General Discussion Forum.

Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby lossfizzle » Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:32 pm

Howdy. I am an experienced musician / music software tinkerer but am relatively new to trackers and the, uh, scene. I'd like to try my hand in compo round 72. Been cutting my teeth mostly on LGPT for the last few months and I'm in love with the little Pig, but since that's not allowed, it looks like OpenMPT is my best bet of the available options (although I am also considering Buzz too at this stage).

I've got two questions about phrasing of the contribution rules.

Question one, re: Rule 3:
"Modules are limited to ONLY the built in effects of your chosen tracker."
followed by
"Buzz/Psycle/Modplug/MadTracker entries must include all plugins required by the track inside the entry archive (zip, rar, etc)."

This seems like a contradiction to me, coming from traditional-DAW-land. OpenMPT does not seem to have yer basic DSP effects beyond pattern-line manipulation commands. So - no reverb / compression VSTs allowed...? Or are they, as long as they are packaged with the entry? (I am a freeware-only guy, yes.)

Also, if I decide to switch to Buzz, does this mean I can only use the bone-stock distributed install and included handful of Jeskola machines, no third-party machines (and also no VSTs/VSTis)? Or: are third-party Buzz machines allowed, and VSTis not allowed?

Question two, re: Rule 5:
"Personally recorded samples are performances recorded by yourself. One-shot personal recordings are not allowed, only performances."
I'm gonna try to be as hardcore as possible and only use this (frankly ridiculous, but there's the challenge!) CMI sample set. However, these samples are hyper-cheesy, so I'm also aware that I may not be able to pull that off to my liking.

I'm really confused about what is meant by "one-shot personal recordings" vs. "performances" here. If I sit down in front of my drum kit and/or pedal steel guitar or pick up my cello or theremin or something, and PERFORM LIVE against the mod from start to finish, having to go in and slice the recordings into synced individual samples to keep things lined up "live" against my preexisting pattern layout, then surely those are "one shot" samples in the sense that most other contemporary software uses the term.

So what DOES this really mean?
a) no hard-rendered processing of the provided sample library? (i'm guessing maybe?)
b) no drum loops, snippets, etc. from external sources? (from an IP / CYA perspective, i'm guessing definitely not?)
c) no actual, live, I-played-this-darn-thing performances sliced up and added to the mod in an as-heard-in-the-room sense? (i'm guessing possibly?)
d) no actual, live, I-played-this-and-both-made-and-own-the-source-recording-and-nobody-gonna-sue-me performances sliced up BEYOND an obvious continuous live performance? (i honestly have NO idea on this one.)

Would appreciate *individualized* confirmation on points a)-d). :D

Looking forward to this, thanks for any help you can give.
lossfizzle
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby plusminus » Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:25 am

lossfizzle wrote:Howdy. I am an experienced musician / music software tinkerer but am relatively new to trackers and the, uh, scene. I'd like to try my hand in compo round 72. Been cutting my teeth mostly on LGPT for the last few months and I'm in love with the little Pig, but since that's not allowed, it looks like OpenMPT is my best bet of the available options (although I am also considering Buzz too at this stage).


Hello and welcome. There has been at least one LGPT entry in SDCompo before: tadpole by Overthruster. I don't know whether it's not in the allowed formats list because of a specific reason, or just because no one has used it in a while. Hopefully organic io will chime in.

Question one, re: Rule 3:
"Modules are limited to ONLY the built in effects of your chosen tracker."
followed by
"Buzz/Psycle/Modplug/MadTracker entries must include all plugins required by the track inside the entry archive (zip, rar, etc)."

This seems like a contradiction to me, coming from traditional-DAW-land. OpenMPT does not seem to have yer basic DSP effects beyond pattern-line manipulation commands. So - no reverb / compression VSTs allowed...? Or are they, as long as they are packaged with the entry? (I am a freeware-only guy, yes.)


I think the explanation is that some rounds have VST effects or VSTi instruments as part of the sample pack. In these cases those files are supposed to be included in the entry submission.

Also, if I decide to switch to Buzz, does this mean I can only use the bone-stock distributed install and included handful of Jeskola machines, no third-party machines (and also no VSTs/VSTis)? Or: are third-party Buzz machines allowed, and VSTis not allowed?


