VGMA2: Preparation

[mudlord]

As for file hostage, I am willing to reactivate my old domain, so bandwidth/whatever is not a problem at all.

Plus, I need the site for other things, too.

[Solaphar]

the point is though, the crisp aliased sound in the game OST is by design. it's an aesthetic choice that has been made.

Aesthetic choice. Any quality standards, by their nature, will limit the artist's freedom to a certain extent (i.e. limit their "aesthetic choice"). What I keep trying to say is that the original goal (at least in my mind) was for us to all collectively figure out the most agreeable and acceptable ways to limit that choice.

I don't want choice too be limited too much (same as you). I like artistic freedom, but that doesn't let us avoid the responsibility of setting some kind of criteria, even if only general guidelines.

If we have zero quality standards, then artistic choice is infinite. If we have a few standards, then it is still very large, but not infinite. And the more standards we add, the more we limit choice. It's an inverse proportional relationship. I'm saying we should have a few concrete standards, that don't unduly limit choice or freedom, but which also satisfy the need for album cohesiveness.

Without some sort of guideline, I could do something like, make a screaming post-hardcore pop-type vg tune that spends tons of time on the tonic chord and it would have to be accepted to the album because there's no criteria preventing me from doing that. That's why I'm trying to say it might be a good idea for us to set some kind of standard.

i think there is a real danger here, wherein songs with lacklustre writing and arrangement will make the cut because they're saved by grandiose sample librariesthe same questionable priorities and one-dimensional view of music is what pisses me off about sites like ocremix. as if timbre is the only musical element worth consideration, to the exclusion of everything else.

Just so it's clear I (personally) think there should be guidelines for BOTH arrangement and sound quality. That's just my own view though, and I feel group consensus is most important in determining quality guidelines, so that we all establish the guidelines together and agree upon them.

What pisses me off, is when people make it seem like I'm advocating something I'm not (i.e. putting words in my mouth). I have never advocated that we ignore one thing for the sake of the other (such as ignoring arrangement), so please don't frame it as if I have, because it's not true.

I never ever criticized the arrangement of that mix you pointed out as an example. I only criticized the sound quality, and the bass sample choice. And that was just my own opinion of it.

Yes, I should have brought up arrangement earlier, but I was focusing on sound/sample quality first, because I felt that, in general, that would be easiest to discuss and define first, and the other participants seemed willing to discuss it too, and if you read through some of the past posts, you'll see that Anthony and others were talking about sound quality, so I decided to focus on that first and then get to arrangement after we had something nailed down in the sound quality category.

I, just like you, also do not want tracks with a lackluster arrangement to make the cut, just because of good samples. So, I never disagreed with you on that point. But, on that matter, how do we define what constitutes "lackluster arrangement"? From what I can see, when we try to do that, we run into the same issues that we run into when trying to define good or poor sound quality. And that is, it's based upon opinion. My view was that, this is not a bad thing, as long as it's the group's collective opinion that defines the standard.

Also, I question your view of ignoring sound quality while focusing solely upon arrangement. Both of those factors are important for an internally consistent album. If you just ignore one or the other, you risk tracks with huge variations in quality. You can get well-arranged tracks alongside equally well-arranged tracks that sound far better due to differences in sound treatment or sound samples. They'll both sound good in their own way, but they won't be cohesive due to the enormous gap in sound quality. That's my own view at least.


Let me ask you, why do you feel it's wrong when people focus on sound quality instead of arrangement (as you were perceiving us to do), but it's okay when you do that opposite, by focusing on arrangement while ignoring sound quality? What makes your view more legitimate? Isn't it just as based on opinion as the opposite view?


In the end, I'm fine with just about anything, as far as quality. Just as long as it's criteria that all, or most, of us agree upon. And I've said this before a number of times. And it must be criteria which prevent the QCer from blocking a track that meets those guidelines.


