Jump to content

Mega Man: The Wily Castle Remix Gauntlet 2013


Recommended Posts

Analogies aren't going to get any where because we could go all day with comparisons that prove our opinion.

An intro has a huge impression. Some are long, some are short, some don't even exist. How it is executed to the listener varies greatly. But, in most cases intros exist to build or create tension to something greater. And it's the producer's job to stay focused and make sure the listener will stay interested until the best parts.

Don't blame the audience for disliking the song. That doesn't mean the song is good or bad. However, It is always, always, always the producer or composer's fault. No matter what.

I'm not blaming any audience for not liking a song because it's bad. I'm saying that judging something like a song in the basis of just a small part of it is something that will lead to a misjudgement. I don't think anyone would consider that fair judgement, anywhere. Be it OCR Judges, or music reviewers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Your dedication to good metadata is a shining beacon in the bleak sea of "Various Artists."

God Bless America. Anyway, I want to discuss another thing I'm seeing with novice mixers. A bit of a disclaimer: I'm going to talk now about my own approach to arrangement, and hopefully that will h

Yeah. Completely. People are going to dislike certain music, even irrationally. Write music that's true to yourself, and hopefully can be targeted at an intended audience to enjoy.

Yes, but the issue here is that you said the producer or composer is "always, always, always" at fault, even if people hate a great song subjectively because of the genre (that's what I said in my last post, and you said "Yeah. Completely."). In this case, it would be the people's "fault" (though it should not ever be said in such an incriminating way) for being biased against the genre in the first place, because the composer did a great job conveying that genre, and purely on opinion, that's what the people thought. That's how a few dubstep producers feel when they get an OC ReMix passed, for example.

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
Write music that's true to yourself, and hopefully can be targeted at an intended audience to enjoy.

This is probably the most important thing, guys. When I make music, I try to make music that I would enjoy listening to. I do want others to like it too, but it's a delicate balance. With these two ideas in mind, I constantly try to grow as an artist and learn and improve. That being said, not everybody is going to like what you make, and will have various reasons why or why not; some those reasons will be relevant to you personally and what you're trying to accomplish, and some of them will not.

That part aside, intros do make a very big difference in hooking your audience; that doesn't mean don't make long-winded intros or whatever but be careful. I read an article recently that said you should save your crazy intro ideas for live performance where they'll be more appreciated, because in the context of recorded music people really don't have the patience to wait through such ideas; I suppose this has more relevance in the context of "popular" music and stuff that's played on the radio, but it still holds some weight here too.

Ultimately, like KgZ said, be true to yourself but also recognize that sometimes certain musical ideas aren't as "good" or as well liked as others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but the issue here is that you said the producer or composer is "always, always, always" at fault, even if people hate a great song subjectively because of the genre (that's what I said in my last post, and you said "Yeah. Completely."). In this case, it would be the people's "fault" for being biased against the genre in the first place, because the composer did a great job conveying that genre, and purely on opinion, that's what the people thought.

Music is music. If they're biased and don't like the genre, it's still my fault. I'm expressing a vision or story through sound, genre means nothing to me.

So yes, it's still my fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but also recognize that sometimes certain musical ideas aren't as "good" or as well liked as others.

Just wanted to shed some light on this:

There are times when people can't express why they like or dislike something. I did a speech in my speech class in April or so (redundancy is redundant) about music appreciation and I started with a survey comprising of these questions:

Who likes music because...

1. It's catchy

2. It's cool

3. You just like it, and you don't have a clue why

All of those questions were answered with a hand raise from at least three people. That's why it's so hard to get people to like details that are interesting to the composer or producer. Here's a crude example:

Dubstep wobbles. The difference between a good one and a bad one is the amount of resonance and the choice of whether or not to include a large amount of wild pitch bends (you get what I mean). Some people would just say "okay, moving on" if there's excessive resonance. Others would say "Hey, this isn't that bad. Not sure why, but eh, I'll keep listening for a bit" if there isn't. The important thing is that they can't express why. So then if that were the deciding factor of a liked or disliked song, it really would be the audience's non-incriminating fault, because ultimately the producer didn't have a problem with publishing it like that. I've never liked Skrillex and I never will, but it's not because I'm against dubstep, it's because I'm against his style of dubstep.

