CHz

Okay, so I've only heard your orchestral stuff until now, and boy am I impressed. Loving the intro to open into the guitar main melody. Really nice arrangement all around, actually. High energy, good break, just overall nice work. Ending's kind of abrupt, but not terribly so. Some weak spots in the production, but nothing bad enough to get a NO. The guitar synth is obviously nowhere close to a real guitar, but it's treated more like a synth instead of trying to be a real guitar, so I don't have a problem with it. Thought the sax was kind of piercing, but that might just be personal because it doesn't look like anyone else minded it. Just a solid work, nothing more to say. YES

Arrangement's fairly decent. There isn't really 6:29 of material in the mix, so by about four minutes in or so I'm waiting for something really new and exciting or the big finish, but it keeps going on for a while longer, hitting some rehash at 4:44. I've got more of a problem with the production, which pretty much everyone has already nailed. The whole thing kind of sounds like it's in a fog because nothing is really crisp or clear. The compression is also fairly problematic. I think with the production and slight drag to the arrangement at the end, there's too much holding this back to pass it. Also, this doesn't really fit in anywhere else but I really love the section from 2:42 to 3:08. NO (resubmit)

To me, this piece didn't convey a sense of evil as much as a depiction of the hypocrisy of human nature. The chanting is the projected piety of all people, the facade we present to the world of normalcy, chastity, restraint. However, from the very beginning, there are cracks, the ever-present drone giving a feeling of uncertainty while the percussion hits to something tapping under the surface, trying to be let out. The moaning begins softly at first at 0:39, but is quickly drowned out by a burst of chanting at 0:49. However, it can't be contained, growing louder until it manages to come to the forefront with its invitation: "turn off the lights, take a deep breath, relax." For it is the inner voice of our soul, the wild side, our innate corruption trying to breach the surface. Finally, the conflict comes to a head at 2:41 with a steady pulse in the percussion and the ego voices becoming excited and violent, yearning to be free. And who is the winner of this inner turmoil? The chanting has mostly been relegated to the background by 3:30, leaving the triumphant cries of "FUCK" to resonate with the drone and primitive beat. We cannot lie forever; some day, our true nature will emerge from the constructs we present to the world, and the result will be a complete ruination of society, for all that is left at the end is a toneless roar with no order: the natural state is anarchy. If this wasn't a message enough in itself, there is a further, wonderful meaning in the fact that the chanting is itself religious in nature. Thus, the juxtaposition of the chorals with the sexual moaning seems paradoxical; how are we to reconcile the joining of such polar opposites? But the trick is not to view them merely as discrete elements, but as parts of a greater whole. The universe itself is comprised of many opposites: fire and water, light and dark. The combination of religion and sex in the piece is merely a link in the chain of the Taoistic view of reality, where the ten thousand things are all ultimately just manifestations of Tao itself. For the production of the piece, what more can I say other than "flawless"? The recordings of both sets of vocals is perfect in quality and performance. The rich chanting is set in a deep counterpoint with the sexual cries of ecstasy, eminently believable in their performance. Of course, the parts are not completely distinct, but instead bleed just slightly into each other, emphasizing again their transcendental sameness while still being clear enough that both can be enjoyed for what they are. It would be a privilege and an honor to house such a profound piece of artwork on this site. YES

Yeah, KDL3 has a ton of tracks that could provide you with more source material than this one, but let's see what you did with it. Okay, I really don't have anything else to add to above. The original material that is actually pretty good but is way too much of the track. From the source, you have five seconds of brass playing two notes, bass playing a short melody, and percussion. That's a very small amount of source material, and the original stuff in the mix majorly overshadows it. You didn't even mess with the bass melody. There should be more source material and more interpretation of said source material, both of which could be helped by picking a more substantial source than the file select tune. Not saying it'd be impossible to get a mix of this track on the site, but it'd just be a lot easier with a different one. Production crits: lots of thin textures and overall pretty poor sounds that aren't used very well. I do really like a couple of the sound choices, though, like the whistly siren synth that starts bursts at 1:11. NO

