Sir_NutS

Wow. I think you made aesthetic advances from the original that make nothing but perfect sense. 

I have to disagree on the lack of interpretation on the first half.   There's quite a bit of it, although it is very subtle.  The pizzicato sequence is not the same as in the original, it changes to harmonize with the progression instead of being static, and the changes from measure to measure are different as well.  The background strings also do not follow the progression verbatim, although they do start on the same notes.  The piano as well has some subtle changes and addition of extra notes in the higher registers that are all new.  The main melodies remain very closely tied to the source but there is work done in the first half and calling it a straight up cover is really not fair.
The second part expands on the source in more evident and creative ways.  I did enjoy some of the chord resolutions which fell into more pleasant harmonies than the more somber tones expressed in the source, 1:32~ is a good example of this.  In my opinion this track is totally fine arrangement-wise.

Production-wise more could have been done in regards of humanization and the performances.  Some envelopes in the string seem identical to one another giving them quite the mechanical feel.  I hope @Gario takes a look at this one because he's much better than me at expressing how orchestral instruments could be humanized better.

Overall, even with the not-so convicing handling of the performances I think this is a few inches over the bar for me.

YES (borderline)

This is why Sir Nuts is one of my fave remixers--even though I have no familiarity with the source tune, I knew anything coming from the 'Nuts would be bangin'! XD

If you folks wouldn’t mind, let’s evaluate per normal, but don’t make it public, so we can at least provide our usual feedback. If it’s a pass, we can at least verify that and potentially work with the artist for a fast-tracked replacement.

First, really appreciate the source breakdown.  Analyzing a multi-source remix is very time consuming when we're not familiar with the source so this is a big help.  
The primary source here is pastoral excursion, with some bits and pieces from the other sources.  The arrangement starts straightforward but does evolve over time.  Introducing the other sources helps making this a unique interpretation.  I think this one stays pretty close to the original though, but enough is done with instrumentation/harmonies/variations to bring it over the bar arrangement-wise.
The production is great as usual, very clean and warm, with some real instrumentation woven in with the synths which makes for a very organic-sounding remix.  The percussion is not your traditional drums, as it incorporates many percussion elements other than just a drumkit, and it's all very detailed.  Distorted guitars are used to accentuate the climax and work surprisingly well in such a mellow remix.
High quality stuff here.
YES
 
 

Man those lyrics are pure cheddar.  I think the arrangement is groovy and the arrangements ideas keep the track fresh for the most part, the effects put on the vocals mid-way were pretty cool as well.  The whole thing doesn't overstay its welcome either.
Overall I think the lyrics could've been less simplistic, and the mix could've been a bit cleaner, as it does feel a bit muddy at some points, specially on the lows and mid-lows but overall I think this is just above the bar.
YES

Just for the record, this isn't my arrangement @Liontamer.  It would have way more 80s synth brasses if it was mine.

Yeah, the tail of the reverb cut out, so that's a mandatory fix.  And the ending in general was indeed disappointing.  Otherwise, this is pretty much exactly what one would expect from Andrew under a time constraint: nothing groundbreaking but fun and competent.  Not thrilled with the name--had to read it 3 times before I could tell it wasn't just the name of the source--but it'll do.
YES/CONDITIONAL (on letting the tail fully fade out)

I too sense a lack of realism on those instruments.  The parts sound too static, the limiter squashing dynamics down in the Dark World Dungeon section is unnatural, and a lot of your leads feel dry.  If you're going to be writing for a full orchestra, it's a good idea to:
Make it feel as if the performance is in a concert hall, with attention to the placement of parts in the stereo field and the amount of ambient space they have. Abandon the limiters and let your parts have room to breathe. And most importantly, go over each instrument and make them feel more humanized.  Loosen up the timings, vary the velocities and emphasize which ones you think are the most dynamic notes. You can even consider using the volume envelope to shape the dynamics for sustained notes. The arrangement has the source present, but there's a four-section medley going through straight interpretations of your source material.  I liked hearing Ganon's theme adapted near the end of the Dark World theme at 1:19, and similarly, Dark World reprised near the end and accommodated at Lorule Castle.  But I would've liked to have heard more of that kind of idea in other areas around the track.
That idea above is one of a few things that can be done to personalize the arrangement in a subtractive way.  Other possible suggestions include adding original parts in the background, or even some original writing to make the transitions between sources feel smoother.
It's not bad, but issues on both arrangement and production fronts have weighed this down too much.  It'll be a good idea to take it into the Workshop and experiment with new ideas, then try again.