By the way, OCRemix does have arrangement standards, not only sound quality standards. Just had to correct you there.

then the mission statement should be much more specific. right now it's ambiguous,

Uh, yeah, that's what I've been saying all along. =(

:facepalm:

"so long as it's produced well and the sounds are good it's fine", which i like, since it leaves plenty of scope for personal flair.

And that's what I want to hear. We have your opinion now great. Now if everyone else in the group would do the same (share their opinion), then maybe we could finally settle this question and arrive at a mutually agreed upon statement of quality.

though if what's intended by "good quality" is actually "orchestrated with convincing orchestral libraries", then spit that out instead.

Who said that? I don't remember anyone saying that, other than you.

people rather obnoxiously confuse the two,

Yeah, darn those "people", whoever they are. *shakesfist*

which leads to this all-pervasive "THIS is better than THIS" attitude. symphonic means symphonic, rather than "better." i think quirky, kitchy music is just as valid.

I don't disagree with you, but I think anything I say isn't going to get through at this point. You seem to think that I'm trying to exclude tracks with inventive writing, but I'm not, and I've tried to explain that, but if you won't accept it, then I guess there's nothing more I can say.

I'm advocating that we arrive at standards by consensus, in order to make track acceptance criteria stated clearly upfront. This prevents the QC (i.e. coordinator) from injecting his/her own opinion and makes track acceptance unbiased.

However, as I've also said before, any quality standards will naturally preclude certain amounts of artistic freedom. It's unavoidable. No standards equals infinite freedom, some standards equals limited but focused freedom. (In other words, standards focus people so that their tracks are consistent enough to be on the same album)

The album will not be cohesive without some standards. (Mutually agreed upon, of course)

For one example, the theme itself, "Galaxy" is a standard, as that limits the artist's focus. We came to a consensus on it and so that's how we've arrived at this thread.

What we have left to do is arrive at a consensus on the remaining quality standards (if any), and on which ways/methods we should use in approaching them, so that tracks are accepted onto the album in a mutually-agreed upon way, and they're not included or excluded based upon voting or upon the coordinator's own personal tastes. Then people won't end up working on a track that gets rejected in the end.

I was planning on using foobar2000. I could give Audacity a try but that wouldn't really matter, would it?

Yeah, it really wouldn't matter. Just because I'm advocating Audacity does not mean it has to be used. Just as Lunar advocating foobar doesn't mean that is has to be used.

It's really up to you in the end, since your doing the conversion and tagging, to use whichever software you want to use.

As far as production goes, I think the original "Mamoru Has Been Cursed" track linked by Dave does sound great. Reverb, panoramic and mix are good,

Yeah, I agree, but I still think it has other mixing issues, including the ones I mentioned before. But that's just my own opinion. I'm not saying my own personal opinion of that track should be used as the quality standard.

samples have been chosen carefully.

Personally speaking, I felt the bass sample could use an upgrade, but each person has their own opinion.

A lot of amateurs try to use the best samples out there to cover their lack of skills.

Yes, I've heard this too.

That's an approach I dislike but you have to respect it

Um, I guess...

It should be allowed, as long as it's musical / means something.

But that in itself runs into the same sorts of issue. Who defines what's "musical"?

I've been advocating that we as group define "musical" to a certain extent, so that we can at least all be on the same page. That way, the QCer can't exclude something just because they feel it is "not musical".

I say just go by:

If a song in the album sounds good to the QC, then accept it.

That injects opinion though. Codified guidelines prevent the coordinator from excluding the kitschy and unique tracks that they personally don't like. Which fixes the problems Lunar brought up, about well-arranged, but kistchy tracks being excluded.

If it has clear issues that are drastic and really needs to be fixed in order for it not to be embarrassing, then yeah, have the composer do what they can to improve what is needed.

Hmm. I think we should also have a way of asking other participants how they would fix it (i.e. we help each other improve our tracks).

Keep in mind, we are all amateurs and if you want dead perfect, it's not going to happen. there are going to be different approaches and styles as well, so don't let this throw you off on the assumed quality standard. I suggest to only focus on clear issues like a song that is peaking like crazy, or a song that is clearly too quiet.

Right. I agree.

