107 Forum Posts by "Sundans"
Reviewed this funny, diddy that has some pretty interesting character!
-
Canadian Morning by YeelpSnowy feeling loop with ice-sounding drums.
- Score
- 4.30 / 5.00
- Type
- Loop
- Genre
- Dance
- Popularity
- 106 Views
Would like some info on my most recent ambient-ish track.
-
Sundans - Ice by SundansA mellow ambient track with rain and other atmospheric elements.
- Score
- 5.00 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Ambient
- Popularity
- 31 Views
At 3/20/12 02:53 AM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote: The only time I ever listen to my music after it's made is while I'm reading an in depth review so I can listen to what problems or suggestions they have with the track.
Other than that, I practically never listen to my own music unless it's a song that I am particularly fond of or has significant meaning in my life (I.E. was written around an event in my life that had a very large impact). Of the 70some songs on my profile right now, I only ever listen to 2 of them fairly regularly.
More or less the same reasoning as above, I already know what's going on in the track, or I've spent so much time listening to it while writing it that I don't care to listen to it anymore once it's finished.
I've even heard people say, "If you can still stand listening to your track by the time it's finished, you didn't spend enough time and effort on it."
... And more or less, that is true for my more ambitious songs.
This is pretty applicable to me too. I occasionally go back and listen to my older tracks just to hear how much I've improved during my short time as an musician, but I rarely actually listen to them for pure enjoyment.
Reviewed these sick-ass rhymes.
-
slickblade by CanasAncient weapon of time? Yoink!
- Score
- 4.51 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Nerdcore
- Popularity
- 45 Views
Would like my newest track to be looked at.
-
Sundans - Wonder by Sundans
A atmospheric dance track that conveys a sense of wonder and awe.
- Score
- 5.00 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Dance
- Popularity
- 9 Views
Reviewed this sick-ass vinyl-esque drum & bass track!
-
DnBPartY! by PrognoiseBIGDnB Party ! ?
- Score
- 3.92 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Drum N Bass
- Popularity
- 56 Views
I'd just like some feedback concerning mastering and the like on this work in progress.
-
Sundans - Wonder (Preview) by Sundans
An organic/acoustic trance track.
- Score
- 5.00 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Trance
- Popularity
- 13 Views
Seven Lions
Xilent
Nero
Hybrid
Hammock
Evoke
Frequent
Last Island
Koven
Revolution72
Two Steps from Hell
Audiomachine
And those are the artists I draw inspiration from.
Congratulations to you guys who made it! I can't wait to see what you guys churn out for this round! ^_^
At 8/24/14 02:07 AM, Troisnyx wrote: Perhaps it may be, but for testing purposes, I made one song almost completely with FL defaults. (Transformation, and it's under my 2013 works.) Now granted, I'd have to take off the Soundfont Player for future pieces. Still: DirectWave may not be the best, but twiddling around with it will give you its uses. Any seasoned musician would think that request to separate users by DAW is unnecessary. And for us FL users, it's a much appreciated challenge!
You are right -- Direct Wave is a pretty nice VST for acoustic resampling. It's got limited harmonic capabilities too, which few resamplers have. On the other hand, in terms of bass resampling -- which is what I've used it for a few times -- I have to say that the Ableton Sampler is, overall, much better in terms of audio manipulation capabilities. It has a few more harmonic options, more pitch and effect options and is, over all, much more integrated with Ableton's systems.
But, as I've said in my previous posts, it all comes down to the knowledge and willingness the user possesses -- and I certainly recommend experimenting with Direct Wave, and any other synthesizer to get the sounds you want.
At 8/23/14 01:33 PM, Possibly wrote:Then you could make the argument that some DAWs have native VSTs that have numerous capabilities that others do not. For example, Ableton's Sampler is far better than FL Studio's Direct Wave. DAWs all have their own advantages and disadvantages -- but it all comes down to how experienced the user is in tandem with how comfortable they are with the tools provided to them.True - or if it became an issue that concerned people, you could split into various groups like in this competition, and have your FL vs other FL users and likewise Ableton vs Ableton users and so on.
I personally wouldn't be too bothered about somebody having something in their DAW that's better than my version or vice versa. As you say, experience of the tools counts for a great deal. Not saying I'm fantastic by any means. I can make great tools sound shitty along with the best of them, and shitty things sound...well, not quite so shitty on a good day.
I wouldn't be bother either. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be bothered if someone used East West Symphonic orchestra against my meager Kontakt 5 library. I just find the idea of feeling upset because somebody has a "better" VST a bit silly. Take for example a fairly popular uprising trio, Audeka. Their primary synths? 3xOsc, a minimalist synth, and Harmor, a resampler. Or how about the quest so many people go on to get Sylenth1 or FM8 when, if they took the time to learn synthesis, could easily create the sounds they wanted in stock synths like Sytrus, Harmor, GMS, and Poizone.
