ContinueTheEnd

First let me say that you've just convinced me to accept sequenced music as music - I guess I was being a little ignorant of others' preferred performing methods. I kinda got too obsessed with fending off all of your arguments and didn't pay attention to what I was actually implying. To everyone out there, I'm truly sorry if I said some things that got you upset. When I read Kanthos' post I realized that I really was ignoring one aspect of music: the fact that it's a "language" that everyone can express in their own way; whether it's with instruments, computers, synthesizers, etc. I shouldn't expect everyone else to create music by my own standards (which are now changed) that I inherited from my childhood - again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'll gladly say that both sequenced and instrumentalized music forms have their ups and downs, and neither is in any way "superior" to the other, especially when some people have disabilities or medical conditions that prevent them from using one way over the other. I see now that everyone has the right and the choice to express themselves musically in any way that they wish. As for myself, I do record my own music via an electric guitar and digital mixer. Most of my songs consist purely of guitar tracks; some have certain effects applied, but most are clean guitar. For some of my songs, I use temporary sequenced drum beats to help myself keep time while playing; my brother will replace these sequenced tracks later with his drum set. To be honest, I'm not sure how we can record the drums so that they sound acceptable, but I'm sure we'll find a way. As for what and how I actually play? Well, right off the bat, I'll say that I have a pretty strong bias against "mainstream" music - I don't listen to it, certainly, but I've heard enough of it in passing to make me disgusted. Most of the music I've listened to consists of OCRemixes and raw SNES game soundtracks; honestly, I think that video game music is in many ways better than the "normal" music that people listen to - and yes, it is sequenced, and I'm not afraid to say that it's just as good as instrumental music. I create music in a rather strange way. It usually involves at least an hour of tinkering around with the guitar or piano, playing with weird effects (because sometimes different sounds trigger new ideas), and then actually starting the song. Sometimes I'll play a random bunch of notes on the piano, and then sit down with the guitar and play the same notes to see what I can make of it. When the ideas come, it's dangerous to stop - if I stop, all the music I had in my head is pretty much erased, and I have a disfunctional piece of a song on my hands. I've even gone so far as to use a cheap tape recorder to record snippets of a certain melody I played on the piano so I wouldn't forget it or change it in my head. I wouldn't say that I'm "pushing to change any genres" or anything; I'm not even aware of many of the more modern musical genres that have emerged in the past few years. I was once amazed at how many different classifications of "metal" music there was - a long time ago on this site someone made a post discussing all the different types. "Black", "Death", "Melodic", "Heavy", "Dark", "Swedish", and any combination of one or more of these? Man, that's too much to keep track of. The bottom line for me is, I have to like what my music sounds like and I have to be satisfied that it doesn't sound like any "mainstream" music I've heard. Again, to Kanthos and everyone else, I apologize for the comments I made about sequenced music. Try not to hold it against me too much, since I get carried away very easily in arguments like this. Sequenced music and instrumental music are both part of the same language, and I'll try to keep thinking of it that way. -ContinueTheEnd

