The idea is to simulate a real job. If someone spends 3 weeks working on a mix, makes dramatic changes to the music without consent of the client, turns in an unfinished mix, or turns in a mix that's not fit for mastering, that's not real world.hibidy wrote:Oh no, I hope that isn't what people thought I was implying. I'm just saying that there are too many rules. Should be the best sounding mix wins, not everything has to fit such a specific anal set of rules that you'll be the weakest link before you even get started
As we've been developing this, I've been thinking to myself "what would Chris Lord-Alge do?" with regards to any scenario that's come up. Unfortunately, "what would Chris Lord-Alge do?" isn't exactly a rule that communicates the same message to everybody. Poor Compy looks like the bad guy but all he's doing is laying out the rules with detail and clarity so that it doesn't become a subjective mess like my single "what would Chris Lord-Alge do" rule would cause.
At the same time, we want this to be inclusive and fun. We want people to be involved and learn from the experience. The rules are good and I don't want to change them but I would appreciate if you guys could help us word and format the rules in such a way that makes them less daunting or seemingly difficult. The rules aren't difficult but they are specific, and I understand how specificity can occur as being difficult sometimes.
For my own mix, I went WAY outside of my comfort zone because I want to see how voters feel about the new techniques I implemented (if my mix ends up ranking high, I'll begin implementing those techniques into my normal workflow and will hopefully one day get good with them). That's pretty cool, it's not something I can do in my normal life and I hope others take advantage of this contest in similar ways.