Gario

Hah! I was waiting for someone to give me the 'P5ths isn't that bad' thing for some time now, so thank you Hemophiliac for opening this discussion up True, true; it's not 'always' wrong to use a P5th - however, in the context of tonal music, there is... If you find a P5th anywhere in tonal music (that spans, by the way, ~1550 - 1915, not just Palestrina, Zarlino, etc., but also Beethoven, Brahms, early Schoenberg, etc.), I assure you that it most certainly either isn't structural or is an illusion (e.g. Grieg's 'Church Bells' seems to have P5ths littering the entire thing - however, you find upon closer analysis that the 5ths are really completely seperate voices so there isn't anything wrong with it ).The big problem with parallel fifths, to be more accurate than my last post, is that, in fact, it has such a strong static effect on a chord that the listener's ear (well, listeners of the past, with 'power chords' being so common, perhaps not as much today ) catches the moment to be 'static' rather than in motion; thus, if one moves from one static moment to another without anything intervening, the music will certainly sound 'clunky'. That's why contrapuntalists so firmly and strictly teach against the use of P5ths, and rightly so. Sorry for being ambiguous with this earlier - I didn't want to fill up this forum with the answer (which I'm probably doing now ). What type of music? Tonal music? Music that uses polyphony, monophony or homophony? Music that uses melody/harmony? If your going to use a key signature, then the ambiguity most certainly is going to be relevant, and unless your trying to achieve a neo-classical sound (such as mid-life Stravinsky), it's gonna inevitably be a bad thing! Why would you follow a key or use a key signature unless you plan on having a key center in the first place?Also, for the most part, open fifths do not 'imply' chords/keys, generally. They say in a bold statement 'IT IS THIS KEY/CHORD!!!' so dominantly that there isn't any way around it. I actually didn't mean that P5ths do this - if I said that I was wrong - I was refering to the specific instance in Rozovian's music. In quartal music (such as a lot of Ives and early/mid Schoenberg), the 'chord' Eb/Bb/F/C is quite pleasant. In anything using a key signature, though, unless your using it as a double suspension (which isn't the case in Rozovian's music), then it implies 3 key centers - Eb, Bb or F - which throws me as a listener off. Eb/Bb strongly implies Eb, Bb/F equally strongly implies Bb, and F/C equally represents F as your chord/key. Think about it - if you use open fifths, the overtone series that we hear over it (always there, just got to listen for it) completes the chord whether we want it to or not. With multiple and different 5ths playing, multiple overtones are completing different chords, so if there isn't a third to disambiguate what is really playing then the listener is, to put it frankly, screwed. (Interesting bit of trivia - before Schoenberg moved on to 12 tone music, he relied heavily on fifths and fourths to purposely throw the listener off of what key the piece was in, as he didn't want the listener to be in any key by the end!) Don't worry, I've been listening critically to it for the past 6 years of my life, and off hand for more like 8-10 years. I know what your getting at (and why I've expected your type of post for some time), and it is correct, to an extent. However, are people here writing post tonal music? I'm not finding anyone writing any pre- or post- 12 tone atonal music, nor do I find very much quartal music. Post-modern music is almost out of the question, too... I do find some minimalism, but, strangely enough, minimalism actually uses counterpoint much the same way as they did in the past, so proper counterpoint is still relevant (it was the composer's way to react against the post-Webern style - which was horrible, by the way). Counterpoint is most certainly relevant in these WIP's, so I'm going to make mention of it if I hear anything off with it (mostly P5ths, though). I agree completely! Thank god for that, as we have enough Bach to last a lifetime!! Palestrina's got enough stuff, as well. Personally, if composers had the tools back then that we have now, I'd say he's closer to writing late/neo romantic music (which is, in general, what the people listen to and enjoy today), and what you'll probably be doing if your posting in the WIP forums (and certainly if you've been posted on OC - I can't see them putting up any 'modern' mixes ). Romantic music did everything possible to stretch the rules of harmony to it's limits, oddly enough, often using older contrapuntal techniques! Hopefully, up at the top of this post will clear up why P5ths are, in fact, 'always' wrong. Of course, contrary motion doesn't always fix the problems... ... so I made quite a few suggestions, there. No, contrary motion isn't always the best idea, but it's often the easiest. Other techniques will work, but they may take some more fiddling, depending on what type of music your writing... You, too? I don't hear much dissonance either (except in passing at, like I said before, 1:13 - Eb/Bb/F/C involves 9ths and 13ths that clash with the Eb/Bb... but due to ambiguity, no one can really tell what is clashing with what!). The problem I hear is something that occurs horizantally, not vertically. It is the motion that is off, for me, not the harmonies...By the way, don't take this as a 'OMFG! YOU AREN"TZ AGREE WIT ME?!? STFU!!' post; I actually enjoyed writing it . I just wanted you to understand completely what I was saying, and hope that you can sympathize with me on the subject a little better after reading the mountain of text. If you still don't agree, then at least you know my side of the story Sorry, Rozovian, I actually came back to compare the two mixes and tell you what I thought of them (I said that on the last post, right?), but I wanted to clear that mess up (I talk about P5ths a lot when I critique music, so going in depth with the subject is sometimes necessary...). On the bright side, now you don't have to go to Wikipedia to find all this junk out !Okay, the mix is now wet to start with, then oddly enough drys out very quickly (in contrast to having a similar reverb throughout). I like that sound, it both cleans up the mix and adds depth at the same time. Nice. NOW I hear the P5ths that I talked about in the harmonies earlier ... it's in the pad at 1:28 - 1:55 (as well as other similar areas). I see what your going for, there, so could I make a suggestion? Build to the fifth at 1:32 using intervals that aren't 5ths, then hold the top note of the pads while the bottom moves like it does (when I say hold, restriking the same note works, too). You'll get a richer sound in the harmonies this way (it's a sound you get throughout your mix, anyhow, so it also is consistant with the rest of your remix). At 3:43, I hear more P5ths between an accompanying melody and the lead melody. It's hard to hear, so I don't know if it's groundbreaking... Sorry, I wouldn't be pointing out every one, except I just gave a rant on them . Also, it's building to a key change here, but it isn't working for me at the moment. Try to make the key change more convincing either by not building to it at all (the sudden contrast can make this change effective) or making the build more... subtle. Because it is a step above the original key, the subtle approach is very difficult to achieve, so I'd recommend the more 'abrupt' change, there. The mixing is much better than it was before. I'm surprised you could do that - I'm sure I could a lot about production by listening to your stuff (it's my bane, right now). Really, you know that I like this piece, so my comments are gonna be nitpicky, now. I want this to be as close to perfection as possible - that's why I even mention P5ths and the like. It's really good, right now, but I want it to be perfect! That's some good advice. I'm just trying to help, here, with the rant up above Good luck with this!

