An Open Letter to the Judges of OverClocked ReMix

[Ocean_Charity]

It is no great secret that there are issues with the general black box (for the lack of better phrasing) that is the judging process. Let alone the amount of time it can take for a track to make it through the process, and even some tracks not even going through the usual process. Frankly, something must be done to remediate the issues at play, which are undoubtedly multi-faceted without any single underlying root cause.

 

To start look at the Submission Standards. Take a very deep long look at the particular verbiage used. Consider how the comments from the Judges lie with regards to them. Normally, a healthy discussion would have examples to show points that would be contentious. However, out of a desire to remain anonymous for a variety of reasons this cannot be done because the policy of removing links to the evaluated tracks unless the submitter explicitly said to leave it there. At a glance this is a fair and sensible approach. But that begs the question of how many would not mind leaving the link there, and simply are not aware enough of the process as a whole, and do not know that is something that needs to be stated. Or for the more seasoned folks they simply forgot to mention it. The thread is there in the Judges Decisions as to the reasoning. But in reality this is a short sighted policy that actively hurts those looking to submit something because the entire evaluation process is entirely too subjective. It says clearly under para. 5. Production, 1. Submissions should be cleanly and clearly produced. There are a couple of additional lines that go further to expound upon what is meant by that. But it is overly open for interpretation. Certain recordings and genres should be 100% rejected out right simply because of this line. If a remix were done say in say the manner of Gary U.S. Bonds’ Quarter to Three it would be rejected outright simply based on that guideline. Right? Wrong? Subjective? Where is the line drawn because the guidelines do not indicate. And the defense of it would be considered in the process is unacceptable. FIX THE GUIDELINE. There should be no room for subjectivity to enter into the equation. Someone submitting a track in a particular style or emulating a particular style should not have to question this before submitting it.

 

Another example of how the guidelines are incredibly poorly written here. The Trashmen’s Surfin Bird would constitute a failure on para. 5. Production, 2. Production must show significant attention to sound quality, mixing, mastering, and utilization of effects. Listening to The Trashmen’s Surfin Bird with a reasonably deep listen to the track here shows that it is distorting, the compressors, and limiters are working over time. Pumping and distorting the audio. With how the current panel conflates mastering to mixing they would consider this a mastering issue when in fact it is not. Remember this track was released in 1964. With a release date of January 14, 1964 that would indicate that it was recorded sometime in 1963. Perhaps a 16 channel mixer and an 8 track tape machine was likely the course of the day. Regardless, the point still stands that it would be rejected outright. Again though the defense of, “It would be considered in the process.” This is again 100% unacceptable. FIX THE GUIDELINE. Again if there is room for subjectivity to enter into the equation based on these factors the guideline is poorly written and does not stand the test of reasonable interpretation. To show this point much more explicitly with just how poorly the Submission Standard guidelines are written in para. 5 they will be reproduced here verbatim. Then a breakdown of what each guideline is trying to say. Lastly, a hypothetical track will be constructed using the guidelines as they are written to show just how poorly they are actually written, and how they are frankly useless in actually informing a potential individual in what actually matters with regard to this one singular aspect.

 

5. Production

   1. Submissions should be cleanly and clearly produced.

      • Recordings should be reasonably free of distortion, hum, clicks, pops, or other unintentional audio artifacts.

      • Volume levels should be normal compared to the average recording.

   2. Production must show significant attention to sound quality, mixing, mastering, and utilization of effects.

      • Synthesized and sampled elements must be reasonably sophisticated.

        • General MIDI sounds from low-budget soundcards are not sufficient when superior samples are available online for free.

        • Overusing common presets, relying heavily on prerecorded loops, or employing nothing but basic tones or “chiptunes” is discouraged.

      • Instrumental and vocal performances should be recorded clearly. Performances should be well-executed with regard to tone, pitch, and rhythm.

      • Submissions should be mixed with regard to volume, panning, and effects so that individual elements are clear and an appropriate sense of space is maintained.

 

What exactly is meant by “cleanly and clearly produced.”? One cannot ensure that the particular individual listening to the track on their own system will be able to cleanly and clearly produce the sound from the original recording. What is really meant here is that the submission needs to have a certain production level to the submission. A production level that is able to convey the intentions of the submitter in a way that is both clean and clear. The double edged sword here is that this actually goes back into the arrangement because some submissions use the production stage as part of the arrangement, and it is almost assured that more than one submission that has been submitted has been rejected on the premises of production simply because the evaluation process was unable to subjectively deduce the intention of the submitter. Certainly, John Cage’s 4’33 would go over the judges. Not saying that something in the vein of 4’33 would be acceptable. Instead that music itself is incredibly broad, and in some situations the production itself is much more important than the actual songwriting itself. That is why this particular line is poorly written.