Try not to nitpick on little things like "how a bass sample sounds" (unless its like clearly peaking or something). Because yeah, I also don't have a problem with that first link of a song Dave showed us. Avoid things such as the actual samples involved, and more pay attention to how they are used, and how much effort was put into getting the song to sound nice overall and I can assure you the end result will be better.

That was just my own opinion of the bass sample, though. It's clear that most people don't want a guideline like that, and that's perfectly fine. I regret saying anything about the darn bass sample because my words are being misinterpreted so much. But I suppose it's good that we're discussing this right now, rather than afterword when people start submitting tracks.

All along, I've been saying we should discuss guidelines, and then we include the ones most people like and exclude the ones most dislike. That's how we arrive at a consensus.

Take things too far and boom, nobody makes it to the final cut.

Actually, that's not true. As I've said before, guidelines would make clear ahead of time, what it takes to make the cut.

Guidelines do not prevent people from "making the cut", rather let people know ahead of time whether their track will or won't be acceptable. That is, they guide people into what they have to do to make the cut. Therefore, anyone who adheres to he guidelines WILL make the cut, anyone who reads the guidelines and ignores them, does not make the cut. (And again, I've said this before).


It's like no one reads my posts or something....

Anyways, I think a lot of us understand that we shouldn't be too limiting, but what most people seem to not understand is that it's up to us to discuss this and make sure that the guidelines are not too limiting, and we do that by only using guidelines we all agree upon.

Wonder why medical trials are all double blind?

Because different humans respond differently. We're not all exact copies of each other.

I understand that different people will interpret the same waveform in different ways. Every person has slightly different hearing and perceptive abilities.

That point was never in question. What I questioned was your accusation of phase cancellation being unscientific. I pointed out that subtracting one waveform from another is a universal method of demonstrating the differences between said waveforms. Subtracting waves does not depend upon human perception or interpretation.

If there's a reason why I haven't thought about joining this at the moment, for the most part it's because I know I'm way out of this world.

If the guidelines had been settled first in the previous thread, before people joined and signed-on, then it wouldn't even be an issue.

[Rocco]

Realistically speaking, NO ONE'S music is not going to make the cut. We will accept all of it, period. This debate about creating a predetermined quality standard is WAY outside the scope for our modest, little endavor. It was suggested by Solaphar, and no one else seems to be giving it nearly as much consideration. If we're operating as a democracy for the purposes of creating this event, I believe that the community has already spoken. We don't want to devise premade quality standards that we will have to abide by, even if they prove insufficient to ensure ACTUAL, PERCEIVED QUALITY.

I'm in favor of leaving the main thread as-is and ceasing discussion on the matter.

[Solaphar]

Realistically speaking, NO ONE'S music is not going to make the cut. We will accept all of it, period.

I was vocal because I wanted to ensure that no participant would be arbitrarily excluded.

Therefore, if we include everyone, you're right that there's no need to discuss it further. We've mostly been going in circles anyway, and very few people seem to be comprehending my posts, so if we all want to close off discussing quality guidelines, then I agree, let's do that. However, this discussion will be resurrected if we (and by "we" I mean the participants, collectively) change our minds later and decide we want quality control after all. I'm just saying that now so we'll all know what to expect if we change our minds again.

I won't keep quiet if we end up with people who, after working on a track, have their track rejected in the end due to a vote or some person's whims or something like that. My whole goal has been to maximize the track acceptance to 100% by making any acceptance criteria known to participants ahead of time. I seek fairness.

If we have a codified standard it prevents the QC (i.e. coordinator), from injecting his/her own opinion and excluding a track. That was the only reason I wanted us to discuss putting together a standard.

It was suggested by Solaphar,

I was NOT the first to suggest that we have quality control. I will find posts showing others who posted about it before me. Give me a few minutes.

Here's the first one (click here for the post)

D. Criteria for themes/songs and quality control (not too strict, but good enough to get everyone on same page)

Next post here:

4. Will there be a quality control process, and if so, will it be pass/fail or feedback-based.

Personally, I like the idea of getting a list of people who are a) interested, b) able to create well-mixed/mastered music, c) responds well to constructive criticism.

