zircon

So yeah, this is actually "Masters of the Universe" from the band Juno Reactor. I just made the whole thing about "Rajesh Hattiangdi" up to see if I could get anyone.
Poor bgc.

It's a good club.

It's a good club.

Who says Final Fantasy can't be strategic though? That's a failure of game design, and not related at all to turn-based combat! There are so many ways to make things more interesting, many of which have been done very well in other turn-based non-tactical RPGs. Here are 5 off the top of my head.
1. Give different types of monsters properties that affect who can hit them and when. For example, flying monsters that can only be hit by certain weapons or abilities, elemental creatures, etc.
2. Re-position monsters and PCs throughout the fight, like in Chrono Trigger, affecting the hit box of various abilities.
3. Change battle conditions during combat forcing people to make tough choices on the fly. For example in FFX, there was a boss that could reliably one-shot you unless you had the zombie status. But if you had that status, you couldn't heal yourself. It was cool.
4. Don't have obvious ability scaling like Fire, Fira, Firaga, where there is no reason at all to use the lower-level spells. Make more powerful spells and abilities leave the PCs open to attack, take longer to cast, take longer to recover from, etc. Make it more of a tradeoff to use those powerful abilities.
5. Limit the resources of the player. Restrict the max # of potions, or make them harder to get. Space rest points out more. A lot of JRPGs become really easy because you can stock tons of tents and potions and just heal up after every fight. Roguelikes are turn-based too, but they are frequently way more challenging because you have very limited resources. If every lost hit point and magic point matters, that encourages players to think more about finishing battles quickly (while expending resources) vs. conserving resources but taking more damage etc.

Who says Final Fantasy can't be strategic though? That's a failure of game design, and not related at all to turn-based combat! There are so many ways to make things more interesting, many of which have been done very well in other turn-based non-tactical RPGs. Here are 5 off the top of my head.
1. Give different types of monsters properties that affect who can hit them and when. For example, flying monsters that can only be hit by certain weapons or abilities, elemental creatures, etc.
2. Re-position monsters and PCs throughout the fight, like in Chrono Trigger, affecting the hit box of various abilities.
3. Change battle conditions during combat forcing people to make tough choices on the fly. For example in FFX, there was a boss that could reliably one-shot you unless you had the zombie status. But if you had that status, you couldn't heal yourself. It was cool.
4. Don't have obvious ability scaling like Fire, Fira, Firaga, where there is no reason at all to use the lower-level spells. Make more powerful spells and abilities leave the PCs open to attack, take longer to cast, take longer to recover from, etc. Make it more of a tradeoff to use those powerful abilities.
5. Limit the resources of the player. Restrict the max # of potions, or make them harder to get. Space rest points out more. A lot of JRPGs become really easy because you can stock tons of tents and potions and just heal up after every fight. Roguelikes are turn-based too, but they are frequently way more challenging because you have very limited resources. If every lost hit point and magic point matters, that encourages players to think more about finishing battles quickly (while expending resources) vs. conserving resources but taking more damage etc.

Who says Final Fantasy can't be strategic though? That's a failure of game design, and not related at all to turn-based combat! There are so many ways to make things more interesting, many of which have been done very well in other turn-based non-tactical RPGs. Here are 5 off the top of my head.
1. Give different types of monsters properties that affect who can hit them and when. For example, flying monsters that can only be hit by certain weapons or abilities, elemental creatures, etc.
2. Re-position monsters and PCs throughout the fight, like in Chrono Trigger, affecting the hit box of various abilities.
3. Change battle conditions during combat forcing people to make tough choices on the fly. For example in FFX, there was a boss that could reliably one-shot you unless you had the zombie status. But if you had that status, you couldn't heal yourself. It was cool.
4. Don't have obvious ability scaling like Fire, Fira, Firaga, where there is no reason at all to use the lower-level spells. Make more powerful spells and abilities leave the PCs open to attack, take longer to cast, take longer to recover from, etc. Make it more of a tradeoff to use those powerful abilities.
5. Limit the resources of the player. Restrict the max # of potions, or make them harder to get. Space rest points out more. A lot of JRPGs become really easy because you can stock tons of tents and potions and just heal up after every fight. Roguelikes are turn-based too, but they are frequently way more challenging because you have very limited resources. If every lost hit point and magic point matters, that encourages players to think more about finishing battles quickly (while expending resources) vs. conserving resources but taking more damage etc.