Hey, all! I obviously need to compress my files to an acceptible file size if I want anyone to listen to them. However, currently when I compress my files I find that I lose a lot of quality (I'm talking around 15 - 20 dbs). That's quite extreme for such a conversion, and the loss of quality is astounding. I can't post something here accurately with the loss being this extreme. So, I'm taking a 4:45 piece, exporting it from Reason 3 at 44.1 khz, 16 bit dithered (it comes out as a wav., and it sounds quite good at that level), then import it to Super and format it as an MP3 file, 44100 khz, 160 kbps, 16 bit, 2 channel, and it comes out terrible. It also is borderlining the limit for OC (roughly 5.8 megs, converted), so I can't just up the quality I understand that there is going to be some loss between the files, but the amount that I'm getting is ridiculous. I'd give a sample to show what I mean, but that'd be a 50meg file I'm posting, and I'm sure no one wants to deal with that Is there something I'm doing wrong with my conversion, or should I use a different program? If there are any other programs that I can use, could someone point me in the right direction? Thanks!

This is great! Starla's really improved dramatically from her last post (I guess 7 years does that to ya!)... I couldn't remember the source, at first, either... but when I DID hear it I realized that she transformed the harmonic material completely and did the melodic portions above! I am... very impressed. Everyone, download this please )

Wow, I never imagined it to sound like this! The genre isn't one I'm used to listening to, but it works very well here. You know, If you add reverb to the vocals, don't do too much... I like the dry sound they have, personally, because it seperates them from the rest of the wet mix... it also helps us hear the lyrics . I like how you fill out your mix at 1:17. It's like you hold back for some time, letting us have it later. Are you gonna keep the mix full for the second verse, or drop it down again? If you drop it down, be careful; I don't think the listeners would appreciate that drop in sound again. If you keep it full, again, be careful; there's probably gonna be a climax somewhere, and it'll make it difficult to achieve. Tricky waters to tread here - I trust you'll make it work. I don't think the guitar will help the mix... I like the electronica sound, right now. The guitars are too cliche and bland for the mix I'll be listening in, so keep goin'!

