timaeus222   Members

Played that four years ago in my high school's talent show, I think.

When I said that, I was referring to the low ambient hits and distant snares coupled with the sustaining bass.

Yeah, I agree. Some of the old artists that I used to like, I'm now turned off by because they really weren't that good So yeah, I would listen to more varieties of music. Get inspired by new music.

Okay, and now the minor nitpicks: - 1:50 was where I was hoping a change would occur in the lead melodic contour - 2:13 would be where I would hope for a slightly different soundscape; something where the sync lead was swapped out for something else (like the bell at 3:04) to highlight the ambience of the supporting instruments before you drop off at 2:42. - Personally I would prefer the sync lead be less retrigger-like and more legato, because it could make it more soaring and evocative. Sorta big but not major thing: - 3:34 is flooded with bass; if you didn't have drums there, I think it would sound less flooded, especially considering you are nearing the ending anyways. i.e. I think 3:34 could be your outtro, rather than a climax that drops off to a quick rehash of the intro. Overall though, I love the soundscape, and the arrangement mostly works for me. It's just those things above that I would have to mention. If you want to submit this to OCR, I don't think it's that far off.

I actually prefer both (yes, I've done orchestral, recently). Velocity-sensitivity gives me the performance I want, in terms of the order/flow of the articulations used, before outlining the dynamics with MIDI CC; I basically try and decide how I want it to sound before I do it, right down to the articulations and the general volume I would want it at.

Just wanted to provide a quick thought. Generally it's good, but I think the major issue is the sync lead line that comes in. It sounds like it's playing a few quick notes, then some longer notes, and to me that sounds noodly, rambly, and as Michael said, meandering. For me it makes the arrangement feel directionless until the next breakdown section. I don't think it drives the arrangement forward, basically. It leaves me thinking, "okay, when is this going to change gears? It's still going on at this dynamic. Is a more concrete section going to come to offset this section, which I am phasing out of?" Any other thoughts I have are rather minor, so maybe I'll mention them later.

Plopped in some feedback!

I remember telling this guy 3 months ago that this would definitely pass on OCR, easily. Look at that, it did! Totally deserved the DP.

This week was quite possibly my favorite week in general. Lots of good things happened!

It was just a timing issue on the genre switch. The tempo is still about the same, but the playing was rushed early on. I think the lead guitar is too loud, and the intro had too much bass. It's overcompressed. Other than that I'm not wearing my good headphones right now, so I don't really have much to say about the mixing. I don't think there's not enough development in the arrangement to warrant the length. 1:54 is OK, if the structure is changing quite often. It would be easier to make the remix longer and add more dynamic dropoffs and variation to add more substance to the listen. This sounds like it could have gone at least 30 more seconds.

Yeah, the judges check and make sure that anything that would become a copyright issue or is not written for a game gets a NO override.

Unless it's sarcastic

This topic addressed the same request.

Have you read the other posts here saying that the poster says he or she is confused? It's not just me. <--- I already said that. And those people (e.g. PI511, Anorax, etc.) therefore made the same conclusion I made. Are you going to criticize all of us, or just me? Like I said, it's inherently a dilemma, based on how people change their standards on who they call anti- or pro-. You mentioned the double standards inherent in the GG situation, which I quoted below for extra emphasis. I already expounded on the dilemma. I'm not making this up. Take it or leave it. Not worth my time to discuss analytical and synthetic practical propositions or subjective relativism. You can read up on that if you wish, but I am NOT subjectively relative. In fact, I'm much closer to favoring objectivity than subjectivity by a long shot. I already addressed this. You criticize, and you have to do it very carefully. If you don't, you risk getting 'doxxed', etc. The double standards that you continue to assert would create this dilemma. And again (with the purposeful double negative), although we ought to try to fix this, it's too large of a problem to try to fix unless a fairly high number of people actually can and choose to do it. It's so large that, as you said, "the GJP members and their supporters' proven behavior is barely even mentioned", i.e. GG overshadows them in that we might actually be too afraid of them to attack them, yet we don't want to do nothing. We're torn. In despair over this. Honestly, you'd be debating "why aren't things more ideal?? Why don't all people do what they ought??". Well, the world isn't ideal. Not everyone does what they ought. We make large simplifications and assumptions to understand it, in many cases. For example, how hard is it really to distill real life phenomena down to mathematical equations, integrals, etc.? How hard would it be to calculate the Schrodinger equation in full detail for something above Helium (the answer is, time-wastingly hard, and you're going to make at least one mistake)? Why is it most (not all) philosophers accept that humans are superior to animals in intellect and not question much of it? Why is racism still a problem? The list goes on, and I'm not going to ask you to answer the previous question, obviously, for the very reason I'm even talking about it in this light.But anyways, that's only to illustrate the point that we can't approach solving a complex problem such as this one thinking that there's a great possibility we can fix it (No, I'm not saying you said this. I'M saying this; get that straight). We have to approach it with a certain skepticism... a tight filter. After all, there were posts in this topic (which I'm not going to bother to try to find, as it's fairly clear) mentioning something like, "how can you tell what GG articles are telling the truth and what articles are just voicing smartly guised lashes against GG? How do you know which ones to trust?" Again with the hostility, as if I'm trying to waste your time or something. Ignoring. There's nothing wrong with saying etc. I'm not going to bother trying to find the list of people who have had similar things as above happen to them. I don't care if I say etc. or et al. or and so on. It saves time. And I already addressed this above in another way. They're complex moral issues such as this one (see summary) that are most easily solved by changing habits. Changing habits requires changing fundamental beliefs. That takes the cake right there. You realize how hard that is, right? If the so-called supporters were truly seen as supporters, they wouldn't be attacked. There's likely an emotional factor or something that blinds those attackers, because under the supposition that some supporters got attacked, that's just preposterous and ought not to be happening. Any truly rational, sober, sane being would not attack his or her or its community unless out of some uncontrollable state of being.