My computer is all ssd now. No mechanicals; just 840 and 850 EVO/PROs and an M2 SSD for OS. Looove it.

My computer is all ssd now. No mechanicals; just 840 and 850 EVO/PROs and an M2 SSD for OS. Looove it.

Show me the legions of game critics who are actually, literally trying to ban games. I'm sure some people - somewhere - are saying that, but that's on the ultra-extreme part of the spectrum. For example, I've watched all of Anita's videos and she never, repeat never, says that games should be banned in any of them. I've read Leigh Alexander's work, I read Polygon, Kotaku, r/games, r/gaming every day... I'm not seeing this narrative of critics trying to ban games. That's simply fearmongering at it's worst (the kind Shadowe has bought into, hook line and sinker).
 
Critics "encouraging removal" of ELEMENTS in games? Sure, but that's not the same thing as calling or supporting for literal, actual government censorship or bans of games. That's not happening. Opinion pieces should never be equated to actual censorship. 

Ha. It's funny when you put them side by side, but to be fair, if you actually read the article -
 
https://killscreen.com/articles/nintendo-still-wont-make-link-girl-theyll-put-him-dress-and-call-him-linkle-2/
 
They're taking issue with the fact that Nintendo made this a new character, instead of simply a different incarnation of Link. It's the difference between making a version of Thor that happens to be female, vs. making a character called Thorina. Now, is that a dumb distinction? Personally, I think so. Though I think the name "Linkle" is dumber still.

Ha. It's funny when you put them side by side, but to be fair, if you actually read the article -
 
https://killscreen.com/articles/nintendo-still-wont-make-link-girl-theyll-put-him-dress-and-call-him-linkle-2/
 
They're taking issue with the fact that Nintendo made this a new character, instead of simply a different incarnation of Link. It's the difference between making a version of Thor that happens to be female, vs. making a character called Thorina. Now, is that a dumb distinction? Personally, I think so. Though I think the name "Linkle" is dumber still.

I really think a big part of it is the rise of social media and YouTube. Forums - in general - are way less popular than they used to be. Facebook and Twitter have supplanted forums as a way to have discussions. Not to say that all forums are dead, but any younger remixers are going to be from a generation where forums just aren't really a thing. From what I've seen, the forums that are still thriving tend to have an older audience and are not frequented by young adults, teenagers, etc. (which is what many of us were when we came here.)

What has also changed is how people listen to music. There's been a dramatic shift away from downloading MP3s and having a music library, to just streaming your music. YouTube is one of the top, if not THE top, places where people discover and listen to music. OCR's presence on YouTube is very significant with over 100k subscribers and 40m views. If you're consuming your music on YouTube, you're going to leave a comment there and not bother to register on a forum. There's nothing wrong with that, though the nature of YouTube does not lend itself well to in-depth reviews.
 
In short, OCR isn't dying. The decline in activity on the forums can be seen across many forums as people move to social media for discussions. Also, people aren't leaving as many reviews here because many more people are discovering and listening to ReMixes on YouTube.

But as I said, OCR on YouTube and social media is thriving. We've been putting out lots of great albums and remixes almost every day and YouTube is now a major way that people consume that music (we went from ~400k views per month to ~1m per month). OCR is not just these forums, it's an organization. The organization is not dying. 

