jnWake   Judges ⚖️

Random comment, I played on a cover of this same theme just a couple months ago: https://unknownpseudoartist.bandcamp.com/album/songs-of-phantasia-a-metal-tribute-to-tales-of-phantasia. Anyway, this begins with a drum fill and then straight up double kick metal, nice! First part plays pretty much exactly like the source, until 0:17. From what I can you're using Shreddage for guitars here, it's always hard to do convincing fake guitars... I think you do a great job with them but I feel they sound too clean. One thing I've noticed on my attempts at making decent fake guitars is that real ones are always not that clean, there's more noise/reverb than what Shreddage produces. Second riff is also almost identical to the source, but the drum beat is different. Third riff (0:25) is also quite straight from the source until 0:45, there's some notes on the sampled lead that sound a bit odd (0:29, 0:32, 0:34). I do appreciate that you tried to make the best out of the's sample articulations though. For the final riff there's some small differences in timing, but it's still fairly conservative. From 1:01 onwards we don't follow the source on the same order anymore, there's a couple repetitions of riff 1, then a weird take of riff 2, then a repeat of riff 1, then a solo over riff 3 with some quotes of the first main melody. Around 1:45 riff 4 returns and for the ending we have a repeat of riff 1 with some variations over the main melody. Arrangement will be the sticking point here, as noted by the above judges. The first half is pretty much a straight cover from the source and, while the second has some variations, it still has fairly straight takes on most riffs... Besides from how conservative the arrangement is, it also lacks any sort of direction to me. Second half feels like random quotes of the previous riffs but it's not really leading anywhere. On production this is good enough to me. I have some nitpicks about the sampled guitars, they're honestly rarely as good as the real deal but they're fairly well programmed here. Drums I think could be punchier, both the kick and snare are a bit tame, they need more grit and snap so that the track's punchier. Bass is also fairly quiet except for riff 4, I'd like more of it on the mix. As chimp noted, the drums' hats are all very quiet, those really need a boost. Overall, this is a fun tune but it definitely needs more arrangement to get posted. Production is good enough IMO but there's still some adjustments that could make it even better! NO

Begins similarly to the source, with a loud electric bass doing the low notes. Right away there's something off in the sound, I'm not sure if the bass sample is slightly out of tune but it's just not fitting correctly with the rest of the instruments. I'm fairly confident it's playing "correct" notes though... except for 0:12 where it plays a very unfitting C. At 0:13 a percussion enters but the bass is so loud that it gets buried quick. I'm still hearing the bass as being off here, but now I'm more confident it's actually playing at least some wrong notes. At 0:25 we move to the next section and my impressions are more or less the same. We change to a new section at 0:39 and now things are definitely not fitting together, the pads, bass and keys seem to be playing different songs entirely (0:44 for example is very dissonant). Fun breakdown at 0:52, would've been a neat way to introduce and keep a guitar for the rest of the arrangement. There's a repeat of the first part and then on the second one there's some sort of piano solo over the backing that I commented not fitting well together. The 0:52 breakdown repeats and then we get a repeat of the main melody over a spicy chord for the end. On arrangement, this is a fairly conservative take on the original. You got creative with the backing around 1:25 but other than that it seems very similar to the source, on spirit. Like I mentioned above, there's various spots with potentially wrong notes that should get a second look, especially the entire 0:39 section. On production, this is kinda getting ruined by the bass. It's so loud that it drowns out everything else and makes it hard to judge whether the rest of the mix works or not. From what I can tell, the piano tone seems overly bright but I'd need to recheck the mix on a more balanced version. Overall, this needs more work to get posted. As prophetik recommended, going to the Discord's workshop to get suggestions would be great. I'd focus on nailing the arrangement first, taking care of potentially wrong notes and finding out how to make the source "yours" by adding more original ideas/variations. NO

Original is indeed a very chill piece! Your take begins with a piano/pad combo doing the main chord progression at a faster pace. I enjoy the sound of this combo. At 0:14 the main flute melody is played on a synth, I think adapting the track to a faster pace sounds great so far... However, we eventually reach 0:27 and all balance is lost. A drumkit enters at an insanely loud volume and completely drowns everything else, with the LUFS reaching -5 (which is extremely loud), and there's even clipping on my DAW. Even the waveform looks kinda silly here: As far as I can tell, the background keeps the same parts from the intro here. There's a breakdown around 0:52 with a fairly intense snare for some reason, then a build-up and more loud drums at 1:08. I dig the rhytm idea here. There's been a recurrent synth arpeggio on this percussion sections that sounds off-tune/off-key, unsure since it's hard to hear. 1:33 has a similar break to 0:52 and at 1:43 the main melody returns and then the drums return at 1:57. We then repeat the break and build-up of 0:52 but there's a fake-out and at 2:41 we get the percussion "pay-off" again. As before, the overwhelming volume doesn't make it that enjoyable... At 3:07 the track ends abruptly, with even the tail of the sounds cutting off abruptly. In terms of arrangement this is fairly basic, I really like the idea of speeding up the original but you kinda exhaust all your tricks in the first 25 seconds. There's definitely space for chord progression variations or incorporating more of the source's melodies. I like the idea behind some of the percussion breakdowns as well, but I don't think they're enough to sell the arrangement alone. Production is, however, the main issue here. The track is extremely unbalanced, with the percussion being so loud that it makes the track very hard to listen to, even clipping at some points. It's hard to critique the mix behind this unbalanced approach but I'd take a look at the higher frequencies since the mix sounds shrill (but this may simply be a consequence of the loudness). Overall, while I think there are good ideas behind this, the production is not enough for this to pass. First, look at balancing the percussion with the rest of the track. Second, check if there are ways to make the arrangement more interesting as right now it's way too simple. NO

Starts with some pretty piano and strings. As a random comment, the style here reminds me a lot of an artist from Dwelling of Duels called valence (https://www.dwellingofduels.net/artists/valence/). The strings sound very washed out, it fits the mood you went for but it may be a little too much. Regarding the samples themselves, there's times when the attack between notes sounds odd and unnatural (0:19 for example), I'm not sure if there's much you can do about it but I wanted to point it out. Anyway, the arrangement for the first minute or so is very conservative, as far as I can tell it's identical to the source (with the exception of the added strings), even if played slower. Around 1:20 we get a choir added and you added some nice extra melodies for the loop transition. At 1:37 we get a repeat of the loop, now with the extra choir, wind lines on top and some modifications on the piano line. At 2:20 we get the B theme from the source again and a lot of the personalization is gone since it's back to being a very straight cover. There's some cool counterpoints on the strings though. After this second loop is done the track ends. K, so arrangement will be the main thing here. You noted it on the write-up and both me and prophetik above noted it on the reviews... this is very conservative. You changed the instrumentation, which is always nice, but the melodies, chords and structure are almost untouched (except for the transition between loops). I think there is definitely space to differentiate this more, you did a nice job in the section between 1:37 and 2:20 but I don't feel that's enough to clear OCR's bar. Personally, I'd recommend you to work on the structure of the track, right now it's "just" 2 loops of the source that don't really go anywhere. Try to imagine the track having a direction with build-ups and breaks, maybe the piano stops for a section and that changes the dynamics, I dunno, there's many things you could do without changing the soul of the remix. On production this is fine, the piano sounds pretty and everything is easy to hear but the orchestral samples are only passable. If there's any chance to get collabers on board it'd be awesome but, of course, that isn't a dealbreaker. That said, I'd take a look at how you're processing reverb, some samples sound very washed out and unnatural, like the strings and choir. Overall, while this is a pretty take on the source and has some nice sounding additional elements it's too conservative for OCR at the moment. I'd love to hear a new take with extra personalization or a more original structure. NO

Begins with a few percussion hits and then comes the source's intro. Right away this sounds a little off, the bass is playing static E notes while the melody (covering the higher guitar part from the source) is on C# minor. Now, E is part of the C# minor scale so it's not like it's dissonant but it sounds odd, you'd generally have the bass on the root for a riff like this (like the source does). It's of course valid to have a different approach but it needs to lead somewhere otherwise it just feels wrong. The percussion pattern is also fairly strange, with "snare" hits on 2-3-4 but not on 1, creating a beat that's not easy to follow. At 0:27 we move into a higher pace for the second part of the initial melody. The percussion pattern is even weirder than before, it's not really fitting for any kind of EDM mood. This section continues for a bit, following the source's melodies until we reach the next part of the source at 1:01. Similarly to the intro, the bass is playing D# notes that don't really fit the melodies on top. At 1:05 we get a few melodies from the source but one of them seems to have wrong notes (the one starting at 1:08 features a regular D which doesn't fit the key this cover has attempted to be in). 1:11 has the arpeggio section of the source, which inexplicably keeps the upbeat rhytm. Finally, we move to the last section from the source. The note at 1:29 (A#) seems unfitting. Finally, at 1:49 the track simply cuts-off, without a real ending. I don't want to sound mean while saying this but this cover is way below the bar at the moment. On production, the synth samples used are all very simplistic, we usually ask for a more modern sound. Percussion samples are also simplistic but, more importantly, unfitting. The "clap" you used for snare won't really work on a proper arrangement. On arrangement there are several issues. First is the fact that the bass and melodies rarely fit well together. Second is the fact that there's several wrong notes in the arrangement. I get the feeling you got hold of some MIDI files of the original and kinda slapped them together haphazardly, not taking proper care of keeping everything on the same key, which is why the move to C# minor caught me off guard at the intro, since the original is on F minor. Third is the percussion writing, if you want to make trance or any form of EDM you need a beat that's steady and easy to follow, a snare hitting on basically every quarter or 8th note is not that. Finally, for OCR standards we ask for more interpretation, this track was very conservative in regards to source usage. As prophetik said, you should give the Discord workshop a go and ask for help there, especially regarding basic arranging and production tips. NO

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