Jump to content

DarkeSword

Administrators
  • Posts

    9,351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    131

Everything posted by DarkeSword

  1. @Liontamer I get what MW was trying to say but I don't think other Js hooked onto 4.3 specifically in the votes that followed. I agree with MW's vote in the spirit of what he was saying and I'm glad he brought up the issue at the very start of that thread, but I don't think 4.3 specifically is where the track gets tripped up. Gario just now made a better case for 4.1 being the sticking point. Ultimately though I think it comes down to an evaluation of the track by the panel of judges. And I see the issue was raised in the initial decision but sort of glossed over with some judges essentially saying "I'm not if sure this a violation or not, so I'll just vote normally on performance and production issues and since I'm voting NO anyway I'll sidestep the concept issue." This is a very unique track, and ultimately where we screwed up as a panel is we didn't have a larger discussion when that first thread was live to really answer the question of "Is this conceptually a good fit for OCR?" Genuine question: do we really need to spell out in the standards that we want people to submit work that is musical, first and foremost? If so, then fine, let's put it in the standards. But like Gario pointed out, 4.1 asks for "arrangements in any genre of music." I feel like we've already covered it.
  2. Larry, you are wrong in stressing that the "source material" line is what the track violated. Source usage was not the issue, and this track isn't a standards violation as it seems to be framed in your subsequent posts in the thread post-decision. The entire work showcases material from the game, narration included. The issue was that The Little Girl and the Star largely centers a non-musical performance of the story from the game. As I said in my vote, the vocal performance is a narration. It's not sung, it's not rapped, nor is it recited as beat poetry. The narration takes the lead and the musical backing track supports it. Joe frames that as a bias but I will argue that it's a very valid distinction for us to make with regards to what we showcase in the OCR catalog. We would not post a track that, for example, takes a scene from a popular JRPG and recreates it as a full-cast audio drama with acted dialogue and the music from the game arranged in the background. A track like that would not be a standards violation either because everything is taken from the game; the issue would be that it's not wholly or in-majority a musical work. Now, I don't want to get into defining quantitative standards here; I don't want to go down the road where we're saying "At least 75% of the track should primarily be musical in nature" because then we're both inviting tracks that will skirt close to 25% non-musical performance and also that's just more stopwatching, which I personally am just not a fan of. This track is a very unique case. I understand that our standards don't specifically call out "non-musical performance" as a limiting factor. I think that this is just part of judging though; we're presented with a track that challenges our view of what fits into what we want OCR to showcase, and we make the judgement call in that evaluation. I personally am sorry I didn't catch this on the first go-around; I didn't see the first decision and I was specifically asked when the second thread went up by Dave to weigh in, which is the first I heard the track and when I made my opinion very clear that this track is not a fit for OCR.
  3. In love with the harmonic changes here. At first glace it feels like a close cover but ooooooh that bit at 1:30? Are we for real here? I'm bummed this is so short but it does what it set out to do. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to hear this. Fantastic work. YES!
  4. Agree with Joe. It's a NO (resub or else) from me too. I think the arrangement is good but some of the performances (outside the trumpet) feel a little wilted. I'm not sure if that's the EQ or the mud or what but it feels like the energy is being sucked out of this one. My touchstone for a track like this would be (obviously) Pulp Fiction but also Juno Reactor's Pistolero. There's a clarity that's missing here and it's hurting this track, which is a shame. Would love to see this on the site eventually. Hopefully it's not too late to fix up.
  5. This is one that's gonna make you sit up and pay attention. Very dark, going for an almost 80s horror feel. I hear some of the other Js complaints about soundscape and balance but I don't feel like this one's too far off. Where I'm getting caught up is some of these longer original passages. I don't mind a little bit of original writing here and there but there some significant "Not Fire Emblem" chunks that could do with some source connection. 1:31 puts way too much emphasis on the fifth interval going up and down for a little too long. I'm not a stopwatcher like Larry (counting fractions of a second definitely not my style) but I share the overall concern that this one steps away from the source a little too often. NO, resub
  6. This sounds so thin. Everything is squashed into the middle. This should sound bigger than it does. Performances are alright. The middle section gets messy with timing though. I'm getting some weird intonation issues at the end with the guitar too. Can't put my finger on it. This needs another pass on the mix and some cleaned up performances. It's a NO resub from me.
