Sign in to follow this  
Rozovian

Mega Man X Chill Penguin WIP

Recommended Posts

Hah! I was waiting for someone to give me the 'P5ths isn't that bad' thing for some time now, so thank you Hemophiliac for opening this discussion up :<

...there is nothing "always" wrong with it...
True, true; it's not 'always' wrong to use a P5th - however, in the context of tonal music, there is... If you find a P5th anywhere in tonal music (that spans, by the way, ~1550 - 1915, not just Palestrina, Zarlino, etc., but also Beethoven, Brahms, early Schoenberg, etc.), I assure you that it most certainly either isn't structural or is an illusion (e.g. Grieg's 'Church Bells' seems to have P5ths littering the entire thing - however, you find upon closer analysis that the 5ths are really completely seperate voices so there isn't anything wrong with it :P).

The big problem with parallel fifths, to be more accurate than my last post, is that, in fact, it has such a strong static effect on a chord that the listener's ear (well, listeners of the past, with 'power chords' being so common, perhaps not as much today :P) catches the moment to be 'static' rather than in motion; thus, if one moves from one static moment to another without anything intervening, the music will certainly sound 'clunky'. That's why contrapuntalists so firmly and strictly teach against the use of P5ths, and rightly so. Sorry for being ambiguous with this earlier - I didn't want to fill up this forum with the answer (which I'm probably doing now :P).

Also the ambiguity that Gario speaks of is pointless, tonality isn't completely necessary in this type of music, nor does open fifths imply other keys/tonalities.
What type of music? Tonal music? Music that uses polyphony, monophony or homophony? Music that uses melody/harmony? If your going to use a key signature, then the ambiguity most certainly is going to be relevant, and unless your trying to achieve a neo-classical sound (such as mid-life Stravinsky), it's gonna inevitably be a bad thing! Why would you follow a key or use a key signature unless you plan on having a key center in the first place?

Also, for the most part, open fifths do not 'imply' chords/keys, generally. They say in a bold statement 'IT IS THIS KEY/CHORD!!!' so dominantly that there isn't any way around it. I actually didn't mean that P5ths do this - if I said that I was wrong :P - I was refering to the specific instance in Rozovian's music. In quartal music (such as a lot of Ives and early/mid Schoenberg), the 'chord' Eb/Bb/F/C is quite pleasant. In anything using a key signature, though, unless your using it as a double suspension (which isn't the case in Rozovian's music), then it implies 3 key centers - Eb, Bb or F - which throws me as a listener off. Eb/Bb strongly implies Eb, Bb/F equally strongly implies Bb, and F/C equally represents F as your chord/key. Think about it - if you use open fifths, the overtone series that we hear over it (always there, just got to listen for it) completes the chord whether we want it to or not. With multiple and different 5ths playing, multiple overtones are completing different chords, so if there isn't a third to disambiguate what is really playing then the listener is, to put it frankly, screwed. (Interesting bit of trivia - before Schoenberg moved on to 12 tone music, he relied heavily on fifths and fourths to purposely throw the listener off of what key the piece was in, as he didn't want the listener to be in any key by the end!)

Gario, try some twentieth century music...
Don't worry, I've been listening critically to it for the past 6 years of my life, and off hand for more like 8-10 years. I know what your getting at (and why I've expected your type of post for some time), and it is correct, to an extent. However, are people here writing post tonal music? I'm not finding anyone writing any pre- or post- 12 tone atonal music, nor do I find very much quartal music. Post-modern music is almost out of the question, too... I do find some minimalism, but, strangely enough, minimalism actually uses counterpoint much the same way as they did in the past, so proper counterpoint is still relevant (it was the composer's way to react against the post-Webern style - which was horrible, by the way). Counterpoint is most certainly relevant in these WIP's, so I'm going to make mention of it if I hear anything off with it (mostly P5ths, though).
...he's not writing something that's immitating Bach or Palestrina here.
I agree completely! Thank god for that, as we have enough Bach to last a lifetime!! Palestrina's got enough stuff, as well. Personally, if composers had the tools back then that we have now, I'd say he's closer to writing late/neo romantic music (which is, in general, what the people listen to and enjoy today), and what you'll probably be doing if your posting in the WIP forums (and certainly if you've been posted on OC - I can't see them putting up any 'modern' mixes :P). Romantic music did everything possible to stretch the rules of harmony to it's limits, oddly enough, often using older contrapuntal techniques!
And there is nothing "always" wrong with [P5ths], nor does contrary motion make anything "always" sound better.
Hopefully, up at the top of this post will clear up why P5ths are, in fact, 'always' wrong.

Of course, contrary motion doesn't always fix the problems...

