[Base Music] OpenMSX v0.3.1

[Mr.Killer]

Hi,

I know that files have hash coding, a simple mathematical equasion or something that should provide files with the code. How can i generate such a code so i can put non licensed material in that \gm directory?
I found this link http://www.webcalc.net/calc/0501.php but where can i make a string from a file...

@ petern; why not? if i have favourit music files which i can put there, it is nicer than music that tends to irritate. Even streams would be appreciated, think of it as an boss key thing, i can pause the game and the music continues playing, wether it's midi, mp3, ogg or anything else, if i shut the game down, the music stops and i do not have to worry about other programs still running anoyingly.

So, it was actually an idea man, not that i ask to build it, even if i could build it, i'd probably build it merely for my own purpose, because not evrybody wants this.
But, i cannot build such thing, so i'd suggested it as an idea, that's all, an idea!

[Rubidium]

Why. Why Why Why. Why Why Why Why Why Why. No doubt you already have a standalone media player. Why should OpenTTD take over this function, while also being a game? What possible purpose is there?

That's easy; Windows users want to be able to do EVERYTHING with a single application. As such Windows Explorer/Internet Explorer is rooted deep into Windows because it needs to be able to do everything. With Windows/Internet Explorer you can actually play music and the likes by means of VBscripts and such, or with Microsoft Word you can make websites or, again, play music by means of VBA. As such Windows users will ALWAYS ask for more stuff to be implemented into their applications.

Unix users on the other hand are happy with the many small and simple applications that do one thing and do it good. It's basically the complete opposite of the Windows user mindset.

[Mr.Killer]

Yes, i'm guilty, i'm a man bound by Mickeysoft rules which drags me through life....




Hey, but I do have Novell servers running at home! That must be a plus! is it not?

[Rubidium]

Hey, but I do have Novell servers running at home! That must be a plus! is it not?

Nope... Novell is big big friends with Microsoft (Microsoft paid Novell 300 million Dollar). Also the software patent mess that that deal has sturred up isn't good for anyone, let alone well known open-source developers quiting Novell because of the deal with Microsoft.

[Mr.Killer]

I work with it and unfortunately we migrate to Mickeysoft because of lack of understanding and not compatible software more and more developed on Windows.
I do know that Netware does what i want, Mickeysoft tends to do what they want...

Wel, enough of that...

[orudge]

I know that files have hash coding, a simple mathematical equasion or something that should provide files with the code. How can i generate such a code so i can put non licensed material in that \gm directory?

Find a copy of the "md5sum" utility - on Windows, you can get it via MinGW (google it). This will create an MD5 checksum of a file.

[Roujin]

That's easy; Windows users want [etc. etc.]

Wow, you must be very knowledgable if you're able to furmulate such a statement including each and every windows user in the world.

[Eddi]

do i have to introduce you to the statistical concept of "almost all"?

[neob]

Why. Why Why Why. Why Why Why Why Why Why. No doubt you already have a standalone media player. Why should OpenTTD take over this function, while also being a game? What possible purpose is there?

That's easy; Windows users want to be able to do EVERYTHING with a single application. As such Windows Explorer/Internet Explorer is rooted deep into Windows because it needs to be able to do everything. With Windows/Internet Explorer you can actually play music and the likes by means of VBscripts and such, or with Microsoft Word you can make websites or, again, play music by means of VBA. As such Windows users will ALWAYS ask for more stuff to be implemented into their applications.

Unix users on the other hand are happy with the many small and simple applications that do one thing and do it good. It's basically the complete opposite of the Windows user mindset.

that a shallow analysis, which would have a much better fit to simple vs advanced users.
and this exactly the reason why unix\linux barely scraping a few percent of the general pop users in comparison to severs usage.

because verity is bad word for simple users, there is no reason to have word editor and html editor etc when the person who use barely knows anything and they dont want 3 types of programs doing the same thing only for different formats.
better support, constancy and ease of use are the key features for them, i am sick and tired to have to do printscreen step by step guides to my parents.

so is anyway the guy that peter was responding to had actually a good idea but not for OTTD, its good for games with atmospheric AI, radios or whatever it called, that do something more than just always playing the music in the background, because for this your favorite media player will do just fine(again aspointed out by peter)

[Samwise]

Hello!

Upon visiting the openttd.org site, I stumbled across this topic for creating new tunes for openttd. This gave me some inspiration to start writing, and I've put some examples of my idea's in a short midi song. (Note, this is just a quick mock-up of some of my idea's I had, so it's a bit rushed overall.)

Feel free to c&c, as I'm open for idea's and improvement!

[WWTBAM]

Nice. I liked the Trumpet especially.

[Zephyris]

Mmm, bang on! I like it...

[Samwise]

Some update

EDIT: Final version for now. Feel free to comment

[dgriff]

Lucas's track: Bad.