Ok, I'll lay down what I'm talking about as neat as I can (and hopefully you'll agree with me ) By the way, before I get hit with flak, I'm not talking about open fifths in general, just when they move together. The two leads you use at 1:13 is a very clear example of the parallel fifths I'm talking about. A parallel fifth is when two voices move from one fifth interval to another different fifth interval without any intervening intervals. For example, at 1:13 you slide from Eb/Bb to F/C, F/C to D/A, then finally D/A to Bb/F. The problems it causes actually varies from use to use, but there is always a problem, believe me. For example, the Eb & Bb implies a different key (Eb Major/Minor... can't tell without the third, of course). Open 5ths create ambiguity within the music because of their open quality... (Actually, I really can't tell what chord you want there - you've outlined Eb-Bb with the bass and F-C in the melody, creating Eb-Bb-F-C in this part). Also, you can always make a piece of music sound better at the parts with the parallel fifth by either changing the motion to counter motion, using 3rds and 6ths instead of fifths, alternating 5ths and another interval (like 3rds and 6ths ), moving one voice and not another, using a single voice, etc. Really, this is the biggest problem for me with parallel 5ths - there's always something that can be done that doesn't involve 5ths that just sounds better. I'd actually give some recommendations as to what, except the bass implies a different chord from the melody... It's really not too prevailant throughout the piece, just at that area in the melody... As for the harmonies... I can't hear the 5ths right now - either my ears are tired, you took them out without knowing or they were overtones that I heard and not actually in the music. I'm gonna give this a more critical listen tomorrow, compare it to you older versions, etc... I'm a bit tired, and I just thought I'd clear up my inane ranting about parallel fifths by ranting some more Really, I want to compare the two and give you actual feedback, but I gotta do it tomorrow!

Oh, I see. It does have that sound behind it. You've emulated that well, so take it to the next level! Break out the flute, clarinet, oboe and bassoon! Oh, and if you REALLY want the 'audience' effect, you need to put in some coughs at the quietest and most inappropriate moment... it seems that people always feel that's the most appropriate time to do it... x_x Waiting to hear more from you! Good luck!

Hoboka, it's immature to bring up old issues into new forums. Yes, Snappleman is harsh (especially to new people, if he finds them), but he isn't on this forum, is he? Please keep that to yourself unless it becomes relevant; it keeps the forums from being cluttered with junk... As for this piece, the clipping is terrible. Rozovian gave some suggestions to follow, so I'd listen to him; he's a smart guy, here The instruments are a bit bland, too... I'd recommend changing them up a bit. It's not that bad, really; like Rozovian said, we've gotta start somewhere, right? Keep posting - it'll help you as a remixer overall

Now, don't get me wrong, as I'm not that much of a purist, but when writing chiptunes it's not only the timbre of the music but the limitations of the hardware that gives it the feel of the past for me. Personally I prefer the chiptune sequencers over the DAW attempts at mimicking them. Of course, if you emulate the 2 square, triange, and noise perfectly and incorporate the limits into the music while writing, then I'd be all for it. However, I think that would be a bit difficult to do in a DAW. Just sayin' is all It isn't a bad alternative to real chiptunage, for the sake of convinience, though

I don't really believe this is live, as most conductors have this terrible prejudice against VG music, and the recording is too clear for it. However, if I'm wrong, let me know who did it so I can say Kudos to them ) It's pretty interesting sound behind it, but by the end I sort of get bored of the Strings/Brass sound (in particular, the high strings). I don't hear any woodwinds, either... Why? They're so wonderful... Nice job with the percussion; it fits in real well into the music. The tune is very similar to the source, and it sounds like you repeat some of the material a bit too much for my taste. I don't understand too much spanish, so I don't know what your saying in the post, but if your gonna touch up on this, I'd personally recommend adding some spice and variety to the repetitions. Otherwise, very nice; it's always nice to hear Orchestral music up here every once in a while (it mixes up the common electronic sound nicely).