  7. Arrangement is incredible but the production leaves a lot to be desired. Other Js have outlined it really well. The percussion sounds like it has timing issues because of how it's mixed. The choir at the start of the track sounds ill-defined and muddy. There's a lot of mud overall in the track. The middle is nice and the choir is okay there. There's a solo synth string that's just out of place; it's too quiet to convey the melodic line but noticeable enough that it distracts you. I like this track but it needs another pass. NO resub
  8. Other Js have outlined the issues. I have no problem with the arrangement. Very fun, very creative. Let's get a fix on the issues. YES (CONDITIONAL)
  9. I don't think enough of the arrangement here has enough recognizable and identifiable source usage. I appreciate the source breakdown but I think that overall the arrangement only hints at source usage at points. If you changed the lyrics to be about anything other than Paper Mario, I don't think I'd recognize this as a Paper Mario arrangement, and I feel like I shouldn't have to sit down with a source breakdown to make sure that this is actually covering music from the game. It's asking a lot of me, which is fine, because I'm a judge and that's my job, but it's also asking a lot of regular folks who are just listening on shuffle. Nice performance though, and I like the "PAPER MARIIIOOO" bit at the end, that was pretty good. NO
  10. I agree that most advanced torrent users are accustomed to selecting what they want to download but I'd also suggest (and this is pure conjecture) that the average torrent user is just downloading everything. Like Larry said, OGG was a thing many years ago but ultimate it comes down to what file formats are ubiquitous amongst the larger listener base. I don't see any significant advantages to offering ALAC alongside FLAC aside from catering to the specific use case of iTunes/Music.app not supporting FLAC. MP3s are offered because MP3 is the ubiquitous, de facto standard when it comes to lossy compression. FLAC is offered for the same reason (ubiquity), and also because once someone has lossless files, they can do whatever they'd like, such as converting to other formats like OGG, AAC, or ALAC. My personal feeling is that having the one lossy set (MP3) and one lossless set (FLAC) covers all of the bases for our distribution channels. If we start offering more encodes based on the idea that people can just deselect what they don't want, we're going down the rabbit hole of providing more and more sets. This is extra work for everyone for very little return, IMO.
  11. Beautiful track, right up my alley, that sort of dreamy big band sound, but after the initial treatment of the melody it just spiraled away. Source usage just isn't dominant here. NO
  12. I love the wall of sound here. Detuned lead is great, actually. I agree with Larry; I think other judgements are skewed a bit high. This track sounds very good and it's well performed and well produced. The detuned lead is a stylistic choice that works, IMO. YES
  13. Nice arrangement, sticks close to the original's energy but some nice performances. Love the callbacks to older Yoshi music. Bongos are great. Mixing is an issue though. What happened here? Other Js articulated it well. Needs anot pass on that. NO, resub
  14. NO We absolutely should not post this track. I don't say that as a qualitative judgement on the track itself, but look: this is, as Joe said in the previous decision, an audio book with background music. The focal point of this work is the storytelling. I've often defended vocals in remixes we get but those are tracks that feature singing or rap. This is not a lyrical performance, it's a straight narration. The backing music is good. If feels loose and organically performed, which other Js might take issue with but I thought it sounded nice. There are some intonation issues with the singing at the end, and it feels very exposed when all of the accompaniment drops out. But back to my main point: the narration here completely pulls me out of listening to this as a piece of music. This is not, in its entirety, a musical work. There's too much focus being pulled by the non-musical storytelling performance. I don't see myself ever putting this in a playlist of music to listen to. I don't think OCR is the place for this.
  15. Arrangement and energy is killer. Production is not killer. Other Js have outlined the problems already so I won't rehash. Needs a production pass and then we'll be in business. NO
  16. Hey, this response is unnecessarily antagonistic. I also agree that this is a big ask and $170 a pop is actually a bargain, but you can express that without all of the bold text indignation. I mean it's not like he's not asking you personally to do it. Also weird to get all mad about a post from July. It's also not your concern if something is posted in the wrong forum or not. Recruit & Collaborate is probably a better fit, and I'll move this there, but it's a pretty honest mistake. -- @Zye84 I'm glad you understand that this is commission work that'll cost money, but you've gotta understand that this is a big ask. If you really want to see this done, you're gonna have to be realistic about costs.
