Rexy

Geez, Rebecca - you picked a problematic source to remix! It's got three parts (hence "Triple Laser") - a bass at 4/4, a mellow synth that loops every 21 beats, and a brighter synth that starts over after 20. That's not a lot to work with, all things considered - and consider me shocked to hear not a lot of it used at all. I hope you can read sheet music because that's the best way for me to explain. Circled in red is the motif that gets used for most of the track. The mellow synth does appear later via your echoed strings, but the bass isn't touched upon at all. Here is the source breakdown I picked out: 0:04-0:08, 0:14-0:18, 0:22-0:25 - All with strings referencing the two-tone motif. 0:33-0:46 - Interpretation of the two-note motif via the strings, then moved to the flutes. 0:56-1:10 - Echoing strings referencing the mellow synth loop. 1:10-1:14 - Flute doing the 2-note motif. 1:28-1:34 - Echoed strings referencing the mellow synth loop. 1:57-2:04 - Bassoon referencing the two-tone motif, going as far as pushing on to the pitch next in sequence. That's 55 seconds of identifiable source, bringing it at 39%. I might get proven wrong later, but if I can only sense that much coverage for an abstract source, it sticks out as a significant problem. You have an untouched bass - by far the most recognizable part of the source - that is worth considering fitting in. And referencing other more conventional Portal BGM can also assist with more definite identification. The production, however, is considerably harder to give feedback for one good reason. Except for the heavy bass swell at 1:40, the track doesn't go any higher than -12dB. Even if you boost the volume, it'll bring the instruments' articulation up to the front and allow you to adjust any that don't sound unnatural. Thankfully the tremolo strings sound well layered, the pitch-bending on the solo violins feels ominous, and the harp-glockenspiel combo has some pleasant-sounding realism. Decay on the woodwinds still needs work, but the modulation otherwise sounds serviceable. As it stands, it's a creepy tech demo that has robbed me of a good night's sleep. But there's still more to work on if intended to get onto the front page. Most importantly, it needs to not only be a louder mix but also have more identifiable source material. Improved articulation on the woodwinds is desirable, as is another pass through the mixing once the levels are adjusted. At the very least, it's more unusual than other submissions of yours sent into the inbox and I hope to see you do more exploration in that direction. NO [EDIT 17/09/2019: I stand corrected regarding source use - thanks MindWanderer for adding more to the timestamps. I can respect a more transformative arrangement, but I still feel the mechanical wind instruments stuck out like a sore thumb and I'm still not sold on seeing it on the front page. My vote still stands.]

Can I say first of all that I enjoyed your choice of SID-inspired synths in the disco section? The arpeggio adds a nice unexpected texture, and the lead itself has good use of legato and a flanger effect to get it to stand out. I also appreciated how the first and second variations of the source's B section (1:56-2:12 and 2:20-2:35 respectively) have their subtle differences in how it's performed, with the second going as far as having a harmony along with it. I also saw in the workshop that you made the bass groove entirely by hand - and it's tight and full of fun, so be proud of that. However, this track does have some problems - most importantly, the little amount of source presence. Here's what I heard: 0:44-1:15 - Strings going through the source's A section. 1:48-2:12 - C64 arpeggio going through half of the source's A section, followed by the lead going into the first variation of B. 2:20-2:35 - The lead's second variation of B, complete with the mentioned new harmony. 2:44-2:52 - The C64 arpeggio repeating what it did at 1:48. 3:08-3:24 - The lead's third variation of B - almost the same as the second, but the C64 arpeggio appears in the background doing its own thing. That's 94 seconds of source, meaning 42% presence. If it's not dominant, I can't pass the track as it is. It's still possible to salvage the structure and find other places to fit parts of the source that had gone unused. You have the entire C section, the bassline, and the marimba parts - and it's a good idea to go over the uncovered areas of the track and see how you can adapt them. Even other Golden Sun BGM could get squeezed in as well, depending on your overall vision. [EDIT 18/09/2019: In light of MindWanderer's source findings, I re-listened to the harp at 0:12 and compared it with the xylophone in the source. Unfortunately, I can't hear a connection between either of them and I can't count it towards source quota.] As for the production, there's a significant amount of flaws in the second half that all add up. The drums are as dull as dishwater. For most of the song, it's a basic four-on-the-floor beat with just the kick and a snare, with a ride cymbal popping up only occasionally. I know you wanted to avoid doing dance beats in your work, but it helps to study dance grooves and see what you can add beyond just the kick-and-snare foundation. The lead synth's timing feels sloppy. It's fine to go off the beat if you're using organic instrumentation, but a synthetic soundscape requires all synth parts to be as tight as possible. There's no shame in quantizing synth leads here. There's no presence at all in the high frequencies. Usually, with dance grooves, it's felt through higher-pitched percussion (like hi-hats), but with no hi-hat at all, this part of the soundscape fell flat. The only instrument trying to push for any presence up there is your lead synth's buzz, and amplifying that will only make it sound worse. It rolls back into spicing up your drum groove and the potential of adding other parts of the source, so remedying those can go hand-in-hand. The drums themselves get buried whenever pads appear alongside them. Consider putting a high-pass onto your pads, effectively cutting out the lows and some of the low-mids. It'll give your percussion (and even your bass) more room to breathe in the mix. The track as a whole also sounds over-compressed. If your master chain has a limiter, try weakening it to reduce the unintended pumping. As it stands, there's a foundation that can lead to a nice-sounding mix, and I do indeed like your synth palette choices - but the track itself is both rough-sounding and source-light. I'd be happy if you take a look into my production-related bullet points and integrate more source material. Whether you decide to continue working on this track or doing something anew, I'm excited to see where your musical development goes next. NO