If I'm not mistaken, this is in the key of A minor, right (That's when you use all of the white keys for everything, BTW)? Correct me if I'm wrong. At :20, try changing the chord to a d minor chord instead of an a minor chord, and see how that sounds. Experiment with it a little bit - you'd be surprised how much better it'll sound! If this isn't in A minor, let me know - it'll make a HUGE difference in how my suggestion will sound! As for your older works, please don't post more of the Tetris song - you've done enough of that one, I think

Ah, the Harpsichord. That would've been my second 'Bach' guess. A canon is a technique where one voice will start, then a few bars later another voice with the same melodic material enters, then another, etc for as long as you want. Towards the middle/end of the song you have something that resembles that. Of course, the counterpoint is supposed to be correct for a proper canon, but... well welcome to the 21st century As for the chords, it takes practice and a whole lot of critical listening to other music that you like to get the hang of that. Your ears just need time to develop what sounds right and what sounds wrong, then chord placement will come naturally. It can take years to develop, though, so be patient! Good luck!

I THINK I get what you were going for - a canon/techno mix of Tetris (Techno for Neo - Canon for Bach). The biggest problem is that your writing involves so many wrong chords and clashes that it hurts. Listen to to the chords you use against the melodies. They don't work. At all. Holding over a single note can SOMETIMES work for a touch of color, but an entire chord is overkill. Please do something harmonically that works, or knock out the harpsichord-y harmony in the background entirely (I'm leaning towards the latter, here). Actually, some of the canons you use are sort of interesting, and without the harmonies may sound pretty neat, and if harmonized properly could lead to some impressive chords. Those harmonies ruin the effect, however. I'd actually like to hear a version without those harmonies in order to have a clearer idea as to what you've got, there. I agree with Rozovian that this needs more bass. It's funny that I want you to single out those solo 'clashes' in the latter part of the song and Rozovian is correcting you for it. I'm not saying they're great, right now; I just want to hear them clearer 'cause they've perked my interest Oh, the slowdown at the end is pretty cool. I like that part So, all in all, this needs work - but that's ok. Nobody is perfect when they're starting out. Don't sub this to OC though - the J's WILL destroy it beyond recognition... (It's their job, so don't blame them)

Funny, it looks like we've meandered around this forum without addressing the original question that well... What makes old-school 2d RPGs like FFVI stand out as great? I agree with your point, dude, so I'm trying to address both 2-D and 3-D games equally, here (give them 3-D games some love), but at the same time, address 2-D games, as well.There are a few factors that can help older games stand out... 1. Are there nostalgic forces that drive us to play them again? Sometimes, it has nothing to do with how great the game is (or was). I mean, a guilty pleasure of mine is to whip out the ol' Nintendo and play Amagon... Believe me, if you want a frustrating and terrible game, that is it. However, there is a guilty pleasure playing and imagining how frustrated my older brothers would get playing that thing. It's a sweet, cherished memory of mine that gives me enjoyment that has nothing to do with the games greatness. Seriously, this is a factor to consider. If you like something for it's nostalgic value, then disregard it when trying to approach the question objectively... 2. How well did they use their resources for their time? Were they innovative, or simply using the older resources to the best of their abilities? Think about it. It's obviously not fair to compare FFVII to the original FF, simply because they both used different platforms with different capabilities. Both are, from a technical point of view, astounding pieces of work due to the breakthroughs they caused during their time. The original FF was the most extensive RPG on the NES console at the time and allowed for a customization level unheard of (naming all four of your characters and choosing who they are? WOW!!). FFVII was one of the first jumps into the 3d RPG era, so it was mind boggling when you first played it (especially their FMV's - which are terrible by todays standard, but great for the time). On the other hand, there are games like FFVI, where it may not have technically done anything new, but did take the older ideas to their farthest limits, creating a very polished game in the end. 3. How well did everything integrate and make a cohesive experience? I mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again. Everything must be at the same level of mastery. If the music and the music, graphics and gameplay are awesome, but the story is terrible, it'll bring the entire game down (Think Legend of Mana, here - who would dare say that it did the series justice? Wonderful music, graphics and gameplay, but the lack of a cohesive story was unforgivable...). If every element is mediocre, the game will be mediocre. If most of the elements are great, but one element is terrible, the entire game will feel pretty terrible, overall. So many games suffer from this affliction, and move on into obscurity... 4. How timeless is the experience? Granted, this may be subject to opinion, but seriously, how many people will ever forget when Aerith died in FFVII? That moment in that game is unforgettable, and is, in fact one of the great moments of video game history. Would moments in a game affect the youth in the future the same way it affected us in the past? If so, then you've probably got a classic in you hands As you want to make something on RPG maker, all of these ideas apply to old 2-D RPGs and newer 3-D RPGs equally, so take what you need from this. I hope this gives pretty clear insight on the older RPG tradition and why people still play some of them today (and is quite a bit of overkill to your first post, but probably answers what I look for in a game quite comprehensively )

