Earthbound Remix: Zombie Paper

[Insanctuary]

One day, while playing one of the best games in the world: EarthBound

I discovered a soundtrack that made my heart cry with happiness; my ears never were carressed with such sheer elegancy. I was starving for a remix, but unbeknownst to myself, I was only left with remixes that were only made to make fun of the song. I was baffled by how immature people could be to let such grand potential lay waste to their poor expectations! I cried myself to sleep for a night because of how disgusted I was...

Then the next morning, I sat at my computer desk, I then opened up my music program. I began my journey to justify this song after days upon days of diligent composition to reveal to these monsters that desecrated all over this angel's voice what happens when you prove people wrong after working endlessly on your I-told-you-so-project.

Then the judgement day finally came! After spending 2/8 of my time going back to "Zombie Paper":

to make sure I didn't end up screwing up the original, while making sure I placed every note respectively to reflect off the profound quality and atmosphere "Zombie Paper" offers, I could finally pat my inner genius' on the back for allowing me to compose something worth it enough to pay my existential debt to a track so irrefutably divine!

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you! http://soundcloud.com/insanctuary/running-to-the-store-for-more

Zombie Paper - The True Remix: "Running To The Store For More Zombie Paper".

Edited August 18, 2013 by Gario
The title was very hard to tell what's being arranged, as it was - please keep the titles shorter next time, for clarity

[timaeus222]

I hate to disappoint you, but the mere fact that you say it's "The True Remix" and that you "began [your] journey to justify this [source] after working endlessly on your I-told-you-so-project" doesn't automatically make it the best remix for this song. Just something to think about.

Some honest thoughts:

1:04 has a weird thin resonance from the sub bass that is ear-piercing. Perhaps it's near 16000Hz or so. Additionally, it would help if you high passed the sub bass at around 25Hz. You don't really need anything below that anyways, so it'll help save headroom, not to mention the sub-30Hz frequencies are really grating in excessive sustained usage.

2:08 had interesting drum timbres, but I personally think the snare could do without the entirely audible delay. I could imagine it without the delay, and it would still be at the same level of objective quality. It would also accent some of the LFOs and glitching you did a bit later.

Nice atmosphere at 2:42. Be careful on the low end there. It seems like there's some low end ambience from a reverb on the low pads.

The fading at 3:32 doesn't really contribute to the overall arrangement flow, however. 4:00 sounds like the end, and then an entirely new part fades in, and it doesn't connect.

Overall, I'm not really hearing much source very clearly (or the melody) because the sub bass is cluttering things up quite a bit. Keep working on it, as it's got room for improvement.

[Insanctuary]

I hate to disappoint you, but the mere fact that you say it's "The True Remix" and that you "began [your] journey to justify this [source] after working endlessly on your I-told-you-so-project" doesn't automatically make it the best remix for this song. Just something to think about.

Some honest thoughts:

1:04 has a weird thin resonance from the sub bass that is ear-piercing. Perhaps it's near 16000Hz or so. Additionally, it would help if you high passed the sub bass at around 25Hz. You don't really need anything below that anyways, so it'll help save headroom, not to mention the sub-30Hz frequencies are really grating in excessive sustained usage.

2:08 had interesting drum timbres, but I personally think the snare could do without the entirely audible delay. I could imagine it without the delay, and it would still be at the same level of objective quality. It would also accent some of the LFOs and glitching you did a bit later.

Nice atmosphere at 2:42. Be careful on the low end there. It seems like there's some low end ambience from a reverb on the low pads.

The fading at 3:32 doesn't really contribute to the overall arrangement flow, however. 4:00 sounds like the end, and then an entirely new part fades in, and it doesn't connect.

Overall, I'm not really hearing much source very clearly (or the melody) because the sub bass is cluttering things up quite a bit. Keep working on it, as it's got room for improvement.

What? Surely you jest! This remix touches every single voice the original has ever-so delicately. Why does this have to be the absolute judgement? Couldn't we atleast agree that maybe you personally don't like it the same way people scoffed at the original - because it's an "opinion". The thing about opinions, though, is that when you hate something; nothing comes of it; when you love something; something comes of it.

Tell me 5 good reasons why I should accept your criticism when it claims this untouchable remix wasn't detailed enough or cleaned up enough, whilst your criticism is entirely subjective and vague itself?

I really want to understand this from your POV, but you're making it difficult for me because of how personally attached I am to people's twisted sense of expectations in a world where hypocrisy rules over honesty.

I just want someone to help me improve my music's quality with quality criticism. Yours seemed rash and personal-driven. Where is the practicalities in your criticism? Saying my music is bad, muddy (there are a lot of songs out there that are "muddy"; it doesn't mean it's bad), that's an overlook on your part. Then you say my music doesn't resemble the one and only "Zombie Paper", when you can hear it just fine. I have other people who enjoy it and have no trouble at listening to it, but then again they are more opened-minded and objective with criticism than "I didn't like your style, therefore it was poor." They criticise my works at times, but with this one, they complimented me and enjoyed it thoroughly.

I honestly don't know where you come from, but I suspect you're young and used to the retro side of videogame music. My music isn't retro, or modern, it's what someone referred to as trascendental. I don't read music or follow bars, but the way I go around that, is how I am able to make instruments speak - you simply have to understand the language and emotions that are being communicated.

If you're a sad man listening to a happy song, you won't like it.

My music is corrupted, dark and deeply focused on communicating with even the monsters that dwell within us, so to speak. I believe that my music touches both sides of the world, as much as it brings out potential in everything it touches.

Tell me again why you couldn't personally enjoy the remix, and this time don't rush it. Take your time to explain - in detail - why my song isn't good, or accept the fact that it could as well be an ill-prompt opinion, which is fine, I accept differences,

Edited August 17, 2013 by Insanctuary

[timaeus222]

What? Surely you jest! This remix touches every single voice the original has ever-so delicately. Why does this have to be the absolute judgement? Couldn't we atleast agree that maybe you personally don't like it the same way people scoffed at the original - because it's an "opinion". The thing about opinions, though, is that when you hate something; nothing comes of it; when you love something; something comes of it.

Tell me 5 good reasons why I should accept your criticism when it claims this untouchable remix wasn't detailed enough or cleaned up enough, whilst your criticism is entirely subjective and vague itself?

I really want to understand this from your POV, but you're making it difficult for me because of how personally attached I am to people's twisted sense of expectations in a world where hypocrisy rules over honesty.

I just want someone to help me improve my music's quality with quality criticism. Yours seemed robust and personal-driven. Where is the practicalities in your criticism? Saying my music is bad, muddy (there are a lot of songs out there that are "muddy"; it doesn't mean it's bad), that's an overlook on your part. Then you say my music doesn't resemble the one and only "Zombie Paper", when you can hear it just fine. I have other people who enjoy it and have no trouble at listening to it, but then again they are more opened-minded and objective with criticism than "I didn't like your style, therefore it was poor." They criticise my works at times, but with this one, they complimented me and enjoyed it thoroughly.

I honestly don't know where you come from, but I suspect you're young and used to the retro side of videogame music. My music isn't retro, or modern, it's what someone referred to as trascendental. I don't read music or follow bars, but the way I go around that, is how I am able to make instruments speak - you simply have to understand the language and emotions that are being communicated.

If you're a sad man listening to a happy song, you won't like it.

My music is corrupted, dark and deeply focused on communicating with even the monsters that dwell within us, so to speak. I believe that my music touches both sides of the world, as much as it brings out potential in everything it touches.

Tell me again why you couldn't personally enjoy the remix, and this time don't rush it. Take your time to explain - in detail - why my song isn't good, or accept the fact that it could as well be an ill-prompt opinion, which is fine, I accept differences,

1. If you look at some of the things I said, most things I said are simply what I observe, and I'm a very observant person. The resonance, for example, is there, but not super obvious.

2. I do have a good amount of experience in the topic of reverb, and I wouldn't mind giving you a hand on that.

3. I've produced music that I can objectively say is actually good. I've pinpointed the moment things turned around for me to be February 2013, and I haven't changed my mind about that date. This is the remix that made me say so.

4. You can trust me when I say the people of OCR are sincere and honest, as well as straightforward and precise when necessary. 99.99% of the time, we say helpful or constructive things in the WIP forum.

