Neifion

This piece is meant to follow a character from the steppes as they discover the music of a foreign land. Thank you for listening!

Strolling the grassy, windswept hills in Flower would be nice. Also, sand-surfing in Journey.

Not really a "making of" so much as a bit of a behind-the-scenes. It's no Baba Yetu, but still quite nice. Now I'm hungry for some fruit.

I think the prospect of quality games via both first and third-party support is linked to the versatile portable/home console nature, and Nintendo is smartly banking on it. Developers and publishers are attracted to a system that people will play everywhere. A system that you can play comfortably from a couch, then literally pick it up and take on on the road, plane, etc. And without the need to develop for multiple screens, touch screens, or weird controls. Straightforward. And if third parties support it greatly, Nintendo will be more inclined to support it themselves with great first party titles. This is all blue sky of course, but I think the approach is solid and understandable, which isn't as easy to say for the Wii U. Here's hoping!

The real question is: are devs willing to pay a decent price for your music? I don't think they really care if it's retro, orchestral, sampled, live, whatever. They just want music that sounds good at a price they can afford. If they are making a particular game; say, a retro platformer, then perhaps they will specifically want retro music. As others have said, there are plenty of successful games that have chiptune music. Will they pay you as much as they'd pay for the guy who did Undertale? Maybe, maybe not. So in conclusion, it's the exact same with any style of music: it depends on your skill, experience, and whether or not the dev has the means/desire to pay you any given amount, rather than whether it's chiptune.

Payment. If you're going by minute, specify the rate. If you're going by track, specify the price per track. If you're going flat fee, specify the fee. Also, the contract should be clear about when you need to be paid. All upfront, half upfront/half upon final delivery, installments, etc. In truth though, and this is from experience, what you want is to have leverage. What I mean by this is: Say the contract states that, upon final delivery, you should receive your payment in full. You finish the music and deliver it, and now you expect payment. But then your client just up and leaves. He never pays you. You try to contact him, but no reply. Now, you have a legal contract. But in order to use it to get your money, you're going to have to find him and take him to court. That takes time. That takes money. And unless it's a high paying project, you'll most likely end up spending more money on a lawyer plus other legal/court fees than the money you'll be getting back. Not to mention all the time wasted and headaches induced when you could have just been paid and have moved on to your next project. So what I do is I make sure I have leverage. I often ask for half up front, half before final delivery. That means I don't even open up my DAW until I receive the first half, and I don't deliver the music at all until after I receive the second half. When sending works-in-progress, I send the very lowest quality I can that just allows him to hear the music: non-downloadable, set to video, mono (unless it's absolutely crucial he hear it in stereo), very low bit rate and sample rate, mixed in with dialog and sound. The added benefit of this is that it encourages the client to not only pay, but to pay on time. If you deliver the music before they pay you, they can take their sweet ass time (or worse, never pay at all). But if you hold out until after they pay, that forces them to pay you quickly because they won't get the music until after they pay. As long as you're honest and upfront about it from the beginning, your client should understand that you're just protecting your butt. And if not, those aren't the types of people I would want to work with.

Hey Connor, Thanks for listening and for the kind words. Glad you liked it.

Hey everyone, Another commission piece with Quynh Lephan on cello and Nicolaj Nielsen playing the violin. Thoughts welcome!

Hello everyone, Recent piece with Nicolaj Nielsen playing the violin. Thoughts welcome!

I don't really agree with the whole "it needs time to set in people's minds, and then it will be as iconic" argument. I remember when The Phantom Menace came out in 1999, me and all my friends were humming "Duel of the Fates" out of the theater. I had Frodo's Theme and The Ring theme stuck in my head for weeks after seeing The Fellowship of the Ring for the first time. More recently, I was humming "Rey's Theme" after my first and only viewing of The Force Awakens, and that isn't even close to one of Williams' best or most iconic themes. And Fellowship wasn't even a saga yet, and while Star Wars was, those particular themes were completely new. Also, this has been mentioned by someone else on another forum regarding the same video, but composers don't really seem to be into developing thematic material anymore. That doesn't mean there aren't themes, and it also doesn't mean that you don't hear the themes come up multiple times in the movie/series. But look at the Force Theme from A New Hope: you first hear it in a lonely, intimate sort of way as Luke stares out over his bleak existence, hopeful for something more. Then, throughout the original trilogy, you hear it grow and develop with Luke, almost as if it's maturing with him. In today's films, it seems very much that "incidental" music is the norm. "That track fits this scene, this next track fits this scene, moving on." It's very much A to B and that's it. If you do hear a theme reappear later, it's often just copy and pasted from before instead of changing and maturing with the story. Or it's some piano version to impart "intimate", or a string ostinati version to impart "heroic". Also, it seems that with the ADHD attention spans that movies are catering to, there's just so much action that there's hardly any time for developing thematic material. It's just gut-pounding action cue from wall to wall, with very little time devoted to developing characters and focusing on real emotion, much less the themes to go with them.

