timaeus222

I can always edit the post to replace the track with "Release the Kraken". EDIT: OK, I've checked that out again, and I would say: - Try making the leads have more synergy with the chordal instruments (to me it kinda seems like the lead is just pasted on top of a chord progression that wasn't written for it, such as at 0:46 - 1:02; the piano at 1:02 - 1:16 matches harmonically, for example). - Could be quieter overall (maybe about 2~4 dB) - The piano could have more variation in tonal hardness, if possible But yeah, I think that would be more fun to have on the album!

No worries, Yoshi. Okay, so, unforeseen circumstances gave me some time to suggest a list of strong candidates for a proposed OCRI package (which, remember, has lower standards than mixpost standards)! After listening back over the mixes, and based on what I believe would fall under that category, I've made an unorganized and then organized list below (no hate towards anyone whom I didn't pick out of the 92 tracks!). In parentheses are reservations or concerns I have about production and/or arrangement. PRELIMINARY UNORGANIZED LIST (IN THE GENERAL ORDER OF THE ROUNDS) - 'Rolling' - evktalo feat. Jorito & Tuberz McGee (check sibilance of vocals, consider reduction of washiness on the reverb for the rhythm guitars, and maybe lower the overall volume a bit; also, 2:17 sounds disjointed from what came before, IMO, so try figuring out a transition, including changing some notes around) - 'Electric Moves & Cephalod Grooves' - SuperiorX (check the volume and upper treble EQ of the lead at 0:53 - 1:19 and other spots where it shows up; also, maybe think of an ending, but not crucial) - 'Firefly' - Sir_NutS feat. Usa (would be nice if the volume was simply a few dB quieter overall, and could use a bit more clarity in the vocoded vocals though not crucial) - 'Bounce Too High' - Ivan Hakštok (check for slight boominess from the bass) - 'MMMDop' - WillRock - 'Beetle Dopplerganger' - jnWake (consider a bit more of an assertive lead at 1:12 - 1:32, and at 1:43 - 2:06; I might be able to give a hand on this, btw ; also, try putting more variation in the rhythm guitar patterns) - 'Caffeine Shoveling Hunter Turtloids' - Ghetto Lee Lewis feat. Jason Covenant & WillRock (try lowering the upper treble on the lead at 0:15 - 0:44; also, consider reducing the amount of reverb on the vocals and padding, as well as lowering the overall volume a touch) - 'X's Demise' - pu_freak - 'Sins of the Syndicate' - Flexstyle feat. bLiNd (could be quieter by about 3~5 dB, but that's about it) TBD - 'Vector Point Engineering Sigma Fortress' - Jason Covenant feat. Ghetto Lee Lewis & WillRock (perhaps look into the vocal clarity, specifically the sibilant and fricative syllables. Also, extend the tail of the ending!) - 'Mind Flip' - timaeus222 (already revised for more variation on the second half and more polished mixing! ) - 'Requiem for a Reploid' - Usa (consider looking back over the MIDI CC automations, and lowering the overall volume by about 3~5 dB) - 'Red Shifting Drift' - Gario (maybe try lowering the reverb a little) - 'Flight of the Peacock' - timaeus222 - 'Gate's Secret Dream Lab' - Usa - 'Beautiful Bloody Bats' - fxsnowy (perhaps consider asking for a live saxophone player, because it's pretty hard to humanize a sax) PRELIMINARY ORGANIZED LIST (BY PERCEIVED ENERGY LEVEL OR ATMOSPHERE) Aggressive/Otherwise High-Energy: - 'Rolling' - evktalo feat. Jorito & Tuberz McGee - 'Firefly' - Sir_NutS feat. Usa - 'MMMDop' - WillRock - 'Vector Point Engineering Sigma Fortress' - Jason Covenant feat. Ghetto Lee Lewis & WillRock - 'Sins of the Syndicate' - Flexstyle feat. bLiNd TBD - 'Caffeine Shoveling Hunter Turtloids' - Ghetto Lee Lewis feat. Jason Covenant & WillRock - 'Mind Flip' - timaeus222 Middle-Ground/Groove-laden: - 'Electric Moves & Cephalod Grooves' - SuperiorX - 'Bounce Too High' - Ivan Hakštok - 'Beetle Dopplerganger' - jnWake - 'Red Shifting Drift' - Gario Mellow/Chill-ish: - 'X's Demise' - pu_freak - 'Requiem for a Reploid' - Usa - 'Flight of the Peacock' - timaeus222 - 'Gate's Secret Dream Lab' - Usa - 'Beautiful Bloody Bats' - fxsnowy PRELIMINARY ORGANIZED LIST (AS PROPOSED TRACKLIST) Disc 1 (0:33:39) 1. MMMDop - WillRock 2. Electric Moves & Cephalopod Grooves - SuperiorX 3. Beetle Dopplerganger - jnWake 4. Rolling - evktalo feat. Jorito & Tuberz McGee 5. Caffeine Shoveling Hunter Turtloids - Ghetto Lee Lewis feat. Jason Covenant & WillRock 6. Beautiful Bloody Bats - fxsnowy 7. Requiem for a Reploid - Usa 8. X's Demise - pu_freak Disc 2 (0:28:54) 1. Bounce Too High - Ivan Hakštok 2. Flight of the Peacock - timaeus222 3. TBD 4. Firefly - Sir_NutS feat. Usa 5. Red Shifting Drift - Gario 6. Mind Flip~ - timaeus222 7. Vector Point Engineering Sigma Fortress - Jason Covenant feat. Ghetto Lee Lewis & WillRock 8. Gate's Secret Dream Lab - Usa ENERGETICS STATISTICS Overall Selection ~ 7 High-Energy 4 Middle-Ground 5 Mellow Disc 1 ~ 3 High-Energy 2 Middle-Ground 3 Mellow Disc 2 ~ 4 High-Energy 2 Middle-Ground 2 Mellow PRELIMINARY RESULTANT PROPOSED ARTIST LIST bLiNd? evktalo Flexstyle TBD fxsnowy Gario Ghetto Lee Lewis Jason Covenant jnWake Jorito pu_freak Sir_NutS SuperiorX timaeus222 Tuberz McGee Usa WillRock

