Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The way I understand it, and as I've been told by professionals in the music business, is that even though he copyrighted it first on paper, you should still win the case if you decide it's worth your money taking him to court because you have those original files on your computer. It shows the date of the project and the creative process of your project way before he was able to copyright them. All he has is the audio file. You even have the date of when you uploaded it unto Newgrounds under this license.
I wouldn't stress out about it. Have a lawyer send a letter, or wait until this guy becomes rich and famous. Highly unlikely, but you would prefer the latter.

At 4/24/14 11:39 PM, Envy wrote: The bruins won tonight so I'm drunk and ranting now, but you get my point.

Go Hawks! :)

Congratulations to all!
I like that the winners are not the ones I assumed were going to win—a nice surprise and much deserved. And I’m shocked to see that there were some left out which I thought surely would have made it. Just for the enjoyment of it all, I would have loved to have heard the conversation between the judges, and what it was that lead to their decisions.

At 4/23/14 03:04 PM, Elitistinen wrote: I remember when I was writing this 15 minutes symphony/orchestra, it took me nearly 3 years to finish. Never ever write symphony again.

Did you make the mistake of comparing your symphony writing to Beethoven’s like most composers do? How about taking Joseph Hayden’s approach?

At 4/22/14 02:34 PM, LucidShadowDreamer wrote: Oh man. It will be interesting to see which songs the judges have picked. The contest is soon over!!! I would die from the pressure if I was a judge -_- Considering that I have found like 20 songs I think should win... o.O

I think we all know who deserves to win....

This guy:

• 
  80's Chick by Desiel391

  I was on the john when a clock fell and hit me in the head. Then I thought of this.

  Score

  5.00 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Dance

  Popularity

  93 Views

• Loading...

I'm going to add my favorites that haven't gotten mentioned yet that I think should be considered.

• 
  Lost in Deep Space by Chemiqals

  Float in the ambiance.

  Score

  4.91 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Ambient

  Popularity

  554 Views

• Loading...
• 
  Sojourn by DamienFleisch

  A Magical Boat Ride Down A Stream

  Score

  5.00 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Classical

  Popularity

  79 Views

• Loading...
• 
  Gears keep turning by OmegaP

  A bit of glitch inspired by some cool art

  Score

  5.00 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Experimental

  Popularity

  133 Views

• Loading...

At 4/18/14 10:10 PM, johnfn wrote: @Phonometrologist getting a shout out <3

Wow..very cool! Definitely did not foresee the type of responses when working on the project. Made my day :)

Music: http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/573207

Art: Inspired:http://www.newgrounds.com/art/view/theheartgrinder/tbh-ctc-famine

Two hours left.
Thinking I should name my track:
"System Overload:The audio engine was not able to process all required data in time.(-10011)"
Testing my patience

At 4/13/14 08:09 PM, Elitistinen wrote: Hopefully something super awesome.

Na, I typically like to write pieces that can lure me to sleep :)
Seriously...

At 4/13/14 07:16 PM, SourJovis wrote: We've still got a little over 24 hours left right? I wanted to finish my song today, but it's lacking something... Talent probably.

I second this... Can you give an exact timezone for when the cut off will be? I'm going to need every minute I can get.

I have to say that retards in music are still quite useful more than your intellectually challenged musician.

Oh just the usually GMO stuff, corn syrup, plastic, and oil.

At 4/11/14 10:36 PM, RealFaction wrote: Sorry it's just weird that we're not getting any answers, is all. Not trying to offend. I'm just trying to figure out what the heck is going on...it's very strange and unusual.

eh., wolf face looks good on you though.

I have to say that this is quite enjoyable to see transpire

Don't assume that Hollywood has any agenda other than to make money from the masses. Just look at Oprah's millions of followers who are willing to buy anything that she recommends. She promotes a "New-age spirituality," and that sounds like an opportunity. Hollywood doesn't care what your stance is.
Here's an example:
Do the makers of Noah, who are atheist, care whether they are concerned about offending people that share the same views as they while their pockets are being filled by gullible Christians?

We should be more upset that Michael Bay is still making movies.

At 4/3/14 02:43 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 4/3/14 01:31 PM, Omegeist wrote: No he doesn't

Man, don't be jealous of Ryan talents.

Yes, don't be jealous of his talents, because talent is overrated.
Be jealous of his commitment to practicing his craft, and other people's good character.

