big giant circles

very very similar to the original right from the 'git-go. Bringing in some heavy kicks at :32, followed by some cross-panned hits... ...eventually gets into the full *industrial* vibe around 1:12. Sounds like you're using Slayer--you put this together in FL, I assume? anyway 1:55 has some cool drumwork going on, but all in all the track still has an overly incomplete feel to it. Not enough bass/low-end support, and with the exception of all the industrial metallurgy going on, this could *almost* be considered a cover in the style of said genre. Back to the drawing board, bro. Some nice incorporations, but not enough to justify it as a reinterpreted piece. Keep at it. I'd like to hear more industrial remixes around here. NO

Heh, Jon asked me to take a listen to this one, and I think he's trying to lure me into a potential debate, after my rant on the Icy Peaks mix This is really a very beautiful track, hands down. Obviously, it's waaaay too quiet, and could probably stand to be normalized up a few decibels. Other than that, lengthwise, I'm actually slightly more on the fence about this one. I see where Vig is coming from, and I see where everyone else is coming from. Both sides could arguably be right as far as the arrangement factor goes. I've been told that performance can have a balancing effect on source-to-remix ratio when enough emotion is invoked by the style, and I can agree with that, I suppose. However, I think this is also underdeveloped in light of the potential that is revealed very quickly by this soothing theme (I'm a pretty big fan of the source after acquainting myself with it after Avaris's submission). But unfortunately, as we've said in other recent votes, where mixes would have been shoo-ins for the front pages had they been submitted a few years back, I feel that's the case with this track. Great stuff, but I want more. It may be hard to go back and redo a mix you did years ago, and if you don't want to, that's totally understandable, but hell, give it a shot, I say. If not for the fact that this piece ends a little too quickly, I'd say it'd be a shoo-in right now. So there you have it. I'd like a resubmit. NO

sooo... what's going on with this one, exactly?

While this is a pretty cool track, as was your first submission, it leaves a couple issues to be addressed. All in all, I like the track fairly well, overall, so long as I overlook a few minor gripes. Before I get into those, I will say that I was a little surprised by this resub in comparison to your first version. I did get to hear some of this back when it was on the WIP board, and I wish to death I'd had time to get back to you with a little more input, but unfortunately, real-world demands coupled with the desire to balance my own music (not to mention making time to effectively judge submissions and contribute meaningful input) takes more time than i have to offer much of the time, so I regret not being able to say much more to you during the WIP and tweaking phase. Anyway, back on track, the reason I was surprised is because really, the only thing I personally felt held back the first mix was the lack of bass frequencies in the 2nd half of the track. Seems you've more or less completely revamped this one. Kind of a two-edged sword, because while this is indeed very cool, it also unintentionally brings with it more areas to critique. My main gripe seems to be in the balance, or perhaps off-balance in the soundscape. The best way I can figure out to elaborate on what exactly I mean by that is that the mix tends to show a little bias towards the high end, and it comes across as slightly abrasive. I hear where you've added a bass of sorts in the 2nd half, but rather unfortunately, it still seems suppressed by the top-heavy piano. After reading Larry's vote, I've had a reaffirmation that Larry is possibly the panel's greatest asset, because he just knows what he's talking about, despite the fact that he's a "non-remixer judge". Definitely couldn't agree more. And I also agree that while I can confidently say that I like this version just as I liked the first version, I don't feel like you needed the overhaul, just some minor tweaks. I feel the same way about this version. Mainly tweak the EQ and volume of your leads, and possibly go with a slightly fatter, deeper bass instrument to support the louder sections so they don't get so top-heavy. Great stuff, and this is almost a solid green for the front page, but just apply some minor tweaks here and there. Main thing, is don't get discouraged just because this is the 2nd NO. I'd hate to see this one fall when it's within arm's length. NO *SLIGHT* tweaks and resubmit, please I'm going to leave this one open, and see if I can't get Andy to offer some input, seeing as he's one of the big electronica buffs on the panel, as well as a very talented and knowledgeable artist within the genre.

