10-21-2018, 12:58 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-21-2018, 12:59 AM by LucentTear.)
Sorry for late response, I looked over this a couple of times and I was either too lazy to continue digesting it with my opinion or that I didn't have much to say until now. I separated this by main points of interest so I can hopefully elaborate on your thinking.
I was already expecting this rant considering most of my threads basically just copy of off yours anyway.
Knowing that, I appreciate you being able to point out all the flaws on this thread, as I know there should probably be a lot of them. I can attract a Jonah raging in with criticism, easy.
The first point is mentioned in the answer of the fourth quote.
Some of the things in General Composition can be labeled better, so it might alleviate a bit of the pain if I could be slightly more specific. Another thing is that artists do form tendencies, so instead of looking at every sequence individually, it focuses on their psychology somewhat? I'm not the best at explaining this, but there's a good chance that your definition of "the artist as a whole" differentiates from mine.
Memorability is heavily focused on the song's melodies (90%) and only a little bit of the things that makes it unique to the site (10%). Sequences with freestyle melodies have a harder time maintaining the list, while ones with specific and more memorable motifs are more likely to be high in this stat. Style influences memorability, meaning it does tap into the user's psychology.
Decomposition can vary on a multitude of factors, and there's no clear-cut way to determine the perfect answer for this statistic from just looking at the note count.
Some sequences can be really layered with instruments but still have a generally easy method of doing so. Other instrument-stacked sequences have these complex patterns going on that I can't even comprehend how it's done.
The same with piano, some sequences can have a distinguishable left-and-right while my sequences vary from having 2~5 tracks at one time while having notes intermingling between all of them.
As for Decomposition, maybe I can elaborate better by specifically applying it to the composer's better projects? It'd be no fair if I did it to their scraps and stuff of course. After all, this site is just fundamentally for getting ideas down, so there's no points taken off if their 120 note sequence looks really simple compared to their 10k godsend.
The above question can also apply to some of the other things listed in General Composition.
There won't be a one-size-fits-all genre to describe an artist, that much I can agree with.
However, I've noticed that even veteran composers on OS tend to hug their comfort zones, and that it's not too noticeable as a lot of them end up having a cocktail of genre-blending plus style to make it seem different from the mainstreams. I'd like to clarify that Genre Strength will be used to list out the possibilities of what kind of genre their work falls under.
"Comfort zone" is described differently per composer. Genre variety also draws attention to other aspects in Composer Preferences, since other criteria can indirectly affect how you rank on genre variety.
I'd also want to note that "Genre" not only includes the flavor of music, but it concerns different atmospheres as well (fast-paced, dreamy, melancholic, etc.) For now I can give a rough idea of how I might rank "Genre Variety".
A person like Eric, for example, would rank lower in genre variety due to his limited instrument choice and little atmospheric change when reviewing all of his sequences. He would rank around a 2 out of 5.
A person like Wafels would rank higher from frequently experimenting with instruments in different scenarios. His style in general incorporates distinctly different genres as is, therefore he would score at least a 4 or 5.
JHXC would fit in some in-between, and although his stuff is mostly EDM-based (single genre) he has a large bookcase of experiments that it would be sensible to rank him at least a 3 or 4.
As a prediction, I think most veteran composers would score a 3 or 4 for genre variety. They have a specialized genre they are good in and try to expand it as much as possible with slight experimentation while staying true to their style.
Also keep in mind that I will spend the time to review a composer's profile for their sequences, and realistically, this chart would take a LONG time to update. (Combined with my lack of motivation as is.) If worse comes to worse, then I can just hunt down the user through Discord, piece of cake.
Ultimately this thread will end up being an encyclopedia of the above-average users of OS, since my analysis/personal interviews will be included.
As you said, sequences have to be up to date in order to maintain the thread. I feel this can suggest that I'm already able to bottleneck a bunch of their old sequences from the first few months of OS. I'm certain that I won't be able to replicate my style from 100k now, therefore it loses relevance in here, as this thread primarily focuses on the current trend. This also rules out a decent, and I say decent, portion of Step's experimental crap that he's done in the past.
Often, style stabilizes once a composer grows comfort into what they're doing. This also means that there's little chance that a drastic style change will occur, and if it does happen, then it will only be applicable to a few sequences. If it's the case that it is a permanent style change, then there still should be a good chance that they still compose in their stable style to an extent. I wouldn't have to have a complete makeover of their profile once I finalize the information.
I don't think anyone on the Top 10 were offended, especially DC since he kinda made fun of it by making his own sequence about it. I just think people who thought other composers deserve more attention kinda looked more disappointed in the list than originally anticipated. It's a Top 10 list, stuff like that should happen.
I hope this list just gives as much information as possible so that I don't look too biased, or that I'm excluding people out of the list. Eventually there will come a point that I can offer a good review on the frequent composers here, mediocre and good, but for now, I'm working with the best as they provide a clearer view of how they make sequences on the site.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to this, I've been kinda writing for one hour already, it's almost 5 AM here anyway.
(10-15-2018, 02:06 AM)Jonah Wrote: lol bet you werent expecting this on your thread lucEnt hahahah yuore atree now
I was already expecting this rant considering most of my threads basically just copy of off yours anyway.
Knowing that, I appreciate you being able to point out all the flaws on this thread, as I know there should probably be a lot of them. I can attract a Jonah raging in with criticism, easy.
(10-15-2018, 02:06 AM)Jonah Wrote: In order to make a semi-correct assessment, you'd have to listen to all of their sequences.