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
Music is music. If they're biased and don't like the genre, it's still my fault. I'm expressing a vision or story through sound, genre means nothing to me.

So yes, it's still my fault.

He's right, in a way. You're responsible for your art; it doesn't necessarily mean that you should change but you must accept that not everyone will like your art that you created. It's a "the buck stops here" kind of mentality.

Yes, people can be close-minded, but you need to be prepared for that harsh reality, because chances are you're not gonna change all those people's opinions and make them more open-minded.

EDIT: I saw what you ninja'd in there, Timaeus, and I think you're right; the point here is that you can't change that really, and so instead of "blaming" others, learn to either accept yourself and your art, or change (or a decent balance of the two). I think your point and mine/KgZ's go hand in hand.

Edited by KingTiger
Link to post
Share on other sites

@timaeus, if I put a wobble in my track, I willingly chose that sound to accompany my vision. It's my responsibility because not only did I have full control over what sound I want, but I'm also aware of the consequences that people might perceive because of it.

Edit: kingtiger I'm with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@timaeus, if I put a wobble in my track, I willingly chose that sound to accompany my vision. It's my responsibility because not only did I have full control over what sound I want, but I'm also aware of the consequences that people might perceive because of it.

Edit: kingtiger I'm with you.

I'm not against your view necessarily, but the phrase "full control" might not be entirely accurate, and I just want you to be aware of that. You, specifically, may have full control, maybe, but not everyone does. If the producer doesn't have the skill or knowledge to make anything other than the annoying type of dubstep wobbles (back to that example), and they don't know where to look to improve because it's outside their realm of knowledge (which is the case with many people, in the sense of searching skills), they don't have "full control" of how the patch sounds as a result. Any producer who loves what they do may or may not be completely "aware of the consequences that people might perceive" differently.

That's my five bucks. /pun

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm also aware of the consequences that people might perceive because of it

I think a lot of people go into art (of any kind) without really thinking about this; it's a painful truth you have to learn to live with every day as an artist.

EDIT:

Any producer who loves what they do may or may not be completely "aware of the consequences that people might perceive" differently.

Then perhaps they should be? I'm not really sure how to rectify this but it's still a reality.

Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I try as hard as I can to recognize the "circle of influence": basically, what am I in control of? really, not much; but I can choose to change myself and what I do. It may be difficult for a producer to get the resources he needs to change his style but he can choose to live with people's opinions of his style.

That's my five bucks. /pun

I thought CDs usually cost $10? :P

Edited by KingTiger
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then perhaps they should be? I'm not really sure how to rectify this but it's still a reality.

Maybe they should be, but the love for their own music might make them a bit oblivious to outside negative feedback, not to mention it's better to write what you love rather than what people love and to let them like what they want to like. If you don't like what you wrote, where do you get motivation to keep going?

Also, five bucks = exaggeration of 2 cents. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nice sentiment from a few posters here, but I disagree that you can't get a good idea of how much you like a track without listening from start to finish. I can give something a quick listen (only covering ~15% of it in that time) and have a very good idea of what style, structure and production values the track has. I wouldn't just listen to the beginning, though - I skip around, listen to short segments at a time, hold the track down when something different and interesting catches my ear and judge from there. I don't think I'm disrespecting any artist by doing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@timaeus, KingTiger: Unfortunately, us musicians also have to miraculously be mind readers.

So for everyone else watching at home and bring this full circle; I believe it's the producer's own fault if a person doesn't like a track or doesn't listen in full length. Hence why I usually give 30 seconds or so of buffer because this is my honest reaction as a listener, and not as a producer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@timaeus, KingTiger: Unfortunately, us musicians also have to miraculously be mind readers.

So for everyone else watching at home and bring this full circle; I believe it's the producer's own fault if a person doesn't like a track or doesn't listen in full length. Hence why I usually give 30 seconds or so of buffer because this is my honest reaction as a listener, and not as a producer.

It's the producer/musician's fault inasmuch as it's his/her fault that if s/he has poor eyesight; I guess it's still "the buck stops here".

