*NO* Duke Nukem 3D "F. Reset"

[Rexy]

 

Remixer Name: Marc Chemali

Real Name: Marc Chemali

Email: 

website: https://marcchemali.bandcamp.com/releases

userid: marcchemali

 

Name of game arranged: Duke Nukem 3D

Name of arrangement: F. Reset

Name of original: Stalker

Original soundtrack link:
 

Comments on mix: I always wanted to do a big Frank Klepacksi/Quake sounding style of this theme since I was younger. Just wanted to hear what it sounded with dirty sounding analogue synths and guitars. Cheers.

Edited November 2, 2021 by MindWanderer

[prophetik music]

an aggressive intro featuring some really raucous synths leads into a pretty noisy initial presentation of the groove. the guitars are heavily effected and the drums are really clean, so there's a bit of cognitive dissonance between the soundscapes there. the stuff being played is fun though and it's definitely recognizable as the stalker theme. the bass synth that comes in at 1:10 is just a great encapsulation of american game music in the 90s for me, so that's a really fun add. the power chords that come in after that are very ominous and sound great as well.

we get a breakdown that starts around 1:45 and explores some more interesting synthesis, and then it's back into a simlar groove as the opening - nearly the same. that's followed by that same bass groove from 1:10 with some orchestral elements layered on top. i don't feel this is much of a change and this is essentially copypasta for here. the additional of the orchestral stabs around 2:35ish are odd because the hard limiter on the track is showing there, and there's some obvious limiting going on as more is layered in. the track continues to get louder as more elements are layered in until 3:20 when the outro starts. there's some sfx at the end and then it's over.

this is an interesting case. on one hand, this is a super fun groove, there's some fun synthesis in here, the guitars sound great, and overall i thought the track had a good sound when it wasn't getting super loud near the end. however there's some obvious technical issues - the drums aren't really in the same soundscape as the guitars and synths, the last half of the track needs a volumization pass to make room for the orchestral parts (and probably some EQing to make them fit better), and there is a lot of repetition. beyond that, there's a lot of re-instrumentation, but i'd argue that there's very little personalization here - the melodic content is super minimal in the original, and it's mostly repeated either the same or so close to the original it doesn't matter. there are definitely background parts added, but the primary focus of the piece is on stuff that is essentially the same as the original. i don't hear chord changes, tempo or time changes, personalization of the melodic content, rhythmic variations...it's much more a cover than it is a true arrangement. i think ultimately that's the real reason i can't pass this - i do not believe it represents enough arrangement to pass our submission standards. that's a pity because it sounds awesome, but it's also one that's fairly easy to fix.

 

 

NO

[Liontamer]

Sounds pretty MIDI-rippy to start, but I did like the sound palette there. At :36 and 1:10, the melody's too quiet underneath the supporting writing, but the melody's in the foreground again at :53; I don't think the contrast quite works as intended in these sections, but maybe increasing the melodic volume a touch would still make it more audible yet still subordinate in those other sections.

While prophetik had a lot of production critiques as well, and he's an accomplished musician (whereas I don't make any music), I just wasn't hearing much to take issue with on the production level; everything seemed to occupy its own space and though I took issue with the prominence of the melody in places, it's a potentially subjective thing for me there.

Really nice dynamic contrast with the change in instrumentation at 1:53. 2:10 basically goes back to a rinse-and-repeat of :35 but with :52's lead. 2:53 essentially repeats 1:27 with some instrumental variation but the same beats/patterns and energy underneath. While I can hear how the arrangement isn't just doing a complete cut-and-paste for the second half beyond 2:10, the overall tone and presentation was repetitive nonetheless and things started dragging out.

I wouldn't go as far as prophetik would in terms of saying the arrangement doesn't stand apart from the original source tune; the part-writing and instrumentation are significantly and meaningfully expanded here. However, the percussion patterns and overall levels generally hovering in the same place for nearly the entire track did make this feel overlong and underdeveloped. Anything else you can do in terms of creating some sort of dynamic contrast would help put this over the top, IMO. Good work so far, Marc, and I think you'd be able to refine this and get it over the top if the arrangement writing and/or sound palette evolved some more.

NO (resubmit)

[MindWanderer]

I don't hear much in the way of production issues, other than the fairly minor balance issues both judges already mentioned, but I do agree with prophetik that the overall structure is extremely similar to the original.  It's not quite the same, but it goes through the same sequence of variations.  The quiet bridge into the brass hits in the source compared with the same in yours, except more drawn out and with orch hits instead of brass is the most obvious example of this, but the same issue is there from beginning to end.  It's an elaboration of the original, and a re-instrumentation of it, but it's not really a transformation of it like what we look for.

It's not far off, but add that to how repetitive the source is, and therefore how repetitive the remix is, and there's just too much of an issue.  The good news is that both components have the same solution: add some more creative interpretation that introduces a change of pace or two.  New writing isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, but it's far from the hardest, and I think this can get there.

NO (resubmit)