept this in its original form. Absolutely nothing's wrong with an NES / Famicom sound palette, and that approach is possible on OCR. But Brad's arrangement/transformation suggestions are worth looking into if you are to return to this concept in the future. Please keep up your efforts. NO

Well, there's one answer on how to address a small source - theme and variations. And with your EDM approach, that means a whole kitchen sink of themes and variations. It sounded like it went from two-step to dubstep to breakbeat to French house to hardstyle to a wall of noise in two minutes, so I understand Wes's "order every seasonal drink at the bar" analogy. Very rarely would a break between sections be used more than once - aside from the frequent use of Navi voice clips - and combined with the eccentric barrage of music ideas, we've got something that was short, sweet, and probably a bunch of other flavors in there while we're at it, and doesn't outstay its welcome. The sound design also has a lot to love. With the territory comes rich synth textures, various genre-ready tones, and some befitting EDM tropes. We're talking dreamy sustains in the first 20 seconds, snappy 808 hats during the lighter two-step sections, multi-layered dubstep basses, glitched gates before the end of the first minutes, juicy sidechains not long after, enveloped basses going in after 1:30, the absolute noise that is the big final bass at 1:43 and a room reverb finish. I don't sense anything overlapping with each other frequency-wise, but I would've liked a clean fade-out rather than the sudden cut at the end. It's no dealbreaker if the project file gets lost, but it would be nice to remedy it before being ready for primetime. You saw my words right there. This track surprised me, as should the other OCR regulars when they hear it. Nice work! YES

Your detailed source breakdown was helpful and helped me appreciate your arrangement craft big time. This approach broke down the individual segments of the theme and built upon each one in turn, all with a charcuterie board of concepts and interpretations. You've got parts where you overlay the melody over different chord structures, the sneaky Jenova cameo, a couple of sections where you kept the chord progression of the segments but went into brief noodling, and then you caught me off-guard from 2:32 with two key signature changes in a row - first into 7/4 for the D section twist, and then into straight 4/4 rather than 12/8 for the dive into the E section at 2:54. I'm very impressed with your scale of twisting the source while maintaining a solid structure overall. It's also a well-mixed track overall, with clean performances throughout. I sensed some great guitar tones from Jabo's side, beefy Hammond organ action, and plenty of layered synth instrumentation complimenting each other. The lead saw wave does sound exposed when alone, but when noodling for solos, there was enough done with pitch bends and modulation to make it feel fuller. The same applies to your snare tone, but it's not to the point where it's overlapping with anything or poking through the landscape. Here, the entire production line wanted to sound like 90s-era Dream Theater, to fantastic results - and I can roll with it. You got my approval, you two! It's a fun prog twist on a classic battle theme - mad props! YES

The original Puzzle Bobble / Bust-A-Move theme is so happy! That makes it an excellent fit for trap/hip-hop, and you managed to get at least a good foundation going. However, as mentioned, we have a sampled audio intro, a rendition of the theme, and some sax noodling over the accompaniment of the A section before a closure. In a fuller remix, splitting the track at 0:55 would turn the two halves into bookends, and with the kind of groove you have, the best suggestion I have is to allocate yourself more track time for re-interpretation and other ideas. Passing a shorter track isn't impossible, but I doubt the pacing and style would suit something of this current length, so adding more would have to be the better solution. Then, we have the current production state. Yes, the instrumentation is relentless, the subtle sidechain worked well with your kick, and the render surprisingly doesn't have any clipping despite the emphasis on your bass. But at an RMS level of -10 dB and too many details trying to appear all at once during said B section, there's not a lot of thought going on to balance overall. You buried the sax underneath the higher-frequency percussion, source melody and sudden arpeggio textures. Rather than have everything go full-throttle, it'll be a good idea to balance the instruments' volume based on overall importance, pan similar elements to get them to stand up against each other, and if there's still some frequency clashing, either opting for some EQ cuts or shifting octaves depending on the part. As of right now, the submission you sent in sounds more like a two-minute rough sketch of what would hopefully become a stellar developed track. I'd like to hear a revision with more source interpretation and an overall cleaner sound, so I hope you'll be able to keep at it. NO (resubmit)

