prophetik music

i enjoyed this on Pure Land and i'm enjoying it here. there's some real fun drum work (notably at 1:35) and i really appreciated the exploratory aspects of the arrangement - notably in the instrumentation. i found the live elements to be well-handled and of solidly recorded, and as a whole the production was sufficient so as to not really draw me out of the vibe that was being created. this doesn't need much commentary from me, really. it's an excellent track. YES

this is a really spare arrangement, and i appreciate the care that was taken to allow it to be just that and nothing more. the orchestral parts as a whole feel like more than just stamping the chords from the original into a preset of instrument parts, and i like the gravity they give the melodic voices. additionally, the flute's performance as a whole is really well done, and the recording and mastering of the live instruments is excellent. i feel like i'm right in a concert hall... ...listening to flutes in the stage right wings. the panning of the melody is so significant so as to be distracting - it's over 4db difference on multiple occasions. additionally, when your other (well-written and well-realized) flute parts come in at 1:36, they're often overlapping, and it's hard to track the melody. turning those parts down a few dB each will really help the melody sound without actually losing the harmonic support. lastly, you get to this great finishing section and play the last note...and your beautiful, singing vibrato is gone, and as a result it's got some weird blending with the background parts that cause a stereo effect. was there pitch adjustment done there after the fact? either way, it's the last note of a work specifically for you as the solo flautist - own it, and sing it out! if you hung over the orchestral cutoff broadway-style i'd like it even more. the things that are problems with this track - the balance between the ears, some of the volumization of the lead parts, and that ending note - are very simple, and it'd be easy to say that the track is good enough and pass it. i think that'd be a mistake. the arrangement is so sparse, and the performance is so solid throughout, that these few issues really stick out significantly to me. it's obvious that they did to the other judges who've voted so far since both mentioned the panning of the melody as a significant issue. this is a clear candidate for a resub after some minimal changes to the mastering and a quick punch-in and re-record on that last note. NO (resub!)

this was mastered surprisingly quiet (more than 3db below 0). this is a very safe arrangement through 1:13. personally i'd say that this is essentially the same as the original, just scored for an orchestra, and i don't consider that to be enough arrangement to satisfy our guidelines. however, it's superbly realized, and there's a lot more body to the rest of the arrangement to justify such a close reorchestration of the original early on. for example, the section at 1:27 through 1:59 does a great job passing the melody around and through some additional harmonies, and represents exactly what rebecca's capable of. 1:16's violin has some pretty bad attacks on the synth there - it's clearly not real and dragged me out of the great soundscape. the section at 2:15 is clearly hearkening to...well, the entire CC soundtrack's recurring guitar part, but it shows up in Radical Dreamers the most. the voices also are a great callback to that track. i also applaud your willingness to get outside the box and really throw a wrench in at 3:10. it was awkwardly done (a I chord sustained next to a V7/vi is always going to sound funky!) but well-intentioned, and it does a nice job adding a hook to a pretty and calm (albeit drawn-out) ending section. to mindwanderer's point - while i realize i'm someone who's pretty familiar with this soundtrack, i instantly recognized elements from other songs on the OST in the second half, including the harp's (it sounds more like a lautenwerk to me, actually?) signature strum at the last chord, and the recurring guitar part i mentioned. i do feel that the track's last minute, from 3:16 to the second-to-last chord, is completely unrecognizable as CC material. that doesn't bother me though as the rest was fine from a source recognition standpoint. the arrangement is solid, the production is quiet but well-done, and the orchestration is at your usual par. nice work. YES

what a delightful transcription! you've done a really beautiful job of pulling together a stylistically-consistent reorchestration of the tune. i really appreciate the attention paid to the soundscape's panning and aural layout. i do feel that the lead part of the banjo is too loud from :57 onward, and that's a big surprise because the rest is so balanced. i realize the banjo doesn't sustain nearly as consistently as other plectral instruments, but it's still far too loud for the setting there, especially when doubled by those great mando/uke tremolos. ultimately, though, this is not an arrangement per se, but a transcription. you've taken another work and adapted it wholesale to a new group of instruments without changing any of the original, outside of what was needed for the chosen group of instruments to play it in a stylistically correct manner. per the standards (emphasis mine): this does not have enough of any "contributions, modifications, and enhancements". adapting the bass parts to I-V-I-V and arpeggiating the guitar in the background is fitting for the style, and honestly sounds pretty great, but it simply doesn't have enough content that's new for me to pass it on that ground. i don't feel it's close either. the work is quite short as it is. if you're willing, adding additional content that features some of the techniques mentioned above or others would make this an easy yes vote from me. until then, it's not up to standards, sadly. NO (resub!)

