Nase

neblix, i'm bored of this. this is also about support and being nice and all, not strictly market. i will not debate your lengthy sophistry. i made my points, you made yours. yours aren't alignable with my reality, sorry. i can't help but think that you need to keep talking in order to not lose. basically the same thing i see with u and timaeus all. the. fucking. time. no thanks. agree to disagree?

bass thread without squarepusher. rectify.

amazing tonal sensibilities. bit too clinical in execution for my taste, but still, great player.

no, i just heard the name b4! this was before youtube, so the most obscure things i heard were anthrax and children of bodom, maybe. not very obscure at all, in other words i'm quite surprised you know hollenthon at all, actually. i thoroughly recommend a full listen of this album, i think it's a brilliant one. no other hollenthon tunes i found on yt later grabbed me the same way. anyway, i'll check out artillery. right now i'm giving in flames a try, who i was indifferent about back then. they're decent. seems like they're one of the better things that came with this whole emo wave. i mean, this whole combination of heavy and soft thing that hit hard with SOAD and folks. in flames seem influenced by that a bit.

i'm just listening to this old favorite of mine, a kind of symphonic death metal album from 2001. it's by one austrian dude, mainly. i marvel over this. it's so epic, it's silly. it's the kind of music that doesn't take itself seriously by taking itself way too seriously. obviously, the lyrics are in this weird dictionary patchwork style that's all about making a chain of impressive sounding words, but i kinda like it here. and it has this anthemic quality all over it. really good melodies, and then some parts which are even sort of punk. like, really hard thrash metal parts that don't get overly technical but just kick ass. and it occurred to me that i don't really dig this genre in general, but there obviously must be more notable exceptions. i'm not talking strictly death metal, but more about the bulk of stuff i don't really know. i haven't followed metal closely in about 10 years, and i mostly listened to thrash metal back then. i think another thing is, i'm sort of picky about the timbre of singers. in this case, it just works for me for some reason. the growls sound more like some senile sage spouting nonsense. idk, it has a unique character to it when i compare it to the more standard growling in death metal and such. like, i wouldn't really like slayer if i didn't like araya's voice so much. i would like megadeth more if mustaine's voice wasn't so hit or miss to me. metallica is more about hetfield's voice than hammet's solos to me. and i love solos, don't get me wrong. i'm just noticing how important a good voice is to me. and that mostly means, a voice that sticks out. i can't really pinpoint a "genre" of singing i definitely prefer, but to be vague about it, i like "ballsy" voices more than "hair metal" voices. not that there aren't any ballsy hair metal voices. ew. little addition: the other growling band i listened to was opeth, but i mostly liked them for the non-growling parts

classy. i might end up putting the other guy in my sig. hmm....i like the little one eyed dude more than dopefish, but this dopefish pic works perfectly with the color scheme from number munchers. tough call..... i like the fact that both my mascots don't have a nose. i think i'll keep it.

platonist is a sort of unusual music alias. just for that alone it's pretty good. even though it was picked more or less arbitrarily Gario's story is super cute. perfect for this thread myself, the other name i use is skoshu, and that's really just a first and last name combo that sounded cool. a 6 letter word that sounds good, and most importantly pops up hardly any results when you google it (some russian stuff at most)? perfect. nase is effectively the opposite of it...naming yourself after a part of the human face makes you impossible to find on the web.

i wish i could find a mobile sequencer that has as much lasting appeal as FL for me. i've been looking for it since almost 10 years, on and off. 2006 i got nanoloop for the old GB, and that was a bit of a revelation because it was so simple and limited. a year later i got LSDJ, which is way more powerful but also way harder to operate. i made one song i liked on it, but soon got fed up with identifying lots of numbers on this tiny screen. when the ipad came, i thought all this would change a lot. didn't really for me though. i'm not even sure i like the touch paradigm for hardcore sequencing now. i've seen a lot of sequencers on ipad that look awesome, had awesome features, and still were kind of painful to operate. my advice in general is, look for something that's so simple that it doesn't compete with your desktop DAW on many levels. because if it does, it'll likely lose. look for stuff that doesn't try to cram PC functionality into a mobile device, but instead is about a satisfying experience on whatever thing it was created for. i don't know if this one is good, but it looks relatively focused and simple.