Now, that is what I call no-brainer fun! Larry nailed the source breakdown and progression of the track, so consider yourself good with fitting the theme in and adding in some robust original writing. That solo at 2:10 was fun, expressive and had a surprisingly pleasant tone, and that's something I would like to hear more of going forward. All this and the framework is tight and evolves appropriately despite the structure being as pop-rock as it can get. I do also relate to the issue with the 2:43 section dragging for longer than needed, but I also didn't feel entirely sold on the drum writing. Yes, we're going back there - an issue that I had already touched upon in your prior DuckTales submission. There is a changeup on the kick pedal in the second run-through on the source - but that's it. Even the fills have the same repeated tom roll going down in pitch and moving from left to right across the stereo field, and that's going right across the track. I can accept it here as the energy from the other instruments is sweet, but I'd still like to see you keep working on it for the future. Looking at the production, it does feel biased on crunch overall. The timbre on the drum pieces has more of an emphasis on higher frequencies. The synth that appears at 0:21 has a high-tone buzz that luckily doesn't interfere with the body. And the guitars also have that same balance between tone and harmonics. But at the same time, the instruments are still appropriately balanced, and I can identify the parts in the mix - sometimes with more presence than anticipated (!) - and therefore has gone further over the bar than the arrangement. I mentioned my issues with the composition, but neither the drum repetition or lengthy original sections are dealbreakers. The interpretation and original sections as a whole sounded great, and the production values are also serviceable. I can see this on the front page, and a solid debut at that! YES

I'm going to have to disagree with Larry regarding the arrangement. Yes, there's mood changes and subtracting some of the brisker parts of the source material. But at the end of the day, this is just a cover of the second half of "Omen" - and that alone is not enough. We've had arrangements this short before that have made significant transformative alterations to the source, and there's a lot that you can do to get up to a similar level. Playing around with the melodies, changing up the chords, and adding new rhythm parts and countermelodies are three such ideas that immediately popped up into my mind. You are right with "Terra" in all of its incarnations being massively overdone, but that doesn't mean you have to play too uncannily safe. However, my production analysis isn't as accurate as I've had to rip the track directly from Soundcloud. But I sensed unbalanced instrumentation with the pads having too much emphasis, and that caused a lot of mud in the low-mids. It's a shame because I like those shimmering textures - but I can barely hear the melody and struggled to detect other backing parts. When you're mixing down instruments, it's best to get the percussion balanced out first, then fitting in the bass, the melodies, the pads, and the rhythm parts in turn. After that, consider doing further EQ separation on your mid-range instruments, preferably allowing for your lead to have a presence in your soundscape. Re-balancing the instruments can also fix another issue I detected, and that's the number of pops. I'm not sure if it's a CPU or compressor plugin issue, but it feels weird to hear so much clipping and yet no peak in the ripped Soundcloud file go beyond -3dB. Consider going through each of your instruments/plugins to get to the source of the pops, then see what you can do to remove them. Summing my thoughts up, the track in its current state is too safe and too roughly produced to take onto the site. Look into changing up the arrangement, re-balancing the mixdown, and doing something about the consistent pops. Not a bad foundation, but it'll be lovely for you to revise the track further. NO