But as I said, OCR on YouTube and social media is thriving. We've been putting out lots of great albums and remixes almost every day and YouTube is now a major way that people consume that music (we went from ~400k views per month to ~1m per month). OCR is not just these forums, it's an organization. The organization is not dying. 

I really think a big part of it is the rise of social media and YouTube. Forums - in general - are way less popular than they used to be. Facebook and Twitter have supplanted forums as a way to have discussions. Not to say that all forums are dead, but any younger remixers are going to be from a generation where forums just aren't really a thing. From what I've seen, the forums that are still thriving tend to have an older audience and are not frequented by young adults, teenagers, etc. (which is what many of us were when we came here.)

What has also changed is how people listen to music. There's been a dramatic shift away from downloading MP3s and having a music library, to just streaming your music. YouTube is one of the top, if not THE top, places where people discover and listen to music. OCR's presence on YouTube is very significant with over 100k subscribers and 40m views. If you're consuming your music on YouTube, you're going to leave a comment there and not bother to register on a forum. There's nothing wrong with that, though the nature of YouTube does not lend itself well to in-depth reviews.
 
In short, OCR isn't dying. The decline in activity on the forums can be seen across many forums as people move to social media for discussions. Also, people aren't leaving as many reviews here because many more people are discovering and listening to ReMixes on YouTube.

I really think a big part of it is the rise of social media and YouTube. Forums - in general - are way less popular than they used to be. Facebook and Twitter have supplanted forums as a way to have discussions. Not to say that all forums are dead, but any younger remixers are going to be from a generation where forums just aren't really a thing. From what I've seen, the forums that are still thriving tend to have an older audience and are not frequented by young adults, teenagers, etc. (which is what many of us were when we came here.)

What has also changed is how people listen to music. There's been a dramatic shift away from downloading MP3s and having a music library, to just streaming your music. YouTube is one of the top, if not THE top, places where people discover and listen to music. OCR's presence on YouTube is very significant with over 100k subscribers and 40m views. If you're consuming your music on YouTube, you're going to leave a comment there and not bother to register on a forum. There's nothing wrong with that, though the nature of YouTube does not lend itself well to in-depth reviews.
 
In short, OCR isn't dying. The decline in activity on the forums can be seen across many forums as people move to social media for discussions. Also, people aren't leaving as many reviews here because many more people are discovering and listening to ReMixes on YouTube.

I really think a big part of it is the rise of social media and YouTube. Forums - in general - are way less popular than they used to be. Facebook and Twitter have supplanted forums as a way to have discussions. Not to say that all forums are dead, but any younger remixers are going to be from a generation where forums just aren't really a thing. From what I've seen, the forums that are still thriving tend to have an older audience and are not frequented by young adults, teenagers, etc. (which is what many of us were when we came here.)

What has also changed is how people listen to music. There's been a dramatic shift away from downloading MP3s and having a music library, to just streaming your music. YouTube is one of the top, if not THE top, places where people discover and listen to music. OCR's presence on YouTube is very significant with over 100k subscribers and 40m views. If you're consuming your music on YouTube, you're going to leave a comment there and not bother to register on a forum. There's nothing wrong with that, though the nature of YouTube does not lend itself well to in-depth reviews.
 
In short, OCR isn't dying. The decline in activity on the forums can be seen across many forums as people move to social media for discussions. Also, people aren't leaving as many reviews here because many more people are discovering and listening to ReMixes on YouTube.

I really think a big part of it is the rise of social media and YouTube. Forums - in general - are way less popular than they used to be. Facebook and Twitter have supplanted forums as a way to have discussions. Not to say that all forums are dead, but any younger remixers are going to be from a generation where forums just aren't really a thing. From what I've seen, the forums that are still thriving tend to have an older audience and are not frequented by young adults, teenagers, etc. (which is what many of us were when we came here.)

