Save the Waveform (http://www.samshuijzen.nl/sam/plainmods/savit_4s.xm) - shorted version - 2:28 - 10 channels - 16 samples.
Every time I mention a 'shorted version' of a composition here, will mean that my original personal arrangement of the final patterns, is stripped down to only the unique patterns of the composition, so no duplicates in the pattern-row.
So that order becpmes the core of the composed material. Anything else is a repetition or with realtime additions.
Or just a jump back- or forward to an already existing pattern in the patternrow during playback.
So I offer the basic material, not my own private construction.
I liked the tune - groovy. The bass is wonderful! But generally, if I was not the tracker myself and if I didn't have a crush for antipop kinda music, I wouldn't seriously consider listening to it.
Not my genere really.
Anyway, why did you stop making music? I suggest you stop shortening old versions and concentrate on new ones ;)
2 XAVT
You touch some snares here.
Stopping making music ? Besides the facts of my activities in the meantime offline, playing a flute or so .
I consider this shortening of the existing file of the 'old versions' as a job, so it will take time.
There are indeed relatively few recent works.
retro sounds man....very amiga and FUNKY! skilled tracking :wink:
Nice rhythm. Yet, I reacted on the relationship between the bass and strings. They somehow seemed to not 'co-operate', if you understand, but perhaps that was your intention this time?
I still prefer Who Dunit over this one.
2 apple-joe
I interpret 'Strings' as the instrument I made from a sample of an orchestra. I maybe understand what you mean. The samples may not be 'co-tuned' exactly as they should be. This is not intentional, I just listen, while making the song, if the differences are still acceptable, or plain false. The same is probably true with bass and solo-sax.
This is the consequence of the fact, that I never pay attention to the note-value, in the well-tempered scale, of the imported sample. So in the end, two different instruments in a pattern could play the same melody unisono, while instrument 1 has code C# for a specific note, and instrument 2 uses code F.
If you meant something else with 'not co-operate' it was intentional.
No, it's not the tuning, it's the choice of notes. But it's probably intentional. In Who Dunit, the bass and melody/string/orchestra were more 'corresponding' regarding the notes. What I mean is that in Save the Waveform, the bassline implies one chord (or rather a root note), while the string may suggest another root.
You have a sharp ear. As I've said about the 'virtual' note-values I use, the same sometimes can be said of the root-note or chord. If I notice a default like : it must be common for all instruments, I consider this a choice to do otherwise, if I want to. Two different root notes in one song can create extra harmonies.
Yes, but some harmonies are more traditional than others. Such as the tones that build up a major or minor triad. But if I remember correctly, you chose other type of harmonies which I reacted on, but as mentioned already, it was probably your intention.
It's easy to say afterwards, 'yeah, this was my intention'.
But I have my restrictions about this. Most of the time 'intention' should be interpreted as a choice of direction. A choice between the 0.1 % traditionals and the rest, available as the potentials of the electronics.
And, in the end, you can intend what you want, but the final experience is the truth. As Eric Dolphy said :
At the end, the music is gone in the air, you can never capture it again.
Tight song. But I can't say I dig the bass. I switched it to a bit of a softer bass, and it sounds much better. The current bass sounds like something out of a .MID file. But not a bad tune overall.