Rexy

I sense a very straightforward but effective arrangement here. There's one straight run of the source, then using melody A as a base for some cool call-and-response between those woodwind parts from Gamer of the Winds. Then at 2:04 there is that bizarre change-up with the distorted dark section, and it concludes with a wrap back around to the mood of the first minute or so. It's nothing too groundbreaking, but I approve of the amount of development given to the source. Going over the recorded instrumentation, the folkier recorded parts all sound clear and presentable. If my ears serve me right and identified a piccolo in the call-and-response section at 1:16, I should give credit to the recording quality that emphasizes more on tone than breath noise. It's a sign that Gamer of the Winds nailed the microphone setup for his contribution - good going! However, the vocals at 2:04 sound way too sparse and could've done with some additional processing to make them sound thicker. You made a good start by bringing in Psamathes to provide a higher harmony. But these voices can all benefit by having multiple takes layered on top of each other, or just simply adding a choral delay. Another crucial live instrument that needed more work was the electric guitar in the same section. The tone sounds like it's not only missing a mid-to-high presence, but it's also competing for the same frequency space as those vocals mentioned above. It's a good idea to see if you can separate the EQ between the vocals and guitar to give this area some much-needed clarity. Also, what's with the white noise at 0:00-0:20 and 1:04-1:38? Did a noise gate accidentally get bypassed, or did it get mixed in with one of the recorded parts? If this decision is unintentional, it'll be good to subdue it via gate, a low-pass filter, or re-recording any affected instruments. This arrangement idea isn't bad at all, but it's one of those that needs more TLC with the production values before heading onto the front page. You've made it past the panel before Reuben, so I know that you can do it again. NO (resubmit)

I wasn't involved in the previous decision, so this vote is more of a fresh perspective. Looking at the arrangement, it started as a borderline MIDI-rip with the synth melody's expression adding small hints of subtractive writing. But the part at 1:53 with the smooth jazz variant caught me by surprise with the bass writing, the expressive violin performance, and the backing piano also varying from the original's synth arpeggio. Seeing the source treatment over different moods, I feel confident over your idea of contrasting styles here. You made the right call in deciding not to change it. Now, I didn't hear what went wrong with the production last time, but I did notice a thought-provoking choice of sound palette going on. The timbres themselves and placement in the stereo field are serviceable to me. Though, I would've liked to have seen some further EQ separation between your rhythm guitars and lead synths to get them to stick out more. It's not a dealbreaker, but it's something to look out for when making similar tracks. Another tip I can give you for the future is to consider the idea of equalizing your reverb as well. Looking at 1:24-1:39 and 3:34-3:57, the wet output was at risk of overpowering the rhythm synths in the background. By adding a high-pass to your reverb, this can pull back any dampness among the low-to-mid section and add some clarity onto where it tonally matters most. Seeing the sum of the parts come together, I believe this track barely passed over the bar with just about enough arrangement and presentation. I can see it on the front page, but regardless of what happens, I'd love it if you keep going and take your skills to the next level. YES (borderline)

You know, I too am a judge of fewer words than usual. The production feels perfect to me. Seriously, I can't find anything to fault about instrument placement, the synth timbre selections in Jorito's case or even recording quality on Earth Kid's part. Even the arrangement is well demonstrated with changing Another Termina into a funk-folk 4/4 shuffle feel, ear-catching bass writing throughout, wonderful countermelodies in the second Termina variation, and a fitting groove carrying it all forward. The idea of folk and electronic styles just mashing together is an idea that I didn't think we'd deserve! This combination works, it's clean, and it's a powerful highlight from the Chronopolis album. Seriously, why the hell didn't this get a direct post?! YES

