timaeus222

I see halc's been having some fun with granular delay and FM. Really cool soundscape. Stevo, dat guitar. <3

OC ReMix isn't necessarily against chiptunes, but against specifically basic, unrefined chiptunes. If it's detailed enough, then it's good enough. Case in point: halc, PROTO·DOME, etc. The arrangement sounds simple, chiptunes aside, even sparse sometimes, relative to chiptune textures. e.g. 1:50-1:53. If you get to using a DAW, it'll allow for more expressive chiptunes through modulations and automations.

Well yeah, but it's just an example. I picked one that I could explain clearly.

I'll sign up as a star. To those who don't know me, I use FL Studio 11, I write generally everything except reggae, tango, hoedown, and other obscure genres. I am open to genres I haven't done before. Examples of my work can be found in the Free ReMixes (previews) section of my website from my signature.

Personal use, yes. However, it does not mean you actually bought the music, and especially not the rights to the music. That still belongs to the original composer, at the very least. You can, however, operate within similar limits to those of regularly licensed music such as the "official" artists, e.g. Madeon, Daft Punk, Infected Mushroom, etc. If you can't do it with officially licensed music, you probably can't do it with ripped game music.

I'd assume concepts such as loops, conditionals, arrays (possibly), lists (maybe), strings (maybe), stacks (maybe not), pointers (possibly), queues (probably not), etc. Obviously you wouldn't need to actually know how to write code for them, or even interpret code that you see, but having a general idea of how they work may help. For example, it may be useful for communication, if, say, your programmer discusses something like this: -------- Background information: || Imagine you look into the game data of a simple GBA game like MegaMan Battle Network 6. At the right memory offset (an address indivisible by 8 decimal), you can basically find this array (kind of like a group/grid organized by dynamic or static length and width) of pointers (like signs that point along a street) that each point to a bunch of offsets where data is stored for the contents of the song---notes (pitch would logically be the number itself, but in whatever decimal format is practical; octal, hexadecimal, binary, etc.), rhythm (marked by gaps labeled through certain unused characters perhaps, like 00 or FF), etc. Typically in 16-bit games, songs have headers that are a small array of offsets that each point to a "MIDI part" (e.g. an instrument), which is data that describes a particular instrument's properties and the notes that it plays. The rest of the data right afterwards is typically what these header offsets point to, involving loops, jumps, a "panoramic extraction" of an instrument out of a collection of instruments, the octave it plays on, the panning, the volume, the notes themselves, etc. || The programmer then says, "I still need a song that fits within 20000 bytes exactly because it's lying in between a song in the RAM area that ends at 0x031254 and another song that starts at 0x051254. It's going to dynamically load at the beginning, and then go all the way through and loop back to a point after a header that classifies the song and points to its MIDI parts that each contain an instrument playing MIDI notes. 20000 bytes is the equivalent of 2 minutes (not really, but for simplicity's sake, I'm going to say that), so can you write a song that is exactly 120 seconds long that can loop back to exactly 20 bytes after the start point (which is how long the header is)?" -------- Well, by that logic, you'd need the song to loop at exactly 0.12 seconds into the song (maybe to prevent clicks to accommodate for the crudeness of the programming language used, or something like that perhaps), but you'd have to understand what bytes are, what looping asks a program to do, etc. A little bit of a weird example, but who knows, it might actually happen. Then you'd at least not be confused, and you'd probably follow what they say.

Yeahhhh, this is pretty loud. The snare could have used some transient shaping to be on par with the kick, which was lacking some lows. The drum sequencing was pretty bombastic sometimes but it works alright in this context. Other than that, nice and heavy stuff.

Well, it's not like it's "wrong" to do it. It just didn't fit the context, in my opinion---it felt out of place. In this track at 2:20, I think it was done in a way that added some cool contrast, without distracting the listener from anything else (listen all the way through though, so you can get why it works).