 

The next line, “Recordings should be reasonably free of distortion, hum, clicks, pops, or other unintentional audio artifacts.” is meant to say that a recording should be clean outside of intentional processing. There should not be anything in there that is really unintentional. Just outright say that. But again it fails the simple test of submitter intention. What if the submitter wants that 60Hz hum? Who are the Judge’s to say that? It is said elsewhere that the Judges are not the arbiters of this, but be honest with how this is actually implemented in practice.

 

“Volume levels should be normal compared to the average recording.” Irrelevant in today’s world with the implementation of EBU R 128. As long as the track has sensible limiting and compression applied to the submission then it does not matter. Go to YouTube and look at the stats for nerds. Some examples, Kiss’ I was Made For Lovin’ You 2.9dB down for the original. Tiffany’s I Think We’re Alone Now reduced by 0.5dB. The Clash’s Rock the Casbah reduced by 0.8dB. AC/DC’s Thunderstruck reduced by 5.7dB. PSY’s Gangnam Style reduced by 6.7dB. Holst’s The Planets, ‘Mars’ played by the BBC Symphony Orchestra and the Elysian Singers is turned up by 11.4dB. Certainly not inclusive, but it illustrates the point trying to be conveyed. This line is utter nonsense. The whole reason for EBU R 128 being introduced was to rid the world of the Loudness Wars, but here is OverClocked ReMix promoting it. Trying to compare the skills of someone in their own studio versus individuals with decades of experience in manipulating audio with highly specialized skills. Just drop it and use LUFS of say -10 or whatever is deemed acceptable and move on from there.

 

“Production must show significant attention to sound quality, mixing, mastering, and utilization of effects.” There is quite a bit to unpack here. Besides the current Judge’s panel confusing mixing issues for mastering issues. All this is really saying is that the submission needs to mixed, mastered, and use of effects. It says that it must show significant attention to these aspects, but what does that mean? How can one show that significant attention has been paid to these aspects? It is cleared up somewhat with the last bullet point, “Submissions should be mixed with regard to volume, panning, and effects so that individual elements are clear and an appropriate sense of space is maintained.” All that is really said here is that submission should be well mixed. It says nothing about the mastering of the track. In fact the panel often completely misunderstands what mastering actually is. Mastering is simply the process of creating the master form of the track for release. This can be done without any limiting, without any compression, without any EQ, without anything. Please stop pretending to be the arbiters of this knowledge. That is simply not what is happening, and it is incredibly infuriating to read these otherwise well meaning decisions that often wrongly use these terms.

 

“Synthesized and sampled elements must be reasonably sophisticated.” From Merriam-Webster:

 

Sophisticated

Adjective

1. Deprived of native or original simplicity: such as

a. highly complicated or developed

b. having refined knowledge of the ways of the world cultivated especially through wide experience

2. devoid of grossness: such as

a. finely experienced and aware

b. intellectually appealing

 

Well, that is an interesting choice of wording. Reasonably sophisticated. What is meant here is that sounds should not be plain and boring. It is expounded upon a bit in the next two lines that basically boil down to that simple line. However, due to how this is written it means that a simple saw lead without vibrato does not constitute a reasonably sophisticated sound by the definition of the word. Again the argument of it will be considered in the process is unacceptable. FIX THE GUIDELINE. There are what, 4,000+ pieces of music on OverClocked ReMix and these guidelines are what instructed all those decisions? Sorry, but reading between the lines is not how guidelines should be written.

 

A guideline is a general rule, or a principle, or a piece of advice. Sure it serves that purpose, but that is not what this is called. Instead this page is called Submission Standards. What does Standard mean? In this case it is a noun. Merriam-Webster has seven individual definitions of the word. Not a conspicuous object (such as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point especially in battle or to serve as an emblem. Not a long narrow tapering flag that is personal to an individual or corporation and bears heraldic devices. Could be something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example. Perhaps something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality. The rest of the definitions are not relevant either. It is just those two. If OverClocked ReMix is considered the authority in these definitions then this standard is incredibly poorly written. Compare the so called Submission Standards to an actual Standard such as The Complete MIDI 1.0 Detailed Specification. That is 334 pages long. Looking at the subsection MIDI 1.0 Detailed Specification and just for example Hardware (just a small excerpt here).

 

“The hardware MIDI interface operates at 31.25 (+/-1%) Kbaud, asynchronous, with a start bit, 8 data bits (D0 to D7), and a stop bit. This makes a total of 10 bits for a period of 320 microseconds per serial byte. The start bit is a logical 0 (current on) and a stop bit is a logical 1 (current off). Bytes are sent LSB first.

