jnWake

Wasn't expecting a source like that from Doom 2! Anyway, this begins with a pad playing around some notes with a background sweep. Seems to be either B or E minor. Around 0:18 we get a kick hitting on all beats but we get a quick (maybe a little jarring?) change-up intro triplets around 0:30. Now there's a clear Em-Bm progression, which is featured on the source. I like the pad here. Chords die around 0:48 and we keep with a steady B on bass for a bit but there's now a "snare". There's some neat touches of sound design on the percussion. At 1:00 we finally get the main melody from the track with some small variations in how the melody's played (plus some slightly different chords). Pads and hats fill the soundscape at 1:15 and at 1:32 we get some more elements into the mix. There's a repeat then and I'm now noticing that the percussion has been doing basically the exact same loop (which is very short) for over a minute. Around 2:30 we reach a break with a solo synth bass doing some triplets and then at 2:50 there's a big transition into a completely different section, featuring the second main melody from the source. We're now in standard 8ths and the beat here is really cool... However, around 3:10 we're back into a triplet feel with a synth bass riff of sorts and then a little later back in a straight 8ths feel with some pads. Main melody returns around 4:01 and there's a solo of sorts at 4:30. Finally, there's another break at 5:00 for a section without percussion and a few ominous chords 'til the track ends. On the arrangement side, I'm torn. I really like the variations you did of the source material, melodies were kept very similar to the originals but you did fun stuff with the chords. However, the structure of the arrangement is a bit all over the place. It's cohesive (arguably repetitive) for the first half but from 2:30 to ~4:00 it feels very unfocused, changing between ideas without much direction. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of cool ideas in here but this feels like a collection of ideas more than one arrangement. On production I don't have many comments, I think you did a great job there. Maybe my only nitpick would be that the kick in the first section (around 0:18) is too aggressive for the soundscape, very clicky when there's basically nothing else going on so it sounds jarring. Besides from that I liked the production, a lot of fun sound design touches and nice synth samples for the most part (arguably, the least exciting sample is, ironically, the one doing the main melodies). I'm torn here because I really like how this sounds and there's a lot of cool ideas, but I feel the arrangement needs some refinement, the first section (0:00 to 2:50) could be trimmed down a little and the sections between (2:50 to 4:01) could get a little more time to breathe and develop. NO

What a strange source... Begins with a voice clip and the main arpeggio from the source on synths. There's fun sound design here as the initial synth sample, which is a bit percussive, is quickly joined by a very fuzzy one. At 0:12, bass and percussion join, creating an oppressive rhytm. Around 0:27 we get the sax melody on a quiet synth that's kinda buried in the soundscape. At 0:55 there's a small break before we continue with the same buzzy arpeggio + buzzy bass + heavy percussion mood. At 1:33 we get another melody and there's a snare added to the percussion. It's kind of a weak snare but it does fit, although it could be beefier. At 1:35 a buzzy pad synth joins the background and takes over the soundscape, it's super loud. Around 2:17 there's another stop in the rhytm, more similar to what we had on the 0:12 section, until that exact section repeats. At 2:31 we get a very random cut for a "nuclear weapon" voice clip that leads into a section with more buzzy synth pads doing a heavy melody. We then return to the intro arpeggio and the track ends. On arrangement I dig this, I like how you transformed the somewhat jazzy source into a very oppressive synth piece, which is a good use of the odd chords in the original. The track flows well IMO, having a few breaks here and there so that it's not constantly in your face (conceptually at least). It's a challenging source to cover and you did well IMO. On production I feel more mixed. On the positive side, I really like your synth work, there's a lot of great sounds in here and clearly a lot of effort putting into how they evolve. Now, there's 2 main issues IMO. First is that the track has very little variation in volume. Most of the track seems to hover around the same level, which lessens the impact of the small breaks you put in some sections (like 0:55 and 2:17). Second is that there's some elements that take over the mix at times, like the bass at 0:27 (completely burying the lead) and the buzzy pad string at 1:35. Overall, this is an interesting remix. The arrangement and production have a harsh mood that I really like, but the lack of dynamics and issues with some samples make me feel more mixed about it. After several listens and pondering my decision, I'm gonna reject this, hoping that there's a chance for you to revisit the mix/master (for more dynamics) and, especially, tame that synth pad around 1:35, it's very grating on the ears. NO