And third here:

The only thing that has me concerned now is the quality control. I think it would be a best bet, that once things get going, to mention what would constitute in general for an entry to be acceptable, and what in general would constitute an entry for being denied. This way a person will mostly know in advance if they are going to be wasting their time or not.

Hopefully, this quality control is just to keep things sensible and isn't overly strict, seeing as this isn't a contest, but a project. Kinda on the iffy side there.

Now notice that Kris was actually the first person to suggest that we: "mention what would constitute in general for an entry to be acceptable, and what in general would constitute an entry for being denied. This way a person will mostly know in advance if they are going to be wasting their time or not."

It was suggested by Solaphar,

Wrong, it was suggested by Kris. As you can see above, he was the first to suggest using codified acceptance standards.

The very first post I made discussing, or even containing the word "quality", was the one immediately after Kris's post. So, NO, I was not the first.

Right after me Anthony said:

That's really what I've been planning for this other contest: pass/fail system. It's like a project, with some contest mechanics used as quality control. (Still not sure if I should call it "contest" or "project". Maybe "conject" or "protest"??)

Now what would be the best way to apply this for the album? First, what is the quality control objective: excluding only the songs that have nothing to do with the theme (the "troll" songs)? and/or excluding the songs most people dislike musically? A score margin could be used, or yes/no votes. Panel or community. What do you think? I think communal yes/no votes would be good, provided people don't vote no too easily and understand the criteria well enough. In the end it shouldn't be strict and you should only vote no if you honestly want the song to be discarded. In that regard, I'd say if a song gets 50% yes and 50% no, it still counts as a yes.

Further proof that I wasn't the only one discussing quality control. I'll find more posts if necessary, or maybe you'll do the right thing and retract your accusation instead, so that I won't have to.

no one else seems to be giving it nearly as much consideration.

That's not true. If I was the only one talking about it, then what were all those posts from other people talking about when replying to my posts? Clearly, I've not been the only one "giving it consideration", and I resent being made out to be the only person perpetuating the discussion, when it's clearly not an accurate or truthful representation of me. It takes more than one person to carry-on a conversation.

Don't falsely accuse me like that, and don't try to make it out as if I was the only one involved, because it's obviously not true.

If we're operating as a democracy for the purposes of creating this event, I believe that the community has already spoken.

Alright, as long as we're all agreeing to accept everyone, then there's nothing more to say, and the community has spoken.

We don't want to devise premade quality standards that we will have to abide by,

You might not want "premade standards" but even you said that you wanted "quality standards".

I quote your earlier post here:

I really don't think it's too harsh on the contributors to require a high standard of production quality.
...
When the end result is nothing more than "Go write a music, and then we'll put all of our musics in the same place on the internets," I fail to see the purpose of having this discussion at all.
...
I'm personally more inclined to allow open contribution, but if there's no formal quality control, there'd be almost no point to doing it that way.

Clearly, you were an early advocate of quality control.

I also refer again Kris's earlier post, where he said that he did want premade quality standards (and he was the one who suggested them). I am not the only one talking about set quality standards.

I'm in favor of leaving the main thread as-is and ceasing discussion on the matter.

Okay then. I'm glad we can be done with it. This whole thing has really soured my mood anyway, because I really hate when people put words in my mouth or make false accusations against me, like claiming I said or did something that I didn't actually do. Nothing gets me angrier faster than that.

[MaliceX]

In reality, I believe you guys are overthinking the process overall, and really just turned a potentially fun project into a logistical nightmare. Nothing's going to get done at this rate..

[Solaphar]

Yeah, I really don't want to talk about "quality" anymore, because it's not going anywhere.

What we have so far for quality standards seems good enough, to me, just so long as any track meeting those standards is accepted.

