timaeus222 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 As I said, music should speak for itself, in my opinion. If the listener can't hear the source, it's my fault, not the listener's. I should've done a better job at representing the original in a more recognizable manner. I find silly that someone should need to read a second-by-second metric to be able to tell where the source is being used. Specially since people voting here are for the most part musicians who should recognize key changes and complex arrangements more than the general public. I'm not saying that if I provide one, that it is necessary. It's there if someone needs it so that they know what to listen for. An interpretation isn't always immediately recognizable. There are some [to be unnamed] remixers here who may have a hard time translating someone else's interpretation of a source tune into a different key, tempo, and mood at the same time (all three of which I have done, which is why I provided that breakdown, for those who want it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I'm not saying that if I provide one, that it is necessary. It's there if someone needs it so that they know what to listen for. An interpretation isn't always immediately recognizable. There are some [to be unnamed] remixers here who may have a hard time translating someone else's interpretation of a source tune into a different key, tempo, and mood at the same time (all three of which I have done, which is why I provided that breakdown, for those who want it). And like I said, if someone needs one, then the remixer should've done a better job there. People like mazedude and schabubula do some of the most complex arrangements of video game music out there yet you can distinguish the source quite easily. They don't writte essays for people so they can interpret their music. Their music speaks for itself. But like I said, to each their own. I tend to ignore these when voting, regardless of whether I could hear the source or not. Tuberz McGee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Specially since people voting here are for the most part musicians who should recognize key changes and complex arrangements more than the general public. I get what you're saying about the music speaking for itself, but aren't you saying here that some people are better (or "better") at recognizing source usage anyway? So, a source breakdown can help with bridging this gap (I know it does it for me, definitely saves me time going comparing between the source and the arrangement). I make the final judgement if it's valid usage in the end anyway. Music should speak for itself as far as pure enjoyability of the piece is concerned. But there are other aspects where analysis helps me appreciate it more in several possible ways: references (incl. VGM arrangement), meaning or background/context of lyrics, production techniques, story behind the composition/circumstances of how the piece came together, etc.. Music is never without context & there is no "pure" experience of music. edit: Not that I didn't agree what you're saying about two of my favourite ReMixer's work.. timaeus222 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Hakštok Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I started working on a pretty interesting arrangement yesterday and wanted to finish today but I'm having a terrible headache. Got around a minute done, I'll try to expand it to a bit over two minutes and send it :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillRock Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 And like I said, if someone needs one, then the remixer should've done a better job there. People like mazedude and schabubula do some of the most complex arrangements of video game music out there yet you can distinguish the source quite easily. They don't writte essays for people so they can interpret their music. Their music speaks for itself. But like I said, to each their own. I tend to ignore these when voting, regardless of whether I could hear the source or not. Actually the judges on the panel encourage people to post their source usage because its quite possible that someone will miss source usage. People aren't robots who catch everything, if its clear or not. Its not just about whats obvious, its how well the listener knows the source tunes. Don't forget that people who are voting on all the remixes have over 40 sources to memorise. At some point we're going to make mistakes and that could mean the difference between a 1st place, 2nd or 3rd place vote. Saying that the remixer should have done a better job or that the music should speak for itself is silly imo because we're ALL liable to make mistakes no matter how much the remixer has tried to make the sources as clear as possible, particularly with remixes that use more than one source tune. A little nudge in the right direction from the mixer does no harm at all imo. Pavos, timaeus222, Shadix and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yami Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 And now I seem to be working on something which seems to be something pseudo psychedelic rock-ish. I have no idea how I got there, and no, I'm sober (at least now) Jorito 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpocalypse Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Actually the judges on the panel encourage people to post their source usage because its quite possible that someone will miss source usage. People aren't robots who catch everything, if its clear or not. Its not just about whats obvious, its how well the listener knows the source tunes. Don't forget that people who are voting on all the remixes have over 40 sources to memorise. At some point we're going to make mistakes and that could mean the difference between a 1st place, 2nd or 3rd place vote. Saying that the remixer should have done a better job or that the music should speak for itself is silly imo because we're ALL liable to make mistakes no matter how much the remixer has tried to make the sources as clear as possible, particularly with remixes that use more than one source tune. A little nudge in the right direction from the mixer does no harm at all imo. For a quick analysis, and making the judging panel bearable, i'm inclined to agree with these points but it bothers me that ReMixes have become so mathematical to begin with. Percentages should not be used to determine if a remix is passable, familiarity should. Part of the fun of doing this OcReMixing thing is hearing how a ReMixer used the source in ways that you didn't notice the first dozen or so times you listened to