timaeus222

If you shrink the window on Firefox, you should see the layout change, and that's when I get the issue. It would be an easy fix though; just raise the z-index of the userbar. If you're talking about the Mascot, then yeah, it's partly the resolution, but you can fix it by changing one of the layouts defined in the CSS by the @media declaration so that for that specific range of window widths, the mascot CSS has something like display: visible; instead of display: none;.

Whenever I go to a mixpost page and click "post your own..." to write a review (at least on the latest two mixes, if not more), I get Error code 2S100/6. So, while we can still review, it tends to require clicking "complete thread" and then making a review via the reply box there. Also, when I click "complete thread" from the mixpost page, there is no link to return to the "ReMix Details page" as there had been before. The mascots disappear if the browser window width is below about... 1200px or something. But that's part of the integration with smart devices, I think. If you further shrink the browser window width, you should see a dynamic change in the layout. It's due to the CSS defining specific display options (display: none; or display: visible;) on various objects depending on the window width parameters. It probably looks something like this: @media (min-width: XXXpx) and (max-width: YYYpx) { tag.class { [...] display: none; } } @media (min-width: IIIpx) and (max-width: JJJpx) { tag.class { [...] display: visible/inline/etc; } } Thirdly, I take your z-index fix of the menu... and raise you another z-index issue! The userbar goes beneath the backdrop on the OCR title graphics (~/images/template/header_alt.jpg). I'm still testing on the latest version of Firefox, and though I'm on a MAC OSX, I'd expect the same issue at home on my Windows 7 Pro too.

Oooh, I'm really diggin' the layout CSS changing with the browser window size.

I just now upgraded to Firefox 42.0, and it still seems fixed on my side. Did you refresh your cache? Two ways you can do it are Ctrl+Click Refresh button or Ctrl+Shift+R.

This is really good! For the most part, I think this is in pretty solid shape, but some things still bug me. - 0:40 on the first listen felt kind of odd, just having the guitar there with the ocean FX. But it's not a big deal on further listens. - 1:16, when the flute comes in, the tone seems a bit distorted. It's more easily audible at 3:30. Maybe it's something to do with the material that it's made out of, but if you notch-EQ at around 10000~14000 Hz, that would be where I'm hearing it. It's only audible when it's exposed though, so it's not a huge deal, but it's an easy fix without compromising the tone overall. - The kick drum gets lost in basically the entire track. Sometimes I barely notice a thump, and in the more crowded timestamps (2:17 - 2:27 and 3:41 - end), it's just buried. You can help that by either boosting near 4000 Hz to get more high-end "click" in there, or (hopefully you wouldn't have to, but) re-record it. You could also raise the volume on it a bit, too. - At 3:41 - end, the track is noticeably overcompressed. The bass lacks definition there, the kick is super muffled in context, and the toms at 4:05 are buried. If you can get the bass to be more powerful there, and get the kick and toms more audible, that would really help the impact that has. Other than that, this is again, really solid. Probably has a good chance of impressing the judges' panel, but I do think the drum production would be a problem. If you can do a quick fix on the flute tone, that would be great too, but yeah, mostly the kick and toms that are the main issues here. The arrangement is well-personalized and has good attention to dynamics. Good performances too.

It's fixed on my side! Now the menu stays up and doesn't go away if I try to click something on it.

I'm using Firefox 36.0.1 on Windows 7 Pro, and it looks like the menu is partially underneath some of the other navigation tabs. Something with the z-indexing on those tabs specifically?

I think the chordal components are too quiet relative to the lead and drums, and as a result, it's a bit harder than I'd like to hear chord changes. I somewhat agree about the lead at about 0:30, but I think it can be helped by changing it to legato mode and lowering the mix level on the pitch LFO. At 0:59, I don't get why the lead suddenly dropped out. I was expecting one more runthrough of the melody. At 1:14, the decision to drop the drums was kind of odd, since you then decided to bring them back 3 seconds later, only to drop them again at 1:25, and bring them back again at 1:28. Maybe try muting the drums at 1:14 - 1:43 and rethinking the drum patterns there. At 1:46 - 2:15, I guess I'm kinda getting tired of the same lead synth playing the same pattern. The new drums help, but I think you should at least change the chords underneath the lead to make the lead sound less repetitive. It would have been nice to have the amount of effort you put into 2:20 - 3:00 put into a section sometime earlier than that. That kind of change helps your cause in showing dynamic contrast, and that is the best part in this ReMix. The overcompression on the drums are another story, but yeah, that's there. Try lowering the volume on the drums overall, and then raising the volume of everything up by the same amount (on each individual mixer track, not the master track). You could also boost the click on the kick near 4000 Hz some more because I don't hear any; instead it sounds thumpy, and so it feels dull/muffled.

I find it somehow funny that several times now, I've chosen source tunes that ultimately lead to the placement of my ReMix on the second disc.

Nice work! I think this had the usual good pacing that you tend to have, and exhibits an 80s feel that effectively uses rhythmic and textural changes as the progression (for instance, 2:35 - 2:51 was a nice way to use a bit of atonality to add nuance to a rhythmic sound that might otherwise be somewhat mechanical). It might be a bit repetitive to some, but I think it's about at the 'standard' pacing for EDM so I'd say it's fine. Personally I don't always follow the "1-minute-in drop" convention either (but since that sometimes gives me a shorter ReMix in the end, sometimes I inadvertently do it anyway, and I end up setting myself up for a longer structure, which I tend to prefer).

I think I came across OCR in 2007. It started out as OCR just being a resource to find music (and then leave and come back later), and progressed to actually starting to write music in 2011, then coming back for the feedback later that year, then giving my own feedback in 2012~2015, and... yeah. I just got more and more involved and continually found the community more and more inviting. I think my experiences at OCR actually helped me refine my personal character within the context of society about as much as my musical skills, if not more. I've grown to respect each individual more---that everyone has started as a musical amateur at some point, that there will be some immature people here and there, and that having a thick skin about it, being patient, and structurally empathizing with the other is just about the best way to keep on good terms with the community as a whole and express gratitude for what they have done (or will do) for you. There's no other community quite like this! Probably one of my favorite memories was (yes, really) discussing pantheism vs. atheism (I think) with djp, and religion/philosophy in general, and really getting down into the nitty gritty. It's good to have a meaningful conversation like that every now and then, because it just humbles you to appreciate how the community is not just a bunch of people intent on making music---everyone has significance, intelligence, and capacity, among other things. Interests outside of music. Apparently, TheGuitahHeroe plays golf! Another cool moment was when I got my first mix accepted (Cloudhopping with Chimpazilla, which was posted after my first mixpost). I basically said, "wait, really? Wow, it wasn't as hard as I thought." After realizing that I had gotten to that point, that just motivated me to keep improving. It was on the day I finished my Black Belt test in Tae Kwon Do, too, so that was a great way to raise my spirits. And those random extreme critics are also fun to uh... rail on? I guess.

This is totally over-the-top. I can really tell you had a lot of fun with this one. It keeps a full soundscape almost the entire time, but clearly has the headroom to convey good dynamics. That bass solo at 3:46 - 4:26, though. D:

I can tell you had a lot of fun glitching here. The one thing I'd say is that the drums could have used more TLC, as they sound like a loop. But I did like the transition into the door creak; that was right on.

Glad this turned out so well! The dynamics on this are great, and I love the bassy breakdown. This really uses the orchestra to a great extent, and more people should listen to this.

It's outside the scope of what I was intending to argue.

Might as well lay out what I've been saying (with some revision, but anyways...). Here's a recap of my argument, for those of you who are like, "wha???". 1. Equating "actions" as being what a person "is" suppresses his/her deliberation from fair consideration. One of the important words here is "equating". If action defines a person's moral character (i.e. is sufficient to fully describe said moral character), it really focuses the attention on what is observable, and obscures what is unfortunately not as observable---something that would require a bit of trust and analysis of a person's justification of their actions; that admittedly is harder, and it is easy to blame someone for their actions and forget about their motives. I get that. But I don't condone that. 2. We should always consider perception vs. reality when speaking to how a group of people "is" as compared to what they "do", because what a person does is not inherently linked to careful deliberation. Since deliberation is a more focused version of thinking (it's a specific, dynamic way to think, involving initial considerations, a decision, as well as reflection on any outside influences that may have altered your thought process while the decision has not yet been made, or even afterwards), and since deliberation ultimately leads to a decision (even if it's a decision to not act), deliberation leads to action (or inaction), whether the deliberation is refined or not. Note that it doesn't necessarily mean that if the deliberation took a long time, it's automatically refined; it just means it may or may not have been efficient and totally conducive to an effective decision. Action resulting from improper/unrefined deliberation does not fully account for action resulting from refined deliberation, because deliberation affects the decision made and thus the action made (if it is in fact made). I define "improper" as the idea that it may or may not have been hasty, and tends to lack substantial contemplation of consequences, impacts, etc. In other words, it would be rash to judge someone based upon only their actions rather than the totality of the circumstances, as the circumstances contribute to their personal motives, and the motives contribute to the actions. 3. I'm not denying that actions DO (unfortunately) matter in the end (the most, even, because they are observable), but I AM saying that it would be worse to compound that and say that their action has essentially 'summed up' who they "are" as a person. I am prompting a more critical analysis of the circumstances surrounding an action, how these circumstances contribute to the motives, how the motives are said/claimed to justify the actions, and how the person perceives his/her own action after-the-fact. Were they voluntarily doing it? Should they be held accountable for doing something involuntary? I'm not saying that they aren't ever held accountable despite the involuntary nature of the action---I'm saying that they shouldn't be. Of course, this last statement is again, in the context of the surrounding circumstances. ----- tldr; I think we should prompt more critical analysis of a person's moral character in conjunction with his or her actions before making the claim that his or her actions simply "sum up" who the person "is". It's irresponsible to jump the gun (and I had provided examples of poor police work to point that out).