Before listening to the remix I listened to the source and wow, that's a nice way of making a track that evolves, awesome! Anyway, this begins with some simple percussion and then a guitar playing D-Bb chords (I believe, I find it a bit curious you're going for the Bb since the source goes for the dorian feel but it's still valid!). I played along on my keys and I'm pretty sure the guitar isn't properly tuned. Bass joins soon after and around 0:27 a guitar enters playing the main melody. Some notes on production here, the drumset sounds very dry and not super punchy, it struggles cutting through the mix. Bass sounds very clicky and it's way too loud, it definitely needs some compression and some EQ to tame its tone. We get a few repeats of the melody until 1:01, where we change chords and key, just like the source. I'm very curious about the chords you picked here, which I believe are D# and B. The first one fits the melody (descending D-C-A) if we think of it as major but then the B doesn't really fit and, at least to my ears, it sounds kinda wrong. At 1:13 we return to the first melody and have an increase of intensity on the drums, just like the source. Sadly, the mix here is extremely muddy and it's very hard to tell what's going on. I like the drum playing itself but the mix isn't doing it any favors. You do both versions of the melody and actually use the source's chord progression for the second one, making me more curious about the unfitting progression earlier. The madness takes a break at 1:49 with a return of the 0:27 approach but for the variation we return to the fast paced drums. Finally, at 2:25 we get the source's ending section, covered in a very faithful way and then the remix ends. On the arrangement side, I have some criticisms. One is that the first minute takes too long to build-up, with several identical repetitions from 0:27 to 1:01, you could definitely add variety there. Second are the chords on 1:01, they simply don't fit the melody well. Finally, I think the treatment of the source, outside of that particular chord change, is quite straightforward. I think some more interesting guitar writing, for both rhytm and leads, could let you craft something more unique. Production is, however, what's really putting this down. The mix is very muddy, with the bass in particular sounding extremely dirty. Sections with the fast paced drums are very chaotic and nothing really cuts through the mix. As an aside, the tuning on the guitar is definitely off. As a positive, the drum performance is sick. Overall, I dig the idea of covering this source with a standard guitar/bass/drums band, but both arrangement and production need more polish. Work on a cleaner mix, fix the guitar tuning and try adding more interesting guitar lines on a second version. NO

Opens with some synth strings and heavy bass/percussion playing a B-G-E-G progression (taken from the source) before returning to B. For some reason you left out percussion on 0:21 where a neat A# is played, I think that transition would work better with a drum fill. We then focus on a sort of drum build-up until 0:43, where the main riff of the source enters on synth bass. The sample you picked struggles to cut off at times but as the track progresses you start adding some extra fuzz that makes it clearer. Although the evolving sound is cool I think it starts way too tame and eventually becomes arguably too loud. This continues for quite a while with some extra elements added over time. We reach a break around 2:32, similar to the one in the source. Main riff returns at 2:55 on a weird lead while the bass now highlights root notes, there's some fun variations here and there with how you use the bass or how you play the main riff. At 3:38 a new layer doing the main melody is added. This section lasts until a silly tom heavy drum fill at 4:21 and we move into a new section similar to the one at 2:32 but with more active drums. At 5:07 there's some strings/synths added on top that create a cool mood. This section actually last up until the end, where the snare starts getting more and more dramatic (biiiiiig reverb) until we're done. On the production side I dig this, it's very synth heavy which is always a plus for me! There's definite work put into varying the samples over time, which is especially evident with the introduction of the bass synth. My main nitpick would have to be that drums could be punchier, especially in sections where you up the volume or presence of the bass, since the kick gets almost completely lost in those. On the arrangement side, however, I'm mixed. As something to put on the background this is quite neat as it has fun sounds, but there's too much repetition. In my description on the first paragraph you'll notice most sections last quite a while, the first bass riff lasts from 0:43 to 2:32, the repeat from 2:55 to 4:21 and the final section lasts from 4:21 to 6:16 (the end). Long sections can work if there's enough variety in the writing and I think that there's potential to improve on this front here (prophetik's comment on the drum fills is pretty important here, but there's also the option of changing the drum rhytm more often). Overall, while I do like the track's vibe and how it sounds, I really feel it could use the equivalent of a radio edit since it's just way too long without enough variety to justify it. I'd love it if you could attempt a second version since this has a ton of potential. EDIT: On a relisten, the issue with the drum patterns being very repetitive became extremely obvious. That's also something that definitely needs a revision. NO

Very interesting approach to the arrangement here, let's break it down: Track begins with a pad, bass and an irregular kick pattern (it doesn't bother me as it did other judges though). Things seem to be in E minor here but at 0:26 the B melody from the source enters and there's a big point of contention, since the original is on F major (for this section) and you didn't change the key, which creates a huge dissonance. Of course, write-up shows you actually intended this but I don't think it's effective. Dissonance is a valid tool but I don't think flat out slotting a melody over an unfitting key works without extra effort, it's something you probably need to set up effectively. At 0:49 we move into a new section, with bass and melody on A major, an odd choice after the dissonant part. The beat here is cool though, the hi-hat pattern is very Chrono Trigger-ish. 1:13 seems to be kind of a reprise of the intro that leads into an actual reprise a bit later. A fun drum fill moves us into a new section at 1:38. I like the energy here. The lower of the 2 melodies seems to be playing some liberal variations of the souce and 1:51 echoes one of the chord progressions from the original. A fairly odd synth arpeggio leads into a section with distorted guitar around the 2 minute mark that's basically one riff played over a set of different chords, would've been a good spot for a solo or something of the sort. At 2:27 there's a bit of break/keyboard solo over a static 8ths rhytmic pattern which leads into a repeated arpeggio starting from around 2:45 to 3:01 in a small "drum solo". We then get a reprise of the 0:26 melody but without the dissonance, much more pleasant! Finally, at around 3:35 we reach a take on the source's end of loop section and the track ends. On the arrangement side, this is definitely an interesting piece. Changing Barret's Theme into a "battle theme" is a fun idea. Generally, I think the structure of the arrangement is solid but I have some criticisms. First is the dissonant section. You mention it "compliments everything that comes after it" but I don't really see it, the section right after the dissonance is an extremely upbeat one which is just a big whiplash that makes the dissonance lose purpose. There's some pay-off for the dissonance with the reprise at 3:01 but I feel that reprise would've still worked well without the big dissonant part earlier. Second is that there's a few parts where we basically have a bass part and percussion without nothing particularly interesting happening on top, like 1:01-1:13, 2:03-2:26 and 2:44-3:01. I also have a bit of trouble catching the vibe of the arrangement as it moves from tense sections to very upbeat melodies often. As a positive, I enjoy the general rhytm of the track, it's energetic and fun! On production, there's a big issue with the samples used... they're simply not high quality enough. I won't bet on this but some even seem taken directly from SNES soundfonts, which is a valid approach if you take the time to write and produce them well. Bass, particularly, suffers from this, as the sample picked doesn't really cut well through the mix. Even if you can't find better samples, it'd also be a good idea to invest time into sound design. As an example, the synth doing the backing from 2:27 to 3:01 could really use some effects to sound more interesting. I don't have big criticisms of the mix itself other than sample quality really, the track sounds well. Overall, there's a lot of potential here. Arrangement has interesting ideas but it needs some refinement. Production needs more work, focusing on making the instruments sound better (either by finding better samples or by mixing the existing ones in smart ways to make them better). I'd recommend hitting the workshop on the forums or the Discord and hopefully you hit us with a revision in the future! NO

Ok, wow, the source is definitely not what my mind thought of after reading "Sonic Frontiers". Anyway, this begins with the same arpeggios and bass notes from the source. Tempo is slower though, which with the addition of percussion creates this "chillhop" vibe you mentioned in the description. There's some piano ornaments on top, also similar to the ones from the source. At 0:21 there's a sweep effect that leads into a more defined rhytm with a bass backing. A quick comment on the mix here, things often get very loud, way more than one would expect from something with this vibe. If you look at the track's waveform, it has many "sausage" sections, which honestly doesn't fit what you're going for. Checking with a LUFS plug-in, the section starting at 0:21 is around -7.5 to -8 LUFS, much louder than it's needed. Now, I don't think I hear any artifacts from the loudness but certain effects make it reach unpleasant levels IMO. In any case, things continue with the same vibe until 0:46, where one of the sources' melodies enters on a woody synth. 1:02 marks the first bigger departure from the source with the addition of a flute lead, that goes for melodies that feel similar to the source but also sound "original". Lead then switches to a piano on 1:28 and we keep on a similar vibe. There's a cute breakdown near 1:50 that leads into another section led by a piano melody. At 2:14 we move to the (very pretty) second section from the source. Similarly to previous sections, the melodies don't change much, but I think the chord progression is slightly different. Just like the source, at 2:58 we return to the first motif until the track ends. On the arrangement side, I'm a little torn since melody/chord treatment is very conservative. Outside of the flute melody around 1:02, most of the leads play the exact same melodies from the source under almost exactly the same chord progressions. You also followed the structure of the original very closely. Now, the addition of percussion + the tempo drop does add your own mark but it's quite on the edge of what we ask for IMO. On the production side I'm also torn. First, the positives, most samples/sounds are great, I don't have many nitpicks there. I also think parts of the mix are quite solid, the percussion is punchy and most instruments are easy to hear. However, the track is just way too loud and that disrupts what it's going for. Arrangement is chill, percussion is chill, but then you're hit with a very loud soundscape and that almost ruins it. The sweep effects, in particular, are grating. There's also a lot of reverb, making this even more of a wall of sound. Overall, while I love the intended chill vibe, the current version of the track is too loud and too much of a wall of sound to be pleasant. Doing a second pass of the mix/master with a focus on controlling unintended peaks due to effects, controlling reverb and also controlling the final volume would be nice. NO

I love hearing a remix of such an old and obscure tune. The original is also quite a banger! Anyway, we begin with some fun SFX into the bass of the original. I dig the synth bass used. The main melody soon joins in on a synth with a ton of reverb. At 0:21 we have a key change that's also in the source. So far we're following the source pretty closely in what feels like a "remaster". On this section you add some fun new backing elements. At 0:33 we move to the next section from the source, still keeping the "remaster" feel. I hadn't mentioned it until now but I dig the drum sound, it's super punchy. 0:49 continues the trend of keeping the structure and melodies of the source while improving the sound quality and the backing. To not repeat myself too much this continues for quite a while, until the original's track material ends around the 2 minute mark. Here we finally get some arranging that's different from the source, first with some cool bass and then some fun modifications of the first main melody around 2:29. Not long after that the track ends with the same SFX from the intro. On the production side this is great, I don't really have many nitpicks. Percussion is punchy, the samples picked sound good and everything sounds clear. My only nitpick, and this could just be personal preference, is that there's a lot of reverb and that can make things muddier than they should. Not a big deal though. On the arrangement side, though, we have issues (for OCR's standards at least). For the first 2 minutes this track is basically a "remaster" of the original, you kept the same structure, melodies, genre and tempo of the source, mostly upping the quality. Don't get me wrong, this is a very valid approach to VGM remixing but it's simply not what OCR looks for. Overall, while this sounds great, the arrangement is too conservative for OCR standards. As an "expanded remaster" of the original track this is basically perfect but it's not what the site looks for. If you ever feel like doing something more akin to the final minute of the track I'd love to hear it, but for now, the decision is... NO

Begins with a similar instrumentation as the original with vocals and piano, but immediately sounds much darker. While the original focuses on a major 7th chord here you seem to be going for more of a minor sound. Two things jump at me right away, first is that this is a very quiet mix, on the intro it's averaging -16 LUFS and much later it only goes up to -14, not a dealbreaker but I'm used to things being louder. Second is that the percussion is very low, for a mix like this, that seems to be aiming for a groovy feel, you need that percussion to punch, not to be some quiet thing on the background. Anyway, for the first 20 seconds or so we basically have a repeat of the vocal pattern with some minor piano variatons. At 0:28 a bass line enters and the percussion becomes more alive with some extra hi-hat work. I really like that bass pattern, sounds super cool. New patterns repeat for a while, with some variations to the soundscape at times. At 0:57 a guitar comes in (there's a nasty pop sound right at the beginning of its part) doing the chorus melody. However, the bass/percussion don't change, so it doesn't feel like the track is moving to a different section that strongly. Eventually, more instruments join the mix and things start becoming quite crowded. Around 1:54 you drop a large portion of the instruments for the "french voice" section, but the backing is still the same. At 2:24 we get a guitar solo, cool! This lasts until around 3:20 where we basically return to the intro for the track's end. On the arrangement side, there's some cool ideas (like the bass line) but this is extremely repetitive. Drum pattern and bass line basically don't change since the 0:28 mark and the piano line is also extremely similar for most of the track. The main variation is the addition of the chorus melody around 0:57 but even that melody gets repeated several times after its introduction. On the production side there's room to improve. First, percussion should be more present, right now it's very quiet. Second, the mix gets very busy and, as pointed out by prophetik, there's a lot of stuff crammed around the same frequency range. I also think this would benefit from some careful EQ around the higher frequencies, the mix sounds extremely dark right now. Overall, this in an interesting piece but I feel it needs more work. Backing elements are way too repetitive and the mix needs more clarity and punch. NO

Opens up with a fun descending synth over the E minor pentatonic scale. Soon after, synth strings and a percussion enter. At 0:15 we have a synth doing a "F#-G-F#-E-D-E-F#-B" line which is technically the same line the choir does in Aquas (the line there starts on A but it's the same pattern). Now, the feels are completely different, you're doing the line on the 2nd of the scale here, while Aquas is doing that line on an A phrygian scale so it begins on the 1st of the scale and features a minor 2nd (it's also harmonized on 5ths, for an even more different feeling!). We're of course open to reinterpretation here so I'll "allow" this as source usage but it's so so different it's almost a technicality IMO. Anyway, this line repeats a few times until 0:36, where we get a more straight percussion oriented section. At 1:03, the melody returns until 1:24. I haven't mentioned this until now, but the soundscape you created is great. Really nailed the underwater feel you mentioned on the write-up. Love all the details on the sound design as well. In any case, 1:24 features a sound design oriented break, pretty cool. At 1:48 we return to a steady rhytm and there's now a synth playing a (5-1-5) arpeggio. The rest of the instruments seem pretty similar to the section around 0:36. Around 2:36 there's another break and the main melody returns and plays until 3:24 (from 2:39). Then, the track ends with a few synths playing the main ideas of the track. On the arrangement side, this is a neatly crafted atmospheric piece. There's not many elements on the track but they flow well and you manage to keep interest alive with breaks and subtle variations. It's a bit repetitive, but that fits the genre/mood you were going for. On production this is great, I really don't have much to nitpick. Good samples, good sound design, good percussion. Really well done. However, as the other judges mentioned, this deviates way too much from the source to fit OCR's criteria. The choir melody from the original is represented (in a very transformed way) as the only melody on this track and plays 3 times for a total of ~86 seconds (21+21+44 as per the above breakdown), which is less than 50% of your 225 seconds track. We could count the 5-1-5 arpeggio entering at 1:48 but that's way too much of a stretch IMO, even more than the melody I'm already stretching to count. Really well done track but it definitely needs more clear source usage to reach the front page. NO

Starts with the "Escape" strings motif but the metal adaptation changes things up pretty quickly with a big entrance at 0:04. As far as I can tell the lead guitar is mostly original material but it fits well and makes the track sound more "epic". This continues until 0:55, with the "Escape" chord progression lifted straight from the source. I'll say more about production later but I wanted to highlight how nice the drums sound, very punchy! At the same time, however, the lead guitar is too big and takes a lot of space from the rhytm guitar. 0:55 has a small break but then continues with the same guitar riff from the previous section while adding other elements from "Escape" on top, like the brass melody and the classic Metal Gear string melody. 1:20 introduces a new riff which I feel is original? There's some variations then and around 1:45 we return to the main riff. At 2:06 there's a fast section with Mantis' theme, pretty cool. 2:18 has some nice guitar shredding over the "Escape" chords again and 2:44 introduces the "Enclosure" melody. Finally, there's a cool riff at 3:10 which ends the track. On the arrangement side this is great. Intense rock for almost 3 and a half minutes with nice riffs and a lot of variety, not a boring moment in here! Usage of sources is easily identifiable even if a lot of it is background material for guitar leads. There's a few sections where I couldn't tell which source was being covered but they add to like 40 seconds tops so no issues there. Great job on the arrangement! On production, like I mentioned earlier, the drums sound great, very punchy and clear. Guitar tones are also great, both leads and rhytms pack a punch. Bass takes more of a back seat in the arrangement but it's very present on the mix. Now, I do have one issue here, which I'm not 100% on but I'll point it out anyway and see what others judges think about it. Rhytm guitars seem to not be double tracked (you know, the practice of having 2 takes of the rhytm guitar part, one panned heavily L and other heavily R), and that takes a lot of power away from the track. I checked this by listening to L/R channels separately. In a double tracked recording you'd usually hear a LOT of rhytm guitars on each one, but here I don't hear them particularly strongly on the side channels, which leads me to believe this wasn't double tracked. Now, why does that matter? Basically, it lets the rhytm guitar and other elements coexist in an easier way. In this mix, although rhytm guitars are definitely present they also get lost whenever there's a loud lead, which is a shame as the rhytm writing is pretty cool. Honestly, I had something of an internal debate about what to vote here. I think the lead/rhytm balance could be improved and make for an even better track but on its current state the track's still a banger and, as such, deserves to be on the main page. YES

Begins with a heavily modified voice and some static effects. Around 0:30 a bright synth starts playing some scale-ish melodies that seem to hint at the main chord progression from the original (Em-D-C-B). A synth doing a potential variation of the main melody joins in on the second repetition with a kick drum rhytm and then a third synth starts playing a backing melody from the source. Additional elements keep being added over more repetitions, including a synth bass, pad and synth lead. The kick also has a fun effect where it becomes more present over time. It ends up quite chaotic but, as the elements were introduced one by one, it's still enjoyable and understandable. All of this leads to a "break" at 1:47 where there's less elements (hence the break) but the chaotic rhytm is kept. Ironically, less elements highlight some balancing issues. Bass/kick seem to be fighting for space, with the bass suffering the most as it's very hard to understand what it's playing (very wobbly sounding). I think at some points there's an additional synth bass doing some dubstep-ish flourishes but there's so much in there that it's not really easy to hear. Similarly, on the melody side of the arrangement, there's often 2-3 elements all clashing with each other. Around 2:25 there's a rhytm change into a straight 8ths bass line, welcome change of pace. Once again the mix feels busy, even when there's not that many elements there's a lot of clashes and things are hard to hear. Surprise sax at 3:14! Nice performance by Lucas, it's interesting that the sax line is doubled by synths, not sure it's actually necessary (given how busy the mix is already). Things start calming down and lead to a chiptune interpretation of the source for the end, with the modified voice ending the track. On the arrangement side, this is an interesting approach to a very simple source. Original track has only one noticeable melody and 2 backings that provide the chord progression, so it's not much material. Here, you do a nice job of bringing a lot of variety into a source that doesn't really have much. Fellow judge prophetik makes a nice point about how much source is actually on here, but I'd say my take is different. Scales starting at 0:30 seem inspired by the celesta-ish instrument from the source (playing some simpler scales), but we could argue if this one counts or not. However, said melody is played almost straight by the synth that joins at 0:59 until the break at 1:47 (although it gets drowned out eventually). Section starting there also features the same melody and continues there until 2:54 at least (with the main melody also being there from 2:35). Main melody returns from 3:04 and is kept on the sax solo until 3:33 at least. For the next minute of the solo there's not evident source usage IMO. Finally, 4:23 until 4:52 is also clear source usage. I'd say there's heavy source usage from 0:59-1:47 (48s), 1:47-2:54 (67s), 3:04-3:33 (29s), 4:23-4:52 (29s). Adding all of that there's 173 seconds of source usage in a 306 seconds remix, so 56%! As an aside, beyond calculator antics I do feel that the entire remix being based on the chord progression from the source (down to the B major) also helps since, at the very least, it's always echoing the mood of the original. On production there are heavy balacing issues. The track is often extremely busy, at times it feels intentional and it works (like from 0:59 to 1:47) but most of the time it simply feels like a couple elements are taking a lot of space and leave little for the rest. Generally, I'd say the drums are the main culprit, as they're loud and there's also a lot of reverb, which tends to take a lot of room. Bass is also another issue, they seem very mid heavy and that also takes a lot of space from the instruments doing melodies. That said, even if these issues were fixed I think you should also look at the balance between synth parts, there's many of them focusing on similar octaves so balancing them will be challenging. You could consider moving some melodies to different octaves to separate them easier. Overall, this remix has a really cool vibe and a very creative approach to a source that's extremely light on material. However, I think the mix needs a second pass focusing on clarity, right now it's just way too hard to grasp all the different elements going on, with the drums and bass often eating a lot of space. NO

Starts with strings on Dm and a voice joins soon after. The voice actually highlights a F# but it doesn't really clash too much. At 0:32 we get a flute playing the first main melody of the source, transposed one tone below. There's some embellishments here and there (which honestly sound more odd than good). For the backing you have strings and a brass (I noticed you changed the bass line, giving it more of a major feel), but it honestly sounds a little empty. Volumes aren't very balanced here (and this will be a running theme): flute is very loud, strings are very low. Around 1:02 we get the second main melody from the source, still on flute. There's more movement now thanks to a string playing bass. Source treatment feels very conservative here, almost 1:1 outside of flute embellishments and bass movement. There's another vocal break before we return to the first melody, now with a big brass backing. Volumes are wild here, brass gets extremely loud at some points. A church organ also joins here and takes the background spotlight on the next section. 2:13 has a repeat of the second melody, but there's more reinterpretation this time. There's a final repetition and we're done. Arrangement is fairly conservative, source treatment is almost 1:1 outside of some bass variations and flute embellishments. There's, of course, the voice adding some originality. Anyway, I like how you change the instruments playing the backing, it's a nice touch considering the lead stays constant on flute. That said, the backings themselves tend to be very simple, which isn't a dealbreaker but it'd be nice to have some extra attention to detail there (the bass on the 1:02 repeat is an example of where you nailed adding a more "complex" element on the background). I have more issues with production though. First, volume balancing is off, sometimes the backing is too low, other times way too loud. Parts like 1:48 and 2:03 are good examples, as is the whole church organ section. Second, there's the "flute issue". Vibrato gives it life but it generally sounds so uncanny valley that it's quite distracting, especially on more complex articulations like the one right at the end. Overall, nice cover of a pretty source. Production definitely needs a second pass though, especially the volume issues. Not sure how much of the flute is fixable without completely redoing everything but I think that, at least, the weird passing notes and some of the worse sounding articulations can be modified. NO

What an odd source you picked, very fitting for Halloween! Anyway, this begins exactly like the source, with more modern sounds of course. There's a very deep menacing bass and some heavy saw synths setting the mood, with a bright synth on the back and the main melody playing as well. Some hand percussion joins on the second repetition and starts adding elements on each repetition. Mix here is quite busy, all elements are loud so nothing truly stands out as the "main element". In fact, the main melody is arguably the least present element. It's also a loud mix. Around 0:44 we move to a second section that's similar to the second section of the source, although the timings are slightly different. Around 1:00 we move to a new section, based on the 3rd one from the source... Basically, we're keeping the same structure as the original. Mix continues to be very busy and it's hard to pick out the main melodies. There's a new section at 1:27, once again following the source's structure. After a little less than a minute we reach a break/transition at 2:24 and then the track ends on some bright synth arpeggios/melodies. On the arrangement side, as other judges pointed out, this is more akin to a "remaster" than a "remix" (at least, this site's definition of "remix"). Structure of the cover is basically the same as the original (bar the ending) and melodic elements are almost 1:1. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a valid approach, but OCR is dedicated to posting stuff that reimaginates the source in some way. For example, if structure/melodies/chords aren't changed much, maybe the genre is changed and that adds enough of a new spin for a cover to fit the site. Here, however, you went for the same "genre" and mood than the original. On the production side, I enjoy the samples you picked, they're fitting for what you set out to do. There's a constant creepy/unsettling feel that's very well done. I also enjoyed the small sound effects you used in a few places (like that bass dip around 1:56). That said, the mix itself is extremely busy, everything is super loud so it's hard to focus on any particular element. It's a "wall of sound", but not in a good way. Overall, this is a nice "remaster" of the original. However, that's not really what OCR posts. That said, there's definitely space to improve the balancing on the mix. NO

