Liontamer Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Original Decision: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5075 1st RESUB Decision: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7716 Remixer name: Brain Cleaner Real name: Kai Brooks Email: cpl.kai@gmail.com Website: http://braincleanermusic.com/ Userid: 20389 (Brain Cleaner) Game Remixed: Unreal Tournament Song Remixed: Foregone Destruction Comments: Made entirely with Live 6 ReMix Link: Updates: It doesn't suck anymore. Non-mix-related note: This is a resub, submitted under SuicideKai previously. Same remixer, but a sudden change of heart with naming conventions, and the new OCR forums account (and this submission) reflects it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 i vaguely remember the prior versions. so brain cleaner instead of suicidekai, eh? interesting combinations in both cases. i think if i recall correctly that the level of deviation from the original tune was marginal. since it was a different version, and i don't remember fully anyway, i guess it doesn't really matter. i think this is pretty good stuff. not the most epically phenomenal track i've ever heard, or will ever hear, but arguably pretty solid. can someone verify whether or not there's an encoding glitch at :18? that's kind of bothering me other than said gripe, i think the level of arrangement is strong enough to abide by OCR standards. new ideas and textures have been introduced and integrated fairly seamlessly over the foundation of "foregone destruction". i really dig :46. for some reason, parts of this remind me of one of the killer instinct tracks, but i can't think of which one at the moment... at any rate, production leaves no ill-taste in my ears that i can speak of. therefore, i can confidently say that i think this could sit well enough by our other UT track (which completely blows, by the way--dunno how that crap ever made it on here) comfortably enough. gonna check on the encoding issue, but as far as i'm concerned, glad you persisted in your resubbing and welcome aboard. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Yeah there is a glitch at 0.18 Much better than previous subs, this has come a long way. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted May 26, 2007 Author Share Posted May 26, 2007 There are light glitches/pops at :07, :12 and :18 that could stand to be fixed, but they aren't dealbreakers. Unreal Tournament OSV - "Foregone Destruction" Well, I'm certainly interested in seeing what direction this goes in after a second resubmission. Intro seems pretty straightforward, finally changing up at :47. Lead at :50 felt flimsy despite the effects. The beatwork joining in at 1:00 helped flesh things out more, but I can't help but feel like the overall texture was underwhelming. Feels like the sound balance from 1:12-1:35 could be tweaked so that the sounds don't mush together. It's not terrible, but the various sounds aren't distinct. A lot of the percussion patterns are being drowned out, making the beatwork seem too simplistic on its own. Same goes for the supporting synths seeming very muffled and low. It definitely all undermines the complexity and layering presented in the writing. 1:37 moves over into what's basically the source's chorus. 2:00 goes for a changeup into some synths, before bringing back 1:12's lead at 2:07. Feels like there's something missing to this to really drive the song forward. After 2:12, it feels like there's a lot of volume and effects to give this a thicker sound, but in reality the texture's kind of thin. Same issues as with 1:12-1:35 where the flooded soundfield ends up obscuring a lot of the supporting ideas, making the track seem very simplistic. I'd address those issues with the synths and beats being drowned down. Right now, the arrangement is more where it needs to be. But with the sound textures seeming so simple during the beefier sections, the track creates the impression of lacking substance where it counts. Good luck on the rest of the vote, Kai. NO (refine/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 listen to this then listen to the original. The remix is not as refined or well-executed. There's less going on harmonically, and the instrument textures are less colorful. The change at 1:50 is a step in the right direction, but aside from that 15-second interlude, this is uniformly inferior to the original. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 Sounds good to me, there's a lot of reverb on that main synth which probably could've benefitted from some fast gating to break it up at some points like the pads do from about 1:50. It is simplified a bit from the original. But I think there's a lot more going on here than the original submission had. I'm enjoying this a lot more at least and I think the public will too. The rearrangement is evident, and the sound quality is above average. You could've given it a proper ending. Maybe fading out on the intro melody. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillian Aversa Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 I was a little worried about the arrangement aspect of things right off the bat, but thankfully that was a premature concern. I do wish the lead synth weren't so ear-piercing. Sounds kinda lo-fi, so the higher frequencies are really popping out. Four on the floor... A little old school/generic, but it definitely suits the UT universe. Ending definitely felt abrupt, but it wasn't bad per se. I guess I just wish the whole mix were further developed. Under 3 minutes... That's on the shorter side for a remix of this genre. However, I really don't have any production gripes other than the piercing lead synth in the introduction. Lots of nifty ideas floating around in here, and you've done your homework. Very enjoyable - solid work! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 The opening synth in the intro feels somewhat cheap in terms of sound quality, or "thin" as several of the other judges put it. When things pick up, the production seems somewhat messy to me. The frequency balance is top heavy... lots of sizzle, hiss, and mud in the upper ranges. Lots of reverb & resonance does not help the situation. The drums are not quite as interesting as the chopped amen in the original, though the 3/4 fills were a cool touch. I would have liked more variation there, perhaps more breakbeat stuff - nothing WRONG with four on the floor, but when other parts of the track are very repetitive, it contributes in a negative way. The arrangement itself has some solid interpretive ideas, but the main part relies on repetition of the same hook a little too much. Sure the original was like that, to an extent, but even short source tunes and riffs can be expanded upon with some patience. The intro stuck to a straight-up interpretation of one of hte main riffs instead of rhythmically varying it, for example. The ending was also really abrupt. Even a generic de-layering of the different elements would have been better than a sudden stop, especially considering how the mix clocks in at just under 3:00. Though I have some production and arrangement qualms, the main criticism I have of this mix is the same one Vig has; it's similar in approach to the original, but simplified. Some of the sounds are upgraded to be louder and 'hotter', but overall, the texture is simplified and the interesting rhythms from the original are lost. IMO this is not far from our bar. Go for one more resub. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 the arrangement/production combination doesn't put this over the bar as far as I'm concerned. as zirc and vig have already alluded to, the arrangement is a simplification of the original. add to that the slightly sloppy production (the synths can be grating at times) and what you've got is a borderline NO. this is close, but not quite there yet. BORDERLINE NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 hmm. this has come a long way, no doubt... but it still falls short. i think the major detraction here is how unnecessarily simplified its become. true, you've cleaned up your production a bit and it is far less grating on the ears but its arrangement is pretty void of expansion. there are points where it feels expansive in my ears but doesn't sustain the attention much. i did really like the break and transition coming into the second minute but unfortunately it was like a gem surrounded by hay. this is still about one resub away. this time, address the meat of your track... make sure it is interesting from start to finish... while being short for its genre like pixie said, it still feels like its too long which is always a bad sign. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts