Sign in to follow this  
Chimpazilla

*NO* Undertale 'Metaphysical'

6 posts in this topic

Hello, my producer name is 'Anomaly'. I haven't done much for this site yet because I only just started doing vg remixes; almost everything else I've done is original.

My forum id: 32102
My email: 
 
SUBMISSION INFORMATION:
Game: Undertale [PC]
Arr. Title: Metaphysical
Orig. Titles: Gaster's Theme / CORE / Bonetrousle (Papyrus' Battle Theme)
Orig. Composer: Toby Fox
 
Link to Gaster's Theme
 
 
I wanted to submit my Hopes and Dreams remix, but honestly, I figure you probably get as many submissions of that song as One-Winged Angel, so I decided to try for a less trodden route. Although unfortunately as I wrote this song, quite a few remixers posted their versions of what they imagined his battle theme to be as well. Which, indeed, is exactly what this is.
 
As Undertale is a game written with leitmotif strongly in mind, I figured I'd follow the trend! And since Gaster's Theme is fairly short in itself, it gave me a lot of room to add things. The main melody from 0:38-0:58 is a rearranged version of the CORE theme, since that's where he did his thing. 0:58-1:16 contains the fan-favorite skeleton theme of Papyrus, since it's widely projected Gaster himself is a skeleton, and 1:16-1:36 harks back to the CORE theme again.
 
I looped the track with a few minor changes, and all in all, I think I got the 'battle theme' vibe down
pretty well. The final length is 3:40.
 
Edited by Liontamer
closed decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm, very chilling, and it has a lot of glitchy DnB power behind it that gives it some real meat. The first half of the track really develops into a nice blend of the aforementioned themes, and they really play off of one another very well. The second half of the arrangement, however, seems to be a repeat of the first half, which is a bit disappointing. At the end there are a lot of cool manipulations that happen to the Gaster theme that would've been a cool way to differentiate at least part of the second half.

The production is pretty good, in the beginning, but when that guitar comes in the track suffers from overcompression. The guitar seems to be mixed at levels that drown the melody carrying instruments, too, so one could kill two birds with one stone and mix that guitar into the background a bit. The drums are a pretty important aspect of the arrangement, as well, so it would be nice if they were featured more prominently in the mix, as well. On the subject of the drums, they also seem to occur in random high EQ stabs from 0:00 - 0:19 (as well as the similar part later in the track). As they stand, due to their beat placement and their brevity they sound like an accident. The easy solution is to remove them, but if you want them to stay I suggest lining the EQ stabs up with the beat in a little more sensible manner, and let the stabs ring out at least a little longer (perhaps a 16th note length, or something), as they don't really sound like anything other than a recording error, at the moment.

All of that being said, the sources work great together, the style is solid and the production values certainly show that you have the chops to perfect this. The arrangement should vary at least a little bit between the first and second half, though, and the guitar & drum mixing should be corrected. Correct the overcompression, and work on the drum EQ shenanigans in the beginning and I think this would make a nice addition to the site.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gario has really nailed this one. Right away I noticed the over compression and agree that it could stand to be fixed up. The drums do feel like they aren't as prominent add they could be, which would really help drive the track more. 

I also think the harmonies could come up a little more in the track. 

I think you're on the right track here, hope to hear you fix this up!

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice intro. When your other parts come in, I'm hearing lots of unintentional crunch. This sounds to me like the lack of a limiter or the mix is being heavily brick walled. Drums are quite soft compared to the other elements (the kick drum in particular is very quiet), and they're also quite loopy.

Arrangement here is quite interesting. I mostly enjoyed what you had laid down here, however when we hit the second half I'm hearing a lot of recycled elements which make the second half almost a repeat of the first. Consider changing the second half up more with some additional original material and perhaps drop into it a little differently (off the back of a breakdown or something).

Production is your key problem with this mix, however I found the arrangement side to also be somewhat lacking. The concept is good and I would like to see you work on this further.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opening sounds like the "Gaster's Theme" audio was being directly sampled, which I would have preferred wasn't the case, but at least was affected and played with sonically.

At :19, I really liked the intensity of the beats, and the constant movement of the sounds around the stereo field is frantic and purposeful. That said, some of the loudest parts seem like they're clipping or at least distorting in an uncomfortable way, and the textures get cluttered.

At :39, there's a lack of sophistication in the lead sound; same at :57 with the synth lead paired with the very exposed, robotically timed, and fake-sounding guitar chugs. :59-1:17 in particular was just extremely cluttered with sizzling highs for no real reason; it actually undermines the intensity of the arrangement instead of enhancing it.

It wasn't a huge deal to me and may have been purposeful, but the "CORE" lead at 1:16 seemed like it was ducking here and there; not something I was deducting points for, and it fit the overall crazy aesthetic.

At 1:36, it sounded like you were copy-pasta'ing the introduction over again, with the transitions at :19 and 1:55 being practically if not exactly the same. More cut-and-paste action when comparing :38 & 2:14, and the rehashing just continued from there. Well, that's a huge disappointment. The return of the sampling of Gaster's Theme at 3:12 had some wild effects on it for a creative finish though.

Arrangement-wise, this has great energy, but you can't just go 1:36-long, then basically retread everything again unless everything's really firing on all cylinders with the interpretation and production, and that's not yet the case here.

Get more creative with the sound design of the synth leads, humanize the guitar chugs at :57, reduce the clutter and/or frequency overlap causing some sections to sound cluttered, and lastly but most importantly, vary the arrangement more with some subtle variations instead of the wholesale cut-and-paste approach. Great start so far; even if you don't revisit this track, it's a fun arrangement, but just needs better attention to detail. Would love to hear an updated version that got more creative/varied with the 2nd half of the arrangement.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked this arrangement, especially how you took the shortest of the three themes (Gaster's) and made the two longer ones match it in style and mood.  Very creative and very enjoyable.

Because of the way this was presented, I didn't mind the clutter as much as the other judges did.  It gave it a dirty, low-fi feel that I kind of enjoyed.  That said, it does sound unintentional and I can see how the pumping from overcompression could be grating to some ears.  It definitely would sound better if you could follow the advice that Gario provided.

Of greater concern to me is the repetition.  Not only does 1:36 retread the introduction very closely, the section from 2:15-3:12 is what sounds like an identical copy of 0:38-1:35.  You have a lot of interesting effects going on throughout this arrangement; I think you could keep the same melody and structure as long as you do different, interesting things with the backing instruments the second time around.

I definitely want to see this back, so please work on those two things and send it our way!

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this