In any case, there's no point to discussing it further. I think we've gotten the standards as set as they're going to be, and further discussion will bear no fruit in the form of more specific guidelines, so let's just all start writing our tracks and working with each other to make sure they sound good. I regret being one of the contributors in dragging out the discussion for so long wen it wasn't going anywhere.

[Blitz Lunar]

lemme just follow up on this and then we can give it a rest.

Solaphar yes my comments weren't all directed at you, just general ranting. for instance

Who said that? I don't remember anyone saying that, other than you.
Yeah, darn those "people", whoever they are. *shakesfist*

no-one here has said that, but it is a common interpretation that MANY people make. the sorts of things people call "bad sounds" aren't really bad at all (to me, bad is nails-on-a-chalkboard.) it has become very convenient to call kitchy sounds bad under the pretense that samples more closely resembling recordings of instruments are inherently superior, when really it's just that they serve a different purpose. people use this argument against not only limited chip-based VGM but also against synthesizers from the 80s and early 90s, and so on... anything dated sounding, mainly. i can think of so much music that i wouldn't enjoy as much if all the instruments were recorded, or realistic, or whatever.

Also, I question your view of ignoring sound quality while focusing solely upon arrangement. Both of those factors are important for an internally consistent album. If you just ignore one or the other, you risk tracks with huge variations in quality. You can get well-arranged tracks alongside equally well-arranged tracks that sound far better due to differences in sound treatment or sound samples. They'll both sound good in their own way, but they won't be cohesive due to the enormous gap in sound quality. That's my own view at least.
Let me ask you, why do you feel it's wrong when people focus on sound quality instead of arrangement (as you were perceiving us to do), but it's okay when you do that opposite, by focusing on arrangement while ignoring sound quality? What makes your view more legitimate? Isn't it just as based on opinion as the opposite view?

it is a bad idea to plainly ignore any element. good sound quality usually implies a degree of decent arranging and programming as well, but i don't think everyone sees that, so focusing on sound quality means "picking some presets." if you just pick an EWQSLO string preset and play on it with a keyboard it will probably sound dumb, compared to doing that with rompler sounds.
also choosing to write something that doesn't use big sounds from sample libraries isn't the same thing as ignoring sound. i never said ignoring sound was ok.

If we have zero quality standards, then artistic choice is infinite. If we have a few standards, then it is still very large, but not infinite. And the more standards we add, the more we limit choice. It's an inverse proportional relationship. I'm saying we should have a few concrete standards, that don't unduly limit choice or freedom, but which also satisfy the need for album cohesiveness.
Without some sort of guideline, I could do something like, make a speed metal-type vg tune that spends tons of time on the tonic chord and it would have to be accepted to the album because there's no criteria preventing me from doing that. That's why I'm trying to say it might be a good idea for us to set some kind of standard. Okay?

that's right. i think the end product here is going to sound hodgepodge whatever happens though. it seems inherent to open-invitation projects like this. the more standards you add, the more you reduce this problem, but the more people are shoved out as a compromise (and the more it becomes like a closed project.) nothing is going to perfectly please everyone, but i think even with some guidelines that most people can agree on, the end product will be incohesive. i'd like to be proved wrong of course. that's why i figure if it's going to end up playing more like a compilation than an album, might as well drop the pretense and let people do as they please, and set only some minimal restrictions. i don't think it's totally a bad thing to do that.

i know we seem to be beating around the bush with this forever but i dunno if there's really any alternative to everyone just doing what they do as best as they can.

about your second point, that's why i think albums have to be specific and focus on one central idea from the outset. i hate to toot my own horn but some of these ubiktune albums are fine examples, like this one. from the outset, every artist was first contacted privately by a coordinator, so there's an element of quality control there, then asked to write full production audio, to use FM synthesizers for the vast majority of sound, and the music had to be at least tangentially related to funk. so the end result is pretty narrow and specialised, but fitting into a certain niche, which makes it very easy to distribute and publicise, and i think meant the end result was very good. for this album, all we've really defined is that there's a planetary theme. ok it's something but it's pretty abstract in terms of how it can shape what people write. but i think that's all that can be done, unless we're to think about overarching mood... light, epic, comical, dark, sad ~ or genres... if that FM album were to be run openly on these boards, it'd never get going, too specific for a generalised crowd with different tastes and skillsets.

