timaeus222

lmao, we don't even have a link to your channel, dude.

Neither am I, but Darke's post made a lot of sense to me! Basically, if two source motifs lie in scales containing different intervals (for instance, 1 2 2# 4 5 5# 6# 8, vs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8), regardless of their tonic (the note that defines their scale, i.e. the tonic of C major is C), just match the intervals (for the example, shift the 3, 5, and 6 to match 2#, 5#, and 6#, or vice versa). You can decide to match the modes later (in a DAW, literally by shifting a set of notes up and down), which may or may not require matching the tonic (e.g. C major can go with A minor just fine). So long as the intervals in the scale match, it's much easier to make two motifs work together. I don't really explicitly talk about that *while* I write these remixes, but I do implicitly go through that process.

Agreeing with Jorito-Dorito here. ----- In terms of basic skills: Something useful to know would be to recognize what each type of basic harmony sounds like. For instance, practice identifying how two notes feel when they are 2 semitones apart (a major second, like C,D), 4 semitones apart (a major third, like C,E), 5 semitones apart (a perfect fourth, like C,F), and 7 semitones apart (a perfect fifth, like C,G). Then, maybe try identifying what a minor second (1 semitone apart, like E,F) and minor third (3 semitones apart, like A,C' or C,D#) sound like. Once you have those down, you should be able to identify most two-note harmonies, which is going to be a key skill to dissect even the most basic bare-bones VGM. If you can identify a minor third, you should find a major sixth to be similar (differing by the octave of the "root note"). If you can identify a perfect fourth, you should find it similar to a perfect fifth (differing by the octave of the "root note"). Some examples of VGM I think would be reasonable for you to transcribe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUJCpOZIjdo (try focusing on the left and right channels, and the center-panned material individually, and seeing how that works for you. This is in 4/4.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8j2PT7181c (this has some detectable patterns and repeated melodic motion. The only hard part would be the first arpeggio I think. Once you get that down, that melodic motion pattern repeats a lot and can be copy-pasted and transposed around. This is in 6/8.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lamug9E_5OE (just kidding.)

It really depends on the combination of tracks. I usually find inspiration by listening to new-ish music and finding a style that could gel with the particular sources I chose/got matched up with. I don't really worry about any difference in key, and I just either transcribe it in my head or repitch a recording of the entire source tune if it's too complicated to transcribe multiple times in my head. Generally what gives coherence in a track I make is the sound design and the way I modify the motifs in one source to mesh with those of the other. If one track is minor-key and the other is major-key, I either would transition to a new mood and then back to the original mood, or change the mood of one source motif to make one cohesive major-key or minor-key track. A lot of this is practice, really. ----- As far as "is this too original", just listen back to the source tune, and if you can convince yourself that your interpretation reminds you of the original, then it's probably on the right track. For instance, I think this is recognizable (i.e. not too original), but it's certainly not a walk in the park to dissect: Source tune 1 (Cyber Peacock) Source tune 2 (Final Weapon) ReMix

The timbres are quite similar until 1:57 when you actually introduce the strings as accompaniment. That leaves the soundscape lacking in dynamic contrast, and unfortunately makes this feel more plodding than you intended. If you skip around at 0:00 - 1:57, you'd be hard-pressed to figure out where you are in the arrangement with your screen turned off. So, that would tell you that textural diversity is a good way to add a sense of progression to this, and it's just not present quickly enough yet. As others have suggested, a more distinct lead sound would be a good first step. Right now, there's no clear climax, and evidently no clear breakdown. Not really sure what to make of 2:28. It just sounds like a complete stop in the arrangement and the starting up of a brand new track, except it's the same source tune, and the same textures as at 0:00 - 1:57. So, this stops your arrangement flow in a way that if I were to stop listening at 2:32, then I wouldn't think that there is more to the track. Here are two examples of music with a large amount of dynamic contrast. Here is a track walkthrough of the second example.

The main problem with the example is the choice of slow-attack samples on fast notes (these should be faster-attack), and the lack of variation on the drums to enhance dynamic contrast (the snares are pretty much on autopilot the whole time here). So, it's partially your sample choice that's limiting you, and partially your sample quality that's limiting the extent that you can write. But mainly it's not the samples, it's you. The more you look into the amount of detail work it takes to orchestrate with more expensive libraries, the more you should realize that you need to practice so that you can figure out what you don't yet know how to accomplish. So, why not look into when you should use each articulation so that it sounds good for the particular samples you are using, and so that you actually have significant dynamic contrast? That's what's currently the major issues are here. Now, I'm not actually saying, "start from free samples and work your way up." I'm saying, "don't buy the more expensive sample libraries until you have a better idea of what you're doing." So, it's sensible to buy a 'starter' sample library to get immersed in the orchestral-sample-library composition/modulation mindset.

Well... I'm definitely not getting it on Google Chrome.

Maybe some of the orchestra could have been a tad more upfront to brighten things up in the upper-treble, and the bass was a little muddy, but other than that, I think this was fairly well mixed. Short, but cool arrangement!

I liked that the piano was front-and-center and relatively easy to discern. The chords were well-chosen to establish what I feel is a sad AND unsettling mood. Nice work!

Well, it's doing it for me on Firefox 42.0, and I have some pretty large resolution... (1920 x 1080) So it's not a screen size or resolution issue. I'm pretty sure it involves the word-wrap (or word-break, or overflow-wrap) or display commands in the CSS, and maybe the width specs on the container, though I'm not entirely sure how. It's a bit hard to tell, because I haven't been able to replicate this.