it. Giving the source usage up right off the bat cheapens the effort you put into the remix and makes for a kind of guided discovery with the ultimate goal of requiring the listener to listen to the track less to get everything out of it. This is also known as decreasing artistic worth. Which I feel there is enough of already these days. So HIDE SOME STUFF! ...and let's give the future OCRemix Analyzers, Biographers and Anthologists something to discover and write about. YoshiBlade and fxsnowy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoshiBlade Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I'm sure I've asked this before, but why do people post source usage like its a metric? Perhaps this is just because I'm coming from an outside perspective and I'm around musicians a lot in my profession and go to magfest, but the concept seems confusing to me. Do you guys come up with your source usage while you are writing or is it kind of an after-the-fact thing? If its the former, writing to source usage like that seems like it would make creative expression rather difficult and rigid on a liberal side, and would distort the ability for a bystander to recognize the source from a conservative side. If it's the latter, why do so many of you guys compile this metric? It seems like songwriting, flow, arrangement, mixing quality, novelty factor, mastering, etc. would be the more important components of a mix than its source usage %, yet I see more people post that than I do the former. Kind of curious to learn the thinking behind it and why some of ya'll do it. I see it as a sort of of musical "I Spy"...feels good when you pick out a piece of source material on a 2nd listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Actually the judges on the panel encourage people to post their source usage because its quite possible that someone will miss source usage. People aren't robots who catch everything, if its clear or not. Its not just about whats obvious, its how well the listener knows the source tunes. Don't forget that people who are voting on all the remixes have over 40 sources to memorise. At some point we're going to make mistakes and that could mean the difference between a 1st place, 2nd or 3rd place vote. Saying that the remixer should have done a better job or that the music should speak for itself is silly imo because we're ALL liable to make mistakes no matter how much the remixer has tried to make the sources as clear as possible, particularly with remixes that use more than one source tune. A little nudge in the right direction from the mixer does no harm at all imo. I know judges do it, and I don't agree with it. II don't like the idea of cutting out my music in that fashion because that's not how I think when I make my music. If they want to reject it because they can't hear the source without the aid of a list explaining source usage, then I'm fine with that. I probably should've done a better job at it. Regarding this competition, the point is to make homage to the sources. If I make some ludicrous arrangement that doesn't sound at all like the source but it still incorporates it in some remote way every step of the way, and then I go about making a list of second-by-second explanations of which notes from the source I used where, then that makes it just fine even if the listener can't hear it? I don't think so. The source should be evident enough that people don't need that. I'll start doing it when other artists in other media start sending detailed explanations on how they implemented the original piece they're paying homage to to the critics. Imagine if a director making a remake of a movie sent an essay to movie critics on scene-by-scene basis to show them when and how they implemented the original movie. Pretty ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoshiBlade Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 For a quick analysis, and making the judging panel bearable, i'm inclined to agree with these points but it bothers me that ReMixes have become so mathematical to begin with. Percentages should not be used to determine if a remix is passable, familiarity should. Part of the fun of doing this OcReMixing thing is hearing how a ReMixer used the source in ways that you didn't notice the first dozen or so times you listened to it. Giving the source usage up right off the bat cheapens the effort you put into the remix and makes for a kind of guided discovery with the ultimate goal of requiring the listener to listen to the track less to get everything out of it. This is also known as decreasing artistic worth. Which I feel there is enough of already these days. So HIDE SOME STUFF! ...and let's give the future OCRemix Analyzers, Biographers and Anthologists something to discover and write about. I feel like this is somewhat relevant... To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and 2) How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter.If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness. A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter grows, so will, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry. ^^^^^ Bullshit....Rip it Out...RIP IT OUT!! Garpocalypse 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorito Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I know judges do it, and I don't agree with it. II don't like the idea of cutting out my music in that fashion because that's not how I think when I make my music. If they want to reject it because they can't hear the source without the aid of a list explaining source usage, then I'm fine with that. I probably should've done a better job at it. I also don't think about it when making music; it's mostly an after-the-fact breakdown for me. The track I make goes the direction it wants to go in, I'm really not thinking about having enough source usage. Apart from that, I find it also pretty educational to see what I did in retrospect. I can imagine from a judges' perspective that they want some objective measures to see if a track isn't too original for posting on OCR. I also don't find the "need minimum X% of source" in there particularly good, but it's not the only criteria they use and I think they are pretty flexible about it. Awell, let's just agree to disagree, and everybody lives happily ever after Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yami Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Ok, I subbed mine. It's short and I don't expect any points for it. It's better than I had hoped (after about 8 hours of work), but it's not great. Well, whatever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I won't be submitting