Oh wow, I remember the original album version and the flaws that held it back as a direct post - but I'm glad you and the rest of the gang kept refining it, Mel. I'm pleased about that. So, this started as a melodically conservative lo-fi take on the source, and then by 1:45, we've ended up with some improv that primarily leans into the A section melodically, all before going back into the A section and further playing around with that theme until the unusual SFX ending with the tape sounds and footsteps. There are several tweaks here compared to the album version. The beat is more engaging and meanders way less, Zach's saxophone sounds way more expressive and compliments Greg's clarinet much better, and the additional live instrumentation adds a greater sense of intimacy. The only thing I would've liked to have heard is for the bass to remain rooted and let the melodic parts do what they need to do rather than trying to step around like a countermelody at times, but it's more of a stylistic decision rather than something to send back. It's also phenomenal to compare all three versions and see how far the performance side has gone. I was initially okay with Greg's clarinet, but Zack pushed through with the overall quality behind the other instruments and heeded critique from the first attempt to redo the sax. Everything's well positioned, and the presentation emphasizes warmer tones and less on your higher frequencies. It would've been a challenge to balance, and I would've preferred the bass to be a touch quieter because of it, but this shaping is essential when it comes to lo-fi. I can co-sign with the fellow Js and say that you've finally hooked yourself a winner. Great going with all the feedback, Mel - let's get this on the front page! YES

I'm down to see a Croc arrangement on the site in some form - that OST has some fantastic jams. But unfortunately, I concur with the barebones borderline MIDI-rip approach that Larry and Brad brought up. I'm hearing a palette change with no writing transformation, some very exposed and reverb-heavy drums, no articulation on your melodic instrumentation, and overall, no development. It would have had a direct rejection if you submitted it under the old email system. Don't feel discouraged, though. You have the workshop for research on interpretation and production, and for asking for feedback, so please keep working on your craft. Hang in there. NO

Working on orchestral metal isn't easy, but you managed to nail source recognizability down to a T, going as far as doing a lot of chopping around and overlaying the chosen sources while still making World Revolution your leading hook. Rather than relying on two keys like the source, you kept the structure's first minute in the same C minor key as the original's beginning. The two segments with the time signature changes (9/4 at 1:44 and 7/4 at 2:50) allowed the sources to transform themselves to fit the overall pacing, as did the sudden slow-down for your bass solo at 3:57 before going into your build and ramp-up for the ending. Add in your trademark juicy guitar solos, well-articulated arps, and textural changes to divert it from the pure orchestration of the source material, and what we have here is classic Hakstok, just with multiple more instruments this time. Those multiple instruments are a thinker when it comes to production, though. Yes, the individual parts of the orchestra were bound to face overlaps when you've got the rock part of it at center stage. But when it comes to this kind of orchestral rock setting, the orchestra should ideally face treatment as a separate instrument, so when working with the guitars simultaneously, they feel clean and add some air into the mix that would've otherwise been from backing synths. The bad news is that until the guitars make their first appearance at 0:40, said orchestra-synth combo is all one would hear, and both of them have conflicting frequencies that make it hard to hear one over the other. But once the rest of the instruments arrive, everything starts sitting better, with the kind of recording and VST quality I expect from you. I bet you had your work cut out for you here, but it was worth it to fare well in the DoD, and I'm all for seeing this on the front page. Keep doing what you do best, Ivan, and rock the heck out :-) YES