well, this one's a rubber stamp. the artist does such a great job of mirroring the original's constantly shifting textures and styles while making it their own. when the melody really fills in at 1:09, he really combines a bunch of disparate instruments to make something really unique. i also really appreciated the feel of the extended piano solo section - combining those great synth barks and glitchy sounds with more urbane sounds like the bass and keys. tying it all together with solid production values that allow the important parts to speak out while letting the unique flavor of the work sing through is the cherry on top. this is an easy vote for me. YES

this track is a superlative example of taking significant restrictions on style, tempo, and instrumentation in stride to make something really special because of those restrictions. there's so many little nuances that make this track clearly different from the original despite sharing so much with it. for an example, 1:20 is so good. what a great reinterpretation of the original's melody without sounding out of place or trying too hard. and the half-time section that followed it was so fitting and well-timed without feeling like it dragged or lost energy. this is the easiest vote i'll have all year. YES

hey, there's some really fun elements to this that were really outside the box. i liked the opening organ and choir sound (reminded me of hellfire off of the soul calibur 2 soundtrack), but agree with MW that it goes for at least twice as long as it probably should. the percussion maintained that lo-fi vibe initially and was fun, but i kept expecting 'the real song' to hit and remove that lo-fi feel, and it never did. none of the synths or percussive elements felt like were full enough or real enough. beyond that, from a technical perspective, the mix on the left was consistently about 4.5db quieter than the right, which is pretty egregious, and there's some pumping going on around 1:45. lastly, there's essentially nothing on the high end, and the bass is inconsistent in terms of presence in the mix. i thought the arrangement was pretty solid outside of the intro. i really appreciated the use of chromatic passing tones in the second half - that's absolutely not something that is very common at all, and it was really fun to hear. the ending was very sudden and not set up very cleanly, which is unfortunate because the last third of the song is definitely the most interesting part. as a whole, the arrangement was fine outside of the beginning and very end, but i felt that the sound quality really hurt the package overall. having some better lead and pad synths will really fill out the mix quite a bit and allow the fun arrangement underneath to speak through much clearer. NO

this is a very ethereal original, and the approach with light winds and harp is a good way to represent it. i found the flute's slow vibrato to be notable but acceptable with the style, but the (truthfully far too) low scoring of the piccolo combined with that slow vibrato to be uncomfortably approaching tuning problems. it doesn't help that the picc's pretty loud - nothing can cover a piccolo to begin with, so having it so far in the front with little room verb is tough to hear. when the flute and picc play together the slow vibrato issue is exacerbated due to the performer not varying their vibrato depth or speed between instruments as expected, and then at :53 the intonation is real notable. further intonation issues exist in the clarinet at 1:03. these are, to be honest, all nitpicks and not enough on their own to really sway my vote. all of these issues described are scoring-related for real-world instruments - for example, at 1:03, you've got an exposed clarinet playing a concert G (A is fully open with the flutter key open, and is moderately sharp). meanwhile, the bassoon's B is naturally flat there. this is intended mainly as an example - while live instruments certainly add a beautiful spark to open soundscapes like this, you have to take extra time to focus on the real-world tonalities of the instrument, vs. what you'd hear in a perfectly-recorded sample pack, and score around those natural tendencies (or ensure that your performers are adjusting for them). all that said, the performances together as a whole are good enough. it's important that i don't take away from the overall great job transforming the source here. you stayed safe but did a nice job translating the melodic portions to different voices without making it sound like a summer band pop song. the harpsichord parts are really touching, and they're well balanced in the mix - it would have been so easy to let something without dynamics like a harpsichord stick way out and you didn't let it. what's more, the overall mastering of the work is clean and clear, if a bit heavy on the picc as noted above. as a whole, this is a beautiful arrangement that suffers a bit from some of the natural implications of working with live performers. despite how i may have sounded above, i do believe that the quality of arrangement and careful attention to keeping the melody moving through the instruments more than balances out the few missteps by your performers. YES