This arrangement feels beautiful. The flutes all have been recorded clean, the backing instruments also feel realistic, and there's some solid dynamic shaping going on here. Additionally, there's also a delicate balance between additive extensions with the original material and subtractive changes with the flute harmonies - a solid direction. Thinking about the flutes though, I thought the volume jump upon return at 0:47 wasn't all that obvious and was expected to ride on top of that distant piano. Also, all I sensed with the ending was a gentle major key cadence that added a last-second lift in mood. But sadly, I agree with my fellow judges and believe that the panning of the lead flute feels distracting. Being too far to the left of the stereo field, it sticks out too much, and I'm surprised it didn't affect the clarity of the rest of your soundscape. You otherwise have a well-treated arrangement and clear presentation, no doubt about it. It'll be a shame to send it back based on one small panning issue, as it's possible to amend it in the space of 30 seconds. Honestly, I feel this is ready for the front page for the most part. See if you can do something about the lead flute's position - preferably a more central or gentle pan. A move like that will be much more satisfying to listen to in my opinion. YES (conditional on panning)

This arrangement is gorgeous - full of subtractive interpretation thanks to additional harmonies and counter-melodies, along with some strong coordination between all five woodwind parts. Even the harp and harpsichord both sound lush and sublime and served as a great foundation to carry the recorded parts forward. Recording quality across the parts are clear as a collective, but one instrument does stick out for me, and that is the piccolo part from Gamer of the Winds. The writing isn't a problem for me thanks to the flute and clarinet parts sounding fine, but I do hear a lot more of the wind noise rather than its body - something that is not present on any other instrument. This issue isn't a dealbreaker by any means, as you worked well with what you got and cemented its position in the mix - and piccolos are known for being difficult to record to one's liking. That said, here's some advice for Gamer of the Winds regarding piccolo parts in the future - I suggest you experiment with different positions away from the microphone and see which one will capture the sound of that instrument more effectively for different situations. Regardless, the arrangement is sublime, the ensemble gelled together like glue and the soundscape is clean. It's also one of those cases where I do hear pops like Larry pointed out, but see them as too minor and insignificant in the larger picture to mark my vote as a conditional one. It'll be a bonus if we get a render that fixes it though, but for now, I am all for seeing this on the front page - good work! YES

You got a stable arrangement going on despite the simple genre adaptation. Not one section maintained the same IV-I chord progression as the original, with a simple I-IV sequence leading up to 1:17 and its change to a more complicated main pattern for the rest of the track, allowing the melody to get played around with during that 16-bar structure. It's a simple idea but a very effective one. With the production itself, it's a clean mix where all instruments are identifiable, and that side-chain on the synth pads is an effective way to manage frequency space among the mid-section. But on the other hand, the soundscape felt like it was missing some much-needed sibilance, particularly with the kick, pads and sine arp. It doesn't feel so bad initially, but once you get to 1:48 with the addition of a morph lead and tubular bells, it does start to feel more deprived - and becomes even worse off at 2:35 with the poly-synth as the lead, and again at 3:05 with the key change, where the sounds become their hardest to identify. Your arrangement framework and sound palette are perfect, so keep them as they are - but I honestly feel another mixdown to remedy the lack of high-end will push it over the bar for me. It's so close, and I'd love for people to hear it on the front page! NO (resubmit)

Putting the sampled BGM and ProJared voice sample aside, this track sounds pretty soothing. The source is apparent throughout, the village theme getting changed up to the same swing feel as Dr. Wright is a gorgeous touch, and the balance between the instruments sound clean as well. If there's any nitpick I have on the production side, it's that the track itself is on the quiet side and could've done with some normalization, but it's no big deal here. However, despite all the additive sections here, most repetitions of the Dr. Wright theme were note-for-note for the original. The melody itself didn't get played with during other additive segments (0:35-1:07 and 1:51-2:39), and the only part of its interpretation that sounded remotely interesting was that pleasant-sounding e-piano at 2:55, riding on top of the theme. It would've been nice to hear more subtractive arranging like that in other repetitions before that point, or even slipping in little segments of the melody in the background during those additive parts. I also have no issues with the instrumentation sounding similar to the original, but when they're the only timbres present, it makes the sound choices feel more exposed. It's up to you as to whether you'd want to modify the sounds in addition to doing any subtractive changes. Nevertheless, with an arrangement that isn't substantial enough and relies too much on making the variations too close to the source in timbre as well, I can't pass this as it is. Reconsider the use of the samples at the beginning and end, go over your Dr. Wright variations and spice them up, then try again. NO (resubmit)

I'm down for the direction you took the framework. It's got some gorgeous textures, effective use of reverb to give it a hint of a post-rock vibe, and that wet guitar feels surprisingly lush despite the risky ambiance in play. The source material is also clearly there, but the track only uses the pads and melody from it, and they worked well to contribute to this spacious soundscape. Regarding the arrangement, there are two points to bring up. Yes, I agree that the ending at 2:58 sounded pointless and can get scrapped. I get the idea that you want to add original material, but the change-up to something bigger and leading into a fadeout gives an unfinished feeling. As for interpretation, there is plenty of it going on via the other instruments with the added original guitar melodies, filtered arpeggios, and other additional pads on top of the source representation. The structure is also broken up to the point that it doesn't directly follow the original, so with all this in mind I feel it's barely gone over the bar. I'm okay with seeing this on the front page, but I believe it only just made the standards. Production work is engaging and well balanced, and the arrangement feels minimal but does have hints of brilliance. Whether this passes or not, I'm all for seeing tracks like this on the OCR front page sometime soon. YES (borderline)

First of all, yes, the clipping was what caught my attention right away, and I pointed this out in the Discord group. On first listen, the arrangement felt fine and personalized to me, so I saw the clipping as an easy fix in the event of the track passing the panel. The arrangement itself is conservative, but the source is dominating; the bass-only breakdown at 1:27 and solo at 2:00 has a sign of pure fun in the composition; plus the sound palette is top-notch and otherwise well balanced in the soundscape. Taking a look at the percussion, it is true that each main segment has a unique groove (melody A - 0:29-0:51, melody B - 0:51-1:05, bass breakdown - 1:27-1:38, bridge - 1:38-2:00), but for the most part they all just stay affiliated with each section and the beat for melody A is even re-used during the guitar solo. The only section that does something different is the final melody A segment at 2:35, where the drums are instead reduced to hi-hats for 2 bars and then go full-whack into the variant during the breakdown. Now, this wouldn't be a problem for me - but even the fills are significantly repetitive to the point that the last unique one is at 1:05. If you do want a healthy amount of breaks, it's advised to go back over your fills and see what you can do to make each fill not sound squarely like another already in the track. And yes, there is the side-chaining irks. You don't need to send the side-chain signal out to the guitars as well; usually, they're the driving force of energy whenever they're present. It's as a result of this that I am struggling to hear your rhythm guitars during the melody A sections, so keeping it out of the range of the side-chain can give it some much-needed clarity. Overall, I see a safe but fun take on the source with a well-picked selection of sounds. But the amount of drum repetition and compression were tough to bear and are things that can get fixed with another pass. Keep at it. NO (resubmit)

This arrangement feels liberal to me, and I felt even less of a source connection than my fellow judges. I tried my best, but I could only hear the source itself - via the synth melody - at 0:21-0:55, 1:27-2:15 and 3:33-3:54. That's 43% of identifiable BGM, and because it's not present in most of the track, it's the most major dealbreaker. Secondly, a lot of the synth choices here feel bland. A lot of the synths here have basic tones, and it can get remedied by layering other synth textures to create something more unique. The only one that tries to do something interesting is the melody itself - fading in at 0:21 with a curve rather than a straight line, and of course it has a simple but effective LFO modulating its volume. I'm not impressed with the tone having more noise rather than a body, but the effects on top are a decent starting place. Another way to make the soundscape feel thicker is to consider adding in more parts doing more things. For example, I noticed there are no pad parts - and they often fill a good chunk of the mid-to-high frequency section alone, which is what the track tonally lacks. Other rhythm parts like an e-piano or a simple arpeggio can also fill in this space when used effectively. To summarize, lack of a source connection and the underwhelming production are why I can't accept it. It's good to see the source inspire you to make music yourself, so I hope you can keep improving your technique and sending more tracks to the inbox. NO

