Gario

I'm looking at it now, and I've got to say the graphics are really impressive on it. I have no clue what the 'stereoscopic' views really imply, but it looks like a new system, not just an 'update' to the old DS, to me. Mmm... ps2 graphics on a handheld. It's looking quite promising.

Mmm... good work with this one. I liked the direction you took it, there, in the beginning - static harmonies with the theme over it. The performance isn't bad, really, considering they were just doing it on the spot, basically. It's not easy to get a performance of these things, so I'm glad you have a recording of it all. I can't quite get through all of it, this time, but when I get some time I'm certainly going to give you some more feedback on the orchestration. I'll be back.

Youtube is a terrible place to post your WIPs. If you want to show your stuff off there, it's fine, but it's difficult to tell if production problems are artifacts from Youtube or problems with the track itself. There's a thread dedicated to places you may use for your WIP tracks; I suggest you use it. Anyhow, onto the mix... I like the combination of electronic and guitar. However, the balance of the mix is a terribly muddy one. The tracks are too loud, so the guitar work is drown (the leads in particular). As a rule of thumb, it's better to turn down other tracks to get sounds in the front and follow that by turning the limiters up from there than it is to simply make one track louder. I'm going to shoot from the hip and say it's a bit on the conservative side. The track is also too short - expand it and be liberal with the next minute or so of music and you should be alright, there - the textures are liberal enough as to where just a few changes will probably allow OCR to look at it. The ending is very abrupt, as if you didn't finish the track. If you didn't finish the track then... well, finish it. If you consider it 'done' structurally then take another look at it and make it sound finished. The biggest killer, here, is certainly the muddy production, though. Get the leads to shine through the track and be sure to put the background instruments in the background. Otherwise it's a great track, so keep going on it . Electronic + guitar = awesome. The math is flawless.

Here's my contribution - not made by me, but for me by my sister. I promised I'd link this to her stuff if I posted it here 'cause we're in a capitalist society and nothing's free. However, it's still awesome, so enjoy, lol. OCR kachu, ftw. And yes, it's eating Dj's pretzel.

Well, either I was right or we're both wrong on how the law works. Reassuring, all the same - here's hoping the ISOs I have are legal, since it really, REALLY sucks trying to run the CDs on my comp (they work, but they tend to skip on there, unfortunately, due to computer limitations).

Historically speaking, in Western culture 3/4 was considered the most 'natural' time signature up through the Renaissance. This is because 3 represented the Holy Trinity, and most music back then was written for the church. 2/4 was considered the freak that people could use, if they wanted some shock value .

Thanks for the comments . Still settling in, so I won't be able to work on anything for a few days. I'll be sure to balance the sounds & fix the strings when I mix the guitars in there (I just wrote the notes in there - no volume work or anything, so I'd expect them to be pretty bad, atm). Thanks for pointing them out, Monobrow - I was thinking about leaving them if no one pointed me out on them, 'cause I'm a lazy bastard, lol. Now I won't, I promise . Glad you liked the drums, though - they just need to be in the front, 'cause they just aren't there, in the mix. Hey, Hoboka, I haven't put anything on here for months (my LAGUNA LOL mix was the last one I had up here, three months ago), since I've been working on all sorts of project mixes. I'll surely get to the LoD music soon, though - I just played through the game again, trying to get pumped about writing for it . Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side. I turned sides with this track, and I gotta say it feels pretty damn good.

Completely agreed, there. Anything that's written in 11/11 can just as easily be written in 11/8, without any of the hassle. Never heard the term 'dividing the meters into x/y' ('division' is fractions)? They actually are fractions, when you think of them as a part over a whole (how many parts/beats are in the whole measure), or as a proportion (beats per measure). Just sayin', is all (the math teacher in me is now coming out - considering this was one of the things I liked to show students when teaching fractions as a neat application ).

*Guitars get* Thanks - I'll get working on this asap. Here's hoping for an update in the next few days.

On a mathematic level, 11/11 = 4/4 = 1, but in music it makes no sense, so I'm sure he was being flippant, SLyGeN. IF people want to use 11th notes, they just subdivide a set of notes into 11 parts. Yes, it does happen (and if you REALLY want to see a messed up score, look up 'Bone Alphabet'... holy shit...).

Really? Hmm... That may be particular to PSX isos, or something - most places post up a disclaimer saying it's not legal to have the roms unless you own the game. Sorry, it's an honest mistake, here. I know what I said is true for NES/Sega/SNES roms, but I guess it doesn't carry over for Psx isos. Ok, disregard my little bit of advice, then . FF8 also has a PC version (which I also own), and it runs great. You could go online and find someone selling it, too.