I agree; music in AAA games seems to be experiencing a parallel phenomenon to that of blockbuster movies. And it's something indie filmmakers are doing now too; out of the few films I've gotten to score, almost all of them came with a temp track. However, I've found that the problem is not having a temp track, but rather the director getting "married" to it. Luckily, the few directors I've worked with were very open to straying from the temp and embracing a new direction. Most often it was: "wow, that's not what I had in mind at all, but I like it better!" On the other hand, blockbusters are often overseen by a committee-like group of executives who don't allow that sort of risk. Safe equals money and that's the big game over art.

Also, Zenyatta. His ability to discord and snipe at medium range can bring her down quick without you needing to get in range of her freeze. Just make sure to watch her and not let her get close. And of course, stay with your team. A discorded and focused-down Mei is one that doesn't survive very long. Finally, if your teammates get frozen in her ult, you can Transcendence between them.

If some people want to get an Overwatch competitive team going, I'd be all for it. Season 2 is coming up and I always had fun the few times I played with full teams. Would be nice to have a regular list of people to queue up with.

Get permission from the artist. Make sure the artist is okay with you using the image as well as that you are making money from music which the image is used on. If you are getting an image from a stock image site, make sure that you are allowed to use the image for commercial use. Some images are provided for free, many you have to purchase a license to use. Same goes for custom fonts. If you use a custom font, make sure that you have the right to use it commercially.

My apologies, I somehow thought you were talking about critique aimed at your own music sounding mechanical. I get what your overall point is, but it's pretty weird the way you're backing it up. Basically, you're saying the reason people shouldn't focus on humanization is because most composers suck at it, don't have the equipment, or don't have the time. I think your topic is valid - not focusing so much on humanization - even though I don't necessarily agree with it. But your reasoning is strange. Personally, I'm not going to overlook the issue of mechanical lifelessness because in the back of my mind I'm thinking since most people suck at it, it doesn't matter.

Pretty much exactly what Timaeus said. Also, a keyboard is pretty much essential in this avenue. You don't need anything super fancy if cost is an issue. As for the "2 years of piano playing", most composers I know, professional and amateur, are mediocre at best, pretty crappy at worst. They're good enough to find chords, play basic melodies and arpeggios, but that's really all. If you just practice a little each day, you can get proficient enough to make your work quicker without having to edit too much or re-record. But look, this is an art. It takes dedication and, most of all, patience. If you don't have either, you're not going to get far. You want a pass because you're bad at playing an instrument, you don't have the equipment, or you're slow in the editing. You remark about "2 years" as if that's ridiculous. Well, everyone else spent those "two years" (and many more), so why do you think you shouldn't have to? Practice. Learn. Realize that it takes time to get better as a musician and don't expect to automatically get to where it has taken years for others to get. Make your music better rather than telling people to evaluate music differently.

Thank you for addressing my question clearly for me. Sounds like a good plan and that you've thought it out well.

What about not enabling ads on additional videos until after you've achieved 501c3 status? Submitting doesn't seem to mean anything. Until it's actually approved, you're still not 501c3. The books aren't open for the public to see. We're still not 100% sure that the money is going where you say it's going. Not trying to antagonize or anything, just a legitimate question. Submitting for filing seems to show that you're taking steps to assure non-believers, but it doesn't actually mean anything until you've got it and we can see it.