The melody fits a little better, but I gotta say, the 2.0 version is a huge improvement. Definitely feeling what Rozo said about it not being able to figure out what style it's supposed to be. Just keep working on making the track more cohesive and play with some new ideas; you're doing fine so far. Another thing I forgot to mention in the first post is that there are a few places where I thought the chords weren't working with the melody, mainly in the beginning where the melody is verbatim, which didn't help with that tacked-on feel. The one that sticks out to me most is 0:58 at the end of the phrase. You could mess with the melody, thus bumping up the arrangement factor a bit, or mess with the chords, adding some variety on that level because you use the same four for most/all of the mix and distancing yourself a bit from Aerodynamic. Win/win in my book, if you want to submit this. Depends on how much you rework it. If you change up or remove all of the melodic runs so just the chords from Aerodynamic are left, you might have a shot if the progression is as common as you say it is (I really can't speak with any sort of authority on them at all), but I can see a debate between "it's just four common chords I can pick x number of songs and even y remixes that use them" and "yeah but they're intentionally incorporated from a non-game track." I love mashups and otherwise combining tracks like this, don't get me wrong, but doing it with a non-game track isn't what OCR's about. I'd actually recommend changing up the chords anyway during the track just for variety's sake, because the same four get stale after a while. If you're really set on submitting this, my recommendation would be to minimize the parts where you're playing notes from Aerodynamic or remove them entirely, and mess with the chords a bit. Of course, that will also pretty much destroy any of the connection with DP, so it's a bit of an either/or. A little quotation would be fine, but a large-scale combination like what you have now wouldn't.

Molgera is one of my favorite boss themes of all time. It may be four measures from the source, but those four measures are the backbone of the entire mix; when it isn't being directly played by an instrument, the chord progression is still there. Given that just about the whole mix is based on the Daft Punk source, I'd call that pretty significant usage. But given that Molgera is one of my favorite boss themes of all time, we will press on! In the beginning, I wasn't really feeling how the Molgera melody fit in with the rest of the track. The original Molgera melody is wonderful and dancelike, and even though it's slowed down in your mix, it's still too, um, "hoppy" at 0:19-1:00. The dancing phrases don't really fit with the slow groove and it sounds quite like you made the backing track and just slapped Molgera on top of it. Altering it to fit the rest of the track would also be good from an arrangement standpoint, because it's played identically to the original and on the same instrument. The interpretation of the melody in the chimes starting at 1:10 is a lot better fit for the track, but that little quote in the woodwind at 1:14-1:20 is again mismatched. 2:01 with the woodwind, however, is perfect, although the instrument itself is a bit of a weird match with the rest of the sounds in the mix. Same with the harp shots in a couple of places like 3:00; just seemed like a weird choice. You're going to vary up the drumbeat? Fantastic. It feels pretty bad in the first minute or so when it's exposed while layers are still being added to the song. The kick feels like it has too much punch, too, so it's kind of distracting. By the end, the drums so drowned out by other stuff that you can barely hear it, so the track loses a bit of groove. The volume is pretty low on this, so I'd bump it up a few notches. There's a lot of space for some dynamic contrast if you want to build up to something or have a break somewhere, since this stays pretty much at the same level throughout. If you want, I suppose. Pretty interesting take on Molgera, I thought. There isn't a whole ton of interpretation on the melody, even down to the instrument being the same for a good portion of it, and actually I thought that the parts where the melody was verbatim didn't work as well as when it was changed up. Work on trying to make it fit in with the whole track instead of sounding tacked on. The overall development is fine; more variety in some of the parts would be good, especially the drums, but the track never stagnates. As far as the Daft Punk usage goes, considering how integral it is to this, I'd say not to submit this unless you're comfortable with a complete overhaul. Just put the finishing touches on it and then move on to the next one.