I had never heard the original sub, so I must go by ear for this one. We got evident source use, with some lovely transformations like the choice to bring in the B section's bass (albeit offset by two measures) over the A-section at 0:18, sprinkling in bits of the C-section at 1:24 and 1:33 during the re-build, the double-time at 2:07, the call-and-response between the original writing and source section in that entire section that starts at 2:11, and the shift to a minor key at 2:29. Interpretation-wise, you understand how to personalize a track, and I can see the cases for the Yes camp liking this one based on the general idea and presentation. However, I have some qualms with its presentation. As mentioned by my fellow Js, the textures are very bare-bones and rarely ever have anything more than bass, melody, and percussion happening simultaneously. Other parts like pads, arpeggios, and keys can go a long way and add more density to this. You do have instruments like your bells that have enough layers to function as three at once, and you substituted the percussion aspect at 1:17 for a pad underneath - but they further expose the gaps in the soundscape. See if you can add some other subtle textures underneath to thicken things. Even if you do that, there is still the problem of mixing everything. As things stand, the bells are way too loud, even with the brick wall master in consideration. The kick drum is barely audible and could fare better with some EQ shaping on the bass to make it stand out. Additionally, the only multi-layer instrument you've got are those bells, as mentioned earlier, meaning your dry/exposed parts of the percussion kit need some textural tweaks if they are to be more upfront. I appreciate the creative direction behind the mix, Troy, but the sparseness and your mixdown are two significant issues that I'm afraid I can't shake off. This track needs some further TLC with additional instrumentation and a thorough mixdown, and I'm glad you've spoken to Hemophiliac as an extra pair of ears to help you out. I hope you get back to this one soon. NO (resubmit)

I remember this from the DoD event! From what I saw when going around the DoD Discord, the reasons for the low placement sounded like a mixture of source choice and vocal hate, which sounds par the course, but that's something that can easily get thrown out of the window over here. So, arrangement. We got apparent use of the three variants throughout - the intro from the Crash 3 variant, before going into the Crash 2 variant at 0:19, the Crash 1 variant intro for the break at 1:01, then going right into the second half of the Crash 3 variant at 1:13, through to the second half of the Crash 2 variant at 1:58, back to the Crash 3 variant at 2:54 that echoed the usage at 1:13 as a chorus hook, then into turning the second half of the Crash 1 variant in a doom metal approach, complete with thinning textures before getting back into cranking up the anger of the Crash 2 variant at 3:46 with the last bits of the Crash 3 variant for closure. That was honestly a very long run-on-sentence, but source use is extremely evident, transformed to fit the genre, chopped into pieces to befit the structure, with a variety of different vocal deliveries - and as echoed, the Dethklok-esque "d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-die" bits were awesome to me. The invincibility part was a great way to calm things down at 2:22, as did the usage of the dialog in the normal ending of Crash 3 at 3:33 before suddenly cranking up the tempo at the last stretch. And yes, I echo your decision on the lyric writing - this is Cortex at his angriest. :D Such vocal performances also had to shine through cleanly recording-wise, and they did so alongside the guitars and overall production. Everything feels cleanly mixed, and the words are audible, but I also echo MindWanderer's concerns about the dirty-sounding cymbals. For me, this hiss is more noticeable when the hi-hat is open and could sound more aesthetically pleasing if there was some EQ shaping to scoop out some of that sibilance and add a pinch more air to it. To your credit, though, nothing else in the instrument field touches them frequency-wise, so it's more like a nitpick than a dealbreaker. I don't see anything here that can hold it back from a mixpost perspective on OCR. You have a very creative vocal metal mix, which I felt put my own take on this source to shame. Great going! YES

You know, Jack got the sound presentation right on the head. The bass is amazingly well textured, filters had worked great for the FX and arpeggios, and that choice of drumset has enough air in its snare tone to compliment everything else. Yet, the bass has so much coverage in the mix that it had also been smothering everything that isn't necessarily percussion or a synth lead, masking some of those background pads and textures like the gremlin laughs. A frequency analysis showed the sub-bass problem that Brad pointed out. Cutting that back could help alleviate the clutter, but a general cleanup wouldn't go amiss. It's not a dealbreaker, though, as the few flaws mix-wise more than compensate for it in the sound design, and that wore that badge loud and proud. Now, the arrangement is transformative. You've relied on mainly the A section for your core hook, a tweaked variation of the B section to compliment these, and then used your E and C sections for your builds. Rather than using the original chord sequence, you opted to go for your own to fit your EDM vision and have similarly chopped up entire melodic stretches in your favor. Yes, the repetition would be an issue, but here's how I broke it down. Your B variations at 0:18 and 2:29 approach the same kind of core melody line, though the latter one had some additional higher-pitched textures during melodic downtime. The B variation at 1:32 had the melody line do its own thing. Then there are the A sections, where the first and second ones at 0:04 and 0:32 differ with their drum flourishes, while the other three at 1:18, 1:47, and 2:43 are the verbatim patterns. Those loops impact around 30 seconds of a 3-minute track, which isn't much in the long run. For me, the way you treated the source more than made up for the flaws here, though making textural differences more obvious would be an idea worth exploring in the future. Honestly, this was a toughie, but the pros barely outweigh the cons. It's got that bounce I usually associate with you, and that source transformation is too hard to brush aside. Cool stuff. YES (borderline)

