Rexy

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

It's a solid presentation - an ominous bell and thunder SFX, into going into the source proper, and variations around a 60s-sounding groove. The drums and the theremin sell the entire idea, respectively, with a solid beat and some great expression in an otherwise understated backdrop, and the balance is clean enough to tell where everything is. But I've had to go back and forth on this one because of the arrangement. It's a simple enough source that took pride in vocal harmonies providing whatever melody it had, and thanks to the theremin turning those melodies into a mono voice, what we've ultimately got here is a theme and variations idea. The main issue with going for theme and variations is that you'd want all parts to do something unique in those variations, you'd like to introduce some different instrumentation to replace others before them, or you'd use a combination of the two. As of now, your soundscape is established 30 seconds in and stays that way for the rest of the track, so some change-up to prevent fatigue could be helpful here. I'm all for the cool groove and theremin melody variations; however, the static sound design needs addressing before I can see it on the front page, whether by instrument changes or throwing in different writing ideas. There's some potential here, so please keep at it. NO (resubmit)

Your BGM selection works well for your signature jazz fusion style! You took the two most identifiable parts and made them work well with your A-B structure, and the integration of "Star Spirits Request" at 1:50 also adapted well with the changed key. There were so many great ideas to follow that even the copy-pasta at 2:24 was a non-issue as it was repeating a creative transformation in the first place. I can vibe with that. However, what we've got here on the production side is a muddy mixdown. I appreciate what you were trying to do - emphasizing warm-sounding instruments, which is per the norm for lo-fi, and I don't mind the panning LFO as it's adding some sweet tonal depth. But we have a set of acoustic-sounding drums that sound like they've got a low-pass filter on, affecting their impact in the mix. Due to this, the bass is difficult to hear due to how you've emphasized the snare, plus the cymbal selection blends in too well with your bright-sounding pad, particularly during your B sections (0:40 / 2:24). Jack mentioned a fantastic idea with down-tuning your percussion, allowing their tones to cut through at a lower signal - and any other effects like distortion, compression, bit-crushing, and the like could make them have the more low-tone artificial sound they're looking for. It's worth experimenting and seeing what works for you. I'm all for seeing this track on the site based on the strength of its writing alone, but it'll need another mixdown pass, mainly to fix the drums. Please tell me that you still have the project file - so that you can take action and aim to get this on the front page. You've got this. NO (resubmit)

These production values have cemented a beautifully articulate piece of work. All your instruments, even the choir samples, had been expressed realistically - packed inside an organic space with plenty of appropriate reverb breathing room and great detail to panning. Regarding the presentation, there's hardly a foot stepped out of place, and even the critique about the percussion is no dealbreaker. It's very lush. But then we have the interpretation, which, as mentioned, is a sound upgrade run-through of the source proper, a livelier transformative run, then into the original choir. That stretch from 1:37-3:13 has more than enough transformation throughout, with the additional Irish whistle, livelier percussion, and change to brass as your main lead. These little details had done enough to give that section a unique identity, but when paired with a minimally altered first run-through and the original choir swells from 3:13 onward, I feel there hasn't been enough transformation to make this work yet. Changing the ending is possible, though one idea I can think of is aiming for something Rebecca Tripp likes to do and utilizing either the source proper or a secondary source as part of the minimal instrument wind-down. I'm all for seeing a track like this on the site, but this needs more rearrangement and something done with that ending before it can get posted. This soundscape has a lot to love, so I hope you're willing to return to it. NO (resubmit)

I love your direction with the arrangement, Roch. From a lore perspective, I predict Isabelle is getting overworked while Tom Nook is just booking his next golf game from the sidelines. And it feels that way with a lighter first minute using the central Isabelle motif before a transformation into an ominous DnB break. The appearances of Tom Nook's motif (1:34-1:39, 2:01-2:26, 2:29-2:40, 3:02-3:24) then lead into equally menacing variations on the Isabelle motif (1:39 onwards) or mood-shaking sweeps and pitch-bends into following segments. And after the chaos, the return to her leitmotif at 3:57 felt like a satisfying conclusion but suddenly pulled a 180 turn at 4:19 with the atonal backing chords and melody stuttering. It's something that I see as an art piece in execution, blending your trademark DnB with a slice of working-life horror - and I can vibe with that. I similarly appreciate your sound design, too. Initially, it feels sparse, with just a simple polysynth over a fake acoustic sound. As soon as that gnarly bass starts fading in at 0:45, the sound design becomes more noticeable with your selections of sweeps, punchier drums, pitch bends, and significantly richer textures. I have no issues with either the RMS - which Audacity read as -10 rather than the -6 that Kris picked up - or the minimal polyphony due to these multiple layers, though I would've also liked some similar TLC on the faux-realistic tones on the tail ends. It's no dealbreaker, as the meat and potatoes for the other two-thirds of the track carry and embrace the idea. I'm all for seeing it on the site in its current form, but I can also understand how divisive the track is among my fellow judges here. Best of luck with the rest of the vote, and I hope it'll make it. YES