Circuit: (See Schematic – Page 2). 5 mA current loop type. Logical 0 is current ON. One output shall drive one and only one input. To avoid ground loops, and subsequent data errors, the transmitter circuitry and receiver circuitry are internally separated by an opto-isolator (a light emitting diode and a photo sensor which share a single, sealed package). Sharp PC-900 and HP 6N138 opto-isolators have been found acceptable. . . .”

 

Why bring up these two paragraphs? Because the Submission Standards are supposed to detail exactly what is required to pass the evaluation process. Now, constructing the hypothetical track to pass this standard. All that needs to be done is meet what exactly is said in there. Of which a great many of tracks very likely did. But due to the lack of any actual formal definition for any of the parts the Submission Standards fail at their job of setting a standard. Instead they form a guideline of how a submission should maybe be in order to pass the evaluation process. There is no suggestion in doing a cookie cutter type of thing here, but a very serious reconsideration of what it is that the OverClocked ReMix Judge’s Panel is actually listening for is warranted with a full re-write of this section. Instead of calling the subjective parts standards call them guidelines.

 

Additionally, give the submitter’s some more view into the process as a whole. It has been said that links to the rejected submissions should be removed, but all this does is obfuscate the process. It does zero service to the greater community as a whole. If anything it forces it to evolve more slowly and not understand why a submission was rejected. It also provides a check on the Judges because now the community can actually enter discourse on what often amount to subjective opinions rather than objective facts. The appropriate definition of a judge as it pertains to their function on OverClocked ReMix from Merriam-Webster is, “one who gives an authoritative opinion.”. The primary issue at play here is that there is no way for any real back and forth due to the closed door approach utilized. Instead it is the community versus the Judges. Those with power and authority. And those without. Due to the ambiguous nature of the Submission Standards it provides no critical feedback method for the Judges Panel to evaluate their process with community feedback taken into account. If it does, it is certainly not evident anywhere on the panel. The Judges Panel is only as good as the feedback it receives. Which is often in the form of long and confused posts from submitters that are frustrated with the process as a whole.

 

Another thing to consider is actually when the topic or thread for a decision is opened even if it is hidden, is to let the whole community see it. This not only lets submitters see where their submission is or if it has even been listened to by the Judges Panel beyond an initial quality check. It opens up the process a bit. By including that original song link too, then actual real proper discourse can take its proper course and provide timely and critical feedback for the Judges Panel to consider.

 

Next, there should be zero exceptions for any track submitted. They should all go through the process just like any other. The profile of the submitter should have zero bearing. In fact a better way to do this would be to anonymize the submissions entirely except for the piece of music remixed. This then removes any form of personal bias based on name alone. Again it is Submission Standards. Why does it matter that it was remixed by John Smith?

 

Further, there should be no re-submissions permitted. The voice of the Judges Panel is what it is. A remix of Super Mario Bros. Level 1 by John Smith fails to make it through the Judges Panel? Well, that sure sucks. But that is how it goes sometimes. If John Smith wants to re-submit the track, then it must go through the entire process from beginning to end again. And keeping with the idea of anonymizing things, the Judges Panel should be completely unaware of whom the remixer is unless the remixer themselves lets it be known or their track actually passes the Judges Panel.

 

As it stands the process is a black box with ill defined input parameters and is unpredictable. The so called standards are a joke and quite possibly the most ill written standard currently employed. There will be no responses from myself in regards to this topic. This stands as an open letter for the Judges Panel and for the consideration of taking a deep hard look at what it means to take in order to get posted on to OverClocked ReMix.

[Rozovian]

Sounds like someone got rejected and is trying to deflect. I've done that too, in at least one bad attempt at humor. Some good points here, but I think they get lost in an unhelpfully negative attitude.

Since OP supposedly won't respond, let's just talk about some of the points being made here. I'll ignore the ones conflating tracks passing the panel with tracks being good, because not every track is suited for ocr and vice versa.

16 hours ago, Ocean_Charity said:

Volume levels should be normal compared to the average recording.

The standards could benefit from an update along the lines of OP's suggestion of a LUFS number. Useful reference. I propose a range, so people aren't making their ballads and bangers equally loud.

16 hours ago, Ocean_Charity said:

Next, there should be zero exceptions for any track submitted. They should all go through the process just like any other. The profile of the submitter should have zero bearing. In fact a better way to do this would be to anonymize the submissions entirely except for the piece of music remixed. This then removes any form of personal bias based on name alone. Again it is Submission Standards. Why does it matter that it was remixed by John Smith?

Nepotism! Like hoboka and platonist and velkku and a bunch of other familiar names among the recent rejections.

I kind'a agree, actually. I would have liked to read a bunch of positive remarks from a minimum number of judges on my Frozen Rose track which bypassed the panel and got direct-posted. But from a listener, non-remixer, non-direct-posted pov, direct posts look a bit sus. No specific suggestion on how to improve here.

