Rexy

I have to agree with you - this boss theme is incredible. But yeah, I too noted the messy mixdown right away. The frequencies of the rhythm guitar are clashing heavily with those of the bass and lead guitar, the cymbals are way too over-compressed, and the instruments as a whole has no sibilance at all. Let's assume your master recordings aren't as lossy as the MP3 you sent; if so, the next main focus is learning how to EQ your instrumentation at an improved level. There are all sorts of reference charts available to learn from, so see if they can help you. The arrangement itself felt interesting enough with taking the source material in a much darker direction, and despite all the noodling past 1:42, there's still a sturdy 54% source coverage here. The more ominous chords and melody has a liberal feel - which isn't bad - but the original material post-1:42 has no throwbacks to either the source or other Headdy BGM. In that situation, it would be ideal to hear more references to the BGM even after hearing the main variation. Your performance skills are hot, though, and I hope to see them on the front page someday. As of right now, the production and lack thereof broke the deal with the second half's treatment being more of a smaller irk. I hope my note of reference can help you out with your mixdowns - it'll be incredible to go over something with a much cleaner presentation than this. NO (resubmit)

Working with a melodically minimalist source is no small feat, that's for sure. It also felt like the right kind of track to play with it as a product of the big beat genre - and that groove pushed through my speakers with no seam exposed. It felt like the intention was to refine the source material for a modern age - and by sound palette and balancing alone, it got nailed on the head. As for the arrangement itself, I have to admit the bass pattern didn't initially sell itself well - all from sounding different from the source material. But when the groove kicked in at 0:48 and remained close to that of the source, it felt like an unusual but worthwhile exchange so I can let that slide. This track also maintained the sequenced blip and choir parts from the source which first appear at 1:21 here and made up a good chunk of ground from them alone. When not present, there are entire subtractive segments like 2:10 with some new patterns, an entirely original breakdown at 2:42, and that melodic climax at 4:37 that adds a different melodic progression to the synth choir from before. It's clever stuff - and much like prophetik said, it can fit well in a theoretical XG sequel in the future. (Throwback Entertainment should get in on that!) All in all, it's a well-polished track with not only a killer arrangement, but it also adds a lift to the source material's intended aesthetic. I can easily see this on the front page. And as a side-note, if OC Remix still exists in the 23rd century, I do hope it works well with racing of that era regardless of its evolution. YES

That source is crazy - not up to the melodic standards that I usually associate with Kirby, but it's evident in your arrangement. It's incredible to see how you noted out this complex composition and maintained that familiarity - even going as far as keeping the same breakbeat feel as the original. With this similar genre, I'm surprised that you decided to use a more realistic choir at 0:47 rather than a synth-like one to match the rest of the sound palette. To me, it's desirable to hear it with other more synthetic layers over the top to mask its stiffness. Otherwise, the rest of the instrumentation sounds cohesively balanced, and I can get behind that. But my big problem lies more with the arrangement itself. As of right now, it consists of a single run-through of each source with no other modifications or personalization. There are ways to lift this, though, including: Reference different sections of the source within parts of the arrangement Expand by roughly a minute and add more playing around with the components Or even leave the framework as it is and add some original parts underneath. It's a solid direction so far, and you're a beast to cover something so structurally complex. But the arrangement needs more interpretation, and I'd like to hear a version that adds more to what's there so far. Please address this and try again. NO (resubmit)

I may raise some eyebrows, but I don't think the ocarina sounds that shrill after running an EQ analyzer on the track. This instrument did pop out distinctly, but that was solely the tone and not any ambient noise that would interfere with the sound quality. It's still more on the loud side, and I would've ideally wanted to hear it brought down a couple of decibels. Nevertheless, David did an expressive performance, and I can let it slide. The arrangement itself is more on the conservative side with some little detailed tweaks to background elements like the harp and some subtle bells in the background. The swifter ocarina playing at 2:13 is a nice touch, and changing up the lead to bowed or plucked strings on occasion also adds a pleasant break in the textures. Talking of textures, while a lot of the pitched percussion sounded nice and well balanced, I do have some nitpicks about two particular VSTs used. Firstly, the plucked strings at 1:35 are more blatantly shrill, barely having any tone to them and feeling more robotic in their delivery. Going over the velocities and EQ would let it have more of a body to match the violin in the background. But having had a few piano mixposts myself, I felt my inner alarm bells go off regarding your decision to harshly sustain said instrument. With all of these mid to mid-high parts surrounding it, there was no need to mess with the soundscape by holding the piano's sustain pedal down and made it too susceptible to unintentional dissonance. It's surprisingly not a dealbreaker, but there is a helpful tip for the future. By bringing the foot off the pedal for just a small fraction of a second before each chord change, you can reduce the chance of dissonance by a lot. With everything weighed in, the arrangement is not too ground-breaking, and the production values feel underwhelming. Still, they both went over the bar - and David's ocarina performance gave this track a significant lift as well. Roll on winter - it'll be comforting to hear this on the front page, getting cozy in front of a warm fire. YES

It took me a few listens to detect the source, but it got played around in this bizarre soundscape. You utilized its chords well, the singular run of the melody was adapted to fit the soundscape, and you nailed that lo-fi production aesthetic. My issues with this track are that the percussion feels empty, and the framework ended up going into a sparser direction as time went on. If you're going to make a vaporwave track, it's best to keep a consistent 80s pop style beat, rather than randomly hit parts of the kit on occasion. Similarly, the bass dropping out from 1:07 onward ended up doing more harm to the second half of the track, taking it in some unintended ambient direction with no backbone. I respect the unexpected direction taken, but as of right now it only really sounds like a tech demo. It'll be desirable to hear a version that adds a more consistent driving beat with potentially more writing going on in the bass. It's a genre that's surprisingly unexplored at OCR, but you've got the nerve to make it happen if you decide to revise the track. NO (resubmit)