Also, you can always make a piece of music sound better at the parts with the parallel fifth by either changing the motion to counter motion, using 3rds and 6ths instead of fifths, alternating 5ths and another interval (like 3rds and 6ths :P), moving one voice and not another, using a single voice, etc.
... so I made quite a few suggestions, there. No, contrary motion isn't always the best idea, but it's often the easiest. Other techniques will work, but they may take some more fiddling, depending on what type of music your writing...
None of the parts in this bothered me on a dissonance level either.
You, too? I don't hear much dissonance either (except in passing at, like I said before, 1:13 - Eb/Bb/F/C involves 9ths and 13ths that clash with the Eb/Bb... but due to ambiguity, no one can really tell what is clashing with what!). The problem I hear is something that occurs horizantally, not vertically. It is the motion that is off, for me, not the harmonies...

By the way, don't take this as a 'OMFG! YOU AREN"TZ AGREE WIT ME?!? STFU!!' post; I actually enjoyed writing it :). I just wanted you to understand completely what I was saying, and hope that you can sympathize with me on the subject a little better after reading the mountain of text. If you still don't agree, then at least you know my side of the story :)

Rozovian, start reading here if your not interested in any of that junk...
Sorry, Rozovian, I actually came back to compare the two mixes and tell you what I thought of them (I said that on the last post, right?), but I wanted to clear that mess up (I talk about P5ths a lot when I critique music, so going in depth with the subject is sometimes necessary...). On the bright side, now you don't have to go to Wikipedia to find all this junk out :-P!

Okay, the mix is now wet to start with, then oddly enough drys out very quickly (in contrast to having a similar reverb throughout). I like that sound, it both cleans up the mix and adds depth at the same time. Nice.

NOW I hear the P5ths that I talked about in the harmonies earlier :)... it's in the pad at 1:28 - 1:55 (as well as other similar areas). I see what your going for, there, so could I make a suggestion? Build to the fifth at 1:32 using intervals that aren't 5ths, then hold the top note of the pads while the bottom moves like it does (when I say hold, restriking the same note works, too). You'll get a richer sound in the harmonies this way (it's a sound you get throughout your mix, anyhow, so it also is consistant with the rest of your remix).

At 3:43, I hear more P5ths between an accompanying melody and the lead melody. It's hard to hear, so I don't know if it's groundbreaking... Sorry, I wouldn't be pointing out every one, except I just gave a rant on them :). Also, it's building to a key change here, but it isn't working for me at the moment. Try to make the key change more convincing either by not building to it at all (the sudden contrast can make this change effective) or making the build more... subtle. Because it is a step above the original key, the subtle approach is very difficult to achieve, so I'd recommend the more 'abrupt' change, there.

The mixing is much better than it was before. I'm surprised you could do that - I'm sure I could a lot about production by listening to your stuff (it's my bane, right now).

Really, you know that I like this piece, so my comments are gonna be nitpicky, now. I want this to be as close to perfection as possible - that's why I even mention P5ths and the like. It's really good, right now, but I want it to be perfect!

Learn to hear/understand _why_ ppl give you the crits they give
That's some good advice. I'm just trying to help, here, with the rant up above :)

Good luck with this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

woah gario, thats some in depth stuff right there :P

But whatever, I got the jizt of what you where saying however.

I think with a matters like this, its dependent on the listener whether something like this is a good or a bad thing.

I can see what your saying gario, I don't have a problem with the parallel fifths in this case here.

I am personally a big fan of using dissonant chords like that :P and vig disliked one of my chords in a sub of mine a while back whereas the other judges (apparently) didn't have a problem with it.

I think in this case, the best thing to do is for rozo to decide for himself. Dissonance is an unusual concept that different people react to in different ways. If Rozo likes it, I say he should keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think in this case, the best thing to do is for rozo to decide for himself.

Well, of course; I'm not telling him what to do, just giving suggestions (as are we all). I'm giving some depth behind my critiquing 'cause he asked for it...

...and blame Hemophiliac for my ungodly post size; he put me up to it :grin:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, of course; I'm not telling him what to do, just giving suggestions (as are we all). I'm giving some depth behind my critiquing 'cause he asked for it...

...and blame Hemophiliac for my ungodly post size; he put me up to it :grin:.

I was getting the impression that you were saying it was incorrect to do that in his circumstances in your first post about it.

You did redeem yourself in the next post, but only being human, I didn't find it until a second scan through of your post :P.

But whatever, we are turning this thread into a parallel fifths debate :tomatoface:

I vote to get back on topic before it goes out of hand :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update. Not a big one, but something to lsiten to. I've screwed with the key change as well as with the pads, added a couple of drum tracks... nothing big, imo.

Update.