• A weak imitation that sounds even worse due to expectations of it sounding like the original.
• The way you're using that C#/Bb makes it sound like you're in C Phyrgian rather than G minor/Blues scale or whatever. This leads to the next point.
• Why is that neapolitan chord in m. 25? And after that it sounds like you modulated for a few measures before drifting back into copyright infringement.
• Bad voice leading.
• You're using your second scale degree (the A) in an uncharacteristic way. It generally should be skipped in that sort of melody.

Samwise's track: Ok.

• Final version is a big improvement from previous versions.
• Texture compensates for the simple harmony and weak counterpoint.
• The only interesting contours in the trumpet melody are ripoffs from the original works.
• Guitar is best part.

[WWTBAM]

I personaly think the end to Lucas' track is slightly too close to the original. The one other thing I think it could do with is some sort of solo at the start.

[Samwise]

Lucas's track: Bad.

• A weak imitation that sounds even worse due to expectations of it sounding like the original.
• The way you're using that C#/Bb makes it sound like you're in C Phyrgian rather than G minor/Blues scale or whatever. This leads to the next point.
• Why is that neapolitan chord in m. 25? And after that it sounds like you modulated for a few measures before drifting back into copyright infringement.
• Bad voice leading.
• You're using your second scale degree (the A) in an uncharacteristic way. It generally should be skipped in that sort of melody.

Samwise's track: Ok.

• Final version is a big improvement from previous versions.
• Texture compensates for the simple harmony and weak counterpoint.
• The only interesting contours in the trumpet melody are ripoffs from the original works.
• Guitar is best part.

Thanks for the criticism! My only defense is that I kept the harmony simple on purpose. When you listen to most of the original songs, it's just a simple 1 IV V modulation, so I kept it that way as well. (With some variation)

I'm not sure what you mean with weak counterpoint though, and could you be so kind as to point me to the exact moments where the trumpets are exact ripoffs? As I only used my memory of the original music as inspiration, I did not try to ripoff anything at all, all wrote from scratch.
Thanks again for the criticism, at least that's something I can work with

[-lucas-]

Hi all,

I came here to say that my regular day-to-day job requires me to do some serious crunching so that i won't be able to help you guys out.

My sincere apologies to dgriff, that i apparently upset him so with the sketch that he literally felt he had to come over, register on the forum, microanalyze a midi file that i quite clearly marked as a test, to see what direction we should be going, and felt the need to validate his own music theory background. I do hope that he will at least post a contribution himself to the project.

Best of luck to all the others out there!

[edit: deleted the rest]

[dgriff]

• The rules of counterpoint dictate how you handle things when you have two lines (like your bass and your trumpet) that can function independently of each other but are playing at the same time. It's basically making it so two or more instruments don't interfere with each other, and in good cases they'll actually enhance each other. In this style of music, however, the rules are a lot less strict and things that would sound jarring in regular music actually give some of the flavor to the style. That said, there can still be moments when an instrument is just plain clashing with another.
• The strings and bassline clash in m. 3 and every similar instance. You're spelling a III chord in the strings which uses a Bb while the bassline is emphasizing that B by leaping down to it. You might want this effect, but it stood out unpleasantly to me.
• The bass gets in the way of the guitar during the guitar's part. Check out the ends of mm. 27 and 28. Those chromatic passing tones in the bass aren't doing you any favors. Simplify the bassline or get it out of the way somehow.
• M. 38, again the bassline is out in left field while the other parts trying to get something done.

• I went back and listened to a bunch of originals and here some some additional points:
• The original uses very few strings. In your piece I can see them fitting in wherever there's a V-IV digression. In other places, however, the strings are covering up for the lack of depth and color in the rest of the parts. I suggest cutting out the strings and only adding them later to enhance existing patterns instead of using them as part of the underlying structure.
• Mm. 29-31 is an awkward piano riff that doesn't match the style. It sounds more like progressive rock(?). Overall try to avoid a i-III sequence unless it's part of a larger structure. The original composer uses MANY diminished passing chords; he uses few pop-sounding chord sequences.
• I was mistaken saying the trumpet ripped off something from the original. The ending pattern, however, is very similar to motives the crop up in originals. The end of m.16 is an example.
• About your harmony: your harmony is very clean and simple. That's not really in the style. I agree that the underlying structure of most of the original pieces is some form of tonic-subdominant-dominant progression (I-IV-V). However I think you abstracted that too much. At any given moment in most of the original works there's some sort of passing diminished chord playing. Your piece is always explicitly spelling out whatever structural chord you're on. I think the strings are partly to blame because sustaining them for measures and measures only encourages you to keep everything on the same chord.
• Also, in general, the original music contains many phrases with individual buildups and climaxes. Your entire piece sounds like the middle of a buildup of a particularly long phrase. This is debatable, because you could argue that the drums and change of lead instrument mark new phrases, but overall there's a sense of buildup throughout the piece. I think part of that is your increased use of layering as the piece progresses. Which brings me to the next point.
• I think that all those added instruments are a crutch and should be avoided until the underlying structure is sound. Try making the piece interesting with fewer instruments. As it is, the strings and piano serve no purpose other than to enhance the texture of the piece and reinforce existing chords. This is like adding a bunch of shading and gradients to a drawing of a stick figure.
• Check out "little red diesel" and "roadhog". Their basslines are similar to yours so you might get some ideas. But mainly notice how there's some sort of theme that recurs and makes the entire song recognizable. As your piece is, there's nothing memorable. I compared your final and other versions, and it seems like the main trumpet part is your decided theme. It's too weak and generic to define your piece. The little jig in the bassline that first happens mm. 9-10 might be something.
• Your assiduous micromanagement of pitch bends and such is impressive. I never have the patience for that crap.