Something more like 10~15 tracks that are likely to get on OCR would be much more manageable. If I have time later I might suggest a more specific selection. (Also, check the spellings! It's "Flight of the Peacock", not "The Flight of Peacock"; my name has no space and is not capitalized; Garpocalypse is spelled with a y; Usa is not spelled with an e; etc.)

Well, it has quite a bit of midrange near 300 Hz. Try lowering the resonance on the pad a bit, and then raising the cutoff until you hear enough midrange.

Woo, great stuff! I liked the rhythmic personalizations; the double-time section really helped reduce the repetition, and who doesn't like the rackety-tat-tat of a Pokemon card on bicycle wheels?

Rad shredding!

The former highlights the lack of requiring cause/effect evidence for the social sciences to strengthen the argument (because asking for such evidence would be fallacious), while the latter strongly suggests correlation evidence for the social sciences to strengthen the argument (asking for such evidence would not be fallacious) AND to limit the certitude with which the argument is made.

I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone here is saying that Anita et al. need scientific/physical evidence to prove causations in the social sciences---just that they should cite relevant studies to show that they aren't making hand-waving arguments and passing them off with certitude with regards to direct causal lines.

Well, if you're going to give a consistent judgment whenever the production is compromised AND is more significantly problematic than the arrangement, I just don't see why you would download some mixes but not others. I can see why sometimes it can be negligible, but that's what I would do, at least.

If both are available, they should always download the file for the original fidelity.

So, basically, you're saying that no matter what their rhetoric... if they don't follow through and support banning something, you're OK with that? I get that many people are on the side of "it's the end result that 'matters,'"[*] but why dismiss the rhetoric? Why is it "[n]ot worth arguing with" the people who are "not a threat"? I think WE should care, because so many people out there don't. Did you know that one confession to a crime (even a FALSE one due to aggressive interrogation) is enough to convict, despite zero physical evidence? Isn't that upsetting and alarming? Granted, physical evidence is not quite the same as the rhetoric and cited sources used in proposing correlations between art and its so-called effect on humans, and getting convicted is more serious than making conclusions about impacts on gaming, but it's a pretty similar issue---why make claims with such certitude with little or no proper justification, and why accept such claims? Why agree with the many people who care more about the results than the rationale or rhetoric to get there? Yes, the conclusion "'matters' more than anything" in the end, but I find it more of an unfortunate, sad truth than something we should accept. [*] For instance, 20~30 years ago, the government paid private convicted-drug-dealer informants to snitch on other people as per "Mandatory Minimum Sentences," regardless of whether or not the informants are lying. I saw a documentary on this the other day, and it's just disturbing that the government cares more about the conviction rate than the credibility of the snitches used to get some of these convictions.