I was struggling to pick out the source material, so I got in touch with Michael, and he provided a concise breakdown. 0:54-1:05 - The blippy synths at the 1:29 section. 1:12-1:17 - A syncopated piano from Phendrana Drifts. 1:27-1:29, 1:33-1:35 - The sine wave as heard in Torvus Bog. 1:41-1:56 - The blippy synths at the 1:47 section. 1:56-2:28 - The constant sine wave throughout the source. 2:28-2:43 - The blippy synths at 1:47, with the sine wave in the background. 3:15-3:30 - The blippy synths at 1:47. 3:35-4:02 - The constant sine wave throughout the source. The sine wave in the source didn't have a set pattern, but they did have a set rhythm, and Michael's interpretation kept that intact. Amazingly, this ended up a second over the 50% mark, and that alone is remarkable. I also understand where the vision is going with this one. Whenever the sine wave is present, it's there to signal chaos in a short-term relationship. A lot of the track outside of it is more melodic, which of course signifies the more positive aspects of love. It's a weird direction that uses less of the source material than I was expecting, but there is a foundation here. The production left me with even more questions. Yes, the writing has minimalism, but the textures are still meaty, and there's a good use of layers on the instruments. Yes, the "argument" section at 1:56 is tonally weird, and there are moments where the backing is stripped down to the bass, a melody and some simple drums. But at the end of the day, Michael intended this track to be a work of art. The only thing that looks off is how quiet the track is. The mix does peak, but beyond 1:56, the volume rarely goes beyond -6dB. You can quickly remedy it by making adjustments to a limiter if there is one in your master chain. I could mark it as a conditional on volume right here and now, but like MindWanderer, the artist's intention has me questioning whether an art-based piece like this is cohesive enough for the OC Remix front page. Technically there is an arrangement, and there's a working production. But the oddities it has makes it hard for me to cement a vote right away, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to sit on it for a while. [EDIT 02/10/2019: Having seen prophetik's vote, I am in agreement that the Phendrana Drifts part isn't considered to be overt. I still see nothing troubling with the direction or production values otherwise. It's almost there, but to make it ready for the OCR front page, it just needs more clear source - preferably more distinctive parts from them. You're knocking at the door Michael, and I know you can make it. Keep going!] NO (resubmit)

You got a decent grasp on the arrangement for sure. Every instance of the Marble Zone BGM had this played-around melody that maintained the pitch but had note rhythms changed up. The downward arpeggio in the source also got changed to a triplet feel to adapt to the groove's shuffle focus. Plus, there's a delicate writing balance to let the two source-free segments (0:03-0:19, 2:34-3:03) calm the pace down. There is some repetition with the played-around melody being the same in all instances, though. But the layering of other instruments breaks up the monotony slightly - whether as modest as an arpeggio (0:39), a drumbeat (1:18) or a low e-piano (1:58). However, the biggest flaw the track has is in the production. The soundscape feels thin as if there's only one instrument doing each assigned role with no other parts backing it up. Going by your description, if you're working with FL Studio presets, it's ideal to use a lot of them all at once. The lead at 0:19 is a particular example of this - the flanger effect sounds interesting, but the tone doesn't have any impact. If you layer it up with 1 or 2 more leads, it can add some thickness to the sound. Should you go down that path and find a solution that works, consider looking into your other instruments and figuring out whether they need similar treatment. You'll also need to be careful with multiple instruments, though. As more gets added into the soundscape, you'll need to add more care to instrument balance and their EQ. Even in the track's current form, the strings and arpeggio at 2:54 tonally bleed into each other. Then at the busy section at 3:32, it's hard to listen out for either of them without thinking. If you want my take, I felt the strings would've needed a cut in the mids to let the arpeggio push through, but that's only assuming you'd want more synth presence than the other way round. Nevertheless, as you get more layers, you need to think about which instruments get EQ cuts/boosts to accommodate the production. This track has some cute ideas that stick around for longer than needed, but the soundscape itself is thinner than water, and that is a huge dealbreaker. New instruments and use of delay are two ways I can think of to thicken that soundscape up and make it sound way more ready for primetime. The minor repetition is a close second but should get checked out to reduce further fatigue. Not a bad move you two, so I'm keen to see this back in the inbox in a revised form. NO

The arrangement mostly turned out fine. Like a lot of your other works, there's an emphasis on keeping the source structure as it is while adding other parts into the background. I like how the intro has some subtle playing around with the theme on the strings and reeds. The first variation of the main melody also has good use of a marching bass, padded brass backing and woodwind countermelodies. The second variant is more reliant on softer bass writing and more countermelodies, with even the brass stepping up to provide it at 1:52. The only irk I have with the bass writing is the questionable decision to have a string of C notes in the bass from 0:41-0:43 when the chord at that point is D major. That's only a nitpick here, so it doesn't matter. However, this is another case where the articulation feels flat. The balance is satisfying, and I can make out what all the instruments all are, but the attacks for the brass and strings feel constant and stiff. It makes the intro not feel as dynamic as it should, the marching first variation sound unnatural, and the gentler second variation feeling watered down. If you want them as the main emphasis, articulation is vital - and whether you work with envelopes or key switches, they can add some much-needed humanization. Larry also pointed out the clipping at 0:49, which is minor in comparison but still needs checking out. Think about either reducing the master volume or putting a limiter into your master chain to nullify it. As it is, I can't see it getting posted on the site in its current form. The arrangement is okay if not a little by-the-numbers, but it needs another pass regarding instrument articulation, as well as another mixdown to take care of the clipping. You've handled this before, Rebecca, and I know you can do it again. NO (resubmit)