I don't entirely remember, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with having "word-wrap: break-word" (or maybe "overflow-wrap: break-word", which is more recent) in the CSS. Might want to experiment with that. Perhaps switch between the two variations to see what happens. And maybe try experimenting with "display: inline/inline-block/block/etc" for the container?

This is a pretty cool arrangement! I've yet to hear this kind of interpretation. Two things I would have said are that there could have been maybe one more lead to diversify the textures more, and the guitar solo lead should have been louder, but this is some fun stuff. Hope it passes!

Did you configure your MIDI Outs to play in channel 1 or 2, and then assign a port number to Kontakt? Your MIDI Ports should be set to an actual number and your MIDI Outs should match that port number. Otherwise, try changing the color of your MIDI Notes. But it may be a different way of doing it.

A few things 'misquoted' here: "criticism" isn't further qualified, so implicitly it likely means without being helpful. Obviously, constructive criticism should be welcome. So yes, some of us weren't being entirely constructive, but not all of us. I think it's fair to suggest that you find a more appropriate audience for the nature of your specific game genre. "The nature of for-hire work" is general. As in, something like this would qualify: "it's not worth it to take this job guys, because the creator isn't popular, and you can't live on it, so so what's the point? Besides, for-hire work will involve catering to the creator's needs, so your desires and creativity in writing music will be limited." I didn't see something nearly as shallow as that example in-general dismissal, or rants about for-hire work. I thought SnappleMan was fairly helpful; he brought up the topic of personal character with respect to the creator, which is always important if you, as a game composer, want the job to be worthwhile, and something that you wouldn't regret putting on your resume. Just to be clear, I thought your response needed more careful thought, because you overreacted. Here are the phrases that allow pretty much anyone to label you as passive-aggressive (i.e. here's my attempt to help you): It really looks like your post is riddled with attacks. Here's my interpretation of an un-euphemised version: If you were less stupid when it came to reading... A little kid like you can't get the best of me. I expected people like you to attack me. I didn't steal anything. [By the way, no one talked about stolen stuff. You added that on your own.] I can't make it any more accessible than I have now, so hopefully you're smart enough to see my point. Learn to read. Or have you not been to OCR before? Having been here for years, you should feel responsible for your hostility. Like seriously, how differently might someone else read that? If ever you want someone to judge your character before they may or may not work with you... this isn't a good first impression. And I like I said, this is intended to be helpful. So if you then decide to be all passive-aggressive towards me too, then you haven't really taken the time to think thoroughly about what I just said, and I'm not going to respond.

Given that the melody is generally the most recognizable part of a song, it's a good idea, if you're still worried, to consider checking the melody first.

Yeah, I think that's a santoor from EWQL Ra.

oh yeah. xD Haven't used preterite for maybe 4 years.

Sometimes I think about it too; I was writing music for a game a few weeks ago, and I was worried it sounded too much like something from Street Fighter, even though that was my inspiration. To avoid that, I tend to change the melody to sound better and better, without referencing my reference (in this case I had no explicit reference). Eventually it ended up sounding too complex to be something that came from one burst of inspiration in the original composer, yet still suitable for the game. But if I wanted to really check, I might ask a friend who I think is very familiar with what I suspect is the song(s) that my composition resembles.

I took a listen, and in general I would say: Although you called this techno, I think it can have more textural variation at least, to keep it from getting too repetitive. There were fairly few instruments used throughout, so maybe swap around some instruments later on in the track. There is overcompression, which is when there is a "pumping" effect on the entire track at once. It occurs when certain instruments are too loud, making the limiter push down, and I'm willing to bet it's the drums. Try lowering the volume of the drums, then maybe study how to work with compression plugins to strengthen your drums to compensate for lowering their volume. Try to minimize the amount of straight copy/paste; at minimum, try adding more textures or removing some (besides simply swapping them out), so that you have a break from the "main" textures. Even better would be to change some of the notes for meaningful compositional variation. It's coming along, but I don't think it's ready yet.

Right; if it's a passable mix, then no one ought to criticize you for using a MIDI to start it. I might find it a bit harder to work off of a MIDI than to simply think up the remix, while still personalizing the remix enough, but it doesn't go that way for everyone. We all work with music in the way that works best for us at the time, so if you feel like working with a MIDI to improve your non-transcription skills is helpful to you, by all means do it. It can help get you part of the way to making the full song, so that you can work on something like sound design more easily, for instance.

Yo recuerdo que vi esta canción en los foros. Me gusta que la canción es sencilla, pero tiene contramelodías como esas a 0:41, 1:33, 1:38, 2:22, y 2:47. Muy bién! I remember that I saw this song in the forums. I like that the remix is straightforward, but has countermelodies like those at 0:41, 1:33, 1:38, 2:22, and 2:47. Very nice!

I've personally only done that once, and I felt it limited the creativity that would have come about if I had just listened to the song and thought about how I wanted to transcribe it by ear. I get that not everyone has the knack for doing that, but it's a great skill to learn. It's OK to use a MIDI, but you should personalize the track by writing your own notes, making it substantially different from the original. If it's too close, it's not exactly plagiarism, but it's still unoriginal. Loosely speaking, it's basically copyright infringement if you try to sell it as-is, or plagiarism if you claim it's yours.

You know you can edit your posts, right?

Yup, I did both (filled them out, and wrote something here).

I don't know if this was a misunderstanding, but prophetik is simply talking about having too much original content that it doesn't resemble the source tune anymore, and thus is too original of an arrangement to be a video game remix. That would make it harder to get video-game-music-related copyright issues, not easier. But I would say that NOT selling the remixes (and probably the attribution to the original artists as well) is one of the main things that helps these kinds of albums not upset copyright holders.