Regarding album tracks, especially regarding those selected for an initial remix flood, they've been discussed internally on an album eval thread... Could that thread be made public after the album is released? In part so the remixers get to read about their tracks, which is nice and/or useful, but also to add transparency to the process, even if it isn't during the process.

16 hours ago, Ocean_Charity said:

Further, there should be no re-submissions permitted. The voice of the Judges Panel is what it is. A remix of Super Mario Bros. Level 1 by John Smith fails to make it through the Judges Panel? Well, that sure sucks. But that is how it goes sometimes. If John Smith wants to re-submit the track, then it must go through the entire process from beginning to end again.

I think it could be made more clear what a resub is. Have it in the submissions standards/guidelines/instructions/recipe and/or in a sticky in the judges' decisions subforum.

For those unaware, a resub is a re-submitted track, one that has already been rejected by the judges. To have the improved version go through the entire judging process is a waste of time and energy, when all it takes is for the same judges to revisit their previous points and see if the new version has solved the problems without introducing any big new ones. Hence why resubs get fast-tracked to the panel.

I'm not sure a resub has to be given a "no, resub" vote to get to be a resub. That too could be clarified.

16 hours ago, Ocean_Charity said:

Another thing to consider is actually when the topic or thread for a decision is opened even if it is hidden, is to let the whole community see it. This not only lets submitters see where their submission is or if it has even been listened to by the Judges Panel beyond an initial quality check. It opens up the process a bit. By including that original song link too, then actual real proper discourse can take its proper course and provide timely and critical feedback for the Judges Panel to consider.

The waiting time. Argh.

An automated system would be nice, one that takes in the tracks and creates the appropriate judging threads and updates some page or forum thread about the progress of them all. Initial eval, views, posts, maybe also votes. But that's a big coding challenge. Not to mention the initial eval might be a form rejection, simply a statement that the track clearly doesn't meet the standards, vague as they might be.

I suppose a possible solution for this is to give people viewing access to the subforum overview or whatever, the names of threads and the number of replies on each. Might be what OP suggested, just using the wrong words.

Having the entire community be the judge negates the need for a panel in the first place, and lets every beginner with a posse overrule more experienced folks. Not a good idea. And it would create an imbalance in attention even if the crowd doesn't get to vote. There'd be a lot of attention on Zelda and Final Fantasy remixes, while other games would be largely ignored. And that assumes the remixers are cool with their possibly rejected tracks being scrutinized by everyone.

I don't think the remixers usually want rejected remixes to be available to people, so them being removed by default is reasonable. Remixers can always opt-out of this default, opt-in to having the link left in. When submitting something that's more of an experiment and not being sure it's fit for ocr but wanting to try submitting anyway, that makes sense. When planning on resubbing if rejected, link removal makes a lot more sense.

16 hours ago, Ocean_Charity said:

But due to the lack of any actual formal definition for any of the parts the Submission Standards fail at their job of setting a standard. Instead they form a guideline of how a submission should maybe be in order to pass the evaluation process.

Submissions standards might be a misnomer. Unless standards can work in reverse, and the standards list things that are cause for quick and easy rejections, while tracks that don't fail those standards are more closely evaluated. That's how I'd interpret how they work. Is standards the best term for that? Dunno.

Finally:

16 hours ago, Ocean_Charity said:

The Judges Panel is only as good as the feedback it receives. Which is often in the form of long and confused posts from submitters that are frustrated with the process as a whole.

Quoted for irony. Possibly intentional.

I do think OP's greater point about transparency and feedback is a valid one. I've been staff, I've seen some of the staff subforums, I'm on and very occasionally check staff discord. So I have some amount of insight here, something not everyone has. And I remember my frustration with a community I greatly enjoyed but with a staff that walls itself off to make a lot of decisions in private. I've ranted about the feedback checklist and a bunch of things, often because there was little involvement with the community before those things were brought out. The things themselves weren't necessarily bad, but presented in a decree-from-on-high kind of way. I think there's a failure or unwillingness to leverage the strengths of the community, which is that it's actually a community.

So maybe there's a few points here worth talking about.

edit: forgot to mention mastering. do we count preparing a mix for ocr as mastering? because if so, it's all fine. otherwise maybe a bit of pedantry on that point is in order.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Rozovian
on mastering

[HoboKa]

On 11/29/2022 at 7:08 AM, Rozovian said:

Nepotism! Like hoboka and platonist and velkku and a bunch of other familiar names among the recent rejections.

Oh god...why have you summoned my name? And this all happened maybe a month or two after I went into OCR's Discord and boasted, "YEAH I made it guys, I'm sooooo pro now!" (or something along those lines)... Then BAM two rejections. The Judge Panel really keeps you on your toes here, Jebus Miste.

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by HoboKa
derp ADHD