timaeus222   Members

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...

Way to be delicate, Milo

Well, actually it's Sixto's remix, but my provision was that I credited OCR properly, so really, I would be doing this for someone else's track, on one of my videos. =P I sent the email to the company instead of YouTube, and no reply for 2 weeks now. Supposedly, they replied when other people tried, so... we'll see.

No, all I did was google those.

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20798989/FTC-s-Final-Guides-re-Endorsements-and-Testimonials [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2njgyj/important_ftc_update_2_yes_the_ftc_is_going_to/ [3] http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2nlbuu/important_ftc_update_3_yes_we_hit_pay_dirt_gawker/

You gave that example, so I took that example and addressed it. It's not a straw man. It's just going into specifics. If in fact that was irrelevant to your argument, then it would be a straw man, but because you said, "What you are arguing right now is the equivalent of claiming...", it was an apparently practical analogy that was incorporated to discuss the point of yours, that simply naming something that people should already know about is enough of a 'citation'. i.e. addressing it was sensible in bringing up the point that you shouldn't expect people to look into a topic in such a way that makes it of an unreasonable scope or a time-waster. Therefore, the 11000 pages remark was in the intended context, not irrelevant (though I will admit it is a stretch to presume you would want people to do that). It's not as easy as "oh yeah, it's a topic they should care about, so I'll let them read up on it on their own time before they continue their discussion with me." Not my point. You didn't even have to state whether or not you would consider it someone else's job to support your argument, because what I said was independent of a statement such as that one. It was merely advice for the problem where you had been making generalizations and other statements that you would need citations to say with such certainty, but you were sticking to ideas such as "I lived it", "this scenario has happened to people of this kind before", "it was something I experienced", "it's a matter of public record", "I'm pretty sure that...", and so on, i.e.: You simply shouldn't say stuff like the above here and leave them there for us to peruse because they're your assertions. It may seem intuitive, or interesting enough to look up, obligatory for context, or however you want to label it, but some statements such as those are broader or more generalizing than they may seem when you first type them out (not to mention some parts of them are just attacks...). Hence, zircon calling you out on citations, and... well... CHz choosing to cite you. [1] One problem with that. If you don't cite anything other than its name and then say something to the effect of "oh yeah, you can just Google it or look it up somehow. You'll find it.", it's not really citing it. CHz having to cite 7 sources (some of which he knew were probably insufficient as well) simply highlighted the unusual scope of your two claims---and that was only two sentences. What about the other claims... right? [2] If you and I discussed something, and you made a statement that you argue I should believe, and leave it at that, I don't know why I would look up information on it just so I would believe you. Why wouldn't you already have put up a source to back up that claim? This was indeed what I was thinking of earlier, when I said: By doing light (or heavy) research on what backs up your claim, in a way they would be ultimately strengthening your argument (really, they'd be furthering their contextual knowledge so that they better understand your argumentative stance, but... it's similar). In reference to the beginning of your post, apparently, what I said was not a straw man, because you just made it more explicit that it was relevant, even if you say you didn't say it earlier. By not citing sources for what you say, you make your statements remain as statements. If people choose not to cite for you, that's how the statements will remain. Whoops! [3] And you know, that sounds just like an attack. Didn't zircon already talk about this? [/quasi-deja vu] [4] Is it now? It appears to be something that is supposedly seen quite often! But wait! I don't remember the last time I saw that (I really don't, in all seriousness; it sounds quite underselling). Would you cite that, pretty please? (Of course I'm kidding, but you get my point, right?) Anyways, can we get back to GamerGate?

It sounds like it was made in FL Studio (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) with FL Slayer and FL Keys, plus maybe FPC (?). The guitar doesn't sound real, and the drums are weak. Keep trying though, I think you can get better at this.

No, that isn't true. If you said, "Obamacare is ineffective. Go read the Affordable Care Act. You'll see why, I'm telling ya. Everyone I know has said that.", I wouldn't go look. You would have to find the part of the ACA and specify what part you are referring to. One gaping problem: it's over 11000 pages. I already did a 9-page essay on it, got a nice grade on it from my professor, and it still confused the both of us (and I didn't even read the whole thing; I just found sources of people who might have, though they probably didn't). No one's going to sift through it or any other complicated source (or diverse set of sources from the wide-as-hell internet) finding what could possibly support your statements; that's your job, if you want to make your argument stronger. There are some things you can say without proof, like self-explanatory ideas, deductive logic, and things we should know as citizens of our own nations, among other things, but what you had been saying was desperately in need of sources. There's a reason why when putting citations of academic journals in research papers, you're supposed to specify the exact pages. I just don't get why CHz had to jump in and find 7 sources just to support your 2 one-sentence claims, but what a nice guy. A citation is a reference, but no, it's not someone else's obligation to strengthen your argument, it's yours. If you don't want to support your argument, it becomes a mere opinion, and one that doesn't really need to be taken seriously in the midst of other strong, well-supported arguments. If someone calls your source a weak one due to its irrelevance, poor writing, or otherwise, that's fair. It just means your argument would then be either weak due to poor support, or too hard to support due to its unreasonable scope (or other alternatives that I may have missed). Either way, it would be a huge fallacy (burden of proof) to say "your source is weak. If you can't back up your argument, it's wrong." All the other person ought to think is, "your source is weak and not credible, so I currently don't think I should believe your argument. Are there any other sources that you want to go find, or should I just move on and not believe you?" (calling an argument wrong and calling it weak are not the same thing). If someone does indeed ask for citations of your claims, then they're giving you a chance. Take it, to your benefit.

The food hast been eaten

There's a bit too much bass at 1:57 - 2:20 and 2:46 - 3:03 for me. It's just flooding my headphones. I'm using pretty generic Skullcandy earbuds right now, so I would expect some people with $15 earbuds to hear this too. Arrangement-wise, the drumwriting needs a lot more variation. It's just a basic copy-pasted pattern right now, from what I'm hearing. I don't really hear any fills besides in the transitions here and there. Also, Snake Man is really hard to hear at 0:44 - 1:02. Those notes are too short and just sound like blips. The decay should be increased from a higher starting point so that people can tell what notes those are. The melodic writing at 1:36 - 1:53 is also very repetitive. I know that's supposed to be a buildup, but it feels like it's plodding along until the leadin snares come in at 1:47 (although it's hard to tell they were snares until 1:50). Maybe you could make the lead timbre more dynamic with filter modulation or something more creative. So overall, the drums are too repetitive and transitions are not foreshadowing clearly enough for me that a new section is coming up. The lead and arp sound design are also pretty basic, sorry. Also, the source tune should be more prominent. I have to try pretty hard to notice what it's playing sometimes. On the bright side, the drums are produced relatively well, and in general the pacing would be fine for a club context if the drums had more fills. Other than that though, I'm just not able to find something to reel me in. This needs more substance.

What's this about sequenced piano? Rexy, sequencing piano? Wut. I mean, doesn't she play piano? xD Agreed though, the tone was a little too hard IMO. Some things sounded a little distant in the sound field (the drums were pretty upfront, lead and C64-ish arp were pretty far back, etc.), giving kind of a gap depth-wise for me, but mostly things clicked IMO. Yeah, this is great! Awesome writing on the piano and other melodic components, and on the harmonies in general.

Awesome, thanks very much! (This day just keeps getting better!)

Is there another option if I already have Juggernaut (which I do)?

Okay yeah, this is loud, but I think it's just about right for this context. We're RAWKING out, right? Suuuuuper solid stuff.

This is one of my favorite Metroid Prime remixes on the site. Loved the melodic embellishments, tangents, and direction in general. I hear Vig's crits, but man, some nitpicks there! My favorite instrument is that distorted rapid arpeggio that plays alongside the guitar. Slick production, slight lossiness aside. ;D

I think this is a great improvement. If you want it as a Bonus, I personally wouldn't have any more (major) crits.

This is excellent. One of the best remixes I've heard in a long time, and that's saying a lot. Still retains your style, but incorporates some effective film score-esque elements that create quite the brooding, freaky mood.