Stock distributed machines etc. only.

If this seems a bit unbalanced, well, it sort of is. There was talk a while ago about allowing a set of "default plugins" for use in any round but I don't think anything much came of it. Part of the reason for that is that the number of entries that are a format like OpenMPT that would significantly benefit from that are quite minimal; most entries are done in Renoise, or SunVox these days, with the odd entry from Psycle or Buzz or something. I use Schism Tracker and don't even bother with VSTs typically...

As a sidenote, in those rounds with included VSTs, processing the samples with effects in an editor, or making samples rendered from VSTis, is allowed, for people that can't or don't want to use the plugins in their module.

Question two, re: Rule 5:
"Personally recorded samples are performances recorded by yourself. One-shot personal recordings are not allowed, only performances."
I'm gonna try to be as hardcore as possible and only use this (frankly ridiculous, but there's the challenge!) CMI sample set. However, these samples are hyper-cheesy, so I'm also aware that I may not be able to pull that off to my liking.

I'm really confused about what is meant by "one-shot personal recordings" vs. "performances" here. If I sit down in front of my drum kit and/or pedal steel guitar or pick up my cello or theremin or something, and PERFORM LIVE against the mod from start to finish, having to go in and slice the recordings into synced individual samples to keep things lined up "live" against my preexisting pattern layout, then surely those are "one shot" samples in the sense that most other contemporary software uses the term.


Oh the samples aren't that bad... ;)

The idea is that anything you record is meant to be a performance and not extra samples in the way that samples from the pack are normally used. ("One-shot" is maybe not the best wording?) Recording a section from an instrument is fine, even if you have to chop it up; recording a few notes from that instrument and treating them like any other sample is not. There's a bit of fuzziness here, things are mostly enforced through the honour system.

This was a bit of a controversial addition to the rules IIRC, but it seems to have mostly worked OK?

So what DOES this really mean?
a) no hard-rendered processing of the provided sample library? (i'm guessing maybe?)


You can actually hard-render processing of sample pack samples if it's all done within the tracker. (I think OpenMPT can render patterns to samples?) Loading them up into a separate wave editor is not allowed, unless it's to process them with included VSTs, which doesn't apply this round.

b) no drum loops, snippets, etc. from external sources? (from an IP / CYA perspective, i'm guessing definitely not?)


Definitely not. IP notwithstanding, this kind of takes away from the point of a sample pack.

c) no actual, live, I-played-this-darn-thing performances sliced up and added to the mod in an as-heard-in-the-room sense? (i'm guessing possibly?)


This would be fine.

In theory an entire song could be made this way without touching the sample pack at all, but that's totally against the spirit of a sample pack compo and wouldn't be well received. The general point of allowing performances is to enhance a composition made with the samples.

d) no actual, live, I-played-this-and-both-made-and-own-the-source-recording-and-nobody-gonna-sue-me performances sliced up BEYOND an obvious continuous live performance? (i honestly have NO idea on this one.)


It's too early in the morning for me to even process what this means :P Give an example if it's still a relevant question?
Singing is a trick to get people to listen to music for longer than they would ordinarily. -- David Byrne

+- is 68k
User avatar
plusminus
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby lossfizzle » Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:20 pm

plusminus, WOW, thank you. You not only cleared up my questions altogether but also helped me understand the "origins" of my confusion in the first place (like the bit about some past sample packs coming with VSTis; makes sense if I know the rule wording is C/P'd one-size-fits-all). :)

You've already addressed point d) (sorry if MY wording was unclear):
plusminus wrote:Recording a section from an instrument is fine, even if you have to chop it up; recording a few notes from that instrument and treating them like any other sample is not.


So that would be a "no" on point D. No problem. One less temptation.

I'd love to contribute something in LGPT if it's ever allowed again! I am definitely an outsider but it is interesting to hear that SunVox has become such a dominant platform here. I figured y'all were surely hardcore keyboard/button-only entry addicts and/or virulently anti-mousing folks like me. :) (I do dig that app but I find multisample mapping is a excessively time-consuming bummer, and the DAW-like pattern layout mechanics with the random Atari-gremlin representational graphics instead of proper numbers is even worse.)