NO (resubmit)

you took what is essentially a 30-second loop and made a 5:15 arrangement without changing tonality, tempo, style, or significantly changing your chosen instrumentation throughout, and it isn't terribly boring. bravo. this is a stellar attempt that only falls a little short.
from the arrangement side, as others have noted, there's just too many times that you say the same thing. your attempts to mix up the instruments carrying the melody are notable, but there's only so many instruments that can carry it, and you exhausted them by halfway through. so, my suggestion is to explore other historical forms of variations. your arrangement uses some standard theme and variation forms - it's not quite a passacaglia since the bassline never really changes, but you use some of the concepts. my suggestions here are to explore some of the other historical techniques - things like changing or modifying the tonality of a section (Ive's "Variations on America"), dynamic variation (Ron Nelson's "Passacaglia on B-A-C-H" is essentially a 9-minute crescendo), or significant and systemic rhythmic variation (Mozart's "Twelve Variations on 'Ah vous dirai-je, Maman'" - Twinkle Twinkle Little Star!) really can help with taking something that feels samey and turning it on its head. as an example only and not a suggestion, i guarantee that exploring some modal harmonies - even the relative minor! - would really quickly spice up and allow a return to major (and a recap of the initial theme) to hold more water without feeling repetitious.
from a mastering side, i echo nuts in that it's simply too quiet. now, yes, i did just say that significant dynamic contrast can be good - but, this track screams for compression. well-sampled instruments that are properly velocitized can be slammed with compression and still sound like they have dynamic contrast due to the natural changes to the instrument's timbre that occurs when it's played louder. i'm not asking for some huge punchy compressor to bang the crap out of your bassline, but proper compression can really breath some life into the opening and middle sections that are quieter without altering the delicate balance you're trying to create.
this is a real good effort, as i said before. it needs a mastering pass badly, and some more attention on the arrangement side to prevent feeling like it's two minutes of content scraped over five minutes of bread. another look will really help bring this up to your more recent standards.
 
NO

Yep.  This is very good.
YES

Listened to this several times before, it's a great track.  The Nightwish feel is very close, it would've been pitch-perfect with more heavy metal arrangement tropes, but it doesn't need to be a straight-up copy.  Production is clean and the vocal performance is great. It's a huge undertaking that turned out very well.
YES

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)

I'm going to lean the other way, I'm afraid.  I was listening to the source and the arrangement back and forth, and I frequently found myself not even noticing which one I was listening to.  To be sure, it's slower, but the ambience and textures are so very similar.  I also agree that it's underdeveloped; take out the slow-burn intro and the underwhelming ending and there's barely two minutes of fully fleshed-out content.
I waffled on this a lot, but I'm coming down on this mostly for not being interpretive enough.  Add in some exposition and/or change up the textures a bit and I think this is golden.
NO (borderline, resubmit)

The Workshop doesn't have a direct effect in the judging process in the sense that, we don't go look at the workshop thread and feedback for every single mix (I do it for some though).  But it does serve as an indirect help in the sense that every track that doesn't meet the bar and reaches the queue adds more time and work to the panel and thus slows the queue down.  When a track is approved by a workshop moderator, which again, go through the same interviews, tests etc. as judges, it has a very high chance of making it through the panel and makes evaluation quicker and easier.  It also saves time and headaches for the artists, as submitting a song, waiting X months only to get it rejected is not ideal, most artists would've moved on from that track already into new things, or even evolved beyond what they showed on that track and probably wouldn't be that keen on going back to it.  The workshop feedback is supposed to be more immediate to help you fix issues in a much shorter timeframe, but again, that's not always working as intended because the workshop staff can get burnout or life gets in the way and that queue gets clogged too.
Anyways, it doesn't hurt to show off your track in the workshop or even join the workshop discord channel and ask for a listen there, possibly get some feedback and have a better chance at making it past the bar, especially if you're new to creating music or don't have a posted remix yet.  Even though I should have a good idea of where the bar is, I always try to get a friend to listen to it and tell me if it's good enough or check for issues.