5. I keep my comments objective about 80% of the time, and I usually edit out purely subjective comments.

I don't love retro music to the ends of the earth, nor do I dislike it. It's fun, but it's not my favorite type of music. I generally like ambient, dubstep, chiptune, big beat, chillout, classical, funk, jazz, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Retro can sound cool, but again, it's not my favorite. However, I do still like it a lot, and

really bring music in general to the next level.

I'm actually not particularly biased towards or against any genres of music in any spiteful way. I try to find something good about everything I listen to, and I did in your case too. I didn't enjoy this a lot in the objective way, which hindered my enjoying this in the subjective way. There were indeed parts that I didn't like, but there were certainly parts I did like. It's fine if you like what you do, but it's not a guarantee that others will like it, whether it's the notes you chose or the current state of the mixing.

The atmosphere that I complimented definitely had potential, and perhaps one of the only things holding it back were the low cut on the reverb and time you can take, for the fun of it, to craft and polish the timbre of the pad even more and make it more evolving. I slightly turned away from this because of the muddiness in the low end, but it wasn't a huge deal.

The delay on the snare was 90% objective because it isn't often I hear delay on a snare; it's uncommon because it's not entirely practical. Yes, there's delay in real life in the form of echoes and room ambience, but that amount was too much. It made it hard to hear the other possibly interesting material in the remix.

Other than that, the sub bass really was obscuring the melody for me, and it made it difficult for me to listen to this remix in general. Anything with loads of sub bass to this level is hard to listen to, whether it's well-written musically or not. I mean it when I say there's mud that hinders the clarity of the mix. Clarity is very important. Mud wasn't an issue for the people you mentioned, perhaps because they honestly couldn't hear it, or they are confused as to how to describe it. In a completely non-offensive way, some people are musically experienced, and some have yet to reach that point. Try not to take that as arrogant, because I'm not trying to be.

Edited August 17, 2013 by timaeus222

[Insanctuary]

I don't love retro music to the ends of the earth, nor do I dislike it. It's fun, but it's not my favorite type of music. I generally like ambient, dubstep, chiptune, big beat, chillout, classical, funk, jazz, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Retro can sound cool, but again, it's not my favorite. However, I do still like it a lot, and

.

I'm actually not particularly biased towards or against any genres of music in any spiteful way. I try to find something good about everything I listen to, and I did in your case too. I didn't enjoy this a lot in the objective way, which hindered my enjoying this in the subjective way. There were indeed parts that I didn't like, but there were certainly parts I did like. It's fine if you like what you do, but it's not a guarantee that others will like it, whether it's the notes you chose or the current state of the mixing.

The atmosphere that I complimented definitely had potential, and perhaps one of the only things holding it back were the low cut on the reverb and time you can take, for the fun of it, to craft and polish the timbre of the pad even more.

Other than that, the sub bass really was obscuring the melody for me, and it made it difficult for me to listen to this remix in general. Anything with loads of sub bass to this level is hard to listen to, whether it's well-written musically or not.

Could we agree that since my music is closer to industrial/apocalyptic styles, that this is the reason why you personally cannot enjoy it? Dubstep can only wish it was as dark as industrial.

Your disagreements toward my style derives from the following things: my "muddy" bass, the "high pitches", and the overall style that doesn't seem to fit into your category of positive dispositions toward musical categories.

I am positively sure music that is "muddy" have reached records labels and made a lot of money accordingly.

I am also positively sure that a lot of well-known songs do have their annoying "high pitched" instruments that people don't seem to pay enough mind to, really. I've listened to some songs with them, that millions of people enjoyed, but I personally couldn't handle the high pitches, while I am able to handle the high pitches in my composition. Call it irony, if you will. Then again, it's like perfume; so many women and men perceive it as "a good smell", but that stuff makes me nauseous - likewise, people at farms don't even become affected by the aroma of fecal matter.

The thing is, the high pitches in those songs are due to, say, a slip in EQ, but the high pitches in my song are as much as a voice as every other instrument or sound I've composed. Everything, from drums, to instruments, to SFX, to pads, to percussive instruments, to fart sounds, to automations - everything I do is not there to make a "song" ; but to make a "story".

I do not have the time to explain to everyone my philosophy behind the music I share with people, but I assure you, the music I make is nothing like any music you hear. I've had countless people tell me that my music is a "new genre" because of how many elements and sounds I combine to make an atmosphere that require thought to truly appreciate.

I do thank you for being mature with your second response, but I would still like for this discussion to continue, to see if it may or may not help you experience what the song was entirely composed for - or you say something truly objective that I can take into consideration.

I uploaded the song elsewhere, and the score doesn't agree with your criticism.

Am I missing something here? Or is it you? That's what I really want to know.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Insanctuary

[timaeus222]

Could we agree that since my music is closer to industrial/apocalyptic styles, that this is the reason why you personally cannot enjoy it? Dubstep can only wish it was as dark as industrial.

I'm sorry to say I can't agree to that, because I truly am being non-biased in my constructive criticisms. Regardless of what genre this is, I don't dislike it merely because it is this genre.

Your disagreements toward my style derives from the following things: my "muddy" bass, the "high pitches", and the overall style that doesn't seem to fit into your category of positive dispositions toward musical categories.

I am positively sure music that is "muddy" have reached records labels and made a lot of money accordingly.

I don't mind the style in the least. It's the muddy sub bass, the high resonance in the sub bass, and the hindered clarity in the mix because of that. If I can't hear a song's notes clearly, it doesn't allow me to truly enjoy it. The music that made it in the industry with muddiness in the low end puzzles me sometimes, but in the end it wasn't about the music. It was about how the artist networked well.

I am also positively sure that a lot of well-known songs do have their annoying "high pitched" instruments that people don't seem to pay enough mind to, really. I've listened to some songs with them, that millions of people enjoyed, but I personally couldn't handle the high pitches, while I am able to handle the high pitches in my composition. Call it irony, if you will.

Some people can't hear or tolerate the high pitches. It's normal, but everyone is different. Your threshold seems to be higher. I'm sure you're aware of that one high pitched ringtone. It's like that.

The thing is, the high pitches in those songs are due to, say, a slip in EQ, but the high pitches in my song are as much as a voice as every other instrument or sound I've composed. Everything, from drums, to instruments, to SFX, to pads, to percussive instruments, to fart sounds, to automations - everything I do is not there to make a "song" ; but to make a "story".

This time, it's not a slip in EQ, but an overlook on the extra thin harmonics that appear. I understand how and why you did the LFO-rate-changing wobbles and such, but the audio frequency at which the resonances appear is grating, and there is nothing subjective about that. If it hurts my ears, it hurts my ears.

I do thank you for being mature with your second response, but I would still like for this discussion to continue, to see if it may or may not help you experience what the song was entirely composed for - or you say something truly objective that I can take into consideration.

Don't worry, I can handle being mature. It's not an issue you have to worry about. We can have a good discussion any day, and all that will happen is that we learn more. Edited August 17, 2013 by timaeus222

[Insanctuary]

I'm sorry to say I can't agree to that, because I truly am being non-biased in my constructive criticisms. Regardless of what genre this is, I don't dislike it merely because it is this genre.

If it's non-biased, why do I have an average score of 4.00/5.00 on a site where the voting system is crapped on by trolls? Why do 95% of my songs have that score?

I don't mind the style in the least. It's the muddy sub bass, the high resonance in the sub bass, and the hindered clarity in the mix because of that. If I can't hear a song's notes clearly, it doesn't allow me to truly enjoy it. The music that made it in the industry with muddiness in the low end puzzles me sometimes, but in the end it wasn't about the music. It was about how the artist networked well.

If you don't like muddy sub-bass, high resonance, or perceive it as lost quality when my music is philosophically composed, in that my music picks up the abstract expressions of the mind which involves a lot of profound distortion and wicked patterns that are generally elusive to the consciousness, then why state it is not biased - even if it's physiologically biased? My music, so to speak, represents a nightmare/void/infernal space that creates sounds in a beautifully abstract manner that can be described as "atonal".

Some people can't hear or tolerate the high pitches. It's normal, but everyone is different. Your threshold seems to be higher. I'm sure you're aware of that one high pitched ringtone. It's like that.

