timaeus222   Members

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. :/

The most important part of this is knowing how your partner prefers to work, since knowing your roles helps you decide your boundaries. Does your partner like to interpret/write new melodies from scratch or use MIDIs? Does your partner mind who mixes the track in the end, or who maintains a central project file? Who wants to do what part of making the track (sound design, arrangement, mixing, mastering, etc)? Just make sure not to offend your partner, and try to realize a compromise in your combined vision. I agree, I would also use either Skype or dropbox. I find Skype easiest (and I know you have a Skype, so yeah!). I tend to try to find someone who uses the same DAW. Otherwise, sharing WAV files is fine too. When I worked with Sir Jordanius on a mix for the BadAss Boss Themes: Vol. 3 album, I ended up doing the main mixing and mastering, and he sent me over 80 WAV files (he did about half of the arrangement and the solos and such. I did the layering, dubstep, etc).

I've heard more overcompressed than this. Yes, the drums are pushed down, but I can tell that they're there, and I would say that this doesn't detract from my overall enjoyment of how this was intended to be. (If everything under the limiter was maybe 1~2 dB louder though, that would probably tip it over.) I agree with Emu that the synth stuff here pales in comparison to your mad guitar skills; the pads at 2:12 - 2:33 could have had an exponential volume envelope to pull the listener in as a reverse cymbal would. Otherwise, this is classic DusK jamming away and leaving us in the dust.

I can tell Kaufman was probably head-bobbing while writing this. This is groove-laden for sure. I agree; this would be very engaging live.

Phew, loud! He must have been in a bass mood when writing this. Pretty cool wah lead! Early Kaufman seems to be invested in introducing OCR to funk, because this is downright upfront and explicit funk if I've ever heard it. He ain't afraid to get in-your-face with the funk.

Wow, despite the lackluster sample quality, the attention to detail on the performance is exceptional! The piano near 2:36 is actually convincing. Even the fake guitar is pretty cool. My only complaint is the medley feel, like the tempo and drastic mood change at 2:43. Despite that, this would be a strong contender for passing, even today.

I'm super satisfied with this album as well. Great choices of games, and I love the diversity of styles. Hope you guys like it as well!

I personally think this is one of Sbeast's more impressive ReMixes. I find myself almost as into it, if not just as much, as Sbeast might have been while he was working on this. A great way to start out the album---energetic but not overly aggressive.

This is my favorite track on the album. It elevates the original melody in such a way that its repetition becomes not only anticipated, but welcome. Even though the way the electric lead guitar crackles by the mic may sound unintentional, I think it actually works.

This is a good base to build off of for sure. I think all the synth leads shouldn't be sidechained/pumping, though, and they could be less piercing in the upper treble. I like sidechaining as much as the next guy, but I just don't like it on leads. Also, the beginning up until 1:27 made me think that it wasn't intentional that it wasn't already full blast. For instance, 0:17 sounded like the drop already. Maybe make the beginning sound more intentional by using lighter drums until the drop (low pass them? Gate them? Both? Lighter drum samples in general?). In other words, I think you should put more work into the dynamics evoked by the drums to increase the dynamic range. When we get to the actual drop, some of the actual aggressive components don't seem cohesive with the bass. The bass at 1:34 - 1:35 is really narrow and almost sounds like it was recorded with a low-fidelity microphone. Same with the guitar at 1:36 - 1:37. I also think the sidechained detuned synth padding can be low-passed a bit to make it less harsh in the upper treble. The interpretation of the original is pretty evidently there, but maybe it's too liberal. For example, the chord at 1:40 and the one right after it sound the same, when the original Ice Cap resolved a tension by moving a note in the chord upwards (0:04 - 0:05). Little things like that can make Ice Cap more identifiable. While it's good to incorporate your own writing, try to balance it with the original so the original is still present enough. Overall, on production, try working more on the drums to create a more nuanced dynamic range, refining the elements accompanying the glitch hop basses to be similar in fidelity, reducing the harshness in the EQ of the sidechained pad, and experimenting with new synth lead sounds. On arrangement, try making it closer to the original in your improvisations.

Tada? xD https://app.box.com/s/8gtdgtmcn16zz392wqq7fwsyldqskc4y