Gaaah, 1:28 minute track? Ok, I know there have been some *debates* on tracks that are lingering around the 2 minute mark, but dang, honestly, how interpretive can one possibly be with a track that isn't even 90 seconds long? I'm sure you can get a great start with that, but bah. And now for the post-rant analysis. Yep, not much going on in this one. It's very very similar to the source, and there are some production issues worth mentioning. Namely, the EQ (and part-writing too, I suppose) is terribly neglectful of the midrange, and it makes the lead guitars sound very very thin. Other than that, this whole mix needs a pretty thorough overhaul in terms of progression and expansion on the original theme. NO

Yeah, that's probably what I meant, anyway, seeing as that's my only real gripe. I've edited my previous vote to reflect that.

Hmmm, big ouch on production. Overcompression + volume issues (mostly on drums) Starting at 1:28, and gets really bad at 1:49. Can't let that slide. Fix that. That (the volume issues) being my only gripe, and a notable enough quirk to the overall finished track, this is otherwise in YES territory. The song has a nice direction. And some fun chopping/gating going on. I really like the piano and synth playing off each other at 2:38. Once again, fix the volume/compression and you got yourself a YES. *EDIT* CONDITIONALLY, YES seeing as that's my only gripe. Just rerender it, lay off the compression, and lower the levels.

let me just throw in a quick apology to sidecut if he saw the comments the first time around. to clarify why my vote made no sense... there were two final fantasy mixes of the prelude in queue, and they both had the word crystal in the title, and in my efforts to multi-task, i wrote my vote for the wrong remix. my bad, bro. i dropped the ball. Ok, now for an actual and somewhat more accurate vote. The cross-panning synths actually appealed to me substantially. They made me feel like I was spinning through the atmosphere. Very typical trance stuff going on here. I dig the warm pad that phases in around :25--very nice. Choir at 1:39 was used pretty tastefully, I thought. Not too loud, so as to not come across too fake. The claps around 2:34 were kind of sporadic--and not very fulfilling. Interesting transition at 3:14 to a slower, more somber mood. Ok, starting to pick up some little synth-blurps around 4:20. This track is quite appropriately named, as there seem to be several sonic references to crystalline imagery. I think you've done very well with that. The last note seemed to linger a little past acceptable margins slightly... probably could have either cropped or faded that a little. Well, I'll be honest. I'm a little closer to the fence than my fellow Jfgs. I wouldn't say that I'm so intimate with trance (or any other genre, I suppose) to say that I speak/understand the language wholly, but I do like tasteful and especially innovative trance. While not so much innovative, I certainly enjoy and appreciate what I've just heard. And while he's perhaps away from his aural preferences on this one, Vig is certainly right that it's a shame you didn't submit this one 4 or 5 years ago or so. I think you could have mixed this one a little better. You had some really excellent attention to panning for the most part, but I think your levels could have been managed slightly better. My main gripe would probably be in the drum sequencing. All the fills and sounds themselves were extremely cookie-cutter. Understand that that's a tough thing to weigh into one's vote, because I personally don't feel like we should ever reject something on the basis that it follows certain well-established tendencies of a particular genre, especially if that's how the arranger wants it to sound. Again, for emphasis, on my umpteenth listen, great work on the panning. Another thing some people may cringe at is the length, but again, that seems like its always going to be a touchy thing to bring up. IE something is too long, too short, and how long/short is too long/short, etc etc etc. Lots of trance songs tend to run 5, 6, 7, 8 minutes long, sometimes more, I realize. In the case of OCR, when such a long song is submitted, typically one has to lower the encoding rate in order for it to fit, thus sacrificing sound quality (usually in the upper frequencies) for length. Not always the best trade-off. Here's the deal, bro. I think you need to trim this one down just a bit. Though as pure trance, 7:20 would be totally cool, I think you could benefit from not chopping the encoding quality. Pretty much the same reason you'll never see a remix in the style of a 12-minute Meatloaf song. I also think you could spend a little more time on your drumwork. Might not take a lot, but I think you could definitely progress the loops just a little bit more in order to make the track a bit more engaging. Perhaps thicken the textures in just a couple (a COUPLE, mind you) places to fill out the spectrum. Like I said, with the instrumentation you've got, you do have a very fleeting and crystalline sound already, so I see no reason to suggest deviating too much from what you've already laid down. Well man, here's what it comes down to. I totally dig the song in it's current form. I think for the sake of sitting a little more comfortably on the front page, some minor tweaks are in order. I'd appreciate a resubmit, and I'm sure a lot of would be listeners would like the same, because Larry is right. This has a lot of potential. Otherwise, while not scoring a YES from me right this moment, I'll still be keeping this track in my playlist. Keep at it. NO, but tweak and resubmit. (sorry for the extremely long vote, but I felt this one needed a fair amount of assessment and analysis and reanalysis.)