[peter1138]

It sounds a bit muddy, at least in this render, using fluidsynth and the fluid GM soundfont.
http://fuzzle.org/~petern/ottd/Audio-1264879973.ogg

[jvlomax]

• The rules of counterpoint dictate how you handle things when you have two lines (like your bass and your trumpet) that can function independently of each other but are playing at the same time. It's basically making it so two or more instruments don't interfere with each other, and in good cases they'll actually enhance each other. In this style of music, however, the rules are a lot less strict and things that would sound jarring in regular music actually give some of the flavor to the style. That said, there can still be moments when an instrument is just plain clashing with another.
• The strings and bassline clash in m. 3 and every similar instance. You're spelling a III chord in the strings which uses a Bb while the bassline is emphasizing that B by leaping down to it. You might want this effect, but it stood out unpleasantly to me.
• The bass gets in the way of the guitar during the guitar's part. Check out the ends of mm. 27 and 28. Those chromatic passing tones in the bass aren't doing you any favors. Simplify the bassline or get it out of the way somehow.
• M. 38, again the bassline is out in left field while the other parts trying to get something done.

• I went back and listened to a bunch of originals and here some some additional points:
• The original uses very few strings. In your piece I can see them fitting in wherever there's a V-IV digression. In other places, however, the strings are covering up for the lack of depth and color in the rest of the parts. I suggest cutting out the strings and only adding them later to enhance existing patterns instead of using them as part of the underlying structure.
• Mm. 29-31 is an awkward piano riff that doesn't match the style. It sounds more like progressive rock(?). Overall try to avoid a i-III sequence unless it's part of a larger structure. The original composer uses MANY diminished passing chords; he uses few pop-sounding chord sequences.
• I was mistaken saying the trumpet ripped off something from the original. The ending pattern, however, is very similar to motives the crop up in originals. The end of m.16 is an example.
• About your harmony: your harmony is very clean and simple. That's not really in the style. I agree that the underlying structure of most of the original pieces is some form of tonic-subdominant-dominant progression (I-IV-V). However I think you abstracted that too much. At any given moment in most of the original works there's some sort of passing diminished chord playing. Your piece is always explicitly spelling out whatever structural chord you're on. I think the strings are partly to blame because sustaining them for measures and measures only encourages you to keep everything on the same chord.
• Also, in general, the original music contains many phrases with individual buildups and climaxes. Your entire piece sounds like the middle of a buildup of a particularly long phrase. This is debatable, because you could argue that the drums and change of lead instrument mark new phrases, but overall there's a sense of buildup throughout the piece. I think part of that is your increased use of layering as the piece progresses. Which brings me to the next point.
• I think that all those added instruments are a crutch and should be avoided until the underlying structure is sound. Try making the piece interesting with fewer instruments. As it is, the strings and piano serve no purpose other than to enhance the texture of the piece and reinforce existing chords. This is like adding a bunch of shading and gradients to a drawing of a stick figure.
• Check out "little red diesel" and "roadhog". Their basslines are similar to yours so you might get some ideas. But mainly notice how there's some sort of theme that recurs and makes the entire song recognizable. As your piece is, there's nothing memorable. I compared your final and other versions, and it seems like the main trumpet part is your decided theme. It's too weak and generic to define your piece. The little jig in the bassline that first happens mm. 9-10 might be something.
• Your assiduous micromanagement of pitch bends and such is impressive. I never have the patience for that crap.

sure.........but could you write something like "a day in the life" with all that? Just because someone does/doesn't follow the rules doesn't mean that it will become good/bad. The beatles couldn't even read sheet music until the later part of their career, yet they have writtien some of the most inovative music. You should let poeple compose like they want, not limit them to follow "modern" compsing techniques. I'm not trying to start a flame war, just giving you some pointers how not to punch the wind out of someone and make them feel like lesser composers.