By the way, OCRemix does have arrangement standards, not only sound quality standards. Just had to correct you there.

their arrangement (laying-down-of-the-notes, rather than remixing) standards are honestly pretty rudimentary, you don't need much engineering spirit in that area for it to be accepted, it just has to not be broken with off rhythms and bum notes and other things. their production standards are much more draconian in comparison, like "your trumpet is virtually modelled, why didn't you hire miles davis? NO (resub)". they do not have the balance right, IMO, but maybe it's just that i don't see eye to eye with their mission statement. there's arrangements released on official albums that they'd probably reject, honestly :J many of brawl's arrangements would be rejected, too.

anyway the mere fact this stuff is being considered almost guarantees the outcome will be better than the previous album.

[AnthonyMorgan]

Solaphar:
I think Rocco wasn't saying you suggested QC, but rather you suggested the big debate over it (probably when you created the previous topic). Which isn't wrong at all. You just wanted to make sure we reached fair guidelines. Meanwhile others (including me) were afraid it was taking too long unnecessarily. That's it. Now there may have been some other issues (people misunderstanding you, which I'm sorry if I did) but overall the biggest problem was just the frustration over the fact it seemed like an eternity before we'd reach definite guidelines. Now we somehow reached an agreement over this. I hope there's no hard feeling in one way or another, there really shouldn't be. :/

Now what's left:

The prevailing notion on entry limitations is that one person may submit both one solo entry and one teamcomp, but that is still open to debate.

Can we confirm this as well?

[Rocco]

For the record, I will continue to express frustration whenever I damn well feel like it. I am not a cruel or dishonest person, and I resent those insinuations.

If you (Solaphar) were not the first person to suggest this discussion, then I must have not been paying close enough attention. Just pretend I said you were by far the biggest proponent of a predetermined quality standard, and reread withhout the indignance. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything... just making observations and stating my frustrations.

Also for he record, I was in favor of a quality control PROCESS, to be instituted on a song-by-song basis. This is different from what we've been discussing for the last 3 pages, and something I gave up because of your opposition to the idea.

[Solaphar]

For the record, I will continue to express frustration whenever I damn well feel like it.

I don't think anyone was saying you shouldn't. Honestly, I was venting my own frustration in the last few posts too. I think we are frustrated about different things though, and that, in itself, is contributing to the frustration within both of us.

I am not a cruel or dishonest person, and I resent those insinuations.

Alright. And I'm sorry and regretful if you felt my words came across as painting you as one. If you look back, you'll see that's not what I intended. I wasn't saying or implying that you were cruel or mean-spirited, or anything like that. I was just defending myself, as you're trying to do now, merely correcting what I felt were some false charges being leveled against me. And correcting the historical record.

If you (Solaphar) were not the first person to suggest this discussion, then I must have not been paying close enough attention.

Indeed. I cited multiple posts in an attempt to correct you.

Just pretend I said you were by far the biggest proponent of a predetermined quality standard, and reread withhout the indignance.

The righteous indignation was warranted, and I'll explain why after the next quote.

Why does it even matter if I'm the biggest proponent? The only reason anyone would need to point it out, if true, would be in order to accuse me of something. There's no benign, or "innocent" way of pointing out that someone is doing something. There's always a hidden meaning behind it.

I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything... just making observations and stating my frustrations.

Okay, let's re-read that:
"I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything"
"If you (Solaphar) were not the first person to suggest this discussion, then I must have not been paying close enough attention."

Right here, it sounds like you ARE accusing me. In this particular instance, you're accusing me of starting the discussion, but I didn't. The discussion started WAY back in Willow's thread. I wasn't the first one to start discussing quality control methods and guidelines.

And It's not just about general frustration. You're venting it AT and TOWARDS ME. That's where I took offense, and that's why I'm indignant. Don't direct it towards me and we won't have a problem. Capiche?

