• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About AngelCityOutlaw

  • Rank
    Chrono (+3000)
  • Birthday 04/23/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alberta, Canada
  • Interests
    Music, history, Star Wars, movies and video games.

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
  • Software - Preferred Plugins/Libraries
    Symphonic Orchestra, Ra, Guitar Rig, Addictive Drums 2, Shreddage Bass, Sylenth, Nexus 2
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Arrangement & Orchestration
    Drum Programming
    Mixing & Mastering
    Recording Facilities
    Synthesis & Sound Design
  • Instrumental & Vocal Skills (List)
    Electric Guitar: Lead
    Electric Guitar: Rhythm


  • Twitter Username
  • PlayStation Network ID
  • Steam ID
  1. Well, the drone is not "atonal" exactly, much of it is a quarter-step lower - so about midway between D (the tonic) and Db as I recall. Thought it was a fitting sample, at least in the initial incarnation of the track since the beginning has a sort of horror feel. Carry on.
  2. I don't 100% agree that instrumental skill is irrelevant to composition. I'm aware no one directly said that - the idea is that you don't need to play like Beethoven to make realistic MIDI or compose, but more often than not, I still see a causal link between quality of composition and instrumental proficiency. If you try to compose music with an instrument you suck at, the instrument is now a bottleneck in your workflow. It makes it difficult to play the ideas in your head before they disappear and improvising limits you to what is within your limited skills. If I have an idea, I want to get it in recorded or written format ASAP with no mistakes and no chance of forgetting any part of it. That's why I prefer to write with sheet music and my guitar whenever I can. I'm a much better guitar player, so it's effortless to play and notate the ideas as they come to me and improvising yields satisfying results, more elaborate melodies and counterpoint, and intriguing discoveries with far greater frequency. Afterwards, I can orchestrate it and half ass play it in on MIDI controller with quantization. The end result is a much better piece of music than I would have made if I tried to come up with it in the DAW with the keyboard. Most professional composers I know, even if they're crap pianists, can sing their ideas quite well.
  3. I have a question related to Bonkers' post. If you become an NPO and you're making all this money from Patreon, Ad-Revenue etc. what happens to all the surplus (and there is surplus, right?) in say, 20 years and OCR closes down? Do we all really believe that this site is going to be around forever? Is DJP still going to be running it in his old age? What happens after he dies? $2,269 per month via Patreon is an amount of money the average musician and even many people with full-time jobs would be envious of, but I doubt the site costs that much to keep it going. NPO or not, there is going to be money, possibly quite a sizable sum left over after years and years of accumulation. What happens to that when OCR no longer exists? It must go somewhere.
  4. So that they may evade the other place's ban-hammer. Works better in theory than practice.
  5. Yep. I can't believe I'm saying it, but I do agree with Brandon on this. Based on what we've seen so far in this thread, it's obvious that the majority of the staff have made their decision unless DJP throws down the word of god otherwise. There is nothing more to discuss - it's starting to go in circles because pertinent questions go unanswered because we simply don't have answers to them - only flat-out speculation on what might happen at worst and informed, but debatable plausibility at best. Legal discussions aside, the ethical factor remains and on that subject especially, some posters have just too much loyalty to the community to remove themselves from it and see another perspective - in their minds, OCR can do no wrong. That being said, I'm really glad to see some longstanding members of the community have no bias to the site. So I'd say the only thing we can do for sure is make the personal decision about whether or not you want to continue submitting remixes. If you don't like the YouTube ads, then don't; if you don't care or are all for it, go right ahead. Just don't blame anyone but yourselves if it goes bad.
  6. You know, I agree he's tinfoilin' way too much, but I'm watching this thread eagle-eyed because we are witnessing history. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the community no matter how this plays out because I've never seen an issue as divisive, even among staff and other prominent mixers as this.
  7. Value is subjective No, but it wasn't monetized before No, but it wasn't monetized before Your "reminder" is irrelevant given the current situation The criticism is completely warranted and your point is that musicians shouldn't be compensated if they did a fan work for free, that was free, but then the host decides to monetize it for whatever reason and intentionally keeps the creators in the dark - an unfair situation that could possibly now put those free fan works in the way of the copyright ban-hammer. Your opinion is unreasonable. Maybe if you saw the counter-productivity in your outlook on this kind of thing, you wouldn't be so cynical about music careers in general.
  8. Answer to question from 1-11: "None of this matters" Like, I don't even know what point you're trying to prove here. You are just reaching for whatever you can to convince yourself that there is no issue with artists' work being monetized on YouTube without their knowledge. This whole issue shows why I've become increasingly cynical towards "non-profit" organizations in general, honestly. If there is money being made on fan work distributed for free, but OCR and/or the publisher are receiving ad-revenue directly from that work, then regardless of whether or not the money is being re-invested into the site, the artist is being screwed. Period.
  9. Man, I like you, but I've become completely disenchanted with your posts about music & money as it's just excessive nihilism and pessimism rooted in a general defeatist attitude. Yes, any remix I've done or that I've contributed to has been not for profit and I am lead to believe that was OCR's mission. Despite Sir NutS' borderline insane insistence that OCR was already directly profiting off mixes because of website ads instead of directly embedded ads, which if it was really objectively so, I doubt OCR would've survived the whole FFVI Square Enix debacle because they could've argued the mixes were profitable due to ads on the mixposts. Yet, here I am faced with someone arguing that it should be no problem that if someone like Square, who had a legal issue with this site, were to receive payment from ad revenue via YouTube videos from OCR of remixes from their games, the remixer has no right to be pissed about it. It's a fan remix. There's no money involved. If there is going to be income to be made, it should be between the copyright holder and artist. People want to be paid for their work - shocking.
  10. I wish I could like this post twice. and yeah, the bold text is essentially what I was trying to say, but you put it far more eloquently.
  11. I stated that this is a subjective thing. I said why I don't like the YouTube videos being monetized. It was this place where you could just go to the channel and listen to the music without creating any ad revenue. You have just basically tried to tell me that this opinion is unjustified because of ads on the site that is not even necessary to visit to hear the music. You're fine with it and that's okay, but there is no right or wrong answer. You can only say how you feel about it and then DJP takes it all into consideration.
  12. Whatever, NutS. If you can't see why some see an ethical difference between embedding ads in videos showcasing mixes on YouTube when they previously were not and the community wasn't made aware of the changes, versus ads that generate revenue from via their placement and persistence throughout the site, that's your problem. One is directly generating ad revenue via listening to the mix, the other does so without the requirement of actually clicking play. I've stated my thoughts on it, if you disagree, I don't care.
  13. The website. Fewer people come to OCR than ever - this has been a topic of discussion earlier this year in a thread started by Willrock. The user base has dropped like a stone and I believe it was DJP himself or Darkesword that said they're finding social media and YouTube have taken over. You're conflating "thing that draws people to site" with "thing that is monetized". I got to Facebook to see what my friends ate for lunch or read a political rant. There are banner ads on the side - that doesn't thereby monetize your chicken sandwich or status about how much you hate Trump.
  14. Yeah, the thing is it doesn't actually matter if any "argument" changes anyone's mind. Like I said, it's subjective and people who aren't okay with it will likely just stop contributing to the site or not do so in the first place. DJP is going to do whatever he wants anyway - it's his site. The remixes aren't monetized on the site - the site itself is monetized. On YouTube, the video containing the mix is monetized and you cannot get through the song without the ad, thereby monetizing the mix.