This arrangement sounds so cute and festive - and it makes sense as it's effectively a medley of wintery Mario songs. Each source interpretation has a more stripped-down chord sequence, the passing around of the lead between accordion, acoustic guitar and woodwinds makes it feel even more joyful, and the performances feel human without feeling too loose. Some of those source transitions can indeed be smoother especially when going in and out of the Shiveria Town section (1:21-1:53) and its sudden change to a 3/4 time signature, but the tempo remained consistent in this case, so it's no big deal. With only six instruments playing at any one time, it makes sense for them to be identifiable in the big picture. And they are for the most part - recording quality is clean for all recorded live parts, and they're all well balanced and appropriately positioned across the soundscape. There are some issues, however, and I'll address them one by one: I also agree that the tambourine is piercing through, but then again it's the only percussion instrument in the entire track so balancing it sounded like a challenge in the first place. If you have a spectrum analyzer, it'll be useful to figure out which frequencies are problematic on specific instruments (in the tambourine's case, 8000-8500k Hz) - and once discovered you could calm them down with a small notch EQ. The guitar and accordion do have some frequency overlap, especially when one of them plays the main melody and the other is the designated rhythm part. It's more prevalent in the Shiveria Town segment when both of them are rhythm parts to the woodwinds, and the guitar particularly sounded too far pushed into the background. By making a low-mid cut onto the accordion, the guitar can be much more present. And going back to the tambourine again, one way to make it feel less exposed is to apply some gentle reverb. My instinct is that it'll fit in more naturally when it's not as dry as a bone. It's a charming arrangement, and I wish I could accept it on that alone, but the more I thought about it, the more I felt the mixing flaws weighed it down. Please address them and send it back - it's an adorable concept, and I'd love for others to hear it! NO (resubmit)

This track isn't too bad, actually - does lend itself well to dream trance, surprisingly. The arrangement feels safe and remarkably close to the original, but the additional instrumentation and subtractive change-up at 1:54 help with saving source representation from repetition. On the production side, I can also hear that side-chain going and pushing back the strings whenever the kick is in play, as well as the instrumentation being well balanced. However, this soundscape feels empty on the mid-to-high EQ register. Notably, the piano part sounds muddy and has a lot of its crunch missing, making it unable to stand out among the rest of the instrumentation. In addition to shifting its EQ into those mid-high ranges to fix this problem, a similar thing can also be done with the sine arpeggio and pads to give them some increased presence into the mix. There's a robust plan to be had here, but as of right now the soundscape feels tame and devoid of mid-to-high frequencies. It'll be good if it can get filled either with altering EQs on some of your already established sounds or adding more layers / fuller instruments into the mix. I like where this is going, and I hope to see this back in the inbox after another pass. NO (resubmit)

This retro chill soundscape is pleasing to the ear. Drum writing is on point throughout, the wintery feel got achieved well with this legato-free synth selection, instruments are mixed coherently well despite the lengthy duration, and changing up the source to this waltz rhythm not only is fitting for the season but is a fantastic base to play around with those melodies. Indeed, the melodies not only got adapted to fit the new time signature, but Rozovian's been that sneaky with interpretations that I struggled to find where the source is present. Here is the breakdown I got when trying to figure that out: 0:02-0:07 - chime refers to a part of melody A 0:07-0:52 - backing chime repeating the first four notes of the source for the intro 0:52-1:22 - melody A straight 1:22-1:33 - chime references intro again, along with chord progression that starts sounding like melody A initially 1:37-2:11 - melody B straight - and just saying, I love that half-time feel on the string melody! 2:48-3:18 - melody C straight 5:22-5:33, 5:37-5:48 - melody A's chords 6:07-7:07 - melody A straight That's 237 seconds that I detected, but it's still barely 50% source use. I know Ad has a knack for writing long tracks, but if it took me multiple listens to cement my source detection, then a breakdown in future subs can be more useful for us to assess them. All in all, it's a playful track that treats the source in a bouncy way, is balanced to match an appropriate mood for colder days, and got me thinking about how the pieces worked all together. It was a difficult one for me to figure out source use, but I can see it on the front page as close to Christmas morning as possible. YES