Don't forget he clarified with: He made the connection already. Depicting people in art IS an analogue of depicting women in video games. i.e. it's a relevant analogy.

Wow, I'm loving the sinister atmosphere here. The metallic, digital, granular sounds are really cool too. I thought this did have solid pacing. Might be difficult to "get" for the non-detail-oriented person, but the effort shows in getting this to sound the way it does. 3:38 - 4:20 was a highlight for me. This is definitely worth repeat listens to understand what's going on. Check it out already!

I mean, c'mon, you can see that there's a list made here of examples of objectification. Maybe it's just me, but from that, I interpreted that djp was saying that depicting people in art is a form of objectification, not the prime example of it (nor the definition), probably because it puts the people in the art up on a pedestal to be observed. They can't consciously talk back to you, and therefore they're objects of observation. Granted, art qua art exists for itself, and IMO, it's meant to be observed and contemplated, but in general its purpose is to cause a response. Without further specification, there is no inherent or explicitly-defined intention to specify particular people in a general piece of art in order to serve one's own bigoted purpose. Specific examples might be bigoted, but not all. That said, objectification certainly does not involve ONLY depicting people in art, and I'm pretty sure djp gets that... Maybe that clears things up? :/

The first quote, since it shows you had defined the word objectification in a certain way, without further specification as to what kind at the time, it accidentally implied all objectification. The second quote honed in on what you meant NOT to say. That's all I'm saying. I'm not accusing you of contradicting yourself, but of not covering all your bases when you could have. But obviously I wasn't putting that down in a serious way (the "\'~'/").

Also this: This strongly suggests that she thinks that a belief in a "personal [protective] force field" against the "media's effects" is futile denial, because it apparently "is simply not the case" that we have one, which coincides with her belief of the so-called profound impact. But not a "direct causal line". --- And uh... and then... oops? \'~'/

Meanwhile, remix reviews are still lacking.

I think I've gotten a similar glitch before and emailed you about it, djp. I think what djp's hinting at, with the "five steps away from censorship," is more like: "The use of certain tropes about women [potentially] reinforces negative cultural attitudes. Therefore, we [disapprove of game developers for using] these tropes." vs "The use of certain tropes about women [potentially] reinforces negative cultural attitudes. Therefore, games which use these tropes should be banned." What you said is valid---encouraging the removal of something vs. proposing the banning of something are fairly different in intent, but perhaps the comparison is idealistic? Encouraging the removal of something is less aggressive than discouraging the usage of something. Furthermore, there is also the idea that correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation, and the mere usage of certain tropes doesn't necessarily "[reinforce] negative cultural attitudes." It might, though.

I actually think that censorship can be voluntary or involuntary. When it's voluntary, it's still censorship, but there may or may not be "outside pressure." If the "outside pressure" does not force it, or when there is no "outside pressure," then it's voluntary after (careful?) deliberation. When it's involuntary, it tends to mean that there is "outside pressure" that actually forces the censorship. You could see this from a simple censorship of an offensive word on television. You, as an actor, can either say the word outright and get beeped, or you can (literally) say "BEEEEP!" yourself for comic effect. The former is uncoerced/coerced, and the latter is voluntary. The former, if it was against the actor's wishes, is involuntary relative to the actor, while the former, if it was expected by the actor, is voluntary relative to the actor. ----- Overall, it doesn't have to be due to government intervention. The artist can do it him/herself as well. However, if the artist changes his/her mind after feeling doubts, but has not published the art yet, sure, that is artistic decision, but if the original content was objectionable, while the edited content is not, that still counts as censorship to me. If and only if the content is NOT objectionable, it is not censorship to alter it, IMO.

Yeah, I just made the guitar tone in a few minutes, so I didn't expect it to be amazing.

Got bored, so I just finished this a few moments ago in about an hour and a half. Woops, 32 seconds. lol https://soundcloud.com/timaeus222/adamaudio-steelworker-30-second-song-foundry-room-by-timaeus It's for this contest.

I wish. That project has been slowing down a lot, but at least we know that a group of people are thinking the same thing as you in wanting more DK64.

Cool bass! Scrapy!

Well, this was sort of happening a few years ago: http://ocremix.org/community/topic/33657-recruiting-donkey-kong-64-album-project/