I remember this one from DoD! Begins with the source's intro on electric piano and some percussion/bass. Right away something sounds odd on the drums, very airy. At 0:13 we move to the B section of the source with melody and chords on guitar. Vibes are immaculate here, really nailing the beach sound. Siolfor's tone is great. I also really dig the additional percussion Delux added, he has a talent for adding the right sounds! Unfortunately, there's some issues with the mix. First, the drum is lacking in power, the kick is extremely quiet (almost to the point of not being there) and the snare has no body. Second, the volume balance is off, with the rhytm guitars being too loud. Guitars in general also sound too dry compared to the rest of the ensemble. As an example, the electric piano lines get quite lost here. At 0:37 we move to the C theme and there's now marimba on the mix, fun! I enjoy how you mixed up the rhytm on the second repeat. At 1:02 we're back to the B melody with a guitar harmony at times. There's a guitar solo and a little after we get a repeat of the intro. There's another repeat of B later, now with marimba on the backing as well. 2:26 has a fun percussion break, love it! 2:37 has a bit of a marimba solo but it's mostly octaves, wish it was a little more elaborate. There's yet another repeat of the A section and an intro repeat to close things out. On the arrangement side, this is very conservative. There's definitely no question about source usage here. However, the instrumentation and structure does a good job of personalizing this so I have no complaints there. My main nitpick with the arrangement is that some of the backing instruments do extremely basic lines. As a simple example, on the 0:13 section the electric piano seems to be doing single notes on the backing, when it could be doing chords or maybe even simple arpeggios. As an aside, the arrangement is quite repetitive and although it's not a dealbreaker for me it'd be appreciated if there were more differences between repetitions, particularly of the intro and B melodies. Production is my main issue here, with both volume balancing and the drumset being the main issues. For the first one the fixes are simpler, toy around with guitar volumes until the track sounds better balanced. For drums though things are tougher. The kit sounds very airy and lacking in power. I went to my DAW and started playing with a high shelf and noticed that there's a ton of high frequency content and that if you start removing some of it the drums become very quiet. Similarly, there's very little low frequency content. I fear the drum recording itself may be causing the issue, which would be a hard fix. In the past I've encountered similar issues with live drums and opted to layer a drum sample over the live ones, but it can be time consuming. It may still be worth a try to fix the drum issues through EQ though (especially if you have tracks for each section of the kit). Overall, this a is a very fun track, immaculate beach vibes. Performances are great and the arrangement, while repetitive, is also pretty good and nails what it's going for. However, the production definitely needs a second pass for this to get posted on the site. NO

Very challenging source to cover, not that many melodies to latch on to and a big focus on rhytms and chords, but it's also fairly long so there's a lot of material. Interested on seeing how you approach it! K, so we begin with strings doing the source's main chord progression before some percussion joins in, with some quite loud cymbal hits. Around 0:26 we get the main arpeggio motif from the source. There's a bell/triangle sound that's a little piercing on higher frequencies. Around 0:37 we get a horn melody that sounds a litte late timing wise (easy to notice at 0:45). Around 0:49, after another fairly loud percussion build-up, we move to one of the source's "riffs". I like how you shared the melody between different instruments, but the brass section is buried on the mix, making it hard to hear at times (at 1:06 for example). The mix in general gets muddy here, there's a lot of parts and some get lost. 1:19 has a bit of a break with fun orchestral writing and some motifs returning on celesta. Love the tension created with the horns here. At 1:58 the intensity starts increasing and we soon get another of the main riffs on brass. Like on a previous section they are somewhat buried on the mix (I feel the sample may not have enough attack to cut through). At 2:43 we move to a different section, still keeping the intensity and we return to the riff from 0:49 for the end. On the arrangement side this is quite solid, the source is pretty complex and doesn't have much melodic material but you managed to use what was there in smart and recognizable ways. I liked how you added additional voices on horns to add variety and I also liked all the orchestral flourishes you added. Really well done here! On production I have some issues. First, the percussion tends to have very distracting peaks that make the volume of the track spike in unpleasant ways. Second, when there's many instruments playing it gets muddy, making it hard to fully appreciate all the details you crammed in. The brass doing the lowest riffs suffers here since the sample doesn't cut through the mix. I understand that the issues with samples may be dealbreakers for some (and you got great tips to improve there) but I'll side with those that feel it sounds good enough. Arrangement is really good and the orchestral writing is top notch so this deserves a pass IMO. YES