In other words -- I get what you are saying and it might seem fair to you. To me, however, I don't think it is necessary. I do, however, wish you luck in the competition here. As a matter of fact, I wish all of you guys luck. A lot of these tracks are simply amazing!
At 8/23/14 08:36 PM, LunyAlex wrote: When you're connecting a MIDI Controller to a computer you're creating an Instrument-like System.
That's the closest I'll come to seeing a computer as an instrument; as a potential component of an instrument-like system.
I.E. The Computer is a Component of the instrument that is comprised of a MIDI Keyboard and the machine (computer) it's plugged in.
Regardless, I'll agree to disagree.
To each his own; it makes no difference ultimately, other than perspective.
-------
And the reason we're arguing is because debate is the spice of life.
Nothing says "human" better than people yelling"YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT ARRRGGH" to each other.
(Not sarcastic)
Well, there's nothing I can do about your own perspective, so I too will agree to disagree. I hope your cinematic music production goes well -- I actually checked out a few more Kontakt libraries because of you. X)
At 8/23/14 07:41 PM, LunyAlex wrote: For all intents and purposes, our colloquial use of the phrase "musical Instrument" defines something that generates sound as a result of being played.
You will not find the "played" part in any dictionary, but one would have to be reaching pretty badly, to not understand what I'm saying here.
Do you support the notion of an instrument that can't be played?
Why does something that has a crucial aspect missing from what all other instruments have (ability to be played) supposedly bare the same title?
Have you ever seriously considered someone that writes music on a computer as "Able to play an instrument?".
There is no practical bearing to calling a computer an instrument other than being able to reinforce one's validity as a musician.
In my experience that's what this debate has always been about. Ego.
People that make music on a computer have their validity as a musician attacked by dumbasses that think it takes no skill to produce music in this manner.
This is obviously a ridiculous premise shared by those ignorant to this art.
Is it necessary to include an odd element into a category just for convenience in such situations?
Because by doing this we're bypassing the purpose of language itself. Language is there to identify and communicate information in a pragmatic manner.
Calling a computer an instrument is very far away form pragmatic.
"Do you play an instrument?"
"Yes, I play the computer"
*Awkward silence*
...
*Still awkward silence*
And did I offend you with my first comment, because your tone seems to somewhat indicate that. I'd hate to be offending anyone; I did specifically state above that I was trying to be playful through my tone, not abrasive.
A piano cannot be played without the cloth-covered mallets commanded by the keys, just as a computer cannot be easily operated without a keyboard or mouse. The two utensils used to command a computer are much like the strings to a guitar. The strings themselves are not instruments, and neither is the midi controller, or the keyboard, or the mouse, or the key to a piano. It is all the pieces in their entirety that -- excuse the pun -- compose the instrument. That is not a difficult concept to grasp. A computer, piano, or guitar are all assembled by numerous parts, and none of those individual parts are not the instruments themselves. The keyboard and mouse happen to be integral parts in operating the computer -- just as the bow to a cello or violin is necessary to play a staccato or sustained note, the mouse is not necessarily required to make sounds on a DAW.
I am not offended but, rather, driven to be cold and detached by your rather apparent condescension.
At 8/23/14 02:12 PM, LunyAlex wrote:At 8/23/14 01:23 PM, midimachine wrote: you can write music on pen and paper, but nobody calls pen and paper an instrument because that would be daft and pretentious./debate over
Drive safe everyone
You are absolutely right that this argument isn't difficult. The fact is that, in the case of digital synthesis, the computer generates the sound of the notes set on your piano roll. Arguably the DAW is the pen and paper and the computer itself -- the machine that generates the sound -- is the instrument.
So you are absolutely right. This debate is over, primarily because the most pretentious thing about this thread is the devovled argument over the semantics of what the instrument actually is.
At 8/23/14 08:49 AM, Possibly wrote:Interestingly enough, no one was disqualified and/or privately dropped out from the Underdogs Group, whereas slightly more did in the Prof. Amateurs, and the most did in the All-Stars! That means that the Underdogs Group is the most competitive at this point, as 3 participants from each group will still advance to the next round.That is interesting - were some people disqualified? How come? Naming no names.
Anyway - however it turns out, thanks to Door6 for organising this - it's a nice idea.
I've also 'fanned' all the people who got through to this submission stage - so you all have one new fan anyway.
Earlier in the thread (or it may have been a diffeent thread actually), someone mentioned about how expensive vst etc can give people an advantage - how about a competition where you can only use free vst? For a level playing field. Not because I rail at the injustice of people using whatever they want, but just for the fun, and you'd end up with lots of chiptunes, which can only be a good thing.
Then you could make the argument that some DAWs have native VSTs that have numerous capabilities that others do not. For example, Ableton's Sampler is far better than FL Studio's Direct Wave. DAWs all have their own advantages and disadvantages -- but it all comes down to how experienced the user is in tandem with how comfortable they are with the tools provided to them.
At 8/19/14 05:47 PM, Troisnyx wrote: The trouble with it is that, for instance on FL, I may have V10 and my collaborator may have V11, and I can't open projects from his end on mine. And not all versions of the DAW will have support for the plugins you use. For instance, FL11 64-bit has no working Fruity Soundfont Player, among other things.
Generally artists produce stems in raw audio if their partner or collaborator doesn't have the same plug-ins and such.
-
Sundans - I Dream by Sundans
A house/trance track.
- Score
- 0 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Trance
- Popularity
- 1 Views
I've got my submission. I hope you guys like it. ^_^;;
At 8/14/14 01:35 PM, LunyAlex wrote:At 8/14/14 12:45 PM, Sundans wrote: I was, at one point in my life, inclined to agree with you. Then I was presented with an interesting test from one of my German friends. He presented me with an image and asked me if I thought it to be art. After a long period of studying the image, I said that I did. He then chuckled and pointed out that the image was a completely random arrangement of gum that had accumulated over time and happened to form a recognizable pattern. What that proved to me, and to everyone else present at that conversation, was that art is subjective. As a matter of fact, almost every human concept pertaining to morals, values, and entertainment is entirely subjective. If art was defined by human expression, many atrocities and genocides of our past would be considered art. The diction of "art" and, more specifically, "music" is too restrictive and absolutely incomplete.While I generally agree with the overall sentiment... this area of material that dances on the fine line between art and random association of elements is more often inhabited by victim-complex-rid art snobs (The primordial hipster) than individuals that legitimately have a calling for something very, very niche.
And the fact that we all even have this discussion proves that there is at least freedom to perceive something as art, whether others do or not. One person may view Fleetwood Mac as art, whereas another would not -- just the same, you may not view Supersonic as a music genre even though I would.
I always give someone the benefit of a doubt when they invoke their extremely acquired tastes, but my personal experience hasn't given me much faith.
Without trying to sound too harsh, technically, the fact that, in your example, dried gum created a recognizable pattern doesn't really prove a point.
People see faces in the craters on the moon, because our minds love patterns. That doesn't actually mean that, on some obscure, abstract level, the moon actually has faces on it.
A good identifier I like to use is the idea that A piece of art has to transcend the sum of its parts.
It's an abstract notion, with its own dose of subjectivity, but it works for me.
If someone records a garbage truck and a freezer and puts the two together, expecting that alone to represent "art", then they have failed.
If they record a garbage truck and a freezer and purposely blend them together in a specific manner as to generate a 3rd element, regardless of what it is (Example: A very interesting phase effect between the two...), then you start entering artistic territory.
And then there's shock "art", where the intended result is supposed to generate a strong yet negative reaction.
That side of the spectrum can fuck off altogether.
You are absolutely right that there are individuals labeling things art of the sake of their own social status -- and they are annoying. My personal experience has been mixed, just like it has been with most things.
No, it certainly asserts a fine point. Because we rationalize observations with abstract conceptualizations and interpret things individually, it is entirely conceivable, understandable, and justifiable that a person might find something to be art when it doesn't match the diction of certain definitions -- chiefly yours.
And you are absolutely right. It works for you because interpretation -- because art is dependent on the individual. The individual with the garbage truck and freezer has failed to you. Art is made for one's self -- the interpretation is subjective to the individual.
At 8/14/14 12:08 PM, SkyeWint wrote: you know, this is what annoys me about some people - "it's music if the artist says it is" - because no, it is not music just if someone says it is. Or, at the very least, it shouldn't be, because then the word "music" just becomes meaningless. If any sound can become music, then the words "music" and "sound" become the same thing.
Same can be applied for other forms of art. If I remember right, someone piled several hundred pounds of lunch meat onto a mattress and submitted it for a project in a university art course and got a perfect score. There's also one which I (and many other people) found in a VSauce video - "my sculpture is the distance between these words and your eyes". And, going back to music, there's the toaster-in-a-blender-cupped-over-your-ear stuff called "noise music", a more annoying and painful sound I have never known.