First of all, I'm going to have to disagree with both prophetik and MindWanderer and say this actually isn't a conservative take. The only parts I can hear from the original are the second half of melody A (0:00-0:21, 0:52-1:35, 2:44-2:56) and the second half of melody B (1:35-1:43, 1:51-1:59), all structured in a more distinct framework. It's still 52% of identifiable melodic source alone, so this was never going to be an issue. Based on interpretation alone, the selective use of source is efficient and even got played around at 1:13 with the koto starting as a layered instrument but adding harmonies on top. In both source uses' cases, the last two measures of the melody A segments also showed some modifications in pitch while firmly retaining rhythm, and the melody B segments go back and forth between 3 bars of straight melodic use and 3 bars of creative writing. These are effective ways of handling them, and in combination with the more original contributions, I hear a solid take in a fresh style that fuses electronic and Eastern elements. The production, while mostly cleanly balanced, did give me two things to ponder over. Firstly, the bass introduced at 0:52 initially sounded like it was dominating the soundscape, but weirdly enough it's way more settled starting from 1:35 - mostly because a lot of the pitches are in the next octave over. Based on the tones, I can see a double high pass at 50 Hz calming down its early overpowering presence - but it's still acceptable to listen to in its current form, so it's something to think about for the future. I also detected clipping in the mix like prophetik did, but it wasn't apparent for me until 2:15 when hearing that buzz in my left speaker became too distinct to ignore. All in all, the arrangement and production both feel solid as they are, but a re-render is advised to clear out the unnecessary clipping. This track is something that I'm in favor of hearing on the front page, but in a clean form that does justice to the ideas layered out. YES (conditional on clipping fixes)

This track is an excellent treatment for a 10-second loop! The combination of retro and modern synths sound clear and engaging, there's a healthy balance to all instruments, and no doubt the source material is present almost all of the way through. That simple melody has also been altered and twisted in so many ways that the only way to make a case against repetition is to dissect the track part by part. Obviously, no set of 8 bars in the chiptune intro (0:00-0:48) are identical, with the first four variations building things up slowly - drums and backing melody, a more active bassline, harmonies, then the fifth repetition had the source material mostly played straight with the drums and bass muted for the last two bars. 0:48-1:07 has the groove's foundation with the more modernized synth work coming in, with this measure of 16 bars having the first half dedicated to the melody repeating the first four bars of the source before doing the entire thing in the second half. Also, that same melody has harmonies riding over the top. 1:07-1:26 has the harmonies of the previous section replaced with a new original melody riding over the top, and the percussion has an additional meatier hi-hat over the top of the previously established beat. 1:26-1:45 has the bass changed back to the triangle wave as heard in the intro, the secondary melody part has changed to a sweeping arpeggio, and the beat has open hi-hats brought in. 1:45-2:05 has the melody restored to the variant as already heard in the intro, with a cool call-and-response between solo voice and harmonies. The bass is back to what it was in the central groove, but the drums instead were changed to a break to add tension for the next segment. At 2:05-2:24, the melody is almost entirely new with only the last beat of the fourth and eighth bars mirroring the source material. It's the only segment in the track that is like that. 2:24-3:02 sounds almost just like the 0:48-1:26 section before it, but there are a couple of subtle changes. The fill at 2:42 is a new addition that relies on open hi-hats to segue to the melody part, and the harmonies had extended over to the second half of the section rather than staying with the first. And of course, 3:02-3:23 has the previous part, but with the backing rhythm muted and the drums calming down for the ending. From what I've witnessed, I can conclude that no two variants of the theme are indeed identical and it's all of these details together that have proven the source material has had a substantial amount of arrangement. Combined with the robust framework and clean production, it's one I can easily see on the front page - so good job with handling something so short! YES