You have quite an interesting setup here. There are not very many instruments involved - which makes sense, arranging an 8-bit source - and they do all sound well-balanced in the virtual space. The level of humanization is also an improvement from prior submitted works - and I can feel it the most across the harp, mandolin and even your violin patches. It also is a quiet mix, but this is a track that is better off with a gentler dynamic pace based on the instrumentation involved. Overall, the production does its job here, even with the questionable minimalism. The arrangement more than checks out as well. The three theme variants all have different levels of textures, and even the intro was doubled in length with the harp doing one run and strings pulling off another. Some subtle subtractive changes are present too. I sensed plenty of harp and mandolin florishes, the second variation's countermelodies, and the third section's plucked strings in the support role instead of the cellos. There are evident changes, it's in a framework that evolves and calms down, and I can get behind it. It's one of the oddest Rebecca creations I've heard for a while, but I see it making a name for itself on the front page. Good work! YES

Aw, geez - I am a sucker for late 90s euro-dance! The tropes are down pat - the choice of synths, the track structure with the build into the calm section into the full melodic drop at 3:46, and even modifying the 6/8 source to 4/4 and making them feel more melodic than the original implied. The production also has no significant faults and sounds like it can blend in as part of an EDM setlist from 15-20 years ago. Honestly, I'd bust this track out at a party if I get the opportunity. However, there is a significant dealbreaker in this track, and that is the source's presence and lack thereof. I heard it from 0:59-2:50, then the source-free breakdown and second drop meant no appearance again until 5:09-6:19. That's less than 45% source use. To remedy this issue, consider either cutting the length of your original content or adding more of the source / other Wario Land BGM. Honestly, Alex, this is cool stuff. Ultimately it turned out to be source light, and I'll be pleased if you can do something about that. Keep at it. NO (resubmit)

Man, Gario is right about that arrangement! Not only did it manipulate the obvious Carol of the Bells inspired parts to something more transformable but also respected the rest of the source material's structure. Naturally, it starts safe with a straight run on the source - and even that has some sweet subtractive additions with the bells and subtle synth backing. Following this, 2:33 allowed for some great original writing and 3:34 also allowed for some lovely last-minute manipulations into a slow-down ending. It's a sturdy framework, it paced itself appropriately, and it made me want to overdo home security on Christmas Eve. The production values also feel clean, I can identify the parts, and the choice of keys/synths here worked well for this modern-holiday feel. Two things did stick out for me, but luckily neither of them are dealbreakers. There were points where the rhythm parts blended in with the strings, which is nothing a quick look-over at the EQ wouldn't fix. But more strikingly for me, the snare tone is not the most realistic sounding one I've heard. The timbre still fits the synthetic soundscape, the dynamics feel human, and it's been well-balanced - so overall you worked well with the tools at your disposal. All in all, I see both the arrangement and production over the bar. Roll on December - it'll be appropriate to see this on the front page during the holidays. Good stuff! YES

I'm assessing with the new link that was sent over yesterday. First of all, I love your concept of blending two well-loved sources! The structure itself is by the numbers with one run-through of Aquatic Ambiance, one interpretation of Stickerbrush Symphony and back the other way for the ending. But the way both themes integrate backing elements from the other is sublime and have locked together in one cohesive arrangement. Even the sound design is cohesive and appropriate for the synthwave direction. The retro-sounding drums, the synths and even the lo-fi-sounding EQ molding contributed to a track that sounds like it's tailor-made for a 1980s boombox. This EQ choice - which has more emphasis on the mid-range - means it's uncanny to listen to on headphones, though. I don't see it as a dealbreaker, but it is something to keep in mind for the future if the mixdown ended up as a happy little accident. Either way, I'm behind the arrangement idea for sure. The production may spark debates on social media, but I see it as a well-crafted replica of that authentic 1980s sound. The concept still worked, and I'll be delighted to see it on the front page. Good going! YES

Oh boy, I wasn't expecting so many time signature changes all at once! This technique is something I associate more with prog, not one of your usual orchestrations! Nevertheless, the source is in spades, and the melody had gone through a beefy variety of moods. There's quieter dynamics at the bookends as well as the first Egypt Melody A section, tasteful use of dissonant notation while not detracting from the melody and brass backing and new instruments within source use depending on the dynamics. You're expected to hear more aggressive flutes and brass during the louder segments and more subtle use of glockenspiel and plucked strings in calmer ones. And surprisingly, the many time signature changes are tight and allowed for the instrumentation to bridge gaps together with realism and confidence. The production also sounds cohesive. The instruments are mostly clear, though I would've liked the low-mid brass parts to have a more distinct presence rather than have any frequency overlap. Thankfully, everything is well balanced, and there's a lot of care to articulation and dynamic shaping. You've worked well with your resources, and once again it had the quality to bring itself over the bar. I did also notice the track's mixdown is considerably quieter than other submissions that I've heard from you in the past. I wouldn't see it as a bad thing in this case as the volume feels okay for me to see it posted as-is, but I wouldn't mind going over that bridge if needed. Nevertheless, it's a well-realized orchestration with emphasis on working with Egypt's Persian scale (not Oriental - that's Pentatonic btw). Additionally, it adapted the melodies to a structure that rightfully personified the might of an ancient empire. It's all solid stuff, and I'll be happy to see this on the front page! YES