Honestly, maybe we should just call it a new "art form" - the Statement. Not actual music, not actual poetry, not an actual sculpture, but a statement. Because that's what it's meant to do - make an artistic statement, rather than entertain in the way actual art is meant to do.
also the amount of actual effort put into these artistic statements is downright insulting to people who spend a lot of time, energy, and creativity on their real works. Imagine if someone said that the one-note show took even a tiny fraction of the amount of effort that your NGADM piece took.
I was, at one point in my life, inclined to agree with you. Then I was presented with an interesting test from one of my German friends. He presented me with an image and asked me if I thought it to be art. After a long period of studying the image, I said that I did. He then chuckled and pointed out that the image was a completely random arrangement of gum that had accumulated over time and happened to form a recognizable pattern. What that proved to me, and to everyone else present at that conversation, was that art is subjective. As a matter of fact, almost every human concept pertaining to morals, values, and entertainment is entirely subjective. If art was defined by human expression, many atrocities and genocides of our past would be considered art. The diction of "art" and, more specifically, "music" is too restrictive and absolutely incomplete.
And the fact that we all even have this discussion proves that there is at least freedom to perceive something as art, whether others do or not. One person may view Fleetwood Mac as art, whereas another would not -- just the same, you may not view Supersonic as a music genre even though I would.
The two submissions sound pretty good -- can't wait to throw mine in here in a few days.
Already starting my submission and boy is it sounding absolutely terrible. :/ The pressure, damn it. The pressure. I am also completely shocked that I was one of the highest scores in my group. That, to be honest, was not expected in the least. I wish everybody who made it good luck -- you guys are so talented. I can't wait to hear the epic music you guys put out.
At 8/7/14 04:47 PM, Deshiel wrote: This post goes to everyone who has posted an entry so far.
I played all of your entries and I'm realy suprised that you guys aren't heavier on fans and your track heavier on views and downloads because I pretty much liked everything. I consider most of you to be better musicians than I will ever be, yet I could put you all into my own numbers of fans. That's weird.
Now I REALY understand why did this contest happen and I wish you all good luck, not just now but always and I hope that this contest does its job and shows the world a slice of your brilliance.
I'm truly moved by this.
I just want to thank you for that sentiment and return the feeling as well. You really are a good artist and you sell yourself short. I think you are one of many talented artists here -- so to you I wish good luck. :)
Count me in!
-
Sundans - Total Hedonsim by Sundans
Finally, a completed EDM track from me!
- Score
- 4.81 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Dance
- Popularity
- 205 Views
As Step said, it is all dependent on the client in question. The composer certainly deserves money for their work -- considering the fact that, in the art industry, promotion as payment is about as useful as a one-armed trapeze artist with an itchy ass. I am of the belief that it should be worked out individually via case-by-case basis.
View it like mastering. It's different for every track, so work it out and find what works.
-
8Bitro (Preview) by Sundans
An 8-bit electro track.
- Score
- 0 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Video Game
- Popularity
- 1 Views
A preview of a little something I started working on.
At 7/26/14 02:47 PM, Exilious wrote: Heyo people! I wanted to start a topic to meet new producer's such as myself. I techniacally started last year, but last year I didn't actually make anything. I just played around with the program (FL Studio) and then stopped for a few months. I started up again the beginning of this year, and since then I've been watching music theory videos or making stuff just to trash it later.
My laptop is pretty slow, so I haven't been on FL Studio for awhile. I went on it a few days ago out of boredom and mastered one of my old songs. Took me forever.
Well, with all that being said, are there any new producer's out there? It'd be nice to meet people who are starting out just like me!
I started out almost three years ago in a similar position to you. I was operating off of a 2004 laptop that had failing video and audio drivers, a slowly dying 150GB hard drive, and a dual core i3 2.0GHz processor, etc. Point is, I know precisely what it's like to be limited by you hardware and rig. But I also think it is a good way to encourage creativity and learning. Learning how to overcome my own hardware limitations forced me to experiment more with resampling and additive synthesis, which I think is an important part of modern music. So, in short, welcome and I encourage your to continue producing.
At 7/24/14 04:57 AM, LunyAlex wrote:At 7/24/14 03:42 AM, Sundans wrote:What I meant to say by founded on subjective criteria is that the boundaries imposed for such a contest, be it number of fans or age are deemed to be a bit arbitrary no matter what.At 7/21/14 06:23 PM, LunyAlex wrote: A series of random thoughts:As a less popular artist myself, I actually agree with the sentiments opposing this contest. Excluding more well-known artists probably wouldn't solve anything. But despite my agreeable stance, I do find one criticism particularly strange. Wouldn't auditioning for a competition and getting admitted based on someone else's view of "good music" be subjective criteria? Wouldn't getting judged for any sort of competition be subjective? don't mean to be malicious or anything, but ultimately any sort of criteria is subjective or arbitrary, isn't it? I mean, I could be wrong, but I was just thinking.