I digress. Thanks SO MUCH for clearing this up and making me feel very welcome. Hopefully won't wear it out with a crap contri.
lossfizzle
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby plusminus » Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:11 pm

lossfizzle wrote:plusminus, WOW, thank you. You not only cleared up my questions altogether but also helped me understand the "origins" of my confusion in the first place (like the bit about some past sample packs coming with VSTis; makes sense if I know the rule wording is C/P'd one-size-fits-all). :)


Welcome!

I'd love to contribute something in LGPT if it's ever allowed again!


I've posted a thing on the one-liners on the front page; you should get a decision/clarification on that soon.

The forums here are not used too often, if you have a pressing question it's often good to post a link to the topic on the one-liners where everyone will see it.

I am definitely an outsider but it is interesting to hear that SunVox has become such a dominant platform here. I figured y'all were surely hardcore keyboard/button-only entry addicts and/or virulently anti-mousing folks like me. :) (I do dig that app but I find multisample mapping is a excessively time-consuming bummer, and the DAW-like pattern layout mechanics with the random Atari-gremlin representational graphics instead of proper numbers is even worse.)


Well Renoise is still by far the most used tool here, but as of late SunVox has become a clear if distant second. I use Schism consistently for a few reasons, except in the last round where I tried SunVox, and decided there are things I like about it and things I don't like. I share many of your complaints about it.



Since you seem OK with OpenMPT, I'll take this time to plug my own compo in case you're interested: HastyCompo. It is geared toward IT/XM entries, but does accept limited-effect sunvox files as well. Though you may find the sample packs even worse than this one, I don't know ;) I'm not sure about LGPT entries, I don't know that program well at all, but I'm willing to take a look at including them.
Singing is a trick to get people to listen to music for longer than they would ordinarily. -- David Byrne

+- is 68k
User avatar
plusminus
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby lossfizzle » Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:31 pm

plusminus wrote:I've posted a thing on the one-liners on the front page; you should get a decision/clarification on that soon.

The forums here are not used too often, if you have a pressing question it's often good to post a link to the topic on the one-liners where everyone will see it.


Thanks for doing that, and for the tip. Yeah, I noted the forums had been quiet but my questions seemed a little big for the shoutbox. I'll keep an eye on that from here on.

plusminus wrote:I use Schism consistently for a few reasons


For some reason that one hasn't come to my attention (it was not expressly mentioned in the ruleset, for one?). I'm kind of trying a "review every tracker ever" thing for my personal blog over the next few months, so I'll have to check it out. :)


plusminus wrote:Since you seem OK with OpenMPT,


It's not ideal, it just seemed to be one of the most workable / clean / well-documented options of the ones available for this compo. (Not interested in Renoise, something about the interface rubs me the wrong way.) I would rather try getting Buzz down as the multiple-simultaneous-patterns approach is way more to my liking (something it shares in common with LGPT and Sunvox), but the current docs / website are just so broken / unapproachable for a n00b.

plusminus wrote:I'll take this time to plug my own compo in case you're interested: HastyCompo. It is geared toward IT/XM entries, but does accept limited-effect sunvox files as well. Though you may find the sample packs even worse than this one, I don't know ;) I'm not sure about LGPT entries, I don't know that program well at all, but I'm willing to take a look at including them.


Ooh! Yes, please do! LGPT has a small but very dedicated userbase and you might find some new contribs if you'd let a little Piggy into your life! I'm hardly a virtuoso with that either, but it's got some really nice things going for it (and some fun masochistic limits too).

I had seen your compo mentioned in several places, but I didn't know you had a current round going. Thanks so much for sharing the plug, I will definitely look into it!
lossfizzle
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby chunter » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:15 pm

lossfizzle wrote:So what DOES this really mean?
a) no hard-rendered processing of the provided sample library? (i'm guessing maybe?)
b) no drum loops, snippets, etc. from external sources? (from an IP / CYA perspective, i'm guessing definitely not?)
c) no actual, live, I-played-this-darn-thing performances sliced up and added to the mod in an as-heard-in-the-room sense? (i'm guessing possibly?)
d) no actual, live, I-played-this-and-both-made-and-own-the-source-recording-and-nobody-gonna-sue-me performances sliced up BEYOND an obvious continuous live performance? (i honestly have NO idea on this one.)