my older tracks, 2010 and earlier, were mostly too loud, or rather, shoddily maximized. i just didn't happen to know this. it sounded great on a few and not so good on many. i've gone over to pulling it back a good deal. this way, i don't have to learn to be a super good engineer. i'm just happy with boosting a mix until i feel cranking it up further would require several counter-measures that i don't really know about. works alright for me.

i really liked a couple images in there. especially my green dude. what game was he from? i want him BACK!!!! alternatively, i could take one of the green dudes from the old Keen games...hm. edit: yeah, that works.

meeeeeeh. i'm painting a picture of how it should go and doesn't always, neblix painted a picture of some mcscrooge wallstreet company. sorry, doesn't seem realistic. while FL has a pretty large userbase (making <5% a rather huge thing), the company itself seems rather smallish. sorry man, this isn't like your stupid US elections. smaller percentages can matter.

well then i have a download to finish before i buy anything. with any luck it might finish in 2 days...

another thing: FL updates too often anyway. yeah, lifetime free updates, awesome and all. but i don't need new gadgets, i just need a stable host. FL works. give it a big update every 3 years but leave me alone otherwise. whenever i update, i have to delete 95% of the program anyway. the core things that make FL really good are present since FL6 or 5, i think. there's no need to put bloat on top of that every other year.

40%.......no comment. by that logic, no one would EVER do a mac port. your understanding of business is sketchy to me. when it comes to alienating your user base, 0,1% is problematic if it doesn't happen for a good reason. a new version can be a very good reason. but there is no reason whatsoever for strict either/or logic here. the new version can alienate a few, they get the old version. period. really easy to do.

what happened to customer is king? it's a fucking option to download legacy software. this is about artists and their favorite pieces of software. omg neblix. it wouldn't even waste bandwidth...you either download one or the other.

pretty much! add a little orgasm here and there... but atm i'm bone dry. i didn't wanna leave the impression that writing music is like sex for me. i have little to contribute as far as structure goes. i like recognising structure in a tune after being done with it, though. way i see it, the whole ABC thing is another play with expectations. sometimes you wanna go against them, or establish new ones for your own style. idk, makes little sense to even 'trade' song structures. i have no trouble stealing chord structures, for example, but i wouldn't wanna copy a specific song structure. ymmv.

my general song structure seems to be evolving into an array of subsequent intros. i dunno if that's good or bad, but ABAB it isn't.

could be, yes. all i remember is they weren't perfectly comfy to wear over the course of a night. my ears aren't so big but my head is. but they're good cans and price is nice.

that's the thing, i'm totally past that. i can work with them very quickly, and while you don't have to like my music, you'll have a hard time detecting any blockiness. and adapting to the newer patterns will mean a lot of work, specifically because i don't like them much to begin with. my ideal would've been a block environment that takes some visual cues from the new patterns, making them more readily identifiable. i just wish they kept a lot of the rest, even if just as an option. see, i don't think there's anything mandatory about 'going with the times' here. they decided for something which i found a bit worse, sum total. they also had the courtesy of keeping the old way in the program for a good while. so i'm ok with it. it won't change my mind. the 2 different pattern styles, they're not an upgrade route where one is better, they're 2 slightly different ways to make music. i get both of them enough to clearly prefer 1. personal choice. EDIT: i got a better answer on it now. i think i prefer the old patterns BECAUSE i need to create a shitload of patterns fast. i found that a slight nuisance whenever i worked with the new patterns. pattern modification is just lightning fast with the old blocks. "make unique" plays into that. there may be some shortcuts with the new patterns i haven't found yet. i leave a small window of possibility that i could find a way in the new pattern mode that's just as satisfying for me. i think the ideal solution is, let IL themselves provide an ongoing download for FL11 (it doesn't have to be front page ofc), and let em make sure that people can register it in 5 years. i respect that they're getting rid of legacy stuff and got their own plans, but the couple people who use the blocks for good reason would most likely appreciate it. FL11 with the reg edit is probably going to be a final version for some. less than 5%, but enough to give 'em an official download. not doing that would result in a couple people seeing no alternative but warezing FL11, sooner or later. i think the registry stuff would sooner or later result in authentification problems? i'm not sure. the DL should be maintained at either rate.

