Chimpazilla   Judges ⚖️

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

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

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

That's an intense source to do a remix of! Very hectic and wild. The remix is much tamer. I like the idea of doing this as an EDM or trance mix. Right away I can tell that this artist is fairly new at producing. But, everyone starts somewhere! I remember being at this stage myself, very well. I'm not going to go into an extensive critique; this track as the other two judges have mentioned will do better by going through our workshop process either on OCR's forum or in our Discord server workshop channels. There's a lot to learn here. The guys above me have given some great advice already, and you'll get more of that in the workshop and they can give you feedback in realtime as you progress, without having to wait through our judging queue. Good luck, keep at it and hang in there! NO

I really love this triplet bassline! Very cool trancey vibe going on here. I hear sidechaining on the bass, I think, but nothing else. Adding some sidechaining on your other elements (pads, plucks, even the lead) in varying amounts will make this soundscape groove all that much better. This is not a dealbreaker issue for me, just something I'm pointing out. The lead that you are using is a rather wide saw sound, and it's not wowing me as a lead. This sound would do better as a backing or countermelodic element than a lead. It melts into the soundscape rather than rising above it to carry the melody. There is definitely repetition in this arrangement, 0:45-1:00 for example, is just the same thing over and over without anything of interest happening there. That's a lost opportunity to do something surprising for your listeners. The lead writing remains the same throughout most of this arrangement with no variation from how the source plays the lead motif. I'd love to hear some more personalization on that motif now and then as the piece moves along. From 1:15-2:30 it is just the same thing over and over with a few elements added along the way but with that lead sound and writing never changing, it feels very long and repetitive. The transition into 2:30 is very awkward with nothing bridging it. 2:30-2:50 is very simple with nothing of interest happening. That would be a great place to add some surprising element like a new arp or sfx or some automated filtered stuff or some weird spoken vocal. Then there's a halftime drum groove over an 1/8-note bassline, then with zero transition we are into a slower section at 3:10 which feels so weird, is that synth doing a swing pattern? I can't entirely tell but the pulse there feels clunky. At 3:30 there is yet another feel and groove. The synth playing the pattern is the same one that has been playing throughout the entire track so far. The autopanning at 3:45 is too fast, it would have more impact moving more slowly across the stereo field. At 4:00 there is a new lead sound, with personalization on the source motif, finally! I like this writing, and I like the lead sound much better than the first one although it's still not a super strong patch for a lead and ends up feeling a little washed into the soundscape. This section is cool though. Zero transition into an extended outro. This arrangement has a ton of cool ideas in it, but it does not sound or feel cohesive to me. There are so many patterns, speeds and vibes, and the transitions between the sections are nonexistent so the listener can't prepare or anticipate the next thing. The sounds are not super sophisticated and they are used very repetitively. I feel like either the arrangement should either be shortened, or more variation should be introduced as these longer sections go on and on. NO

LOOOOOUUUUUDDDDD. Why? This is a chill piece, it does not need to be this loud. The waveform is a brick, and I hear sizzle that I don't think is intentional. The gain needs to be brought down on the final limiter. I like the dreamy instrumentation, the smooth bass, pads and soft arp pattern. I like the plucky piano-y lead, and the flute lead. This is a nice take on this source, keeping it recognizable and dreamy while adding groove to it. The drum groove does have some variation, but it sounds repetitive a lot of the time, and the groove does not always match the mood of what's happening in the arrangement. If the feel is meant to be groovy rather than floaty and ethereal, some sidechaining needs to happen on the instruments, at the very least on the bass and pads. As it stands now, my mind cannot decide whether this is meant to be soft and dreamy, or groovy. It's a weird emotional disparity. And the drums being mostly the same loop a lot of the time does not help, it doesn't feel natural without more rhythmic variations. I like the ideas here, but for me it does not feel cohesive overall yet. Honestly just some proper sidechaining will make the drum groove gel with the instrumental components, it will be so much more luscious with proper sidechaining done. Please lower the master limiter gain somewhat, too. NO (resubmit)

This is a very fun listen! Although the remix sticks very close to the original source arrangement, there have been arrangement modifications here and there, and the last segment of the remix seems more original than midi-rip. Still, I have to agree with proph that overall this comes off as way too conservative. The submission writeup explains that actual source audio has been used and effected. proph said "instrumental replacement" but what is happening here is instrumental augmentation with the literal source audio as a base. I ripped the YouTube video and put that and the remix side by side in Cubase just to be sure that I was hearing that correctly. Both source and remix are at the same 125bpm as well. While it is ok to use some source audio from game songs, and sfx from the game are usually ok (as long as it's not Square Enix), this is way too much use of source audio from the game for OCR's standards. I'd love to hear this again though, with even more arrangement and writing personalization and significantly less actual source audio (like just SFX and nothing melodic). Even so, I really did enjoy this take on this source! NO

Fun source and fun idea for a remix! But I think the guys above me covered most of the issues well. The soundscape is dense, muddy-ish, and repetitive. The same sounds are used all throughout the arrangement, which could work if the writing was varied enough. With the writing being so conservative and also repetitive throughout the piece, the instrumentation, sfx and ear candy have got to be varied and dynamic. Many of the elements are lows-heavy, causing the low end to feel heavy and muddy; some EQ on the midrange elements would help clear up the low end. The drum kit feels weak compared to the rest of the instrumentation. As XPRT said, the kick is extremely weak with zero body. The 8-bit squelches and sizzly crash don't feel right to me, in this arrangement. There's no sidechaining that I can hear, so the mix lacks groove it could otherwise have (not dealbreaker, but a shame). I like the soft breakdown with just drums and bells, with the chippy synth leading us back to the melodic material. The arrangement overall I think is working well. This one would be a winner for me with a bit more instrumentation variation, some EQ to tame the lows on the midrangey elements, and better drum sounds and drum mixing (and a little sidechaining never hurt anyone!). NO (resubmit)

