timaeus222

Remember that what you're saying is what ought to be happening, not what's actually happening. People SHOULD be doing what you're saying, but of course, not many people do. We can dream about changing the cultures and habits of the world, but in reality, habits are implanted in people from the beginning, and it's definitely not easy to change someone's habits. People who "look too much at the government, media, and industries to be responsible for what they think" or others from a similar background have been doing that the whole time. So it's not impossible, but unless you get millions of people to agree with you and follow through, it's pretty near that.

Yeah, it's sounding better! All that other stuff I said is fixed, as far as I can tell. The only thing left is that I think that last ensemble phrase at 3:14 has that same issue from 0:52 earlier with the lead sax.

Yeah, same here. I find that exact chords are harder to pinpoint than simply notes on one bass line.

That totally explains why I lost several saves when I was a kid.

This kinda sounded more funny than scary.

My god. Does anyone realize how much talent it takes to perform that? Excellent performance, and something surely anyone can enjoy, even those people who don't "get" atonality (y'know, I would hope).

I hear some improvements here. Things are fitting better into the soundscape, and it's filled out a bit more with some more reverb. First off, kind of a personal thing, but I think 1:04 can have a more prominent transition. I think it's too distant, and I don't get that feeling that I've switched to a new section. Maybe something like ?At 1:20, it can help to write a plucky or percolating arp part or something to layer in a new aspect that differentiates from the previous section, since you had a transition in there. It feels a touch empty right now. Similar idea at 1:36, but instead, I would emphasize that background ambient countermelody some more with another, brighter layer. 2:09 - 2:16 still feels bare, and I think just a simple flowing arp throughout that part can lead into 2:16. I'm thinking of something ending that 7 second part kind of like this at 2:28 (the piano). Something cool you could try would be trying a phaser on the piano, like how Jesper Kyd does on some of his .

Ooh, the intro is gorgeous. I love the glassy granular pads. The first oddity I hear is that the drum loop at 0:34 (and so on) is fairly loud compared to everything else. Maybe lower that by about 2~4 dB? Its hi hats are also a little bright (12000~16000Hz). Loving the bells later on. Honestly, if you and I collabed on this, I think this can sound even cooler. It's totally in a style I do really often. https://app.box.com/s/38hhw93njvw9utaxhquk - Example soloed https://app.box.com/s/9gktizmnqfi7lxhepb1f - Example mixed in

When Misdreavus become mischievous On the night of Hallow's Eve They fly around and deceive With tricky intentions, they are frivolous. They may inflict some with a status And sometimes make them faint But otherwise things turn out well The frequency of battles get put on hiatus The end of these Pokemon it ain't Some other day they will scream their battle yell.

Was the show always this funny? I don't even remember hearing all these.

Somehow, nothing changed. These issues are still here. There's just not enough substance to keep people listening right now.

Jordan or Sixto still need to get back to me. Otherwise, I think I figured out why the guitar solo sounded off mixing-wise.

Yeah, I had a feeling it wasn't just something done in the comics, though I was thinking of the comic-like onomatopoeia bubbles. I miiiight have seen the Adam West Batman episodes before somewhere, but I don't recall.

Gets cluttered later on, but I really like the ideas you have in here. Good job! Might be the most creative and actually progressive of all the Lavender Town covers I've heard.

Haha, I love the SHISH BOOM PAH! or however you wanna say it. This is almost like a musical projection of the Batman comics. So hilarious.

There's an important distinction that needs to be made. Saying the site standards are a matter of taste would be somewhat like saying morality is a matter of God's taste (but in a much less serious way). See the 'second horn' of this. One of the judges' most important aims in their votes is to minimize subjectivity as much as possible. Any judge is supposed to not reject a mix they hate or accept a mix they love for the sole reason of their hating or loving it, respectively. If that were done, it would be continually whimsical to have a mixpost on the site and the standards wouldn't mean anything (consequently, they also wouldn't exist in the absence of judges). To minimize that subjectivity, we have multiple judges, because nobody's perfect. You can't specify "exact thresholds" on the conservative or liberal nature of a remix to the original because there are thousands upon thousands of VG tunes, and to set an objective standard on what you 'have' to do to be above or below some threshold on being too interpretive or not interpretive would be impossible. The best that can be done is to say "don't stick to close to the original and write it note-for-note", "try to change the tempo, flow, structure, harmonies, key, instrumentation, dynamics, etc. as ways of reinterpretation", or perhaps "make sure you can still hear the original in the remix without trying too hard". There's somewhat of a 50% guideline for source usage, but that depends on how confident and accurate you would be on saying "this counts as source, I'm sure of it, and others would agree with me." Even then, with those standards, it's kind of hard to apply to everything because there's always that oddball source tune (like what came from), or there's the chance that someone changes the notes too much. There's just too much room for error to make absolute rules on 'what you have to do to get on OCR'. It would also be too restrictive to creativity to do that. The bar, as Liontamer says, hasn't really 'moved' since 2007, though, no matter how inaccessible it might seem.--- The standards did change over time, but the removed OC ReMixes were re-judged according to the standards of their time. They generally had very obvious reasons---ones you could make within 5 minutes perhaps (MIDI rip, mere addition of drums, excessive sampling, primarily sound effects, overly low encoding, etc.), but also some other not-so-obvious reasons (game music not written for game, removed by request, too original, stolen arrangement, etc.)

Gaming Grandpas

Ooh. Maybe do a conditionally dynamic pool of showcased games. Something like "if this game has less than 5 remixes, include the game in a pseudo-random [seed-based] pool of obscure games and spit out a few of them every 24 hours." You could call it the obscure game showcase. =P I dunno, just putting that out there.