i listened to so much bigbeat back in middle and high school. :49 put me right back in '02. 2:43 was also a great breakdown that really reminded me of the style a lot. the concept of additive/subtractive arrangement is really well represented in this track. synesthetics does a great job of keeping the track feeling like the original (which really is a pretty minimal source) while continuing to explore new rhythmic synths. the production is pretty tight, and i never got the sense that the track was too long despite its length. this track feels like it's straight from a sequel of the original. the varied synth work and exploration of a minimal source combine to make this vote easy. YES

what an interesting style for this arrangement. i admit i didn't see :52 coming, and i really like the vibe it settled into. i agree with mindwanderer that the arrangement is conservative. unlike him, though, i enjoyed the ending. i like the concept of repeating something and then moving to the IV while continuing to repeat it. it allows the listener to really explore what's going on around that part, and i think it functions as an effective ending here, dropout included. the bass is pretty heavy. it feels like it's taking up a lot of the soundscape, which considering it doesn't really do anything is a shame. there's also clipping occurring around 1:38 and onward several times, usually where the snare's used during transitions. overall i found that the original flows between sections in a more smooth and purposeful fashion than this track does. however, it's a nice take in a downtempo style on the original that features a relaxing vibe and a fun perspective. YES (conditional on fixing clipping)

this is a fun, folksy arrangement that does a nice job calling out the different sources. i don't have a problem with the transitions based on the limited instrumentation. i like the organic, earthy feel, and don't think the timing issues were prevalent enough to be a problem. i think the performances were enjoyable. i do have a problem with the mix as a whole - the opening guitar sounds really compressed and noisy, and the accordion is so dominant overall that it totally crushes the soundscape once it comes in, and it dominates the guitar once the guitar moves to a rhythm part. the tambourine is also really painfully loud (and fake), and stands out as a result. i like what it's saying, it's just not anywhere near as important as the location it's occupying in the mix. these are mostly easy fixes, i think. spending some time doing a pass on levels for the guitar and accordion, balancing them for each section based on whether they're the lead or background, would do wonders here. so would cutting the tambourine's volume significantly. a less noisy guitar recording would be the cherry on top of a revitalized track NO (resub!)

what a delightful opening. shades of Music for Prague 1968's first movement in the solo flute amidst a sea of percussion. i also really appreciated the zither's false-clumsy atonality going on - i would love to see you explore that kind of really weird stuff more. the arrangement outside this opening section felt really 'safe' for me - you do a great job of passing the melody around and maintaining a clever balance of spacing and ensemble scoring, but there's definitely not much here that wasn't already said in the original. the brass at :22 are pretty bad. but you make up for it almost immediately with a lot of attention to the continued ostinado in the low strings and reeds. there's a bit of uncanny valley at :56 with the clarinets, but again, you clear that up quick with that great winds section right after at 1:01, and nice transition into the flute melody with tambourine and percussion. i absolutely love 1:29's three-against-two section. playing with time in a chrono cross remix is such a great example of using the source context to inform the remix, and to be honest listening to this part is what made me know that this was gonna be an OCR. it is instrumented perfectly, combining plectral and winds in such an expressive way. 1:47 brings us back to earth a bit - the trombones and bassoons both are a bit clumsy and remind us that they're not real. the use of (what i think are) concert toms or rototoms at 2:10 to atonally mirror the melody is a nice transition, though, and the higher bassoon solo section really speaks well. 2:22's hearkening to the famous extended arpeggio in the harp is a nice touch to ground that section into the rest of the work despite the significant tone shift. the subsequent ritardando and ending are also well-executed and show subtlety. if i had to really complain about anything, it's that the arrangement, which does a good job of exploring a strongly melodic source in a variety of timbres with good scoring elements, is too safe. the remix is skillfully done from a production standpoint (albeit quiet), and it's demonstrating a firm grasp of how to use the standard orchestral suite. i would encourage you to continue to always think outside the box on your remixes to ensure that you're not settling into a groove. this track is a great step - it's significantly different from your usual style, and it explores some fun new instrumentation. continuing down that pathway of aural exploration can only be a positive for your future work. YES