Funny, every time I see it in a thread, it's used incorrectly. Don't people read the part where you erase the things that don't apply, to clean it up? Getting tired of seeing this, when it's used... ... Yeah, it'd be nice if it was used correctly, every once in a while. It's nice when it's used right, though.

i love you too, prophet.

Sorry, I wanted to say more, but I was preoccupied. Now that I'm not, let's see if I can clarify any more (and after this point, I don't know how much more I can say - this isn't a PPR argument, after all, but fairly well established facts, so not much more that I can do except repeat a little from earlier). Before I hammer you with my overbearing definition/crap/opinions/whatever, let me explain where you are coming from, where I'm coming from, and what I'm doing. You are coming from the music of today, where modes have been used in Pop, Rock and Jazz to add flavor to their songs without considering any of the long dead traditions of the past, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, at all. That music sounds as good as any other music you can listen to, because yes - tradition is indeed gone and is dated. I even told you there was nothing wrong with this in my first post. From that first post, however, you expressed curiosity about my position. I am coming from the normal use of the term 'Tonal' in the realm of music theorists. I am, indeed, approaching it from the dated tradition and comparing the old 'tonal' tradition and the older 'modal' tradition and explaining exactly why they are not compatible. I am trying to teach you where Modality came from and why it functions the way it did. I am representing the views of Zarlino and J. J. Fux in the Treaty and classical pedagogical presentation of it as clearly as I can without resorting to their dated language, which is objective, not subjective, in nature. This is, in essence, an educational post about historical facts that I figured you would find interesting, since you like to play with modal scales so much. Don't take this as a criticism of your opinion, at all, because we left opinion behind when you asked me what I was talking about. This is now simply about explaining facts about the music you seem to be interested in. I hope this is clear, because I can't make the points presented any clearer without simply directing you to my sources (which I've actually stated again and again). Alright, let's start from an earlier point in this discussion first (I couldn't address any of the earlier points, 'cause of time constraints). I don't want to dance around the meaning of my terminology anymore, since that seems to be causing confusion rather than clearing anything up, so I'm going to define some basic premises, for you. All of these things make perfect literal sense in a seven-tone modal scale. Alright, then, identify Josquin (who writes in a true Modal medium) in the context of these terms. By sheer coincidence, they may line up from time to time, but most of the time the 'predominant' chords do not lead to the chords they 'should' lead to, the Dominant is not a required chord to end a piece on (it IS required, by the way, in Tonal music - the harmonic relationship between scale degrees 5 & 1 are fundamental to Tonality - any other lead to the tonic is merely a decoration, not a cadence, according to Schenker & many other Tonal specialists), and the third is not essential in chord construction (in fact, the concept of 'Chord construction' doesn't exist, in a Modalist's vocabulary, because all music was written through linear relationships, not harmonic ones). In Tonality, each of these chords have direction and scope that guides the music to the end of phrases, the end of sections, and finally to the end of the piece. In Modality, that is absolutely not true - the structure was more often than not based on a precomposed single line of music that had it's own individual form, and the rest of the polyphonic lines needed to follow it (not necessarily be subservient to that line, however - most of the time, each individual line had equal importance to the precomposed line). In order to be pleasant, there was order as to what sonorities were acceptable, and these formed chords, as you know them, by sheer coincidence. Chords were of very little relevance to Modal music - it was the lines and their relationships to each other that was the primary importance. Let me clarify a point I brushed over earlier... Technically, the linear relationships between the lines is what makes it modal, not the different 'cadences'. In fact, the different 'cadences' you're describing are not Modal cadences at all, since they do not fulfill the singe requirement of a Modal cadence. The ONLY cadence that sounds different is the Phrygian one, since in order to cadence in Modal music the music must form a minor 3rd around the root and converge on the root, and Phrygian is the only mode that approaches this requirement differently. Every other key either uses the classical Ionian/Lydian model (where the key itself already allows for this to happen, since the lower note is merely a half-step away and the 2nd is a whole step above) or the Mixolydian/Dorian/Aeolian model (where the 7th MUST be raised in order to create that m3rd that converges to the root). Phrygian, however, has a LOWERED 2nd, which means the m3rd is in place, as is... but in reverse. So, technically in Modal music all the Cadences sound the exact same, with the sole exception of the Phrygian... which brings me to my next point (I'm jumping, here, but it connects well enough). My last response, while I can assure you is correct, doesn't help you much because it doesn't explain why it isn't Phrygian. Here's why - in Phrygian (and in any Modal piece, for that matter), the tritone present in the 'vo' must converge to a M3rd/m6th, and this progression does not allow for this, at all. Otherwise, the dissonance is unresolved and the music falls apart, in the realm of Modal music. That progression doesn't appear in Tonal music, except in the case where the vo is series of passing tones, but then it isn't relying on the harmonic structure and begins to break down the tonality to extended tonality, anyway (Mahler, Wagner, & early Schoenberg), so I don't see even the most ill informed & liberal Theory book ever presenting that progression as correct, anyway. Show me that progression in progress in a tonal/modal piece and we can discuss it in some more detail, if you'd like. Otherwise, I'm inclined to say you pulled that progression out of your... hat, and simply dismiss it as something you don't find in Tonal or modal Music. Mmm... the concepts behind Double Counterpoint are coming to mind, here, but let me explain to you why not all music sounds any good in any mode. All modes have different interval relationships, meaning every mode has a different relationship between at least one interval (For example, the Ionian 2 - 6 interval is a P5th, while the Aeolian 2 - 6 is a d5th). Any moment where one song uses an interval of a P5th and it creates a d5th that doesn't resolve properly will sound like trash (other rules that are not followed, such as the forbidden use of augmented intervals & double leading tones, will create the same problems). I've cleared this up before, so if this isn't an intentional equivocation then let me repeat this... Stop taking advantage of an ambiguous term - technically, all music is Tonal, in the sense you're using it, up until the advent of 12-tone music. We're not talking about that, we're talking about Tonal music as it was defined from 1722 - 1850. I already agree that MODERN music used 'modes' in a completely different manner, but at that point the music isn't 'Modal', anymore. It's 'Neo-classical', 'Minimalist', and a whole bunch of other genres (including the pseudo-Tonality that's in pop, today, that completely ignores crutial harmonic relationships) that take the scale of Modality and apply it to completely different contexts that are not Modal, at all. Well... then why did you ignore my earlier post trying to avoid that? I'm going to end it by pleasantly answering this question... Rather than simply answering it, though, let me counter it with another question - why isn't it in a minor key that borrows heavily from the Major parallel? That's a tonal technique, and makes perfect sense as such.