The Workshop doesn't have a direct effect in the judging process in the sense that, we don't go look at the workshop thread and feedback for every single mix (I do it for some though).  But it does serve as an indirect help in the sense that every track that doesn't meet the bar and reaches the queue adds more time and work to the panel and thus slows the queue down.  When a track is approved by a workshop moderator, which again, go through the same interviews, tests etc. as judges, it has a very high chance of making it through the panel and makes evaluation quicker and easier.  It also saves time and headaches for the artists, as submitting a song, waiting X months only to get it rejected is not ideal, most artists would've moved on from that track already into new things, or even evolved beyond what they showed on that track and probably wouldn't be that keen on going back to it.  The workshop feedback is supposed to be more immediate to help you fix issues in a much shorter timeframe, but again, that's not always working as intended because the workshop staff can get burnout or life gets in the way and that queue gets clogged too.
Anyways, it doesn't hurt to show off your track in the workshop or even join the workshop discord channel and ask for a listen there, possibly get some feedback and have a better chance at making it past the bar, especially if you're new to creating music or don't have a posted remix yet.  Even though I should have a good idea of where the bar is, I always try to get a friend to listen to it and tell me if it's good enough or check for issues.

Quick listen:  Arrangement is on the conservative side but it does have some extra layers and some structural changes as well as a few original sections.  I think it could've gone a just bit further on the interpretation side but this is a nitpick.  I did like that it changed things up substantially with the lo-fi break and the acoustic guitar section.  The production seems solid, though it sounds a bit too boomy and compressed to my ears.  I think it would've been better sounding with a more relaxed mix, some more headroom and space, and some air.  Overall, this sounds pretty good to me, good luck with your sub!

The Workshop doesn't have a direct effect in the judging process in the sense that, we don't go look at the workshop thread and feedback for every single mix (I do it for some though).  But it does serve as an indirect help in the sense that every track that doesn't meet the bar and reaches the queue adds more time and work to the panel and thus slows the queue down.  When a track is approved by a workshop moderator, which again, go through the same interviews, tests etc. as judges, it has a very high chance of making it through the panel and makes evaluation quicker and easier.  It also saves time and headaches for the artists, as submitting a song, waiting X months only to get it rejected is not ideal, most artists would've moved on from that track already into new things, or even evolved beyond what they showed on that track and probably wouldn't be that keen on going back to it.  The workshop feedback is supposed to be more immediate to help you fix issues in a much shorter timeframe, but again, that's not always working as intended because the workshop staff can get burnout or life gets in the way and that queue gets clogged too.
Anyways, it doesn't hurt to show off your track in the workshop or even join the workshop discord channel and ask for a listen there, possibly get some feedback and have a better chance at making it past the bar, especially if you're new to creating music or don't have a posted remix yet.  Even though I should have a good idea of where the bar is, I always try to get a friend to listen to it and tell me if it's good enough or check for issues.

Yeah the workshop is supposed to fill that role.  The recruiting process for workshop mods is even the same as those for judges so they are effectively another layer. Not every artist knows or uses the workshop though, so a lot of subs don't go through that.  One thing to consider is, burnout/real life happens to the guys in charge of that too so it can get clogged as well.  It all boils down to: it's a hard, volunteer, pay-less and sometimes thankless job, and having a large judge panel doesn't exactly help either, only having motivated people does, but motivation is hard to mantain for years and years (I have so much respect for Larry for that).
Not an easy problem to solve, if we want to mantain quality.
 

Well to get started, you may look into the US legal system's definitions of "Fair Use", which allows for the use of material if it's used for educational purposes, parody, or sufficiently transformative, AND if there is no profit involved in redistributing the material. It's not a bulletproof, anything-goes silver bullet for all things remixing, but it is often the justification used for the distribution of rearranged music on OCR.
If you have questions about the whole process, the basic wiki for fair use (and it's links) are a fair place to start, as well as looking at OCR's FAQ section and our content policy section (OCR has a lot of experience dealing with this very issue!).
Again, there is no silver bullet, and honestly things are resolved on a case-by-case basis, but in general that's the blanket justification for arranging VG music, which most companies understand and silently comply with.
As far as the asshat who is stealing YOUR music, there is no fair use justification for stealing your material and claiming it as their own. You made it, you have a defacto copyright on the material, so if you want to go through the effort you could get Soundcloud to remove it. Up to you, but yeah, that guy has no right to take your music as-is and simply claim it's his.