what a hard-driving, exciting mix this is! you continually focus on bringing the original into every part of the mix, and i love the ways you play with a really well-remixed source in new ways. the section from about 1:38 through the solo is such a great feel - really hard-hitting and meaty. i definitely was bobbing my head along with the guitar hits from 2:08 onward. the arrangement is spangling, nothing's needed there. i really appreciate the solos, too - there's a lot of nuance going on in there and it's not just melody plus embellishment. great work. the mix, overall, is so subpar as to really hold it back. there's just no high end whatsoever, and as a result, my ears get really tired by the end of the song. the constant sustained string pads speak much louder than the guitar backing rather than filling in the soundscape. the range of the pads hurts it too - you've got them ranging several octaves on a keyboard most of the song, and as a result there's little to differentiate the beginning with the end of the track. no sonic direction outside of the (really great) exploration of the melody. i believe at this time that the mixing isn't up to OCR standards, despite the arrangement being excellent in style and substance. i know i've had people help out with complex mixes before to assist with setting the soundscape and fixing mastering - i think if you utilize some help to get more highs in the mix, better balance your background and foreground focus, and scale back some of those pads to allow for dynamic progression, you'll end up with a far superior track overall. NO (resub!)

i love this style, and i love your singer's voice. i appreciate the nuance on the guitar tone with the layered pads around it - it's got a jason truby solo album feel, and i love that. i like when you are going full bore, as well - the overall package is very emotionally moving and i feel like that's a big part of what you're going for. the writeup on the lyrics i found on your band's webpage is great for someone like me who couldn't get past the first set of skeletons in the original game. the overall mastering on the track sounds great, and as a whole i am gonna listen to this track a lot more. i'm also glad i've been exposed to your music because now i'm gonna go grab a bunch of it =) if i'm going to complain about anything at all from a technical perspective, it's the ending. i don't mind a dropout, but i do mind hearing fret noise in it. if you're going to do a dramatic ending like that, commit to it. fret noise doesn't work when you've shown how technically proficient you are during the piece. all that said, this is a problematic track for the OCR community specifically. the original track never goes to any melody at all - it's just arpeggiated chords realized on a harp. in past remixes that i've found that featured similar OSTs without melodies, they all created unique melodies like you did - but they also featured the original arpeggiated chord structure clearly throughout the entire work, not just in isolated parts. larry already stopwatched it above so i'm not going to dig into it, but there's just not enough of the original for me to say it fits OCR standards. there's not enough of a tie to the original here to make it fit in the OCR community. that doesn't take anything away from the track, which is freaking awesome! based on the rules here at OCR, however, we can't accept it. NO =(