Hate to sound acrimonious, but the primary synth is just annoying. Yeah. Unfortunately, this leaves a lot to be desired. It's got some cool funky beats in it, but they by no means carry the song. And there's a lot of note-conflicting going on in this one. All over the place. Places like 1:35... just... ouch. Sorry man. I advise picking a different source to remix, because source tunes like this take an avid avid remixer to tackle the challenge. I say that because it takes an extremely creative mind and lots of know-how to tastefully implement site standards like quality REarrangement (emphasise on "RE") and then produce it into something other than little more than a cover. NO

This was a pretty tough call (obviously, as most 4Y/4Ns are). Here's my assessment. Pros: This is above the bar in terms of arrangement. I don't think I need any further explanation regarding such. Also, I dig the overall vibe of the song. It has a nice energy flow, which I found engaging for the better part of the track. Decent and fairly interesting array of synth textures progressing through the song. Now for the cons: Production did make me grimace slightly at times. Mastering left room for improvement, mainly in the drum volumes. The loop that kicks in at :18 is a fun little groove and all, but TO's right about them being overpowering at times. Choice of synths probably could have been thought out slightly better in a couple places as well, but I'm not completely put-off by your choices by any means. I'm with Jill on the ending. Why wasn't that cropped? Must have been an oversight. That probably needs fixing regardless. All in all, I'm going to give this a YES because I liked what I heard, despite the quirks. I think this is a borderline call, and truthfully, I almost hate to vote that way, because I think that while it's acceptable in it's present form, it could be substantially better. The reverb didn't bother me too badly, but I can easily see how it creates a muddier soundscape, and that bothers some people. Also, the mixing levels could have used just a little work. And you know what would have been phat, would be to apply some tastefull cross-pans and filter sweeps and other various modulations to the drum track. 2:24 would have been absouletly PRIME for that, bro. So anyway, there you have it. It's passable, but I wish some of the stated suggestions had been implemented to push this one above and beyond the call of duty.

yipes. this is a very tough call. my main struggle ends up being the fact that this piece is mainly a slowed-down version of the original. the violins are in fact very very beautiful. i don't see how someone could not feel moved by this. man, i'm reluctant to vote either way, to be honest. this is basically a string cover, for what it's worth. i'm not hearing any real *rearrangement* here, if someone would do me the honor of pointing it out. larry, where's your play by play when we need it? i'd hate to pass this and then realize that it didn't qualify. yet, by the same token i'd hate to reject such a beautiful piece and stall it the chance to be heard by anyone who should stumble upon it here at OCR. I'll have to talk about this in #j before I can comfortably come to a decision. ?... *EDIT* Well, after a bit more pondering and listening and pondering some more (great music to ponder to, btw), it is with a sprinkle of reluctance that I have to pass a NO onto this beautiful song. Should the rest of the panel decide the same, I strongly encourage you to leave your link up, Justus, because this definitely deserves to be heard by all means. As an OCReMix, however, I feel like I've listened to enough submissions where the track is immensely more enjoyable than the source, but upon further examination, the remix is just a cover--that is, so nearly exact with only minor adaptations, changes. in this case, i feel like you've played it beautifully on a live instrument in a slower tempo. being live, of course, you've thrown dynamics and huminization and emotion into it, but it's still an adapted cover in regards to the source. I suppose I'm not going to ask anyone to revote, and I hope I don't sound like I'm just out making demands, but Malcos and Darke, I'd appreciate you both going back and providing further explanation for your votes, and a few more comments on the level of arrangement. BTW, expand and RESUBMIT, please