Also, I'm not hearing what sounds bad about parallel fifths (but am enjoying the big thing it's become on my thread). :D I'm getting how they state the chords, but not seeing how that's a problem here. Yes Hemo, I know, I don't have to listen to Gario, but I want to understand why he's got a problem with it and apply that to my works, whether I change this one or not. Also wondering how this would sound if I had been taught theory at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One impression of this that I have is it seems anti-climatic to me. One thing I have to say is the backing sounds very controlled - everything is filtered in a certain way and you have a very intentional sound it seems.

But the dynamics seem to waver between loud and soft in the background, and I expect the dynamics to hit a peak (if i'm more precise I expect it after the breakdown, when the second run-through of the main melody happens). However it doesn't happen T_T

I really like the controlled atmosphere, and the drums aren't as big a problem as I thought before, altho I still think they are a little loud.

Basically, I like it, but I don't think its there yet. Keep at it man :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I'm not hearing what sounds bad about parallel fifths (but am enjoying the big thing it's become on my thread).
lol, glad you liked the posts :P... and sorry that I can't make it any simpler than that. It's a historical kind of thing, and many people have difficulty hearing what is wrong with it (as it is used in more contemporary music, now, anyhow). The only thing is that many composers write in a language that is over 400 years old, and the P5ths rule holds sway on that style.
Also wondering how this would sound if I had been taught theory at some point.
Heh, it would sound devastating if you were taught theory (with the proper aural training that should accompany it). One of the first things you learn is that P5ths are taboo for tonal music... It's part of the reason that I can't stand it in the context of tonal stuff (which this counts as, BTW) :|. I feel better for it, though.

Don't worry, I'm not gonna expand on the P5ths epic I've created... but I'd simply suggest trying out some different things at the parts I mentioned, and if they don't work for you, go back to what you had before. Perhaps you'll find that there is something out there that sounds better for you (and me, lol)...

Ok, I agree that the drums may be a bit loud for this track (mainly the bass). They drive the music, for sure, but the bass seems a little loud for me, right now. Otherwise they're good (especially with the additional doodads you've added).

I actually like where the key went better this time (as it took some of the 'edge' off of the background texture), but how you approached it sounded a bit worse. That sliding lead really messed with my head, there (in a bad way). I made some suggestions on this before, and they still hold true, IMO.

As for being anticlimatic, I actually liked the subdued sound of it all. Not all music needs a climax, really...

BTW, I sort of miss the intro material that you expand on in the beginning of the piece... I think it could be in more of the music as additional texture to add some richness to it all. I want more of it!

Keep it comin'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah Will, you should see my automation tracks, they're a mess. :P So much for controlled backgrounds. This is actually part of my "use as few midi tracks as possible"-type songs (like the yet to be posted Beyond Velocity) and, ironically, probably the track where I've used the most auxes and buses, which could also explain something. Lotta work, and scary to edit at this stage. :D

As for Gario's crits and nitpicks... How to make a key change of one note more subtle: make it one seminote instead. :P Hope I've fixed the transition into it now... I might have made it worse, in which case it's completely intentional and done just to annoy you. Also, I'm not entirely sure which intro material you're talking about, if it's the melody or the chords. The chords are screwy, and the melody actually does make an appearance in the end (and in the calm middle section as well, tho lower).

Now I screwed with:

-the sound of the lead after the key change

-volume levels

-the break just before the key change

-moved the bass, somewhere, to fit better with the chords

-volume and mixing tweaks on the drums

-got rid of a noise in the bass that probably nobody heard but me

-some reverb wet/dry levels fixing

-noticed a P5 occurrence and realized I can't screw with that one

-something else

-stuff I forgot

Things already noticed:

-unwanted cutoff resonance effect in the first pad chord

-some big compression jumps... need to fix the compression issues somehow

Hey! Listen!

Almost there. Can't submit for another two weeks tho. That's actually a bit funny; when I submitted EYOD I had Beyond Velocity ready before I could submit it (tho it needed some tweaking after the Js had it), and now it's pretty much the same - something recently subbed, something else almost ready. Oh well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm liking it at the mo. My ears are tired, so it sounds good to me at the mo (or maybe tired ears isn't the reason for it ;) but i'll confirm any misgivings on mixing etc tomoz. Arrangement sounds good, I liked the little details you added.

Off-topic a moment

Gario, your sig is hilarious

Alas, only the foolish need a foundation to base any music on

Because all the remixers here including me AND you technically base our music on the video game tunes that we remix, you are calling yourself foolish, and every other person who remixes on this site foolish XD

Or... Was it intentional? Was this an attack to every remixer here and yourself? Was the parallel fifths just a ploy by you to confuse everyone? Or i'm I going completely stark raving bonkers?

My insanity seems most likely, but whatever i'm going to bed XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...all the remixers here including me AND you technically base our music on the video game tunes that we remix, you are calling yourself foolish, and every other person who remixes on this site foolish XD

Or... Was it intentional? Was this an attack to every remixer here and yourself? Was the parallel fifths just a ploy by you to confuse everyone? Or i'm I going completely stark raving bonkers?

