AngelCityOutlaw

All good insight, but it's better directed elsewhere, as it's not what the arguments against my point have been; I have literally been debating that creative ownership is not solely yours if your work uses someone else's against people who appear to disagree with that statement. Never once have I said lack of creative ownership is a reason why other people shouldn't remix music; I specifically said that it's fine, but I personally now find it more appealing to have tunes that are mine through and through. It's like a biological child. I don't think that's well-supported given the talented remixers with large fanbases who have still expressed disdain at a lack of interest in their original work. It's like Metallica's Black Album. I know plenty of people who love that style of Metallica, even your grandma loves Enter Sandman, and absolutely hate their "thrash metal" albums before it, but a lot of original fans from the "Kill 'em All" day hated it and accused the band of being "sellouts". I don't think there's ever been a band that hasn't run into this kind of thing. True

This is not a subjective thing, and I'm just not sure how there is disagreement: A work that is a reinterpretation (remix), or direct representation (cover) is by definition a use of another's original work. The value that we place on it ourselves doesn't change the inescapable fact that creative ownership cannot solely be attributed to the interpreter. Definitely.

But they aren't though. Like, not to sound patronizing here, but I'm surprised people have even been debating this. To be honest, it's a bit worrying. If you try to sell (or even if you don't) a remix without getting the necessary licensing, royalties etc. the original composer (or other rights holder) can take legal action against you. Like how Vanilla Ice failed to convince the court that him using Queen's bassline was totally fine because it was a transformative work; still got sued. Why? Because it's not his/yours. You can never have complete creative ownership on something that deliberately contains a melody someone before you created, and you will legally never have claim to it unless the rights are signed over to you.

If they were smart, they'd pull a Sonic Mania here and give this guy a job and develop the game to completion. But Nintendo has a history of failing to capitalize on the obvious.

Ha! That's what I was thinking when I started seeing some "vintage" names pop up!

Nintendo owns the melodies from Metroid. As such, the Metroid ReMixes Timaeus and I have done are more Nintendo's property than anyone else's. It's a derivative work from material we do not own the rights too, nor did we have permission to make. No matter how many unique ideas we stuff into it, the fact remains that we have little in the way of claim to the whole track. If Nintendo cared enough to strike an unauthorized arrangement down, they have every right to do so. I see it as no different than fanart, cosplay, or fanfiction. The poses and stuff might be different, but at the end of the day, someone else's imagination is responsible for its very existence and they do have legal power over it. Who wants the foundations of their legacy to be the work of someone else? I also see your point about derivative original music as apples to oranges. The original tunes rely on musical devices that have become cliche, while the arrangements directly take from an existing work. It's the difference between painting in the style of Bob Ross, or John Williams ripping romantic-era cliches, versus copying a drawing and making some changes along the way. Influence vs copy. If we want to sound like "cultured" art snobs, I'd side with those who'd say there is more artistic worth in the former, and historically, these are the works that have stood the test of time. So I don't have any problem with people who'd just rather remix if that's what they want to do, but isn't fulfilling for me anymore.

This is also a good point. I recall arguing back in the day that retro game soundtracks were more commonly remixed than even PS2 onward because stuff like the NES were just basic synth patches which could be idiomatically transposed to many acoustic ensembles or dance music. Keep in mind that original compositions aren't just for aspiring professionals.

All interesting points. Regarding this one specifically, an entire thread could discuss this. Recent studies show that mental health issues plague musicians disproportionately. It's generally because of financial instability, and the job being tied to every aspect of your life. It's also because being unable to use your skillset for a living is massively depressing (among the main reasons why the robot revolution is bad) and devotion to music can be responsible for many low points in your life.

I'm in the "no" camp, myself. Reasons are twofold: 1. I'd simply rather spend the time and energy on something of my own. Now, if I hear an existing song, and I like it...I just leave it at that. 2. A remix can never really be your own. It's like fanart or cosplay: You're ultimately (where OCR is concerned) just giving free promotion to what is, at the end of the day, a consumer product. Regarding that, I remember about five years ago, one of the gecko or frog users said that he found the problem with remixes was that no one actually gave a damn about your original stuff by comparison, and it's haunted me ever since. I suspect most people listening (outside of OCR) are listening more because they like and have nostalgia for that game rather than the composer. It would be an interesting survey to see how many actually even know the composer's name. I also doubt that most, unless they're regular listeners to OCR specifically, have any particular loyalty to any remixer. Not that I regret anything, of course, but that's my reasoning. Yes, I am an old man, and yes — I yell at clouds.

Beat 'Em Ups seem to be on the rebound. Which is honestly really weird

To be brutally honest, that's generally because most of these kinds of composers (this kind of music is much closer to old Hollywood) have a pretty thorough, academic understanding of the craft and compose for the instruments as the ensemble would actually play; lots of melody, great phrasing, flourishes, varied orchestration, etc. To realize that, you either have to have capable samples (and know how to use them) that often come with a hefty price tag for offering that "depth" of sampling, or live players for realz. A lot of modern "orchestral" stuff, since the tech got cheaper (because the samples don't have as many articulations, but hey it's a whole orchestra!) and anyone can buy a copy of symphobia, consists of "chords with left hand; melody with right like a basic piano piece" which would be about as engaging for an orchestra to play as a bible study at Hooters. So there's not as much at stake.