It's a sweet and straightforward arrangement - a direct run-through of the theme, and a variant with some comping at 2:35-3:43. The first half has some subtle additions with a guitar countermelody and the bass doing octave runs from 1:49. However, I'm not too thrilled over the section at 3:43-4:45 sounding identical to 1:26-2:28. That is a substantially long chunk of music, so do consider the idea of changing that section up. Altering the core groove, playing around with the melody and adding new parts are some potential changes you could do. To my surprise, the mixdown doesn't sound as problematic as previous submissions. I can identify everything, there aren't any significant frequency overlaps, and the instruments all have their established roles. The one thing that did stick out is the amount of headroom. The track does peak beyond -1dB, but most of the recording barely goes beyond -9. If you don't have a master chain in your workflow, consider setting up a limiter and see how much more energy you can get out of it. I also feel your snare and toms can be louder as well, especially when the "verse" grooves are so focused on the latter. And of course, there's the performance. Yes, the accordion has unnatural sounding articulation and doesn't align with the backing guitars - Larry was spot on with pointing that out. But I also think the comping at 2:35-3:43 was unfocused as well. Nothing wrong with a more laid-back improvisation, but the arrangement itself is in D major just like the source. The lead instruments didn't need to break away from that key occasionally and improv in C instead. I think the comping here needs a do-over to gel more with the backing. It's a good base so far Reuben, but the large copy-paste section and synergy issues are my most significant points of concern here. I'd like to see you vary up the second bridge-chorus section, work on the accordion's timing/articulation, and potentially redo the improv. You picked a belter of a source though, so if anyone can add the Pokémon TGC onto the OCR map, it's you. Keep at it! NO (resubmit)

It's a tremendously transformed source, but the melodies' framework is there and able to tear through the arrangement. Yes, that even includes the breakdown at 1:48 easing off on the energy to pick up again just over 20 seconds later. And to add to the palette, the countermelody/arpeggio combo adds a delicate balance with being a tonal match to the harp in the source material. No source variation is identical and the synth leads and faux guitar all sound well manipulated in the larger picture. I'm also not too sure where MindWanderer got 10 seconds of silence from, as I detected three at best - and that's perfectly fine for a track submission. The choice of timbres here is so chill there are only two leads in the entire track that use legato, letting the other synths ring out and add a sense of calm. A lot of the sounds are typical for synthwave, but it feels unusual to hear them utilized in a mellow synthpop way. There's also a seamless balance with delicate attention to the faux guitar's harmonics, with the frequency tamed well to prevent harshness. Ultimately, this setup sits on the fine line between the source material's melancholy nature and the retro energy associated with synthwave - and it's proud of it. All sounds cohesive here, so consider this golden for when the Lufia 2 project (eventually) goes live. That's one less thing for Gario to get stressed over at night! YES

Awww, I wanted to see the performance, but the Youtube video is unavailable. It would've been nice to get a visual on your performance chops here. Seriously, I can't deny the power behind your guitar performance. The playing chops are tight, the solo section at 1:29 is fun and melodically focused, and the tone behind the rhythm guitar is meaty and expressive. Aside from the power metal breakdown at 1:09, the source has a definite presence. Its structure is also clearly source-solo-source, and it sets itself up for a ride through no-brainer fun. The arrangement isn't quite there yet, as Larry pointed out. I enjoyed the framework, but the entire 1:50-2:27 section is a copy-paste of the 0:10-0:47 section before it. Likewise for the 2:27-2:37 section sounding just like 0:00-0:10, but they're bookends, and I believe they can stay as they are. Nevertheless, it would be good to go over the first copy-pasted section I pointed out and make some changes for it to stick out from the early theme variation. It can be changing up the groove, playing around with the melody, adding any new guitar countermelodies, or any other ideas that pop from your head. And then there's the production. Fair play for trying to mix down with broken equipment from what I saw in the workshop, but several errors are sticking out. Firstly the cymbals not only are too loud but also occupy a lot of frequency space in the mid-highs. This issue explains the splashing effect that Larry brought up, and they're usually better off with the sibilance range (2-5k) toned down. It will allow the frequencies above to stand out less harshly, plus give some breathing room for the lead guitars and ride. Going back to EQ, there are two additional issues that I have with the ending at 2:42. The exotic string playing the A section and the guitar playing the B section at the same time is a nice touch, so compositionally it's all good. However, there is a lot of distortion here. I don't know if it's because a sequence part is too loud or the CPU won't co-operate well with it. I also think the metallic pluck noise on it is too harsh-sounding, and can also benefit from an EQ cut along the high frequency. Either way, the ending needs another mixing pass to make it sound as presentable as the rest of the track. Not a bad start at all, but it's still got a way to go. Look at the second variation and see if you can make it stand out from the first, tame the cymbals, and revise the mixdown on the ending. Consider finding a spectrum analyzer online as well - if you've got broken equipment and not a lot of money for a repair/replacement at this moment in time, a visual indicator of your frequencies can be a sufficient substitute. Keep rocking on for us, Paul! NO (resubmit)

