DarkeSword

Our forum software doesn't provide a self-service account deletion option, otherwise I'd enable it. If you'd like to delete your account you can request it in the Security & Privacy section of your account settings.

It's a tough call but I'm gonna side with the NOs on this one. I don't feel like there was enough variation to justify the length here. There's a lot of repeated phrases, which normally I don't mind, but it doesn't feel like a structure thing here, just more like padding. I think the production is feature of the genre, so no qualms there, but Flex is dead-on about the drums; needs more humanization and variation, which I feel like you could pull off while still operating within the conventions of the genre. Interesting take but ultimately it's a NO from me.

It's an ongoing issue with PHP config on our server. You can use the offsite hosting option and provide a google drive or dropbox link or something to your sub instead.

The Judges Panel has been talking about ways to work through the queue of submitted remixes at a faster pace, and after a lot of discussion and weighing the pros and cons, we've come to a decision that's probably one of the biggest adjustments to our process in a long time: Submissions no longer require four (4) YES votes to pass. A decision is reached as soon as the difference in votes is three (3). To clarify the key change here: when a submission receives three (3) YES votes and there are zero (0) NO votes, the submission is accepted, because the difference in votes is three (3). If a submission continues to go back and forth without reaching +3 in either direction, the panel will continue to vote until all active judges have voted and the majority will determine the decision. This update to our decision making process will immediately apply to any submissions on the panel at the time of this announcement going live, and for all decisions moving forward. We won't be going back to previous rejections to find decisions that started with three (3) uncontested YES votes but eventually got rejected; in those cases, what's done is done. We hope that artists will find this new criteria a little bit easier to understand. Overall, we've been impressed with the quality of work being sent in these past months, and this should make it easier for us to get the slam dunk tracks through the process faster. Thanks to all the artists who continue to participate in our curation process. Hope to hear your work soon. - DarkeSword

Thanks. This is a known issue related to an intermediate fix for the torrents while we got some issues with the tracker worked out. Will resolve soon.

Had a lot of people leeching/seeding last night when things went live. I personally used qBittorrent to make the torrent and saw peers using qBittorrent and Transmission. I can take a look again at the torrent to see what's going on.

I've been a web developer by trade for a long time before I took over OCR, so I have a general sense of where features like this end up getting put. One thing you can always try is when you log into a site, you can sometimes click your own username (the thing that indicates you're logged in). Sometimes designers put information related to you or your account under that. Rainwave does the same thing. Click on your username, and a big info block with some links slides into place.

I assume you're referring to OCR Radio on Rainwave. We don't control that here but a quick look brings me to this page: https://rainwave.cc/pages/all_faves Looks like that's where Rainwave keeps your favorites.

Don't try to throw the OCR mission statement in my face and think that that somehow proves your point. Nowhere in that mission statement does it say that we need to treat all forms of music in the world equally, regardless of whether it was written by a person or generated by a machine-learning algorithm. That's not there. We are dedicated to the appreciation of and promotion of video game music as an artform. This has, for the last 25 years, meant recognizing that the composers who wrote music for video games created art. They are artists. They are human beings who made thoughtful decisions about the music they wrote. They created with intent. Can you use machine-learning tools to create artwork with intent? Sure. I pretty clearly stated in the announcement that I don't have a problem with machine learning as a technology, but that I don't want people to post music on OCR from services that trained their models on music that was not provided with consent from the artists who created that music. The technology is not the problem; the people building these services using resources they're not supposed to are the problem. These folks have not figured out how to build these services without plundering the collective creative works on the internet. No thanks.

"Recording wind chimes" is not in the same space as using machine-learning algorithms trained on consentless work. The first post of this thread also says don't share work generated generated wholly or in-part by UDIO. Come on man.

Yes it's fine.

No worries. It's a cool track. Hopefully someone can figure out where it's from.

Hey just FYI, you don’t submit a song to OCR if you didn’t make it. That’s not what submissions are for. I’ve deleted it. If you need help IDing a track, that’s fine, that’s what a thread like this is for.

Pushing this to August! Sign up sign up sign up!

I made some changes to some things but I’ve been seeing if people report anymore before saying “it’s fixed.”