What has also changed is how people listen to music. There's been a dramatic shift away from downloading MP3s and having a music library, to just streaming your music. YouTube is one of the top, if not THE top, places where people discover and listen to music. OCR's presence on YouTube is very significant with over 100k subscribers and 40m views. If you're consuming your music on YouTube, you're going to leave a comment there and not bother to register on a forum. There's nothing wrong with that, though the nature of YouTube does not lend itself well to in-depth reviews.
 
In short, OCR isn't dying. The decline in activity on the forums can be seen across many forums as people move to social media for discussions. Also, people aren't leaving as many reviews here because many more people are discovering and listening to ReMixes on YouTube.

Fair use is basically an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. Whether something is fair use or not depends on four factors which are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These factors include how much of the original work you used, whether the new work is transformative, whether it's a commercial use, etc. You can read more about the factors here.
 
Therefore, whether or not a cover is fair use can't really be said with 100% certainty, but we can make an educated guess as to whether a use would be 'fair' or not based on those four factors. *Generally* speaking, the more transformative a new work is, the more likely it is that the use would be considered 'fair', but again, it really depends. I'd argue that almost any cover of a song is inherently transformative.
 
Before I get into licenses, it's important to understand that there are two copyrights in music: the copyright for the song, and for the sound recording. These are treated differently. When you produce or record a cover or arrangement of a song, provided you didn't use any material from the original sound recording, you're making use of the SONG copyright but not the SOUND RECORDING (SR) copyright. The new sound recording is yours.
With that in mind, a mechanical license is necessary to distribute a cover or arrangement because while you have the SR copyright, you don't have the SONG copyright. The term 'mechanical' in this context refers to the distribution of the work via digital / physical media. If you've created a COVER song of a work that has been made available to the public via an album or single release, you can obtain a *compulsory* mechanical license without permission of the copyright holder, as long as royalties are paid. Sites like Loudr.fm can help you with that.
 
But let me pause for a second to say that if you're distributing a cover or arrangement for free, chances are, you'd be covered under fair use. That's how we look at it with OCR. On the other hand, as soon as you start trying to sell that arrangement, you'd better get a mechanical license.
 
Now, "derivative work" is a very specific term. By and large, in this context, it generally refers to the creation of a new work that directly takes from an existing work. The most common usage when talking about music licensing would be creating a sound recording based on an existing sound recording. For example, making a hip hop track using samples from existing songs. There is NO compulsory mechanical license for derivative works.
 
Doing a basic cover is not actually creating a derivative work, but drastically changing a song (changing the "fundamental character", as the law says) might qualify. However, just because something is a DW doesn't mean that it can't also be fair use.
 
Then there's the topic of sync licensing. OK. The right to synchronize a musical work to an audio/visual medium (film, TV, video..) is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. So technically, even if you made a licensed cover song, you would need a separate license to actually sync that cover song to video. BUT, think about the following: Fair use can cover the entire scope of copyright usage. This includes sync. For example, playing clips of a movie while adding critical, educational, or satirical commentary is something done very commonly, and is often considered to be fair use. If you're making a free cover on YouTube, chances are that your use is indeed fair.
 
Also consider that there's a bit of a grey area that most copyright holders don't seem to be sticklers about. By the strictest letter of the law, even a mechanically licensed cover requires a sync license if you were to then create a video and upload it to YouTube. However, I'm not familiar with any cases offhand where a copyright holder - who is being paid mechanical royalties - has taken issue with anyone doing this, provided the video itself is original. The idea of sync licensing tends to be of more concern with for-profit TV shows, movies, ads, and video games, not YouTube, which generates minimal if any profit even for commercial videos.
 
Bottom line: I'd say don't worry about it at all if there's no money involved. 

Fair use is basically an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. Whether something is fair use or not depends on four factors which are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These factors include how much of the original work you used, whether the new work is transformative, whether it's a commercial use, etc. You can read more about the factors here.
 