Source-wise, it does take a while to get going - but when it does at 0:36, the arrangement takes on a whole other character in comparison to the source material. I can sense it through the use of half-time writing and the change to a more ominous set of chords. It makes me feel less like I'm in a battle against an alien race and more of a losing fight. The track mostly uses the first half of the source, with the second half detected at 3:24 via the brisker rhythm guitar work. Despite the source being a 30-second loop, there's also enough work with the textures throughout to keep the listener engaged. I should describe how the progression goes from what I felt: The ominous spoken-word intro along with the introduction of the groove at 1:00 Further shaping up with a synth lead (and later guitar lead) at 1:24 A brief reprive at 2:12 with the wind sweep and a more engaging set of textures in the following theme variation The aforementioned full pelt of the B section at 3:24, followed by a repeat of the previous melody A variation at 3:48 with distorted pads into faster rhythm guitars The climax at 4:36 with that down-tuned bass working with the more aggressive drums to reach a dynamic high And it all eases into that subtle cinematic synth bass and plucked synth, calming down for a satisfying conclusion. I wasn't too sure if I wanted to hear a battle theme made half as slow and shaped like a descent into certain doom. But the result is haunting, the performances are tight, and it respects the source material as it goes along - impressive stuff. Alas, I'm with Sir Nuts regarding the track's volume. While the mix does peak at -1dB, there is a lot of headroom here, and the volume rarely goes above -6dB otherwise. Unlike Nuts, I can't see normalization as a quick way to fix it as tracks of this genre are usually much louder. If you can't master the current render without sacrificing sound quality, that means going back into the project file and finding a way to bring the sound up to speed. That means looking at the instruments individually and/or seeing if you can set up a sturdy master chain to make this possible. Talking of individual instruments, EQ as a whole can also do with a cleanup. Nuts and MW both brought up the 4:36 section sounding chaotic - and I do agree with the kick getting swallowed up. At the same time, I also see it as a knock-on effect of applying a down-tuned bass. This issue is something that either an EQ cut on the bass or a pitch alteration on the kick can potentially fix. The rhythm guitar that MW brought up also wasn't problematic at first, but does start getting drowned out from the 3-minute mark - but I felt it's just quiet in the mix and not tonally clashing with anything. I really, and I mean more than really, want to pass this on the strength of the arrangement alone. But the quiet levels and the few tall peaks means it needs more than just a 2-minute job to bring the volume up to scratch. It'll also be lovely if that ending section can also get cleaned up as well. I feel solemn with rejecting this - and that only means I'd love for you guys to revisit the presentation and send it back. Please do just that! EDIT: 8/19 - I gave this track a fresh listen-back today and saw a lot of the spikes in the waveform are there due to parts of the drum kit - especially the snare and cymbals. Based on this analysis, it is possible to run a limiter on the master render without compensating the quality. I can let the funky EQ at the end slide providing the volume does get fixed. EDIT 2: 10/08 - A few weeks ago, salle sent over an updated render. This one fixed the volume concerns and the more I listened back, the more confident I felt with the end result. This'll easily be an enjoyable track on the front page, as well as a fantastic example of how to work with a short source. YES

The arrangement has left me torn. Yes, there is subtractive arranging in both source appearances, and the key for Hidden Village also got adjusted to the key of Gerudo Desert. But when the structure is simply one source for one half and the second source for the other with no interaction between the two of them, it does make the substance feel underwhelming. There have been medley posts on OCR in the past, but there's usually more cross-interpretation and original ideas in play. Some more things stuck out regarding the production as well. Firstly, I can hear Larry's concerns about instrument realism. The harpsichord notes have the same if not similar constant velocity and the higher strings from 1:04 have a continuous slow attack that disrupts the flow of the notes before them. As usual, this is something that some articulation tweaks can resolve. But I do have some additional issues on top of it. Looking at the Gerudo Desert half, the amount of low-mid instrumentation at 0:07 has them bleeding into one another. It felt like a tonal fight for attention between the low strings, timpani, bass drum and the male choir. None of these instruments got a chance to stick out, hence another production pass would benefit these timbres. I also sensed a lot of sustain going onto your harpsichord lead. I touched upon this when evaluating your previous Undertale mixpost, but never saw it as a dealbreaker. However, this is more problematic as the harpsichord does get used as a lead instrument - including all of the Hidden Village half. The sustain bleeds into other notes and adds unwanted dissonance into the mix. To prevent that from happening, consider setting up MIDI data to turn the sustain off (value of 0) just before a chord change. Then, turn it back on (value of 127) to hold the new note(s) in play. Sorry Rebecca, but it's mostly little production flaws that held me back from passing this one. If you're able to revisit it, consider further articulating your instruments, cleanup on the harpsichord's sustain, and another mixing pass to clear out the mud in the first half. Some added interpretation - whether within the framework or expanding it - is desirable, but I can let it slide if the presentation gets resolved. Keep going, dudette. NO (resubmit)