I have no disagreement only that anything that sounds like a JRPG from 1993 - 2002 sounds "Roland Sound Canvas" to my ears.

"something like a Roland Sound Canvas"

Time-based effects, or anything which is supposed to affect a group of instruments is a send. Individual effects, if used at all, are inserts.

Best guess is that they were original compositions by an amateur composer whose name we're unlikely to recognize. Unless you can find what flash animation they are from, and contact who ever made the animation, it's highly unlikely you'll ever find out, to be honest. Yeah, they sound frustratingly familiar as they obviously use something like a Roland SC and are composed in much the same style as music that was used on game soundtracks with said gear. So it's a lot like Yoko Shimomura, Uematsu, Michiru Yamane, Koji Kondo, Yuka Tsujioko, etc. but I don't recognize it as actually being one of their tunes. I think she's a dead end.

Thanks! The Eurydice Shrine or whatever from the new one was going through my mind pretty much the whole time. I'm pretty stoked for VI, tbh

I like how it looks

You've been chosen by the gods! Inspired a fair bit by the music of the Soul Calibur games. Hope you all like it.

Awwww yeah

Y tho?

Timaeus did say that he wouldn't value a mentor's word more than anyone else's. That's true, but my personal experience is that teachers, good ones anyway, are usually way harder on their students than anyone else because it's their job and your failure reflects badly on them. People on forums can just ignore you if they don't like it and don't want to beat you down, etc. I had a kung fu instructor, shop teacher, etc. who were all hardcore on the students and it was for the better. There is also a flipside to this and it all keeps going back to what I've said about experienced people actually being the minority in public feedback: Some people think they are, and are really good at passing themselves off as gurus when in reality, they're no better (sometimes worse) than the person they're criticizing. Not to say they may not still be correct in their criticism, but I've seen or been on the receiving end of this quite a number of times. YouTube is especially full of bad advice/blatantly incorrect information from musicians who have many followers, and no one calls them on it because they like the person's music and don't know any better. That can also be a downside of a teacher, too. I don't disagree at all with your point about the accessibility, because that would be stupid, although I'm willing to bet that a lot of these people could throw a bit of money into this no problem. A lot of people will throw down money on new sample libraries, video games that cost 80 bucks, etc. but comparatively, how many do you think own books on composition, theory, orchestration, etc? How many have bought or subscribed to one of the online masterclasses (there are some good ones out there)? How many will spend a bit of cash to spend an hour or two on skype with someone like JJay Berthume for one-on-one feedback and lessons? How many out there have spent (or their parents have spent) 600 on a new Ibanez, but have never taken a single guitar lesson? Comparatively few, I suspect.

Well, given the context of the OP, I sorta thought it was obvious I was talking about the public feedback. And this is what I was getting at with my 2nd post: This mentorship/guidance/whatever you want to call it seems to be what beginners are really looking for from that critique and as I've observed, the more experienced musicians typically aren't giving much for public feedback/critique whatever you want to call it. Therefore, I put forth the question: Is it not then a better course of action to simply seek one-on-one guidance — I'll call it "educational input" — from an experienced musician, as a beginner than it is to open your creative output to scrutiny from a wide variety of sources on the internet, from the get go, if you're trying to learn any given skill? Is this not why people take lessons on anything? Can you not get really good, perhaps faster, at something from just that method?

I spoke of feedback "as we're discussing it" in which you open up your work to general critique, which may or may not have particular goals in mind. In the situation you're talking about, the assessment is demonstrating to the teacher that you have learned what they're teaching you. They may not necessarily even like your piece, and may have made certain subjective changes, but you will still pass because you have learned what they wanted you to. As you've all brought up regarding the importance of feedback you got from the community in the initial stages, it's guided-criticism that "sets you on the right path" that is valuable and not just feedback in general. Traditionally, one finds this in a teacher. If you don't know anything about drawing, but want to learn: You could put your attempts up on deviantart and follow the clues and resources from the constructive-criticisms you get, or you could take art lessons and directly learn what you need to become a proficient artist.

Maybe you should consider this fully before flying off the handle. To mentor someone is to train them and provide guidance; a teacher. Feedback is simply a response and opinion to something. The former does not actually require the latter. When you take a course, which are offered at points of varying levels of prerequisite knowledge, your job is to learn something you are not yet proficient in. Like, studying music isn't primarily bouncing your latest track off the instructors for opinions on how to improve it. You learn and then practice what you've been taught, and tests (evaluation of your pieces) are to assess whether or not you've actually learned what they've been teaching you

Based on the unanimous point of its importance in the initial stages, to point you in the right direction so that you may pursue it further on your own, it seems that it's actually not the feedback (critique) on one's portfolio that is valuable; it's mentorship (I don't think feedback as we're discussing it is truly the same thing) that is important. Obviously, for largely self-taught musicians online, this is really the closest you can get to a teacher. I think that naturally leads into the discussion of the pros and cons of this method.