It's called a 'Neapolitan II'. It's a very common minor chord inflection, but it has nothing to do with the Phrygian function (Yes, it's sometimes called the Phrigian bII, but that creates a false image), since it immediately goes to V, not the root again.

'Tonal' in your sense of the word, SLyGeN, is not 'tonal' in the common sense of it. Schoenberg, for example, used that word in the sense I believe you're thinking of, as music that centered around an important note that the rest of the music is heard to be based around (and, frankly, there's a whole lot of music that you wouldn't dare call 'tonal' that follow that formula, such as much of Ives music and Debussy's 'Viels/Sails' - most people today call it 'centric' music), in which case you're absolutely correct - Modal music is 'Tonal'. The thing that we're commenting on is that it sounds like you're trying to claim that Modal music is the same as the 'Tonal' music that was used in the late Baroque/Classical/Romantic era with the exception of a few note changes, which is objectively incorrect. Modal music has absolutely no reference to Harmonic patterns & long scale relationships that Tonal music is blessed with (that phenomena didn't mature until Jean-Philippi Rameau's Treatise of Harmony in 1722, in fact), but solely to the contrapuntal relationships that are codified in Zarlino's Treatise on Counterpoint written in 1550 (which, itself, is a compilation of other older practices and sources that evolved from a concept documented as early as the late 9th century). That pattern you expressed in your post has absolutely no meaning in the world of Modal music, because it's an application of a system that developed centuries after Modality died off. The terms 'Tonic', 'Dominant', 'Submediant', etc. cannot be applied to Modal music, nor can the concepts of 'Predominant Chords' or even 'Perfect/Imperfect Cadence' (as specifically defined in Tonal music). Of course, there is a 'cadence' in Counterpoint (which Modality is based on), but it isn't the same (although it's related). I'm not saying you don't know what a tonic is. I'm saying using that using terms that apply to classical Tonality completely skews (and often reverses) the truth about Modality. They are not the same. I think this quote summarizes what I'm saying I disagree with... That is, on an objective level, not true. That is what I (and a few others) are saying, here. I'm truly trying to help you and educate you a little bit - this is a particular area that I have quite a bit of experience in.