And as far as being mind readers: Absolutely, if we want success and success is defined by popular opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the producer/musician's fault inasmuch as it's his/her fault that if s/he has poor eyesight; I guess it's still "the buck stops here".

Maybe it's the vague wording, but putting the producer at fault indefinitely, as it seems, is, in fact, very narrow-minded. I feel like blaming them all the time is just disrespect. If they put hard work into something, the least we could do is commend their effort and reward them by listening to their song further than just 30 seconds before making a solid judgment. If we hadn't done that all this time, few people would feel motivation to get good. It's not the producer's non-incriminating fault that people don't like their music as opinion; it's only their non-incriminating fault if people truly don't like their music objectively---from a technical standpoint. We don't control opinion to a good enough extent very often at all. "Fault" is just a terrible word without saying if it means "a reason" or "your problem".

/offtopic

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it's the vague wording, but putting the producer at fault indefinitely, as it seems, is, in fact, very narrow-minded. I feel like blaming them all the time is just disrespect. If they put hard work into something, the least we could do is commend their effort. If we hadn't done that all this time, few people would feel motivation to get good. It's not the producer's non-incriminating fault that people don't like their music as opinion; it's only their non-incriminating fault if people truly don't like their music objectively---from a technical standpoint. We don't control opinion to a good enough extent very often at all. "Fault" is just a terrible word without saying if it means "a reason" or "your problem".

/offtopic

I'm intentionally vague, because where's the line between "opinion" and "objective"? And I'm not referring to genre of music here; I mean if a popular alternative rock band does some experimental things on their newest album without straying out of the bounds of alt rock, who decides wether those experiments were objectively good? Even if a well-versed, alt rock music critic states his opinion on the matter, isn't it still his opinion?

Perhaps "fault" in this context should be re-defined - in my case, if I say "the producer is at fault because popular opinion says his music is bad" then I mean "the producer failed to create a product that pleased the general public". I don't mean "he *should have* or *could have* done better, because not only are those phrases pretty useless to begin with, I mean he tried his best with what he had and what he knew but was it good enough? So like you said, it's the effort that counts.

That's the problem with art - objectivity/subjectivity is very much a grey area.

Edited by KingTiger
Link to post
Share on other sites
"the producer failed to created a product that pleased the general public".

That I'd whole-heartedly agree with.

I'm intentionally vague, because where's the line between "opinion" and "objective"? And I'm not referring to genre of music here; I mean if a popular alternative rock band does some experimental things on their newest album without straying out of the bounds of alt rock, who decides wether those experiments were objectively good? Even if a well-versed, alt rock music critic states his opinion on the matter, isn't it still his opinion?

That's the problem with art - objectivity/subjectivity is very much a grey area.

It's not as much of a grey area as it seems. Opinion and subjectivity are grey areas, while technical comments and objectivity are grey areas. Opinion is purely based on personal preference. Objectivity focuses on technical aspects, like production, arrangement complexity, and arrangement flow. Subjectivity focuses on personal opinion that is slightly based on objective analysis, like arrangement flow, drum programming, and sound selection. As you could see, arrangement flow was something that was inside the grey area of objectivity and subjectivity, but I personally haven't run into very many of those situations.

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not as much of a grey area as it seems. Opinion and subjectivity are grey areas, while technical comments and objectivity are grey areas. Opinion is purely based on personal preference. Objectivity focuses on technical aspects, like production, arrangement complexity, and arrangement flow. Subjectivity focuses on personal opinion that is slightly based on objective analysis, like arrangement flow, drum programming, and sound selection. As you could see, arrangement flow was something that was inside the grey area of objectivity and subjectivity, but I personally haven't run into very many of those situations.

I suppose you're right, but it's hard (for me anyway) to tell when the line has been crossed from one into the other; I would venture to say that even the greatest producers (of any style or genre) disagree on things they think are within the realm of "objective".

