• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About zykO

  • Rank
    Phoenix Wright (+1100)

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Contact Methods

  • Website URL


  • Biography
    i am the zyko monkey. and so are you
  • Real Name
    waleed hawatky
  • Occupation
    that guy
  • Twitter Username
  • PlayStation Network ID

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)

Recent Profile Visitors

5,150 profile views
  1. GrayLightning EDIT: Void lollllllllllllllll
  2. truth. my music was arguably better when i was changing strings once a year and not tuning
  3. bizarre question. because it's the law? put in place to protect the work put in by artists? (did you catch the part that you yourself highlighted where an artist covering or arranging an existing tune can still make a living from it by paying licensing fees? did you catch how that's not illegal? in other words, legality has nothing to do with the matter of originality and creativity in art, just in the protection of artists and their hard work no matter what they're doing?) i realize you're having a real hard time thinking outside of the box of tangible, basic definitions of things but it's pretty obvious those are different discussion points
  4. as far as i can tell, nobody in this thread at any point showed a lack of understanding about the legality of the matter. i'm pretty sure everybody has acknowledged that, legally, an arrangement is not your IP and that anytime you are going to distribute any covered material, you'll have to pay licensing fees. this is baked into every single distributor whether it is distrokid or LANDR or whomever and all the legal entities such as ASCAP or BMI. if you're going to record a cover and sell it, you're going to pay for it either up front or on the back end
  5. nah, i won't quote each individual sentence... i'm just gonna go ahead and quote the whole damn thing and make superfluous, unmitigated love to it because i can't heart your comment more than once and that's not nearly enough. to briefly roll with your point about your SMB underwater arrangement, tho... i perform "Rime of the Wandering Seafarer" live all the time both when i'm solo as well as with my band amidst an entire set of strictly "original" material. nearly all of the time, nobody is the wiser. literally had an actual videogame composer in the crowd once who later admitted still didn't even recognize it as being a zelda tune let alone a cover until i mentioned it after the tune had ended. that it fit seamlessly with the rest of the set while being tonally consistent with my specific sound is precisely the point. i guess original vocals and lyrics, as well as an entirely different song structure, instrumentation, tempo and key is "seasoning." it's a different food group, dude. it doesn't sound like koji kondo at all. it sounds 100% like zykO and always will. can anyone really say that Sublime's "Summertime (Doin' Time)" is anyyyyyything like Gershwin's iconic aria? lol or Ella's rendition? was Ella wasting her time, too??? how about billie holliday? or billy stewart? *shrug* so here are a few more hearts for you, good sir: <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
  6. ...that would be because " just because you added some seasoning of your own" is a wildly gross understatement of what actually goes on in arrangement or any measure of creative interpretation but we've already beaten the living death out of this horse and it's clearly gone nowhere but south so..... i'll take your cue and let this inane argument go to pasture
  7. lol just because it's WillRock's opinion also doesn't mean it's any more or less anything peace out dude
  8. dude, what's with the 'tude? lol "*hits blunt*"..."pedantry"..."the logic being touted"... seriously bro? you keep making these ostensibly narrow-minded broad strokes about creativity and originality all the while lookin down your nose pretentiously at everyone offering a counter like you're the first person on these forums to write original music. besides, there's plenty of logic in the premise being argued... that, barring legality and the most rigid of interpretations, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a piece of music that blatantly derives its tone, style, and phrasing from another and one that begins with the specific compositional structure but interprets it in an entirely unique and original approach. (i can tell you like examples as it ruffles your feathers somethin wicked so here's another:) a band that sounds exactly like System of a Down but writes songs System of a Down hasn't, isn't fooling anyone; they're not very original or unique. an artist who takes the epic orchestral Liberi Fatali and writes a killer four piece punk rock arrangement for their band is considerably more original no matter how hard you plunk on your keyboard trying to suggest otherwise. they're both derivative despite having different reasons for being so and yet can both be enjoyed for whatever element of them is original or refreshing without this unnervingly unnecessary debate. how is that not logical? and no, dude, it isn't pedantic. for someone who supposedly takes great pride and care in "studying a score to discover what composition techniques," you sure have a fundamental misconception of how scrupulous and precise and overwrought with minutiae that writing music is. are you sure you actually do write any original music in the first place or are you just here to blow hot takes all over the thread? there's utterly nothing pedantic about a conversation on music, man. particularly on a music forum lollllllllll *insert Carl Sagan mind-blown gif here* *hits blunt* lol at this point, i'm not entirely shocked but even then, i'm still a bit perturbed that you'd dig up the ol' pot stigma card... blatantly undercutting Majeles' statement with the absurd suggestion that he must have been stoned to have said it, further denigrating any stance taken opposite yours. I can't quite figure out if you're 12 or 72. LIKE... BRUH HAVE YOU EVER HAD A FORUM DISAGREEMENT... ON WEEEEEED?????? 1998 called and wants its outdated weed dig back. honestly, if you're so irritated with (by, at this point, SEVERAL...) people calling bullshit on your assertion that there is no creative or original value in the hard work of talented, creative, and original artists when working on video game arrangements... then why do you keep responding? especially if the only way you're going to do so is by being a colossal douche? like maybe some of us actually prefer to express their unique voice through videogame remixes. i personally don't; that's why i have an original music career. makes utterly no difference to me... but you know... it might to others and that's perfectly ok! i can recognize the artistry and abilities of any musician without having to pinky finger a point about how much better it is to write "original" music, suggesting those who disagree with you are "threatened" by the "inferiority" of the form... nahhhh, i'm pretty sure you're just being an asshole at this point.
