Commodore Remix

Hehe, Vosla, that's what I call an conclusively argumentation...

1. i lack the musician skills to exactly pin problems of tunes down.
this disqualifies me from be taken serious enough if i want to point out my own opinion about a tune.

>>> you also don't have ears?

i don't need someone flaming me to realize that i am not the pope.
2. there are tunes that just trigger gut reactions i can't explain at first place.

>>>> explain them at second place then!

3. i am almost unable to write negative reviews.

>>>> you got no hands or something?

4. my positive reviews sound fishy.

>>>> ah! thats your problem, you use a fish to write with!!!!

5. i still got problems with english grammar and i can't translate my way of thinking properly.

>>>> you have an english grandma? oh english grammar

6. does somebody still read this ? i am boring, too.

>>>> yep, your right... damn why did i even respond!


(just joking pal) [/quote]

Hey Vosla,

I share your point about writing negative reviews. That's why I concentrate on the tunes that I really really like and write positive ones.

And don't worry about the musical skill, the grammar, and the inability of expressing certain feelings. Nobody is perfect, and I guess more than half of the readers aren't native english either. If you get the shivers from a certain remix, just write "I get the shivers from this tune." or "I can't pinpoint why, but this remix makes me smile."

"Nur Mut!"

- Markus

... hmm... take that lightforce remixes for example... the last one was well made in my opinion. there are versions that i do like more and versions that i don't like so much. but i can't tell why. (except when it's made with a sid2midi converter and just sounds like output from a soundblaster 1.0 "midi")
reviews that contains just "dunno why but i like it" aren't that good reviews, so i spared the world from such selfmade 'gems'.
It's really good (and training) to look through other reviews and to compare what was said to what i could find on myself in a tune. i have to learn so much about music, it will take time before i am satisfied with a self-written review. (else it's just laughable crap)

To be honest... I think the best reviewers are non musicians.

reason being is that they look at a piece of music for what it's ment to be without all the technical aspects. Afterall whats a piece of music if it's not enjoyable as a piece of music.

you don't see game reviewers analysing the code behind the game do you? a review is at the end of the day aimed at the audience rather than it being technical mumbo jumbo!

Neil

Hear hear Neil... So true

thanks larsec....

btw, what's that thing on your head in the piccy? (come on your all wanting to know?!?!?)

it looks like a portable virgina!!!! if it is where do i get one LOL!!!

Neil wrote: you don't see game reviewers analysing the code behind the game do you?

But... do reviewers see the Cubase-project behind the song? (insert your fave sequencer for "Cubase"). Don´t think so.

Neil wrote: a review is at the end of the day aimed at the audience rather than it being technical mumbo jumbo!

"mumbo jumbo"...
Hmm, I heard this in the movie "The Saint", is it a common expression in the English language? It sounds funny

@neil :
i didn't thought of techno-mungo-bongo (or whatever) to review, but a bit insight on 'how-to-do-music' would help. how to be fair to music that i don't like because it's not my taste ? a review shouldn't be based solely on taste, or not?
...and talking of game-reviews : i see a lot of reviews by gaming-imbeciles who are not able to read through the gaming manual and completely fail to grasp the intentions of the game. it's like reviewing music without listening to the whole tune.
well, i do listen to the whole tune. several times. and still couldn't get a grasp on what i like or dislike of this particular tune. it's almost never so easy as 'hell, what a crappy guitar. it ruins the whole tune!'.
[game-review of counterstrike : they talked about you have to shoot pedestrians and kiddie-carts in the game... WHAT? never read such bullocks before]

hey i could have said a load of gobledee gook! just to really amuse you!

Vosla wrote:... hmm... take that lightforce remixes for example... the last one was well made in my opinion. there are versions that i do like more and versions that i don't like so much. but i can't tell why. (except when it's made with a sid2midi converter and just sounds like output from a soundblaster 1.0 "midi")

That's a starting point already, IMO. You've given a reason why you like one remix better than the other. Other visitors might want to know about it before downloading the file. Instead of highlighting why you do like a remix, you can also explain what you don't like, similar as above. For instance, an unspectacular choice of instruments, or when it sounds too Soundblaster-MIDI-ish, or maybe you dislike close cover-versions and prefer if the arranger extends a remix a lot. Things like that would be your particular review criteria. Of course, you could also turn it 180 degrees and review the remix which you like better and put into words what you like about it more than the other one, but without referring to the worse remix explicitly.

Not every review contains much value for everyone. Just as not everyone likes every remix.

Note also that presently the reviews at Remix64 are the only feature that let you learn about the composition of a total ranking of a remix.

Neil wrote:To be honest... I think the best reviewers are non musicians.

I'm not sure I agree. Musicians can put a different spin on things that comes from their experience, and one doesn't have to waffle on about technical details (I'm a musician, and most of my reviews focus on the feel of the piece).

To my mind, the only important "qualification" for reviewing anything, including stuff on RKO, is an open mind.

agreed to some extent craig! But i think musicians look at a piece of music very much differently than does your average everyday listener!

For example does a musician look at the feel of a piece of music, or does he try to check out it's technical imperfections?

For example check Glyn's Firelord... Yes what about that for a great tune, brillaint composed and awesome delivered with it being creative and addictive!

We all know that the technical aspects of glyn's remix has many floors, theres quite alot wrong with it technically, the overall sound picture is great, but it's not really studio quality. I suppose i can say this easily now since i have heard snipets of work on his new equipment (yes, who's the lucky one;) )

But it deserves to be at number 1 as it is now!!!! why cos it's a damn creative and brilliant and it shows his in-bread natural talent as a composer and a musician, even if he didn't have great equipment at the time.

now, would a good musician down-rate this piece cos it has a floors? would a listener even know that it has floors?

Neil

The thing on my head is a little puppy by the name of Buster

ah!, so it's a bust