Rexy

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

First of all, here's my take on source use. There's an interpretation of the A and B melodies at 0:48-1:29, and again at 1:51-2:55 with some further personalizations. If I deduct 10 seconds of nothing but bongoes, it barely bubbles under 50% source use - but its means of use doesn't affect the quota too much. It's also an intriguing artistic direction to have a more minimalist soundscape like this. You aimed to capture a more melancholic feel with just having two live instruments and a wind effect. It's a risky decision, but the parts all sound clean and don't have overlapping frequencies. Timings are loose, but they're mostly not so loose that it becomes distracting. Some things add up to not entirely pushing it over the bar, though. Firstly, I am with Gario and Nuts regarding the performance of the rhythm part and how some notes overlap with each other. It doesn't feel clean or intentional, so consider re-recording it and minimizing this error. Secondly, I'm okay with the wind effects, but why is there so much boom on them? It feels more like it's rubbing into the microphone, which gives out an unpleasant feeling. Recorded ambiance like this can benefit a lot from a high pass, rolling out the bass frequencies and adding clarity to your outdoor folk feel. And this thought is more of a personal taste thing, but I also feel the soundscape can get thickened up without compromising your minimal vision. I can see one idea where there are either multiple takes of the same instrument or some use of delay to get the feeling of a fuller sound. I can also see another idea where there's subtle stereo reverb on both of those instruments for a sense of larger performance space. I can see both of these ideas lifting the track's soundscape, but it's up to you in deciding whether they go against your vision or not. Nevertheless, I'm all for a re-recording on that rhythm part for added clarity. The other production issue(s) are a close second, and any potential new source additions are a non-issue or distant third depending on how you look at it. It's a unique take, and you should be proud of it, but I feel it needs more polish before it gets posted. Please revise it and send it back. NO (resubmit)

You got a solid and nice-sounding groove with some smart envelope work on your dubstep bass. Not a lot of sounds are present outside of the sampled VGM, but nothing's clashing with anything, so it doesn't matter. However, this track was close to a No Override decision - but there is some non-sampled interpretation that saved it. There's melody presence in the dubstep bass (1:12-1:31, 2:57-3:16) and in the backing synth at 3:35-3:58, where the melody went into double-time as the track's tempo dipped. Despite all this, there's less than 25% of non-sampled source and by far marks the biggest dealbreaker. Still, it'll be cool if you send over any future works with a more substantial arrangement. You have the potential to do a dubstep track that doesn't have sampling at all or at least keeps it to a minimum. Please, keep at it. NO

You know you've done well with the production when it made me get up and dance! The focus on sibilance is an interesting stylistic choice as EDM tracks aren't usually treble-heavy, but I can hear all the parts cleanly. The backing is merely the bass and some effects, but the synth melody layering sounded like they took the purpose of a pad or rhythm part and went full ham. I also sensed gates, pitch shifts, subtle use of LFOs, delicate sweeps, and bit-crushing in the background - all used tastefully to create an engaging soundscape. The arrangement is also fun - focusing heavier on subtractive writing with plenty of changeups throughout. The A section at 0:35 got adapted to these trance chord progressions with the melody turning straight at 0:57, so I don't see the melody's use here as outstaying its welcome. There are other sections like 1:32, 1:47 and 2:31 that also played around with the rhythm of the melody while still keeping the tone. In combination with the smart production and well-paced framework, it adds to a potent composition throughout. I too also noticed the sloppy placement of the E section at 2:15, when the execution was much tighter at 4:04. It's the only dampener of the arrangement, but not so rough it would dampen my vote. And I must also say the Game Over jingle at the end is a cute idea. Are you telling me the stage is brutally tricky even for seasoned retro gamers? I enjoyed this submission a lot - fun take on a more complicated source, and that soundscape is impressive. The little timing hiccup and my questioning on the sibilance-heavy mixdown are way too minor for me to see it as anything but a lively, personalized arrangement. Great going, Jari! YES