Alright, alright, alright.........it seems that the everyone here EXCEPT me thinks that I've made some pretty hasty conclusions about sequencing - I'll admit it, I have a really hard time presenting the opposing argument fairly, but I'll try to do so now. I will also try to explain, AGAIN, why I think the way I think about it. First of all, let me just say this: I'm guessing that the vast majority of posters here use more sequencing than they do instrumentation in their mixes. Naturally, this would endow all of you with a sort of "bias" against those who create mixes using instruments, especially those that tend to be "purists", as you termed them. I guess I would fall under the purist category - I find it extremely difficult to think of sequenced data as true music, but perhaps I will some day, who knows. Yes, I referred to sequenced music as being generally "easier" to do than playing an instrument - isn't that the truth? Think about it.....for those of you who have ever actually played an instrument and tried to make a half-decent recording, you know what you have to go through. I'm not saying that it can't be difficult to sequence music; of course it can. I AM saying, however, that no matter how you slice it, computers are NOT "instruments." They can emulate them, sure, but they are not instruments. Bottom line. I think of music as something that is played by instruments; computers are not instruments, therefore they cannot make music. I'll admit that they can help arrange the digital aspects of music; i.e., you have the recorded tracks of a song and you have to combine them via a computer or digital mixer. But I don't think that people should rely upon them as heavily as they've been doing - as I said earlier, you can use a synthesizer or computer sound library to "fill in" the parts of a song that you absolutely can't do by yourself; that's understandable. Using a computer to completely and totally construct a song, however, when there's such a wide variety of instruments at your disposal...........whatever. I tend to stick with what I have - guitar, bass, piano, and the effects on my amp and mixer - rather than search for "new" types of sounds. I realize now that if you're looking for a full, orchestrated type of soundtrack, it WOULD be next to impossible to create that with pure instruments. Still, you could make do with a synthesizer of some sort and still avoid the sequencing - as long as it's a human playing it and not a computer, it'll have that human quality, though it won't be the actual instruments playing. One of bladiator's mixes, "Super Mario Grand Valse", was played by a synthesizer, and it retained that human quality; it did not have that precise sequenced quality that is often so easily detectable in those types of mixes. By far, the most abominable thing I find about sequenced music is that it lacks that "human quality" - as soon as you insert sequenced material in a song, you have that mechanized, precise, machine-like taste, even if the instrumentation you used doensn't sound "techno" or mechanical. I will admit that, with music, the bottom line is that it sounds good - however, sticking to my definition of music, anything made by a computer or sequencer wouldn't count anyway. Whenever me and my brothers are jamming in the garage (guitar, bass, and drums), that's usually the rule we go by: as long as it sounds good, it is. Part of the problem here is that music has been totally re-defined with the coming of sequencing technology. I hold a more traditional definition of music, while most everyone else embraces the modern definition. If you define music as ANYTHING that sounds "good", then yes, you can include sequenced music in along with instruments. But if you define music as that which is played by instruments, well, that rules out computers of any type. Synthesizers are kind of a gray area - you can use them to create un-sequenced music, but they're computers themselves in that they emulate other instruments. I'd be more willing to accept synthesizers as an instrument if people didn't tend to use them for sequencing purposes like (I think) they do. To me, music played by instruments is like a ripe, juicy peach - it's real, it's live, and it tastes (sounds) great. Sequenced music is the artificial, plastic peach that sits in the basket with all the other fake fruit, for looks - it's cold, "dead", and, while it may look better than the real peach and be more visually pleasing, it doesn't have that taste (sound). That's my view, as best as I can explain it. Again, I'm not trying to insult any one of you - you are free to define music however you wish to, as am I. -ContinueTheEnd

From what it sounds like, you had other parts of the song that were played with instruments - that's good. I realize that it's extremely hard to create a mix with pure instruments; what I don't like is when a song is sequenced in its entirety. Not just the ability to play an instrument, obviously, but to come up with your own material and to practice consistently without the aid of sheet music. "Those kids" that you described give a bad name to musicians - people who can't see past sheet music shouldn't be playing instruments in the first place. Sheet music may be helpful sometimes for practicing, but overall it's your own practicing that does the trick. I should think you already know this, however, if you say you used to be like me. So because you succumbed to the techno-craze that defines remixing nowadays, I should? Hah - think again, son. You seem to be implying that making a remix requires the use of computers, sequencers, and all else digital......I think not. If I ever get the chance to make a remix, I'll try and make it as un-sequenced as possible - in other words, played with only instruments. Also, I'm not being a "critic" of any sort; like I said, don't take offense at what I said earlier. I was merely illustrating my thoughts about the differences between sequencing and playing "live" instruments; I was in no way insulting you or anyone else. "Awareness of music"? So awareness is defined by how much you use non-"real" instrumentation to create mixes? Evidently, you abandoned your previous ambitions about making music with instruments and replaced them with the lower, easier ambitions of sequencing music. Don't try to make that MY problem........ -ContinueTheEnd