Would appreciate *individualized* confirmation on points a)-d). :D

Looking forward to this, thanks for any help you can give.


+/- replied to the main part of your question in the same way I would, so I'll just add a few things here and there...

There are a few other threads about some of our rules, which are vague by design and mostly enforced by consensus. Some of the reasons behind things I will explain are in those threads.

We expect entries to use a tracker (as opposed to just any DAW or sequencer,) but otherwise all trackers are welcome.

Renoise has a decided advantage over most trackers with its collection of built-in effects. In the past it was easy to say "your effects should be limited to chorus, reverb, and compression" but now the effects in Renoise have become so robust that I'd say "you should only do what is also possible in Renoise" when it comes to additional effects in other trackers.

Regarding:
a) Part of the objective of sharing your track's source file is that we want to be able to teach each other and learn from each others' techniques. It is not a concrete rule, but basically I hope we can tell what you did to accomplish a particular sound from the given samples.

b) You should not amend the sample pack from a personal collection or with a draw or synthesis tool (unless specifically allowed in a round.) Vocals are the forgiven exception, and should come from a legally unencumbered source.

c-d) The spirit of the "live performance" rule is based on the idea that if we can sing with our tracks, if a player is also able to play guitar or violin or whatever along with the track, we should allow that too. What we don't want to see is someone recording a bunch of single notes on a personal instrument to amend the pack. If we could not edit our live performances, there would be a lot of sloshy brown notes in my guitar bits...

Despite that, we also don't want people to turn in songs that are simply C-4 with autoplay with a bunch of "personal performances" completely ignoring the sample pack; remember that this is a tracking competition. I can't think of an instance where a person has been DQ'ed for bending rules, but to provide a negative example, there was a round where I filled a song with Korg DS-10 tracks (which I made myself) and realized that "this isn't tracking."

The only prize here is the pride of winning, so there is no need to worry about the rules too much. If you think someone has gone too far, simply say so in comments and votes and consensus will decide if it ought to be okay or not.
chunter
Insomniac
Insomniac
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: United States

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby plusminus » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:56 pm

lossfizzle wrote:
plusminus wrote:I use Schism consistently for a few reasons


For some reason that one hasn't come to my attention (it was not expressly mentioned in the ruleset, for one?). I'm kind of trying a "review every tracker ever" thing for my personal blog over the next few months, so I'll have to check it out. :)


Schism Tracker is a pretty close recreation of Impulse Tracker, which is the program that introduced .it files. OpenMPT mainly works with .it files as well, though it can handle .xm. OpenMPT has a few features that Schism doesn't, the big one being plugin support, but there are some others as well.

If you don't care about plugins (or can't use them in a round like this one) you might want to try Schism, it's very keyboard-oriented. It's got a DOS-heavy feel to it which you may or may not like, and the docs are a little sparse but they exist. Moving from OpenMPT to Schism or vice-versa is basically a question of adjusting to the new interface since they mostly share the same feature set.

For SDCompo you can use any features in a particular tracker, i.e. all the OpenMPT-specific stuff is fine. For something like HastyCompo plugins are definitely not allowed and the general attitude is more like "an .it file should be an .it file," so that your track should play more or less the same in different players. (You can always ask for it to be played in a specific program of course, but there's no guarantee that will happen.)

Can I see your blog?

Since you seem OK with OpenMPT,


It's not ideal, it just seemed to be one of the most workable / clean / well-documented options of the ones available for this compo. (Not interested in Renoise, something about the interface rubs me the wrong way.) I would rather try getting Buzz down as the multiple-simultaneous-patterns approach is way more to my liking (something it shares in common with LGPT and Sunvox), but the current docs / website are just so broken / unapproachable for a n00b.


You might find you just have to jump right in with a lot of these programs; docs are always a bit scattered. Try to get it running, try to make some sounds, figure it out from there :) There's a lot of common ground between trackers so you might find that Buzz is a little less cryptic once you get familiar with another program.

I'll take this time to plug my own compo in case you're interested: HastyCompo.


