timaeus222

Haha, yeah, I was recalling something from last year. Looked it up, and if I remembered the specific term I would have tacked on the word "circumstantial". Probably wasn't as drastic as that extent, but similar. Although, I'm not trying to insult you, ecto, just making sure you remember to consider perspectives. It's very important. I can certainly see why the opposite is true with "limiting" yourself to FM or other singular types of sounds, sure. It adds to how creative you have to be with a particular set of finite sounds. The point is just that when you have just FM, you don't have resources to do absolutely everything out there, and you really have to rely on your arrangement abilities and pool from this set of sounds. But yeah, just my opinion, from my own perspective. In particular though, I used the word "silly" to keep that opinion playful ("silly" sounds to me like it has that sort of connotation). =)

Yeah, it does take a lot to sift through what's "supposed to be right" and find what's "right" for you. Being able to put what you learn to the test is what really helps you to evaluate the arbitrary "rightness" or "wrongness" of any concept from your perspective. For example, sometimes when people speak in music theory, it doesn't really completely register until I actually try it out. When they're right, then they are, but without trying it out, I don't fully get the context. I wish you good luck.

Those are the only sounds I've created with FM. I've never needed to do anything more with it. I just use other methods of synthesis to accomplish those gaps. I've also certainly delved into FM synthesis to recreate DX7 material like the DX7 bass from Castlevania x68000. Not foreign to me, just slipped my mind. I'm not suddenly saying "ecto, you must never have seen a string quartet perform, because I've never seen you use strings in your music!", am I, because for all I know, that could be completely wrong (imagine a balding enthusiastic philosopher saying that). I don't remember clearly whether or not you have a strings library you like to use, so I don't say that. Perspective is everything, so please consider that next time. (Believe me, I'm not trying to mock you) And uh... try not to do an ad hominem circumstantial, as a friendly personal request from me. Doesn't make you look good when you attack someone else. Besides, it's not like I had the money to buy a Genesis (which is completely irrelevant to me hearing of Genesis-style synths), or really, anything other than a DS or N64 (and this is not an appeal to pity, but a clarification of this circumstantial assumption). I could have heard a game soundtrack using those sounds, or other Genesis sounds, without playing any Genesis games at all (which is actually true; my first encounter with the Genesis was Gunstar Heroes which I played AFTER I heard the music), and felt the desire to recreate them. (Yes, people can draw that much implication from five 'and a half' words.)

And at the same time, I haven't played a physical NES before, and I'm older than you.

I used to pick out sounds before I wrote. Not a good idea necessarily, because it sometimes limits your sound palette and thus, to a smaller extent, your arrangement. For example, if you limit yourself to FM sounds, you've got E. Pianos, dubstep basses, atonal bells, glassy pads, and noise generator percussion at your disposal, and you would then only be able to use those five things plus drums and other things I haven't heard of (it'd be silly to limit yourself to FM without exception). You've got to be missing something in your palette. You see my point. Now, I pick one sound, internalize it, and see if it inspires me to write out something that inspires the picking out of more sounds to go with it. In essence, I pick sounds as I go. Now what about mixing? I used to write and then go back and mix, but the problem is, mixing depends on more than just what you write. It depends a whole lot on how you write it. i.e. The velocities matter, the sound choices matter, etc. Now, I mix as I go, so I can hear things as they are in context, and that way I can decide whether or not particular instruments truly work or if they just add extra content that people wouldn't really hear anyway (for example, trebly percussive ear candy). In improving my efficiency, particularly because I use FL Studio, I took advantage of the visual EQ and connected the visual with the auditory aspect. Once I could visualize frequency distributions, I could EQ more quickly and thus quicken my mixing workflow. I also learned as many shortcut commands as I could, but not by reading a manual; rather, by intuition, because intuition is more memorable than reading, IMO. To internalize is to make familiar by actually doing the activity, so that's what I did. Something else I did to improve how I work was create a bunch of sounds to put into my disposal. If you're filled with a collection of sounds you like, you're bound to find yourself using them a lot, and then once you get used to them, you may start noticing their tonal qualities more, and that's when you start distinguishing which sounds fit better to you in certain situations than others. Then, of course, the most important thing to improve your efficiency, IMO, is to get feedback. The most effective way to improve your objectivity is to get feedback from other people, so you can grasp their perspective and use that to evaluate yourself objectively. When you can judge your own music, you can nitpick it thoroughly and fix it up yourself, and by the time you're done, people from whom you request feedback will have less crits to give---which can be good or bad, depending on how much you liked their crits before!

It has some great harmonies, modal shifts, and interesting rhythm. Every time it returns to a previously approached section, it brings something significantly new to the plate. =)

The intro sounds great in terms of the arrangement, and even though it's my own personal taste, I think it would really bring it alive if the bass frequencies were more present, the percussive elements were less subtle (especially the clap at 1:17, and not disregarding the percussive bass), and the piano was louder (such as 1:12). 1:37 - 2:45 was a good development. I like how the arp had a filter LFO to add some sense of dynamics to the synthetic element. The kick and snare are definitely stronger. At 3:20, the percussive arp is less mechanical than before because of the LFO you have. At 3:29 though, the guitar strums on the right did feel stiff compared to the other parts. At 3:50, while personal taste, the synth playing the lead has a timbre (TB-303) that typically gives it the role of an arp rather than a lead. Maybe a different choice could work more effectively. Something more majestic or soaring, perhaps. Overall, much better than before. Great improvement. =)

Not ambient, per se, but yes to the "more background than attention-grabbing". Ambient is quite literally a bunch of pads, arps, bells, and other ethereal textures strewn together to make a big expansive soundscape to lose yourself in, and it's one of those genres where the sound design makes the difference. These days, music for games is written to fit the mood, rather than to stretch the hardware limitations to accommodate for the limited sound design. i.e. chiptunes --> creative arrangements to sound cooler. In that sense, the older games were more "forced" to write melodically interesting music, and modern producers are less "forced" to do so, and they do so only if they can and they want to. I suppose in a sense you could argue why old video game music is so prejudiced against. A lot of people dismiss video game music because they think of beepy music from before the 90's when they hear the phrase "video game music". Then, those people would be thinking the exact opposite of the topic of this thread. We'd be flipping this thread upside down and lefty-loosy (waitwut. btw I don't drink).

So, in a sense, proving either side is difficult. You can't just sift through >50% of ALL the games in the world, evaluate their OSTs, and list them ALL here, even though that would be the most fair and indisputable sampling method, because there are just so many. I mean, why else would "obscure games" be a thing? Because the games people deem as "more memorable" just overshadow the ones people deem "obscure". But I don't want this discussion to just end, so... carry on.

Yeah, those particular colors add a lot to the character.

Yeah, this is a great topic.

That's true, and one of several exceptions to the "bass+chordal harmony+lead+percussion" definition, but with songs that contain more than one or two types of instrument, it's most often true that filling those roles helps add to the fullness. Of course, by full, it can also mean "making the most out of what you have and what you know", so yes, solo harpsichord music or multi-part acapella can be full too. True. The more layers, the more you have to focus on it to really hear what's going on, and memorability comes partially from how easily something is fully perceived. However, it doesn't actually mean that you can't have a lot of things going on. It's all about what you put in the forefront. If you have, say, harp arps or flute arps in the background but not playing a role that lets it be perceived as obviously there the first few times through, it doesn't make us focus on it and thus doesn't make it sound like too much is going on. ;D

Great video. I may watch it again, if just for the analysis factor, and I'm all for analysis [/non-sarcasm]. Simple meaning to objectivity --- the neutral quality that can be observed when evaluating something's truth without personal interfering bias. Or, I could refer anyone to Wikipedia (yes, I did just do that! It is definitely reliable for a list of good sources to pore through; the content itself just may be humanly off ). So in essence (so much philosophical inside joke possibility), objectivity isn't that unknown of a concept to define (grasping it is another thing). The truth will never change, only our perception of where it is or what it is, like this "moving target" analogy of yours. The more you learn, the closer you get to the truth. But of course, Greek philosophers were having such a hard time with that in the Allegory of the Cave, The Republic, Plato on Love, etc. It certainly means it'll be just as hard, or harder, for people like us (who aren't Greek geniuses) to fully comprehend that truth. We can get close, but few people have gotten far enough to be able to be objective towards themselves. That is no easy feat, but objectifying, say, Love, is much harder, it seems, and if someone has done THAT before, then surely we can do that for music! After all, in Symposium from Plato on Love, one of the philosophers, Eryximachus, uses music and harmony as an "easily graspable", analogizable concept compared to love's pleasure. I do see though, how the perception of objectivity differs between people, but the objective truths will always be present no matter what, and it will be accessible to those who have reached that target. It just takes consideration of context to determine whether or not your statements are accessible to your audience, and when you make them so, your audience will have a greater means to agree with you. Good talk. =)

Yes. Classical music is music from the Classical Period, NOT calm music. Classic is different. Ambient music is not classical, it's ambient, and most importantly, it's more properly known as Modern music. Gotta make that distinction. That said, orchestral can convey just the same nostalgic factor as chiptunes. . It establishes more than one mood (what a plus), it's harmonically pleasing, it's texturally full, and it feels like it could be nostalgic. Not to mention chiptunes are often donned "not texturally full" simply because of the sound design. If you have a bass, a chordal/harmonic instrument, a lead instrument, and percussion, it's full. Orchestral is simply more full because of the tonal complexity. The music targeted by this article depend too much on this textural complexity, and that's a point several people made here. This textural complexity, if not accompanied by arrangement interest, turns people off. Automatic summary.