You have a beautiful dreamy soundscape and a more unusual arrangement approach - a new-age backdrop with only the vocals providing source use. In this context, a three-verse track carries source use well, and the vocal style combined with it adds such a delicate charm. The non-vocal instruments also sound well balanced and add more to the atmospheric beauty, so good job on picking some lovely timbres out in this case. However, this track does have a couple of production issues. First of all, yes, I agree with my fellow judges that it's too quiet. A peak of around -11dB makes it too tempting to manually boost the volume even when listening to similar tracks, so a slightly louder mix or wave normalization can quickly remedy it. Had this been the only problem, my vote would've also been a conditional yes as it's very swift to fix. But as this is a vocal track, the vocals themselves are essential to see it through. And while your performance is sweet and delicate, the recording and mixing currently don't do any justice. Not only are there the pops that Larry pointed out, but the recording quality sounds too lossy to consider clean, and it feels so muddy to the point that I can't make out the lyrics. It clashes way too much with the already-gorgeous backing track that I'm going to have to see it as a dealbreaker, I'm afraid. Rebecca, this is extremely promising, and I'm in favor of seeing a mix of this kind of scope on the front page. If those vocals can get re-recorded and mixed in more effectively, it'll be much easier to convince me to accept it. NO (resubmit)

This track sounds just as fun as the pink ball of fluff himself! The source is there for the entire duration, the instrumentation choice is simple yet effective, the instruments are balanced well, and that drum writing added a lot of life to the progression all the way through. Talking of which, I have a take on prophetik's statement on the drums being samey. I did notice the sections for melody A (0:21-1:00, 1:30-1:55, 2:42-3:07) and melody B (1:01-1:23, 1:55-2:16) have their distinct groove based on how many ride bells are present, so it's a subtle lift - but more importantly, only two fills out of the entire track are totally identical (1:00, 3:06) and they closed off melody A sections. Through this analysis, you can see why I felt this drum writing technique works in the track's context. As for something that doesn't quite work for me, I would've liked to have heard an extra pad to fill up space - especially at the melody C section (2:16-2:35), where the tempo shift sounds cool, but the minimalism was holding anticipation back. It's a nitpick at best, so do be careful when approaching similar sections in future works. However, the arrangement required a lot more thought. If I put the bum notes that prophetik brought up to the side, the source presence is primarily note-for-note with some selective tweaks. Bringing up the backing arpeggio first, it's mostly unchanged though there were times where: It got muted for a bar or half-bar to make transitions satisfying, especially at 0:20 where the sudden use of delay was a nice touch to head out of the intro. And at 1:42-1:54 and 2:53-3:07, the rhythm remained unchanged, but the pitches were altered to adapt to the bassline - and as Sir NutS rightfully pointed out, there wasn't a bass in the source so good call to add some spice there too. As for the melody, it's not entirely note-for-note either as some notation was taken out or had timings changed during the melody A parts, and the melody B sections had some additional notes leading into the segments to add anticipation leading into them as well as no sign of the last few notes on the way out. Even the second melody section had some additional notation onto the piano lead to compensate for the fact that it's not a pitch-shifting synth. These melody and arpeggio changes are subtle, but there is attention to detail here saving those sections from being a complete copy-paste. I feel like I went more in-depth about those subtle changes than what Sir NutS pointed out, but it's there, and it saves the track from being more overly repetitive than the source material. Should this get rejected, I have some ideas on how to remedy it for resub: Think about either changing the pitches of the arpeggio's upbeats or muting them entirely. At the moment it's got the source's same doubled note feel, so by keeping the downbeats as they are and changing the upbeats up in later segments, it can release that instrument from increased monotony. The second melody B section is free to have its melody drastically altered. Drum fills aside, it's a mirror of the first melody B section - and with the arpeggio there already meeting source criteria, you're free to change the melody writing to something completely original potentially. Consider adding some hand percussion in addition to your main drum part. You've got the kit writing down pat, but to further vary it up, you can add some additional parts like a tambourine or shakers and place them in one or two segments. Sometimes you can have more than one extra hand percussion part at once, but it's best to save them for the most poignant sections of the track. As it stands, there's just about enough playing around with the limited source to get it over the arrangement bar in my book. Coupled with the firm production values, I can see it on the front page, but I also understand the main criticism that has divided the panel. It'll still be so lovely to see this on the site in some shape or form. YES (borderline)