Ooh! Yes, please do! LGPT has a small but very dedicated userbase and you might find some new contribs if you'd let a little Piggy into your life! I'm hardly a virtuoso with that either, but it's got some really nice things going for it (and some fun masochistic limits too).

I had seen your compo mentioned in several places, but I didn't know you had a current round going. Thanks so much for sharing the plug, I will definitely look into it!


The next round maybe starts this Friday? If not, then the next Friday.

HastyCompo is done in the vein of older compos (circa late 90s, not to say that there haven't been many other similar things since) with .it, and to a lesser extent .xm, being the "main" file formats used. LGPT is kind of a different beast and it might be too dissimilar for people's tastes. But we'll see! Probably not for the next round though. SunVox was and still is kind of a contentious issue but the last few entries with it have been pretty good about forgoing effects.
Singing is a trick to get people to listen to music for longer than they would ordinarily. -- David Byrne

+- is 68k
User avatar
plusminus
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby lossfizzle » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:04 pm

Thanks for the add'l clarification, Chunter. I have done one compo before (last fall's LGPT / Hexawe Monorave), which was restricted to the use of a small set of single-cycle waveforms and 500kb of extra stuff. I'm pretty sure I get the spirit of the tracker thang - the challenge, and the secondary but important educational element of being able to open somebody else's mods and see how they pulled off the whizbang, is exactly what makes this quite appealing after 20 years of working in DAWs etc.

Asked mainly so as to make sure I knew exactly where the lines were drawn - I've done tons of pieces from a single short source sound that I've DSP-mutilated into 200 other sounds, and from the wording I wasn't sure how much I could get away with re: grabbing a bunch of extraneous DSP tools and torturing these things outside of the tracker's inherent abilities. The answer is apparently "none," and I totally appreciate that. :)

However, this is one thing that I thought plusminus had helped me nail down but now... now I am confused again:

chunter wrote:Renoise has a decided advantage over most trackers with its collection of built-in effects. In the past it was easy to say "your effects should be limited to chorus, reverb, and compression" but now the effects in Renoise have become so robust that I'd say "you should only do what is also possible in Renoise" when it comes to additional effects in other trackers.


Super-traditional, non-modular / fixed-sonic-architecture trackers generally don't seem to *have* chorus, reverb, or compression, or at least they seem not to have them from my admittedly inexperienced eye. In OpenMPT it definitely looks like I'd need a VST to employ any of these. I won't lie (again, especially with *these* samples) - I would rather have the ability to use bread-and-butter effects, and it makes sense that certain types of VSTs would be allowed for non-Renoise users in the interest of fairness. But it also makes sense that you'd be stuck with the dev-given tools of your chosen platform, because... well, you chose your platform.

So is this something where some contris *have* been rule-bending to a degree and it's been politely ignored, or...? :)
lossfizzle
Newb
Newb
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby chunter » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:40 pm

lossfizzle wrote:However, this is one thing that I thought plusminus had helped me nail down but now... now I am confused again:

chunter wrote:Renoise has a decided advantage over most trackers with its collection of built-in effects. In the past it was easy to say "your effects should be limited to chorus, reverb, and compression" but now the effects in Renoise have become so robust that I'd say "you should only do what is also possible in Renoise" when it comes to additional effects in other trackers.


Super-traditional, non-modular / fixed-sonic-architecture trackers generally don't seem to *have* chorus, reverb, or compression, or at least they seem not to have them from my admittedly inexperienced eye. In OpenMPT it definitely looks like I'd need a VST to employ any of these. I won't lie (again, especially with *these* samples) - I would rather have the ability to use bread-and-butter effects, and it makes sense that certain types of VSTs would be allowed for non-Renoise users in the interest of fairness. But it also makes sense that you'd be stuck with the dev-given tools of your chosen platform, because... well, you chose your platform.