first off - how have i never heard this ost song? this is beautiful. what a poignant choice for a remix. up front, i really enjoy the vocal performance. this is a much more difficult vocal part than it may seem initially listening - the range is significant, there's some real uncommon leaps in the melody part, and the performance is pretty good considering that there doesn't sound like there's any post-processing on it. the clarity of tone at 3:10ish shows that you've clearly got the pipes. i also appreciate your care with the vocals - for the most part, you've put higher or sustained notes on open vowels, and it makes for a very listenable performance. there's a few times you let your speaking style get into your singing (2:10 to 2:14 stands out - use less glottal tone and more singing voice!), and that's something that can be easily corrected with extra attention. same with a few of the lower notes that don't quite speak (2:50). lastly, there's some pitch issues essentially every time you jump up, and while i didn't mind that from a stylistic perspective, i know that it won't sit with everyone. another few passes on the vocals would really help bring it in line. the inclusion of accordion is also a really fun and unique touch! i've always found accordion to be a very relaxing instrument to listen to. i'll sound like a broken record here, but more attention to the recording would have helped all of the instruments on this piece. there's some bangs in the bass at 1:38 and 1:54, your accordion overlaps on a punch-in at 1:36, and several times instruments either don't sustain long enough or come in slightly out of time. i'm assuming this is all you - so you've got the tools to make the recordings just what you want. so do that! it makes for such a better final product. from an arrangement perspective, the guitar and drums really hurt the mix. both are essentially playing the same thing for three and a half minutes. the fingerstyle was nice for the beginning but doesn't go anywhere, and the drums were particularly simplistic, notably the fills. i understand that the background isn't the melody, but a solid and creative backing track is what supports the vocals, not the other way around. lastly, the entire track had some mastering issues. while the vocals were clear and in the front, and the accordion was clear, everything needed some room verb to give it body, and the guitar, bass, and drums were so quiet to almost not be a part of the mix. this really stood out on the drum fills - the cymbals were so overly quiet it sounded like it was something going on in the room while you recorded another part. i'd suggest taking another pass on this and cranking the vocals and accordion down significantly, applying some verb on a per-channel basis, and then slowly rebalancing. once that's done, get some compression on here (i think the loudest this got was -3 on one of those bass bangs?) and then a limiter. lastly, from a cleanup standpoint, remove the initial silence and the long tail (and clip!). those are little things that will dramatically improve the overall product. this is an interesting take that definitely fills a niche. however, the inattention to detail in recording and the overly simple backing track pull it down from being where it needs to be. please take another look and work on it more! i really enjoyed it, it's just not there yet. NO (resub!)

i'll be up front about this one - i love the style and varying synth choices this remix has! i also don't think that it's at the level of an OCR track. i really appreciate the initial build into the initial presentation of the melody. i also appreciate how aggressive a lot of the synth choices you made are (especially at :45 and the bass at 1:06, among others). there's some fun interplay with new ideas made as the track goes along. i really appreciate the idea of laying some sustained tones on top of the more active melody and bass lines presented at 2:32, even though it's a common technique to generate interest on a repeated section. that said, there is a lot of issues here. from a mastering standpoint - there's not a lot of nuance in the balance between individual voices, the entire track is turbo-compressed to the ultramax, and there's several times that new parts get just slathered on top of already over-loud sections (notably at 2:32) instead of fitting them into the pre-existing soundscape. my ear consistently felt tired listening to this. there's no nuance to the soundscape of the mix - everything is simply too loud and unbalanced. from an arrangement standpoint, i'd love to hear more creativity as well. i recognize that this style doesn't lend itself to a lot of harmonic subtlety, but there's a lot of opportunities here! A good example is the more open soundscape used around 1:27 - that was a nice break for my ears there. so go farther! play with new chording throughout that section. experiment with even more interesting synths for the lead. play with some arpeggiated backgrounds to further change the soundscape. these are all suggestions only, but experimentation and exploration will absolutely take this track farther than a recap of the melody would do. overall, i felt the mastering and volumization of the instruments was too loud, and the arrangement is a cool idea but needs more love. i know this has gone through the grinder twice now - keep at it! there's something fun here =) NO

this is a really weird track to remix! there's a lot of great atonal doodling in here that really fits the style you've chosen for the track. you also did a nice job with the performance, especially of the lead. there's some very uncommon patterns in there that you nailed with what sounded like ease - that has to represent some serious practice time. kudos on that. ultimately i think this track lacks too much in terms of arrangement. it's essentially the source straight through three times, with some noodling at the end of each instance. there's some background changes each time - i liked the octaves panned right around 2:07, for instance! - but you're getting essentially the same source tune played the same each time. beyond that, since the focus is on the lead, there's little to recommend themselves in the bass and drums (really would have helped combat the sameness that was going on). this song needs much more love on the arrangement side. from a mastering perspective, it overall felt really flat. there's just not a lot on the high end that i could hear to recommend itself, and that didn't help. the rhythm's tone felt mushed in with the lead, which can be combated with some adjustments to tone and to mastering with how you slot the two parts together. overall, i'd say that this is a fun listen, but doesn't meet OCR's arrangement standards. i'd love to hear another take of this with some more creativity in the background parts and some more exploration in the melody line. NO