Also for he record, I was in favor of a quality control PROCESS, to be instituted on a song-by-song basis. This is different from what we've been discussing for the last 3 pages, and something I gave up because of your opposition to the idea.

Yep, and I already pointed out the inherent unfairness in such a system. And I was NOT the first person to point it out.

The prevailing notion on entry limitations is that one person may submit both one solo entry and one teamcomp, but that is still open to debate.

Can we confirm this as well?

I'm still in favor of this, so if we can't come to a consensus, let's vote on it.

Solaphar:
I think Rocco wasn't saying you suggested QC, but rather you suggested the big debate over it (probably when you created the previous topic). Which isn't wrong at all. You just wanted to make sure we reached fair guidelines. Meanwhile others (including me) were afraid it was taking too long unnecessarily. That's it. Now there may have been some other issues (people misunderstanding you, which I'm sorry if I did) but overall the biggest problem was just the frustration over the fact it seemed like an eternity before we'd reach definite guidelines. Now we somehow reached an agreement over this. I hope there's no hard feeling in one way or another, there really shouldn't be. :/

Yeah. I wasn't the first person to suggest quality guidelines, but I was the person who made the thread in which I had hoped we would define those guidelines together.

Anyway, I hope we can move on already.

[Rocco]

Solaphar, conversing with you is excruciating.

On an only somewhat-related note, I am no longer interested in this project or this forum.

Goodbye.

[Solaphar]

Solaphar, conversing with you is excruciating.

If "excruciating" means I won't sit quietly and be a punching-bag for your frustration and false accusations, then yeah, I guess it's "excruciating".

If you didn't want to converse, then all you had to do was stop conversing. I honestly didn't want to talk about quality-related issues anymore either, and I thought I made that clear at the end of my past few posts.

On an only somewhat-related note, I am no longer interested in this project or this forum.

Well, that's unfortunate, but that's your choice. It's too bad you couldn't be grown-up enough to work through any differences by discussing them and coming to an amicable agreement. Well, I won't lose sleep over it.


To everyone else: Moving on to other issues, we still haven't chosen a coordinator. Maybe there can be some nominees? Or maybe someone wants to volunteer? Anywho, the coordinator (once chosen) should probably take the list of participants/themes and make a note of them. People can also just post here, stating which theme they want. That could work too, in the short term.

Also, setting a deadline was mentioned before. I suggested July 23rd, but maybe there are some other ideas?

What else? Hmm.. Oh, should we have some kind of limit on track length? Maybe somewhere around 8-10 minutes at maximum? And maybe one minute minimum? Any other ideas are good too.

[AnthonyMorgan]

If I was to decide, I'd set the deadline on June 28th. But if we didn't have at least 10 songs on that date, I'd then add 2 weeks, changing it to July 12th.

Also, I wouldn't consider min. or max. track length. I personally wouldn't mind very short or very long tracks.

[Solaphar]

If I was to decide, I'd set the deadline on June 28th. But if we didn't have at least 10 songs on that date, I'd then add 2 weeks, changing it to July 12th.

Also, I wouldn't consider min. or max. track length. I personally wouldn't mind very short or very long tracks.

Hmm, yeah, maybe 2 months is too long. I was thinking about people who sign-on late. And also give time for working on collabs.

Also, personally speaking, I'm going to be really busy in June, but obviously, one person's busy schedule can't be the greatest influence on a multi-person endeavor, heh, so I can probably find the extra time somehow.

How about midnight UTC July 2nd? That adds only 4 days extra after June 28th.


As for track length limits, I suppose I'm not opposed to unlimited. I only suggested limits to try to keep things reasonable, especially since we have to consider bandwidth and hosting issues. Perhaps no minimum limit and a max limit of 30 minutes? There's a whole lot of room for artistic freedom in that range.

[Kefkarjp]

Realistically speaking, NO ONE'S music is not going to make the cut. We will accept all of it, period.

Oh thank God Here comes a 30-minute noise track made entirely of a sliced sample of me brushing my teeth.