Chimpazilla   Judges ⚖️

Cool original, and cool track but I agree with my fellow Js that the source song isn't nearly recognizable enough for OCR. The arrangement is cool but the sections get repetitive with the same instruments and patterns over and over. The mix is super low-heavy and the master is quite loud, I think the low end could be a bit better controlled so you have a little more headroom to work with and then there's no need to push the limiter so hard. But generally, this is a cool listen! Just not enough source for OCR. For OCR, the source song would need to be very easily identifiable, and you could do all kinds of original things over the top of it, that is a great remix strategy for such a simple and repetitive source. NO

This is the coolest idea ever, I LOVE this concept, so super groovy. But I have to agree with proph, it's coming off as simplistic due to the blocky-as-heck, stuck-to-the-grid piano sequencing, and uber-repetitive drum groove. It does feel like the arrangement is lacking something more going on in terms of an occasional countermelody or backing texture, as it's the same instruments and patterns again and again. Even some soft pad chords here and there, with some movement or very light gating on them, would add a lot of interest and groove to this. But the piano lead and also chords simply must be humanized a bit for it to sound natural and groovy. I also feel that the mixing could be done differently to get this more impactful, the bass needs to be a bit more present, and the kick sounds very quiet in the mix, so perhaps the low end overall could be brought out more, which could even be done in the mastering stage. There should be something more going on in the highs, there's the tiniest hat pattern I've ever heard, almost too quiet to hear. The main problem here is the stiff and repetitive sequencing, primarily piano and drums. Additional instruments, patterns, variation, ear candy etc. would also go a long way to making this sound much less robotic. I'd love to hear this again though! NO (resubmit)

Opening piano is very stiff and robotic, every note the same velocity and hitting right on grid. Ditto with the cello, there's no legato flow, and when it ends, it stops cold which is totally unnatural. The piano arp goes on and on after that, with nothing on top of it, until the guitar, cello and drums kick in. The cello stops dead again at 1:42. Adding elements like bass, guitar and drums is the right path forward for this arrangement, this is what we look for, unique elements and writing together with recognizable source. This mix has a long way to go however, to be postable on OCR. The instrument sequencing is really rough and unhumanized. The best part of this mix is when the full soundscape starts up at 1:13, even with the stiff sequencing, this part is good and developed, but it's over quickly. Other than that brief section, the rest of the arrangement is much too conservative to the source song for OCR. And no need to render an extra minute of silence after your track, that should be trimmed prior to submitting. There are some great ideas here, and nice mellow vibe. But the writing, arranging, sound choices and mixing will all need to be improved. I agree with proph that a great place to start is our Discord workshop channel. NO

Making a full track just for LFO practice.... color me interested! I love the bouncy synth pattern right away, and the reese bass that follows at the drop. As the arrangement moves along though, I'm waiting for something new to be introduced, other than additional drum elements or tiny synth patterns. The energy basically stays static once established. This arrangement is so close to the source tune that it feels like a cover, at least up to the breakdown at 1:20. The synth and drum elements are all similar, and the drum groove is basically the same as in the source, even the vocal bits are so similar. At 1:20 there's a breakdown and finally some writing variation happens, with the bass going upward, I love that! Then the faux geetar comes in with some kind of original lead writing which I really like. It sounds prominent enough until 2:00 at which point the geetar is still there but now it is mixed so far into the soundscape that it's more of a texture than a feature. From 2:00 until the end, what is meant to be the lead, is it the bass? The source tune is leadless, which is fine in-game, but I feel like this remix would greatly benefit from having some original lead or motif writing over the top of it, especially from the beginning up until the breakdown. That would add interest and help mitigate the repetitive feel of that first 1:20 of the arrangement. The mixing isn't too bad, other than the low end of the bass being somewhat unfocused. I recommend using a monomaker for 125Hz and below, as that range is currently stereo-spread somewhat which makes your low-end lose impact. The upper buzzy end of the reese bass sounds great. I'm very curious though, what's up with this sharp, narrow extreme cut at 10kHz? Overall, I love this concept, but the arrangement feels too conservative for over half of the piece, as well as being static and repetitive. I think some additional lead or motif writing especially in the first half would really spice this up, personalize it and separate it further from the source song. I'd like to hear it again with more personalization added! NO (resubmit)

Very interesting production style here! The heavy reverb and the flutter and wow over the whole soundscape puts me right in the middle of the mall in the middle of the 80s. Very cool! I do agree with proph that this reverb sounds cold, almost icy, perhaps it's too crisp? Is this a plate or spring reverb perhaps? It has a metallic feel. The reverb lacks warmth (hence the coldness!). The amount of reverb is fine, as this is what was intended, but the character of the reverb could definitely be more pleasant than this. This isn't a dealbreaker for me, just an observation. Heck, maybe I'm at the mall in January and it's snowing outside. What is a dealbreaker for me is the repetitive nature of this arrangement. First of all, it plods. The energy of the piece stays the same from beginning to end. The drum groove is exactly the same all throughout the piece, even with the kick being dropped out here and there, the snare and hat patterns never change. I do appreciate that the lead instrument changes throughout the arrangement, but the bass, plucks/mallets, backing elements and vocal clips are the same from beginning to end and it just feels so repetitive to me. Some variation in the soundscape elements, writing, and drum groove would greatly improve this arrangement. The source is definitely plastered like, all over this, so we're all good there. I love the concept! But the repetitive/static nature of the arrangement, instrumentation and writing are blowing it for me. NO

