577

(121 replies, posted in General Discussion)

I really need to pay attention to batsly's 'SWIMM SAYS RELAX' shirt

578

(121 replies, posted in General Discussion)

ant1 wrote:
danimal cannon wrote:

listen, the best song I've ever heard (and best chiptune I've ever heard) was made in one hour.  But the person who made it put countless hours into his craft, mastering it.  In fact, he even practiced doing compositions in an hour as an exercise (its a really good one!).   

It doesn't matter how long it takes you to make a song.  Inspiration can strike anywhere, but you have to actually put in the time beforehand to actually be able to capture it.  Some tracks on my album were made in a night or 2.  Others were made over the course of months.

I get music jobs because I can make decent music, RIGHT AWAY.  Like, my deadline is often 3 days later and I have to be able to make something that not only fits the theme but also sounds good in terms of composition, but also production.  Guess what?  That has taken me ~15 years of music making, and ~7 years of audio production to be able to do that. 

But even still, stuff that I spend a little more time with usually turns out better.

the thread isn't about whether one should spend time on music. it's about whether one should spend a long amount of time on a song. on a SINGLE song. of course you have to practise.

oh well you didn't really GET the thread
maybe it was a bad thread to begin with

Oh I get it.  I was talking about specific single songs? 

Spend as much time as you need to make a good song. /thread.

579

(121 replies, posted in General Discussion)

ant1 wrote:
danimal cannon wrote:

This is obviously a troll thread, but try to reimagine the title: "Is it worth putting actual effort into your craft?" 

Yeah.

no it is not a troll thread, i was just wondering

some people make really good music in an hour and some people make really bad music in a month. so i don't think it is obvious that spending more t ime must definitely better

which is why i decided to ask

listen, the best song I've ever heard (and best chiptune I've ever heard) was made in one hour.  But the person who made it put countless hours into his craft, mastering it.  In fact, he even practiced doing compositions in an hour as an exercise (its a really good one!).   

It doesn't matter how long it takes you to make a song.  Inspiration can strike anywhere, but you have to actually put in the time beforehand to actually be able to capture it.  Some tracks on my album were made in a night or 2.  Others were made over the course of months.

I get music jobs because I can make decent music, RIGHT AWAY.  Like, my deadline is often 3 days later and I have to be able to make something that not only fits the theme but also sounds good in terms of composition, but also production.  Guess what?  That has taken me ~15 years of music making, and ~7 years of audio production to be able to do that. 

But even still, stuff that I spend a little more time with usually turns out better.

580

(121 replies, posted in General Discussion)

Not every musical idea is going to be gold. You have to put in 100 hours before you can churn out something amazing in an hour. This is already assuming you put in 1000 hours learning music (formally or not). 

You get what you put in, good luck, you'll need it

581

(121 replies, posted in General Discussion)

This is obviously a troll thread, but try to reimagine the title: "Is it worth putting actual effort into your craft?" 

Yeah.

582

(121 replies, posted in General Discussion)

Frostbyte wrote:
danimal cannon wrote:

even the title hurts me a little inside

Can't imagine why, it's basically the personal for of the thread title...how else could you word it?

Time spent on song VS ENJOYMENT OF THAT SONG.

Time spent on a song doesn't actually tell me anything.  There's a reason a graph has multiple axes.  You need to measure a correlation between two things.

Thanks I'll be here all week

583

(121 replies, posted in General Discussion)

MegaMantra wrote:

Having a title exempts that graph from a lot of scrutiny.

even the title hurts me a little inside

584

(121 replies, posted in General Discussion)

Fearofdark wrote:
Frostbyte wrote:

For me the graph is the opposite way around

there's a lot of things wrong with that graph.

YES

586

(6 replies, posted in General Discussion)

Rochester chip- always good shows, takes care of the artists. All around good dudes

587

(18 replies, posted in General Discussion)

I'll be there playing shows

588

(41 replies, posted in Collaborations)

Fuck I forgot to include my Zelda sample

rainwarrior wrote:

I don't think they did a triangle because they couldn't do a sine wave. A 4-bit sine wave probably would have been about as easy to implement as the triangle with a loookup table. There's nothing particularly ideal about a sine wave for music; it has profound mathematical/geometric properties, but it's not a particularly great sound all by itself. The NES sound frequently suffers from hard to hear triangle when the user's bass response is poor; with a sine this problem would be even worse.

This is my guess, traditional bass/flute sound and cuts through better than a sine wav, or it's just a low res sine wave.

Also composers most likely not involved bc of previously mentioned reasons.

Paging Neil Baldwin?

590

(66 replies, posted in General Discussion)

woah this is a topic that somehow people care about.

591

(1,620 replies, posted in General Discussion)

Wait why we he run into both amps, in series?  I've heard good things about the tiny terror but I'm not a fan of JCM2000s

TODAY