Messages

Anyone mind me signing up?

A word of advice for people who aren't familiar with any type of interface: Lots of people may tell you to stay away from trackers because they are hard to use. They aren't harder to use than the more encouraged piano roll, if you're not used to any of them. The reason some people recommend piano rolls is that they're familiar with them. I've used trackers since I was a kid, and I find them extremely easy to understand and use, whereas I really hate piano rolls. (For more serious MIDI work I use a combination Sibelius, which has traditional staff notation--with which I'm even more familiar than with trackers--and Cakewalk, which also has a less advanced version of the same type of notation.)

So if you're not used to piano rolls or trackers, I'd say learn the program that seems best in other respects. Of course, for non-MIDI work I recommend the half-tracker, half modular softsynth Buzz, which is just as powerful as any combination of hardware or software synths and effects, and fully modular, and completely free and with a very nice community (which also, and this is unique for a music application, tends to stick to a single place--#buzz on EFnet). http://www.buzzmachines.com is the place to get it, along with pretty much all of the so-called 'machines' (synths, samplers and effects) in existence. Yay. The interface might seem quite difficult at first, but it's highly worth the time it takes to get comfortable considering how powerful it is. In my opinion the only 'all-in-one' type music application that really is what it claims to be, or rather doesn't quite claim to be.

Well, that's enough advertising for one post.
Byeee.

Yay, it's me looking stupid.

It wasn't until Evil posted his self-portrait that I was reminded that this place could be used for other things than game-related stuff. And moments after that I found a self-portrait of my own that I had long since wantedsome critique on. So one thing led to another and... well, yeah. Here it is.



The original drawing doesn't look as grainy and smudgy and generally crappy--my scanner did most of that. And it should be pointed out that I'm a musician and not a graphical artist, but don't go too easy on me with the critique.

This is real nitpicky stuff, but the pupils look very dark (and indeed big ) compared to the rest of the picture. Also, what I presume is the shadow of the glasses seems to behave as if there's light coming from two directions, or from the eyes themselves. What I mean is that it [the shadow] is noticably bigger than the glasses. Other than that, though, I have no comments. Real nice.

One thing that leaped out at me (and that I don't think anyone mentioned here) is how in her waist and lower torso area it's hard to understand where the hell the light is coming from. It seems to be shaded as if light was coming inwards from all directions. Though I haven't tried to figure out why, it all looks perfectly natural in loominous' modifications, even though he doesn't seem to have changed the actual positioning of the shadows and highlights. I think you should try to figure out what the difference is and make it look less impossible (or something).

Other than that, and what other people have already said, it's absolutely lovely. Nice!

EldKatt

Although the music itself is not copyrighted, the book from which you use the music is copyrighted. For example, if you're using a Beethoven Sonata from the Peter's Edition, you will have to pay royaltees to the company that makes the Peter's Edition.

You can get by this, however, by modifying a few notes to make the music untraceable.

If, however, Peter's Edition had happened to be entirely faithful to the original manuscript, or an early edition, there's no royalty to be payed. It's just if anything new is put in that there's any point in that.

By the way, it should go without saying that you should only use music by composers who have been dead for at least fifty years or something like that. So there is some music that people call 'classical' (citation marks because I don't always like to use the word in such a broad sense) that still isn't free from copyright.

Also, you should write the composer's name (and, I would personally prefer, the name and/or opus number of the work) in the credits. I don't know if there are any laws about this, but it's a simple question of respect for somebody else's work. Yeah.

So there it is, finally. I'm really, really, really sorry it's taken some time, but I've been rather busy. Anyway, this week's theme:

Tragedy.

Yeah. Something really tragic in some way. Not a very good idea, perhaps. But I trust you people to make something really good out of it.

Good luck to you all.

Indeed it shall. I love limited palettes too.

Woo! Yay! Thanks guys. And good work everyone else, too. New contest will appear soonish, as soon as I think of something.

All done.

Well, not quite... This is practically a draft of what I intended it to be, but However, I'm giving it to you as it is, despite the structural flaws it has. Yay. Anyway, it's a solo piano peice, and I've made no attempts to make sure it's playable. Well, it is if you're skilled enough, but I've made no attempts to make it easy to play.

This is the Sibelius/Scorch version:
http://biphome.spray.se/erik.igelstrom/agsf/030923_EldKatt_tune_contest.htm

And this is the MID version: http://biphome.spray.se/erik.igelstrom/agsf/030923_EldKatt_tune_contest.mid

I very much recommend the Sibelius version (first link), since the MID version has a bunch of problems (mostly thanks to the format's 250 BPM tempo limit) that the Sibelius version doesn't have. (If you don't have it, get Scorch (Sibelius file reader) here. It's free. )

It's just 21st... isn't it?

My, people are fast. I'm... about to start working on it.

Firstly I want to point out that I for one really like theoretical or otherwise technical restrictions. So how about this: Everyone who doesn't have anything against technical restrictions raise their hands (well, sorta), and we'll have some statistics to go on for future competitions.

And secondly I want to point out that that's a very nice idea (for a non-technical one ). I'm most certainly in.

[Fuzzpilz!]

Shiver me timbers, this was a tough one. The big ol' winner, though, is:

Fuzzpilz! For his delicious sound-screwing-around-with. Very well done. Really.

Also, I can't resist calling Trapezoid a runner-up here. Very... er, jazzy, lacking a better word. (He modulates all the time, and gets away with it! )

Congratulations... you two. Both of them are very atmospheric, but Fuzzpilz won by a hair's breadth.

Thanks everyone!

If you like trackers, you might want to try Buzz. (http://www.buzzmachines)

It's a tracker, and a modular soft synth, sorta. Yay.

Meself, I use Sibelius (because real music notation makes so much more sense to me) and Cakewalk 9 for fiddly MIDIy stuff.

EDIT: And I do use Buzz at times for more experimental toying with noise that usually doesn't end up being good.

Well... good work everyone! (I will give you more specific and interesting comments, just have patience. ) Tomorrow's judgment day. Though I did say 16-ish, so I could stretch it, say, if remix0r thinks he'll have anything soon? (Question mark there.)

Stay tuned.

My vote has to be on YakSpit here, because that's just great.

Also, that keeps the tie between Ali and Mandarb. I guess they both deserve an honorary part-of-a-point though, for almost getting a proper one.

Can you vote for yourself?