  9. there is no such thing as a universal truth or a baseline to any interpretation of aesthetic but here we are anyway, thousands of years into this shit, quibbling over it like paleolithic DJ's at a burning man festival
  10. there's no point. we've resorted to "i don't really give a shit" of course, AngelCityOutlaw isn't at all wrong that a fan work is never actually yours and never can be as it is a) legally someone else's and b) is pronouncedly more derivative; the contentious point is the mere fact that he equates that with creative originality and, well, who really gives a shit
  11. this is what i unsuccessfully tried to express before
  12. yeah to be honest, it was really just one aspect of the original point that didn't need to be extrapolated upon nearly as much as it ended up being... but hey, even vgm nerds like to argue lol
  13. yes, you did which is why the only thing i really tried to interject in my initial post was to step away from the technicality of a remix being unoriginal which is already infallible as you've pointed out... but rather focus on how an artist can inject a great deal of originality into the project making it very much "their own" without it being technically or legally their own. like a really creative cosplayer https://technabob.com/blog/2016/02/04/super-mario-bros-x-fallout-cosplay/ there is still quite a bit of originality, artistry and vision here and as a result it is very much unique, i've never seen anything like that before... that's all i'm saying
  14. "straight up revision" yeah you're still kind of missing the point. there is very rarely a truly unique creator and your definition of what that is seems irrevocably rooted in logic and there is no logic when it comes to art and how it is passed from one "creator" to another. i understand what you're saying... obviously if you're remixing Zelda's Lullaby, that's Zelda's Lullaby as composed by Koji Kondo, not Waleed Hawatky. that part is self-explanatory... but otherwise, what you're suggesting is that then the entirety of "classical" music save a composer or two and the entirety of jazz save a writer or two would be utterly "unoriginal" and/or "revisionist" and that seems both exceedingly harsh and tone deaf to the fact that music is almost never played the same way twice unless it's recorded. i call bullshit on the "makes sense to value your own work more than revisionist ones" because i make this argument having written just as much original music as i have arrangements, currently releasing my 12th original album and frankly i don't see much difference between where my "original" work is derived from and where my arrangements are. in the end, the process feels just about the same... with the exception of one critical feature: MELODY. i feel like where we're having a fundamental disagreement is on the effect of melody because melody has the unique feature of being a specific combination of notes and meter that make it particular and thus why we recognize music and sing along with them in the first place and why when either of us goes and remixes a videogame song, it's immediately recognizable. were i to arrange a popular game tune and outright ditch the melody and offer up my own (as i just did for an unreleased Xenogears track), then most casual listeners wouldn't know either way. even some musicians wouldn't know unless they knew the context (ie on a game music album or site, etc). my new Xenogears song is practically an original tune... and in truth is a lot more a result of my originality than mitsuda-sama's and, like with the Adventure Island tune, your argument doesn't hold any water in regards to it. it would if, say, it was a note for note cover but that's not the only kind of game remixing out there so making your blanket statement is still not the play here... take specific forms, even. any waltz in videogame history isn't going to be immediately accused of being derivative (although it most definitely is) and is given the benefit of the doubt that it is original. same with the blues. just because the original game source was a blues song doesn't mean that piece is any more original than one derivative further. you choose where to set the point of the revision based on the fact it is the immediate source... but a vast majority of game music is not original so when an artist takes it upon themselves to make it a point to arrange something in a completely new concept, calling it a "promotion for a commercial product" is offensively disingenuous your assessment isn't wrong (it is quite logical albeit sterile) and of course neither is your reason for losing your appetite and i'm certainly not criticizing that you felt that way. i'm just offering the opposite perspective because i feel it's just as valid and also just as correct. saying you "won't hear an argument otherwise" in regards to the matter, however, makes you look a lot more wrong than you are. now... if we were talking about this from a purely practical business perspective (in other words, content attribution and sales), then yes, you're right: you could never pass an arrangement utilizing the original source's melody as an original composition and if you did, you'd get sued so hard, you'll open up like an azalea and that's like something that pretty much everybody in the scene, whether here or anywhere else, is already perfectly aware of. an individual's reasoning for wanting to do something or not do something cannot be on trial so i apologize if somehow i came across that way. it was never the intent at the same time, your initial post presented itself kind of trolly... seeing as how OCRemix is a site dedicated to the very thing you essentially shit on in two bullett'd points lol nobody is going to sit you down and force you to remix videogame music or blast you for wanting to write your own music. in fact, i'd be the first person to encourage it seeing as how i take my original work considerably more seriously. the problem is you came out guns ablazing albeit passive aggressively talking shit about remixing as essentially "cos play" disregarding the artistry involved on the part of thousands upon thousands of very talented artists who have spent lots of time pouring their souls into this shit and then spend three pages defending that. not your preference but the unnecessary cutdown of the form on quite literally the first site to embrace and promote the shit lolllll soooooo..... yeah, i see no need to do so further either. (by the way, in case it isn't already clear, this is not at all personal and i aint at all mad at ya this is all just music nerd talk)