This page clearly makes it known that reliability is important, and makes the case for why it is reliable. A major part of science in general is reliability, i.e. reproducibility. You can't rely on astrology, because horoscopes are vague. They can apply to literally anyone. Psychology distinguishes itself from it by NOT asserting quantitative accuracy with certitude. Astrology doesn't care about accuracy; it cares about appealing to many people with fallacious generalizations that only appear accurate. Did you read this at all? Clearly, psychologists call astrology a pseudopsychology. They wouldn't bother classifying it as such and dedicate several pages in a textbook debunking it if it weren't clearly inferior in being methodical. And obviously, inferiority implies dissimilarity and thus grounds for false comparisons. And you would see the discussion on vagueness of horoscopes from the same link. Read the definitions. This HAS to be understandable. Otherwise, you're just not even trying to understand, and it's not even worth staying in this conversation (is this even a conversation or what?). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychology - a *science* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astrology - an "attempt"-heavy study

This is not even close to true. Now you're just trolling. Psychology studies do NOT depend on appealing to positivity (i.e. uncritical acceptance). Here's a simple way to see it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychology - a *science* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astrology - an "attempt"-heavy study

that you're not going to say more than

Dude, astrology isn't in the least bit valid. Even my psych professor calls astrology a "pseudo-science". You didn't ask this question, but it's *more* valid than astrology. Psychology *actually* incorporates hypotheses and independent/dependent variables, isolates extraneous circumstances/influences, values reproducibility, expresses notions of uncertainty, etc. Psychologists certainly are methodical to their approach. Astrology just gives deceptive generalizations (intentional or not) in the horoscopes. The main reason why psychology isn't as highly-regarded as something like chemistry and biology is that it studies something intangible in the most ideal circumstances as the researcher can manage. Astrology is just general claims that appeal to things like the Barnum effect and fallacies of positive instances, just as you see in fortune telling, palmistry, and other pseudo-sciences. i.e. it's just broad generalizations without being methodical. It's an invalid comparison. You can dismiss whatever you want, but you're still saying that only actions matter when judging someone, and that, again, disregards motive and other components of everyone's belief system. It's, as Neblix has said as well, irresponsible. It's cherry-picking what you want and dismissing what you don't believe as valid to your argument. Have you said anything about WHY beliefs 'can' be ignored while trying to change someone to no longer perform sexist actions (without simply stating something arbitrary like "it's not possible to influence people to change what motivates them to do bad things without [insert undesirable consequence here]"---WHY is it "not possible"?)? There is simply no reason for me to NOT continually assert that most if not all people do what they believe in.

This is exceptionally good for its time, and stands a good chance of passing today too. This is some solid harmonic development here, and undoubtedly evokes a snowy time of coming-together. Even sounds kinda lovey-dovey due to the e. piano and the sus2 chords. That "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" reference at around 2:41 til end though.

It was intended to be a snowy atmosphere, and I kind of get that with the tubular bells, but the congas/bongos made me think "beach". Oh well, the glock/mallets bring me back in. I do get the feeling of riding in some sort of vehicle and looking out to see the landscape.

I like how the wobble underneath adds a supportive backdrop to the distorted atmosphere. The drums were pretty bland, though; the snare sounded like a hi hat. The tapering off at 1:56 exposed a nice and demented timbre to the wobble that was previously obscured. Would have liked the vocals that came after to have a wider delay, but I liked the overall 'possessed' feel to the delay tone.

I think it's impressive that it wasn't totally quantized. The rhythm is actually humanized (you can tell at 0:49 - 0:52).

Using your words... sure it's possible. You can reward them for doing something good. Build up their motivation through operant conditioning. No one else said that the consequences have to be negative. Seriously, I didn't have to do anything more than read off my psych notes to tell you this. :/