Therefore, whether or not a cover is fair use can't really be said with 100% certainty, but we can make an educated guess as to whether a use would be 'fair' or not based on those four factors. *Generally* speaking, the more transformative a new work is, the more likely it is that the use would be considered 'fair', but again, it really depends. I'd argue that almost any cover of a song is inherently transformative.
 
Before I get into licenses, it's important to understand that there are two copyrights in music: the copyright for the song, and for the sound recording. These are treated differently. When you produce or record a cover or arrangement of a song, provided you didn't use any material from the original sound recording, you're making use of the SONG copyright but not the SOUND RECORDING (SR) copyright. The new sound recording is yours.
With that in mind, a mechanical license is necessary to distribute a cover or arrangement because while you have the SR copyright, you don't have the SONG copyright. The term 'mechanical' in this context refers to the distribution of the work via digital / physical media. If you've created a COVER song of a work that has been made available to the public via an album or single release, you can obtain a *compulsory* mechanical license without permission of the copyright holder, as long as royalties are paid. Sites like Loudr.fm can help you with that.
 
But let me pause for a second to say that if you're distributing a cover or arrangement for free, chances are, you'd be covered under fair use. That's how we look at it with OCR. On the other hand, as soon as you start trying to sell that arrangement, you'd better get a mechanical license.
 
Now, "derivative work" is a very specific term. By and large, in this context, it generally refers to the creation of a new work that directly takes from an existing work. The most common usage when talking about music licensing would be creating a sound recording based on an existing sound recording. For example, making a hip hop track using samples from existing songs. There is NO compulsory mechanical license for derivative works.
 
Doing a basic cover is not actually creating a derivative work, but drastically changing a song (changing the "fundamental character", as the law says) might qualify. However, just because something is a DW doesn't mean that it can't also be fair use.
 
Then there's the topic of sync licensing. OK. The right to synchronize a musical work to an audio/visual medium (film, TV, video..) is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. So technically, even if you made a licensed cover song, you would need a separate license to actually sync that cover song to video. BUT, think about the following: Fair use can cover the entire scope of copyright usage. This includes sync. For example, playing clips of a movie while adding critical, educational, or satirical commentary is something done very commonly, and is often considered to be fair use. If you're making a free cover on YouTube, chances are that your use is indeed fair.
 
Also consider that there's a bit of a grey area that most copyright holders don't seem to be sticklers about. By the strictest letter of the law, even a mechanically licensed cover requires a sync license if you were to then create a video and upload it to YouTube. However, I'm not familiar with any cases offhand where a copyright holder - who is being paid mechanical royalties - has taken issue with anyone doing this, provided the video itself is original. The idea of sync licensing tends to be of more concern with for-profit TV shows, movies, ads, and video games, not YouTube, which generates minimal if any profit even for commercial videos.
 
Bottom line: I'd say don't worry about it at all if there's no money involved. 

Fair use is basically an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. Whether something is fair use or not depends on four factors which are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These factors include how much of the original work you used, whether the new work is transformative, whether it's a commercial use, etc. You can read more about the factors here.
 
Therefore, whether or not a cover is fair use can't really be said with 100% certainty, but we can make an educated guess as to whether a use would be 'fair' or not based on those four factors. *Generally* speaking, the more transformative a new work is, the more likely it is that the use would be considered 'fair', but again, it really depends. I'd argue that almost any cover of a song is inherently transformative.
 
Before I get into licenses, it's important to understand that there are two copyrights in music: the copyright for the song, and for the sound recording. These are treated differently. When you produce or record a cover or arrangement of a song, provided you didn't use any material from the original sound recording, you're making use of the SONG copyright but not the SOUND RECORDING (SR) copyright. The new sound recording is yours.
With that in mind, a mechanical license is necessary to distribute a cover or arrangement because while you have the SR copyright, you don't have the SONG copyright. The term 'mechanical' in this context refers to the distribution of the work via digital / physical media. If you've created a COVER song of a work that has been made available to the public via an album or single release, you can obtain a *compulsory* mechanical license without permission of the copyright holder, as long as royalties are paid. Sites like Loudr.fm can help you with that.
 