Won't be able to listen to that track again for a few days (I did give it a quick glance, to see if the sample issue continued to your latest track - not as much, but there were hints of it there, if I recall) because the comp I'm using is silent + I can't get on for a few days due to a move I'm juggling. However, I encourage posting it on here on it's own and getting some feedback on it from people here who know the ins & outs of the good ol' OCR Judge system - it's relatively tailored to a particular sound, so even though the track was really good (the parts I heard were, in fact, great) it might not pass due to a clash of the mindset of OCR (too liberal/too conservative, for example). I really recommend it, in fact - put it up here and hear what we WIP-ites have to say about it really quick before subbing it (I would give you my detailed analysis of it, now, but I'm rather limited on my comp, atm). If it's above 8mbs by that little, 96kbps is an acceptable quality on OCR, so you can reduce it to that bitrate, if the track can't be reduced anymore (or a VBR that fluxuates on the lower end of the spectrum), as long as you still have the lossless format of it (WAV, FLAC, etc.) or have the project file. I'm sure that would bring it within the limits of OCR. Yeah, send it over here real quick (in a new thread, preferably, for that track) and see if there are any quick fixes it may need, or to realize it's a great track and should simply be submitted to OCR, as is (with the reduction in quality, as I suggested). Also, be sure to remember to follow the other guidelines, too (44.1khz, not 48.0; nothing below 96kbps, etc.) - I think it's a feasible track, though, with great production, from the little that I heard of it.

Search for the isos of FF8 - I believe it's legal to have them on your computer as long as you own the original copy of the game. Psxeven & ePSXe both run FF8 rather well from the ISOs (I know from my own experience - I own the games, too, though; it just emulates better with the ISOs). Psxeven doesn't have any required plugins at all, so if you're reeeeally lazy you could go with that. ePSXe, however, when all of the very small plugins are loaded onto the computer, has far fewer compatibility issues, in the long run, so use the emulator that best suits your style, there (both work for FF8 in my experience, though). I would give you direct links to trustworthy sites for these things, but I believe the sites are more often used & abused in the legal realm of emulation, which I don't believe OCR as a site would like to be seen supporting, so... yeah, sorry - gotta find the stuff yourself (if the links Gollgagh provided aren't enough for your problems).

Ahhhh... I didn't know you were referring to a band, there - that clears it up considerably. Listening to the song you posted and comparing it to your track, let's see if there's a way to make it work. First off, the drums they use have a whole lot more punch behind them (I mean a lot more punch), especially the bass. You're going to need to bring that out to the foreground and have it hit much harder by raising the lower mids of the bass. I'm still going off of that Pendulum track, here, but I don't think the track you have going here will support the type of drums that they're using, there. Yes, technically their drums are horribly repetitive, but they work because the music itself is considerably faster and more driven. The repetitive drums serve a purpose, here - they retain the same beat because they want to emphasis the driving tempo & pound the beat in the listener's face (Personally, I would still say the song would've benefited from at least a little more variety in the drums, but at this point it's obviously personal taste so it's simply an opinion). In your track, they don't quite serve that same purpose. In a song with your texture & pacing, the drums would more appropriately be accenting the changes & interesting details you've included throughout the song. Making the drums more prominent will help, but it won't rid us of the problem entirely. The song itself will need a direction change that focuses on faster pacing and centralizing the beat. I notice in your track the drums actually succeed in filling out the role I explained (somewhere in the middle, for example, the tack slows down and the drums take it down a notch to support that), so it seems the drums want to fill the role of complimenting the music. Look at it and experiment with what the music calls for with the drums (lightening up when the music is lighter, becoming more interesting when the music is more interesting, or vice versa, to make things even more interesting). Or not. It is ultimately your call on this, but you have two WIP commenters (looks like three, now that Sirius ninja'd in, there) claiming that the drum style you applied don't match the rest of the style of the music, so think about it a bit. If you're adamant on the drums you may need to consider rewriting the genre of the track to match the drums (as Sirius said, 'add more energy to the track'), since I suspect what we're hearing is a clash of genres, here. Hope this helps clear up what we're hearing, here.