I do feel the panning oddities through my headphones. Usually, it's okay to put textures that compliment each other on opposite sides of the stereo field. But with dry instrumentation like your bass layers and saw synth harmonies, the harsh timbres are way too over-exposed and ended up burying your leads. I feel they can benefit from being panned much closer to each other, and potentially have some EQ cuts in to give some more room to the leads. I don't mind the occasional lead wandering off in one direction though, as long as most of the other leads stay central in the virtual space. It does get achieved throughout most of the track, so credit where credit is due. Arrangement-wise, it's a refreshing foundation and the source is used throughout most of it. But the way it just goes back to the fading bass synth opening feels underwhelming and had an unfinished feel. On top of that, the drumbeat felt as if it was on autopilot up until 1:32. I don't mind the minimalist nature of it, but there's hardly any new changes contributed to the 1:06 variation of the A section because of this static beat. It's a shame because the synth manipulation is engaging and tasteful otherwise, and I can't fault your envelope/modulator work. As of right now, it sounds like a promising base. What stuck out the most was your difficult choice of panning, the leads feeling buried as part of a knock-on effect, and a static soundscape that affected the arrangement's framework. It would also be handy to get more interpretation out of this, but it's a minor irk in comparison to the listed production flubs. I'm with Larry and MW regarding the need for Rescue Rangers rep on OCR, so I'd love it if you get a chance to revisit it. NO (resubmit)

There had been, but it was one of those tracks that got erased during the pre-1500 lockdown due to a standards violation. In fact, there's been a history of tracks that have been present on the site before, but had been removed with a clear reason. There is a hosted archive of removed tracks and the Mega Man track in question is right there. I hope this explains everything x)

It's mostly a conservative arrangement, but the first minute has a subtle use of pedal with a simple run-through of the core motif and some playing around via the harp. Getting into the theme proper, I appreciate you doubling the pan flute with the harpsichord from 1:01-1:19 - a smart way to cut back on the former's exposure. Changing to different leads throughout and adding different padded layers also helped give it a lift, as well as the occasional countermelody, the call-and-response at 2:09 and some subtle flourishes on your woodwinds. These are small things that all add up to a welcoming and subtractive arrangement. However, it's also one of those tracks where the issue of humanization and lack thereof stands out. Larry rightfully pointed out the problem with the male choir, but I honestly think the string articulations (1:22-1:44, 2:29-2:51) feel stiff as well. All notes are playing with the same slow attack, with hardly any decay in preparation for the next one. In fact, decay seems to be a running issue. Whenever the woodwinds are left alone (panpipes at 0:28 and oboe at 3:17 to give some examples), the attacks and flourishes sound great, but some of the trail-offs leading into following notes are non-existant. With so many instruments all sharing that same robotic flaw, it all adds up to one big dealbreaker I'm afraid. For what it's worth though, the instruments are coherently balanced, and when combined with the arrangement it adds up to a sweet-sounding base. But Rebecca, for this track to pass, I'd like you to go over the more problematic instruments and see if you can work on their articulation. Keyswitches and envelopes immediately come to mind, though it all comes down to what you feel is more effective for your workflow. I do hope you revisit this sometime. NO (resubmit)

I second Larry's statement on the quietness - it doesn't peak above -7dB. I understand that below -6 is often a requirement for albums, but mixposts here expect you to do the mastering part yourself. Please keep that in mind for the future. Looking at the arrangement, it's generally straightforward with 3 theme variations and some improvs. However, the range restriction of Josh's saxophone allowed for subtle pitch changes and some simple playing around in the later two theme variations. The setup of just bass, drums, saxophone and Furorezu's rhythm parts fit the surf rock style to a tee, and that makes it a unique take on the original. However, the execution does have some problematic flaws. Firstly, Josh's saxophone lost its direction during both the improvisations and the third rendition of the theme. I heard timing fell out of place in the first improv and the notation feeling too random in the ending. And then there's the third improv, where 1:47 sounded like he forgot to change his octave in the seconds leading up to it. Tal Tal is not easy to perform on a limited instrument, but it does help to plan the variations ahead of time to minimize slip-ups like this. I feel all 3 of these sections can benefit from a re-record if the original recording can't be spliced up. Secondly, the saxophone is not only quit in the mix, but its lower frequencies also bleed into the rhythm guitars and detract from its presence. Consider boosting its volume first, then figuring out any EQ changes if necessary. Breaking away from the saxophone and the low volume, the energy from the drums and rhythm guitars feel static despite the clear rhythmic changeups. Commercial Surf Rock records had used varying techniques to break up this kind of monotony, including drum solos, additional leads (typically organs) and other different rhythm lines. I understand this genre is Furorezu's thing, so it'll be great for him to keep listening to surf rock and watch out for new inspiring ideas. As it stands, my most significant issues with this submission are with the saxophone's execution and the quiet volume levels. Arrangement-wise, it's an enjoyable idea, but I do encourage Lucas to revisit the mixdown and potentially revisit the backing, and for Josh to go over his saxophone part. If you're up for returning to this track, then I'll be very excited over the direction taken. NO (resubmit)