But let me pause for a second to say that if you're distributing a cover or arrangement for free, chances are, you'd be covered under fair use. That's how we look at it with OCR. On the other hand, as soon as you start trying to sell that arrangement, you'd better get a mechanical license.
 
Now, "derivative work" is a very specific term. By and large, in this context, it generally refers to the creation of a new work that directly takes from an existing work. The most common usage when talking about music licensing would be creating a sound recording based on an existing sound recording. For example, making a hip hop track using samples from existing songs. There is NO compulsory mechanical license for derivative works.
 
Doing a basic cover is not actually creating a derivative work, but drastically changing a song (changing the "fundamental character", as the law says) might qualify. However, just because something is a DW doesn't mean that it can't also be fair use.
 
Then there's the topic of sync licensing. OK. The right to synchronize a musical work to an audio/visual medium (film, TV, video..) is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. So technically, even if you made a licensed cover song, you would need a separate license to actually sync that cover song to video. BUT, think about the following: Fair use can cover the entire scope of copyright usage. This includes sync. For example, playing clips of a movie while adding critical, educational, or satirical commentary is something done very commonly, and is often considered to be fair use. If you're making a free cover on YouTube, chances are that your use is indeed fair.
 
Also consider that there's a bit of a grey area that most copyright holders don't seem to be sticklers about. By the strictest letter of the law, even a mechanically licensed cover requires a sync license if you were to then create a video and upload it to YouTube. However, I'm not familiar with any cases offhand where a copyright holder - who is being paid mechanical royalties - has taken issue with anyone doing this, provided the video itself is original. The idea of sync licensing tends to be of more concern with for-profit TV shows, movies, ads, and video games, not YouTube, which generates minimal if any profit even for commercial videos.
 
Bottom line: I'd say don't worry about it at all if there's no money involved. 

I'm just using Guitar Rig 5 but ReValver is great, as is TH-2.

We can do licensing, but we're only looking for arrangements of video game music and not popular music, film, tv, etc. 

OverClocked Records is proud to announce the upcoming release of "Rust and Effervescence", the DEBUT full-length orignial album from OC ReMixer Omni-Psyence. To celebrate, we're releasing the full stems for the atmospheric, vocal electronic track "Stardust" and launching a REMIX COMPETITION starting today!
 
THE ALBUM
 

 
Releasing on July 27th, Rust and Effervescence is the debut album from progressive electro artist Omni-Psyence, whose work you might know from OCR and albums like Harmony of Hunter. Featuring 14 tracks of hybrid electronica with influences ranging from synthwave to psytrance and even cinematic soundtracks, Rust and Effervescence will take you on a synth-fueled emotional journey. 
 
Also featured on the album are friends and collaborators Anba, Tera Catallo, and Vivien Lalu, each bringing their own amazing and unique style. With over one hour of music over a year in the making, this debut release is not to be missed by any fan of introspective electronic music.
 
You can help support and promote the album on release day by joining our Thunderclap on social media. It's easy and free:
https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/28606-rust-and-effervescence?locale=en
 
THE TRACK
 
Stardust (ft. Anba) - 90 BPM, E minor
https://soundcloud.com/omni-psyence/stardust
 
THE STEMS
 
Instruments: https://app.box.com/s/n1iwrpi8or75l5eqszi5ulvrpn512l84
Vocals: https://app.box.com/s/q1pqjrd3fzj0933zmn2oqxwxto4v53ij
 
THE CONTEST
 
We want to hear YOUR remixes and arrangements of Stardust. Anyone can enter! You can use the stems provided above to get started, but feel free to write your own new parts from scratch, or by ear. All genres are welcome, from EDM to metal. 
 
The contest begins today (July 20th) and ends in two weeks, on August 3rd, 11:45PM EST. We'll announce the wniner one week after that, on August 10th.
 