Concur'd. Shrink the number of PCs down to a reasonable level (as in, less than 10) and give the remainder a bunch of double/triple tech skills, and that game would have been damn near perfect. (Cue "zomg but it wasn't Chrono Trigger 2!") What can I say; that pretty much sums up Chrono Cross right there...

You know, I sort of agree. They're pretty well developed, for how many there are, though. I think Chrono Cross is an even better example of the 'quantity over quality' theme. Yes, too many can hurt more than help, keeping it down to 6 - 8 isn't a bad idea. Rule of thumb - Every 4 hours of game play can afford another character. That's enough time to develop each of them.

I think the problem with real life references is that it's an uncomfortable way to 'break the 4th wall'. It is talking to the players rather than the character, and that breaks the mood of the entire game for a split second. Hey, sometimes it works (the consistant use of 'Biggs and Wedge' in the FF games is pretty neat - even though it's a reference to the Star Wars franchise), but generally it breaks the mood the game tries so hard to set up. Personally, though, I'd like to play a game that intentionally breaks the 4th wall and really integrates the break into the story effectively. It'd be pretty insane (Eternal Darkness did it to some extent, but that was integrated into the mechanics, not the story), but would certainly mess with the players mind.

Very nice, here. I think the reason this wasn't mixed for such a long time was because of the sources real lack of material (it repeats so much before developing, then moves on to a short extra phrase before going back to repeating other things). Your mix, however, has enough variety to keep me happy It doesn't sound finished, obviously, but it kicks some DnB ass, right now! Nice work, here - hope to see it on OC soon! Edit: Not including the intro, I hear it as A A' A A' A'' A' B A' - Repeat... Pretty repetitive, if you ask me... of course, the A' could be a B, then it's A B A B A' B C B... still...

I've played quite a few RPGs, and I've learned a lot as to what makes one good and another mediocre. Story, memorable characters, MUSIC, perfect villians, etc. are all important, for sure. I have found, however, that any single element, even if done perfectly, will not save the game unless everything else is done very well. Everything needs to be working in harmony with everything else - think of the operas of Wagner. The thing that made them so incredible was that every element was interconnected in some way or another. The story was portrayed through the acting and music very well, the music accented the acting and the story perfectly, and the acting had a synergy with the story and music that is hard to describe. Look at FFVI, now. The characters push the story perfectly, the music accented the characters and story with the leitmotifs and wonderful sound, and the story was very well constructed. I assure you that if ANY of those elements were misplaced in any way, everything would just fall apart. It requires everything to be working in perfect harmony. If your up to doing this, I'd love to see the final product (hell, if your really serious about it, I'd love to help )

It's probably due to the quality of Youtube, but your version actually sounds much, much cleaner than the original. Very nice. Yes, it sounds like you took some of the sounds straight from the source, but there are really no 'rules' for something like this, so do what you've gotta do to make it sound great. I like the feel of this. It's very... chill. It has a nice beat, nothing too complicated. Your use of musical space is good. The only thing that's odd is your ending. It sort of just... ends. I understand, of course; with a song like this it's hard to make a proper ending. If you're just working on production things then I'd call this piece done, here. Very well done

How do you know that, Snappleman? Really, it's an old program, but it could be that he hasn't taken the time to seriously learn it, even though he had it for a few years (although posting that it's a new piece of software sort of rules that out). He could've found it off of ebay or something, as well. Besides, if he illegally downloaded it, wouldn't that have been stupid? He should've gotten the latest version with full access to help files and tech support if he was doing that (I'm sure there are cracks for that, anyhow). I'm not supporting illegal downloading, I'm just saying if he was downloading illegally, then why would he bother with older outdated crap? Just because it's old doesn't quite make it an illegal copy... I'm not naive, it's just silly to make the worst out of a situation based on so little evidence. ...and sorry, SlyGeN, I don't know anything about that particular DAW.