This arrangement sounds precisely like what Greg said - variations on a theme, which makes sense with the 7-bar loop. Production-wise, it's a basic dance club sound, but your EQ and layering techniques have done a lot to bring your instruments' presence out. I like your ideas about putting in sweeps and cutting textures when appropriate. However, one suggestion for the future would be to see if you could apply a similar sweeping envelope on your instruments to change their tone on the fly. Given that you're using a piano as your arp here, that suggestion wouldn't make sense right now - but it could serve a purpose with texture variation in the future. You've used it to build the idea in the opening build, then when the beat kicks in at 0:36, you've got your chance to go in with the bass shakeup, further digested at 0:51 with the source's bass going from legato to staccato with its writing. The ideas at 0:36 and 0:51 are combined at 1:16 with the key change, then start winding down at 1:36 with thinner textures over time and a slice of thunder sound effects. While I appreciate the minimal nature, the stagnant arp serves as a problem - and combined with the similar groove throughout, I'm also in the mindset that there's not enough arrangement here. There are different ways to vary things even further. As Darke said, additional source cameos could work in addition to the whole evolving landscape thing - though I also feel dropping or doubling up on some notes can be a superb different arrangement technique. It's worth experimenting and seeing what else you could do. To summarize, I do like the direction where this is going, but if there's a way to change up that arp further to fit the idea of variations on a theme, I'm all for listening to another revision—best of luck on your future work. NO (resubmit)

I concur with my fellow judges about the rawness behind the mixdown and the arrangement. It's at the point where while the melodies got used with no problem whatsoever, the chords and some melodic intonation got simplified in favor of delivering energy and enthusiasm from the performers. We also got an excellent progression - lovely acoustic guitar into raw punk, a flute breakdown, a solo, and the recap. The mixdown is a peculiar one, which I noticed from a spectrum analysis has a lot of low-mids for that punk feel - which would explain Kris's answer as to what happened to the bass. Because of this, the kick drum feels hidden among everything else - so if there's a way for you to make an EQ notch in any of your other instruments to make room for the kick, that could work out. Similarly, Greg was right on the money with the lack of space on the rhythm guitars, so a second performance for texture would enhance it big time. Thinking back to the arrangement, I felt concerned about some of those chord changes and their tone when measured up against the lead - particularly when going through the A section's first half (0:27-0:35), where the complex melody tonally struggles against the idea of one chord per bar. However, that was nothing compared to the guitar solo at 2:10, which sounded like the melody would aim for notation based on 7ths or keep going as far away from the scale's root as possible. The more significant issue with the recording was that a lot of the notation was way behind the beat and made it appear sloppy - so I am in favor of a re-record to at least tighten its placement. It's in the gray area of being passable for the album's release, yet needs some tweaks before going onto the front page - a more transparent part of the stage for the kick, a re-do of the guitar solo, and some extra production TLC onto the rhythm part. I don't know if you're still in touch with your performers, but it would be great if you could figure out a solution to get this onto the front page. Keep at it. NO (resubmit)

Okay, this has some stylistic twists in the soundscape, for sure. The pulsating synthwave base, textured bell pads, pitch shifting, and roomy leads - clearly, you put a lot of care towards the soundscape to make it truly feel like a relationship had gotten incredibly dicey, and I love that a lot. Though admittedly, the choice of instrumentation makes it lean towards a bright mixdown complete with more sub-lows than necessary. But the fact that most setups can still go through the sound design just fine makes it a valid case not to see it as a dealbreaker. The arrangement is an interesting one. I love that you turned the BGM from 4/4 to 6/8, meaning being able to change up the rhythms to accompany this pace. The chord selection also means choosing something suitable to ride underneath that melody simultaneously, and it easily fits with your vision of mental chaos. But here's the elephant in the room - a take on the source content. The first variation has the A section used straight from 0:36-0:56, then from there to 1:14, the B section is used twice. But then there's the second variation, which begins at 1:49. It only goes through the first half before hitting the first two bars again, before moving into a melody-less build at 2:02, and going into the B section at 2:09-2:44. My calculations have given me seven fewer seconds than Greg, putting me at 46%. If you utilized other parts of the source other than the melody, this might have worked, but now, the representation is way too sparse. For the future, being able to fit in little theme cameos, whether part of the source itself or other FE4 BGM (or a non-FE game?!), can add up to bringing the source requirement into that "clear and dominant" territory while still being able to maintain your vision. It's a shame that you probably won't be able to return to this track because this is a fantastic twist on paper. With more source use, this would've been an easy fit for the front page, so I hope you may get a chance to re-visit. Please keep going with your craft, and good luck with that future Trapt submission. NO (resubmit)

I don't understand some of those NO votes either. I heard a transformation of the source done with the extended jazz chords as Brad eluded to, careful playing around of the melody, and some neat harmonization throughout. There were also so many minor tweaks that the entire C section (0:48-1:02) wasn't just A-B-A-C like in the original, and there was enough going in the writing to maintain attention. Drum writing feels like a non-issue, as aside from the hi-hats, every individual section has its own unique kick/snare placement. We can indeed argue that the recap at 1:43 has the same backing at 0:13, but the changed melody line still gave it a reason to exist. Similarly, the return of the C section at 2:18 also was direct copy-pasta before going into closure, but that's still 12 seconds of a 3-minute piece, meaning its placement is still reasonable. I also heard some great textures going into the sound design - classic NeonX staple synths all over. That lead has some smooth glides that make it work with the overall aesthetic, and I felt that the parts were clear enough for me to hear on their own. But I did sense the master compression popping off, with crucial points where percussion and synths hitting simultaneously start to squish the mix. Either this is something that a slacking of that master compressor could minimize, or as Greg pointed out, could spur an idea to load up some side-chaining to cut all this. I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. It's a fun arrangement with some mixing flaws, but it felt tastefully twisted within the sub-3-minute running time. I'm all for seeing it on the site in its current form. YES

I agree with my fellow Js that the arrangement is fantastic. Yes, it starts with a conservative run on the source proper, but then the sprinkling in of all the Yoshi cameos and the frantic "final lap" part adapted so organically to your overall direction that I can't find a way to improve on that. Major kudos. The main issue that I have with it, as mentioned earlier, is the drum mixing. Right from the get-go, Kyana's drums - extremely fun and articulate like the rest of the instrumentation - completely overpowered the rest of the soundscape. I wanted to hear everything else alongside it, but I had to focus more than usual. Additionally, I felt barely any EQ cuts - I hear resonance on your snare, the floor on the kick, and the hi-hats imply too much emphasis with sizzling on the overhead mics. I don't know if you got the stems for each drum mic, but if you do, it's worth reviewing their volume / EQ settings to see what you can do to sit them in. If it's just one big master file and you can't break it down, bringing the volume down could still work. I also wasn't sure what was going on at 1:39-2:01, either - it felt like some audible clipping was going onto the left speaker. I suspect that there's something to do with the "Yoshi Bongoes" that caused it, but it'll be worth going back into your mixdown and figuring out which hard-left-panned instrument is causing it, then tweak its volume / EQ accordingly. I'm also glad that Larry reached out to you because what you sent over was such a fun live jam. But for me to see it on OCR, your drum mixing needs that pinch more TLC, whatever you decide to do. I'm just shocked that a source this iconic hasn't been repped on OCR yet, so that's another reason why I'd love to see this back here. Keep at it. NO (resubmit)

Okay, your choice of sound design is fun! We've got some big-sounding polysynths, emphasized with textural choices and applications of various effects. We've got the big bass and sine wave tonal drops, the occasional rise back up, airy drones, the application of big reverb during the builds, and an extremely aggressive sidechain. I didn't hear any clipping on my setup, which made me think of the sidechain acting the way it is - though, a scan through Audacity did find some non-audible peaks, which is something that Chimpazilla already addressed. Though I would've preferred for the sidechain to get weakened so that I get to hear more of your textures underneath, I can understand the necessity for a track of this sub-genre. Arrangement-wise, it's structurally conservative as it goes through all the source segments in the same order. Still, there are more than enough alterations in the transitions between parts to prevent it from being a straight cover - and that was something that needed the sound design to shine right through. But Larry and MW pointed out the gratuitous amount of repetition, particularly in the recap. And I believe MW's math was off because that's pushing more to 30% redundant content, which is highly gratuitous for a 2-minute track. Granted, you would've needed that last third to close out the mix properly. I recommend you go back towards that entire 1:32-1:59 stretch and see if you can tweak your writing. It could be a change in pattern for your arpeggio, a change in octave for your leads, a unique set of pads, or unexpected effects from out of nowhere - and that's a handful of examples. Any change can turn things around, no matter how big or small. As of right now, this track packs a wallop, and I can see the case for it being ready as is. But the repeated recap is way too gratuitous for a theme of its length, and I'm afraid I can't pass it in its current form. If there's a way for you to tweak the textural composition of that last third, I'm all for listening back. NO (resubmit)

I love the idea of you bringing such a well-known Mario source into a minor key. It does indeed go through the entire loop - meandering through the A section (0:53-1:26) and ending up being more consistent with its pacing from then on. It's melodically conservative but had done enough with changeups in the melody writing and chord progression to make it feel like its own thing. Despite this, the soundscape is bare bones - both with the instrumentation *and* the steep 6dB of headroom. You've got the piano facing the same soft dynamics, the synth bass with similar expressions, and a stiff choice of pads and drones. Of course, Kris had already mentioned one idea of opting for thicker pads, and prophetik brought up the idea of adjusting the writing to accommodate drops and builds. Another thing I can bring up, though, is looking into automation with your DAW of choice. It could be with setting envelopes - which would be most effective on your pads - or it could be with working with key switches. It's best not to use it on your piano, though, as you'd want to keep it as natural as possible. I like the idea, but as of right now, this stagnant execution is holding it back. Whether you decide to break the writing down further or do more tweaks to the background parts of the soundscape, it's all on you. Please, keep at it. NO (resubmit)

The arrangement checks out here - a theme, a variation, a change-up with more ominous chords, and a recapitulation. And the best part here is that no individual section sounds the same, thanks to the textural choices throughout. You've got your standard house grooves, your breakbeats, crazy filter sweeps, volume gates - there's a lot in the audio design that grabs the listener's attention. I approve of this. I ended up going over the audio design critiques - and I agree that the whole thing is a sausage, as prophetik mentioned. An analysis of the track in Audacity gave me an RMS that is way too strong to be YouTube-friendly (average of 9), as well as the same plot spectrum that Jack picked up on. I can't entirely agree with the critique of mud or clashing frequencies, but the squish and boom are way too big to ignore outright. Other than that glaring elephant in the room, I love this sub. If there's a way for you to bring the bass levels down during another mixing pass, I'm all for looking back at this one. NO (please resub!)

For a source that meanders so much, you managed to adapt it well into this alt-rock aesthetic. You opened up with the flute section from the third minute in, adapting it onto the bawu. And then, at 0:39, you went straight into the guitar wall for the rest of the track, going straight through the source while omitting any pauses and changing the chord structure when appropriate - a technique I liked here, considering the BGM relied on a constant drone. Yet, I noticed a lot of auto-pilot going around your writing. First, I saw the main lick (0:39, 1:42, 2:36) sounding identical in all three instances. And then I also noticed that you'd used the same 4-measure drum loop, with the same articulations, copy-pasted almost entirely through the mix. The only times you allowed yourself to break away was to add an extra crash into the main lick or add a fill at 2:33 as a transition. I understand that you're a bedroom producer, but it helps to think from the perspective of someone who would perform drums in real-time. Rather than let the left hand stick with slightly opened hi-hats, experiment with different open and closed tones in addition to other rhythmic cymbals like rides and splashes. Similarly, the right hand and foot wouldn't stick with the same constant patterns either, so it's worth seeing how you can vary their writing depending on the situation - something that can carry over to your bass rhythms and guitar accents as well. There is some brilliance with the production side here. I, too, love what you did with the guitar and bawu sequencing. The articulations and overall tone fooled me into thinking they sounded genuine, which shows that you know what you're doing with virtual instruments! The mixdown doesn't feel as dry as Brad is making it out to be, but I agree that it sounds muddy. You've got your snare, choir pads, bawu, and choice of synth at 2:07, all sharing the same frequency - and it becomes more problematic when you hear at least two of them together. I know a few ways to remedy this. One way is by making EQ cuts to prioritize one instrument over another. Another riskier idea is adding an extra unique pad layer and panning both of them wide, letting your leads stay center without losing definition. And there's something just for the bawu and any other higher-pitched instruments, but it can be worth EQ cutting the reverb itself and letting any wet mix occur on the higher frequencies. Take your time and experiment. It's one track that I enjoyed hearing in the inbox but felt it got its issues regarding autopilot and its muddy presentation. It'll be nice to listen to another version in the future that cuts back on the amount of copy-paste and goes through another mixdown pass. Whatever you decide to do, you've got heaps of potential, and I hope you're able to keep aiming for the front page. NO (resubmit)