When you finish your entry, you can email it to the artist himself (seifer7979 (at) yahoo (dot) com), CC to Mason Edwards (mason (dot) edwards13 (at) gmail (dot) com)
 
THE PRIZES
 
The producers of the top three tracks will win some great sponsored prizes provided by:
 
* VSTBuzz.com - Insane weekly music software deals, up to 90% off one sample library, plugin, or soundset each week!
* Impact Soundworks - Virtual instruments designed with composers in mind. 
* OverClocked Records - The video game community record label.
 
1st Place: $100 gift certificate for Impact Soundworks libraries, $50 coupon for VSTBuzz deals, $25 coupon for the OverClocked Records store.
2nd Place: $50 gift certificate for Impact Soundworks libraries, Business of Music Licensing e-book (fantastic!), $25 coupon for the OverClocked Records store.
3rd Place: The Sampling Handbook (upcoming ebook!), $25 coupon for the OverClocked Records store.
 
Good luck! Let us know if you have any questions!

OverClocked Records is proud to announce the upcoming release of "Rust and Effervescence", the DEBUT full-length orignial album from OC ReMixer Omni-Psyence. To celebrate, we're releasing the full stems for the atmospheric, vocal electronic track "Stardust" and launching a REMIX COMPETITION starting today!
 
THE ALBUM
 

 
Releasing on July 27th, Rust and Effervescence is the debut album from progressive electro artist Omni-Psyence, whose work you might know from OCR and albums like Harmony of Hunter. Featuring 14 tracks of hybrid electronica with influences ranging from synthwave to psytrance and even cinematic soundtracks, Rust and Effervescence will take you on a synth-fueled emotional journey. 
 
Also featured on the album are friends and collaborators Anba, Tera Catallo, and Vivien Lalu, each bringing their own amazing and unique style. With over one hour of music over a year in the making, this debut release is not to be missed by any fan of introspective electronic music.
 
You can help support and promote the album on release day by joining our Thunderclap on social media. It's easy and free:
https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/28606-rust-and-effervescence?locale=en
 
THE TRACK
 
Stardust (ft. Anba) - 90 BPM, E minor
https://soundcloud.com/omni-psyence/stardust
 
THE STEMS
 
Instruments: https://app.box.com/s/n1iwrpi8or75l5eqszi5ulvrpn512l84
Vocals: https://app.box.com/s/q1pqjrd3fzj0933zmn2oqxwxto4v53ij
 
THE CONTEST
 
We want to hear YOUR remixes and arrangements of Stardust. Anyone can enter! You can use the stems provided above to get started, but feel free to write your own new parts from scratch, or by ear. All genres are welcome, from EDM to metal. 
 
The contest begins today (July 20th) and ends in two weeks, on August 3rd, 11:45PM EST. We'll announce the wniner one week after that, on August 10th.
 
When you finish your entry, you can email it to the artist himself (seifer7979 (at) yahoo (dot) com), CC to Mason Edwards (mason (dot) edwards13 (at) gmail (dot) com)
 
THE PRIZES
 
The producers of the top three tracks will win some great sponsored prizes provided by:
 
* VSTBuzz.com - Insane weekly music software deals, up to 90% off one sample library, plugin, or soundset each week!
* Impact Soundworks - Virtual instruments designed with composers in mind. 
* OverClocked Records - The video game community record label.
 
1st Place: $100 gift certificate for Impact Soundworks libraries, $50 coupon for VSTBuzz deals, $25 coupon for the OverClocked Records store.
2nd Place: $50 gift certificate for Impact Soundworks libraries, Business of Music Licensing e-book (fantastic!), $25 coupon for the OverClocked Records store.
3rd Place: The Sampling Handbook (upcoming ebook!), $25 coupon for the OverClocked Records store.
 
Good luck! Let us know if you have any questions!