People hate everything when you combine all people which hate something. I cannot please everybody, and as arrogant as this sounds, but as true as it seems, my music appears to be attracting extremely intelligent folks. Everyone else either hates it, or just leaves it alone.

This time, it's not a slip in EQ, but an overlook on the extra thin harmonics that appear. I understand how and why you did the LFO-rate-changing wobbles and such, but the audio frequency at which the resonances appear is grating, and there is nothing subjective about that. If it hurts my ears, it hurts my ears.

I'm sorry that it hurts your ears, but ask yourself this; yes, I damaged your ears a bit, but I wasn't forcing you to listen to the whole thing, and you could've given it to someone who can handle it (you're the first one that actually couldn't handle it, I know some girls who listen to very relaxing music that can handle it). I respect that everybody's body has different strengths and weaknesses, but I also believe that a man should not judge something, if that man cannot connect with that something for whichever reason that may be.

Don't worry, I can handle being mature. It's not an issue you have to worry about.

Then tell me why your judgement is "non-biased", "objective" and "honest", when your body personally could not physiologically stand the remix as it is now. You probably were spending your time dodging the high pitched sounds, while cringing, as you were listening to the remix. I wouldn't doubt that I am too far away from the truth with that statement.

Did you try turning down the volume a wee bit? Did you try to embrace the sound not for what you wanted to expect, but for what the sounds painted in your head?

Finally, how can you judge the song if you don't even see the resemblance between a 40-second chorus of angels in the original from the blatantly placed sounds that can be heard throughout the entirety of the 8 minute-long remix? When it comes to people who know music theory far more than most people could dream of and those who don't even care for music theory - they just want music - are able to tell exactly where the resembling notes are without me having to tell them myself, one must question the critic's oppository statements.

Again, am I missing something?

Edited August 18, 2013 by Insanctuary

[Chimpazilla]

Sounds like you've come here for praise and not feedback. In this forum, you'll get constructive feedback to make you an even better artist. Take it or leave it. Sometimes the feedback is an opinion, sometimes it is an objective critique, it is up to you to sort out which is which. But we take the time here to give you something. Just... generally not blanket praise. Not here. You'll need a sense of humor here, some humility and a nice, thick skin, and you'll get along just fine. So if you're completely certain your mix is perfect, why post it in a wip forum? You could just stick to the sites where you'll get nothing but praise. The bar is just that much higher around here, we hold ourselves to a very high standard, and all of us are trying to improve even more.

[Insanctuary]

Sounds like you've come here for praise and not feedback. In this forum, you'll get constructive feedback to make you an even better artist. Take it or leave it. Sometimes the feedback is an opinion, sometimes it is an objective critique, it is up to you to sort out which is which. But we take the time here to give you something. Just... generally not blanket praise. Not here. You'll need a sense of humor here, some humility and a nice, thick skin, and you'll get along just fine. So if you're completely certain your mix is perfect, why post it in a wip forum? You could just stick to the sites where you'll get nothing but praise. The bar is just that much higher around here, we hold ourselves to a very high standard, and all of us are trying to improve even more.

Praise? Tell me the logic behind a man whom seeks for praise, when seeking praise is implying you are not worthy of praise. I'll tell you the logic - there is none, lol. That phrase was created upon a man's compensation, in that this compensation seeked for reassurement. That's all a praise is - reassurement. If I wanted reassurement, I would be depraising myself... You're so silly, I really hope you were trolling me with that specific sentence.

Do not fret for my desires, sir. I raise the bar everyday, but my bar is many times different than yours. I do not seek for professionality, as it is commercial; I seek for passionality, as it is curious. My music is as wild and chaotic as the world can be, and that is all I ever could want in my music. It is also prevalently relaxing at times and it does not disappoint in reaching every spectrum of the human psyche. When people listen to commercial works, they have no room for their imagination; when people listen to my congruous works, they have so much room to expand on what already is - likewise for the world before them.

I have self-humility, for I would only be humiliating myself for not accepting self-humility. I am humourous, honest and harsh on others - including myself.

My intuition only comes from a brittled spirit. You must be trolling me if you think I am here to pretend I am perfect.

I personally, along with others, are very proud of this remix. The score also tells the same story.

The critic/critique - hitherto - only appears to be personal, subjective and obfuscated. That said, I do enjoy a good discussion!

Edited August 18, 2013 by Insanctuary

[spellmynamewithabang]

Praise? Tell me the logic behind a man whom seeks for praise, when seeking praise is implying you are not worthy of praise. I'll tell you the logic - there is none, lol. That phrase was created upon a man's compensation, in that this compensation seeked for reassurement. That's all a praise is - reassurement. If I wanted reassurement, I would be depraising myself... You're so silly, I really hope you were trolling me with that specific sentence.

Do not fret for my desires, sir. I raise the bar everyday, but my bar is many times different than yours. I do not seek for professionality, as it is commercial; I seek for passionality, as it is curious. My music is as wild and chaotic as the world can be, and that is all I ever could want in my music. It is also prevalently relaxing at times and it does not disappoint in reaching every spectrum of the human psyche. When people listen to commercial works, they have no room for their imagination; when people listen to my congruous works, they have so much room to expand on what already is - likewise for the world before them.

I have self-humility, for I would only be humiliating myself for not accepting self-humility. I am humourous, honest and harsh on others - including myself.

My intuition only comes from a brittled spirit. You must be trolling me if you think I am here to pretend I am perfect.

I personally, along with others, are very proud of this remix. The score also tells the same story.

The critic/critique - hitherto - only appears to be personal, subjective and obfuscated. That said, I do enjoy a good discussion!

what are you

[Clem]

"Tell me 5 good reasons why I should accept your criticism when it claims this untouchable remix wasn't detailed enough or cleaned up enough" -Insactuary

Dude I gotta say that you are pretentious.

I honestly think the mix has some pretty cool moments. But man... you should realize that your overtly self congratulatory attitude will generally make people harsher with their criticism.

[jnWake]

We've got some interesting new users lately!

[timaeus222]

If it's non-biased, why do I have an average score of 4.00/5.00 on a site where the voting system is crapped on by trolls? Why do 95% of my songs have that score?

Because it truly was made in a way that hindered my listening experience. No one truly likes everything, but I still try.

If you don't like muddy sub-bass, high resonance, or perceive it as lost quality when my music is philosophically composed, in that my music picks up the abstract expressions of the mind which involves a lot of profound distortion and wicked patterns that are generally elusive to the consciousness, then why state it is not biased - even if it's physiologically biased? My music, so to speak, represents a nightmare/void/infernal space that creates sounds in a beautifully abstract manner that can be described as "atonal".

I don't like muddy sub bass, and any producer who can hear it would notice it. High resonance is not something that people would perceive as cool. Would you like it if I played a high pitch squeal in your ear for 10 seconds? I wouldn't, and I don't think you would appreciate that either. Hence, it's not a pleasant after-effect to have in your mix, and therefore, I had suggested you to find the thin frequency remnant that is the cause for it.

The way you wrote that, it just appears arrogant to me, no matter how much benefit of the doubt I give you. I was hoping to have a civil discussion with you, but I would like you to tone down the abrasiveness first. Also, I do realize what atonality is, and I like it when it's done tastefully, as it was in your case in certain sections of this remix; just not all of it indubitably.

People hate everything when you combine all people which hate something. I cannot please everybody, and as arrogant as this sounds, but as true as it seems, my music appears to be attracting extremely intelligent folks. Everyone else either hates it, or just leaves it alone.

I surmise that you've been sharing your music with people whose musical abilities are a mystery to you, so giving them such high praise when it comes to evaluating your music is risky.

I'm sorry that it hurts your ears, but ask yourself this; yes, I damaged your ears a bit, but I wasn't forcing you to listen to the whole thing, and you could've given it to someone who can handle it (you're the first one that actually couldn't handle it, I know some girls who listen to very relaxing music that can handle it). I respect that everybody's body has different strengths and weaknesses, but I also believe that a man should not judge something, if that man cannot connect with that something for whichever reason that may be.

If you're sorry it hurts my ears, then it would have been a nice gesture to look into the resonance, but you are insisting that it isn't a big deal. If I hear it every time, it's a big deal to me. If I heard it in the morning and not in the evening, then I wouldn't have said anything.