I'll start with the production aspect. Yes, the original is superior in every way, but that was mainly because the acoustic strings in the original (Mandolin? Dulcimer? Bouzouki?) were live. Working with a sampled variation, it has a lush feel despite the key-switch limitations associated mainly with a dulcimer VST. The backing pad, while not entirely out of place, doesn't feel as deep as the original either - and some of the vibrato and pitch bending of the cello also gives off a more synthetic vibe. None of these are deal breakers, as when all parts get together, any accentuation issues get mitigated, and the balance is strong enough to make them all work cohesively. Yet, I'm afraid I will have to concur with Brad and the camp regarding the arrangement. Yes, the strings, some percussion, and some string harmonics (2:16) did their involvement under the source transcription to add some subtractive arrangement work. But the structure is still two loops of the BGM, with added instrument work becoming more prominent at 1:22 and only starting to get going within the final third. Now, usually, there's nothing wrong with adding other layers underneath to make a mix work - but when you still have the base pads and folky guitar being used in the arrangement, doing the same actions in the original BGM, there needed to be more to it and much sooner. Methods like assigning different instruments to play the melody, subtly altering patterns on the main parts, and some texture building like you did in the last third can bring this a long way. I'm sorry, but I can't pass it in its current form - and it's all down to arrangement and not enough thereof. You are the artist here; therefore, we want to hear more from you - so if you can revise it with a more original interpretation, that'll be fantastic. NO (resubmit)

Yep, this is definitely "Time's Scar" played straight - nothing to say about the structure other than it being a stylistic vocal rock adaptation, with a thrown-in bridge based on the post-intro B section going between 2:05-2:40. I haven't heard the original version, so I have nothing to compare to re: vocal arrangement, but based on what I heard, the meat and potatoes after the first 60 seconds show great strength to compliment the style, though the modulation *within* the first minute feels overblown. That flaw may have been a basis for a no from other judges, but based on other vocal works from you, I can play devil's advocate and believe that kind of expression is your schtick, no matter the overall pacing. Everything also feels clean - I can identify all parts, there are some pristinely recorded live instruments, and timings have run a tight ship. I don't mind the drums on a grid, as they're doing the time-keeping for everything else. The main issue I had with the overall production, though, was the vocals themselves having inaudible consonants. Usually, an EQ tweak in the higher register could get them further front for increased clarity in your words. On the other hand, it's also seen as "vocals as an instrument," so something like that is "nice to have. " It's something I can get behind despite the vocal mixing flaws. It won't get past the vocal-song hate, but it doesn't need to do that - it's you, through and through, and it can shine on its own. Good luck with the rest of the vote. YES

I agree about the source being challenging to arrange, but when broken down, it's primarily different rhythmic patterns placed in a set structure. Rather than Michael Hudak's method of taking said patterns and making something completely different, what you did was keep the structure of the BGM and do some subtractive arrangement with your choices of pads and other percussion - then, from 2:20, you began to develop these rhythmic ideas and continue along to the end. It's rare for you to do things like that, as I had often heard you shape up the source and then go into comping for the end - so I am all for it. I don't particularly mind the dynamics of the instrumentation, given that more of the textural attention was on using volume envelopes to shape them, similar to the original. But I did indeed hear the frequency shaping that Wes and Kris brought up. I'm not so worried about the panning, as I can see it as more of an arrangement technique. Still, the rumble and artifacts from one of your synths (0:52, 1:49, 3:13, 4:46), combined with resonants appearing on the mid-ranges (1:18, 2:21, 2:38, 3:50), tell me that they've been leveled too loud to the point of mild distortion or that there are too many things going on in their space that would need some further separation whether it be panning or tweaking different EQs for their own separate space. That irk is only on headphones, though, so it's a fix that's nice to have rather than have addressed as a resubmission. Regardless, more boxes tick for me rather than get left blank. Irrespective of the outcome, I hope the feedback you keep receiving for each mix will transition into building up future material. Cool stuff. YES (borderline)