Link to post
Share on other sites

An unfortunate consequence of all this is that, if you're interested in winning votes, genre really does matter. Folks around here seem to like dubstep, rock, and chiptunes mostly. If you go with classical or something unusual like spaghetti western, you need to come up with a piece that's of significantly higher quality just to get the same number of votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a nice sentiment from a few posters here, but I disagree that you can't get a good idea of how much you like a track without listening from start to finish. I can give something a quick listen (only covering ~15% of it in that time) and have a very good idea of what style, structure and production values the track has. I wouldn't just listen to the beginning, though - I skip around, listen to short segments at a time, hold the track down when something different and interesting catches my ear and judge from there. I don't think I'm disrespecting any artist by doing this.

This is different, as you're sampling the whole track, not just one section that may be unrelated to the rest of what the track has to offer (as is the case in many songs), so going like this is bound to result in much more accurate judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to side with KgZ on this one actually. Even the longest intro needs to have purpose. 30 seconds is plenty of time to tell whether the track is progressing properly or if things are just meandering. Some of you are taking it to mean the composer/producer needs to get to the meat of the track within 30 seconds, which isn't what KgZ is saying at all. He's saying that your intro absolutely MUST have a purpose, and serve that purpose without going off-topic. Even the longest build up can serve a purpose without meandering, and 30 seconds is plenty of time to tell whether or not you like the story that they've set out to tell. If they tell a different story than the intro conveys, it can be a very cool effect, but it must be executed well. Otherwise, it's a misleading exposition, which I tend to find a little irritating (even if it's a bad intro followed by an excellent track) from a critical listening perspective.

I also agree that the composer needs to be responsible for their musical decisions. It can be hard that we're at fault for grabbing/not grabbing the listener's attention, but we ARE at fault. Music is an artistic endeavor, but more than that, it's a PERSONAL endeavor. It sucks that we have to take any sort of negative feedback personally, but that's the nature of the beast. If you can't learn to take criticisms to heart, and blame your shortcomings on the listeners, you won't progress as a musician whatsoever ("well they just don't like it for whatever reason, so they're not my audience - I'll get DIFFERENT people to listen next time"). You have to own your failures as well as your successes, to see what you do well and where you need to improve. That's just how music works; I've taken my fair share of harsh criticism, and I like to think I'm a better musician for it. I now go *seeking* harsh criticisms on all of my tracks to see how I can better them and what parts appeal to what listeners to gain perspective on the objective quality and also how to mold subjective pieces of a track to better appeal to listeners

Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to side with KgZ on this one actually. Even the longest intro needs to have purpose. 30 seconds is plenty of time to tell whether the track is progressing properly or if things are just meandering. Some of you are taking it to mean the composer/producer needs to get to the meat of the track within 30 seconds, which isn't what KgZ is saying at all. He's saying that your intro absolutely MUST have a purpose, and serve that purpose without going off-topic. Even the longest build up can serve a purpose without meandering, and 30 seconds is plenty of time to tell whether or not you like the story that they've set out to tell. If they tell a different story than the intro conveys, it can be a very cool effect, but it must be executed well. Otherwise, it's a misleading exposition, which I tend to find a little irritating (even if it's a bad intro followed by an excellent track) from a critical listening perspective.

What I'm getting from this is that you gave his ambiguity the benefit of the doubt. While 30 seconds is long to the listener, 30 seconds is not that long to the producer. To be able to fit engaging content in 30 seconds might actually be pretty difficult for some people, and if I were to take KgZ literally, it would be the case that he means the first 30 seconds (which apparently seems to be very close to what he said).

I wouldn't just listen to 30 seconds and quit if I'm not interested in the first 30 seconds. What if the intro makes use of long, well-selected pads that convey 30 seconds' worth of information in 50? I would take Gario's approach and skip around a little first if I ever was somewhat skeptical about the intro. Then if I notice something really cool, I'd go back to see how it connects. Regardless, I still listen to the whole track in the end, and I give everyone a fair listen if their track is listenable---listenable being not ear-splittingly painful the whole entire time.

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm getting from this is that you gave his ambiguity the benefit of the doubt. While 30 seconds is long to the listener, 30 seconds is not that long to the producer. To be able to fit engaging content in 30 seconds might actually be pretty difficult for some people, and if I were to take KgZ literally, it would be the case that he means the first 30 seconds (which apparently seems to be very close to what he said).