Ifirit, thanks for your explanation of sequenced and "studio" music, as you call it. Yes, I understand that the two are similar in the sense that you can specify the time signature, note pitch, and note length of each, but for me, there's a more important difference between the two. When I think of "music", I think of real, actual instruments - not complicated computer programs that can synthesize musical sounds with an array of various sound libraries and effects. I was raised playing musical instruments; I grew up playing first the saxophone, then the piano, and now I practice with the acoustic and electric guitar, with some occasional piano thrown in. My point is this: it would be very difficult for me to create a sequenced piece of work and still called it "music." To me, music is a living, breathing thing - it's not cold, digitalized data awash with special effects, but LIVING music. It disappoints me to see that remixers are turning more and more to simulating music rather than playing the real thing to create their songs; in my opinion, computers tend to suck the "life" out of music and replace it with crude, commercialized, "dead" material. This sickens me - and it's to be expected for someone that grew up playing musical instruments. I've developed a strong sense of appreciation for the skill and dedication it takes to play instruments; only recently, I realized that people could actually sit down at a computer and create, literally, entire songs using various sound programs. These songs could sound highly digitalized and "techno", or they could sound like they were actually being played by real instruments, but even then, that's not the point: it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Why is it that people have to mock the concept of real instruments by imitating them with technology? If you want the sound of an instrument, then play it. I have great respect for those musicians who are still able to play, arrange, and record effectively with instruments. There's no "undo" button, no "save" key that you can press, none of that: you painstakingly play each note, usually over and over and over until its pitch and duration are just right. Oftentimes, you replay it even if you can't tell yourself what's wrong - you just know that something's not right. Playing with instruments allows your humanity to seep into your music - when you hear music that was not sequenced, but actually played, there's a certain quality that just can't be reproduced by the finest synthesizer or computer existing. It's a human quality, a living, breathing semblance of humanity - not the mechanical perfection and precision that sequenced music often possesses. Again, as much as the idea of sequenced music disgusts me, I try to maintain some sense of respect for sequencers - it definitely does take talent to do, although it leans more toward technological experience than actual practice and dedication to an instrument or instruments. True, even when playing with instruments, the use of some technology is necessary for successful recording - a digital soundmixer or recorder of some sort is usually needed to store the soundtracks played by the instruments, and to apply any effects, if desired. But that doesn't change the fact that the music is real - again, when you hear a sequenced piece as compared to a live piece, there's always a difference. For those who disagree with everything I've said, what can I do? It's to be expected; the vast majority of remixers who frequent this site almost certainly prefer sequencing to playing instruments. Keep in mind that I grew up playing instruments, and seeing computers and technology replacing them tends to bother me - it's like people are starting to lose appreciation for actual instrument-oriented music. I guess I have to accept it, especially in a time where technology pretty much rules the roost. Why bother learning to play and practicing when you can emulate it all with a computer, right? It seems there are precious few here who still value "played" music; off the top of my head, goat and bladiator have songs that include actual instrumentation. I'm sure there are more of which I haven't heard, so to all the people who still do play with instruments and record with them, I give a hearty "good job" - keep playing that living stuff. And again, to all the sequencers, I'm not insulting you; I'm only explaining why I think the way I think. -ContinueTheEnd

Alright; I see now that by "arranged" music I was really talking about "sequenced" music.......I guess that sequenced music is what I was trying to refer to. And by my description of live music, I only meant "live" in the sense that you're actually using a real instrument to create music rather than digitalized sounds from a computer or sound mixer. Thanks for all the help, and no, this isn't for a professor, it's just for my curiousity.

I'm trying to understand what the difference is, specifically, between arranged music and live music. As I understand it, "arranged" music involves the use of some sort of computer sound program and allows you to specify the time signature of a mix, as well as the pitch and length of each note. In other words, you don't have to actually play an instrument to get your mix to sound the way you want it to; instead you use a program to electronically assemble the "skeleton" of the mix for you, and then you assign different instruments and sounds to each note of the mix to complete the process. "Live" music, on the other hand, is music that IS played with an electric or acoustic instrument (guitar, bass, piano, synthesizer, etc.). You play your instrument into a digital sound mixer or recorder, re-play each part until it sounds decent, apply any desired special effects, and then combine all the different tracks of the song to form one cohesive mix. Now, I would greatly appreciate it if someone with a solid knowledge of the differences between arranged and live music could respond to my post as soon as possible and alert me if any of my impressions are incorrect. Thanks. -ContinueTheEnd