oh man, what nuance is shown here in the realization at the beginning. the opening section is beautiful. the way the strings swell in slightly around :20 is fantastic. :35 is straight magical (i'm a sucker for wind chimes). and the cymbal crash combined with that dissonance at :50 is perfect. i did find some of the scoring choices to be a bit confusing, notably at 1:26 - the low harp being so strong over the string pizz and the bassoon/bass clar being exposed as much as it was stuck out to me. the oboist's delay before applying vibrato was a personal choice that i don't agree as much with, but i understand the application. i think it would have helped if the oboe had been pulled back overall, as the exposed nature of that section's scoring really causes it to feel pretty loud compared to the rest of the ensemble. the addition of the studio toms at 2:07 was a nice touch to add some immediate urgency to the tone, and was well supported by the double-stops in the strings. i found your puccini-esque tutti to be an effective technique to emphasize the melody...if it had been used for a few seconds at most. there are so few examples of full-orchestra tutti in classical literature, and that's for a reason - the lack of harmonic momentum kills any energy you generate by doubling. if you were using it to call out the melody amidst a sea of counterpoint, i'd have lauded it. in this case, it serves to drag down the energy you just generated, and it feels so spare despite so many instruments playing. at 2:31 when everything comes in, and there's supporting harmonies, it's striking in that you realize what you've been missing. i enjoyed this section and felt that it captured the 'wolf' feel i believe you were going for. i appreciated the ending as well, and while i'd have preferred it to take a touch longer to get there, landing on a minor ii was a clever way to end it without it feeling trite or gauche. i sat on the brink on this one for a long time. ultimately i decided that the scoring and spacing in the opening section outweighed the missteps in arrangement in the second half. i felt you handled your source and subsequent instrumentation well overall, and we need moments like :35 and :50 in the community. YES

this track feels like something i'd have heard here on ocr back in the early 1k range - and i mean that in a good way. it's got a fun mix of classic OST track, buzzy chilled lead, simple background, and old-school percussion. i appreciate the really relaxed vibe that this track takes. i've always thought of dr. cossack's theme as one of the most hectic-sounding themes, and the combination of tempo, evocative track name, and focus on the soaring B section of the OST is really enjoyable, simulating a cruise through the upper atmosphere. the harmonies on the fifth also add to that open feeling. the spacing in the percussion was also a nice touch - a tight sound, (probably too) simple, and carries the track's rhythm without taking over. there's some obvious execution stuff that could be corrected here. the track is too long by maybe half. essentially every major section can be cut significantly without losing nuance or pacing. the section from 3:40ish was a nice change of pace, but i'd expect that to be the outro at that point, not leading into another two minutes of music. if you keep saying the same thing, no one's going to want to listen to it again - they'll have already heard their fill the first time through. it's best to err on the side of saying not quite enough vs. too much - that'll bring listeners back time and time again to hear that one part they love. beyond that, the track needs variety in terms of both background arrangement and instrument choices. i enjoyed the percussion initially, however it becomes real apparent real quick that there's little to no variance there. a few fills between sections, dropping the percussion occasionally, and allowing it to speak for itself will do a ton for the overall package. in the same fashion, mixing up the timbres you're using will also really flesh out the sound. the arp especially has several places it naturally could change to being another instrument, and that'd add some aural interest. i really enjoy the vibe you've created. this one is way closer than i may have made it seem! i definitely think this is a song that people will want to hear if you're willing to take the time to expand on some of these points further. right now, though, the combination of uninteresting percussion and significant repetition throughout pull this bird out of the air. NO (resub!)