Love the original tune, and as everyone else has said the arrangement is nice, so I'm not really going to spend time on that one, especially since it's the production that we need to talk about. Thought the panning on a few of the instruments was odd, most notably the lead guitar, which is to the right for a good portion of the song without being balanced on the left, so it's kind of distracting. At 2:27, the piano and strings panned hard in either direction, and I think those could be pulled in a little bit. The sound balance has been hit by everyone, so I don't really need to go into that too much. I mentioned sound balance with the lead guitar; I think 1:42-2:04 and the rehash at 3:10 could be killer if the synth and strings were bumped up in volume. The rhythm guitar too, not much else needs to be said aside from a "what's up with that?" I'm definitely feeling what zirc said about the drums. The sequencing is actually pretty good, but the kick could definitely be sharper. Not so bad in the slower moments, but during the faster ones the drums are a bit too blobby. The production is holding this one back from something I think could be great. Check it out or get someone else to tighten the screws on it and send it back. You're pretty close, but it still needs a bit more love. NO (resubmit)

Definitely too conservative. A few interesting ideas, but not enough to offset the closeness in everything. Anything else? Um, production is okay, although 1:20-1:48 is a bit painful and distracts from the additional writing which isn't too bad. It'd be good enough if the arrangement was substantial. NO

The piano and strings are a bit stiff. Not terrible, but could be better. The vocals coming in at 0:26 have two main problems. First, the balance is pretty bad. Everything blends into each other, and not just the voices: the strings and lower piano notes as well are just lost in a muddle. Some of that is in the EQ, and some is in the part writing. Second, once they come in, the vocals are pretty much already as strong as they'll get. The sense of contrast in this is minimal, and it doesn't feel like it's really gone anywhere by the end, even though it's clearly meant to. Really, the only change in the intensity is in the strings and piano, which as I mentioned gets lost and so the whole thing feels flat. Dynamic contrast and better part separation and ranges would do this wonders. Also, try not bringing in all the voices all at once, because that doesn't really leave you with a whole lot of places to go with a piece like this. Instead, I'd suggest starting with one or some in one range and then bring in more for development to help the piece actually build. NO (resubmit)

Awwww yeah, Sealed Time. The Oath in Felghana version is wonderful. Okay, very first thing I notice: those drums at 0:38. The intro is okay, maybe a bit too long without doing enough, but a good setup into something ambient or ethereal like Larry mentioned, but that percussion does not work at all. I don't think the pattern is really the problem, but the sound is so dry as to be completely off with the feel of the track, and they're a bit too far in the foreground. The strings too coming in at 1:16 are too sharp, and then they just leave at 1:36? The low strings at 2:14 fit a bit better, but the synth at 2:33 is pretty rough could use some reverb. None of the instruments really come together. Pretty repetitive with the melody, and considering how little happens with the rest of the track, more variety there would be good. It doesn't have to be more changes to the source melody; it could also be a new melody entirely that fits in well with the rest of it. Thought 1:14 was a pretty odd way to end that phrase with the melody and bass notes. Same combination comes up later in the mix when the phrase repeats. Also, the ending is kind of abrupt. The bass just cuts out too quickly. Holding it longer and maybe fading it out at the end would be better. The mix isn't terrible, but the main problem is the cohesiveness, or lack thereof. Right now, this sounds like a bunch of instruments without much regard to how they fit together as a whole. More direction and focus in the arrangement instead of just occasionally bringing in and dropping instruments as development would be a big plus. NO

Yeah, so there's an absolute ton of stuff from the original that for the most part might as well have just been sampled directly from the original instead of recreated. There are some effects in a few places, but it's practically identical. But we've got original material playing off of the source left and right, and there's more interpretive stuff in several places (1:23, 2:17, synth change in the accompaniment at 3:21). The fact that this mix sounds as different as it does from the original while having so much of the original in it is pretty fantastic. Close one. Arrangement's good enough here to outweigh the direct usage of the original. FISHY'S FIRED I mean YES

Pretty good. I didn't listen to the original version, so I don't know how bad the production was on that one, but whatever you did is good enough for a pass here. Could be a bit more balanced with the treble as Larry and Vinnie said, but it's not too bad overall. Good transformation of the original track on the arrangement side. I dig. YES

"you" from Higurashi no something something whatever the rest is you know what I'm talking about. Hate that freakin' song so much. Took second in Week 98 of SotW, just behind a track you yourself nominated, whattup.

