Palpable Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Dear Wise OCRemix Sages, I've been a long-time fan of your website, but only recently realized that you have no remixes for Out of This World. One of my favorite video games of all time, Out of This World also had one of the more unique soundtracks I've ever heard in a game. Far ahead of it's time, it mixed pure atmospheric ambiance with an interactive soundtrack, heightening suspense and deepening the sense of immersion. So, in order to attempt to fill in the Out of This World gap in your website, I'd like to submit this remix. I hope you enjoy it, and if it's accepted, I hope other people will come up with their own homages to this wonderful game. Submission Information Remixer Name: Zantathar Real Name: Jude Coulter-Pultz Game: Out of This World Song Arranged: Main Theme Remix Title: Large Hadron Collision Keep up the great work! Jude ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Out of This World Theme Sages, eh? Flattery will get you everywhere. This was a cool take on the creepy ambiance of the original song, sort of a Blade Runner feel. The FX-y transitions weren't much to speak of, and I guess the dissonance in the bridge could be contentious (I was cool with it), but this seemed like a solid mix of the Main Theme otherwise. There's some detail in the backing parts and some good switch-ups. Nice debut from Jude! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I'm more of a paladin than a sage, but I'm in a forgiving mood, so I'll forgive your error. Definitely feeling the Blade Runner/Vangelis vibe Vinnie mentioned. Really enjoying the track, production is clean enough, though it seems that the snare (or substiute/equivalent) being panned notably to the left seemed a little odd. I probably did think the drums and sound fx could stand to be just a hair quiter, but no deal breaker there. Otherwise, I'm totally digging the high energy drumwork with the 80's-esque analog pads and timbres. As said, great debut mix, eager to hear more from you down the road, Jude! (tacky as I'm sure it is to you, I'm actually having to exercise restraint from blurting out some sort of cheesy reference to a particular song...) <- that's the nice work guy. it means YES. (And I do in fact realize that you can't resize an emoticon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The source wasn't especially melodic, but the additions and expansions added to the arrangement certainly made it more listenable, and I am always down with un-remixed stuff getting some love. I agree with our party's paladin (i'm the cleric i'd say) in that the panned snare was a little strange, but otherwise the production was clean and solid. Nice foundation for sure. I wish a little more happened in the mix, but that's really the fault of the source, and this is a much more interesting take on it. I won't let my melodybias ruin this one. yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I guess you could say the first couple of minutes are an expansive take on the original, playing the melody fairly straight (but with some definite changes) and building on the minimal accompaniment a little bit, but there still really isn't much going on in the track because the only real additions are some percussion loops, bass, and sound effects. And then the ending section is basically just a rehash of that. 2:56-4:04 is exactly the same as 0:44-1:52, but with an extra layer of percussion. The transitions in and out of the middle section are a bit rough, the first one especially, and then that section's a variation of a different source, the music that plays when you're trapped in the cage. That section is definitely more interpretive, with a more modified melody and changed harmonies. It's also pretty simple when you get down to it, though, with the original material just being loops building up on the source. I dunno, I'm just not really excited by this arrangement. The fact that a big chunk of the end is just a retread is a big factor. I feel like this needs to build on the originals in a more substantial way than it does now, even during the first two minutes, when it's just slightly modified melody + bass pad + SFX and then slightly modified melody + bass, drum, and synth loops. This is pretty much coasting to a pass, and everyone's been complimentary to the arrangement, so you're really all okay with it? I've been feeling since I got back into voting that my arrangement bar's been out of whack and I've been coming down too hard on things. Most of this just sounds more in upgrade territory to me, but maybe I'm just completely off the mark here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 By the way, duders, second source is here: . It's kind of loose, but I think that middle section is a pretty obvious reference to 3:20-3:55 specifically given another track from the game is used.(and before the inevitable OH CHZ YOU ARE SUCH A NERD WHY DO YOU ALWAYS KNOW THIS STUFF, I have played this game like fifty billion times because it's fantastic, why haven't you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 This is pretty much coasting to a pass, and everyone's been complimentary to the arrangement, so you're really all okay with it? I've been feeling since I got back into voting that my arrangement bar's been out of whack and I've been coming down too hard on things. Most of this just sounds more in upgrade territory to me, but maybe I'm just completely off the mark here. I haven't heard the arrangement so I've got no opinion on that. But definitely don't question your judgement just because opposing votes are unanimous or gravitating toward one result. You're always allowed to be an outlier. You may wind up being the majority. It's smart to weigh the opposing POVs to see whether you were too harsh or lenient; everyone should be doing that. I'd say take some time to marinate on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted December 9, 2009 Author Share Posted December 9, 2009 Not to mention that 4Y/1N is still a YES, so one NO vote doesn't slow anything down. And two or more NO votes means there is probably a real issue. Better to bring that stuff to light. Also 'Ili, you're awesome for catching all these source usages that I miss. That said, just going by memory, I don't remember thinking this was too conservative even though it matches what you describe. The melody is kept intact, and it's fleshed out with beats, bass, and FX. I have probably NO'ed songs for that before if it sounds too much like the original still, but the feel of the piece was different enough to me in this case. I'll take another listen later when I have speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm gonna chime in with a NO Both production and arrangement are just too rudimentary; nothing sounds awful, but everything's very static... panning sits in one place for most elements, dynamics are all static, and the arrangement itself just feels like it's missing something. For the record, I'm all about lowering the bar, not raising it. I feel like this mix is under my envisioned bar, but I also feel like my envisioned bar is beneath the standards we've been applying lately. I consider this mix a good litmus test of a mix that is ALMOST good enough... but not quite. Here's my one-minute pointers for the artist, to address issues: Overall: more dynamic, less static Alter panning on elements more; introduce amplitude or other modulation Consider panning drums, bass closer to center Flesh out the arrangement.. it's pretty close to the source, as is, which CAN be fine, as long as there's something added. Otherwise, try doing something with the melody, introduce a harmony or counter-melody, or find another way to expand your additions to the source. - djp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 LARGE HARDON COLLISION There, I'm terribly sorry but it had to be done. I have to side with the nay-sayers here. It's a potent track but it does lack a certain polish. The drums feel like they're on auto-pilot too much and the panning isn't doing them any favors. The synths lack movement and make the track feel even less dynamic. Beyond that the arrangement's also a bit too conservative. The melody is often verbatim and the re-hashing CHz mentioned really takes away a lot from the track. I also want to emphasize how much focus the track loses when you're panning kickdrums left or right. This shows a lot of promise though, don't get me wrong. You've got a solid base with some good beats and overall good production. However this needs some more polish before it really shines. NO(resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 The bland synth design on the leads immediately stuck out. The beat changeup at 1:16 was a weak point; the percussion wasn't cohesive with the other instrumentation at all. Square peg, round hole. Even if it wasn't the case, the drums sounded like some loops were merely plugged in and swapped every few bars. They never sounded cohesive, and I don't see how there was any attention to detail there. I'll go the other way, it sounded lazy. The 1:38-1:56 & 3:50-4:08 sections sounded muddier and more distorted than the earlier parts. The added bass kick was causing the issue. From 2:58 until the end, the melodic arrangement was basically rehashed with different beats underneath for the last minute and half. Some fat could have definitely been trimmed off there. There really needed to be more development and evolution of the melodic arrangement, not just the supporting parts. Melodically, this was too conservative and repetitive. Time to come back to reality. Not sure why this got 3 YES's at all. I hate to offer up Jude's piece on the alter here and seem mean, but this was not close or borderline. Push them bars up higher, bros. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 Alright, I have had more than enough time to mull this one over and I still feel this one is under the bar, so I'm going with: NO I didn't actually get around to mentioning anything about the production, but at this point all the sore spots have been covered. Neither the production nor the arrangement are terrible, but they could both use some work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 The intro does not fill me with confidence. There instruments do not sound interesting enough to warrant solo parts. The same is true throughout the whole track. Saw leads are rather tedious, and there's relatively little here. The lead is out front in the arrangement because there is relatively little harmony, and relatively few instruments. There's just not much here in terms of composition. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Not really all that exciting in terms of soundscape. I agree with Dave, everything sort of has a static, unprocessed quality (that woosh on the some of the pads is definitely part of the same, not applied). Some cool SFX transitions and interesting arrangement ideas, but I think this needs more work. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts