Nekofrog

I didn't buy a PS3 to play PS2 games. I had a PS2. I am putting myself in the situation that a lot of early adopters found themselves in, and I'd feel betrayed by Sony.

Even now, bluray doesn't appeal to me, and I don't NEED a media PC. I need a gaming machine, and the PS3 failed miserably at that for the first two and a half years.

So I'm re-reading this thread right now out of sheer boredom (it was here that I discovered that I now read all of Bahamut's posts in his voice -- DAMN YOU), and this post really stuck out to me for some reason. Maybe it's the fact that of these games, a good amount of them aren't even out yet (WKC, FF13, FFv13 God of War 3, Heavy Rain), went multiplatform (FF13), were pretty much terrible (Heavenly Sword, Lair), or were mediocre (Folklore, Killzone 2, MGS4). That leaves Uncharted, Tools of Destruction, Infamous, Warhawk, and LBP as good games. Keep in mind, this post was made in 2007 -- 2007! And five of the games STILL aren't out yet! For someone who may have spent $600 on a PS3 in 2007 on the promise of these games, this is absolutely unacceptable. As a general retrospective from someone who just recently became a PS3 owner, I have to say, I would have felt absolutely ripped off and irate at Sony if I were an early adopted. I'd have felt raped, to be honest. Gone are the golden days of the PlayStation -- the PS1 and PS2. Such great systems...

The fact that it's taken this long for WKC to come out (and the bad reviews it got in Japan) makes me not look forward to it at all.

oh come on you just liked looking at schlongs, that's why you have hundreds of nude sketches.

PC version heavily modded by users.

Didn't I have tracks claimed for this?

Definitely need some more variance in the velocity here, some parts just sound too mechanical because of a the consistent velocity levels. There are some changes, but they happen few and far between. Times where the wrong note/a dissonant note is played: -6 seconds in, a background note -15 seconds, same note -Around 57-59 seconds, it happens a couple times -1:06, lead piano -After that, there are a few more in the lead melody, not so much a wrong note but just clashes and causes too much dissonance.

Well I'm not even going to bother critiquing this, Sam, because we all pretty much know it blows most people's stuff out of the water. Instead I'll just say, get well soon.

I'll forgo the form reply with bullet points and just address your question directly (sort of). As it stands right now there's no way it would get by the judge's panel. For one, it's too short. You'd need to extend it by at least another minute. It's also not interpretive enough; it's pretty much a straight cover of the source until the last thirty seconds. The samples are not up to snuff in almost every regard -- at least, not in the way they are currently implemented. Now as to your actual question, that's not for me to answer. If you feel like you have the motivation and ability to improve upon all of these things then go for it, but I'm not going to tell you not to do it.

PRODUCTION [X] Low-quality samples [X] Drums have no energy STRUCTURE [X] Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough) [X] Too repetitive [X] Abrupt ending PERSONAL COMMENTS (positive feedback, specifics on checklist criticisms, any other thoughts) Really digging this, with only a few niggling issues. I feel like the song is being held back tremendously by the fake acoustic guitar. If you have access to a real acoustic guitar, I would highly suggest recording with it. If you don't, find someone who does, and ask them to do it. Drums are pretty low-key, as they should be for a piece like this, so my only issue with them is the fact that the snare sounds pretty "contained". A bit too much air -- it almost sounds like a clap is mixed in with it somehow. Orchestral strings are just fine, don't mess with them. I'd just change how everything fades into them near the end. I'm not feeling the placement of the vibes; I think they could work, but as they are currently implemented I'm not a big fan. The synth arpeggios at 3:55 are fine in theory, but it kind of takes away from the mellowness of the entire atmosphere. I recognize a need for changing it up, and I like the idea of them, but they still feel too high-energy for the rest of the song. Either way, good work.

Actually, as far as the drums go, I felt they were the most solid part of the song in terms of production and sequencing. So whatever you did there, good job. You have a bit to learn in the techniques of recording guitar, but since that happens to be my specialty, if you had any questions you could shoot some my way any time.