I'm trying to understand what the difference is, specifically, between arranged music and music that's played "live." As I understand it, "arranged" music allows you to specify the time signature of a mix, as well as the pitch and length of each note of that mix. This is done via a computer sound program or a digital mixing workstation, so you don't have to actually play an instrument to get your mix to sound the way you want it to; instead you use a program to electronically assemble the "skeleton" of the mix for you, and then you assign different instruments and sounds to each note of the mix to complete the process. "Live" music, on the other hand, is music that IS played with an electric or acoustic instrument (guitar, bass, piano, synthesizer, etc.). You play your instrument into a digital sound mixer or recorder, re-play each part until it sounds decent, apply any desired special effects, and then combine all the different tracks of the song to form one cohesive mix. Now, I would greatly appreciate it if someone with a solid knowledge of the differences between arranged and live music could respond to my post as soon as possible and alert me if any of my impressions are incorrect. Thanks. -ContinueTheEnd

Alright - thanks for all the help, guys. I guess from what I see here, I'd go with NOD32 or AVG if I had to pick a virus scanner. If anyone asks, I can recommend these to them. As for me, I'll just keep browsing as safely as I can and checking the system files every so often to keep the viruses off.

I'd like to know what the overall "best" virus scanning software is that's available nowadays. You see, about a year ago, I scrapped my virus scanner (McAfee) because it was slowing down programs like StarCraft, for whatever reason, and generally causing havoc on my system. Since then, the only virus scanning of any sort that I've done has been with the "Norton Anti-Spy" attachment on the Yahoo toolbar, which seems to cover me pretty well. However, lately I've been hearing about people having virus problems on their computers, and that kinda made me think about why I don't have a virus scanner. Sure, you can keep most malicious software off of your computer just by browsing safely and not clicking on every pop-up you see, but I think I'd feel better if I had an actual program that could search EVERYTHING for me. So, my question to you is, what IS the overall best virus scanner? By "best" I mean the most comprehensive, thorough, and convenient program out there, not including McAfee. Any suggestions from anyone would be appreciated.

Even being a "cool rational logical thinker", it can be extremely hard to keep from fighting in a case like this. From personal experience, I can tell you that sometimes it's almost impossible to prevent yourself from nailing someone when they've hit you or gotten you mad - you can chalk that up to adrenaline. Your instinct just takes over and before you know it you're swinging at someone, whether you're a fighter or not. It's good that your buddies stepped in for you and got you out of that; nowadays, it's hard to tell who's carrying a gun and who isn't. A simple little skin fight can end up with someone getting shot or stabbed, and fortunately, that didn't happen. I guess the only safe way to keep this from happening again is just to stay away from a similar situation if you see it - you can't really trust your own defensive instincts to not get you into trouble.

Alright. Well, thanks for telling me what he used - like zircon said, it doesn't matter THAT much, since he performed the piece live and it still sounds relatively real, especially compared to other mixes. I tend to be super-picky about music; basically, the less synthesized something is, the more I'll like it. That probably stems from the fact that I play all my music using actual instruments rather than synthesized sounds and arrangements. Again, though, that's just me - I like music to be as close to the actual thing as possible; it just feels more "real" to me that way. Thanks again.

I recently heard Bladiator's "Super Mario World Grand Valse" remix; I think it's a very well done piano mix, probably one of the best I've ever heard. I'm curious about one thing, however: is that an actual piano playing the song, or is the piano sound synthesized? It certainly sounded like a real piano to me, but I just want to make sure. I'd prefer if Bladiator himself could answer this for me since it's his work, but if anyone else knows what it is, feel free to speak up. Thanks.

There really is no "standard" video game music; people assume that Super Mario Bros., Final Fantasy, Metriod, etc. are standard because they possess the most widely-commercialized tunes and are thus more familiar. That doesn't make them standard; it just makes them more well-known. The standard for video game music differs from person to person, since it all depends on what games you grew up playing. Personally, I tend to think of several SNES games as the basic standard for video game music; these include Super Mario Bros., the DKC series, Legend of Zelda, Mega Man X series, etc. Again, however, that's just my opinion because that's what I grew up playing as a child. Thus, "standard" game music is pretty much nonexistent - video game music is constantly evolving and being updated as the years pass; as such, there will never be one definite standard for it.

I'd like to ask if anyone knows of a good, reliable web site where accurate piano sheet music for video games is available. I typed in a few random searches on Google for video game sheet music, but a whole slew of sites showed up and I couldn't tell if any of them was an "official" source. If someone does know of a good source for video game piano sheet music, please speak up now.