In light of three conditionals, I got in touch with Lucas earlier this week and brought up the piercing frequency. As it turned out, it was on the theremin and he took action on it very quickly. I edited the song link with the new WAV above - not only did he made the EQ cut but he also transposed the theremin down by 2 octaves. Indeed, the track still sounds gorgeous, no other glaring issues are present, and I'm so glad he co-operated with us. Consider my vote to be full of confidence now! YES

I don't need to timestamp this one. If I didn't hear a variation on the source, I heard usage of the Starfox 64 theme or that cheeky 3-second Star Wars cameo. And variations are indeed aplenty! It starts simple with one variant played straight and another with reliance on sustain, then 0:28 has the first few notes as a transition into the first use of the SF64 theme. 0:49 brought the mood and dynamics in a more beauty-driven direction and set the scene for a victorious feel at 1:15. The ominous tone at 1:43 also broke up the major key prowess in favor of adding tension in the build-up to the right-hand arpeggio and Star Wars cameo. 2:25 reprises the first two variants while setting up for a dynamic finish based on the SF64 theme. It's a meaty sonata, it takes advantage of the 12-second loop, and the differing presentations demonstrate your understanding of the source along with your creative ideas. Even the piano itself sounds lovely! I'm assuming right now that it's the same piano sample used in your posted Undertale track from last year. If so, then I can see how you worked with it to get the dynamic sound, tone and ambient space in your favor. I'm not too crazy about the mild compression in the louder sections, though. Usually organic instruments are best heard when the input doesn't quite touch the ceiling. Luckily it didn't do any harm to the tone, so I'm not going to fret about it too much. Still, it's a fantastic arrangement and performance that leaves no BGM note unturned. Nice going there, David - I hope to hear future interpretive ideas as impactful as this one! YES

Interestingly, I had a different source breakdown in comparison to Larry: 0:04-0:34 - Clear source representation up until 0:19, and when the string melody dies down the bass from the source continues and the clavinet continues to do the familiar piano part from the A section of the source. 0:42-1:16 - coverage for source's B section. 0:57 has melody pitches being played around while keeping the rhythm. Deducted 4 seconds where the source is absent (the flute trills). 1:16-1:23 - Piano references C section of the source. 1:31-1:46 - Clavinet references C section of the BGM, leading into the e-piano doing the same thing. 2:02-2:05 - Strings reference C section briefly. 2:39-2:41 - Strings reference B section briefly. 2:47-2:51 - Strings reference B section briefly. 3:07-3:29 - The call-and-response between string melodies and flute flourishes return. 3:22 has the e-piano and flute referencing the C section. Again, I deducted 4 seconds of absent BGM. 3:33-3:41 - C section covered straight. Unlike Larry, I couldn't detect anything past the 4-minute mark. I still ended up source-short as well, with 125 seconds (45%). I did consider the bass initially, but that was before I realized the notation is too drastic to consider as straight source use. Elsewhere, you've got this lovely choice of instruments that all aimed for a playful journey through your unfamiliar genre trek. The improvs are smart, the framework is a clear A-B-A structure despite the musical free-for-all, and the instrumentation is cohesively balanced and full of expression. I also don't hear the same flute shrillness or pop issues. All I saw of the flute in my spectrum analyzer was its tone, and I couldn't hear the pop anyway. Nevertheless, lightness on the source is the track's biggest problem. Often I recommend artists to look at their original sections and see if they can add more source references. But Larry's idea of covering the bass straight is equally just as neat. Whatever you do to fix the problem, I can get behind this idea. NO (resubmit)

It's not often that I hear Nuts add crazy solos to his work as his style is usually a lot more texture-driven. But in a synthwave arrangement like that, it felt like they were a necessity to maintain the high-octane momentum. Combined with his usual great production skills and an excellent choice of synth timbres, it's a well-produced fake-retro track that profoundly demonstrates his presentation chops. The arrangement relies more on the intro section of the source, but it's the most riff-driven and fitting for the genre. The solos at 0:43 and 2:50 are well expressed and both climax with brisker notation just before switching back to the source melody. The only rendition of the core part of the source is at 1:35, and even then the melody had been playing around with while still maintaining tonal familiarity with the original BGM. It's like a source melody that sounds like an original solo to the untrained ear - it's clever stuff. Again, no problems with Nuts's work here. Let's see it on the front page ASAP. YES