Well, this track certainly surprised me. Going by the length, I almost thought this would be a straight cover - but the original writing at 0:56 caught me off-guard! Your synth lead has subtle uses of glides and modulation, the bit-crushed sweep at 2:03 is a nice touch, and the source is dominant despite it only being in the bookends. But some issues are holding it back and here's what stood out for me. First and foremost, the source sections (0:00-0:56, 2:07-2:49) are way too straightforward and follow the A and C sections note-for-note. There's nothing wrong with conservative arranging, but when there's nothing new underneath them, it makes them a tough sell. New parts can come in the form of a countermelody, new rhythm sounds, and any new pads if you're bold enough. Even your pre-existing backing can get changed up while still leaving the melody and chord structure intact. Secondly, the soundscape feels thin - especially when the source is present. In those sections, the frequencies here mostly occupy the low-mid range with only higher-pitch percussion filling any frequency higher than 1kHz. It does improve during your big original part at 0:56 with the synth solo and the choice of pads, but it's not even around for more than half of the entire track. Nevertheless, picking instrumentation to fill out these empty spaces also goes hand-in-hand with the subtractive arranging changes I mentioned earlier. Going over the master as well, it feels too quiet. Technically it does peak close to 0dB, but if you mute the kicks, this value won't go any higher than -6dB. To make the kick sound more consistent with the rest of the instrumentation, I can see a few ways of remedying it. One idea is to apply a sidechain and let the kick soften up the piano and pads when triggered. Another approach is to find the kick's tonal frequency and place an EQ cut on the bass at that value. Even something as straightforward as applying a high-pass onto your non-bass instruments can roll off any unwanted boom. Consider looking into these techniques and seeing how you can use them into your work going forward. Also, the white noise at 0:42 sounds like it doesn't belong here. I'm not sure why it's there despite no live instruments. If it ever pops up in a future track, either re-render it or apply high-frequency EQ cuts on the offending part. It's not a bad idea, and you got the grasp of the arrangement part. If this ever gets reworked and sent back to the inbox, I'd like to hear it with a more refined source interpretation and resolutions to the production flaws. I'm assuming this is your first sub, so well done on making it to the Judges. Let's see you (hopefully) take it one step further next time around. NO

Oh, sweet; I was there at the MAGFest 2018 live panel that planted the seeds for this mix! It's so awesome to hear it in a finished form! Excitement over, the production immediately strikes out as well defined. I sensed crispy drums, clever side-chaining, a balance focusing more on wetness, a meaty synth palette swapping and changing whenever, and many different filters and gates. They all work well together and add a large amount of fun to the overall experience. The arrangement starts straightforward with one rendition of the theme, but the breakdown at 2:00 with the new rhythm polysynths adds a side of energy that wasn't even present in the original. The bass writing throughout had given it a substantial lift as well and made it feel like the track went through multiple EDM sub-genre changes in the space of its nearly-4-minute length. Of course, I wasn't too keen on the abrupt ending - it just ended right at the end of the second run-through, with no other fanfare. It isn't a dealbreaker as it hit a lot of right notes elsewhere. If I based my assessment on the initially submitted track, I would've also gone conditional based on the ending's abrupt cut-off. However, Andrew co-operated and sent over a new render that fixed the issue. Combined with the production chops and subtle care to a subtractive arrangement, I feel confident in seeing this on the front page for sure! YES

That choice of instruments makes me think more in the direction of George Harrison rather than The Doors, but I can still identify the chill 60s vibe here. That source is present from start to finish, going beyond being played straight with a smart interpretation typical of the style. It's been played at half-time during the intro, demonstrated a funk-like swagger at 1:07, and appeared on the bass in a modified form (most evident from 2:00). Even the framework is robust, with the fleshed-out section B segments at 0:40 and 2:53 anchoring it with your Asian instrumentation. I have no faults with interpretation - it's there and tastefully done. The production, for the most part, sounds great too. Stemage and ImAFutureGuitarHero did a fantastic job with recording those live parts, the balance is near-flawless, and the sitar/tabla both feel authentic even though they're VSTs. But I am however in MindWanderer's frame of mind regarding that odd high-pitched sound that crept around the track. Is it a synth sweep? Is it a pulsing synth string? I'm not too sure what it is, but it overpowered the high-frequency band (10k onwards) to the point of piercing the soundscape. If it's on an instrument that otherwise has body below the 10k mark, consider adding a low pass to filter it out. Otherwise, I feel it'll be more comfortable to listen to if the instrument gets muted altogether. I don't see any issues otherwise, so looking into this odd choice of frequency would only take 5 minutes at best to fix. The arrangement is chill, the performers are on point, and the production values are serviceable otherwise. I see no reason as to why it can't make it onto the front page after the problem's resolution. YES (conditional on removing distracting high frequency)

As always Pieter, your improvisations are beautiful. You have a way of making your original writing work well with the source interpretation, and despite the fixed tempo, you kept your performance as tight and human-like as possible. I can never take anything like that or your trademark piano patch's tone way from you. I had to think carefully regarding source use, though - particularly in the first 2 minutes. On the one hand, you have the source's rhythm on the left hand, as highlighted in the timestamps. On the other hand, the right hand's original motifs de-emphasize the source presence since its introduction at 0:52. The rest of the timestamp remains on point, and I find it interesting that the melody A section of the source at 4:33 is more faithful to the melody rather than the rhythm. However, if I cut the BGM presence in the intro down to 52 seconds rather than the stated 127, I see the source content at 40% rather than your estimated 45%. Seriously, I love your improvisational skills, but it's one of those cases where source use needed more emphasis or playing around via the melody lines. One way you can fix this in a resub or future tracks is to add more BGM content into your improvs. Another way is to cut down the length of your improv sections, letting BGM content elsewhere stand out more. You've nailed that balance before, and I know you can do it again. That makes my production critique rather minor in comparison. I honestly thought the track is okay enough as a piano solo, rather than adding subtle strings and hand percussion. Both instruments appear at 0:26, but the strings disappear at 0:51 and re-surfaces at 3:44 for nearly 30 seconds, meanwhile the hand percussion leaves after the 3-minute mark. I honestly don't think they add to the larger picture, but I also don't believe they are dealbreakers in comparison to the arrangement. Again, I am very grateful that you sent a timestamp with your submission, Pieter - it's enlightening to hear your intent. As it stands though, I don't think you emphasized source use enough - and I'd like to see this track back in the inbox with this issue fixed. You did the bravest part already with the initial submission, so I do hope revising the arrangement will be a cakewalk for you. NO (resubmit)

You know, I'm with MindWander on this one. For the past few years, I've seen you as the guy who is more keen to experiment with different types of electronic music, not necessarily synthwave. This track is no different - it crosses the thin line between the mellower material of Kraftwerk and the overall bounce that has been a staple of your music. The lo-fi effects and subtle pitch-shifts are intriguing, the parts all have their own unique identity, and the textures here feel thick and loaded - even when the gas is eased off at 1:41. Consider yourself proud of the presentation - it's no small feat! Even the source material got handled very tastefully. Structure-wise, it's one run-through of the source but with a whole bunch of modifications. The backing melody's irregular syncopation from 0:48, the little melody flourishes in the first half (0:36, 1:46, the sine pluck at 1:58) and the source arpeggio changed into a filter-heavy sequence (1:06) all stuck out. The additional synth solo in the 1:23 section also added some much-needed warmth in the lower end. And the square legato synth at 2:50 is all original despite having a similar tone and rhythm to a left-panned synth later on in the source. It's a sign that you knew the BGM inside and out and achieved a compelling arrangement while still respecting the qualities of Ben Prunty's composition. Seriously, I got nothing else to say - great job, hey ho, front page, let's go. YES

Your voice tone works so well with the pop ballad style here. It felt keen to break out the energy and meaning behind the lyrics, and along with the choice of sound palette and attention to balancing the instrumentation, it's a strong foundation going forward. However, "foundation" is also the buzz word to describe the track as a whole. I know you said you spent time tuning your vocals, but in a pop environment, the amount of pitch correction/autotune for a vocal performance is relentless. There are plenty of free auto-tuners on the web that you can experiment with, so have a play around with them and see what you can reap. If a sung word is too difficult to tune effectively, or there's a rough consonant in the way, it'll also be handy to re-record that line before processing. And then there's the next issue - source use. The sections marked as the source are evident through the sung melody and the e-piano using the original's harp. But it's still less than 45% source use, and therefore is my biggest dealbreaker out of the lot. Consider going through your original parts and adding some backing writing that references either the source or other PMD BGM. I would suggest the latter as there's not a lot else in the primary source to work with, but I can also be pleasantly surprised if treated uniquely. I'm also not a fan of the snare drum being so in my face. Larry thought it was a problem since the final verse, but for me, this issue was present since 1:07. Introducing an organic timbre after a non-organic intro is an unusual move despite the right intention. For me, it'll feel more natural if only the third downbeats got emphasized and the other notes get softened up - turning them into ghost notes. It's a solid base, but source use and vocal presentation are by far the most significant issues that have let this down for me. See if you can fit in more VGM, refine your vocals, and go over your drum patterns. Your tone pleasantly surprised me though, so I see potential in you getting a vocal track onto the front page if you keep at it. NO (resubmit)

This arrangement is a lot of fun! I wasn't feeling the left-panned lead at first, but when the rest of the instruments started fleshing out at 0:12, it became way less of a problem. The half-time pace at 0:52 used dynamics well, and the slow interpretation 2:08 was a pleasant touch. Even the breakdown at 1:42 had some effective use of filters on the pads, plus the bass writing as a whole adds a happy and bouncy feel. However, the production values feel thin - and that goes beyond the 128kbps submission. Larry said something about the claps being thin-sounding, but I believe the snare needs work as well. You got the right idea at 3:44 with the snare and clap working in unison - layering different percussion sounds can make a difference to how strong the kit feels. With your snares, layering one or two complementary sounds underneath it can also add more snap. They can be other snare sounds and/or any other claps - but make sure you still emphasize the snare sound you want rather than its support. The low-bitrate submission also exposed the tone of the hi-hats, made difficult to digest at 1:16 with the run of robotic 16th notes. They have a piercing presence to them, which is usually okay for this type of tone; but there's too much of it, so it's best to turn them down. It also goes hand in hand with Larry's comment about the quiet bass as well. Said instruments usually the second thing you mix down when balancing your parts (the first being all of your percussion). It'll be a good idea to revisit the mixdown and get their volume levels re-adjusted. Also, it'll be a good idea to go over your melody lines and see if you can do EQ separation away from the pads. The shadiest offender for me is at 0:52, where the pads themselves completely buried the plucked synth. Whether it'll be better for you to revise the instruments' EQ, transpose the lead up an octave, add an extra lead layer or a combination of the three is all up to you. I know I went all out on this submission, but be proud of your arrangement - it's a cheerful and thorough interpretation of a very well known Zelda BGM. But it'll need a balance / EQ revision and potentially a bunch of additional layers to get the production values to stand tall as well. It'll be great if you can revise it and send it back to us. NO (resubmit)

The use of the source here is visible with the change of instrumentation to a bell-driven landscape and the different key adding to an underwater feel, and yet it treads the line between straight-forward and interpretive writing. The first repetition does its job with identifying the source, and 1:23 moved on with a delicate switch between additional writing and playing around with various motifs. Then there's the rest of the track starting at 2:35, where the focus balanced between subtractive interpretation and playing around with the chords to add a unique character not present beforehand. In other words, a surprising amount of coverage is going on for its length and pacing, and it's beautiful to take in. The production values also feel pleasant. The bells and pitched percussion are lovely and delicate, there are well-balanced instruments to match this underwater feel, and the use of reverb also dodged the risk of overpowering mud. But there is the usual problem with the quiet mixdown, with the peak at -3.6dB. It's one of those tracks that I felt the dynamics would benefit more from a normalization of the master render, adding more to the bells leading the track's direction. As it is, it's a lovely piece of work that does a hefty amount of exploration despite the minimalist source. In an intriguing twist, this isn't one of Rebecca's best productions, but the arrangement shines through much more. I'm all for front-page treatment, as well as relaxing to this at night. YES

This arrangement is meaty and jumped around the mix doing three different ideas. It explored the source as it is (like with the chiptune intro), played around with the foundations and adding new melodies over the top (like at 1:00), or added something brand new (like the piano intro at the end). Even the piano-into-ensemble-into-chiptune breakdown at 1:48 explores all three ideas at once. I also felt the lower chip harmony at 2:51 didn't sound harmonically pleasing with the backing, but it's a minor gripe in an elegant set of writing otherwise. The sound palette's mixture of chiptune and modern synths also felt intriguing and fit the arrangement's goal. They're all mixed in well, the synths' manipulation is engaging, and even the piano sounded realistic and adapted to the stereo space. The only thing that sticks out for me though is the clarinet at 2:12. I understand it acting as the bridge between the piano and chiptune melodies, but to me, it sounded like it was performing all of these legato notes without any room to inhale. You can remedy it in future works by merely adding a moment for it to rest. Putting these little nitpicks aside, it's a varied arrangement that jumped between handling the source and doing its own thing. And it's all with a lovely presentation that crosses the line between retro and present day. Ben, I wouldn't have guessed that you took two years off before working on this - because there's no sign of rusted chops here. Nice work! YES