So is this something where some contris *have* been rule-bending to a degree and it's been politely ignored, or...? :)

It has never really come up, but if someone was to use CoolEdit to put some EQ, chorus, phase, or distortion into a pack sample just to be able to use genuine Impulse Tracker (just to make an example) I would not object. I wouldn't want a VSTe that won't load on every platform or isn't freely available (or is expensive) to be used because it takes away from transparency. I hope someone else can provide an opinion on this too, because I wouldn't want the compo to become openMPT + Bootsy VSTs vs. Renoise w/ builtins only... We occasionally have rounds with VSTs to keep that from being too much of a temptation. ;)

Before I was introduced to Renoise and shown this compo, I used Impulse Tracker clones, such as Cheese Tracker and Chibi Tracker, which have built-in chorus and reverb settings (and their own non-standard save format to make the settings reloadable.) In the long run I hope you'll use what is comfortable to you in order to get the best possible result.
chunter
Insomniac
Insomniac
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: United States

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby plusminus » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:55 pm

chunter wrote:It has never really come up, but if someone was to use CoolEdit to put some EQ, chorus, phase, or distortion into a pack sample just to be able to use genuine Impulse Tracker (just to make an example) I would not object.


Actually this sort of did come up before with me since I use genuine Impulse Tracker (compatible) files, and the general impression I got was that this is definitely not allowed as per the rules right now, although rewriting them to accommodate doing that would be probably OK.

But that rewrite hasn't happened yet. I think part of the whole "site refresh" idea included revamping the rules to explicitly allow any tracker, and allowing a base set of VSTs as mentioned previously, and also permitting such kind of edits. This is not to criticize anyone; people are busy, I'm certainly not the most consistently-active member of this community, and the number of submissions that would benefit from those rewrites would be minimal.

EDIT: Regarding Renoise vs. OpemMPT + fancy plugins, the base VST set would be something that is open to all formats including Renoise, but would generally be redundant to use in Renoise because they wouldn't be any better than the built-ins. So no Bootsy plugins, but maybe a simple freeverb and some basic mda effects, or something along those lines.
Singing is a trick to get people to listen to music for longer than they would ordinarily. -- David Byrne

+- is 68k
User avatar
plusminus
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby organic io » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:43 am

Wowza! Lots of discussion over the weekend!. Welcome to the compo, lossfizzle. I'm sure you'll enjoy it! I appreciate you asking questions for clarification... I can definitely tell your intentions are good, so even if you accidentally broke some of the rules on your first entry, I don't think any disqualification would be necessary.
Thanks plusminus & chunter for answering most of the questions! I wanted to clarify a couple of plusminus' answers that may have not been correct.. Anything I don't address was answered correctly the first time by either chunter or plusminus.

plusminus wrote:Hello and welcome. There has been at least one LGPT entry in SDCompo before: tadpole by Overthruster. I don't know whether it's not in the allowed formats list because of a specific reason, or just because no one has used it in a while. Hopefully organic io will chime in.


Yeah, LGPT is fine with me. I should add it to the rules permanently. Pretty much as Chunter said somewhere else in this thread, as long as it's a tracker software and not a traditional DAW, it's OK in SDcompo... The reason they all aren't listed is because there's so many of them.

plusminus wrote:
lossfizzle wrote:Question one, re: Rule 3:
"Modules are limited to ONLY the built in effects of your chosen tracker."
followed by
"Buzz/Psycle/Modplug/MadTracker entries must include all plugins required by the track inside the entry archive (zip, rar, etc)."

This seems like a contradiction to me, coming from traditional-DAW-land. OpenMPT does not seem to have yer basic DSP effects beyond pattern-line manipulation commands. So - no reverb / compression VSTs allowed...? Or are they, as long as they are packaged with the entry? (I am a freeware-only guy, yes.)


I think the explanation is that some rounds have VST effects or VSTi instruments as part of the sample pack. In these cases those files are supposed to be included in the entry submission.


Actually this explanation is not correct. If there are vst/vsti included in the round, there is no reason to also include them with your submission. The rule has to do with users of Buzz/Psycle/Modplug/etc who choose to use "standard effects plugins", such as bootsy, etc, (basically ones that match the capabilities of Renoise)... They should be included with the module so that anyone wanting to play it back doesn't have to download them, and it also ensures that the correct plugin version is used.

plusminus wrote:
lossfizzle wrote:Also, if I decide to switch to Buzz, does this mean I can only use the bone-stock distributed install and included handful of Jeskola machines, no third-party machines (and also no VSTs/VSTis)? Or: are third-party Buzz machines allowed, and VSTis not allowed?