It's great to hear that you feel inspired by submitting here! Alas, while the outcome is now a foregone conclusion, I hope you don't feel discouraged from a potential resub or sending new music our way - because there is shining motivation from your work method here. While you do have a lot of the source's writing, there are enough modifications to make it your own. The intro's chord sequence got cut in half and then doubled, rather than going for the full 16-measure stretch. All counter-melodies are gone when bringing in the B section over two different synths. The bass pattern for the C section at 1:09 feels jumpier than the original; the melody personalization at 1:23 is an excellent twist on the familiar piano intro; then you've got 2:19 referencing fragments of the C section with the melody personalization. It's a conservative structure, as you allowed for a run-through of the theme, a return to the C section, and an ease-out ending - but there is enough to make it work on a writing level. However, I do have more problems with the production side. Credit where credit is due, first - a good number of your synths have some nice built-in effects, like arpeggiators, sustains, and the occasional pitch bend. You've made a start with picking out those timbres, but a lot of them would keep that same texture and momentum for most of the track. Have you thought of adding some modulation or setting parameters from inside FLEX as envelopes to change the synth tones on the fly? Both approaches could get used to significant effect and throw in some more excitement into the mix. And then we have the layering aspect as well. Wes already touched upon how you've hardly doubled up any of the synths and especially brought up how the chime at 1:14 sounds so devoid of tone on the higher notes - so feel free to experiment with your gear and see how different instances sound together. I'd also suggest doing the same thing with your drums, as they feel flat and exposed during the breakdowns (1:09 being a glaring example). Some more electronic sounding tones or even some claps could add more power on the high end for your snares. You can also achieve a similar idea on the hi-hats - but if you feel it won't quite work, a simple re-EQ can work to make them sound less buried in the mid-range. Again, hang in there! You've made a good start on your own with the core personalization and sound design. For me, it boils down to me wanting to hear a production/presentation overhaul, particularly with how you shape your synths over time and wanting to see more texture on your percussion. Whatever you decide to do going forward, I hope you've learned some new tricks for that next big step. Keep at it, René. NO

First of all, Kris - this is in English. I can hear some words, but I'll get to that later. Anyway, this approach is charming! The idea of taking a climactic endgame track and turning it into something more solemn is an excellent twist on such an iconic theme. What's even more surprising is that all you needed arrangement-wise were the main riff and the D section, which works well with how you paced the track. That main riff also has had multiple rhythmic transformations, both on your synths and your vocals - plus the welcome surprise of harmonies at 3:41. I wish I could say I had much to nitpick on the writing at this point, but clearly, I don't - so way to define a direction. Alas, the production qualities are the main things that are bringing this down at the moment. I'm not as fussed over with the dynamic split as Brad is, as those quiet sections are needed to break away from the energy from the main vocal segments. But the vocals do sound not only louder than the rest of the parts, but they're also really muddy and stuffy - which explains why it's hard to identify consonants and entire words. There's also not much emphasis on the mid-highs in your mixdown, which would be ideal for bringing out your consonants and give the vocals more clarity. The mix itself doesn't sound as dry as Greg pointed out, but I feel some high-passed reverb instances on the voice and e-piano can help them fit more naturally with the other processed parts. The same can't get done to the taiko drums as they're the only source of percussion, but a slight volume boost and close-up on the virtual mic (if there is one) can make it sound not as soft in the mix. It's a creative idea and one that I loved the concept from the inbox, but what's hindering it at the moment is needing reverb tweaks and another mixdown pass, with the vocals being the primary carrier of both flaws. The pair of you have sent in something very unique, so I hope you've still got the project files to take this the rest of the way. Keep at it. NO (resubmit)