Then tell me why your judgement is "non-biased", "objective" and "honest", when your body personally could not physiologically stand the remix as it is now. You probably were spending your time dodging the high pitched sounds, while cringing, as you were listening to the remix. I wouldn't doubt that I am too far away from the truth with that statement.

Did you try turning down the volume a wee bit? Did you try to embrace the sound not for what you wanted to expect, but for what the sounds painted in your head?

Finally, how can you judge the song if you don't even see the resemblance between a 40-second chorus of angels in the original from the blatantly placed sounds that can be heard throughout the entirety of the 8 minute-long remix? When it comes to people who know music theory far more than most people could dream of and those who don't even care for music theory - they just want music - are able to tell exactly where the resembling notes are without me having to tell them myself, one must question the critic's oppository statements.

Again, am I missing something?

The girls you had listen to this probably had headphones that don't have a frequency range that reaches above 12000Hz. Headphones below the price of $40 or so often can't. The resonance I hear is near 16000Hz. My judgment was indeed non-biased, objective, and honest because I didn't say "You suck, I don't like this", "These notes are terrible", "This song is terrible", or anything close to that. No, I just said comments such as "This quality I hear in this mix hinders the clarity and makes it hard for me to truly enjoy the harmonic or tonal texture in this" and "This frequency range is overboosted, hurting my ears, so try looking into that".

Yeah, you are missing something. The sub bass is clouding the clarity of the mix, but you seem to be looking past that as if it were not even there, when in fact it's pretty evidently there. You're asking a lot for me to listen to an 8 minute song, tolerate the sub bass and high resonances, and sift through it for source usage. Look at this, for example. This illustrates how I would feel trying to find source in this.

The presence of the sub bass---the fact that it's there---obscures the important elements in the mix, and makes it difficult for me to give actual feedback, so that's the only thing I can really say right now. I was listening at the exact same volume I always listen at for anything I give feedback about. Don't overassume or believe I'm being mean.

That said, you remind me of Polonius from Hamlet, who is rather funny. Dat Olde English.

Edited August 18, 2013 by timaeus222

[Jamphibious]

If it's non-biased, why do I have an average score of 4.00/5.00 on a site where the voting system is crapped on by trolls? Why do 95% of my songs have that score

Almost all my songs on Newgrounds have a score of over 4/5, and I've had a ton of trolls and "zero bombers" give it low scores. Yet when I put most of these songs on there, I didn't even know what an equalizer was. A rating system online should not be a real indication of the quality of music.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you aren't trolling and are actually this pretentious. Feedback from any one individual is always valuable, even if they disagree with your whole artistic vision. You should learn from what you do, from what others say, from everything you possibly can in life. Everyone will have a different angle to look at things, and it can be helpful insight. Almost everyone has some sort of inherent biases within them, but Timaeus is trying to give some honest and helpful feedback, so try and listen to some feedback on your work-in-progress mix.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Amphibious

[Gario]

Before I give this a gander, I suggest that you shorten your thread title in the future - it's highly distracting with no real purpose other than to be an eyesore to people (that is, to gather attention in that manner). I understand that is actually a reasonable goal (garnering attention, that is), but if all threads had titles like that it would be an absolute mess in these forums. Nothing personal, just trying to keep things clean in here. On to the music...

Huh, actually this remix is pretty good, for what it is. Took a boring theme and actually made it into something relatively listenable... though I think most people on here are having some trouble hearing the source. If you don't mind, would you break the source material down for us? That is, give time stamps from your track that compare to the source (like, for example, at 0:56 in your track the rumble from the source is there). I'm unfortunately preoccupied with some stuff, atm, so I have less than ample time to comb a 8 1/2+ piece for source usage, but from a first listen it is difficult for most listeners to hear it.

Personally, I could do with less highs from the hats/cymbals, as they tend to distract from the rest of the interesting stuff in the mix (high hertz SFX pierce music, causing many listeners to pay attention to that instead). Just lowering their volume a touch would do wonders for this piece.

That "piercing" sound that Timeaus222 is mentioning at 1:05 sounds intentional. While it's neat, I can understand his concern - it is a little distracting at that point due to how loud it is in comparison to the rest of the mix (in comparison to other portions where it occurs, like 4:57, where there's more in the mix to help balance it out). I think he's in the right there - this is about the balance of sound, which is actually a technical issue (not really an artistic one) - I would suggest simply mixing that high pierce a little down. It's a nitpick, but I just thought you'd like to know the reason why people suggest mixing it down a bit.

The fadeout/fadein that actually lasts a minute (3:18 - 4:19) is very distracting, as it covers nearly an eighth of the piece (technically, the fadeout starts at 3:50, but the music starting at 3:18 is relatively quiet and has very little variation, so it sounds like it's a part of the FO). I can see what you're doing, but the fadeout being that large makes the piece a bit too disjoint. I'd suggest at least including some variations in the 3:18 - 3:50 portion - not necessarily more notes, just perhaps some more noticeable note motions, to keep things moving more in that section.

Actually, believe it or not I like this track - most things pointed out are nitpicks to a pretty good track. Two large issues, though, are the liberal nature of the track (virtually no one yet can recognize the source, as of yet - a little help pointing us in the right direction might be helpful, though), and the extra long fade in the middle, and the first is only an issue if you submit the track to OCR.

I would like to mention, though, that while you really are a pretty good producer, I'd suggest a touch of humility when speaking with people on the forum. Many of them are very experienced arrangers/composers in the field of music, in their own right, and many times there's no way to even tell of this fact. Alienating people here could mean accidentally burning bridges that would've been nice to establish, and I don't like seeing talent becoming disconnected with the rest of the community due to poor communication.

Anyway, actually a good arrangement - as long as you can tell me where the source is in the track. I might even suggest submitting it to the site with a little TLC, provided you can show that there is at least ~50% source usage in it.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Gario

[Insanctuary]

Because it truly was made in a way that hindered my listening experience. No one truly likes everything, but I still try.

However much you've tried, you still are missing the reasons why you as a critic, giving critique, is questionable - at the moment. My music; myself, is simply profound and complex, intrinsically; I understand where confusion can conjure itself up out of the civil abyss, such as silence, as well I as understand that very few people create their own unique style that differs greatly from anything before - so it is highly reasonable for you to apply your judgement that is comfortable with simple composers with simple minds, whilst struggling to do the same with someone whom created something different and interesting which does not follow normalities; but keeping sensibility, quality and responsibility at the same time.

I don't like muddy sub bass, and any producer who can hear it would notice it. High resonance is not something that people would perceive as cool. Would you like it if I played a high pitch squeal in your ear for 10 seconds? I wouldn't, and I don't think you would appreciate that either. Hence, it's not a pleasant after-effect to have in your mix, and therefore, I had suggested you to find the thin frequency remnant that is the cause for it.

I thoroughly adore muddy sub-bass, for it relentlessly tears away at reality until there is only a euphoric, ethereal, existential wave of life and feeling.

The way you wrote that, it just appears arrogant to me, no matter how much benefit of the doubt I give you. I was hoping to have a civil discussion with you, but I would like you to tone down the abrasiveness first. Also, I do realize what atonality is, and I like it when it's done tastefully, as it was in your case in certain sections of this remix; just not all of it indubitably.

It's because I am challenging someone who is generally "professional" at what they do, as a new member of the forums that is generally a "casual" until proven otherwise. Do not confuse my passion with arrogance - a lot of people do this, and it's tiresome. Besides, it takes arrogance to attack arrogance; whether that is difficult to understand or unbelievable, that is for you to decide, but as a "professional" in psychology and philosophy, arrogance - like fear - only induces more of thereof. Calling me arrogant, or feeling in that way, does not make me arrogant no matter how convinced you are; inorder to truly reveal arrogance in a person is to ignore it - if it is untrue, the person will sustain reasonability, personality and responsibility - fine, I'll make this easy for you, the term "arrogance", itself, reveals all "arrogance", in that the moment you call someone "arrogant" - if they are arrogant - they will react in a different manner than from those who are not arrogant.

An arrogant person would reply to you in a manner short from, "nah man, you are just a freaking dumbass that can't do so and so because I said so and so."

I surmise that you've been sharing your music with people whose musical abilities are a mystery to you, so giving them such high praise when it comes to evaluating your music is risky.