First of all, here's my take on the elephant in the room - source use. Chord sequence aside, Dream Shore alone (via melody and acoustic guitar backing) has a definite presence to me from 0:12-2:50 - a comfortable 60% coverage. This issue was never going to be a problem for me in the first place. Production-wise, Rebecca still has the magic. The instruments are beautifully humanized, appropriately mixed within a beautiful organic space, and are importantly clear and identifiable. It's a quiet mix that I was in debate as to whether it needed normalizing or not, but ultimately doing so would disrupt the gorgeous dynamics in place - hence, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The arrangement feels safe in comparison, but there's enough addition of new backing instrumentation and counter melodies to make them feel like more than just a re-interpretation of the source. Even the flourishes/grace notes on the woodwinds (0:39, 0:44, 1:55 to give clear examples) felt like touches that also played around with the melody while also adding to the aforementioned organic space. I also wasn't too sure of what to make of the wind-down from 3:16 onward. Mood-wise, it does its job at closing out with calming the previously established pace, but the plucked cello writing doesn't feel all that harmonically pleasing with the rest of the instruments. It's not a dealbreaker for me, but when its job up to that point was identifying the chords for the other parts to sit on, it does feel counter-productive. Nevertheless, it's a gorgeous Rebecca production as always - and while the writing isn't at her best, it's serviceable to let it stand tall with the rest of her work. Good stuff. YES

I definitely can't fault the arrangement either. It's evident and present for the entire track, whether it be: The source's chord progression used in multiple ways - modification into a key groove (0:00-1:24), done straight during the first breakdown (1:34-2:15) and the climax before the second (3:06-3:27) Playing the melody straight on top of the transformed chord sequences, sometimes accompanying the vocals and sometimes as its own guitar solo The acoustic breakdown at 3:27 which covers melody B then builds into a heavier variant immediately after And of course the pair of Lavos cameos as mentioned in the write-up. Interestingly, the estimated tempo of 95 BPM makes me see it more as a groove metal arrangement rather than doom metal, and even then the genre's conventions served as a robust framework for all of these interpretive ideas and solid performances. Part of the production did leave me feeling confused, however. I can hear your non-vocal instruments just fine despite the muddy overlap, yet the vocals themselves feel quiet in the mix. I get it - part of the appeal behind growled metal vocals is that the casual listener can't figure out what they're saying, but its position in the mix took that note a little bit too far for my taste. When approaching similar works for the future, it'll be a good idea to push them up further and let others feel what you're growling out. Nevertheless, it's a raw performance with a transformative arrangement, and the production values aren't as strong but still satisfactory in my book. It won't be a popular mixpost based on the vocal style, but it'll be representative for a genre less explored. Nice going! YES

Prior to the release of Arcadia Legends, Darkflamewolf allowed me to air this and 2 other tracks on SEGA Mixer Drive (WF-2018) as previews - and having been familiar with Guilherme's work in the past, I felt the dark mood was a step in a more unfamiliar direction and a continuation of his growing cinematic writing. The instrumentation was well balanced and expressed, there's beautiful humanization on all organic sounds, and there's enough attention to the sound design to draw me into its mood and story-based intent. I enjoyed it then based on its production values alone - and I wasn't familiar with the source material! Listening back with the source fresh in my head, I can see Guilherme's creative input as well. It's got the same structure as the original's 3-minute loop, but there are a lot of additions made that benefit it. There are more lively chords in segments with the most major motif (0:19-0:39), a new chorus section that adds more life from that part as mentioned earlier (1:09-1:49), new backing instrumentation writing over the top and a shuffle groove as opposed to the source's straight rhythms. He knew what he was doing when interpreting the BGM - and while not as expansive as previous submissions, it's still a well-personalized take that knows how to grab attention. Having understood the arrangement is every bit as sharp as the production values, I am happy to see this one on the front page. Nice going! YES

Wow, this is a lovely production! Your instruments are well balanced, the choice of parts is appropriate for this Celtic feel - and having seen the video as well, I feel justified in saying your performance chops worked wonders. Your time around other Youtube musicians have shown you were keen to get your presentation up to speed with the best of them, so be proud of that. However, the problem with this arrangement is how critically conservative it is. MindWanderer is right in that we've had conservative re-orchestrations posted in the past - but if they didn't have any further expansions, they'd instead typically have more interpretation of the source, creative writing or both within their short length. The way I see it, the change of genre and key are nice, but it's still Green Hill's melodies and counter elements note for note. This track still has promise though, so I'm keen to see if you can revise the concept and flesh out the idea whether it's modifying the current contents or extending it. Your style is gorgeous, so it'll be amazing to see you on the front page some point in the future. NO (resubmit)