Heh, I'm glad you caught on to the sig, Will. Yes, the irony was intentional, there. Call me an ironic son of a gun :P. It also follows the theme of the site at the same time - to make video game music a real experience outside of the game itself, so it's got a duel meaning, there... Now that you caught me I've got to go and change it :nicework:.

I'll listen to the new track in about an hour or so, 'cause I've gotta go... so I'll be back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that you caught me I've got to go and change it :nicework:.

Nah keep it, I like it lol :P

See if anyone else catches on, assuming no one reads WIP Threads :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I'm not entirely sure which intro material you're talking about, if it's the melody or the chords.

I think it's the chords that I'm thinknig about, the chords that sound like -

Baah - Baah - Baah - Bah - Baah - Bah - Baah - Baah - Baah - repeat...

...for a lack of a better way to describe it... I think it enters at 0:18 on the mandolin' like instrument. I hear it in more of the piece, now that I'm listening... better stick my foot in my mouth, now :-x.

Hope I've fixed the transition into it now... I might have made it worse, in which case it's completely intentional and done just to annoy you.

Gee, your a pal :?. It's not the change itself that's ackward, it's the lead that goes from one key to the next. It sounds like it wanted to go up (like the older mix), but then slides down to the appropriate key. I believe it's simply a residue of what you were trying to do before... then the lead changes it's mind and moves somewhere else.

The drums sound just right for me, as they are now. Nice fix, there!

You've still got a few weeks before you can sub, right? Still time to make the piece better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.

All right, I know which melody you're talking about (counting the a's made it obvious). Will see if it fits somewhere.

Yeah, I realized the bend might go to far, but it works for me, it's one of those screwy things I like doing to my listeners (like keeping the lead quiet for a few measures in EYOD... and let's not talk about my other fzero track). Besides, I think it's more an issue with what you remember and expect, than what fresh ears would expect.

Couple of weeks time to screw it up, yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH MAN! I can't believe I missed this! Like if I owe anyone a review...8-O

I listened to the link on the first post, so, I hope that's right.

LISTENING! WILL EDIT THIS POST LATER!

okay, as I'm listening to this, it's getting hard. I'm not finding things to complain about. I'll find nits to pick. It'll just take a while.

I'd like to see a sort of very quick fade in on that first note. Just an 8th note in length maybe to help it not not sound quite so harsh first thing you hear in the track.

At 3:35, I can't tell if that's over aggressive pitch binding in the first few notes, or a key change that comes on really strong; but I'm not liking that. If it's a key change, I'd augment maybe that first note back to the original? This really isn't my area of expertise.

At 2:25 that static chord build seems like maybe it should move some, it wears out its welcome after it's to volume. I'm thinking specifically after the build is at volume at 2:30-32 ish.

At 2:57 that sustained note is LONG. But it needs to be, so I don't really know what to say about it. I don't really enjoy it up there though. Maybe add something to it to help the build up and tone down the pitch bend at the end of it? Or do a combination of toning down the bend and shorting the whole note. I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that MMX Braincooler its such a big song, pretty nice arrangements, and it have the main essence too. Keep it up. Sounds great to me!. The tune changes almost at the end of the song are good, but maybe u can improve the beggin of the solo.

Excelent job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update.

lol

I'm running out of things to fix with this, I guess it's getting close to being subbable. Thanks everyone who's critted it, it's greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounding good.

00:42-00:45 sounds off tonally, especially 00:44. 00:42 is interesting, but then it goes to 00:44 and sounds just wrong (to me at least). The sweeping chord(?) behind the non-changing riff is off. (Ten points for terminology for me.)

--Eino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounding good.

00:42-00:45 sounds off tonally, especially 00:44. 00:42 is interesting, but then it goes to 00:44 and sounds just wrong (to me at least). The sweeping chord(?) behind the non-changing riff is off. (Ten points for terminology for me.)

--Eino

I agree with that. It sounds like that one of the notes in the chords is off and sounds wrong.

But other than that, i love this ReMix! It sounds awesome! And kudos on the source too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, um, yeah....

404 not found?

got the short 1'58 version. Sounds great, but short. What's the deal? not seeing it published either... nor a ruling of y/n.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reviving something fairly old. It's subbed, an updated version. I cleaned my server space a bit, must have taken this version down. You'll just have to wait until 2011 when it's finally posted. :P

Cut the filename from the url, see what versions I've got in my remixes directory. Don't need any more crits on this, tho I don't mind feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way, Rozo - your stuff generates interest even after it's been collecting dust for 3 months. That's gotta be a good thing, right?

2-23 : 5-15... Well, almost three months. I wonder when the judges will even get to this one - it isn't even on the panel yet. I'd give it another two months before it's through :twisted:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this