what an enjoyable tune. i thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish! first of all, what a great flute tone Bowlerhat's got! full-bodied and consistently recorded (which is so hard when the instrument's as mobile as it is!). it made the few times that they either wasn't fully confident or just right on the mic very noticeable. the section at 0:40, for example, really stands out as the performer not being as confident there as you were the rest of the track. they did some very creative soloing later, so i'm guessing this was either an attempt at dynamic contrast that wasn't mirrored by the group or something they weren't sure about. either way, a second take on the whole first part would have been worth it. beyond that, the flute solo from 2:16 to 2:25 consistently felt out of time. there's a great history of complex polyrhythms in this kind of solo - especially in repeated rising patterns like they're using. they have to be intentional, though, and that didn't sound like it was. what's more, it made the (absolutely great!) exploration of the flat 9 done immediately after sound incorrect, even though it was on point. lastly - and this is the most critical part, as it's the reason that ultimately i can't pass this - there's just not quite enough source. if this was just a track in a live concert, i'd love it and it'd be a great selection. however, since multiple soloists go by without referencing even the melody of the original for more than a passing phrase, this doesn't reach the 50% mark, even if you stretch it due to the genre. rexy does a great job breaking it down in her vote, so i won't repost the same numbers. when soloing in a famous track like this, sing that melody out! by the time they get to the middle of this piece, people have heard several polyphonic instruments playing their noodles. so shout out the melody to ground the track, and play with your chord extensions from within that, rather than just doing lick z from solo x on track y. make it really an intrinsic part of the arrangement that people think of when they think kokiri. i love the feel, the performance, the recording job, and there's a lot of skill represented here. however, it just doesn't fulfill the criteria for a remix on this site due to a lack of source usage. NO

there is a ton going on here! overall, i love the energy and how sold-out you are on the style. i love the commitment to island-y sounds. the flutes, the steel drums, hand percussion...it's a great overall vibe. i also like how you're sticking with the crisp articulation and tight performance of the original...until you don't, and it's a full-scale commit to the new style, using instruments we've heard specifically in one style being applied wholesale to a completely different feel. that's great! it creates cohesion between two sections that otherwise have little in common outside the melody. from an arrangement perspective, this one's trickier. it's clearly nearly the exact same as the original from 0:05 to 1:27, shifts dramatically, and then goes right back at 2:27 to the opening style, and continues to stay there until it goes back to the B section to close at 3:32. beyond that, some of the aural experimentation goes a little too weird - the stereo claps at 3:12ish are a hard pass by me, same with the strings in the background of 0:20. i think the toughest part for me is that it feels like many of the instruments are playing exactly what's in the original - right down to the velocity! - with some minimal ornamentation layered on top for more than half of the track. this is a big deal for me because the parts where it isn't that are so good! the vibe at 1:27 is so strong - i want to hear more of that! i want to hear a whole track of that kind of energy. since it feels like more than half the track is straight cover, i'd have to say no. but it's a sad no, because there's so much promise here. ultimately, the lack of arrangement on more than half the track sinks it. if you add some humanization and make the A section (which is a cover right now) more Rapture and less Seiichi Hamada, i think you'll have a much better track, and a yes vote from me. NO (resub!)

album get! congrats to everyone who contributed to make this such a special project. nice work everyone!

WE HAVE A RELEASE DATE! 3/18 =D just a few more days until we're releasing! thanks again for everyone's patience.

as someone who's done several album projects, here's what you need: time patience desire that's it. so little of running a project is technical know-how. you need to have a vision, which is what people sign up to participate in. you need organization, to keep track of who's where and what they're doing. you need to be willing to listen - both to a ton of trash tracks that might turn out good once they're worked, and also to people telling you suggestions and when things aren't good enough yet. and you need unflagging enthusiasm and drive, because without that your project will turn into every other project out there that's sputtered. the onus is on you to recruit, to inspire, and to follow through 100% of the time. if you like a soundtrack or concept that much, then do it. it's not just a matter of updating a doc. for chrono cross, i sent over 600 total PMs in ~85 conversations, sent 200 emails, and heard fourteen tracks that didn't make the eventual cut or weren't finished. i'd say a third of those had nothing to do with music and were follow-ups to get comments or to get stuff for the website or verification. it's a lot of content that you need to regularly manage. it's not a stretch to assume that i've put several hundred hours into it over the last two years, more if you include the extra phone conversations and text conversations i've had with collaborators.

i've been in continued communication with the OCR crew over the last several months. we're very close! i know i keep saying that but we're really down to the last few things we need to iron out. as soon as i have a date i'll post it =)