anything this round. A combination of events and lack of drive/inspiration the last couple of days made it impossible for me, as every time I loaded the project it seemed like I was trying to solve a millenium prize problem. My apologies to everyone. Awell, let's just agree to disagree, and everybody lives happily ever after Yep, this was from the beginning, just my opinion, and I didn't want to put it out as fact. Happily to agree to disagree on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillRock Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 It bothers me that ReMixes have become so mathematical to begin with. Percentages should not be used to determine if a remix is passable, familiarity should. Part of the fun of doing this OcReMixing thing is hearing how a ReMixer used the source in ways that you didn't notice the first dozen or so times you listened to it. Giving the source usage up right off the bat cheapens the effort you put into the remix and makes for a kind of guided discovery with the ultimate goal of requiring the listener to listen to the track less to get everything out of it. This is also known as decreasing artistic worth. Which I feel there is enough of already these days. So HIDE SOME STUFF! ...and let's give the future OCRemix Analyzers, Biographers and Anthologists something to discover and write about. Not going to comment on artistic worth, or cheapening the effort, because I believe thats all very much in the eye of the beholder, even tho I see what you're saying. But in terms of not having that information - I agree... if its for general listening. Yes, is it cool to hear new things a second time through, but when you're voting or judging on a track for a competition etc, you're not just listening for fun, so that argument kinda goes out of the window imo. For this competition, analysis of arrangement is important according to darkeswords rules, so in this case, we should have all the information we need to vote properly. I know judges do it, and I don't agree with it. II don't like the idea of cutting out my music in that fashion because that's not how I think when I make my music. If they want to reject it because they can't hear the source without the aid of a list explaining source usage, then I'm fine with that. I probably should've done a better job at it. Regarding this competition, the point is to make homage to the sources. If I make some ludicrous arrangement that doesn't sound at all like the source but it still incorporates it in some remote way every step of the way, and then I go about making a list of second-by-second explanations of which notes from the source I used where, then that makes it just fine even if the listener can't hear it? I don't think so. The source should be evident enough that people don't need that. I'll start doing it when other artists in other media start sending detailed explanations on how they implemented the original piece they're paying homage to to the critics. Imagine if a director making a remake of a movie sent an essay to movie critics on scene-by-scene basis to show them when and how they implemented the original movie. Pretty ridiculous. I've known remixers to ask for do-overs on votes after judges have missed source usage so not everyone agrees on your point of view here. I'm sure if someone said they put you lower in the voting cause they didn't hear source usage you KNOW is there (and quite obvious with some prompting), yeah, I'd bet that would annoy some people. Also, regarding the point of the list the source usage is the remixers interpretation. If someone else still can't hear it, then thats fine. Again, I don't believe it does any harm. As has been said already, agree to disagree. I don't really want to derail this thread too much XD timaeus222 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I won't be submitting anything this round. A combination of events and lack of drive/inspiration the last couple of days made it impossible for me, as every time I loaded the project it seemed like I was trying to solve a millenium prize problem. My apologies to everyone. I totally read that as Millennium Puzzle problem. Tuberz McGee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Thought the deadline was 5:30 for some reason, just submitted now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnn Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Okay guys, Shariq's driving back from MAG Classic currently, so with his blessing, I'm posting in his place. The source for Round 8 is Mega Man X6 - Gate's Laboratory. It's technically a remix of the second X-Hunter's stage theme from Mega Man X2 (for reference), but with a little extra added. timaeus222 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esperado Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 This was a superb round, for once I think I came up with something solid (for a week) That contains reasonable amounts of each source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoshiBlade Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I was feeling 1979/80-ish with my mix, right about the time when everyone and their grandma was cashing in on Disco music. In that strange territory of far lesser than The Bee Gees little better than Disco Duck; This should explain it .....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tZUmCyFxM&t=0m50s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Hakštok Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Oh damn, I didn't see the deadline was a bit earlier this time, rendering and uploading! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingTiger Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I was planning to vote yesterday, but I had an allergic reaction to something new and that pretty much ruined my entire day. My apologies to my team for not voting :'( timaeus222 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Woohoo, you're still here! KingTiger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnWake Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Woops I had way too much work this week and didn't even get to listen to the round entries. Naturally I didn't vote either (although the thought of doing a random vote crossed my mind haha). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadix Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 So I never noticed this before, but this source has the intro to my freaking maverick in the song.https://youtu.be/_6o-xXq4XwI?t=140 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Hah, yeah, I hear it. Glad you heard past the tempo difference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.