Or, you know, the heavens tear apart and God's spirit descends into djp (who won't die a premature death). Mark reference

Uh, what's happening in this? At 0:15 - 0:30, there's muddiness in between the bass and the pad's reverb, and I really don't "get" the LFO panning at 0:30 (why is that there?). Right now the issues are: - muddy mix with bass and the pad's low end ambience - too much reverb overall. Try turning that down until you can hear more clarity. - buried kick and clappy/basic/flimsy snare. You could add some light distortion to strengthen them and a little compression to make them tighter and more standout. - squashed dynamics on the master. Turn down the volume on everything. :S - unusual arrangement choices. e.g. key change at 1:28 for some reason (consider---what does that contribute to the structure? How can you lead into it?) Overall there's really a lot of things going on at once without the clarity to go along with it. Try soloing a pair of instruments and EQing that pair, then doing it again with another pair, and then EQing so the two pairs are clear when playing at the same time. You'd still be EQing in context, but it's easier when you break it down into components.

Yeah, this sounds like an underdeveloped idea. I can see where you want to go with this, but it's not fully realized yet. The piano has some delay effects, but not much low end impact because the sample quality is relatively low or the sequencing doesn't span a wide range of octaves. Also, the first main part with a melody past the piano needs a kick drum to keep the track grounded. It feels sparse without an audible kick.

I should clarify that the "it" is the rest of the song, not the bass. e.g. you don't carve EQ out of the bass to make it stronger. This, I believe, is on the right track, but I also want to elaborate on the ideas a bit here. Panning is good, but just panning left and right for spatial clarity is not entirely practical; the purpose of panning is to place instruments in a logical spot in the stereo field, so panning for clarity alone may not be realistic or practical unless you do think about why it makes sense for a particular instrument to be placed in a certain way. e.g. Why is an electric rhythm guitar hard-panned? To not only make room for the other instruments, but also to make way for a more layered (double/quad-tracked) complexity to the guitar tone that adds depth and energy that couldn't be done with a single mono recording.

I don't even have After Effects, but... Did you try removing the second keyframe (unless there are only two on the pink?) and making the curve with only two points, or do you need three to make a pathway of that precision of curvature?

I found that ^ in Season 2 Episode 4. Does this all still apply? Here, it says:

+1 for effort +2 for proper caps +5000 for GUTS -9000 for taking 10 minutes.

I thought your track was quite cool! You have to finish it, for whatever purpose.

It seems like the lead guitar was recorded entirely in mono. It's quite narrow all throughout the entire track. There's also some noticeable clipping at 0:46, 1:01, 1:03, 1:06, and 1:09. Watch your peaks. Other than that, good cover.

It's not something I'd expect someone to just *poof* learn in a few days, but something to keep in mind in the long run. It helps to listen to music you're interested in more closely, analyzing the overall structure, transitions, and how the song progresses while also maintaining your interest. That way, you can learn more about what people do and see how you can incorporate that into your own music. Since you want me to be even more specific, here's an example analysis with terms that are generally universal (and particular terms are defined or said in parentheses): https://joshuamorse.bandcamp.com/track/you-got-me The intro is calm (with an electric piano), then uses a (distorted bitcrushed) sound effect to lead into a (jazzy) slow jam at 0:21. Begins song. At 0:29, the drums drop out except for the kick, which has some syncopated (off-the-beat) rhythm that works with the lead sound to lead into a section featuring that same lead sound. First slow jam section. At 0:48, all the drums drop out except for the leadin toms and the kick, then the electric piano plays a larger, more syncopated role to make this section sound fuller than the previous. This has louder dynamics than the previous section because it sounds fuller. At 1:05, the drums drop out while the bass and the lead work together to lead into a breakdown section with no drums except for a kick and/or a (distorted bitcrushed) clap. This is a reprieve to the previous two slow jam sections. At 1:28, a big tom roll leads from the breakdown section into a fuller section. Back to the slow jam sections. At 1:45, the drums drop out except for the kick, which has some syncopated (off-the-beat) rhythm that works with the lead sound to lead into a section similar to 0:48 - 1:05. This has louder dynamics than the previous section because it sounds fuller. At 2:04, the bass and the lead work together to lead into a new breakdown section featuring the bass. This is a show-off section, for fun with the bass. At 2:34, the bass does a slide up and down to lead into the next section, which is a solo based on 0:29 - 0:48. Another show-off section for fun with the lead. 3:13 becomes an outtro with a fade-out. Ending. Overall: Intro -> A -> A' -> B -> A -> A" -> C -> A with solo -> A' without leads as Outtro You don't have to do this explicitly, but thinking about it as you listen to something may help you catch onto how songs are arranged, and that should address most of the dynamics.