i apologize for never having gotten around to the first one. your geetar lead has indeed improved. and though i don't remember quite exactly how the first attempt went, i can tell you've expanded on some ideas in this one. opening piano is pretty mechanical, and your snare is pretty dry and a little bland throughout. 2:14 was a little on the sour side. 1:46 right before was pretty cool. This is a fairly catchy little number. The main thing that holds this track back at this point is the drumwork. As far as I can tell, there's only a kick and snare at work for 95% of the song. The rhythm gets a little dull, and it's dry as burnt toast. The cymbal crashes are way too quiet, and they need to be EQ'd, or otherwise brought out so the upper frequencies aren't eaten alive before they have a chance to add to the music. Getting closer, but those drums need some work. Keep at it Bren. Don't get discouraged. Resubmit. NO

yeah, sorry i haven't got around to this much lately, i'll be out of town for the next couple weeks too, so i apologize for the delay there, too. it's pretty late, and i'm off to bed, but seeing as the quality of your initial sub was on par with site standards and such, i won't bother mentioning anything there. first impulse upon hearing the update is that it's pretty good, but be sure you don't make it *too* busy. there seemed like there was a lot of clutter at certain portions, so just be sure you make everything clear and intended in the final render. like i said, my only gripe about the first version was the lack of bass in the 2nd half--had it not been for that i would have YES'd. so whatever you decide to change is cool, but for what it's worth, you don't have to change a lot to get it above the bar as far as i'm concerned. peace, happy new year, and all that

so, today is the last day of the year, so BUMP

it was a sympathetic post, as i was merely stating i could relate to the whole "ahhh, get out of my head!" effect of the source.

doesn't matter. the same conditions apply. plus, since racing chocobos is a spinoff, i'd say close enough

i feel your pain.

boo on the "less mouseclick". i still likes it. personally, i think it gives it more of an intimate touch, like it was recorded there in the listeners home with them present, and it's like "there, recording's done... *click*" anyway, still a very pretty song. despite any nitpicks anyone may have, this is still going to give you warm fuzzies. it's very soothing and uplifting. as for the debates about people's voices comparing to other voices and certain mixes being voted YES and some NO and all that, let's try to keep debates like that out of people's reviews as a matter of courtesy. carry on.

i'll try to give you some feedback soon (no promises) but i liked your initial mix quite a lot. i gave it a quick listen, and i'm sure i could offer some good input later, but main thing, is be sure to get your file size under 6MB before you submit.

Actually 11 replies isn't bad. I think we're concentrating more on stuff in the single digits. Fair enough. I was just goin' off what bgc said: either, really. i'd personally love to see EVERY mix with at least 15 replies (to page 2, at least) so by all means, have a listen to abadoss's mix. but at the same time, yeah, if a mix has 11 replies, and there's still hundreds that have single digit reviews, take some time to review those, too. don't get too caught up in the letter of the law here, people. it's the whole spirit of the thing i'm trying to convey--more appreciation for ALL mixes; not just the "popular" or even recent ones, where the quality immensely surpasses the earlier mixes.

I'm trying to get in on this action. May not be done in 4 days, but I plan on having something awesome. Let's go, people! Don't let Big Giant Noobtard pass y'all up!

Big thanks to OA for his efforts to show some remixers his appreciation for their work.