I think this is really cool and fun! Thanks Brad for checking on source use, that makes it easier, although it already sounds like enough to me, especially given that the backing chords/bass is used a lot. This is a really weird, unique and cool take on this source. I always listen to tracks in Cubase, and the master on this track is hitting a peak of +4db! I don't actually hear any overcompression artifacts, which surprises me. It is possible that a limiter has been applied with a 0db ceiling; some sounds are just fast/loud enough to escape the grasp of a final limiter, but 4db peak really surprises me. Since it doesn't sound overcompressed, I am going to overlook this, and I am hopeful that YouTube limiting won't bring out any artifacts. YES

0:00-0:28 is too repetitive, as proph said something else should have come in by 0:14. This same vocal and piano pattern is still going strong until 0:56 and that's way too long. Even with the bassline and drums added, the vocal and piano patterns go on way too long. The mixing is out of balance. The drums are comically quiet. There are a ton of instruments playing during the dense portions of this arrangement, and everything is competing in frequency range, soundstage placement and volume. The drum groove never drops out, once established. Ditto the bassline. At 2:08, the faux brass instrument has a slow attack, making it sound badly behind the beat. The guitar solo is a nice addition! The biggest problem here though is that the instrumental patterns never change, they are relentlessly playing the same patterns over and over, and often dogpiled one on top of the other so that it is a wall of sound. I agree with proph that this is a neat idea, but needs a lot more work to be realized. Writing variation has to be introduced, a drumless breakdown somewhere in the arrangement would be a welcome break from the intense action. The instrument volumes need to be rebalanced and elements need to be EQd so that things aren't competing this badly. I do like the concept, though! NO

How did this get so far down this list without a vote from me? I mastered it, and I probably figured that made me ineligible to vote on it but I think we decided that wasn't the case, so here goes, finally. I apologize for this ridiculous wait time from me. I love this arrangement so much. Mo has such skill at creating an extremely varied soundscape, in every regard: energetically, instrumentally, emotionally, and with ear candy for days and days. No one element ever gets repetitive or outstays its welcome. Mo is a talented musical storyteller. The feel of this arrangement is slow and purposeful, and... HECTIC as all heck... at the same time, what a cool ride. *And the sidechaining in this mix is so good that it brings tears to my eyes* And hey, the master sounds really great too! YES

Agreed with Brad that this remix is more of a cover right from the jump, even down to the identical snare tone. The genre, instrumentation, tempo, arrangement, structure, modulations etc. are all the same as the source song. It's a very competent cover! But a cover for sure, all the way until 2:00, right after the original's loop point. The synth solo that follows at 2:04 is sick beyond belief, I love this so much. At 2:22, we are back to the source's chord structure but with another awesome solo (guitar) on top of it. This arrangement really takes off after the 2:00 mark! The soft piano breakdown is excellent, although the piano sounds very stiff and sequenced. After the piano, at 3:10, we are back to the verbatim source cover as in the first half of the piece. As Brad said, ending is solid. Brad is right, this is a super fun listen, and a very good cover, but it is too conservative too much of the time for OCR. If the part from 0:00-2:00 included some variations away from the source song, this remix would be a no-brainer YES vote. I'd love to hear it again with those variations made so it can be posted on OCR! NO

I was so excited to see a new Hudak submission here! I mentioned it to Wes, but he said he had seen this submission and he remembered the same submission from a few years back, which was rejected. So I dug up the rejection thread, and the writeup is *almost* exactly the same. Listening to the remix, I am pretty sure the wav file is also exactly the same, based on the writeup and the judges' previous votes. I am going to assume this isn't a resubmission (nothing was changed), and just a re-submission. And so my vote will mirror that of the other judges in 2021. Super cool idea! But way too minimal for OCR. I know this is an experimental track, but I personally would love to hear this as a layer within a larger BotW arrangement of this source or possibly more sources from the game, with proper instrumentation and arrangement in place. NO edit: I see the writeup indicates that tiny tweaks have been made since 2021. I never heard the first version but it seems like this new version is substantially the same.

I agree with both my fellow Js above on all points. Those grace notes, including the quick upward run right at the end, are awkward and often not in key, but they are brief. They add to the not-real feel of the flute lead. There is also overly-consistent vibrato on the flute, but it doesn't sound egregious since it only triggers on the longer notes. Other than those issues, the flute sounds pretty good. The brass swells are definitely too loud. Those are the sections that are squared off in the wav because the limiter is having to squash the track at those points. There are almost certainly low-lows in those sections that could be EQd out, giving you more mastering headroom (in addition to just turning the low brass down a couple of db during those big swells). The mastering is also heavy handed, with the track hitting a max RMS value of -7.5db which is EDM territory, and is totally unnecessary for a soft orchestral piece. Shoot for more like -12db RMS, tops. All that said, this is a lovely arrangement. I like the bits of vocal, they add a nice flavor. While not perfect, I think this arrangement passes our bar. In the case that it doesn't pass, I recommend at least EQing your low and mid instruments to remove unnecessary low-lows and rumble, lower the volume of the low brass, and reduce the final limiter gain on the master. I'm borderline like Larry is here, due to the right-on-the-cusp mixing issues, but I am still a YES (borderline)

Very conservative arrangement, in fact the artist did mention that it is a cover. This arrangement is too conservative for OCR, although I like this direction for a spooky remix. Cool listen for Halloween, but I agree with proph that the mix is extremely dense, and I hear the limiter pumping as it gets engaged on the big hits. Very cool idea for a remix but needs a mixing/mastering overhaul and needs to be more than just a cover for OCR, it needs some writing personalizations along with the new instrumentation. NO