My reason for believing this is some of the rules you made don't really make sense in the scheme of a whole artist.
For example, most rules in "General Composition" are rules that could be applied to a single sequence better than an artist. Decomposition (Bad rule in general imo) is a great example of this.
The first point is mentioned in the answer of the fourth quote.
Some of the things in General Composition can be labeled better, so it might alleviate a bit of the pain if I could be slightly more specific. Another thing is that artists do form tendencies, so instead of looking at every sequence individually, it focuses on their psychology somewhat? I'm not the best at explaining this, but there's a good chance that your definition of "the artist as a whole" differentiates from mine.
Memorability is heavily focused on the song's melodies (90%) and only a little bit of the things that makes it unique to the site (10%). Sequences with freestyle melodies have a harder time maintaining the list, while ones with specific and more memorable motifs are more likely to be high in this stat. Style influences memorability, meaning it does tap into the user's psychology.
Decomposition can vary on a multitude of factors, and there's no clear-cut way to determine the perfect answer for this statistic from just looking at the note count.
Some sequences can be really layered with instruments but still have a generally easy method of doing so. Other instrument-stacked sequences have these complex patterns going on that I can't even comprehend how it's done.
The same with piano, some sequences can have a distinguishable left-and-right while my sequences vary from having 2~5 tracks at one time while having notes intermingling between all of them.
As for Decomposition, maybe I can elaborate better by specifically applying it to the composer's better projects? It'd be no fair if I did it to their scraps and stuff of course. After all, this site is just fundamentally for getting ideas down, so there's no points taken off if their 120 note sequence looks really simple compared to their 10k godsend.
The above question can also apply to some of the other things listed in General Composition.
(10-15-2018, 02:06 AM)Jonah Wrote: Genre variety is gonna make your life hell. After all, most people DO make sequences in a large plethora of genres. However, the majority of sequences they make, and the majority of the sequences you've seen won't be like that.
There won't be a one-size-fits-all genre to describe an artist, that much I can agree with.
However, I've noticed that even veteran composers on OS tend to hug their comfort zones, and that it's not too noticeable as a lot of them end up having a cocktail of genre-blending plus style to make it seem different from the mainstreams. I'd like to clarify that Genre Strength will be used to list out the possibilities of what kind of genre their work falls under.
"Comfort zone" is described differently per composer. Genre variety also draws attention to other aspects in Composer Preferences, since other criteria can indirectly affect how you rank on genre variety.
I'd also want to note that "Genre" not only includes the flavor of music, but it concerns different atmospheres as well (fast-paced, dreamy, melancholic, etc.) For now I can give a rough idea of how I might rank "Genre Variety".
A person like Eric, for example, would rank lower in genre variety due to his limited instrument choice and little atmospheric change when reviewing all of his sequences. He would rank around a 2 out of 5.
A person like Wafels would rank higher from frequently experimenting with instruments in different scenarios. His style in general incorporates distinctly different genres as is, therefore he would score at least a 4 or 5.
JHXC would fit in some in-between, and although his stuff is mostly EDM-based (single genre) he has a large bookcase of experiments that it would be sensible to rank him at least a 3 or 4.
As a prediction, I think most veteran composers would score a 3 or 4 for genre variety. They have a specialized genre they are good in and try to expand it as much as possible with slight experimentation while staying true to their style.
Also keep in mind that I will spend the time to review a composer's profile for their sequences, and realistically, this chart would take a LONG time to update. (Combined with my lack of motivation as is.) If worse comes to worse, then I can just hunt down the user through Discord, piece of cake.
Ultimately this thread will end up being an encyclopedia of the above-average users of OS, since my analysis/personal interviews will be included.
(10-15-2018, 02:06 AM)Jonah Wrote: Are you trying to tell me you're actually going to sift through all 2k of Xstep's sequences to find ones that match what you're looking for? If so then bless your soul, but I just don't think that's a reasonable idea.
Worst thing about this is that applies to every time you want to find uniqueness within a composer. You'd have to look through all of their sequences, and keep up to date with the ones they add in order to maintain the thread, and that's just not realistic.
As you said, sequences have to be up to date in order to maintain the thread. I feel this can suggest that I'm already able to bottleneck a bunch of their old sequences from the first few months of OS. I'm certain that I won't be able to replicate my style from 100k now, therefore it loses relevance in here, as this thread primarily focuses on the current trend. This also rules out a decent, and I say decent, portion of Step's experimental crap that he's done in the past.
Often, style stabilizes once a composer grows comfort into what they're doing. This also means that there's little chance that a drastic style change will occur, and if it does happen, then it will only be applicable to a few sequences. If it's the case that it is a permanent style change, then there still should be a good chance that they still compose in their stable style to an extent. I wouldn't have to have a complete makeover of their profile once I finalize the information.
(10-15-2018, 02:06 AM)Jonah Wrote: Another problem with it was that people took it too seriously. I feel like I seriously offended people when i did that, when in reality it was just meant to flatter them.
I don't think anyone on the Top 10 were offended, especially DC since he kinda made fun of it by making his own sequence about it. I just think people who thought other composers deserve more attention kinda looked more disappointed in the list than originally anticipated. It's a Top 10 list, stuff like that should happen.
I hope this list just gives as much information as possible so that I don't look too biased, or that I'm excluding people out of the list. Eventually there will come a point that I can offer a good review on the frequent composers here, mediocre and good, but for now, I'm working with the best as they provide a clearer view of how they make sequences on the site.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to this, I've been kinda writing for one hour already, it's almost 5 AM here anyway.