Gario

It isn't submitted to R:TS yet? Oops, I'll submit it as soon as I tweak it up a bit. Cheezy 80's synth bass... damnit, that's a good idea, I'll tinker with that idea, for sure . Still trying to find time to update it, though, since my weekend hasn't given me any time to work on any music, so far.

I'm seriously considering dressing as The Riddler, but I don't know if I'll get off my lazy ass to make/get a costume. If I do I'll send a pic

Nice to know there's some Gario love in here, Hewhoisiam... Yeah, sorry I couldn't work on anything for this month - it's been really tight, and time's only going to get tighter up until the end of this month, for me. I can at least vote for this round, though - hang tight

I know I'm not the moderator of the Bionic Commando project or anything, but I feel it should be mentioned that John is looking for anyone who wants to remix any track on there, since he wants multiple remixes of many tracks on the project (or at least according to the first page ). Otherwise thanks for this sticky - it made me realize that I'm on four (possibly five) projects, now, and helps me understand why I have no free time anymore .

Congratulations, Sam! So... what's the music going to be for the wedding, jazz or chiptunage? Perhaps a subtle combination of the two?

How in God's name has that name not been taken yet? Seriously? Oh, and welcome

Here are the sources (sorry, totally forgot to post em') Dude, this is Tech-noir - this isn't Garionica, at all . Get your made-up genres right, lol. As for the crits, I'll change the snare and try to reduce the harshness of the violin more (the range will be difficult to change, however - we'll see what I can do). The cacophony at the end will be changed around a bit, but the piano at the sections mentioned is taken straight from the source (and I personally thought that part was hawt in the source)... I'll mess around with the other instruments and try to make it blend better. Thanks for the feedback - I'll see if I can get any time on it this weekend (I'm juggling a few songs right now, so we'll see).

Why no, I haven't tried that site - in fact, I didn't know about it. Thanks, I think I found some sounds that will suffice . I'll implement them tonight .

If all was Wright in Chicago Hey, all! This is my submission from FBRC 2009 (Phoenix Wright's 'Gumshoe Theme' with a touch of Perfect Dark's 'Chicago'), with a few tweaks done to the EQ levels ('cause the violin levels made people's ears bleed). I've sat on this for about a month when all I needed to do to it was fix a few EQ levels, lol, but it's been fixed. I also need a new rain sample (the one I've got sounds like static). Anyone know where to find one? Other than the rain, what do you guys think? I'm going to submit it, but I'd like to hear if there's something easy to fix in it before I do. Thanks EDIT: Here are the sources (forgot to post them )

Excellent thread - just thought I'd let you know

I'm doing pretty good - I think I'll be pretty close to finished with mine by the end of the week (rough mix + arrangement). It's sexy - check it out in the forum, if you can.

I think it originally did move to a higher key, if my memory serves me right, then he changed it 'cause he liked it better like this.

Oh my God, my childhood hero is dead. I need to mourn over him for a while, give m-me some t-time... alone... You know, when I taught GED math a little while back I had a student ask me if I knew what the Mario song was. I busted out the groove on the spot, which earned a very strange stare from the student. He was talking about some stupid gangster rap music that made reference to Mario banging the princess or some shit. The had no clue what 'Do the Mario' was all about - it made me feel a little old.

Hey, I was waiting to see when this would come out . You know what I think of it, Rozo, but for everyone else this track is very, very smooth. I don't see how someone could not like it, seeing as how it's flows incredibly well. ...and you kept the parallel 5ths. Ha, you cruel bastard, you.

You could ask me basically anything on the subject of music theory and I'll have a decent answer - just PM me with a question and I can help (just make sure it's a specific question). Rhythm... let's look at the music real quick and see exactly what the problem is. Timing is off - the way to hear that problem is to listen to a metronome (most sequencers and DAWs have a metronome built into them) and listen to how the clicks line up with the music. If they line up perfectly then the timing is fine, and if the notes that don't line up divide the clicks in half, quarters, eighths, etc. then they're good, as well. If the notes are not lining up with the metronome and they do not divide it exactly as stated above then they're off time. It sounds like there's some intentional tempo changes in there - take them out and work with a single tempo. Believe me, they're difficult to get the hang of, and if you're having trouble with the basic timing then the tempo changing will kill the music entirely. I have a question - do you know how to quantize your rhythms (meaning the computer will automatically line up the music to the normal beats of the music)? If you don't quantized your music the timing will sound off 99% if the time in a sequencer (like it does here). I suspect you're not quantizing the rhythms. If you don't know how to check tell us what your DAW is and perhaps one of us will know .