To put this together across five years, you must've made this a real test of love. Nice! A seven-minute arrangement felt intimidating reading about it, but the overall structure is exceptionally safe. We got that Last Episode opening, into the source proper, into another run with some added bell/timpani/hi-hat action, a return to the A section with that rad clavinet writing, into a guitar solo, and a return to the second half of the source for the end, defining itself with a flute and a beefier set of drums to lead into the finish. Now, I have seen the arguments regarding repetition. I've seen mixes that have tastefully used repetition or have enough background changes to have their purpose, but the same notation with some layers tagged in doesn't feel like enough. I'm more in favor of the "radio edit" route that you mentioned in your notes, which would cut down that problem big time - but one tip for the future is that you can even let accompanying instruments do something else during second source run-throughs. I also agree with the whole issue regarding balance. Firstly, you name-dropped a lot of powerful VSTs, but there's hardly any articulation outside of keyboard input at best. It's better to make them feel more like a performer was using the real thing, usually by combining key switches, envelope shaping, multiple layers, etc. On the other hand, the guitar has hammer-on articulation, which is a big plus - but it's so behind volume-wise that it's barely audible. It sounds much better in that regard at 5:04 during the big solo, but the note density further exposes the thinness of the sound. A lot of the thinness sounds like they're from applying high-pass filters across your mid-to-mid-high instruments - which isn't bad, as it does get rid of many frequencies you don't need. However, warmth is valuable on more prosperous instruments like the piano, organ lead, and guitar. It's a good idea to look over your low-to-mid-frequency instruments, see where the EQ settings are, and see if there's a way to give them more of that warmth. Another reason is that the brass and strings have too much power, and they don't know whether to be a support instrument or a lead based on their writing. If your setup can handle some more channels for orchestral instruments, it would be a good idea to separate your writing for leads and for rhythm/pads into separate channels to differentiate them; if not, then it'll be fine to work with volume envelopes, dynamically changing their place in the mix over time. I appreciate you reaching out to us with the hope of getting more feedback overall, and I also understand your overall story for its use on an album release and how much passion you had in working on it. Despite this, I had been back and forth and found more reasons to want it revisited rather than go on the site outright. Personal attachment is something that I faced issues with some of my earlier works - and even a few of my later ones - and the most challenging part is motivating yourself to get back to creating more things, which anyone should still do regardless. That said, the vibe is excellent. The ambition is great. But revised articulations and another mixdown pass are what this thing sorely needs for me more than anything else. I'm all for seeing it on the site, but I'm afraid we will require you to make that possible. NO (resubmit)

The fellow judges have expressed the arrangement side to a tee, so nothing bears repeating. Taking the structure and converting it into a symphonic metal arrangement, with the assortment of musicians you have, ticks many of the right boxes on that front. And with your performers must also come some exceptional recording and articulation qualities; on that note, I feel not a single player had been out of place. Indeed, this is highly ambitious, and I greatly respect that. But here's the elephant in the room - the mastering. The first version you sent had a lot of clarity but was heavily distorted, so I can see why this was a factor for a split. I never heard the second, and the third one has a much cleaner sound in exchange for a muddier mixdown - which I can understand due to the similar tone register between guitars, strings, and brass. Thankfully, the panning helps identify your instrumentation, and while I would've preferred to see some EQ cuts to further distinguish between your symphonic backing, what we have here is still more than serviceable. Based on the renders, I'm cool with seeing this version make it onto the site, but if we focused the vote on the first one alone, it would've been a NO. I won't be too surprised if this takes more deliberating before figuring out what to do, but we'll see how it goes. Excellent work between you all, though. YES