  17. Incredible soundscape. Fantastic production and solo. Great part-writing. But the structure of the arrangement is incomplete. You state the melody exactly one time, move into the incredible breakdown and solo section, but never return to the melody. I don't mind fade-outs. I use them all the time, and have even written up how to do good fade-outs in the past. I even understand shortening an arrangement because you don't want to overstay your welcome, so-to-speak. Perhaps you don't have more to say. But the fade-out here is premature. Something as simple as a copy+paste of the melody after the breakdown section would work. Shift it an octave or double it in another instrument if you're after some variety, or don't! But at the very least, bookend your breakdown section. This is perhaps a harsh judgement, but NO, resubmit. If we can get an updated version we can fast track. UPDATE: Checked out the updated version. Feels like a proper ending now. I'm good. YES
  18. I mean, speaking as a professional web developer who's built many applications using Python/Django, it's definitely far beyond a "gateway language." xD
  19. Calling you a "monster" is probably your friends just messing with you, but using your ring finger on the right-click (m2) is very uncommon. For most folks it's: M1 (Left-click): Index finger at rest. M3 (Wheel): Index finger as-needed. M2 (Right-click): Middle finger. Ring finger and pinky rest at the side. Incidentally, I use a G600, which has a third click button to the right of M2, which I click with my ring finger. It's a modifier button called that Logitech calls "G-shift" and used is to provide secondary functions to all mouse buttons, including the 12-button pad on the thumb-side of the mouse.
  20. SynaMax's "remixes" were essentially re-creations of music from Metroid Prime, going as far as using the same hardware as Kenji Yamamoto. AFAIK, he wasn't doing the same type of interpretive, from-scratch arrangements that we do here. That may have factored into Nintendo's decision to contact him specifically. I haven't seen any instance of Nintendo contacting any other artist, so it's hard to agree with "Nintendo is going after remixes now." There's always the danger of a company like Nintendo coming down hard on fan communities. If Nintendo issues takedowns to us, then we'll have to figure out what to do when that happens. OCR very specifically doesn't allow submissions that sample the original game audio, but that might not mean much to Nintendo's legal team. There's an argument for Fair Use, but that's a legal defense that you present to a judge or jury, not a response you give to a Cease & Desist. As far as being concerned about being able to listen: once something is posted to the internet, it never truly leaves the internet. There are remixes that have been removed from this site that you can still download at various places. Nintendo has issued C&Ds against things like AM2R (the incredible Metroid 2 fan-remake) and you can absolutely still find those projects without too much effort. If Nintendo wants to play legal whack-a-mole, that's on them. When it comes to the music you'd like to remix and arrange: do what you want. Remix the hell out of Mario and Metroid and Zelda and Kirby if those are the soundtracks that inspire you. Even if the worst happens and we can't feature them on OCR anymore, that shouldn't stop you from making something.
  21. Aureal Vortex cards are known to be used in the minting of Zircoin. There are no plans to support Zircoin, now or in the future.
  22. I think that the most exciting thing about this is the technology behind it. NFTs and blockchain technologies have been rightfully dinged for driving up the prices of consumer-level graphics cards, making it prohibitively expensive for gamers to purchase things like 3080s and the like. But with OCR's pioneering work on RFTs, we've managed to pivot and repurpose older consumer-level sound cards to handle the bulk of the processing power required to a) initially funge, 2) refunge, and d) ultimately defunge the tokens in question (if needed). We have an absolutely massive array of Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigies in our VA-based data center faciilty. It's very impressive.
  23. Yeah I'm gonna agree with Nase. Notation does not intrinsically convey more information, it's just an older and more established method of describing music that performers are trained to read. Piano rolls are actually very good at conveying information; everything sequenced in a piano roll is *discrete*. If you write a B♭ and a B♮ on a piano roll, you can very clearly and cleanly see that they're different notes and you can understand that one is higher or lower than the other. But if you want to write a B♭ and B♮ on a staff, you have to take into account both the clef and the key signature so that you put the notes on the correct line and also write or leave out the ♭ and ♮ signs, because they're on the same line; plus a staff only has 5 lines, so if you're writing higher or lower ones, you're messing around with ledger lines. On a piano roll, if you want a note to have a certain duration, you just make the note that duration. There's a numeric value associated with the note. On a staff, you don't have that. You can say this is a staccato eighth note, but what does that *mean*? How long is it, actually, in relation to the tempo? How is that different from legato? I'm not here to argue against a robust, notation-based input method for DAWs. It's definitely a gap that needs to be filled, and a lot of work to write something that can interpret and translate those instructions into something a sample engine or synthesizer can understand and execute. But keep in mind that sequencing in a DAW is not the same as engraving a score for live, human performers. Trained human performers can read detailed sheet music and still differ on the engraver's intent. The data you put into a piano roll can only really be read one way.
×
×
  • Create New...