- Ultimately, an underdog competition would be founded on subjective criteria.
If it gets settled on that you can't participate with more than 100 fans, is it technically fair for the guys with 101-110 fans that otherwise aren't any less underdog than the rest?
There's bound to be people outside the designated criteria that would be a good fit otherwise.
> Isn't well known or recognized
> Could totally use the rep boost
> Doesn't fit into criteria
Only way to avoid that is to make the criteria very loose, but then the point of the competition becomes invalidated.
I agree with you there in that the arbitrary attribution to the criteria is what makes the goal of such a competition impossible to achieve. I was simply confused as to how the subjectivity of said criteria is the specific quality that invalidated the competition.
But thanks for clearing up your point -- I appreciate it.
At 7/24/14 03:51 AM, Troisnyx wrote:At 7/24/14 03:42 AM, Sundans wrote:It would be subjective, yes, but still based on objective musical principles (yes, even atonality would be covered) -- the success of the piece will, in part, ride on how skilled a person is with what he knows or uses. And possibly even objective mixing principles, as is the case where the mix is blaring through the roof and needs to be toned down. Beyond that, it is subjective: the bulk of a person's piece will ride on how many highs and lows a person has managed to inspire.At 7/21/14 06:23 PM, LunyAlex wrote: A series of random thoughts:As a less popular artist myself, I actually agree with the sentiments opposing this contest. Excluding more well-known artists probably wouldn't solve anything. But despite my agreeable stance, I do find one criticism particularly strange. Wouldn't auditioning for a competition and getting admitted based on someone else's view of "good music" be subjective criteria? Wouldn't getting judged for any sort of competition be subjective? don't mean to be malicious or anything, but ultimately any sort of criteria is subjective or arbitrary, isn't it? I mean, I could be wrong, but I was just thinking.
- Ultimately, an underdog competition would be founded on subjective criteria.
At least, that's what I gather.....
A contest based on the number of fans alone will result in the same way that the NGADM does, to be honest. Number of fans =/= skill in music.
There are definitely objective elements to mixing and music theory, but it is ultimately subjective. Mixing is impacted by the listeners audio equipment just as much as it is the actual mixer's. Composition is dependent of genre preferences as well as the subjective definition of music itself. I just personally don't think that the subjectivity of admission would be an issue. It is the idea that any limit, from 10 fans to 100 fans, is entirely arbitrary.
And absolutely, popularity does not necessarily equate to skill.
At 7/21/14 06:23 PM, LunyAlex wrote: A series of random thoughts:
- Ultimately, an underdog competition would be founded on subjective criteria.
As a less popular artist myself, I actually agree with the sentiments opposing this contest. Excluding more well-known artists probably wouldn't solve anything. But despite my agreeable stance, I do find one criticism particularly strange. Wouldn't auditioning for a competition and getting admitted based on someone else's view of "good music" be subjective criteria? Wouldn't getting judged for any sort of competition be subjective? don't mean to be malicious or anything, but ultimately any sort of criteria is subjective or arbitrary, isn't it? I mean, I could be wrong, but I was just thinking.
-
Sundans - Pursuit (Preview) by Sundans
A rocky Drum & Bass track!
- Score
- 5.00 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Drum N Bass
- Popularity
- 1 Views
Got a new EP coming up and this is one of the tracks!
At 5/22/14 09:52 PM, Yoshiii343 wrote: Dude, getting your hard work stolen is NOT a form of recognition.
I would actually disagree to a certain extent here. While it is certainly not the best form of recognition, it most certainly is an indication that someone is willing to break the law to obtain your music. What's more, if you ask most artists who have signed on record labels, they will probably tell you piracy and breaches of copyright (uploading to Youtube or producing a Bootleg Remix) is a pretty good way to get exposure.
Now, if producing and selling your music is the way you eat, that is a problem -- but still. It's recognition, just not the type most people would ask for.
NCS is a legitimate channel and, on top of that, is not the producer of the music. I've been following the NCS Soundcloud for two years now.
At 5/4/14 11:56 PM, Lethal-Input wrote: This is the bass I was talking about. I want it to sound pretty much exactly like that, but I want it to play to higher frequencies. (not even sure if that's the right phrase I should use...)
Basically I want it to be heard on any type of speaker.
You can't really achieve this because the frequency range differs depending on the speaker. You can get a range for most speakers, but at the end of the day, some speakers just won't play lower frequencies very well.