You're completely mistaken, which is also something I already predicted, hence my side of the discussion appears to be much more objective than your side of the discussion - for now, so all you can do right now is either A. Support your mountain of subjectivity with a mountain of objectivity, or B. Continue to pidgeon-hole my discussion based on more subjectivity, rather than being critical about it by supporting the discourse with objectivity. I will reveal a great example of your "pidegon-hole-esque" actions here shortly, that way you have the chance to challenge my claims accordingly.

If you're sorry it hurts my ears, then it would have been a nice gesture to look into the resonance, but you are insisting that it isn't a big deal. If I hear it every time, it's a big deal to me. If I heard it in the morning and not in the evening, then I wouldn't have said anything.

You're the only one that couldn't stand it. There was no mandatory alarm for me to notify people of possible ear-damage, because everyone I've shared it with simply didn't pay any mind to the high-pitch sounds, which mind you, are part of the song to create the necessary atmosphere it rightfully deserves.

The girls you had listen to this probably had headphones that don't have a frequency range that reaches above 12000Hz. Headphones below the price of $40 or so often can't. The resonance I hear is near 16000Hz. My judgment was indeed non-biased, objective, and honest because I didn't say "You suck, I don't like this", "These notes are terrible", "This song is terrible", or anything close to that. No, I just said comments such as "This quality I hear in this mix hinders the clarity and makes it hard for me to truly enjoy the harmonic or tonal texture in this" and "This frequency range is overboosted, hurting my ears, so try looking into that".

The difference in devices is the only objective thing you've said throughout all of this, save for your ears being uncomfortable with sounds, which is half-way objective.

You're still being biased if you are basing your criticism on what you personally don't like, rather than addressing the song universally. If I wanted to be a dick, I could say that judgement towards people via personal dispositions is an arrogant move, but I'm not a dick, so I will simply pay mind to how difficult of a person I can be, while discussing with me compared to many other people which is certainly, should I say, new territory for you. You're one person - out of a few dozen people. Tell me again why your criticism is fundamentally special compared to their own personal judgement?

Yeah, you are missing something. The sub bass is clouding the clarity of the mix, but you seem to be looking past that as if it were not even there, when in fact it's pretty evidently there. You're asking a lot for me to listen to an 8 minute song, tolerate the sub bass and high resonances, and sift through it for source usage. Look at this, for example. This illustrates how I would feel trying to find source in this.

I'm not missing anything - it is you that rests your judgement on what you define as "clarity", rather than accepting that "clarity" is "subjective" and not "objective". Who are you tell what is "clarity" and what is not? I know plenty of songs that have everything cleaned up, but the design is unclear, thus it has no "clarity", whereas my song is muddy, but the design is anything but "unclear". You're also asking a lot from me, after criticising me with questionable statements that I practically demonstrate to be subjective, vague, rushed and rash. I do not mind criticism, for the last time, I simply do not like "personal" criticism.

The presence of the sub bass---the fact that it's there---obscures the important elements in the mix, and makes it difficult for me to give actual feedback, so that's the only thing I can really say right now. I was listening at the exact same volume I always listen at for anything I give feedback for. Don't overassume or believe I'm being mean.

That's your personal opinion, which has no relevance to actual judgement of my song - as long as other people do not all share your opinion.

Lastly, to point out one of your more blatant attempts to "pidgeon-hole" my responses is when you say "the girls may not have the right headphones to pick up certain frequencies", while at the same time the girls, my friends, and random strangers appreciated my song enough to not give it a 0, a 1, a 2, or a 3, but a 4 out of 5 - and the most blatant error on your part of them all; my friends and these girls can hear the resemblance between the two songs with their "cheap" headphones, while you still can't personally, and at the same time, you're placing the onus on me, when your judgement simply doesn't stand on its own in the midst of my counter-points, of those who inadvertently challenge your supposedly objective, unbiased statements that are based entirely on personal, subjective, irrational feelings.

"Tell me 5 good reasons why I should accept your criticism when it claims this untouchable remix wasn't detailed enough or cleaned up enough" -Insactuary

Dude I gotta say that you are pretentious.

I honestly think the mix has some pretty cool moments. But man... you should realize that your overtly self congratulatory attitude will generally make people harsher with their criticism.

You fool! You dare defy my name?! Nevermind, I give up, being pretentious is being superfluous - no matter how creative you are at being thereof.

Point out my self-congratulatory ways in my posts.

Explain it; don't claim it - or in this case - clem it.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Insanctuary

[Gario]

If it's non-biased, why do I have an average score of 4.00/5.00 on a site where the voting system is crapped on by trolls? Why do 95% of my songs have that score?

Hey, most of my tracks on Newgrounds have an above 4.00 score, too, with virtually all of my latest (November 2012+) landing in a solid +4.50 range. Just saying that it actually means very little, as that actually is a reflection of how few listeners are able to find your music before it gets moved into obscurity.

If your listens for your tracks are below 2000, and/or the votes are sub-20 then in my experience the score is kind of a crapshoot on Newgrounds; it simply reflects what the first 10 or so people thought about your music. With a sample size like that it's tough to get a good gauge on the quality of what you're producing.

Just saying - Newgrounds' scoring is flawed, I wouldn't recommend using it as proof of anything.

[timaeus222]

However much you've tried, you still are missing the reasons why you as a critic, giving critique, is questionable - at the moment. My music; myself, is simply profound and complex, intrinsically; I understand where confusion can conjure itself up out of the civil abyss, such as silence, as well I as understand that very few people create their own unique style that differs greatly from anything before - so it is highly reasonable for you to apply your judgement that is comfortable with simple composers with simple minds, whilst struggling to do the same with someone whom created something different and interesting which does not follow normalities; but keeping sensibility, quality and responsibility at the same time.

I thoroughly adore muddy sub-bass, for it relentlessly tears away at reality until there is only a euphoric, ethereal, existential wave of life and feeling.

Seriously, you speak like Polonius. Look up the reference, laugh, and enjoy the hilarity of my comparison. But honestly, it's just an attempt to cover up what you really want to say. I can see that you're in denial. I'd rather not say it that way, but it's too apparent not to.

It's because I am challenging someone who is generally "professional" at what they do, as a new member of the forums that is generally a "casual" until proven otherwise. Do not confuse my passion with arrogance - a lot of people do this, and it's tiresome. Besides, it takes arrogance to attack arrogance; whether that is difficult to understand or unbelievable, that is for you to decide, but as a "professional" in psychology and philosophy, arrogance - like fear - only induces more of thereof. Calling me arrogant, or feeling in that way, does not make me arrogant no matter how convinced you are; inorder to truly reveal arrogance in a person is to ignore it - if it is untrue, the person will sustain reasonability, personality and responsibility - fine, I'll make this easy for you, the term "arrogance", itself, reveals all "arrogance", in that the moment you call someone "arrogant" - if they are arrogant - they will react in a different manner than from those who are not arrogant.

An arrogant person would reply to you in a manner short from, "nah man, you are just a freaking dumbass that can't do so and so because I said so and so."

BUT BUT BUT... you said...

You're completely mistaken, which is also something I already predicted, hence my side of the discussion appears to be much more objective than your side of the discussion - for now, so all you can do right now is either A. Support your mountain of subjectivity with a mountain of objectivity, or B. Continue to pidgeon-hole my discussion based on more subjectivity, rather than being critical about it by supporting the discourse with objectivity. I will reveal a great example of your "pidegon-hole-esque" actions here shortly, that way you have the chance to challenge my claims accordingly.

[/sarcasm] Is that not arrogant---what you said? Telling me that I'm "completely mistaken" in everything I said? Creating a forced dichotomy that I can "only" do this and that? Tell me, seriously.

You're the only one that couldn't stand it. There was no mandatory alarm for me to notify people of possible ear-damage, because everyone I've shared it with simply didn't pay any mind to the high-pitch sounds, which mind you, are part of the song to create the necessary atmosphere it rightfully deserves.

The people who "didn't pay any mind to the high-pitch sounds" couldn't hear it. I can, and so I mentioned it. You know the reference I'm talking about when I say "that one high pitched ringtone". Just think about it.

The difference in devices is the only objective thing you've said throughout all of this, save for your ears being uncomfortable with sounds, which is half-way objective.

So it's my fault that I was born with my ears disliking the abrasiveness of piercing sounds? That's what it sounds like you're writing. I find it a blessing that I can hear it, because I was able to point it out for you to look into, yet you refuse to even consider looking into it. I never said you had to fix it. I just wanted you to check it out.