Sounds like a substantial upgrade. 4 GHz is much faster than 2.01 GHz and 24 GB RAM is fantastic. I felt a significant difference going from 1.7 to 2.2 GHz, so I'd say go for an upgrade, but I think Flexstyle would know more about the specifics. Yes. In fact, putting aside the bias I have for Zebra2 being awesome, I strongly believe it's one of the most flexible modular synthesizers out there, and honestly, it's capable of so many things. FM E. Pianos, many types of synth basses, atonal bells, many types of synth leads, arps, sound effects (pretty nitty gritty detail-based though), drums (difficult), pads, etc.Regardless, I've found that sometimes synthesizers were made even better than their hardware counterparts, and Zebra was one example. Not only does that save room for your studio, but it's much less complicated to "wire up" to your computer (because there are no wires!). Ultimately it's more effective to just have actual drum samples rather than try to download someone's synthesized drums from a soundbank. You can import samples into your DAW and write with those, and it's more RAM-conservative than having a synthesizer open with synthesized drum patches. I'm fairly certain drum samples are close to a few hundred KB each or smaller, even though they're WAVs.

I think Darke means the required vocal talent of the people you seek out, but the details about the album idea are pretty important too. i.e. Are they aware of the qualities they convey while they sing (sibilances, fricatives, loss of breath in the middle of a phrase, smooth eliding, breathing in loudly, etc.)? Is their pitch tight enough? Can they read sheet music or do they sing by ear (collaboration ability)? Do they know basic music theory (communication between you and them)? Can they improvise or do they have to think about basic music theory to write out a part (workflow)? Do they have good recording equipment? A good, well-treated recording environment/studio? Do they have the time to contribute?

Dynamic means primarily: - evolving, progressive, substantial development, revisits previous sections where practical (i.e. introducing new things throughout the whole extent may be too much to handle as a listener the first time through), climactic vs. anticlimactic, volumetric curve (crescendo/descrescendo, terraced volumes, overall flatness, etc.) - Not same-y throughout in textures, notes, and mood; overly repetitive (depends on genre); nor flat in its perceived energy

Depending on the number of tracks, I may want to master this. =)

Well, by the mechanical/robotic instrumentation and the sparseness of the soundscape, nah, but this isn't unpleasant to listen to. If you were to rework this for OCR, it would mean: - A more dynamic re-interpretation of the source. This is too conservative. - Fixing up the sequencing so that it sounds real, not "blocky" (all same-y velocities), and meaningful (i.e. not variation for the sake of variation, but for more interesting melodic contour). This is the case for the entire track. 1:26 - 1:30, 1:35 - 1:39, 1:44 - 1:48, and 1:52 - 1:57 are the most evident, in case you wanted time stamps for the robotic sequencing. - Varying the drums more and making them seem less "autopilot" and more of a participating part. The drums are too independent of the other instruments (i.e. it doesn't work with the other instruments. It's like they're playing by themselves), and too repetitive. - More variation in the notes to add a sense of progression so that each part of the song doesn't sound quite the same as a previous part. This contributes to the repetition. - More cohesive instrumentation; it kind of works now, but seems awkward at times, in my opinion. The production is relatively good in context and you can hear everything clearly, but all that would change if you adjust anything here. That's part of the challenge; interpret the source well and mix the result well. It seems simple but it'll take a few years to learn. Good luck. In case you were wondering, hip hop and rap remixes on OCR are not unheard of. Here are a few. http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01600/ http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02820/ http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02821/ http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02822/

We've got about 40 tracks, I think. =o

Sure. How many tracks are we planning? All of them, or just the ones that we remixers are proud of?