Let me preface this review by saying that this is well removed from my genre of expertise, so I could be wrong in my interpretation of some of this stuff, but I feel like I'm fairly accurate in my assessment. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION [X] Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION [X] Drums have no energy PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts) [X] Wrong notes STRUCTURE [X] Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough) [X] Too repetitive PERSONAL COMMENTS (positive feedback, specifics on checklist criticisms, any other thoughts) Okay, let me clarify a few of my bulletpoints up above, because I have a few problems. For the arrangement, I was very torn between TOO CONSERVATIVE and TOO LIBERAL. How? Well, it essentially goes on a 2 minute tangent where it has no real melody, just the same general chord progression as the source. I couldn't decide if that was too conservative in interpretation or too liberal in that it departed from the original too much by emulating one of its chord progressions repeatedly. So I went with conservative. Just thought I'd justify that. Drums have no energy: it's not so much a lack of energy because the drums sound just fine, the drums are one element of my main overall issue with the piece (which I bullet pointed later and will explain later -- the repetitiveness. Wrong notes under performance, there's an entire section of the song (starting at around 1:16 approximately) where it's the chord progression repeating itself, and then at 1:43 it's joined by notes that clash with the chord progression -- they're too dissonant for my ears. Also, upon re-listening a fifth time I just picked up on the chimey-sounds that come in at 2:10 -- they just sound a hair off. Again, just a bit of dissonance. Maybe I'm wrong. For structure, the two ticked options are my biggest issue with the piece. The song essentially repeats the same chord progression for 3 minutes and is occasionally joined in by another layer of sound, sometimes clashing and causing a bit of dissonance with what it joined. Near the finale, I'm not even sure most of the stuff is in the same key.

Mids can be your best friend in a lot of situations, but it feels like in the EQ'ed version, you want the mids to be your ONLY friend. Mid has a bigger brother named Low who wants to say hello, so don't shut him out. Welcome him. Embrace him, but lay down some ground rules so he doesn't play rough, as he can tend to do.

Since this has almost no real connection to the tune, I don't se why it's posted in the workshop forum for remixes. If you're just looking for general feedback, I can do that, but in terms of getting passed it will never in a million years because for all intents and purposes, this is an original song. I can't even hear the source material in the beginning that you speak of, to be honest. In terms of criticisms, I really only have a few. Mostly with the production. Guitar sounds dead center, which is a big no no for rhythm guitars. Do two takes, and pan one hard left and the other hard right, the standard for guitar recording. Some areas are a tad sloppy, mostly when it comes to the fast rhythm portions. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does it's noticeable.

Long time no see man, you need to hit us up on IRC again. Haven't talked to you in forages.

My comment also went in regards to the label in general. Oh, well. Good luck.

If only it wasn't restricted to electronic

indeed i hope no disfiguring accidents befall you for a little while

ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION [X] Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION [X] Too quiet STRUCTURE [X] Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough) [X] Too repetitive [X] Too short PERSONAL COMMENTS (positive feedback, specifics on checklist criticisms, any other thoughts) Really not a whole lot going on here, as even for a piano remix it's pretty minimalistic. Not very many chances or departures are taken here, as it seems like the majority of the remix is spent repeating the signature melody, with the only positive change coming in at about 1:30 or so. Production-wise, it's a bit on the quiet side, and since it's a piano track, the sound of it obviously doesn't change very much -- not always a bad thing, but when a track is this conservative in its interpretation it usually is. As for length, stick a few more original ideas into it and that would solve that issue. Other than those things, not bad.

The download isn't working for me. Can you host it elsewhere?

Three weeks between submissions.

happy birthday whoever you are

I think the mere fact that I was perfectly willing to put everything behind us and offered to do so -- and to be told to "shut up" and be "uninvited" from the meetup shows how right I was. You see it as a "tirade". You're blatantly ignoring all the facts that lead up to this entire tiff to keep your position and not compromise in any way. Whatever, dude. I've said what I have to say, and from now on I'm not going to comment unless it's in regards to actual plans and ideas for the event in question.

It wasn't an attack. It was pointing out the childish behavior that she had exhibited in this thread. It goes back to even when this thread was made, the thread title, and the fact that it wasn't supposed to be made until March at the earliest. But oh, well.