That's true, but to like something even more so than you did before is to also know why you like it, otherwise it's superficial musical pleasure. If you like something for an unknown reason, and then you get asked why you like it, you start shrugging. It took me... let's see... almost 2 years of VGM remixing before I started appreciating harmonies. 2 years. Until February 2013. I'm not the defining case, obviously, but I'm one example. Also, a lot of people like music that they can relate to; that sure is prevalent, especially when looking at how people sing back pop music as if they heard it all day. The "nostalgia" factor is something that is relate-able. If you feel like a game "made your childhood", then you like playing it, but you may not even be paying attention to the music, and instead just playing the game for the enjoyment. I played Pokemon Yellow and liked it without even knowing what the music sounded like. Then, when people ask you "how did the music sound?", you just say "nostalgic", or "IT HAD MUSIC?! OMGWTF" because you don't remember how it sounded. I believe, then, that nostalgia is a strong (but not the sole), on-the-surface reason for liking video game music, much like the apparent catchiness of modern pop.

I know. 1) it's advertising 2) The word "games", specifically, accounts for, well, all games. Honestly though, whether or not a game's soundtrack depends on its sound design doesn't guarantee that its music will not be great. It's all coincidental. Who gets the job? Whoever the project leader picks. Whoever they pick will decide whether or not their music will be well-focused on arrangement or simply atmosphere, while if it focuses on atmosphere, the arrangement comes and naturally accommodates that.

I can't agree with either of these. Many (I won't say "most". "Many" is more appropriate to a small audience, and I'm not about to make a hasty generalization) people don't actually know how to explain why they like a song, or why it's catchy, etc. I've asked this myself in my 24-people speech class last year during my speech on music appreciation, and not one person disagreed with these questions I asked: "Who here likes music because: - It's catchy - It's cool - I don't know why" Notice how all of those questions required little to no thinking. They're all superficial "like" factors, or they aren't even proper reasons ("I don't know" is not a reason. Catchiness and coolness are both vague). Hence, how can As for game music not sounding great these days... here are 20 (okay, fine, 10. I won't waste your time) easy counterexamples. These sound both harmonically great and are bolstered even more by their sound design:http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/dawn-oblique http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/oasis-epsilon http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/thicket-prism http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/fusion-master http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/photosynthesis https://soundcloud.com/overclocked-records/joe-griffith-space-disorder-1 http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/training-montage-extended http://omnipsyence.bandcamp.com/track/the-looking-glass https://soundcloud.com/zircon-1/academy-theme-dungeonmans-ost https://soundcloud.com/overclocked-records/jeff-ball-tiny-barbarian-dx-10

So you wouldn't buy an OST of this?

Fluid is great, I love using it for its percussion and harp. I really love the vibraslap, chimes, and especially its sleigh bells. So smooth with the right reverb.

You have good points, but I'm not kidding---I really do find my new music a huge improvement over my old, in both production and arrangement. There are certainly people who say production can be subjective, that's not out of the question, but in some ways it is certainly also objective. If you can put aside your opinion when evaluating production, it's entirely objective. For example, ridiculous production overboosts, really lofi production, extremely painful harsh resonances, and completely incompatible instruments (say, a fake electric guitar with double basses, heavily distorted drums and a didgeridoo) may just sound objectively bad, but some people can look past that and see the good in other aspects of the same songs. =)

Yep. Catchiness is NOT limited to melodic contour. Rhythmic interest is easily another example of catchiness. And I think it's a coincidence that the examples the writer picked were not memorable to him. Indie games these days have quite creative soundtracks. Globulous and Dungeonmans come to mind.

Super birthday mode activate! =D

It sounds like any synth with oscillator sync, keyfollow, and has filters that have resonance and drive/overload knobs, as well as assignable envelopes and (optionally) velocity sensitivity can do this. Here's a screenshot of what I did, and an example: What's happening in the above pic is that a low cutoff saw wave with oscillator sync and a lot of resonance is being distorted. There's probably another way to do it, but this is what I did.

That's fine. I just didn't want people to get their ears damaged. It can be jarring for effect, but if it hurts, it gets to be more painfully jarring than purposefully jarring. Okay, aesthetic choice, then. They are in fact clearer than before. I just figured since the source had actual vocals, it might have been your intention to have those clear, though mechanized. The timing's good to go to me. Since strings have an initial bowed attack, whether the notes themselves were shifted or not, the timings now are within a "timing tolerance" for human vs. sloppy. The muddiness from earlier is better than before. With regards to the loudness there, while it isn't as muddy as before, it feels like there's either a lot going on there or what's there is pretty loud. It could be perceived as personal taste there, but I think it's a bit too loud. That was an overall statement, so any elaboration came before. In this context, it works IMO. It's just a little playful joke on my part, no offense intended.