At 4/3/14 09:51 AM, enochcity wrote:

At 4/2/14 02:30 PM, RealFaction wrote:

At 4/2/14 10:36 AM, enochcity wrote:

Maybe 10 is too small, should I go back to 18 total (3 winners and runner-ups) like last year guys? What do you think? 15 maybe?

I think 15 would be good. There's already alot of mindblowing submission and I think we'll see even more epic submissions these last day before the deadline

I would just wait and make the call at the very end when you know what you have. I haven't counted how many entries there are already, but if you make the list of winners bigger, the list of submissions that didn't make it will get smaller and perhaps would be even more disheartening for those sitting alone in a room with only a few other rejects.

At 4/2/14 09:03 PM, Sequenced wrote: i am at peace with myself. while the rest of the world is going crazy and doing stupid shit, i am unaffected by it.

because who gives a shit.

Now all you need to do is figure out how to have that same mentality when you're out with people.
Perhaps put your identity in something beyond that of which is fleeting

At 4/2/14 01:15 PM, cowgoesmoo2 wrote: Oh.....
Wait could you please explain that to me, though?

The pre-teens that were listening then grew up

At 4/2/14 02:30 PM, RealFaction wrote: Maybe 10 is too small, should I go back to 18 total (3 winners and runner-ups) like last year guys? What do you think? 15 maybe?

Curious that if you're going to put them together such as in an album, will you be mastering all of them to get a more cohesive volume level?

At 4/2/14 01:47 PM, Emid wrote: Here is the result of the finalists. I think Ryan is the most talented of all winners.

Link

Got a chuckle out of Ryan's piece. reminds me a bit of that one mouse, western movie...what is the name of that one called? oh well...

At 3/11/14 12:44 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: I'm not impressed. It's a very normal sounding instrument.

Agreed, but what I find most interesting about it is the history of what could’ve been.
If instead of the harpsichord, it makes one wonder how music would have been composed on this instrument and would it be any different? The use of trills and other ornamentation wouldn’t have been needed as much to keep a certain note in focus because of the decay and lack of variation in volume of the harpsichord. I think this instrument sounds much better than some of the instruments of the time such as the clavichord.

At 3/11/14 12:39 AM, Elitistinen wrote: Who wouldn't want a piano to play string instruments?

What do you think of this?

Well it does sound like the name that is given. At first my ears kept getting confused to what it was hearing, i.e. a harpsichord, an organ, and cello? But I'm getting use to the sound, and it is only fitting to play the works that he did which were close to that era. Though, I would have liked to hear how it would sound with more modern works.

I think it is clever to come up with an instrument like this that sounds more like a bowed instrument because of the difficulty of having to place the finger at a certain spot to get the right intonation as it is in stringed instruments. It's much easier to just have to think about pressing down on a key.
Thanks for sharing.

At 3/6/14 09:40 AM, ForgottenDawn wrote:

:don't stop what you're doing (unless you're a pro-sound polluter

Please elaborate to what you mean by that, because I might actually want to get a little close to polluting a couple of eardrums.

At 3/1/14 08:19 PM, SoundChris wrote: The worst feeling for me is that good music - especially classical and jazz - can be so deeply touching that you just feel that listening would be not enough - you wanted more. It feels like a dream of something really heavenly - very elusive - and you just have to notice that you are only allowed to look through a tiny "keyhole" and get a very small idea what greatness and truth is behind what you hear. You only want this dream to come true and totally enter this world of emotions.

Maybe this sounds extreme - but this is what i actually feel very often when listening to good (!) music - e.g. the mozart requiem, the prelude of wagners tristan, bach´s "st. jons passion", oscar petersons version of monk´s "round midnight" or john williams "schindlers list" violin track. Especially bach and ecclesiastical music causes this feeling in me.

I call that a sip of heaven.

You know I find it interesting that you mentioned Mozart's Requiem, because of what you explained is to be quite literally true as all we have from the maestro is a skeleton of what the music could have sounded like-- except Introit that of which it has always been my favorite.

At 2/27/14 01:18 PM, stunkel wrote:

At 2/27/14 12:31 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

We had several massive collabs. Mostly it was like "you do your part, I do mine" kind of thing.

The album idea is more solid and interesting. We can work on some concept theme(s) and make the story out of it. It would be awesome. We could upload song by song and linking everyone who participated to the tracks. Then put in a playlist.

Well, maybe we should make this happen then. Everyone can do one song, we would just need to decide if we want a theme or not and what it would be. Upload it to band camp and do what you said about the playlists.

Collaborating on one song seems tough because everyone has different ideas and people get left out because they want to contribute on things that aren't assigned to them, but this way everyone can do it their own way and how they want. And like deadbea wanted, it would attract attention.

Or how about putting a NG album together consisting of a bunch of collaborations? Getting a team together of two people working on a particular track either by random means, or by volunteering with whoever you would like to work with. I prefer the latter.

At 2/24/14 04:56 PM, deadbea7 wrote: it seems a lot people don't listen that deep into the music and only post reviews based on their biased opinion. i tend to dislike the comments and reviews that say "i love this!" how does that help me???? i mean thanks, but i need info.

Eh, just to counter that with a different perspective, I don’t typically leave comments unless I truly enjoy a piece of work in which I just want to at least encourage the artist. I mostly listen while I’m at work sitting at my desk so giving a complete analysis isn’t going to happen on everything I’ve come across. I’ll mostly do leave a comment when there are little or no comments at all, so it’s better that the person knows someone is listening. If there are already plenty of comments/reviews, then I’ll probably just leave it at that.

In regards to pieces that I don’t care so much about, negative criticism alone isn’t going to make a difference.
I’ve learned that people really won’t take it to heart what I have to say in that regard unless specifically asked. Especially when they don’t even know me. I’m sure most of you appreciate constructive feedback as I do as well, but who am I to you, and at the end of the day, if I didn’t enjoy it, why hear it from me? And I’m not just talking about short comments that consist of, “this sucks,” or “I don’t like it,” etc., but rather an actual analysis and a wholeheartedly review of why I didn’t enjoy a piece.
I get what SkyeWintrest and deadbea7 is saying in regards to compliments alone do seem a bit shallow. However, I think you could tell when someone is being honest and isn’t expecting anything in return.

At 2/17/14 05:01 PM, Calamaistr wrote: Back to the crux; there are people who do not have the abillity to hear that chemistry, they do not hear a false note, or a bland progression, they do not understand what bach taught with his music, they percieve music from these masters as 'just the pop songs of their time'. And it is this why there is no such thing as taste to define. There is those who are developed and those who are not. And those who are developed can define.

You would not go to a man who collects hammers when you need a smith. :)

Well see I am not so sure about that statement. Personally, I would agree, but I can’t say that I am necessarily right either in regards to defining what is good. I’m not going to be as quick to say so in that regard. I think I know what good music is, but it’s really hard to argue that when the purpose of music is to communicate, and when so many people are moved by a piece of music. Back-From-Purgatory gave a great example of him liking a song, and I’m sure many others do as well, while others would hate it. I think the example he gave is cheesy as hell, and I do not enjoy it. Who am I to tell him that it is bad? And what point would it be if I gave that piece to my professor and ask him what his thoughts are? Go to YouTube, and search “Original Piano music,” and I find that the first page of music and then some are just hoaky. Others just flat out suck. But obviously there are a lot of people that enjoy it. And that’s when you say those people do not have the ability to hear that “chemistry.” Well, as my point was before, I believe the purpose of music is through means of communication and it’s effectiveness in that regard. It certainly is true, for the pieces that I hate that they are effective to many. Perhaps, that is where the saying goes, “music for the people.”

There are a lot of assumptions going on. It looks that your statements have hit a soft spot with some users, and you’re arguing about music in a general sense. But I guess that just comes with the territory I suppose when the topic is “What is good music?”
Music is a personal thing, so obviously, everyone has there own opinions on it based on their own experiences. You come along and make a truth claim, and so naturally that isn’t going to sit well for some. Merely because they assume that with certain statements you are attacking them. Kind of a insecurity I suppose, and again, I don’t disagree with a lot of what you said, but I do question your statement that certain groups are more qualified to define the very topic we are discussing.

The best test of wether a piece of music is good or not does not lie in the hands of man, but rather in time. It’s going to take a lot longer to find out if something stands the test of time, and a lot of times that won’t happen until we are long gone.
But then again, perhaps, you could be saying that certain people are better at predicting what will last than others. It’s tough not to be fumbling over our own words when it comes to these philosophical discussions. oi
What we say here isn't going to make much difference, but I do enjoy these discussions. It would be better if people don't take things personal, but rather try to gain insight from a different opposing view by giving honest feedback.