Yeah this isn't lo-fi, it's just EQd harshly at 3kHz and it sounds muffled. Emunator can definitely provide better advice here, and explain the process, but proper lo-fi involves different types of processing, EQ and saturation than just cutting off the top end. There are entire plugins dedicated to lo-fi production. The first one that comes to mind is LO-FI-AF by Unfiltered Audio. The arrangement is very conservative, and although it has some nice adaptations it could really use more personalization and variation. The instruments and drums all sound very robotic and stiff. The piano especially needs some humanization. The writing is very repetitive and the energy is static throughout the piece, with no breakdown and the drums play all the way to the last section. The same patterns play over and over and in combinations but they never do anything interesting once established. The ending is brief and disappointing. As for mixing and volume-balancing, I can't even comment on it in its current EQ-obliterated form. I agree with proph that our Discord workshop channel will be a great place to get further advice and guidance on this one! NO

This is super conservative to the source tune, maybe almost too much so, but I appreciate the little countermelodies and additional textures added. The guitar is performed well. It's a nice, yet straightforward, arrangement. I agree with proph about the mixing, it's very dense and very low and low-mid heavy, giving the overall mix a muddy and sometimes boxy feel. I agree with him that some EQ is needed, to remove unwanted lows/low-mids and rumble from the non-bass instruments, vocals and drums, as everything is piling up and clashing in the lows and low mids. Having all these lows in everything also has the impact of stealing your mastering headroom. You'll have an easier and louder master after taming the instruments with EQ, as your limiter won't have such a huge task of smashing everything down. As it stands, this master is being pushed very hard, and also the limit of -2db seems very unnecessary. You can even see on SPAN how the frequencies are heavily skewed towards the low mids, with the high mids and highs severely rolling off by comparison. This is not a good overall balance for the track. I took this snip at exactly 2:13 in the mix. There are so many instruments playing at that point that everything sounds jumbled up and indistinct. I'm very borderline on this because part of me feels it could post like this. But on repeat listens, I feel that the mixing really does need to be addressed to make this completely passable and enjoyable to listen to. Please clean up the mixing and send it right back to us! NO (please resubmit)

Oooo, tough one. This arrangement is great, performances are great, but as the other Js have mentioned, the mixing is a problem. It's odd because the track sounds well enough balanced overall. There are enough lows, mids and highs. But it sounds.... so off. I think what has happened here is that the instruments have been EQd in such a way that all of their low-mids have been removed. This includes the vocal. So the guitar, piano, and vocals all sound unbearably thin and anemic. Any mid-highs and highs on these elements have been hyped, or they sound hyped as a result, causing the overall mix to sound almost painfully bright. The vocal should be the star of this mix, but due to being harshly EQd like this, the vocal melts into the soundscape and becomes lost (among several elements all screaming in the same frequency range), causing me to be unable to understand the lyrics. It's a shame because this really is a well executed arrangement, but the mixing is putting it under the bar for me. I suggest re-balancing and mixing this from the ground up. Start with just the bass and drums, then add in one element at a time, making sure the elements don't compete in frequency, but also not EQing them into oblivion. NO (please address the mixing and resubmit)

Right from the jump, this master is way too loud. There is no reason for a mellow/jazzy track to be mastered this loud and it has no dynamics as a result. I do love the jazzy-vibed concept of this mix. The drum groove is a particular highlight! The piano performance is excellent. The instruments and drum kit all sound ok to me, and the volumes sound well balanced, but I do hear the clashing that has been mentioned in a few sections. From 0:09-0:23 the reverbs and delays are running together leaving a mush of clashing soundscape trailing behind the fast piano playing. You may not need this much delay in the mix. There's a harmonically awkward turnaround happening at 0:59, and the overlapping reverbs and delays are making it worse. I agree with the guys above me, the mixing needs a cleanup. In addition to taming the reverbs and delays, some EQ work is suggested. Make sure there aren't lows in your piano or other supporting instrumentation playing/conflicting in the low-mid bass ranges, and I agree with XPRT that the bass could also use some EQ to remove some low-mids. On the reverbs (and delays), make sure lows are EQd out also. These mixing fixes should clean things up nicely. I don't agree with the guys though on the drum mixing, I find the balances of the drums fine if not a bit quiet in the mix! I think the drums are fine as-is. Awesome concept and remix! It just needs some mixing love to keep things sounding crisp and clear. You may also want to turn down the final limiter gain also for a more reasonable master volume (something more like -12 to -11db RMS, the mix currently hits -7db RMS), although the EQ changes we have suggested will most likely give you more mastering headroom anyway. Please do these things and let's hear this fun remix again soon. NO (resubmit please)