I second that.

...and so is this. It's pleasant. I'm sure your girlfriend appreciates it! I didn't expect the strings, and in this particular case, it detracted from the piano slightly (your other music has pretty good accompaniment, though). On a piano, you should play around with your dynamics... it's why we call it a 'piano', after all... it's one of the few things a piano can do that no other instrument can do quite as well. The left hand has something I like to call 'The Lazy Hand Syndrome' (like the name?). It plays harmony and arpeggios, and that's it ... Pretty, but sometimes I feel the left hand tends to get left out. I know the syndrome well, because if I improv on the piano, it tends to do the same thing... Very nice; I'm sure with some experience you'll become a very good composer. I wish you the best!

Well, I loved this song before, but with the changes you've made, it's become amazing. Period. Using Wily at the beginning like that was a stroke of genius. Very catchy, and it brought us into the music much better than before. You also don't mess around here, either; you just hit us with the ringing sound that I oh so love. Beautiful. I really can hear the difference in the counterpoint you've used. It's a whole load better sounding to me (and 'definitely slightly better' to you... what ever that means ). It sounds much more interesting. Disregard whatever I said about the EQing - it really needs the EQ you've got right now to give it that authentic flavor. The break at 4:47... hmm, I thought it was good before, but now that I hear it, it IS slightly abrupt. I think it's just the sudden change in the levels, albiet slight. That rhythm could be brought down, or could possibly be brought in at 4:54, after the part repeats once. Perhaps a small bit of tinkering is needed... From 6:10 on, it sounds like your ending the piece right there. For that purpose, it's great as it is... however, if you want to add to your medley here, then that is probably not the sound your going for. Personally, I agree with Willrock in that you should submit this to OC ASAP... but the entire medley won't be accepted due to their terms, so you can leave the ending on this one, put it up here at OC and finish the some for your own album. Great piece of music here, I'm glad you've updated it for us!

So... ya. What's the source? If it's Terra's theme again, I can't tell, right now... I can't recognize the source at all in this... If you could post it, that'll be helpful. Even still, if what Rozo said was true, then I probably won't recognize it anyway - that's what happens when you use the harmonies and structure of a piece without using the melodies. I'm not against that, entirely, either; it just needs to be blended into other techniques (source melody w/ different harmonies, source melody used AS the harmony, etc. etc.). Peaceful and relaxing... you've got that down, all right. The voices do clash, like Rozovian mentioned. If you want to keep them, try turning the delay down (or off, even), turning them down and lowering the mids in the EQ. It'll clash a whole lot less with the rest of the music. Past the first 30 seconds, it starts to get repetitious. You need to change it up a little (harmonically, especially). The texture is nice, but it needs to change every once in a while, too. Listen to other OC remixes - they remain in the same genre (most of the time, anyway), but they still keep some variety in their remix. Try to do the same, here The mix is pretty muddy... All of your instruments are in the same middle range. You'd need to replace some instruments (or give them a little less reverb in some cases) or use some EQing to use more highs and lows. As for the rhythms... This can work without them, if you really want to go that route, but it does require some sort of percussive instrument to strike out of the delays. People can easily get lost in a mix like this. You don't need to tell us - we generally do work hard on any remix we do. Unfortunately, when you say this it implies 'Don't bash me too much in your critiques - I don't like criticism'. If you need to hear criticisms, we'll give them to you regardless... and if someone is being malicious they may just trash it just because. Saying that will not get you anywhere (and may even incite some nasty comments), so I'd keep that to yourself, in general. Just lettin' you know

What are you talking about, there? When writing midi it's all about making multiple patterns and tracks... Unless HoboKa has the IRC log, then generally in the WIP forum he wants to hear the 'long story', not the 'this sucks' version. It's not that helpful ('course, if he did have the log, then this would be a pointless post, anyhow)... At least post some comments from the log.Edit: Note that I said patterns AND tracks... I meant both