Stock distributed machines etc. only.


Not correct, you can use third party vsts (vst effects) with Buzz, as long as they are "standard effects"

plusminus wrote:If this seems a bit unbalanced, well, it sort of is. There was talk a while ago about allowing a set of "default plugins" for use in any round but I don't think anything much came of it. Part of the reason for that is that the number of entries that are a format like OpenMPT that would significantly benefit from that are quite minimal; most entries are done in Renoise, or SunVox these days, with the odd entry from Psycle or Buzz or something. I use Schism Tracker and don't even bother with VSTs typically...


Yeah, I should find the link to the thread about this. I think the discussion happened before I was the "primary administrator" of SDcompo so it really wasn't up to me to implement this. I still think the standard plugins idea is great. In fact, I think we should go ahead and vote on a list of standard plugins and I'll try to incorporate them into the next round.

Also Re: Sunvox, I think plusminus is exaggerating the influence that Sunvox has around here. Pretty much Gilli and I are the only ones who use it regularly, along with one entry from Coolgreenapple, a Sunvox scener, back in round 65. Other than that I don't think anybody else uses it around here??? It's mostly Renoise, I would say Psycle and Sunvox tie for second place, and then the odd entry from others (aka Schism, etc)

plusminus wrote:As a sidenote, in those rounds with included VSTs, processing the samples with effects in an editor, or making samples rendered from VSTis, is allowed, for people that can't or don't want to use the plugins in their module.


Correct!

plusminus wrote:In theory an entire song could be made this way without touching the sample pack at all, but that's totally against the spirit of a sample pack compo and wouldn't be well received. The general point of allowing performances is to enhance a composition made with the samples.


In practice, this was actually done by me once,
http://www.sdcompo.com/entry.php?e=338 and people didn't seem to complain too awful much, and as chunter stated he has done it too :) So yes, the rules can be bent occasionally as long as it's in good spirit... But from a personal standpoint, I don't really plan on doing this type of entry very frequently because as chunter said, it's not really tracking...

d) no actual, live, I-played-this-and-both-made-and-own-the-source-recording-and-nobody-gonna-sue-me performances sliced up BEYOND an obvious continuous live performance? (i honestly have NO idea on this one.)


It's too early in the morning for me to even process what this means :P Give an example if it's still a relevant question?[/quote]

Me too, I don't really understand the question ...
User avatar
organic io
Compo Admin
Compo Admin
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:55 am

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby organic io » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:02 pm

lossfizzle wrote:I digress. Thanks SO MUCH for clearing this up and making me feel very welcome. Hopefully won't wear it out with a crap contri.


Hah, what ??? I have no idea how your song will sound, but certainly we wouldn't "un-welcome" you if you are inexperienced. We all have to start somewhere. Hopefully you will find the feedback on your song to be constructive and useful. :)

plusminus wrote:Since you seem OK with OpenMPT, I'll take this time to plug my own compo in case you're interested: HastyCompo. It is geared toward IT/XM entries, but does accept limited-effect sunvox files as well. Though you may find the sample packs even worse than this one, I don't know ;) I'm not sure about LGPT entries, I don't know that program well at all, but I'm willing to take a look at including them.


I can vouch for Hastycompo being a great compo as well! I have participated in several rounds. It's definitely a lot more lo-fi oriented than SDC, but sometimes that can be liberating because you spend less time messing with effects, and more time actually composing a song.

chunter wrote:The only prize here is the pride of winning, so there is no need to worry about the rules too much. If you think someone has gone too far, simply say so in comments and votes and consensus will decide if it ought to be okay or not.


Yep, chunter has summed up the spirit of the compo very well here. The compo is for the users, so generally the consensus is what goes. Don't be afraid to call somebody out on something if you suspect foul play, we have had at least one instance of someone cheating in the past (submitting multiple entries under different aliases), but several times where people accidentally broke the rules without knowing it, or accidentally using the wrong sample pack, etc... Generally things are pretty laid back around here though, generally nobody gets too offended or upset about things. It's all for fun!

lossfizzle wrote:Super-traditional, non-modular / fixed-sonic-architecture trackers generally don't seem to *have* chorus, reverb, or compression, or at least they seem not to have them from my admittedly inexperienced eye. In OpenMPT it definitely looks like I'd need a VST to employ any of these. I won't lie (again, especially with *these* samples) - I would rather have the ability to use bread-and-butter effects, and it makes sense that certain types of VSTs would be allowed for non-Renoise users in the interest of fairness. But it also makes sense that you'd be stuck with the dev-given tools of your chosen platform, because... well, you chose your platform.

So is this something where some contris *have* been rule-bending to a degree and it's been politely ignored, or...? :)


No, as stated before, "standard effects" which match the capability of Renoise are definitely allowed in other "less capable trackers" which support vst effects. It's part of the rules, I think it's just confusing right now, especially without a standard set of allowed vst's... Which is why we're going to fix that problem soon!

chunter wrote:It has never really come up, but if someone was to use CoolEdit to put some EQ, chorus, phase, or distortion into a pack sample just to be able to use genuine Impulse Tracker (just to make an example) I would not object. I wouldn't want a VSTe that won't load on every platform or isn't freely available (or is expensive) to be used because it takes away from transparency. I hope someone else can provide an opinion on this too, because I wouldn't want the compo to become openMPT + Bootsy VSTs vs. Renoise w/ builtins only... We occasionally have rounds with VSTs to keep that from being too much of a temptation. ;)


Hmm, cooledit for effects.... that's never really come up. So I'm not sure how I would feel about it, but we'll burn that bridge if it ever really arises.

Re: openMPT + Bootsy VSTs vs. Renoise w/ builtins only --- I feel like once standard effects are allowed (whether it is bootsy or another set, whatever), they should also be allowed in Renoise too (not excluded from it) :D Personally I always found the compressor in Renoise pretty lackluster, so I think Stardust is a great contender for the permanently allowed standard compressor effect.

plusminus wrote:Actually this sort of did come up before with me since I use genuine Impulse Tracker (compatible) files, and the general impression I got was that this is definitely not allowed as per the rules right now, although rewriting them to accommodate doing that would be probably OK.

But that rewrite hasn't happened yet. I think part of the whole "site refresh" idea included revamping the rules to explicitly allow any tracker, and allowing a base set of VSTs as mentioned previously, and also permitting such kind of edits. This is not to criticize anyone; people are busy, I'm certainly not the most consistently-active member of this community, and the number of submissions that would benefit from those rewrites would be minimal.


Ahh... I forgot about you! Yeah, actually put in this light, I think it should be OK for cooledit style effects to be allowed, as long as they are within the "standard effects" type of set... I'll add that to the rules next round along with the standard effects set! Personally if I were you and using Schism to track, I would just install Reaper along with some standard effects vsts, and process the samples through that and export them back to use in Schism.... But, I'm not you and I know you and I have already had discussions about vst/workflow & stuff. :D Plus if somebody has a certain wav editor and they like the way a certain effect sounds on it, be it reverb or whatever, yeah... It should be fine to go ahead and process it through that.

----

Whew!!! A long but worthwhile discussion. Keep it going if you guys have any more ideas or questions. Soon I'll start a thread so we can vote on the standard vst effects pack.

-Scott
User avatar
organic io
Compo Admin
Compo Admin
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:55 am

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby plusminus » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:58 pm

Wow, a lot of that goes against my previous understanding and interpretation of the written rules. Not that I doubt you of course! But I think it shows that the written rules need a serious overhaul. I know you're a busy guy so I'll try to get the ball rolling on this sometime this week, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
Singing is a trick to get people to listen to music for longer than they would ordinarily. -- David Byrne

+- is 68k
User avatar
plusminus
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby chunter » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:04 pm

I recommend that the standard effects should be cpu light and at least known to work on Windows and os X, mda comes to mind except for the ui...
chunter
Insomniac
Insomniac
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: United States

Re: Rules clarification requested for Round 72

Postby plusminus » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:15 pm

mda have been ported to Linux too, I think.

Does the UI matter? I prefer generic UI anyhow. But maybe some programs don't work well with it?
Singing is a trick to get people to listen to music for longer than they would ordinarily. -- David Byrne

+- is 68k
User avatar
plusminus
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Next

Return to Compo Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests