Sign in to follow this  
Chimpazilla

OCR03310 - *YES* Portal 2 'Reconstructing Lemons'

Recommended Posts

New version uploaded 11/24/15.  Flexstyle was right that the track was relentless and it needed a break from the kick.  Mike was kind enough to walk me through the process of creating a proper breakdown, buildup and drop, and he listened to this track so many times in the process.  Thanks so much, Mike!

I know this track is source-light compared to my usual.  It's different from my usual in so many ways!  I actually tried multiple times to add more source, after reading Larry's concerns.  My attempts to add more source only made the track too busy, as it is already pretty busy.  So, it is what it is.  Dunno if this helps or not, but here's the source song transposed down a half-step for comparison to my track.

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

the older version is here

Remixer:  Chimpazilla
Game remixed:  Portal 2
Source:  Reconstructing Science 

Hey guys, shameless self-panel here.  This is a track I have wanted to write ever since I first heard the classic Cave Johnson rant two years ago.  I've been taking some production lessons from bLiNd, and he's been teaching me so many helpful things;  I finally felt that I could approach this mix in the way I always wanted to.  Jordan is a fantastic teacher by the way!  (and an even better friend!)

I've been on a trend lately of telling a story with my remixes using spoken vocals, and I really felt that Cave Johnson deserved to have his say, because lemons!  Hope you all get a kick out of it.

Here's where the source stuff is:

0:30-0:45 (15 seconds - backing arp)
0:45-1:15 (30 seconds - backing arp plus lead)
2:45-2:49 (4 seconds - motif)
2:52-2:56 (4 seconds - motif)
2:58-3:00 (2 seconds - motif)
3:00-3:04 (4 seconds - motif)
3:07-3:11 (4 seconds - motif)
3:13-3:15 (2 seconds - motif)
3:15-4:52 (97 seconds - leads)

total is 162/292 seconds = 55% source

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have played this out live on Halloween night.

 

Brilliant treatment of the voice clips, production is super clean, soundset is tasty. I know you already stopwatched it, and it *feels* like a Portal 2 mix all the way through, so I'm not gonna nitpick. Having the constant kick drum gets a little old, and we could really use a breather in the middle, but I don't think that's enough to hold this otherwise-stellar mix back from passing.  <-- That issue is fixed with the new version, and it's fantastic now!

 

This mix is not a lemon, and I am not sending it back!

 

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When life gives you video game music, make remixes.

 

Production is pretty awesome. Feels like there is some very minor issues with the vocals ducking under the intense unts-unts-unts, but not a massive problem, it just makes things feel a little less defined than I feel they should be. 

 

Arrangement is good imo. Good style shift. The only major issue is that the vocal samples could be too prominent in the mix but otherwise, this is an easy yes. Well done chimpy!

 

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy call here. There's a huge potential for a remix in this style to fall back on a single gimmick without really fleshing out the bones of the track itself. I'm happy to say that's not even close to the situation here - you've done an incredible amount of work on the bass & synth programming and general sound design, so that even when you take the vocals out of the equation, you're still left with a rock-solid remix that stands on its own merits. It certainly helps that the vocals are also well-integrated and hilarious, even for someone who doesn't understand the context.

 

This is oozing with personality, and I think the masses are going to enjoy this a lot!

 

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2:45-2:49 (4 seconds - motif)

2:52-2:56 (4 seconds - motif)

2:58-3:00 (2 seconds - motif)

3:00-3:04 (4 seconds - motif)

3:07-3:11 (4 seconds - motif)

3:13-3:15 (2 seconds - motif)

3:15-4:52 (97 seconds - leads)

I'm not hearing any of this at all, only what sounds like vague stylistic similarities.

What is the "motif" timestamp from the source? :29/:36? Sounds like a rhthymic similarity where the notes aren't the same.

At 3:15-3:30 with the leads (:51 of source), it sounds like a rhythmic change, but the notes seem different, not just transposed.

Help me out with more details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it was confusing Larry.  The motif is most easily heard from 0:07-0:14 in the source tune, or again at 0:51-0:58 in the source.  It's just those 16 notes that I used.  Wherever I've used the motif, the notes are exactly the same as the source, but transposed down a half step.  I did add some swing to the melody in my mix from 0:45-1:15 and again from 3:15-4:52.  The notes are identical though, just down a half step.  

 

Looking at this under a microscope, I see I did alter a couple of notes in there, at the ends of some of the phrases, from 3:45-3:48, 4:15-4:18, 4:30-4:33 and 4:45-4:48 for a teeny bit of variation and to fit my concept.  So we can remove 12 seconds from my count.  New total is 150/292 = 51.4% source.  Again I apologize that this is hard to hear, and I know this mix is a bit source-light compared to my usual amount, I usually prefer to overshoot the goal.

 

Don't close this thread out though, I'm actually doing a revision to make a breakdown, as Flex suggested.  He was right about that.  The track will be the same but with a brief bit of relief from DAT_RELENTLESS_KICK.exe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a little source light, but moreover, I actually thought the source would have fulfilled a great role in the middle section! IMO it needed something else there, and even just snippets of the melody here and there would have been really cool. I loved what those heavy synths were doing anyway, so it wasn't that I was bored or anything. Overall, it was awesome to see Kris tackle this style so effectively. The vocal clips were used very well, and the production was excellent. I wouldn't have minded something else in the 3kHz range... well, I guess that gets back to my comment earlier about wanting more melody in the middle section. I heard enough source to satisfy me, and that was the only satisfaction in question.

 

YES

Share this post


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