SoulinEther

My concern lies with having to stream so much video content. OCR has a fairly small file size limit for submissions; this video exceeds it, even in low-quality mode. If I'm going to give something a listen, instead of downloading an 8.7 meg video (unless I decide to stop early), I'd rather go ahead and download the mp3 file which is about 5 megs - I'll have it in high quality, if I like it, I'll already have it and won't have to do any more downloading, and if I don't like it, I can delete it no problem. While this isn't an issue for me at home, there are some people who (very frequently) browse the internet using mobile (cellular) connections that impose download (edit:) bandwidth limitations. There are only two conveniences offered here: the UI/aesthetics (no need to leave the writeup page to hear the song) and that OCR is not wasting any of its bandwidth (or that of its mirrors). tldr: Is an intricate video really the way to go?

maybe he's just too hot for birthdays. but happy birthday anyway.

The way you emphasized.. that "to" ... is, er, interesting.

Such arbitrary but great questions.

Ah, that's right. Somehow i forgot about that lol. In that case, ... this shouldn't be hard. And er i never really presented any arguments for youtube. ...ubiquity? (which entails: you can access it on your cell phone, many MIDs, almost all computers, etc.) How big is the video file that was created, btw? Streaming excess video might be counterproductive...? Just throwing that out there.

interesting but disappointing-looking.

A batch process will be able to automatically take an mp3 file for an ocremix, convert it to the proper youtube HQ format, and combine it with the placeholder video into a video file with the appropriate file name based off the ocremix. The only difficulties lie in uploading every single remix, and properly titling everything, etc. But that kind of thing would happen with almost any hosting service.

But you'll only need to create it once.

This would only be necessary if you're going to render a video file unique to each remix. Otherwise, you're better off creating the video in advance of converting the remixes to youtube video files, and copying the video from your pre-rendered video file into the new youtube video files. This is hard to describe with words. Coming soon: an illustration.

For doing this shit en masse, ffmpeg or mencoder are the way to go... Virtualdub does allow for batch processing, but I'm not sure how well. Basically, you just need to make a like 10 minute long video in the correct format for youtube's high quality mode that you would like to appear on all songs. Then, set up a batch operation (using either of those programs, or a simple (Windows) frontend to ffmpeg like WinFF) to convert every oc remix into mp4 format AND copy the video stream into a brand new video file, into a container format Youtube supports, that is equal to the length of the mp3 file, not the video file. You'll have only one video for all songs, but this can be set up as a very simple batch operation to convert all 1500+ remixes.

Youtube. s'il vous plaît.

I won't lie. I sing this in my car on the way to school.. without the song, or any wily mix playing. Though my singing voice is not nearly as refined and skilled as yours (nor am I too adapt about staying in key), I think my voice can make a timbre similar to yours. Hurray..? So...it would be awesome if you finished this because a) it's awesome and i'd much rather hear someone else sing it better than I can and on top of other instruments... through a stereo system where I can control the volume and stuff, lol. Edit: Someone said remix of the year? Yeah this could be it.

I JUST LOST MY FUCKING POST... TWICE. Therefore, I concede to Native Jovian; it's not worth my time to continue this debate. To summarize, I basically said there's alternative means to making money as an artist/producer (being paid for the service of your work rather than the product) by, basically, filling a demand rather than creating a supply. (but do not feel at all obliged to carry on the argument, because to me, you've won.) Sunshine and lollipops. This time, I copied this text before i hit "submit". And it paid off, because I had to do post again.

<--hopes he gets a dev job for some OSS project when he seeks employment. Here comes the crazy man talkin about crazy crap. It's quite a conundrum, a quandary keen on killing any quick exit without catharsis or cannibalism. I don't believe software, text, art, anything reproducible should have the control of ownership; we're all human beings. We all have some cultural vat of knowledge, creativity, etc. that we contribute to and take from, in one method or another. If I write a piece of software and release it into the world, if you really need to use it, why should I stop you? If I make a medical discovery, find some cure for some disease, and make it known, what right have I to prevent you from benefiting from it? If you feel some burning desire to compensate me for my work, what is there to stop you? It's like that one Russian proverb. Once a word goes out of your mouth, you can never swallow it again.Once something - an idea, a poem, a creation, a manifestation of a melody, some grand discovery - leaves my brain or my lab, I can't own it again. I've communicated it to someone else, and I thus no longer control it. So does that mean copyright goes against the principles of human communication..? :/ Maybe. Granted, that is no justification for copyright infringement; there's this law thing that still applies most of the time, right? I don't use it as one, either. Which is why I've stopped with the personal pirating. Hm. What if it became impossible to copy material and infringe on copyrights not because of restrictions preventing you from succeeding but due to the freedom/rights to do so. What would happen then? Would I somehow attain nirvana..twice? Still, something that cannot be reproduced, such as musical concert, the showing of a play, the demonstration of a movie on a humongous screen, cannot follow the same principle - it's impossible, given our current means, to reproduce something like that exactly as it was when it first occurs. So.. I'll go around holding symposia about my software? (I'm still working on the details.) Great topic.

This song is awesome. Unlike some other remixes, this does not just reiterate a theme over and over again. This takes a theme, plays around with it, makes it expressive (yes there's the quirkiness but there's also some fear there too), and includes extremely fitting sections that make this a highly enjoyable orchestral rendition and very interesting independent work.

orly. I think I have an idea for a short story, too. Let's see if I can devote the time to writing?

What I mean is.. if they've implemented the support of CSS3 into Webkit, which is LGPL'd, it's likely to be seen in other browsers that are based off webkit - Chrome and Konqueror, namely. but i'm sadly too lazy to google to find out more info edit: wait, webkit was forked off KHTML, so it's unlikely konqueror will see css3 unless the developers decide to switch to webkit or somethin. (edit: or, duh, try to merge. uhm,. yeah, i should stop discussing this. lol)

How Soon is Now (The Smiths) whenever I get a phone call, and my phone's not on vibrate, people tell me I need to get a new ringtone (been using it for two phones now!). I dismiss their suggestions and answer my phone, usually.

I yet await the implementation of CSS3/HTML 5 in alternative, non-Apple branded browsers. The only potential benefit this could bring is to force other browsers to implement and hey wait a minute isn't this based off of Webkit? That means that it sh/could be in KHTML... hmm. And wouldn't that mean Chrome, as well? Still. Not gonna code for one browser. edit: i've noticed Chrome has had _some_ CSS3 features, like object resizing... hum. If that's so, this news is no longer even slightly amusing

That's all that's on mine.

I think he said he was supposed to be singing the chorus once in that section, but he hasn't yet recorded the chorus for the key change.

Fun shit...

If all these all-inclusives websites looked this sexy, I don't care how many there are. M0AR CSS/GRAPHICAL PR0N, I say.

It isn't all that common, no. The short story makes a little more sense in the larger context, heh. (just btw, your layout looks very... interesting. Not boring. perhaps just bordering on overly-crowded-insane-madness but taking a step back from being overboard)

It's ingrained in my head too When I was a kid, I never wanted to use the Noose because that picture of Lurch (and that music!) was pretty traumatizing. This has a very nice sound. The grittiness works for me, and from here I can see this going in a bunch of directions. And though it's basically a cover atm, this has a different sound from the source. I can see this working in an action/badass scene from a movie such as XXX (though maybe not with that exact melody line). I'd give you 100 bonus points if you can find some way to incorporate that Lurch motif into your mix!