*NO* Unreal Tournament 'Hat Trick' *RESUB*

[Liontamer]

Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5075

1st RESUB Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7716

2nd RESUB Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9318

Remixer Name: Brain Cleaner

Real Name: Kai Brooks

Email: braincleanermusic@gmail.com

Website: myspace.com/braincleaner (temp)

Userid: 20389

Game: Unreal Tournament (Classic, the '99 one)

Original Song: Foregone Destruction

Remix Name: Hat Trick

Original:

REMIX:

Notes: This is a resub, but the last submission was in over a year ago. Hope you all like the new direction. Made exclusively with Ableton Live 7

----------------------------------------------------------------

Unreal Tournament OSV - "Foregone Destruction"

Opened up pretty loud; probably should have toned down that lead. The drums sounded pretty lonely in the back when they came in at :29. Nothing was filling out the space in the back adequately; this really could have used a pad to fill that out. The synth lines added in at :38, :53 & 1:06 weren't positioned properly to do that, IMO, and ended up stumbling over with each other until 1:18. The approach of using the source background as more of an anchor for original writing on top is an interesting one, but I don't think this was pulling it off.

I liked the dropoff at 1:18 (it was a welcome relief from the clutter of the previous section's buildup). I could argue 1:30-1:53 was empty for too long and you could have subtly added something to build things up, but that's more subjective of a criticism. You also threw in a three note reference to the source melody at 1:29 & 1:35 that sounded kind of off-key with the rest of the track.

1:53 brought some drumwork back in to pick the energy up a bit. Much better use of the vox-like sounds to pad the soundscape. Not feeling that 3-beep pattern brought in at 2:18 at all; it was too loud and didn't enhance the texture by being there.

The pad foundation was still chugging at 2:42's transitional section, but I thought it overstayed its welcome by then. At least the track finally moved out of it by 3:05, though that beep-pattern came back at 3:06, followed by some machine gun claps that sounded very awkward, IMO. And again, more synths were added that overcomplicated the textures and didn't sound melodious at all. Things were fine with that saw-like countermelody at 3:06, but then started to go overboard at 3:17 with a busier beeping melody & another saw countermelody under that, then even MORE at from 3:29-3:41 with I-don't-even-know-what-that-is-but-it-sounds-ugly. It's way too much, and none of it gels. :'-(

Then it switched to another beat entirely in the last 20 seconds that had a lot of potential, and barely scratched the surface on it. Where was that before??? That's wasted potential. :'-( again.

Sorry, Kai, some of the ideas keep getting needlessly busy/cluttered with these poorly-written additions, and it just ruins the flow. There was no synergy or cohesiveness in those sections at all. Also, it felt like the arrangement was leaning too much on still fairly straightforward/verbatim ideas from "Foregone Destruction" to serve as the foundation of the track, attempting to compensate by building a bunch of original sounds and writing on top that unfortunately didn't click. I would have focused on keeping the core sections arranging the source evolving and fresh. Stuff like 4:17's changeup would have been cooler earlier.

JigginJonT just told me one thing that's important for both of us to keep in mind, that being "when you work on a project for a long time, you start to lose objectivity." I realize a lot of the past NOs said the arrangement was somewhat simplified, but it looked like the general consensus of those NOs was that this was reasonably close to passing and didn't need to be majorly mucked with. More rhythmic or melodic variation with the core patterns arranging "Foregone Destruction" would have put this over the top for me, but instead a lot of noise and busyness was added that didn't need to be introduced in the first place. Perhaps in trying to address the criticisms from last time, you interpreted that as needing to majorly overhaul what was there, but I think that ended up being a mistake where you threw out both ideas that didn't work and ideas that DID. I'd probably let it go with this mix, only in the sense that it may not be worth your while to tweak it anymore, but I'm looking forward to hearing whatever else you may make in the future.

NO

EDIT (9/17): Re: Palpable and zyko's comments that I wasn't being objective enough, I don't think that was the case at all. The clutter issues really hurt the piece, and other more minor issues that I wasn't the only one picking up on (some of the production choices and some writing sounding odd/off-key), ultimately added up to the NO.

[Malcos]

I'd just like to say I really rate you for re subbing this so many times and making so many changes to it. Like Liontamer said, the last sub was almost passed across the board (I passed it personally at any rate). This sounds markedly different from the last version.

The musicality has improved overall, however this is a somewhat disjointed mix. The intro section gives a totally different vibe from the section where the snare enters, and that continues throughout the various sections, which don't sound as if they all belong in the same song. There were a few off-key melody notes in the first part of the pad section. The synth notes at 3.18 sounded quite loud and unsophisticated compared to the rest of the sounds.

I think the last sub was your best mix of this source. Although overall your sound has improved, the arrangement quality and the energy level is much less than the previous version. I don't think this mix achieved it's purpose.

NO

P.S. I re-iterate what Liontamer said, I think you are on the level, just that this particular mix wasn't.

[Palpable]

I'll mention upfront that I haven't heard any of the previous subs but maybe that will give me the kind of objectivity everyone has lost. I thought this was a really good take on a wonderful wonderful source song. I was feeling the hard beat and I thought the use of the three-note riff was really cool. The quieter sections have a great, contrasting atmosphere. Some of the backing melody lines were weird and could probably have been rewritten but it reminded me of a lot of old-school tracked stuff, very MOD like. The only time I felt it was unmelodious was 3:29-3:41.

Production is a little empty but I dunno, I felt that beat, felt that mid range saw. I thought the right parts hit. I'm going with YES. Maybe the last version was better but I think this is solid enough.

YES

[zykO]

interestingly enough, the very point you make here, larry, is what is happening in the other direction, i think. having remembered the track (which i No'd last time), i decided that i would listen to it without hearing any of the previous versions. i think that when a judge has heard too many resubmissions of the same track, the subjectivity changes there too. this track is considerably better than its predecessors

i'm engaged throughout and while i don't like the ending at all... it sorta runs into a wall... it sounds like a coherent piece of music. there is a drop in energy but i think that's better said as a transfer of energy... this is now a very mellow dnb track... the sorta thing you'd let be your audio backbone on a shroom trip.

i don't feel as lost as i did in the first one and while it is more busy in parts, i think it is a good balance, still and does not weigh it down.

still, you have to fix the ending before it goes on.

YEScond.

[CHz]

So I thought this mix was pretty cool. Much harder than the original, nice approach. The synths are all pretty dry and there isn't really anything in the start to fill up the space. The emptiness isn't terrible, but a pad back there could be good. The synth riff build is nice, but when the last one comes in at 1:06 we've hit clutterville. The break comes by soon and solves everything, but that section needs some clearing up. Very nice break.

Back to the first synth stuff at 3:05, again a bit hollow. And we're building with the synths again, please don't get cluttered again like it did earlier... ugh, 3:29. Everything melts together into a ball of chainsaws. It's short, like the first time, but the damage has already been done. Still, he get the letdown with instruments dropping out, sure, but then BOOT TO THE HEAD at 4:18, why did you do that. And the real ending just abruptly drops out.

The arrangement is passable, but there could be more variation in the source usage and a bit more prominent usage of it instead of just one layer that's built upon with tons of original stuff. The cluttered sections at 1:06-1:17 and 3:29-3:42 are dealbreakers, they're just, ow. The abrupt switch at the ending and then abrupt ending aren't helping, and I'd like it if those empty sections were filled up a bit.

NO (resubmit)

[anosou]

Haven't heard the previous submissions so I'll be objective. :3

Pretty cool concept. I think the kick is a tiny bit too loud but it ain't a dealbreaker. The synths all sound a bit squashed, like they're all modulated and over-compressed which leads to the general emptiness of the sound. Something warmer and a bit wider, like a pad, would help the soundscape just like the other judges pointed out.

I think the softer sections are this piece's forte. They have an interesting texture and atmosphere that works well. The 'main' parts like the one at 2:05 just sound very empty with those synths. 3:29 is indeed very cluttered but mostly because of the sounds you chose, they just sound hollow and squashed at the same time. There's one note in there that sounds off though.. I don't have my keyboard atm so I can't check exactly which interval though.

Arrangement-wise you could use some more source, preferably the three note pattern in altered form. The three-note pattern now sounds good at 1:29 but the second time it enters at 1:35 it conflicts with the chord. 4:18 was cool but how it ends wasn't, it's a bit too abrupt.

I think the main issue is how the sounds were processed. It gives the remix a hollow character and it sounds a bit cluttered since all synths fight over the same frequencies. You could probably refine the arrangement some more too. Sadly, I think this will require a lot of work and a big overhaul of some of the sounds. I admire you for resubmitting this so many times and I believe, like Larry and Malcos said, you're on the needed level but this remix isn't. You could try fixing this but I think you'd be better off with a fresh start, be it this source or another one. Good luck with your next submission!

NO

[big giant circles]

Since everyone has mentioned that as the 3rd resub, I realize that it may seem some of our votes might be getting a bit jaded at this point. I've still got the last submission, and I actually did compare the two, but as it's been said, this mix is actually so different in fact, that I'm not even approaching this as a resubmit, but rather as a completely new submission of a track that bears the same name.

Kai, you've definitely been learning new tricks, and improving in certain areas; I'd love to hear more stuff from you, be it original or remixed. Checked your myspace page--you need to get some more stuff up on there, bro, give us more trakz, yo!

I will admit, I sympathize so badly with this being the 4th submission, that I really want to pass it so badly just for the sake of it. However, that's not how it works unfortunately, so let me put on my waders and trudge through this process.

I think at this point it might be productive for me to pull certain comments from the other votes and address them. First, seems a few of us feel this mix gets particularly cluttered at several times. I wouldn't say this goes so far as to sound like a ball of chainsaws, but I see what everyone's saying about perhaps the fact that there's lots going on, and not a whole lot being done to provide each part with necessary distinction. One quick remedy I may suggest in that case would be to provide a little more stereo separation on your synths. Pan some of 'em left, and some right. Switch 'em up every so often. Automate the volume periodically as well. Don't just ride in down the center at full blast all the time. Now, I realize that there is in fact panning going on (like 3:18 for example--I realize the detuned saw is right and the counter synth is right), but there's a good example of where giving some variance and letting your synths wander across the stereo field would provide a little more distinction and separation.

Moving onto the issue that has been brought up about things sounding hollow/thin/dry. I think what everyone's saying specifically is that when you're using very sharp leads such as square waves and detuned saws, they tend to already stick out even at moderate levels. It's a very risky opinion to state, because naturally it's subjective by default, but the tendency in this genre is to add some delay, reverb, filter sweeps, or something along those lines to soften the delivery of those synth sounds so they sound a little more wet. That'd probably be a good idea, and the technique DEFNITELY goes hand in hand with panning and separating the stereo in the mix as I mentioned above.

I loved the breakdown at 1:19, nice work on the bitcrushing. Larry mentioned that he thought the synth there was out of key. Well, I can say it was heavily detuned enough that while it's note "ZOMG what is this horrible noise here???", it did produce a momentary "ehh," on my face. Might consider changing that just a bit.

With the exception of Larry, I don't think anyone's really made much mention of the lead square riff as it pertains to the rest of your remix. Depsite the fact that it's basically condensed the primary riff from the original source tune to a 3 note reference, I'll admit that it's still an obvious reference. That being said, taking into account now the dryness that I've addressed, (which actually makes it sound a bit choppy as well), the supporting instrumentation and partwriting doesn't quite go hand in hand. Take the quiet synth arp that can be clearly heard from :07-:17, if I weren't so rusty on my music theory, I'm sure I could figure out exactly what mode the scales are being played in. (If I had to guess, I'd say Locrian). Anyway, regardless of that fact, they don't really mesh very well. To most listeners, they'd probably just say they sound like they're two different keys altogether. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the mix's fatal flaw, but it's worth considering reworking that. At any rate, back to my main point. The lead square and the bass progression are the two anchors to the original song, and you've layered all the other synths on top. There's lots of monophonic portamento-ness going on, and the combination of the two in this particular instance is a bit jarring. Compare sections like 3:06 to the section immediately before (2:18 ), there's really no issues there, because you don't have this razor-sharp 3-note choppy-sounding lead thrust in your face alongside the monophonic, sliding, but still sharp sounding support synths.

Anyway, this has turned into a book at this point, so I'm going to wrap things up. It's a very very tough call once again, because even approaching this one as a totally different song from your earlier submission, it's still very borderline. I will say that as mentioned, it really would have only taken a couple minor tweaks to push the other one into passable territory, and I think it's thet same case here. Feel free to hit me up on AIM or myspace or fire me an email or PM, and I'll be happy to take listens should you decide to rework this. I really hope you do, I understand it's got to be frustrating to have a track rejected so many times especially when it's really not a *bad* track, to the contrary, it's really pretty decent. Also, look at guys like zircon, who back in the day had like a million songs rejected before he finally got a song passed. And now he makes phat beatz and poops them out like the easter bunny does eggs. Or something.

I will say that this this a borderline track. Now that I've pointed out a few criticisms, let me end by saying that the track has energy, and is otherwise pretty clean sounding. Definitely a solid solid foundation for some minor reworkage and again, this one is inches from the goal line. 4th and inches, bro. Go for it. Don't settle for a field goal.

NO borderline. (rework and resubmit)

P.S. I re-iterate what Liontamer and Malcos said, I think you are on the level, just that this particular mix wasn't.