I felt that repetition too. While technically the theme was handled in four different ways with varying degrees of lead instruments and countermelodies, the textures involved felt samey otherwise. Even the combination of the cello, harpsichord and hand percussion making the same patterns underneath the other layers weren't doing any favors. As they were least able of carrying the theme, I would've preferred to have heard them getting played around just as much as the rest of the instrumentation. The choice of instrumentation and balancing is as lovely and pleasant as ever. For the most part, the choir sounded okay as there weren't many other instruments in the low-mids otherwise. But I don't get why there is this stiff sounding solo at 3:09. This choir's harmonies were all fighting for lead melody, and those timings felt so painfully robotic there. You've previously demonstrated your capabilities to humanize orchestrated parts and fit live vocals into a mix, so it made no sense for this orchestra part to be like this. Despite all this, it placed me in a problematic dilemma. On the one hand, the production isn't up there with your best and the arrangement quite frankly almost put me to sleep with how long it dragged on. But on the other hand, it is an interpreted arrangement with passable production values despite the choir mishap. I can see this on the front page, but please be careful with the arrangement framework for similarly longer tracks in the future. YES (borderline)

Ooh, I sense that Enigma inspiration! I hear "Sadeness (Part 1)" on the radio occasionally, and that similar groove made me latch onto the idea immediately. It does feel interesting to see the fast-paced nature of this source applied to a more downtempo and electronic feel. The opening pattern of 8 notes also works as an effective arpeggio - whether solo, running alongside the melody, or even as part of the brief F minor breakdown starting at 2:10. The source material has a lot of ideas going on, but this mix needed just the arpeggio and melody A - using them in a modest framework adding more layers with each repetition. These layers are something as simple as changing the hi-hats to a 16-beat pattern (1:20) to adding more pads over time and introducing a countermelody near the end (3:05). It's a mellow adaptation that works well, so sweet going there. However, this is also one of those tracks where I feel needs more work regarding its mixing. As more layers get added in each repetition, the smashed dynamics got worse, and it becomes much harder to hear the main melody. It's most problematic under the additional pads and the countermelody as mentioned earlier past the 3-minute mark. There are many ways to fix this within another mixdown, however. Examples are EQ separation, transposing the lead or some of your pads, and weakening the limiter by just a touch. All of these are possible solutions that I can suggest to achieve a less cluttered mix. On its own, it's one of the most unorthodox Jenova arrangements I have heard in a long time. But I'd love for you to clear up the mixing and send it back. It's a close call, but I'm all for hearing this on the front page soon. NO (resubmit)

Shiver me timbers - this shanty gave no quarter! Dustin, ye seadog, ye ran a fine jig and battened down the hatches on this swash-buckling deck! Alright, here's my thoughts without the pirate speak. The arrangement is conservative for the most part, but in addition to performing the theme, there are also fresh twists and turns like: The playing around with the first part of melody A at 0:22 The original part at 1:42 that still kept to that buccaneer feeling The violin solo at 2:19 that added a little bit of tension before going to the melody C repeat That chugging rhythm guitar at 2:48 interpreting the opening notes, building a grand climax towards the ending segment And dare I say, the ending itself at 3:34 is adorable - a fade-out to a whistling local? That's not only a cool way to handle the theme, but it's out of the blue and caught my attention. The production itself also feels clean, the guitars are still as heavy as I remember from you, and when the orchestra is in full force, there's an intense amount of work to make them ride over the top. The only nitpick I have, however, is that violin sample. The reverb makes it fit well among the other instruments, so good going there. But if this sound has any key switches, it's a good idea to experiment with them and give out a more realistic tone than this constant perfect medium stab. Nevertheless, in its current form, I can see this on the front page. The arrangement is fantastic, production values are clearly over the bar, and the performance work is top-notch. I'm glad to hear from you again, arrr! YES

I should make that five. I'll box mine up and send it to you later tonight x)

First of all, thank you very much for the source breakdown! Going over the sections, I can verify its treatment with plenty of subtractive writing - and the saxophone/guitar solos and synthwave style placed the icing on the cake. I honestly have no significant problems with the production, either. The sounds are all appropriate to the genre, the live musicians all sound crisp and clean, and everything feels well balanced. I honestly think the vocals are at a good position in the mix and are clear enough for me to make out the lyrics. The only thing that sticks out is that the mixdown doesn't go beyond -3dB and can sound better with some normalization, but it's no dealbreaker in this case. It's still a fantastic Jorito production / collaborative project as always. Not only can I see this on the front page, but also as part of a playlist for use at the gym. YES

Arrangement-wise, the framework plays it safe with one run-through of the source. And through this limited structure, it was left open for some new ideas like the creepy ambient opening, the pitch-bending expression on the lead synths and some building chords in the background. It's not a groundbreaking interpretation, but the genre change and sound palette gave it enough to make it sound like your unique take. But here's the big problem that I have - your mastering. The ambient intro was pleasant, but starting at 0:54, the dynamic level reached its peak and never eased off until the ending - and the drums were yet to appear by then. You got the right idea with side-chaining your pads, but they're still hard to hear later in the mix when the drums, bass and leads all fought for the forefront. Here are some ideas to fix this dynamic smash - if there's a limiter evolved in the mix, consider weakening its settings and re-adjust any instrumentation manually. But let's say they're all compressed without a limiter for some reason. In that case, it'll be a good idea to go over the compressor settings on each separate part or do some EQ separation to cement their position within the soundscape. I'm in favor of the genre adaptation for sure, but I'd like to see this return to the inbox with the dynamics issue addressed. It'll be lovely to see you submit again. NO (resubmit)

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)