Whenever I see someone call something techno, I just go V_V because sometimes they mean it's too repetitive and occasionally boring. So to cause me to go O_O and call it techno-ish... I almost didn't want to say that. Maybe you're just in an inspirational slump? 'o' (then again, I'm not really familiar with what you write)

I'm not wearing my production headphones right now, but... Use Your Body Solid overall. Some practical points: The lead at 0:57 has a fairly high amount of reverb on it, and since it's a saw wave, there are a lot of high harmonics, which falls in line with evktalo's EQ clutter concern. Dat cowbell. I also really loved the occasional intense vibrato on that synth. I'm not so much inclined to say that the E. Piano in the beginning needed more with it, but it would be nice to have some sort of background sweep or maybe an ambient arp at 0:08 - 0:25. I did think the bass that comes up by itself needed more filler textures to accommodate it. Maybe a few arpy DX7 E. Piano notes? Still 80's if you do that. The drums sound good in general, but sometimes the kick creates quite a bit of low end clutter with some rapid-fire hits (2:06, 2:10, 2:13, 2:14, 2:18, 2:22, 2:25, 2:28, 2:33, etc.). I would either adjust the velocity variation on it or do some sort of noise gating or transient shaping to shorten the envelope and clean up those types of sequencing. The synth lead at 3:24 - 3:39 was a little buried by the saw wave from 0:57. The Princess is a Cow Good ideas here. There's a lot of reverb washiness though. It kinda feels like your lead doesn't have a lot of reverb, whereas your backing stuff has a lot. Ignoring the reverb, it has some nice complexity to it. Lead guitar performance can be tighter (esp. after 1:08 ), and the choices in the implied dynamics (and the reverb) seem to make it feel understated. Head Into The Abyss The piano is evidently mechanical. It's good that there's certainly velocity variation, but the sample and rhythmic error don't do the notes justice. Also, the left hand feels pretty simple. Maybe you can progress from single note left hand parts to more chordal left hand parts by the time you get to the orchestral part. Orchestra sounds like free samples, which isn't a bad thing, but it ought to sound realistic for the general listener (and most people have heard of an orchestra, so a lot of emphasis is placed on the realism of an orchestra). You have nice ideas, but they can be augmented to accommodate for the limitations of these free samples. You may want to study zircon's Dungeonmans soundtrack to better understand partwriting for realism, and for making as much use as you can with free samples. That soundtrack uses all free stuff. Whip Yer Head Boi (Version 1, 2) 1) Sounds kinda 80's. The harmonies and groove feel kind of... generic and plain to me. I hear a lot of fifths and fourths, and almost a techno-ish vibe (O_O). The balance is a bit off in certain parts, like 1:48 (piano is a touch loud), 2:05 (bells are a little piercing), and 2:55 (the distant lead is a touch too distant but is not problematic as a stylistic choice). It was a nice listen; I just think it needed more diversity in moods (and more humanized piano), and maybe your hybridization idea can bring that in. 2) Drums feel nice and punchy. Sorta more of a rock-ish vibe than the other version. Still kind of a loop-y feel though. The fake guitar lead at 1:58... I dunno about that. It gives the soundscape a lo-fi quality. It might work better if there was some vibrato. Getting simplistic harmonies and groove here, like in the other version. Mahtava Mato It's a WIP, but I feel like something heavier than what's there now ought to come in at some point. Maybe 0:26. User your PLASMA Some synths are really simple. The first one, for example, is just a basic envelope with a slow attack on a static sustained synth (i.e. no filter action?). Overall a pretty nice soundscape, and I just have these thoughts: Hi hats can have more velocity variation to make them less mechanical, maybe vary the sample too The ambient arp that comes in at 0:46 is a little too loud at first. The basic saw lead at 1:01 is pretty loud, and is kinda abrasive to me. Some transitions needed; stuff just happens right now. i.e. where's the cymbal at 1:02? At 1:32? What about a riser before 1:32?

Sure. I like analyzing language and seeing what rhetoric people fail in or succeed in conveying properly, and when it's done improperly, it can get pretty noticeable. When people start bringing in context that requires inductive reasoning... that's where it gets harder. But not so much that you're completely in the dark. Rhetorical analysis gets you far, but oddly enough, sometimes instinct too (it's a pretty interesting book, and you should read it for fun). ...what? I'm reading this and seeing quite a few constructive statements. A few egregious and rash predictions here, but I see a fair amount of dignified people. OMG hope. Optimism. Concession to her abilities, plus a little anticipation of failure with a remark. Somehow got here, but unusually progressive. Lookee, a fan. Genuine care here. And that's only halfway down the page.

So sarcastic. Neither. Who studies how to fabricate? More like "the type that develops particularly [with regards to] gender/justice [situations] that" ask for the critical evaluation of what is clearly biased and what looks incredibly suspicious before the making of claims regarding their qualifications.

No, but it is quite relevant to the gathering of good evidence. That was the idea.

I'm not going to purposefully ignore the fact that there certainly are subgroups within the whole that each make up a very diverse group. Basics of cultural relativism. So, I'm aware, though you did understand me correctly as to what I meant. The descriptors I gave already specified the 'subset' of gamers that you are emphasizing. i.e.: When I said, "viewed viciously by the impetuous, insensitive gamers.", it also meant "viewed viciously by those gamers who are impetuous and insensitive.", not "viewed viciously by gamers, who are impetuous and insensitive." O! the subtlety of English grammar. I could have said, "viewed viciously by the impetuous, insensitive gamers (but presumably not those remaining who are otherwise)." and that would also be fine (except it's a bit wordy).