I agree with Larry. The level of consistency here is quite low, but this is still interesting to hear. The opening piano was really pretty. The vibes that kick in around :10 are too loud and muddy. I'm not sure what you're using, but if you're using FL, you need to make sure the "cut itself" option is turned off on your sample. Change up to the jazzy portion at :48. ...Really doesn't last as long as I felt it should have--only about 20 seconds. Then transitions into a swashbuckling pirate-ish sound with the accordian right after. Well, Isak, you've got some interesting ideas melodically going on here. You definitely show room to grow in the mixing and production departments. Use the WIP forums, or possibly #ocrwip on IRC to get some feedback. Find a mix that you think is produced really well and ask for specific feedback as to what you can do to reduce the muddiness, tweak your volume on individual instruments and effectively utilize your FX like reverb, EQ and whatever else. I'd offer some of that super-specific feedback myself, but I personally view this as an incomplete WIP that still needs to be built upon a little more before I can simply tell you everything it would probably need to get the YES from myself and the rest of the J crew (plus, it's kind of a time-issue). Zircon's usually pretty good about providing super-specific feedback on stuff like that, so maybe you can bug him for some For the record (I'm pretty sure I can speak for the rest of the panel here) but I believe there's pretty much and unspoken consensus that 99.98% of the time, any mix that's not even 2:00 will be rejected regardless of how awesome it may sound, or how well it's produced. As OCR has evolved and the acceptance bar has been pushed upward as our resources and skills have evolved, there's more weight on arrangement than there's ever been. And remember, you're recreating a theme to be a stand-alone track, so it'd be a good thing to make it long enough to enjoy for a couple minutes at the very least (as in, longer than 1:45), but not long enough to overdo it. Expand some more on your ideas here. I like the jazzy, snazzy style you've tried to mold the source to, because it's upbeat and unexpected, especially considering the mood of the source. Keep at it, man. Good luck with your stuff in the future. NO

Thanks for the link fix, larry. K, interesting stuff, Will. Actually, the fact that your melody and bassline weren't verbatim worked to your credit, as it gave room for your own interpretation (or at the very least attempt) of the theme. Kicking off with some chip sounds. Build up and breakbeat drums fall at :31. Pretty D&B until the slower pattern kicks in at 2:25. Cross-panned UFO effect kicks in at the same time. Back to the faster pattern at 3:09. Drums fade out at 3:30, we're back to where we started. Actual sampled "you iz dead" theme wraps this one up from 4:01 - 4:11. Well, main problems are the level of repetition and the instrumentation. Nothing really changes. And while the melody and bassline aren't exactly as they are in the source, there's otherwise no other creative additions, interpretations, or adaptations, with the exception of the drums. I hardly ever go there, but in the song exchange forum over at www.flstudio.com, I remember downloading a take on this theme that was very very similar. Only difference is that they actually did use a rip of the original, and simply laid some hyper-beats on top. The track sounds very hollow as just a chiptune with drums. You need some sort of other instrumental support. I understand that the genre-analytical people could throw a fit and say "BUT DAT'S HOW ITZ SUPPOZED TO SOUND OMGBBQFTW!!!111!", but with all respect to however someone says D&B is *supposed* to sound, this is still pretty sonically hollow. No midrange at all, the chiptune bass definitely wears thin after the drums fall, and the stereo mix of the track is kind of dull. With the exception of places like 1:47, and the UFO effect, there wasn't a lot of attention to panning. At any rate, interesting take on the Mario bro's theme, and it might be well received by some, but it's not quite got the OCR-shine to it. Otherwise, I'm sure you spent a decent amount of time on the drums, and they sound alright, so good job on that. You just need to do something less repetitious as far as the arrangement goes, and fill in some space. Oh, and I'm actually kind of surprised you didn't at least drop the ending to match the key of the song. Oh well. Good luck on your future projects and subs, Will. Glad you like the site, and I hope you find this feedback helpful. NO

Lyrics are hawt. Despite what all the unmodders may say, I bet Jill's going to have a LOT of guys putting stuff like this And floating endlessly, my heart believes That we are one, ready to touch, to begin Imagine how your lips would taste on mine And how your breath would feel against my eyes on repeat, while staring at this picture: cheers, jill, the song sounds great! In regards to Larry's gripes, I really see after reading his comments how the drums can seem a bit "placeholder"ish, but I personally am not overly concerned with that. I've heard much better drumwork, no doubt, but I think the overall theme that goes through one's head while listening to the haunting and captivating vox is enough to drown out the desire for better drumwork. Yep. Very chill. I won't carry this track with me to my grave in my "most phenominally well constructed and epic track" case, but I think it can sit pretty on the front page. MMM'KAY