When I first heard this in the inbox, I was blown away by your creative writing on display. It's not easy to transfer source material into a different mode or time signature, but to do both simultaneously shows that you clearly understand the transformative part of OCR submissions to a tee. The structure I sensed was essentially one run-through of Haunted Chase, the C section of Creepy Castle, then back into Haunted Chase with a key change - mostly simple to follow. Sacrificing the D sections of Haunted Chase for a more original transition into E (0:31-0:41, 1:46-1:56) did cut recognisability down, but luckily not enough to tamper with source dominance. Of course, I had been back and forth on this one based on the instrumentation. Yes, the samples aren't brilliant, but you did make great use of articulations, particularly on your brass and strings, so that helps. It's also a clean mix, all things considered - though I noticed in one of my visualizers that there are no EQ cuts in the sub-frequencies. That's a smart move, as I felt you utilized to bring the best out of your kick drum and tuba. But talking of the drums, if there's anything that needed re-shaping before this mix goes live, it has to be that. Brad already touched upon simplicity being a thing for polka grooves, while Larry also brought up its robotic programming and the volume compared to the other instruments. But I also want to add that the hi-hat is absent for some reason - which is a mistake in writing for an organic setup, as a drum groove groove usually has some kind of pulse on the non-snare hand. With the core groove being too simplified, it is unfortunately too big a dealbreaker to consider getting it on the site just yet. I hope you've still got your project file, as it'll be fantastic if you're able to home in and articulate/humanize it. It's also essential to add more depth to its writing, whether adding in the missing hi-hat, fills, or anything else in the depths of your imagination. I hope you'll provide us with a newer version - if anyone has the potential to be OCR's version of Weird Al, it is you. NO (resubmit)

Submission game: Secret of Mana song: The Holy Intruder composer: Hiroki Kikuta remix title: National Scar Artist Info remixer name: Dj Orange forum userid : 3683 real name: Geoff Harding comments: :O)

Artist Information Artist Name: Jakob Coltmyre Real Name: Jared Clifton Email: Website: https://soundcloud.com/jaycolt User ID: JColtmyre Song Information Game: Dr. Mario (NES) Arrangement: Chill Pill Original Song Title: Chill Chill Theme Original: Comments: Coincidentally, I had noticed a surge in various of my family members playing the old NES Dr. Mario game lately. It got me thinking that what I remember most about this game is the music. When I was 13, I recorded the Chill theme onto my old computer directly from an original black and white Gameboy with an aux cable plugged into the headphone port of the gameboy. I still have that recording! I used to love that song, still do! I would listen to it with headphones and loved how all the melodies fit together, each one becoming the center if you focus on it, but blending so smoothly when you view it as a whole. It was my OC-remix-loving brother who, upon showing a group of us some OC remixes, I asked if anyone had done a remix of the old Chill theme from Dr. Mario. He didn’t recall any, so I accepted responsibility. On a musical note (no pun intended), if you know what mode mixture means - you might begin to understand something. I thought this would be easy-peasy lemon-vitamin-juicy-squeezy. I played it in C on the piano, playing simple chords, but I was playing it wrong. The original theme had so much mode mixture that it was hard for me, a novice, to find the right chords and counter-melodies when I started in Ableton. That said, I’m proud of what I accomplished; it keeps the spirit alive while making worthy contributions to the original. Thank you for taking the time to vibe with me! -JC Key: C-wtfian BPM: 120 MASTERED: 03/05/21

Original Website https://m.youtube.com/user/Audiomancer/videos My remixer name is audiomancer, and the name of this remix is Three is a Crowd. It's a remix of the second walkabout theme from Dragon Warrior 2. I made this on my phone using an app called Caustic 3. I really like how it turned out; it makes me think of Amiga MOD tracker music, so I went with it. Thanks for your consideration. Respectfully, Audiomancer.

OceansAndrew, Level99, Overclocked University xenogears - singing of the gentle wind nights into dreams - suburban museum tales of innocence - snow outside the window This is Stevo and I taking all our favorite songs and putting them together in a single ReMix. Semper Saltare is probably my favorite arrangement we've done together, where it captures so much of both of our outlooks on music, and our personal touches are everywhere. Like the best collaborations, ends up being something more than either of us could do on our own. I've listened to this song hundreds of times myself, and it never fails to make me feel grateful for not only my friendship with Stevo, but also for OCR itself, and how it was able to bring me into a great community of friends. Thanks everyone, here's to 20 more years of music!