Nabeel Ansari

Interesting, I think the poor wording of the information being spread around is not helping anyone either. That certainly sounds pretty awful.

I want to learn how to stop getting trapped in "what if?" mindframes and just let go. 1. Yes! (sort of! Good enough!) 2. Yes! Smash hit! 3. Fuck no!

As far as orchestral instruments, you can not use external plug-ins in Reason. You have to use what it gives you or look for things called a "ReFill" which is basically additional instruments to use inside of Reason's sampler, or "Rack Extensions", which are additional instruments you can put in the giant rack. The only decent orchestral ReFill is Miroslav, but even then it's "eh". There are no orchestral rack extensions. You picked the one DAW in the world that tries its hardest not to let you make the decisions on what sounds and effects you like to use. It's part of Propellerhead's "closed box" philosophy, which says that Reason is all you need to make music and there should be no need for externals (the philosophy falls flat because a lot of included stuff for sample-based music is abysmal, and you're stuck making cool electronic music but not much else).

Voted, good sir.

An FL Studio reinstall may be in order, because its uncertain what your FL default VST search path actually is. When you reinstall it, make sure you're aware of where it looks for VST's, it should say somewhere in the installation process. The help doc says it's FL Studio\Plugins\VST by default, but that is clearly not working for you either.

Studio One is also really good and is more linear. Lets you do lane superimposing really easily, so you can see all the tracks of your song as ghost notes without getting caught up on FL's pattern system, which is more appropriate for electronic music. I'm an 8 year FL user and switching to Studio One took absolutely minimal effort, so they're really similar. They each have strengths according to the type of music. Studio One is linear, and better at recording and automation, as well as its stronger MIDI handling; FL is better at electronic manipulation, audio clip editing, beat slicing, internal parameter routing, sound design, etc. I see FL more of as a DAW that already has its musical capability pre-programmed in (and can obviously be expanded with VST's) and is strong with electronic and groove-based music whereas with Studio One and other DAW's, they're more of a framework and spent appropriate time getting the base functionality down so it simplifies functionality for acoustic and sample based music. In FL, you have to use individual MIDI Outs to send MIDI to your VST's (super annoying to set up, I made templates but was still trapped when I wanted to add more), and in Studio One, you can batch generate any number of auto-colored , auto-numbered MIDI tracks for something like Kontakt in a matter of three clicks. I'm serious, it takes me about 30 seconds to go from empty project to MIDI tracks on channels 1-16 sent to Kontakt, with all the Kontakt audio outputs sent to their own mixer tracks. The reason people use FL for sample-based music as well is because of its great piano roll, however, Studio One 2's piano roll is fairly similar even if it has minute differences. You can absorb those differences with 5 minutes of practice.

That's for the extra VST search path, if you have them anywhere else on your computer. FL will check C:\Program Files\VstPlugins by default (at least for me, since I set that in the installation process I believe). For instance, there, I have C:\Program Files (x86)\VstPlugins as my extra search path, so FL can see both my 32bit and 64bit plugins.

The Image-Line>Plugins>VST is not a place for installing VST's, rather it is a place where FL stores VST versions of its own plugins (that you own). In other words, you can go to this folder to access the VST versions, and then copy them somewhere to use in another DAW. EDIT: You can install plug-ins here, it's just not really a standard way of doing things and makes things like file management and backups harder. You should always isolate your personal/external data from software installations. It's better to install VST's into a folder on your computer (like C:\Program Files\VSTPlugins, which is the common VST path shared by every DAW, and where FL looks for VST's) than to install them into FL's VST directory.

It's not an obsession, rather a coincidence that we post in the same threads where you and I have differing answers. It may not be what you meant, but it is what you said. It can not be any clearer than what I quoted, and if you sincerely believe that calling Shreddage 2 a bundle and saying " The Shreddage 2 bundle" are not logically equivalent statements, there's not much else I can say. Perhaps evaluate that you may have misspoke and simply could have left it at my first clarification rather than needlessly defending yourself (no one's attacking you?) and causing more forum drama, as this is the second time you've caused more than a page of a pointless argument.

Uhm... That aside, bundles are listed in stores as a way for consumers to save money. Those aren't "bundles under the Shreddage 2 header". Shreddage 2 is not an umbrella family like you say. It's one product. These bundles are listed because they contain Shreddage 2. It's much like Amazon's "people who bought this also looked at" or Newegg's "you get a discount if you also buy these".

That's simply a store page saying "Bundles and Product Formats". Shreddage 2 is not a bundle, it's the pure single product (it's the format of "by itself"). If you say it's a bundle, people are going to buy it expecting three products and then get angry that you lied to them.

This is inaccurate. You've got your versions mixed up and you're being internally consistent (you say Shreddage 2X is a product, then you say Shreddage 2 a bundle?!) Shreddage 1 is a rhythm guitar library. Shreddage X is an expansion to Shreddage 1, and included different samples and some different techniques. Shreddage Complete is the bundle of these two products. Shreddage 2 is a separate product with a different sample set from previous products. It is an electric guitar sample library. It is ONE library. Not a bundle. It samples lead guitar in addition to rhythm guitar. Shreddage 2X is simply a free update, with GUI improvements and new samples to Shreddage 2. Shreddage Classic is the previous generation "Shreddage Complete", but ported to the new engine. Shreddage: Picked Bass is another completely separate product. This should clarify the confusion. The total series you want is Shreddage 2 (current library) + Bass (the bass library) + Classic (the old library). This bundle is not called Shreddage 2. It's called Shreddage 2 + Bass + Classic.

Maybe you should be thankful there's a sale at all?

That was a good project, there. I think your conclusions are spot on, especially that DSP advances need to be made before systems like this can improve.

I used La Danse Macabre (Lich Yard), not The Apparition. Remember a remix can use boss or stage theme, and it varies by remix. You'll have to listen to each one or send PM's to each artist to get the correct ones for each remix. Additionally, Shovel Knight's theme is either "Main Theme" or "Steel Thy Shovel".

I mean you can use mine but they're kinda shitty

Oh nooooo parallel 5ths I do actually wince when I hear them in pop vocals, however. They sound a little too blocky and disjunct for human voice. I do, however, like perfect fourths in vocals much better.

I like using parallel fifths in my string lines. Sounds very eastern.

You didn't use the melody of Flying Battery Zone anywhere, and neither did you use the B section. It doesn't qualify as a Flying Battery remix (the chords are not unique to that song). It may as well be a James Bond remix.

Can not reiterate this more. This is a golden post right here. I can attest to this. Learning voice leading and counterpoint has skyrocketed the harmonic language in my music. I stopped thinking of chords as the "beds for my melody" and instead thought of them as overarching narrative trends for the progression of the music. I write within the framework of that, and using the voice-leading principles I know, I end up writing beautiful (I mean, to me, obviously) 4 and 5 part string sections in a matter of minutes. Taking an arranging class has taught me how to use color to my advantage, and I finally understand how to use dynamics and density now. Before coming to school, I just did things enough. It was dynamic "enough" and it was dense "enough", and if it wasn't, someone would tell me, and I'd add more and say "is that better?" Now I'm the one who makes the decisions on, not what's enough, but what is exactly what I need. But I didn't learn that from class, I learned it by analyzing music I liked using concepts I learned in class. When something sounds bad, I just look at it in terms of those concepts. "Oh, no wonder it sounds bad, the viola is crossing the cello." Then I fix it, and it sounds great. If I like how it sounds initially, I never bother checking if it's breaking voice-leading or counterpoint. I pull voices into parallel motion all the time when I want to emphasize certain note sequences. Is it breaking independence? Sure. Do I care? No.

Uhm, I feel like you guys are forgetting that STREET FIGHTER III: 3RD STRIKE: FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE is the best Street Fighter game, not Street Fighter II. /favoritesrant That aside, I find 3rd Strike far more interesting to play, especially with parries. SFII feels really sluggish, like you do things on your controller and then your character reacts to it, rather than in 3rd Strike where it's a little faster and more seamless. If they made a game with 3rd Strike mechanics, but with all the original creators from II and such, that would, I think, be the best Street Fighter game ever (and warrant being called V, because III + II = V)

1. Contracts. 2. Everything you create, including arrangements, you have copyright on. However, if you're profiting off of derivative works, you need to get mechanical licensing, which means you have to pay some stuff to the original creators.

Yes, I do understand your point now. The problem with the curriculum is that people mistake demonstrating concepts with writing music; rather, the professors don't make it clear that the concepts are not a method for composing music. It should be made clear they are tasked with writing things in the confines of those concepts simply to better their understanding of those concepts, not to develop their ability to write music. See my above post, I addressed this. You've clearly not been keeping up on algorithmic composition research.

Not sure I understand, unless you were pointing out that the conjunction of following the rules and having it sound good at the same time is what you think is absurd, not either of those things individually, in which case I misunderstood you. Generally if you follow the rules of voice leading it sounds good, and bad voice leading is distinctive to the ear. It's not about sounding "good", it's about sounding like it has independent lines with harmonic motion. "good" is subjective, but "independent" isn't as much.