You're still being biased if you are basing your criticism on what you personally don't like, rather than addressing the song universally. If I wanted to be a dick, I could say that judgement towards people via personal dispositions is an arrogant move, but I'm not a dick, so I will simply pay mind to how difficult of a person I can be, while discussing with me compared to many other people which is certainly, should I say, new territory for you. You're one person - out of a few dozen people. Tell me again why your criticism is fundamentally special compared to their own personal judgement?

What I don't like about this mix is objective because I'm not basing my opinion on it. Technical advice is not subjective, and my advice, as Gario said, was indeed on the technical side. I wouldn't say you're a dick, in those words or even in that context, phrasing, or implication, so you don't have to mention it in that way.

My criticism is "fundamentally special compared to [others'] own personal judgement", as you say, because... it's not. That's just your assumption. I merely said what I observed, like I said before. I'm a very observant person.

I'm not missing anything - it is you that rests your judgement on what you define as "clarity", rather than accepting that "clarity" is "subjective" and not "objective". Who are you tell what is "clarity" and what is not? I know plenty of songs that have everything cleaned up, but the design is unclear, thus it has no "clarity", whereas my song is muddy, but the design is anything but "unclear". You're also asking a lot from me, after criticising me with questionable statements that I practically demonstrate to be subjective, vague, rushed and rash. I do not mind criticism, for the last time, I simply do not like "personal" criticism.

I mean it when I say the sub bass hinders the clarity of the mix on my audio system (which I deem to not be incredibly suck-tasticular---yes, that's now an unofficial word) in my house on my desk. Clarity is nothing more than the harmonic or tonal distinctness in the song, and that's clearly a problem in my opinion. The clarity being a bad thing is my opinion, but the existence of the hindrance is a true technical mention from what I've observed.

Lastly, to point out one of your more blatant attempts to "pidgeon-hole" my responses is when you say "the girls may not have the right headphones to pick up certain frequencies", while at the same time the girls, my friends, and random strangers appreciated my song enough to not give it a 0, a 1, a 2, or a 3, but a 4 out of 5 - and the most blatant error on your part of them all; my friends and these girls can hear the resemblance between the two songs with their "cheap" headphones, while you still can't personally, and at the same time, you're placing the onus on me, when your judgement simply doesn't stand on its own in the midst of my counter-points, of those who inadvertently challenge your supposedly objective, unbiased statements that are based entirely on personal, subjective, irrational feelings.

There's no reason for me to "blatantly pidgeon-hole" your reasoning, when I'm simply pointing out the problematic logic in your reasoning. All I'm doing is emphasizing what's already there. ...Yup.

You don't have a clue how well other people hear from their perspective because you're not them. How can you know what they hear if you're not them? You don't physically have their ears, you don't physically have their level of hearing, and you might not even own their specific brand of headphones. What they say isn't necessarily accurate to the point where you can affirm with absolute certainty that this track or your other tracks are indefinitely, unequivocally perfect.

I have zero passionate feelings against this remix, and I'm merely aiming to get you to be more open-minded. Just imagine if Robert Irvine was standing in front of you, saying to you the words you wrote out to me. Would you be pissed? Yeah, probably. But you can see his anger, and you can tell he wants to help you. Now imagine how you sound on the internet, where facial expressions are nonexistent.

Edited August 18, 2013 by timaeus222

[Insanctuary]

Before I give this a gander, I suggest that you shorten your thread title in the future - it's highly distracting with no real purpose other than to be an eyesore to people (that is, to gather attention in that manner). I understand that is actually a reasonable goal (garnering attention, that is), but if all threads had titles like that it would be an absolute mess in these forums. Nothing personal, just trying to keep things clean in here. On to the music...

I will do this for now on.

Huh, actually this remix is pretty good, for what it is. Took a boring theme and actually made it into something relatively listenable... though I think most people on here are having some trouble hearing the source. If you don't mind, would you break the source material down for us? That is, give time stamps from your track that compare to the source (like, for example, at 0:56 in your track the rumble from the source is there). I'm unfortunately preoccupied with some stuff, atm, so I have less than ample time to comb a 8 1/2+ piece for source usage, but from a first listen it is difficult for most listeners to hear it.

0:36 into the song is where the remix truly begins with the bell sounds, as they sound exactly like a more melodic version of the bell sounds 5 seconds into the original,

The song I composed doesn't really use the laughable bass sounds, but rather evolves the bass sounds combined with the bell sounds to make an 8 minute story (this is not true, I am making a part 2 because part 1 was too massive) about the protagonist running to the store for more zombie paper.

It's strange because everyone I shared it with outside of OCRemix better made the connection than you guys that claim to be "professional"; I'm not saying you aren't, but in this case, you're not being "professional" enough.

Personally, I could do with less highs from the hats/cymbals, as they tend to distract from the rest of the interesting stuff in the mix (high hertz SFX pierce music, causing many listeners to pay attention to that instead). Just lowering their volume a touch would do wonders for this piece.

That's what I like to read in someone's statements, the word "personal" where personal is due. I will re-listen to the remix tomorrow and look into that to see if I can do as you suggest,

That "piercing" sound that Timeaus222 is mentioning at 1:05 sounds intentional. While it's neat, I can understand his concern - it is a little distracting at that point due to how loud it is in comparison to the rest of the mix (in comparison to other portions where it occurs, like 4:57, where there's more in the mix to help balance it out). I think he's in the right there - this is about the balance of sound, which is actually a technical issue (not really an artistic one) - I would suggest simply mixing that high pierce a little down. It's a nitpick, but I just thought you'd like to know the reason why people suggest mixing it down a bit.

That part of my song is one of the most emotional additions to the song. There's no way I am taking those pitches out of the song, they are like crying howls, I love them to death. I can tone it down perhaps, which is something I wouldn't mind doing.

The fadeout/fadein that actually lasts a minute (3:18 - 4:19) is very distracting, as it covers nearly an eighth of the piece (technically, the fadeout starts at 3:50, but the music starting at 3:18 is relatively quiet and has very little variation, so it sounds like it's a part of the FO). I can see what you're doing, but the fadeout being that large makes the piece a bit too disjoint. I'd suggest at least including some variations in the 3:18 - 3:50 portion - not necessarily more notes, just perhaps some more noticeable note motions, to keep things moving more in that section.

This is where I disagree; it's a story, it is supposed to be turning all over the place as the protagonist enters through different areas. The music starting at 3:18 isn't music, it's atmosphere to calm the listener after all the chaos I composed (I do this with nearly every other song I compose; I mix chaos and peace). I will not be changing any of that, as I am very proud of that atmosphere I created, which leads into the epic latter half of the remix.

Actually, believe it or not I like this track - most things pointed out are nitpicks to a pretty good track. Two large issues, though, are the liberal nature of the track (virtually no one yet can recognize the source, as of yet - a little help pointing us in the right direction might be helpful, though), and the extra long fade in the middle, and the first is only an issue if you submit the track to OCR.

Why would it be an issue? It's a remix. Why does it matter if it is parabolic in nature? Why can't I interweave sounds throughout the 8 minutes? If you noticed, "Zombie Paper" isn't so musical itself, but atmospheric. To change any of that seems to be defeating the purpose of the remix.

I would like to mention, though, that while you really are a pretty good producer, I'd suggest a touch of humility when speaking with people on the forum. Many of them are very experienced arrangers/composers in the field of music, in their own right, and many times there's no way to even tell of this fact. Alienating people here could mean accidentally burning bridges that would've been nice to establish, and I don't like seeing talent becoming disconnected with the rest of the community due to poor communication.

I love humility; I eat it for breakfast. I'm sure all the congress "officials" are very experienced in gish-galloping, I mean governing, but what does that have to do with the possibility that I - as a human being - have long studied enough to be more intuitive than those who are pronounced "professional" - I mean really, what truly makes one "professional", where does the term even originate? I'd much rather enjoy a hobo do an amazing dance infront of a street crowd.

I'm like life; you either hate me, or love me, but the smart thing to do is love what you can, and hate what you attempted to love.

Anyway, actually a good arrangement - as long as you can tell me where the source is in the track. I might even suggest submitting it to the site with a little TLC, provided you can show that there is at least ~50% source usage in it.

That is why I am here discussing the contents of the remix.

Almost all my songs on Newgrounds have a score of over 4/5, and I've had a ton of trolls and "zero bombers" give it low scores. Yet when I put most of these songs on there, I didn't even know what an equalizer was. A rating system online should not be a real indication of the quality of music.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you aren't trolling and are actually this pretentious. Feedback from any one individual is always valuable, even if they disagree with your whole artistic vision. You should learn from what you do, from what others say, from everything you possibly can in life. Everyone will have a different angle to look at things, and it can be helpful insight. Almost everyone has some sort of inherent biases within them, but Timaeus is trying to give some honest and helpful feedback, so try and listen to some feedback on your work-in-progress mix.

Then you're lucky. I went through an entire +2 years of zero bombing. I then gave up for a few years; came back, I was suddenly talented, I made many experiments that received interesting feedback, I lost my inspiration; came back, I was suddenly professional, I made many quality experiments that received not much feedback, but healthy scores, and I lost it again; came back, I reached a point where I can only see myself forever growing on a level that is simply undefineable.

A lot of people don't understand how much more harder it is to compose a non-commercial song with the quality I grant it from a commercial song. I simply don't have any true "melodic" flow in my songs; it's all abstract. It's a massive arregation of sounds that do not compliment each other when one or two are alone, playing, but when everything is thrown into the mix, it creates something that doesn't actually exist - my music is something close to an illusion. If you take 1 or 2 sounds out of the mix, the entire song loses its atmosphere in an instance. I spend most of my time creating the atmosphere, building it up and creating a story with it is very easy for me as everything falls into place whence I discover that beautiful atmosphere. My music is certainly intelligent and thought-out; most music comes from unidentified feelings, while my music comes from feelings identified; deep feelings that even the conscious mind cannot pick up.

Again, what you call pretentiousness, is my passion. Passion is a scary thing for a lot of people, so they demonise it quite easily, but it doesn't faze me.

I am discussing with anybody that wants to discuss with me at the fullest caliber; I don't understand why you count my critically thought-out responses to be "a pretentiously self-entitled waste of time".

Edited August 18, 2013 by Insanctuary

[spellmynamewithabang]

i like the part where you ignored a pretty good post because you didn't like that it criticized you and it really very much made me want to listen to your mother 2 rearrangement

[Gario]

It's strange because everyone I shared it with outside of OCRemix better made the connection than you guys that claim to be "professional"; I'm not saying you aren't, but in this case, you're not being "professional" enough.

Actually, I'm doing my job pretty well, which is specifically to judge a track early before it gets sent into the panel. The liberal issue that I'm pointing out wouldn't be noticed outside of the site because it's specifically something that has to do with site policies.

4.3. The source material must be identifiable and dominant.

As mentioned previously, a lot of people can't specifically hear something that sounds like the source material, which isn't an issue unless you plan on submitting this to OCR, in which case I can promise that it'd be rejected on that ground.

I hear the consistent connections with the alternating bell motif that you mentioned. The issue with making a connection with such a small element, though, is that it's a very common element in a whole lot of music. Unfortunately, basing something on a theme like that doesn't distinguish it from being based on something like, for example, the famous Jaws sequence (it has that same motif). Of course you didn't base your song off of that, but there is literally no context within the piece to actually make it sound like it's specifically from Earthbound. Ironically, those "laughable bass sounds" you mention are the recognizable elements of that source - without them the source isn't recognizable as Earthbound's "Zombie Paper".

Again, this is specifically a submission requirement - on it's own, that isn't an issue. On it's own, it's a cool piece that is inspired by Earthbound. If you wanted to submit then it'd be rejected on those grounds guaranteed - if you don't plan on submitting this to the site then don't worry about being liberal, as that's not an issue otherwise. I understand, the connection that you're trying to make is an emotional one - that is, your story and how that actually ties into the setting of the game. I do get it. Without an explanation, though, listeners wouldn't make that connection on their own, so to make up for that musicians on this site reference the source in a recognizable manner. Without enough recognizable source, people will not make the connections on their own that you want them to.

I agree that it would be very hard to incorporate such silliness into a remix like this, like you said - I think most people would agree that this track would be very difficult to remix for that reason, in fact.

That part of my song is one of the most emotional additions to the song. There's no way I am taking those pitches out of the song, they are like crying howls, I love them to death. I can tone it down perhaps, which is something I wouldn't mind doing.

That's all I'm suggesting, and I think Timeaus222 wouldn't mind if that's all you did - toning it down a little is pretty much all you need to do, in that case, to make it not pierce anymore.

This is where I disagree; it's a story, it is supposed to be turning all over the place as the protagonist enters through different areas. The music starting at 3:18 isn't music, it's atmosphere to calm the listener after all the chaos I composed (I do this with nearly every other song I compose; I mix chaos and peace). I will not be changing any of that, as I am very proud of that atmosphere I created, which leads into the epic latter half of the remix.

That is fine, I understand that; I didn't want you to add a bunch of things to keep it bouncing. Going to near silence for that long of a period takes the listener out of your story, though - it's like a movie that wants to insert peace from chaos in the movie by adding a black screen for a solid five minutes (probably more, if we're going to make this relative to the length of an average movie). You lose the audiences attention, and they lose track of what the story was in the first place.

I don't suggest making that portion louder, or adding more elements to it; as you said you wanted it to be peace within chaos (and believe it or not, that's technically good form, too). I did suggest adding some slight movement within the instrument that you already have, like having a semitone movement in one of the notes in that harmony, or something. That will keep the peace while keeping the audience engaged better with the story.

Why would it be an issue? It's a remix. Why does it matter if it is parabolic in nature? Why can't I interweave sounds throughout the 8 minutes? If you noticed, "Zombie Paper" isn't so musical itself, but atmospheric. To change any of that seems to be defeating the purpose of the remix.

Though I answered these above, here's a recap - being too liberal is not an issue at all unless you plan on submitting to the site. The long silence, rather than creating a break from the chaos, has the tendency to disengage the listener if there is too little for the listener to hold over that time, which is the opposite reaction that you'd want from your listeners if you're trying to get them engaged in a story.

I love humility; I eat it for breakfast.

Indeed.

...what does that have to do with the possibility that I - as a human being - have long studied enough to be more intuitive than those who are pronounced "professional" - I mean really, what truly makes one "professional", where does the term even originate? I'd much rather enjoy a hobo do an amazing dance infront of a street crowd.

Actually, "Profesional" means that one gets paid for what they do, while "Amateur" means that the person does not get paid for his/her work. That's it - if you've ever been paid for your work then you're a professional. Otherwise, like most members in this community you are an amateur, which isn't a negative thing at all. If that hobo gets change thrown at him for his dances, believe it or not that means that he's a "professional". It doesn't necessarily mean that he's good, just that he gets paid for his work.

The more you know.

I don't understand why you count my critically thought-out responses to be "a pretentiously self-entitled waste of time".

Being clear and concise are virtues; over-fabrication and needlessly compounding one's messages creates only confusion. The only reason one would need to confound others would be because they feel the content of their messages doesn't stand on it's own merit.

Expressing oneself in a short and clear manner is something that will help you in all walks of life - show that the content of your posts hold on their own merit and practice concise writing here.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Gario

[Insanctuary]

Seriously, you speak like Polonius. Look up the reference, laugh, and enjoy the hilarity of my comparison. But honestly, it's just an attempt to cover up what you really want to say. I can see that you're in denial. I'd rather not say it that way, but it's too apparent not to.

I heard you like Pontius Pilate.

In denial? Oh? If you feel that I am in denial, don't worry about "offending" me; people that are "offended", offend me; but they still do it, while expecting me not to "offend" them with all due hypocrisy. However that's as far as a statement can go on its own without a proper explanation. I can clearly see 'what' you think of me; I cannot clearly see 'why'... and you expect my song to be clear, whilst you are not? Mhmm...

BUT BUT BUT... you said...

It's not arrogance... my brilliant girlfriend wrote an intellectual assessment on what people accuse of being my ego here: "I do. I do not view it as they do. You are not putting yourself above me and boasting about yourself, you are not telling me that you deserve less or anything like that. You are being honest and saying that you are very much able to do what you will yourself to do and have no trouble at all putting your mind and body towards your passion.