No bad faith here, I was just repeating what I thought OCR had decided. Namely that YouTube monetization is going to happen because it needs to happen in order to keep the site running and improving. I also observed that many people are for the decision, and many are against, but the decision to monetize seems to have not changed. Thus, why I observed: "regardless of the feelings, criticism, or different views on what is fair or unfair, morally right or wrong, etc. by the community." I was just making an observation, not a judgment. You guys do what you gotta do, regardless of what I feel. And more power to you. But you seem to be implying that OCR may not go through with YouTube monetization, depending on community opinion?

It seems like things are simmering down since DJP weighed in. Basically, this is what I've got: What OCR has always done is illegal, depending on who you ask. Monetizing on YouTube is not any more, or any less, illegal. Monetizing on YouTube at least allows a non-court method for publishers to resolve matched content. OCR staff does not pocket the money, rather, all revenue goes into the site. We have no proof or reason to think that OCR staff are lying about this, but of course there is always the possibility (501c status and the associated transparency seems intended to assuage mistrust). Neither ReMixers nor the publishers/rights holders/creators of the original compositions will receive any revenue generated by OCR ad content. This is how it's always been, and YouTube monetization doesn't change that. The language of the terms has always been broad in order to encompass future platforms of ad revenue, and YouTube falls under this. However, many users would like to have more specific language about what platforms are generating the revenue. OCR will and always has been at risk of legal action, since it does and always has generated revenue from other parties' (the publishers/rights holders) work without seeking consent or obtaining licenses (with the exception of some projects, I believe?). OCR staff believe that, due to the currently unofficial non-profit method of operation, the lack of prior legal trouble even exposed as it is every day to publishers, Fair Use, and the additional support of YouTube's content ID system and it's MPN, both OCR staff and OCR community members are reasonably protected from legal action. At the very least, YouTube monetization does not increase the risk, and as stated above, at least allows a non-court method for matched content resolutions. Despite some community members' resistance to the strategy, OCR will move ahead with YouTube monetization in order to secure additional funds for the site's continued operation and growth. ------------- This is all, of course, aside from the differing feelings that OCR members have expressed in terms of having their content generate revenue, the ease and unease of accessing and enjoying content with ads present, the way in which the "experiment" was conducted, the transparency of financial strategies and information, and more. In short, OCR management are going to do what they decide they need to in order for the site's continued existence and improvement within the bounds of the website's terms, regardless of the feelings, criticism, or different views on what is fair or unfair, morally right or wrong, etc. by the community.

Naw, that's why I asked (very rudely, and I apologize) if you had listened to what I said, because I had previously affirmed that what OCR is doing now is the same as what it has always done.

Except YouTube monetization is not OK simply because its functionally, legally, and ethically indistinguishable from what the site has always done. It's OK because it's stated in the terms. Just as "what the site has always done" was always stated in the terms.

Dude, you're not even listening to what I said. I simply stated that if you're going to do something with someone else's work, inform them. But then I mentioned that Gario informed me that the terms specified ad revenue all along. So I agreed that it's nothing new and they didn't need to ask to do it in the first place. As for the copyright stuff, still, it's the publishers/rights holders that determine whether or not to take action against a copyright claim. Maybe they won't care. Maybe they'll just ask YouTube to flag the video for matched content. Maybe they'll decide to let the video remain and share revenue with OCR. Maybe they'll try to take it to court. It's all "maybe"s. And for some people, that's okay. Just me personally, I don't like "maybe" when it comes to legal situations. I try to avoid it as much as possible. But others might think it's so little of a risk that it's completely worth it. More power to them. OCR has lasted this long without any legal issues whatsoever, right? So perhaps there is indeed very little to worry about.

No, it's based on the founded assumption that you ask someone first if you want to involve them in something. Particularly if you're involving them in something that may not be legal or, at the very least, that they may not have agreed to. But, you're a little late as I already learned via Gario that the terms do, in fact, state OCR's right to collect all ad revenue. In other words, I acknowledge that everybody who has submitted and gotten posted since the very first posted remix has already given their permission to embark in said potentially illegal activity and share the consequences, if any. If, however, the terms had only specified revenue collected from the website banner ads, not YouTube, and OCR did what they did and started monetizing on YouTube without anyone's permission, that would be bad. Why? Again, because you simply ask someone before doing something with their work or involving them in something. Or at least let them know about it.