timaeus222   Members

Maybe the vibraphone could have used a touch of treble reflections to help it mesh in a little better into the soundscape. Really classy chord progressions and performance. 1:35 - 1:44 in the piano was a highlight.

Actually, the way you explained your interpretation of the case is how I understood it. Apparently I wasn't using clear enough wording. That aside: Let me clarify some more. Performing an observable action in public once to a specific witness doesn't reveal to said witness how many times you've done it in previous days, so it's plausible that the witness would characterize you by your action. However, I saw "doing sexist things" as "doing sexist things [repeatedly]". When you do something repeatedly, and it is something that can be attributed to a type of character, like a sexist, racist, etc., then someone is more and more likely to choose to characterize you as such. One assumption I'm making is that that action also tends to be done for itself, i.e. for its own sake. When you've done it once or twice and then suddenly realized, "wait a minute, I shouldn't do this anymore," then how could you be characterized as someone who does that action [for its own sake]? It's somewhat of an analogy with Kierkegaard's Pure of Heart. The point is, do you really think that doing something that you then realize is wrong after-the-fact, and then you stop doing it from then on, all of a sudden defines who you are, i.e. permanently characterizes you? Isn't someone who "used to do something" not the same as someone who "does something [repeatedly]"? This refers to if you *have been sexist before*, that it does not necessarily mean that you *will do it again and again*. Yes, if you have done something sexist, the action itself is sexist automatically. But if you have done sexist things [before], I truly believe that you're not necessarily sexist until it is clarified that you have continued to do sexist things.

I think the combination of ambient bells, motion pads, and delayed plucks helped a lot.

You can trick the forums by adding a link to the link. i.e. [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=######]http://youtube.com/watch?v=######[/url]

Nice and driving beat, though little variation in the drum patterns (rather autopilot), and the hi hat in the right speaker was rather painful. Good uplifting vibe though. Nice oldie. Not your best but also not your worst.

Yeah, the snare is pretty acoustic and odd in this context. The drum programming is pretty repetitive here IMO, with little variation in velocity or rhythm. Lots of copy+paste. Not really much meat to the material that was pasted. Two or three synth sounds used throughout. Not your best, but you did keep the spirit of the original.

The high-passed trance high-LFO-rate lead at the beginning is a little irritating. :/ That aside, 0:42 and on was much more bearable. The right-panned kick was rather odd. Second half retreads the same ground from the first half. Not one of JDHarding's best remixes, but I liked the reverb in the piano. It's a'ight.

Straightforward rock, but the performance is pretty enjoyable. It reminds me of Wave Race 64, somewhat. Uplifting, and nostalgic in a way, even though I haven't played this game. Nice forward momentum in the beat. And OH man, the literal fade-out and fade-in to the next tracks in the medley!

Ah, Brandon Strader finished a remix of this theme for the Satoru Iwata tribute album. This shows virt's skills even back in 2001. The brass sequencing ain't too bad. The soundscape is noticeably thin, especially the distorted electric guitars, but compositionally this really shines among the tracks of its time, and even holds up pretty well today. Don't miss this one!

Hah, that speech synthesizer intro and those vocal samples. I think this mix is supposed to be spooky. The rock/house treatment is OK, but this didn't really hold up too well over the years. Nice guitar performances, though the tones feel thin. It's an alright mix.

The panning bass is rather awkward, but I appreciate the effort to create an expansive stereo field, along with the wild-western-like pitch bending lead guitar adding emotion to the performance. The entrance of electric guitars at 1:23 helped improve the stereo field some more, and was a nice change of pace. The guitar amp/cab rig effects used could have been more interesting, but that's not a big deal. The solo at 2:32 kinda came out of nowhere, but it was good to have that to offset the generally slow, almost contemplative atmosphere of this.

The textures can get fairly bare here (like at 0:52 - 1:04), but when they aren't, like when the synth strings and/or piano come in, the track manages to drive forward and keep me interested. There's quite a bit of copy+paste of chordal and/or melodic textures from entire passages, but at least there was some alteration of instruments around what was repeated to change energy levels; for 2002, taking the time to do at least that is worth mentioning.

I think this aged fairly well. For something from 2001, the sound design aesthetics of this aren't too shabby. Sometimes the soundscape was missing a filler texture (e.g. 2:04), but other than that this is fairly standard house/trance music that develops in a reasonably OK manner.

Might find these links useful. ReMixes low on comments: - Threads started by Larry - Threads started by djp

I think this was successful in evoking the tropical carefree environment from the original. Maybe some instruments are a bit stiff, but it's executed fairly well overall.

Those toms can get anyone excited. That aside, I couldn't tell where this was going, at least until 0:47 when the rhythm guitar brought things into a bit more focus. The solo at 1:44 was pretty well-written, though I wish it was louder to again, bring more focus into the arrangement. The guitars could use some more meaty low end. I do like the live band feel of this, though, since it brings a spontaneity to what's going on here.

To be honest, 0:24 was where you really drew me in. Before that, I guess I didn't really get a feeling of hype. But once I got there, it kinda felt like not a menacing, but still rocking theme to a boss's rampage. I can see people liking it because it's not "ughhhhhhhhh more metal," but a semi-heavy side of metal.

About damn time December came!

So... where is everyone at?

I feel like ZackParrish could do this justice, evolving the same melody upon multiple dynamics.

On first listens the repeated mario SFX might be kind of awkward. But they're pretty intentional. The "boing"s are aptly-timed, for instance, and eventually I find the mario SFX in general to provide a charm that one might only find in a track like this that's specifically made for actual dance floors. They give something for people to relate to and "sing along" to.

This is pretty much top-notch pacing for EDM as far as I'm concerned. It's technically 4 and a half minutes, but felt shorter.

When Flex showed me the tracks for the album for further feedback, maybe I didn't mention it back then, but this was one of the more standout tracks for me. Great work!

Joe's contributions really made the track here. Totally evokes that feel of a caravan!

When an imminent arrest was to be made based on a witnessed shooting of an unarmed victim, Zimmerman claimed that his actions were for self defense (i.e. he claims that he had no intention to kill for the sake of killing). At the same time, the police could not find evidence from an interrogation to counteract that claim; it just so happens that by Florida's Stand Your Ground law, the police weren't allowed to make the arrest. About a year later, he even goes so far as to say that he was an "innocent American being prosecuted by the federal government." The attempted conviction involved an arrest based on Zimmerman's actions (the shooting), rather than his moral character (his claim of self-defense in some way justifying his actions). The Stand Your Ground law became a technicality that fell in line with his claims (not that I'm saying he cited that law), so by a technicality, the acquittal correlated with his claim of self defense. Their instinct for the arrest was based on the action. Presuming that he, with certainty, actually shot the victim, his claim of justifying actions that, gone unqualified, would have been illegal (i.e. an attempt at establishing his good-faith moral character) is opposed to how his observable actions were perceived at the time of the arrest. It's just an example of a probably guilty person acquitted, rather than an innocent person convicted. At its core, it returns to the perceived actions unfortunately overshadowing his moral character, which is the root of what I've been saying.