I wouldn't just listen to 30 seconds and quit if I'm not interested in the first 30 seconds. What if the intro makes use of long, well-selected pads that convey 30 seconds' worth of information in 50? I would take Gario's approach and skip around a little first if I ever was somewhat skeptical about the intro. Then if I notice something really cool, I'd go back to see how it connects. Regardless, I still listen to the whole track in the end, and I give everyone a fair listen if their track is listenable---listenable being not ear-splittingly painful.

...How did you get that? All I'm saying is that your musical decisions have to have a purpose, and an introduction is a hugely important part of a track, so you better make sure it's got purpose. If the intro "makes use of long, well-selected (mind you, you're backing me up when you say "well-selected" :P ) pads that convey 30 seconds' worth of information in 50", then you're still giving the intro purpose, and someone like KgZ will be likely to listen past the first 30. If they're well-selected, the track should progress well.

Also, I don't think it makes any sense to quantify "information" in seconds. Care to expand on that a bit?

Edited by Phonetic Hero
Link to post
Share on other sites
...How did you get that?

"you gave his ambiguity the benefit of the doubt." is what I got. The rest is my additional comments.

Also, I don't think it makes any sense to quantify "information" in seconds. Care to expand on that a bit?
Information in this case means a story, or auditory information, like arrangement content, ambience, head-bang or not, dance or not, etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm getting from this is that you gave his ambiguity the benefit of the doubt. While 30 seconds is long to the listener, 30 seconds is not that long to the producer. To be able to fit engaging content in 30 seconds might actually be pretty difficult for some people, and if I were to take KgZ literally, it would be the case that he means the first 30 seconds (which apparently seems to be very close to what he said).

Where do you come up with this stuff buddy? KgZ is probably one of the best all-around producers in this contest. He's an extremely talented Berklee grad and has tons of prestigious credits to his name. Also his music is off the wall, so you might want to give him the benefit of the doubt with his approach. :D

In the big time, you'd be lucky if you could get a record exec to listen to your track for more than 10 seconds. Is it right? Maybe not, but its how the game works and its super important to get your listeners attention right away. I actually tend to be pretty bad myself at getting to the point. If the piece\band is good I'll listen to that stuff all the way through all day. This also doesn't mean you have to start your piece of hard, you can have ambient stuff, just make it interesting. :D Though, I will also say depending on your genre a longer intro may be required, in those cases I'll jump ahead if I want to get to the meat. A great example of this is Octavarium and Trial of Tears by Dream Theater.

I actually have a pretty bad habit (bad?!) of listening to albums all the way through if I like what they are doing, even if the song I liked is the only good thing about the album haha. I also like listening to their influences.

Edited by Shadix
Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to side with KgZ on this one actually. Even the longest intro needs to have purpose. 30 seconds is plenty of time to tell whether the track is progressing properly or if things are just meandering. Some of you are taking it to mean the composer/producer needs to get to the meat of the track within 30 seconds, which isn't what KgZ is saying at all. He's saying that your intro absolutely MUST have a purpose, and serve that purpose without going off-topic. Even the longest build up can serve a purpose without meandering, and 30 seconds is plenty of time to tell whether or not you like the story that they've set out to tell. If they tell a different story than the intro conveys, it can be a very cool effect, but it must be executed well. Otherwise, it's a misleading exposition, which I tend to find a little irritating (even if it's a bad intro followed by an excellent track) from a critical listening perspective.

You're missing the point here, because I never said that your intro mustn't be engaging or have a purpose. My point is that judging a song just by that will lead to a misjudgment sooner or later. As I said, it's true that most songs you can tell right away if they're going to be bad or good, however there are cases that the song will have a weak start and finish really really strong (as I explained was the case with one of the first round mixes).

Since we're not just listening to song on their own, but comparing it to others to decide a vote, we need to have a complete understanding of the choice at hand, and as I said a song with a weak start CAN have a strong overall performance that can also trump other songs that may have a constant quality through the song's course.

I feel you'd be doing a disservice to the creators and the competition as a whole not to asses an informed judgement.

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

×   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.


×
×
  • Create New...