halloween came early this year

  • Thread starter Thread starter drstawl
  • Start date Start date
drstawl

drstawl

Banned
Finally narrowed it down to 192 Kbps.
The piece evolved over a 48 hour period migrating toward the intro as I repeatedly added new material in front of what I already had written.

It's "Number Nine" in the .mp3 Gallery at my website.

http://members.home.net/drstawl/midi.html
 
It's not danse macabre, but it's a good tune. I like the way the halloween bits have little bits of beauty shining out at .45-.55 and 1.13 - 1.20. You don't repeat these bits. How come?

Also, there's a kind of fuzzy bass part that comes in at .55 and runs to 1.13. It gets really interesting from 1.05 - 1.13 because, like the two portions I identified above, it gets beautiful at that point. Yet because it's bass, and because of the busyness of the other parts, it gets buried at bit. Can you take the fuzz off the bass part from 1.05 - 1.13, or bring it out more in the mix? It deserves it.

Also, do you play this stuff, or program it?

Finally, what kind of a webdeal do you have whereby you can store humongous amounts of stuff there?
 
>You don't repeat these bits. How come?

Well- I thought that would be too repetitive... :)
In early stuff when I found something that was "pretty" I'd cut and paste it to death. I guess it's just a reaction to seeing that overdone. Now I apply the rule: Have I developed this section I'm repeating or is this just filler?

>Also, there's a kind of fuzzy bass part that comes in at >.55 and runs to 1.13. It gets really interesting from 1.05 >- 1.13 because, like the two portions I identified above, >it gets beautiful at that point. Yet because it's bass, and >because of the busyness of the other parts, it gets buried >at bit. Can you take the fuzz off the bass part from 1.05 - >1.13, or bring it out more in the mix? It deserves it.

Well the new version is posted right next to the old one!
I had to redo it from scratch. The square wave patch was replaced with a less buzzy synth pattern an octave higher.

>Also, do you play this stuff, or program it?

A bit of both. I'd say this one was 70% written (programmed) and 30% played. I use all of CW's "views" as needed with the staff view being 1st, Piano Roll 2nd and Event List Third.

>Finally, what kind of a webdeal do you have whereby you can >store humongous amounts of stuff there?

The uptown variety. They give me 70MB. But uploads are slow and the homepage server can be fussy at times.
 
Downloaded the new version, but got only 20 secs of a file that has the same filename as the previous version.
 
Don't really know what's up with the partial download-
someone else local told me of similar symptoms when downloading a different file from the same server.
It works fine here. I've tested it.
I'll try it from a differnt ISP and get back to ya.
And the filename should be s260d4 for the new one and s260d3 for the old one.
 
I wish I knew what was going on- I tried accessing it from another ISP and had no more trouble (none) than with my own.
Thanks for giving it a listen.
 
Got all of both...dobro's suggestion made for a better sound...the fuzzy needed to go....I particularly liked the fluty thing at 1:13....this tune borders on mainstream, which for unsophisticated tastes like mine, is a good thing....gibs
 
LOL. Mainstream what? The day drstawl's mainstream, we'll see a black, jewish, lesbian president in the white house. Or me. Which is even less likely than the BJL. :D

drstawl - I tried 3 more times, but each time the download aborted itself. I'm all disappointed. Also, when I delete the fragments in Explorer, it takes forever, like the computer's almost hanging up. You got some kind of voodoo in those mp3s?
 
I even tried it with IE instead of Nutscrape. Can't get it to fail here.
Here's to that BJL that INHALES!
 
I gotta new pc at the gig, so now I am running a P3 - with soundcard - on a T3 connection. DL'd this in a minute and a half - most excellent work, drstawl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top