You guys are going to be running in circles, because you’re talking about philosophy at this point. And since the topic is vast, I cannot express my thoughts briefly. It’s probably first important to define what music is in the first place, and since Beethoven’s name was brought up, here’s an excerpt from Beethoven: the Man and the Artist, as Revealed in his own Words:

“...those who apprehend his music sense that it reflects their own personal yearnings and sufferings. It egoistically, and always intelligently, ‘discusses’ with its listener his or her feelings in the wake of personal failure and personal triumph, from the lowest depths of despair to the highest heights of happy or triumphant fulfillment. In his music, he represents the feelings felt by those attempting to achieve their goals within their societies, whether they are competing for love, status, money, power, mates and/or any other things individuals feel naturally inclined to attempt to acquire.... such an individual is provided with the means to sooth his or her misery in the wake of feeling ‘hurt’ at the hands of society. The means is the music and euphoric pleasure that it can provide to minds possessing the psycho-intellectual ‘wiring’ needed to apprehend it.”

@DamienFleisch you are right that music is to communicate. It is a form of a more elegant speech that uses different set of sounds to convey a message.

“Some post-World-War-II composers, such as the late, LSD- using John Cage, reject the music of Beethoven because of its predominant reliance on ‘beauty’ as way of communicating idealized concepts. Also, since the music intimately reflects the cravings and thought-processes of the natural human mind, which in numerous ways is emotionally and intellectually irrational, the music may itself be consequently irrational.”

At 2/17/14 02:12 PM, Calamaistr wrote:

:The measurement of what good music is is simply the golden ratio in structure combined with if the music stands out. If it lacks these two then it doesnt matter how many people who do not understand the above like it, its still not good music to the measurement.
Although, I agree with a lot of what you said and I appreciate your mathematical approach, I cannot agree that a piece of music is to have a climax roughly 3 quarters in to be the singular, defining test of what makes music any good. I would just say it could be used merely as a tool among many.
The Golden Ratio is beautiful, but beauty isn’t necessary for music to be “good,” but I also don’t think that music has to be emotional to be “good” as well. And what I am saying is not an approach to relativism either, but rather that music in itself is meditation upon truth revealed in you. It is therapeutic, and I came to that conclusion based on my own experiences but don’t take my words for it. The stories in the lives of these three individuals of our day also supports that notion:
Nathaniel Anothony Ayers - For Nathaniel Anthony Ayers, music is medicine.

Dan Ellsey -Music allowed him with Cerebral Palsy to express his true self to others.

Claron Mcfadden -She found truth amidst a meditation retreat.

Music is therapeutic because it allows us to connect to others what it is within us by means of communication that words cannot express, whatever the message may be. It is our desire to be understood. Music is a great tool for that.
Perhaps, what makes music “good” is in the statistical evidence of how many people it was able to reach and be understood universally. However, I could also argue that if my music were to only make a difference for a single soul in its entire existence, it has not been all for naught for it is worth it even if it stops there. There is value in an individual, and if compared with music that have reached a multitude, it does not make it any more in vain.

At 2/17/14 03:07 PM, Calamaistr wrote: Theres plenty of bogus papers on these subjects, its absolute hogwash to think that a certain genre is intelligent music by default. Every genre has to go by ratio to emitt a proper piece.

I agree that a certain genre is not intelligent by default, and you’re now using intelligent interchangeably with good. I would use good to mean effective in the context of music primarily because of what the purpose is.

At 2/14/14 04:04 AM, FistofGreedo wrote: can you guys recommend any tunes?

Well I can recommend some works by Keith Kenniff. Even though a lot of it gets ruined for me because I hear the stuff kind of like second smoke since he does work for commercials. His Goldmund and ambient works is what I enjoy most from him:
https://soundcloud.com/unseenmusic/backwards_from_10-mp3-1?in=unseenmusic/sets/ambient-electronic-1#t=0:00

Also, I’m pretty sure that most people here have heard the Jurassic Park Theme slowed down, but if not, it’s worth sharing:
https://soundcloud.com/birdfeeder/jurassic-park-theme-1000-slower

I imagine eternity to sound like this…

At 2/13/14 01:33 PM, retroarcademonkey wrote: I wouldn't have very high hopes for this next Alien game.

I definitely don't and your remarks are on point. Though, even if it does suck, I probably will try it anyway because of nostalgia as the 1979 film is the reason I got into the franchise in the first place.