coming to think of it, the right click>add new plugin routine has always felt pretty awkward. it made no sense that you had to click on another unrelated plugin to load a new one. you get used to it quickly, but it never was an ideal design. same with the poor categorization options (nonexistent?). part of why i'm so anal about minimizing my vst number in FL is just the fact that i find long lists cumbersome to work with. a switch to folders has been overdue. the pattern blocks, i just like them better. idk, maybe skryp can elaborate. i'd have to work on actually making a list of arguments for WHY i like em better. it's not just laziness on my part, i think.

this is something that requires effort from the vst developers, apparently. i saw that question posed at gol ages ago. i think you're viewing it incorrectly, it's more like a trick that IL 'taught' their plugins to do, and others would have to do the same to theirs to make it all work. think about it, normally you just have this pitch value of 0-127. now you want your plugins to recalibrate the pitch based on note events. i don't think it's a simple fix on IL's side, or they would've indeed done it by now. ...or maybe they're lazy and are lying, i wouldn't notice because i know little about programming. but it makes some sense. i think the most effective thing for everyone would be if other HOST developers decided that it's a very cool feature, swallowed their pride and stole it, while turning it into some kind of standardized thing. bitwig atleast did something that allows you to pitchbend single notes independently, which is one of the advantages when you're using slide notes with different midi channels (the different note colors). if the vsti responds to the 16 midi channels, you can do 16 independently pitch-bent voices. in effect, you got like a very complex polyphonic glide function. i think it's just a thing where IL is ahead of its time. we need a standard for it.

and there's another simple conclusion: we are more used to effective audio silence than visual 'silence' (no input). final verdict: i think i'm being so anal about labels because neblix answers the question "why do you like audio". and it's a good answer on that - made me think. to differentiate again, neblix answered the music question as well, because audio and music partly overlap, of course. but his answer was much better if you take the audio. because in effect he's right, the audio pause is different. it's not in the audio spectrum. silence in music is a pretty deep topic. the pause is an essential means of musical expression. it doesn't really have a visual counterpart except no movement. stillness. so a still picture is a bit like a pause in the music. the scene is still present, but time stopped. we got some time to reflect on what has been said and on what may come. this occurs in movies naturally, of course. time to breathe in very reflective parts of the movie, if it has those. so there is a reason for separating audio and music sometimes. in music, a pause means information, in audio, a pause means lack of information. so once you go purely technical, you lose some information

reread my posts pls to elevate the way pause buttons are engineered to a core aspect of the art is a stretch. the fact that the pauses work differently has entirely different reasons. sorry, i like tangents. and the subject allows for many. for example, why is the visual pause not annoying at all? a visual glitch would be annoying, of course. quick repetition, worst with a drastic change in light. this is equivalent to a short piece of audio being repeated forever. so my analogy wasn't perfect either, because an audio pause equivalent to the standard video pause would be so short you could not hear it. so it would be effectively silence, but only to our ears. it would still be audio, just not audible to us. with colors we can perceive this extremely short loop. if it wasn't one, we would not see colors. or light. a complete visual pause would equal darkness, or more precisely, nothingness. i may be talking out of my ass as i'm not an expert on visuals. input welcome.

movie is audio+moving picture. video is just video. sorry for the semantic nitpicking, but it helps me think. see, i think you're confusing playback mechanisms, which could be changed rather easily, with core aspects of the art. that's why i went into this tangent in my 2nd post.