They all think that talking about yourself automatically means it is boasting. It is not.

Talking about yourself is sharing your insight, wisdom, and experiences and thoughts/feelings because you know it is helpful to whomever listens and hears you out. Boasting is roasting in your accomplishments, bragging of what you can do and how it is better than others.

You are not ever taking part in the latter, no matter how many people may be offended by their own ignorance and incapability to comprehend that while you are learning still and gathering in your own life you are as well teaching, showing us all what is able to be done with one's own willpower and strength. It takes a great mind to do so, and an even greater mind to fully achieve the goal of teaching another to do the same."

[/sarcasm] Is that not arrogant---what you said? Telling me that I'm "completely mistaken" in everything I said? Creating a forced dichotomy that I can "only" do this and that? Tell me, seriously.

Refer to above ^-^

The people who "didn't pay any mind to the high-pitch sounds" couldn't hear it. I can, and so I mentioned it. You know the reference I'm talking about when I say "that one high pitched ringtone". Just think about it.

Yes, but by your logic, a man in a 5 star restaurant can put the "u rant" in "restaurant", by simply stating in a supposedly unbiased, objective manner that the food does not taste good; and the man will cry about how it's not his fault he was born with nitpicky tastebuds, while everyone else in the restaurant are doing well to not agree with this man's "opinion". Just think about it.

So it's my fault that I was born with my ears disliking the abrasiveness of piercing sounds? That's what it sounds like you're writing. I find it a blessing that I can hear it, because I was able to point it out for you to look into, yet you refuse to even consider looking into it. I never said you had to fix it. I just wanted you to check it out.

It is not your fault for your naturally explicit properties, however it is your fault for attempting to judge people based on your naturally explicit properties which generally differ with every person. Let me better explain myself: You were implying throughout your entire "critique" that you simply were too distracted by your personal taste to appreciate the song as well as others have; you created a judgemental atmosphere that I can tell straight away, by simply observing your reactions toward every individual element within my composition; and I can reasonably assess in a critical form that you were dodging my composition's high-pitched sounds, while griefing over the "muddy" nature. I cannot simply accept your critique, in the same manner I cannot accept a dojo master's critique, when they spend their entire training session cringing and refusing to do what they are supposed to do whilst teaching me how to sword-fight.

What I don't like about this mix is objective because I'm not basing my opinion on it. Technical advice is not subjective, and my advice, as Gario said, was indeed on the technical side. I wouldn't say you're a dick, in those words or even in that context, phrasing, or implication, so you don't have to mention it in that way.

Is the man at the 5 star restaurant objective? Gario expressed themselves in a practical, objective manner; you expressed yourself in a personal, subjective manner. If you noticed, Gario enjoyed my remix a lot, because they didn't expect anything out of my song, while suggesting what they thought would improve it in a critical manner that I can only respect. If you also noticed, Gario's first response was many times defined than your first response. You can learn much from Gario. I still think you're good at what you do, but only when it comes to people who do not pay much attention to "definement", as I do.

My criticism is "fundamentally special compared to [others'] own personal judgement", as you say, because... it's not. That's just your assumption. I merely said what I observed, like I said before. I'm a very observant person.

You mean what you "personally" observed, as everyone does not share your feelings. Be specific about your critique, because again, I pay attention to every detail on a personal and practical spectrum.

I mean it when I say the sub bass hinders the clarity of the mix on my audio system (which I deem to not be incredibly suck-tasticular---yes, that's now an unofficial word) in my house on my desk. Clarity is nothing more than the harmonic or tonal distinctness in the song, and that's clearly a problem in my opinion. The clarity being a bad thing is my opinion, but the existence of the hindrance is a true technical mention from what I've observed.

Meaning it does not mean anymore than what you mean, personally. However, you did finally use the term "opinion", which is where the discussive heart lies; I hope to see you follow that pattern in the future. Furthermore, you say that it's your "opinion" in one sense, but in a hidden synonymous manner, you implore that it's also an "objective" technical manner, which cannot be objective, for the majority hasn't shared the same "opinion". I am very aware that there's nothing in this world everyone can agree upon, but the sample size that declares your "technical opinion", is tremendously small.

There's no reason for me to "blatantly pidgeon-hole" your reasoning, when I'm simply pointing out the problematic logic in your reasoning. All I'm doing is emphasizing what's already there. ...Yup.

You're trying to pidgeon-hole, albeit I don't perceive it to be something on purpose. I will again demonstrate thereof - as much as I already have, but frankly, it continues to elude you.

You don't have a clue how well other people hear from their perspective because you're not them. How can you know what they hear if you're not them? You don't physically have their ears, you don't physically have their level of hearing, and you might not even own their specific brand of headphones. What they say isn't necessarily accurate to the point where you can affirm with absolute certainty that this track or your other tracks are indefinitely, unequivocally perfect.

I like this excuse. You have no idea how many people attempted to resort to "you don't know me" responses, whereas I instantly retaliate with a simple question, "what is the point of me walking in your shoes, if you cannot define your own life, yourself - your conjecture is as moot as my conjecture - besides, did you forget about the love birds that swear up and down to scream to the world how they understand one and the other as if they were one in the same, but individualistically unique?"

I have zero passionate feelings against this remix, and I'm merely aiming to get you to be more open-minded. Just imagine if Robert Irvine was standing in front of you, saying to you the words you wrote out to me. Would you be pissed? Yeah, probably. But you can see his anger, and you can tell he wants to help you. Now imagine how you sound on the internet, where facial expressions are nonexistent.

I am very open-minded; I am only close-minded to the close-minded.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Insanctuary

[Clem]

You fool! You dare defy my name?! Nevermind, I give up, being pretentious is being superfluous - no matter how creative you are at being thereof.

Point out my self-congratulatory ways in my posts.

Explain it; don't claim it - or in this case - clem it.

haha. Dude, don't take it too hard, I don't actually dislike you or anything. It seems to me that you seriously don't realize how your attitude is coming off right now.

You asked for an example of self congratulatory ways, and that exactly what I gave with that quote. You claimed your piece was "untouchable". Come on man, you can't say shit like that. You're only human. Nothing you do is untouchable. Were you just joking?

Here's the thing. You have responded to every single criticism with a striking inability to see another person's perspective. When anybody points out something that they think can be improved in your work, you insist that they just don't understand your grand artistic vision

This attitude you have makes it hard for you to see the limitations of your own work, which is a death knell for any artist. You're too complacent, man!

I genuinely dig some of the interesting sound design and arrangement ideas in your Soundcloud stuff. But compare it to something like this, for instance: https://soundcloud.com/amon-tobin/lost-found

You should be able to see that there are levels of skill that you have not tapped. You need to be less self-satisfied in order to grow as an artist. (a sad truth)

[Gario]

Okay you two, take it down a notch, we're getting off topic. Timaeus222 has some criticism, and Insanctuary doesn't necessarily agree with it. Timaeus, you made your point well enough. Insanctuary, it's not worth the integrity of the thread to fight with him - just take it in stride, if you don't agree, and move on.

If anyone has comments about the song, by all means continue, but commenting on one another's personal integrity is getting out of hand and disrupting the thread. Please take it down a notch, both of you.

As a side note, I think you might enjoy the PPR forum on this site, Insanctuary - the kinds of arguments you bring up are fair game in there, if you find topics you're passionate about. It's just not what the workshop is for; keep it about the music if possible, peeps

Edited August 18, 2013 by Gario

[WillRock]

Guys this is a WIP forum thread. No need for off-topic in-depth debates about feedback/arrogance/brilliant gfs etc

Insanctuary, if you post a track here, to put it bluntly... expect feedback!

People do it with ALL tracks posted in this forum, you're hardly being discriminated against here Try not to take feedback so personally as well, we are only advising you to make your track as good as it can be You are under no obligation to take advice given in these forums. Also, the people here will critique to you their knowledge of the OverClocked Remix Submission Standards. This is where the more subjective arrangement critiques come from.

My advice - take all feedback into consideration at the least so you can improve your craft, (also I wouldn't bother explaining why you'd rather not change certain crits if you don't want to, that goes without saying ). Take what feedback you get, update the track however you like, and people will come back and give you more advice until you feel its finished. Advice is the keyword here - thats all anyone is doing here - advising.