It's with profound sadness that I announce the passing of DJ Redlight (Ashley Carr) on October 26th of 2016. He was from Australia and only 30 at the time. I was recently informed of this news after stumbling across his Facebook Artist Page. Here's an excerpt written by a personal friend:
Although I never spoke to him, I do have warm memories of burning CDs with a couple of his remixes in.
.
Both were also used in Extra Credits episodes here and there.
His existing work is already formidable enough to make him a relevant name in the world of fan game music communities. Thank you for being a part of my early years at OCR, Ash.

As always, Jorito delivers a great, detailed arrangement that also sounds pretty clean.  I love that this retains that classic Konami feel to the music, almost as if this was the version of this track for a modern remake.  The addition of the real instruments just help lift this track even higher, as the lines are perfectly delivered.  They do seem to create a contrast between them and the sequenced elements that exposes the artificial orchestral elements a bit, but nothing to detract from the track as a whole, IMO.
YES

I agree with Sir_NutS and I will add a couple of things.  The kick being used is a tuned kick which isn't really appropriate in this type of song, and it is not in tune with the song anyway.  A plain punchy kick with a minimal tail would work better here.  During the heavy parts of the song there are too many elements competing for space both in frequency and soundscape placement.  The different parts also conflict sometimes in writing, which happens when there are too many complex parts playing at once.  Interesting ideas but definitely needs some arrangement and production work.
NO

Get the hell out of my thread.
I have no idea what your problem is or what the hell is wrong with you but I was actually seriously pursuing this idea. If you read my first post, and the discussion that followed, you could see that we were actually seriously discussing this concept, which was much different from the other thread, the point of which you also missed. If somebody is asking a question on a forum, saying "hurr durr just google it noob" doesn't actually do anything. It's 2019. No shit people can google things. I can google "daw based on sheet music" to see if there's anything out there. Do you know what comes up? Not much. Stuff on Reaper's notation feature (which is not a DAW based on sheet music), and other similarly related things that aren't actually helpful to what I am looking for. I'm a professional musician (studio musician) with a degree in music composition. I am most comfortable working with music notation. A DAW based on notation would save me a lot of time by cutting out the middleman of having to use a notation software and a DAW. Somebody asking for a DAW based on notation probably knows how to read sheet music.
Do you know what is helpful? @Dextastic mentioning Overture 5, which most of us had never heard of, and which seems to fit the bill closer than anything else. Asking a question on a forum brings a human element that interprets the question and answers in ways that google just simply doesn't. Do you know what wasn't helpful? You, at all.

"Please use google if you want to use a DAW based on sheet music instead of a piano roll. It is too complicated to explain here, of all places. "

I fail to see the relevance of this to the original thread. Nowhere ANYWHERE did the OP ask about a daw based around sheet music. I saw this comment and was curious if it existed so I started a new thread (see how the topic was different so I started a new thread?).
Keep your bulllshit away from these discussions.

Yeah I've been using Bitwig since release and I don't think I will need to switch anytime soon.  The strong points of bitwig are the modular possibilities, the sandboxing of VSTs which is the absolute best of all the DAWs I've tried (and I've tried almost all of them except Logic) and the quick workflow it offers.  Also, I'm not sure if this is a thing nowadays but you can use 32 and 64 bit VST2 and VST3 devices on the same project without any issue.  I know I had issues with this in a couple of DAWs a few years ago (Sonar comes to mind).
However, it's also a relatively young DAW, compared to the mainstream ones that have been around for more than a decade, so you might find here and there some stuff that's considered "basic" in other DAWs is not yet available in BW.  So if you want to switch I recommend trying to at least make a couple songs on it to see if you're going to miss anything pivotal from your previous DAW.
Overall, I've always said the best DAW is the one you know.  Don't switch for the sake of switching.  But if you're curious about having a modular DAW with the best VST support then check BW out. 

A note on Reaper: it's cheap, and also has a vast feature list.  However in my experience it was very clunky and the workflow never quite clicked for me.  Even after doing some deep customization on it (which is one of its strong points, as it's highly customizable) I just couldn't feel at home.  I did produce a few songs on it but left it after BW came out, whose workflow clicked for me quicker than any other DAW before it.  So be warned that Reaper is famous for having a steep learning curve, but also packing tons of features.
edit:  Also, I have a Nektar LX48.  The nektar controllers are basically made for BW's workflow, specially if you're into live performances.