This is indeed a straight cover, for the most part. The instrument/genre adaptation does count, but musically it is a cover, which can be fine as long as there are personalized sections added in, like an original breakdown and/or another big section with more variation on the writing or pace or something. While not required, some kind of longer and more purposeful intro and outro would also help this arrangement shine. As proph said, what's here is fun! It's short though, arguably 2 minutes is not enough time to get the ideas across in a prog-rock piece. On the production side of things, the drums could come up a bit in the mix, the snare and all the hats are very tame and weak with minimal highs, kick could punch through a bit better. I think things are balanced fairly well other than that, although at times the lead guitar comes in too loud, such as at 1:18 and again at 1:46. I also agree with proph that I'd like to hear a bit more bass in the mix. NO

I love all of these Zelda tunes and they are handled so delicately and intricately here. The transitions between the sections are very smooth. All the instrumental performances are gorgeous and competent. This arrangement has a lovely whimsical feel. I do wish some of the percussion was a little bit louder, the hand drums sound so distant and in the back of everything. I agree with Brad on the panning, I am not a fan of severe panning, I would prefer that some elements sit slightly left or right if need be, but not ALL the way left or right. That is the only part of this arrangement that I'm not loving, it feels artificial to me, hearing one instrument only on the left, and another only on the right. The panning feels especially awkward when it is a heavier element like a full choir or deep string pad sitting all the way to one side. Other than the panning, this is a beautiful romp through the wind and sky themes. YES

Those drops are waaaaay too loud, coming in with zero signaling, suddenly nine decibels louder than what came before. That right there is enough of a dealbreaker to sink this mix. I loves me a good loud kick, but holy heckballs this is absolutely ridiculoud. The arrangement should have soft sections followed by buildups, hinting at what is to come, you don't want your listener to leap out of his chair hearing these drops. There are no builds here, just the soft sections and then WHAM my ears are raped. The sections are repetitive within themselves, with nothing too interesting happening once the patterns are established. I think there great ideas here though! I'd love to hear more melodic development, I don't actually hear the source motif anywhere, I think adding that motif plus some variations over the repetitive sections would greatly add interest to the arrangement. As prophetik mentioned, the arpeggio that appears here and there in this arrangement does not really match with the melodies and harmonies you have going in the other instruments. It certainly does not hold water trying to act as a lead. In that final section, the faux-hardstyle, that vocal bit is amazingly too loud also. So this entire mix needs a volume balance as a starting point. But yeah, resist the urge to try to win the loudness war here! There is no need for that, and it's much more jarring than it needs to be. NO

This arrangement re-imagines the Animal Crossing Wild World Title music in a more instrumentally dry and straight ahead manner, taking rhythmic inspiration especially from the original Animal Crossing Title music for N64/Gamecube. Featured is MIDI arrangement and recording only created in Bitwig Studio. The overall structure of the original track is maintained, yet lengthened. Instrumentation is changed and does not vary throughout. One of the key features of this track is the unison marimba/electric piano melody, separated by octaves. The melody is then harmonized at key points in synchrony with the rhythm section. Then it returns to unison until the next point of synchrony. At 1:25, we see a chromatically colored, original solo of the marimba/electric piano lead with bebop inspired phrasing over one chorus of the song. At 2:35, we get a glimpse of an abrupt ending... and then we continue until the final point of suspension. The original ending of suspension is kept not only for preservation, but to evoke the feeling of "the world keeps moving on." I feel the original composition is playful, but melancholic, and is preserved in the arrangement. It's a tune that's close to many and reflects life and the people you meet. Games & Sources Animal Crossing: Wild World - Title Screen Platform: Nintendo DS Release Date: November 23rd, 2005 Composer: Kazumi Totaka Original composition:

I like this tons right out of the gate! My ears are looking for even more intense neurobass though, some real dark growls, louder and prouder, And some more/louder percussion and breaks. What's here is cool but on the tame side. Lots of creativity here though! I really like how you've meshed the two themes together. I agree with jnWake here, I love the chaos of the arrangement, that took some skill to put together with Mad Luca in the middle but it feels really cohesive with the two source songs together, nice work on this arrangement. Mastering is loud. I think you could have trimmed some low-lows out of some of the elements and I'll bet that would give you more mastering headroom, and I'd love to hear the master go a little harder with some harmonic exciter/mild distortion, generally some more highs. I really just want MOAR GROWLS. But what's here is awesome, love it. Let's go. YES

Looks like a premaster, tons of unused headroom in the waveform. This arrangement is extremely conservative, we all agree on that. But with the 100% instrumentation change, I don't find this conservatism dealbreaking. I agree that the first 80 seconds is almost too conservative, but there's a lovely turnaround 1:26, followed by fuller chords with the choir, countermelodies with the woodwinds, and an even more luscious feel. This arrangement isn't doing anything earth-shattering, but it is utterly lovely and does the job for me for sure. As per our standards I feel that enough has been done here to differentiate the remix from the source tune. If this does not pass, please find a way to add a few more original melodies or motifs or something, especially into that first half. And do some mastering, it doesn't have to be anything major but at least use a final limiter to bring up the overall volume to somewhere around -0.5db peak, hitting maybe -13 to -12db RMS. YES