Yeah, it's the seeming hostility that personally bugs me, but oh well, I can live with it. Fair enough. With the point I previously addressed though, it was concerning a detail that I figured was delicate enough to write it in such a particular way. For example, sometimes there comes a situation where you don't want to emphasize the yay or the nay, but understate the nay to illustrate that hairiness---that delicateness. At least, that kind of language is practical, and is not that uncommonly used, as far as I can tell (a litote). But yes, I'll agree that occasionally I can be confusing. And a minor thing that you could easily clarify yourself, but I mean, the Googled definition of a fact is "a thing that is indisputably the case," so that appears to agree with something being necessarily correct. There are degrees of correctness, to be sure, but I believe that it should be agreeably so, because if someone catches you saying "this is fact", but it's suuuuper far off, well that's just embarrassing. [/rant]

I think it sounds minimalist indeed, but in not so much a way that it is boring or sparse. Actually, I think you did a very good job, arrangement-wise, and the pacing is just about right. Especially for two weeks, this is great.

You could just PM a mod. Topics get lost.

Of course I'm making sense. You're continually making the "distinction" between these "groups", when I already told you that these "distinctions" are made arbitrarily to fit the situation, like you already said with regards to the "journalists". These double negatives I'm incorporating simply reflect the complexity and blurriness of the entire situation, because it literally is quite that confusing as a situation, and it's not just me. It's inherently a dilemma. "Do I want to criticize the people who support GG and risk getting criticized back, or do I not and let the people who are against GG (at that time) continue fighting against those who are supporting GG (at that time)? In what very careful way should I criticize them should I choose to, in order to avoid needlessly brutish consequences? Why is it that I even have to be that careful? How animalistic might these consequences be? Do I want to risk experiencing what Sarkeesian, Quinn, etc. have? Is it worth trying?" (Seriously, quit it with the ad hominem, it doesn't get anyone anywhere. If you're confused, that's fine, but please, don't misconstrue your confusion as someone else's mistake if it happens to not be a mistake. If you're going to say "due to the fact that..." or what have you about facts, it necessarily must be correct. If it's not, well... it's not really a fact, then.)

I'll be able to send you a WIP by the deadline---I just want to do crazy stuff with it that I've never tried before. =P

I don't really "get" the old-film-reel-style intro, because it then goes and leads into a loud, dry, exposed saw wave at 0:55, which sticks out too much. I didn't mind the intro length, but the dryness and volume of that sound just feels jarring, even nearer the 1 minute mark. I also can't really tell what the intro is even of. It's hard to hear. Arguably it sounds like medley-itis, if it's supposed to take (read: plow) you through Mega Man sources, which it seems to be. When things change up at 1:16 and the main sections begin, I think this actually settles into a nice groove, sounding cohesive (yay) and enjoyable. Man though, that soundcloud waveform is so deceptive. It looks like there's something drastically wrong in the EQ in those bumps, but there's nothing overly problematic there... Unfortunately I can't hear the source tune at 1:16 - 2:51, and the intro was medley-ish. That's a huge gap. So... 0:55 - 1:16, 2:51 - 3:22. That's all the Stage Select I hear. That's what, 52 seconds out of 202? There's almost no Stage Select here!

My perspective on this has changed since then. I still like music for complexities, but now I've grown to like harmonies, chord progressions, and melodic contours more so than just the mere layering of complementary elements. Quality stuff that didn't click with me before clicks with me now, because of my new focus towards arrangement. It evokes more intense emotions in me than it used to, which is great. I've also found that what I like is turned completely upside-down whenever I try something new. Here's what I mean. I used to not like dubstep, orchestral, or dance music. But wait! Now, I do? Yes... I DO! Now that I've written dubstep, orchestral, and dance music, I can appreciate all the little details in those types of music and what makes it so great. I've grown more fond of this kind of stuff than I ever would a year ago.

Please don't tell me you DO want us to criticize or condemn those people who harass others under the topic of GamerGate, meaningfully or otherwise. Wouldn't that just be 'throwing ourselves into the fire'? Obviously we shouldn't do nothing out of any fear or however you want to label reluctant or anticipatory minds, but at the same time, we'd appear to be just like them if we do speak out against them, i.e. they would proooooobably see us as what you'd call "anti-GG", which is essentially just a temporary, capricious category that some gamergaters use to label people who they deem to be against them in some way they don't like. It's not a real group or movement that stays consistently-sized, consistently-labeled, or consistently-treated. EX: "I don't like GG." "Yeah? Fine, you're anti-GG now." "Wait, why? It's not like I'm starkly against it in any passionate way. I just don't like it. Can't you just accept my opinion as one?" "No, you're just anti-GG. That's what I'm sticking to, because you said you don't like the movement." You said it yourself about capriciousness (under the assumption that it's true): In other words, labels change, given or received, including "anti-GG". Honestly, I would lump most of the people labeled "pro-GG" and "anti-GG" under one label: those who are missing the point and going on some tangent on feminism and such things other than the original goal: ethics in game journalism. Milo, as insensitive as he was, still called it a "delicate topic". Indeed...