Well, this is one of the most sophisticated responses on the subject I've received in years, so I feel obligated to reply, now (thanks for the response ). Yeah, a lot of video game music does this, especially, and I forgot to mention how this music connects from B to A again. Read my Jackal analysis, though - it in fact focuses on a variant of that exact phenomena. I envy you - I really want to go to that (I have for five years, now), but I don't have the finances to do so . I sent a topic the present once, but I don't think they give analyses of modern pieces the same attention as new development in music theory, though. I should try again with some more recent developments that I've come up with. I kept things simple with the motives rhythmically because... well, to be frank, I did the analysis in a few hours, so I got lazy with that aspect. Nice find with the rhythmic motive, though . As for my notion of bitonality (which I still hear as such), look at the analyses together and realize that (according to the analysis) the melody and the harmonies imply two different tonal centers - F and C. I did something a bit risky in the harmonic analysis and included the melody into the harmony and generally left out the figured bass, and now realize that it was a big mistake to do so. Very quickly I'm going to take out the melody and show the harmonic motion in F... (A/A') I53 - IV64 - I53 - IV64 (in the key of F this is a very simple set of neighbor tones - I'm even tempted to say it's misleading to label the IV chords as chords, here) V63 - passing motion (which really has no harmonic purpose) - (V64 - V53)/V. It ends on a V/V, but it isn't as if the dominant wasn't heard, and it's safe to say that the applied dominant functions as such (it never goes to C, like it should). Harmonically, I'd say that the music doesn't leave F major - the second half of the A and A' sections is just an embellished double neighbor motion in the bass (F (from the measure before) - E - G - F (the start of the next section). Of course, as you know I'm a Schenkerian freak, so of course I don't hear actual harmonic motion there . This is why I consider the harmonies in F there (C isn't nearly as convincing for me, even though I interpreted the music in C, at first). The progression that you present is, in fact, a common progression in C, but there's something important missing with that progression - what comes first and last. If we were in the key of C, we would need to start in C and end in C (or at least follow the progression with a C chord) if it was to be considered tonal, at all - the progression you presented starts in vii (which is diminished and can never be considered the beginning of a tonal progression) and ends in an unresolved dominant (which, because it remains unresolved, actually tears the music away from C - like you said, the music doesn't sound like it resolves into a new key, but in C it doesn't sound like it resolves into the old key, which is a bit more unsettling). Personally, I hear it as a series of contrapuntal lines rather than a harmonic progression, which seems to flow with the music better, anyway. As for the B naturals that appear, they are countered by the B flats that occur in the intro of the music (which I did not include in the analysis), as well as the B flats that occur in the B section. I don't believe the naturals are functional - they can also serve to provide flavor to the music (although I understand why you hear the music in C - your explination is in fact often the case in music, but I argue that it's not, in this case). Finally, I'd actually say that because the B section ends on a dominant of F it would make more sense that the F in the A section is, in fact, a tonic - the resolution is very strong, and solidifies the key as F, not C, for me. I agree that the bitonality is a bit weak in this song because the keys are so heavily related (F and C are related by a fifth, which is pretty damn strong). Then again, I hear the piece functioning in two keys in a very strong fashion (well, strong for my ears) so I hear it as bitonal, despite the relatively weak bitonality. Hey, thanks again for looking at the analysis with a strong analysis of your own - I understand and respect where you're coming from (the points you made are quite valid and correct). I just felt I needed to elaborate my harmonic position a bit because of what you pointed out (since my analysis doesn't quite make it clear, as it was presented). It's funny that in theory two people can be opposing and correct, at the same time - we just hear the music differently, and hopefully you can hear what I hear while I listen to the music as you hear it. That's what music theory is all about . Music theory, FTW.

Yeah, the soundtrack was pretty good - I'm also surprised it hasn't been done yet :/

Tensei, happy birthday (and forgive me for not coming up with anything witty to say - I suck at that sort of thing on such short notice ).

I can't believe it - Dues Ex is getting some hardcore love on this site, and it's none other than BGC that's doing it (oh, and that other guy... Alex or something ). I am not kidding - ever since my CD was lost I've been heartbroken, so two weeks ago I downloaded it off of a torrent site (I owned the game - it's cool), and have been playing it ever since (last night, even - was up until 2:00am playing the damn thing). I've been wondering why the hell no one remixed any of the tunage on this site yet and was going to take a stab or two at it myself. Maybe I still will (just not the Hong Kong tune, now that this is up ). Oh, the mix was great, by the way - excellent collab, you two. Gotta love those voice clips in the beginning and the electronica love throughout .

You keep the limiter on all the time? I actually found leaving the limiter off allows you to create a much harder sound for, say, good juicy techno and such. But yeah - you need to set the mastering and such to your liking before you switch it on and off

Reason doesn't have VST support, so it's a step up from that, at least

The judges made the right decision. Actually, I have a track in the que that's been murdered by the downgrade to make it fit the standard of 6mb. I'm sure I'll update the file before the que reaches the date I subbed, now Thanks, Djp!

Zircon has a good point - and so do the people that say you should mix first, master later. On Reason you can do both without a problem. On the mastering combinator you can bypass the mastering with a simple click (the switch is on the top left of the device - a switch that says 'On/Bypass/Off') and you'll be working on a track that has no mastering. If you want to check to hear how the mastering works with the musical space you can simply turn it back on temporarily and run the track. That way you know how the current finished product sounds and you'll be able to avoid the problems of working in a pre-mastered track. Hopefully that'll give you the best of both worlds (that's how I work, anyway - it seems to work well for me).

Ah, considering I use the exact same setup and program, let's see if I can help you out... When I took a recording class about 2 years ago, my teacher said something that I've used as a rule of thumb - "Recording and mixing is like a dealing with water flow. You want to start with the strongest flow right in the beginning (recording), so set that to it's highest level without introducing dirt into the system (clipping and such). The water flow can be amplified and such, but if the original source was weak or had problems with it the problems will be amplified, as well. You must work from the most basic level up, or else you'll run into problems that are impossible to fix.' Yeah, not word for word, but it's the general idea. Point is, work from the bottom up - you'll run into problems you cannot fix, otherwise. I turn off the mixer when I work in Reason (hit the 'bypass' switch on the master mixer), but I set the settings up in it so I can simply switch it on and off at will to hear the final product. It's nice to hear the music with the mixer settings, and it's also important to write the music without the mixer settings so you can take care of the problems when they arise.

Well, if you're looking for pointers, often this is the best place to start . Read through those and practice your craft - you'll get the hang of it soon enough.