Hmm... why don't you tell your friend about this site and have him submit the music himself? I'm sure you have his permission to post his music on here and all (and if you don't... well, shame on you ), but it's awkward talking about mixes to a third party. Only listening to one mix from there (there used to be a sticky explaining there should only be one song per post, but it's not up there, atm... basically, most people don't have the patience/time to listen to & critique more than one at a time). Zelda Darkworld. The cover isn't a bad one, really (He obviously didn't write it for OCR). The soundscape changes enough to keep me interested through the song, and it has some interesting things happening in the drums & harmonies. One of the issues with it that I hear, though, is the sample quality. Granted, this was written a while ago and may not be an issue anymore, but the guitar, synths, etc. sound very low-fi. The arrangement makes up for it, for the most part, but this song could have been much better with better sounds. Yeah, your friend is welcome to post his stuff on here - always room for one more mixer on here. Bring him/her in!

Well, it's the nature of the OCR beast - I would like to see some critically acclaimed artists try to get on here and fail, one day (I mean, let's see Megadeth's Duke Nukem remix get rejected on here because it's too 'coverish' and see the public response to that, lol). The comment with the drums will most likely remain with the judges, though, so keep that in mind (it's one of those things I've personally been hammered on more than one occasion, with my own mixes). Changing the drum kit was more a personal suggestion of what I would do with it, but you can make it work without changing the kit (I just felt it would be easier for you to make the changes if the kit was changed). I can assure you, though, that if your goal is to get on OCR then the drums will need to have some more variety. You said you have a vision that you don't want to ruin, so let's start from there and I'll see if I can make any more specific/helpful comments, based on that. I know your plight - my submission to the 'Hurry' album is extremely repetitive and long, too much so to even be considered to be on OCR, but the genre that I wrote it for actually specifically calls for it to be that long + repetitive so I cannot change it. What are you going for specifically that the drums fulfill? I didn't quite understand the 'pendulum' comment, because I didn't hear that effect from the music rhythmically nor melodically, so could you be more specific?

lol, nice source choice (never heard it before, but it's pretty catchy - kinda reminds me of that 'Yo Noid' game). I didn't know Square made anything other than Final Fantasy & it's clones . As mentioned, it's 'coverish', and as you know it's a problem if you want it on OCR. Doesn't matter to me, frankly - the world needs covers just as much as it needs OCRemixes. But yeah, it's very much a cover with a cool middle section, atm. I'm reading what you're going to do to the track... Well, for what it's worth, it actually sounds really nice without any of the bells and whistles you're planning on adding (pads, organ, etc.). I can't say for sure whether adding pads is going to help the track or hurt the feeling, in the long run. That's my opinion, though - if you like it better with pads and such, great. I'm just saying they're not necessary to 'fill the space' or anything. I liked the section in the middle - it broke up the music quite nicely. I think it would be effective to come back to the source material hard, when you do - change the song into something that's really 'yours', when you come back. It'll give it a whole lot more flavor, and it'll sound much less 'coverish'. The overall soundscape is pretty good, but it sounds like there's a lot of extra distortion that's just 'there' in the high area. My speakers are not that great, so I'd need someone to confirm that but that's what I'm hearing, atm. If it's there, clean up the EQ so it doesn't emphasis the fuzz so much (by knocking some of the highs down a little bit). You mentioned you were going to change the drums around significantly, and I agree with that change wholeheartedly . Those are my thoughts on it... yeah, I'm as guilty of it as anybody, but if there's a game that isn't as popular on here, it won't get as much attention as other games (IT ISZN'T MEGAMAN!!1! MEGA-BUMMER!!), so that's probably why this one didn't get as much love on here. Hope this helps.

Another good meter is 3+3+2/8...And here's a mandatory SLAP to NeblixSABER for his mathematic impotence... Oh yeah, NeblixSABER... I went there.

+ 7/8 If someone answers '12/12' I'm going to slap them for being mathematically incompetent...

I like the scape you created with your instrument choice. Except the drums - let's clarify what Manoo2k was talking about (and everyone can make constructive comments, dude - not being a mixer does NOT mean your input has no value). The drum beat is a simple rock beat, throughout, which WILL drive the J's nuts. The rest of the mix is great, but the drums need more variety. Change up the beat more often, and I'd even go so far as to say change the drumset to something more fitting to your track (Electronic drumset, DnB set, possibly). It will take this track to new heights. The Metalman part at the end sounds... slapped on. I love Metalman as much as anybody, but it doesn't work, in this case. I would recommend one of two things for that - either take it out completely or use the Metalman source throughout the track in smaller bits, building up to the ending. I'd be interested to hear the track if you did the latter, but the former would be an acceptable solution, as well (just be sure to make another ending, to end the track properly). Otherwise, great stuff - I'll be keeping an eye on this one.