You're very brave sending in a track made nearly 15 years ago. There are mixposts for remixes created years before they got posted here, so that kind of stunt isn't impossible. But this one still has its faults, unfortunately. MindWanderer nailed the source breakdown, so I don't have to. Regarding source connection, referencing the chord structure isn't enough when almost any other piece of music can have it applied. To fill those gaps, consider having little sprinkles of the melody on occasion throughout these problem sections, or even reference the backing instrumentation in the original. Also, I see balance as a subject of concern. Right off the bat, there's not a lot of high frequencies filled in. An idea I have to remedy it is to add a high shelf to your early leads or pads - but not both, as they'll fight over the same amount of space. The instrument(s) that doesn't get boosted can instead get a mid-range boost with a similar cut on the one with the high shelf. The aforementioned overpowering bass problem at 2:24 can get remedied with either lowering its volume or applying an EQ cut along the mid-frequency section. Subjectively, I'm also not a fan of that ending sustained note at 5:23. It can work in some cases, but I think it'll work better if the length is similarly as short as the other notes leading out to it. Ambiance typically relies more on atmosphere and performance space to create something mesmerizing. To sum up this vote, a minimal source connection and unbalanced instrumentation are my main reasons for why I'm unable to pass this. Nevertheless, 13 years is a long time between making a track and submitting it to the panel, so I'm hoping you've learned some new tricks in the interim. If you get a chance to revise/remake the track, the OCR inbox will still be available. NO (resubmit)

Now, this sounds very lush! There's an effective use of dynamics across all instruments, the realism drew my attention, and the expression on your erhu was fascinating to witness. Even though the structure is just one run-through of the theme, I find it interesting that a lot of the source preservation is more on the background elements rather than your main melody - and that gave your lead plenty of wiggle-room to go back and forth between referencing source and doing its own thing. Of course, the brevity is one issue that is up for concern, but as I said, there's enough personalization within the simple run through, and the fadeout didn't call back to a previous part. It's short, sweet, feels like a complete package, and I can see this on the front page. YES

I wouldn't call it a conservative mix, personally. Technically the source's harp motif is broken down to the basic 2-measure pattern heard here, then repeated throughout the mix with alternating loops transposed down five semitones. But arrangement-wise, we're undeniably looking for more substance than that. One idea I have is instead of the random Link to the Past SFX, referencing parts of other Zelda songs in their place would add more substance to the composition. Another idea is to place that simple harp motif in different scales other than the major keys heard here and place them tastefully throughout the track. It's a restricted source, but the possibilities are still endless. Getting a hip hop arrangement onto OCR isn't impossible, but it takes a lot more than a simple repetitive gesture to make it feel engaging. Thankfully there are plenty of mixposts that fit the genre, so feel free to listen and see if they can offer some new-found inspiration. Your mixtape is sick though - can see myself chilling to this late at night. But if you ever make something more substantial, the OCR inbox is wide open. NO

I can identify that Sonic Forces inspiration for sure! There's energy flying out of the gate, the Chemical Plant melody surprisingly fits well with the new chord structure, and the change-up of those chords in that breakdown (1:16-1:43) also adds to the strong foundation. But here's the problem - at 1:43, it loops back to the melody at 0:27 and fades out achingly slowly. What you have so far arrangement-wise is strong, so I suggest you discard everything past 1:43 and further develop the source. I also have a quick tip if you want to end any future submissions on a fade-out - it's best not to let it go over 15 seconds. Of course, the actual length is up to you, but the entire minute can handily get reduced to a less uncanny duration. To summarize, the foundation is cool, but the arrangement itself needs a lot more substance. Consider taking the track into the Workshop and get feedback on new ideas - then when this is more developed, you're more than ready to send it back to the panel. This track isn't bad for your first submission though, so be proud you made it this far - and it'll be fantastic if you can make it one step further. NO