I said it on the first page.

I don't really see how it would be possible for a ROM to actually do anything to the emulator's computer, short of exploiting some ludicrously gaping security hole that would be specific to a particular emulator. The whole point of emulation is to simulate a different system, so any code running in that emulator would be run on that virtual system and not, say, be able to drop an `rm -rf /` on the host system. In fact, that's the reasoning behind people running a virtual machine in order to test installations or system tweakings or things like that: if they righteously fuck something up, the only harm done is to the image, so they can just chuck it and start over.

I will edit the rules just to make this eligible.

I can't give the mix another listen at the moment, but I just wanted to clarify that remark of mine: by "chucked in the background," I wasn't talking about how that pattern isn't the main melody in the source, but that in the mix it's chilling in the back most of the time. I agree fully with your point.

Very nice track. Not my favorite from the DoD, but still good enough for points. Good orch-rock conversion without a dull moment. Production ranges from okay to good. Brass is kind of weak as has been mentioned, but not too bad. I thought it was worse in the intro when it's blaring than in the middle when it's just accompanying, personally. Parts are all balanced well enough. Work those cymbals down and get the sampling rate down to 44.1 kHz from 48 and you're good. YES (conditional)

Arrangement checks out. Not terribly daring, but good original writing with how you've treated the source. Nice turn at 3:17. Wasn't really too keen on the piano break. Sequencing is kind of lame, and it killed the groove too much for me, but that's a bit more on the personal side. The return to b33tz at 4:17 was kind of abrupt, as was the ending, but not dealbreakers. Nice textures. I really like the sound of that opening synth at 0:14. I mentioned the piano sequencing already; I'm not exactly asking for a live performance here in a dance track, but it could still use some work. I'd like a bit more dynamic contrast, but this is fine. Have a YES this time.

Only if it's this kind of Chicago-style.

This milestone mix will forever be remembered as a turning point in the history of OverClocked ReMix.

He has an equipment list on his website. There's a guitar in there, but I can't say I've ever heard a track of his that actually had a live guitar that he himself played. Usually he uses a synthesized guitar, and he's one of the best at doing so. Incorrect.

Brilliant track. Always love your style, and the cello is an awesome touch. That pitch bend at 2:00 in particular is what love is made of. Arrangement, this is where the problem is. The chime usage, which by your own admission is hard to hear at times, forms a huge chunk of the actual source usage. 2:02-2:29 and 3:01-3:17 are REALLY liberal on those sections of the source, too liberal, in my opinion. Just not enough source. Sad that you won't consider a resub. Better luck on the next one. NO

I'm definitely agreeing with Larry here about the sound quality. Could use some work, but there's nothing that's really awful except for the brass at 1:20-1:30 and a whistling mainly noticeable at 3:06-3:23 that I'm pretty sure is coming from one of your samples and not the encoding. Nothing too terrible about the sequencing. Good dynamic contrasts. The woodwinds at 1:52 felt a bit flat. Sound balance is okay for the most part, but there are some parts as Palpable mentioned that could be a little better, like 1:08-1:30 and 2:24-2:56. Arrangement is definitely solid. Nice spinning of the original to give it that grand feel, and the added writing and original material is good too. There's definitely room for improvement in the production, especially in comparison with your Super Mario 64 mix, which sounded better than this. Arrangement's good enough to cover, so keep up the good work on that while working on your production game. YES (borderline)