One Synth Challenge #76: Mantra Evo (Syntax Project Wins!)

[mehum]

The only way for a more balanced situation would be to join wagtunes point of view.

Hm, I don't understand this position. I'd even argue it's the other way around, that the rating-point-of-view is what potentially creates status quo in the positions. But I won't

Hm, and I don`t understand why you don`t understand me

Okay I will try it again.

I think, actually, that it really wouldn't matter and that we'd see the same patterns whether everybody used and absolute or relative system. So this rant is mostly for the sake of argument (breaking my promise above not to argue ). Should probably belong in the General Discussion thread, but here goes...

An absolute scoring system (= a 5 is basically comparable to all other 5:s in all other challenges and so on) makes the most sense if you rate without having the full picture when scoring (as in jury based sports, like figure skating) or when the resulting score must be reasonably comparable over a wider range (as with school grades).
If you have a jury they usually have pretty clear instructions what is considered "perfect" and have some kind of system where mistakes gives score reductions. The room for interpretation is rather small which is why you seldom see differences between jurors of more than 0.5 points, in a 10 point system, unless a juror is trying to game the system.

None of these criteria are really in place in this contest so to me a relative scoring system, making it close to a normal distribution curve ("bell") makes more sense.
First of all, this does not mean there's a limited number of 5's pr 1's. If I find 8 tracks of equal standing they should all get the same score, whether that is a 1 or 5.
And actually, with this system, it's more likely an underdog gets a 5 instead of a "usual suspect". While in an absolute system the "usual suspect" would basically always default to top score (since it conforms to the quality standards) in a relative system they would have to compete for the 5.

And again, since every person rates every track, it doesn't matter if you use the range of 1-3 or 3-5 (except in relation to your own track). Your impact on the final scores will be exactly the same.
(as a side note, the fairest would be if your own track always received the mean of the scores you've given)

Consider the Eurovision concept, too, though. There you can only give one specific amount of points to any contestant. For a "voting" system that is probably the most reliable there is.

I think this might actually be the way to go, especially if we start to constantly see 50+ entries each time.
Ironically, in ESC (as opposed to OSC ) no country actually wants to win since that means having to host an expensive as f*** event

Lastly, I think ultimately wagtunes words are as true as can be:

Submit a kick ass killer track and you'll do well.

Submit a piece of crap and you won't.

[wagtunes]

Here is where the difference comes in between an absolute and relative scoring and I think it can be significant.

Small example of 10 tracks to keep this simple.

Absolute Scoring by Person X

Track 1 - 5
Track 2 - 5
Track 3 - 5
Track 4 - 4
Track 5 - 4
Track 6 - 3
Track 7 - 3
Track 8 - 2
Track 9 - 2
Track 10 - 2

Now, let's say that person used relative scoring and actually had a favorite track. The results would look something like this if we only adjusted out favorite track.

Relative Scoring

Track 1 - 5
Track 2 - 4
Track 3 - 4
Track 4 - 4
Track 5 - 4
Track 6 - 3
Track 7 - 3
Track 8 - 2
Track 9 - 2
Track 10 - 1

As you can see, relative scoring has no effect on the bottom entries. They're still at the bottom. Where this comes into play is the entries at the top that would have stayed there had they been judged on their own merits and the entries just below them.

Where we once had a clear top 5, we now have a chance that the "best" tracks fall down notches because they were forced down due to having to pick a "favorite" and thus might end up out of the money.

Duplicate the above voting across 30 to 60 tracks and you're talking about a 5 point track possibly receiving 30 to 60 points less than it normally would have gotten.

What this effectively does is two things.

1) Yes, it does turn it into a more even contest all the way around except for that one track that stands out.

2) Unfortunately, this also turns the contest into a crap shoot where just about anybody with a "good" track can make top 5.

To some people this would be a good thing. But what about those who are usually near the top, maybe just missing the very top spot by 5 points or so? These people probably usually got at least a half dozen 5s. Take those 6 points away and it could mean the difference between a 5th place showing and not making it.

If I had the time, I could put together a theoretical spreadsheet to show how drastically relative voting could affect this contest, but I don't have the time. If somebody here does, you can easily see it yourself. Just set up two spreadsheets with hypothetical scores. One absolute and one relative. In order to have the results turn out even close to each other you'd have to do relative voting throughout. And that becomes extremely difficult as the number of tracks increases.

Bottom line is this and it can't be denied. There is a very strong possibility that some of the top tracks that aren't the very best (in the case of a month like this one where Syntax just blew everything else out of the water) will end up getting downgraded and could possibly miss out on the top 5 because of that.

That to me is what I feel is unfair.

But again, it's just my opinion and in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean squat.

[Taron]

The beauty of this open system is that you can apply your own ethics to it. Everyone has different taste and even different agendas, when it comes down to it. I'm glad we're generally more in the mature range here, not having to deal with kids that desperately want effects more than cause, as in wanting to WIN for the sake of winning and won't care about the root of success.
I remember a little gif animation painter on some game website many years back and I had some fun with that, since I'm an animator as well. However, I eventually noticed that there was a rating system, because I suddenly received all this recognition out of nowhere. Just then I started to look around what others are doing and was baffled just how many kids made instead of an animation a blinking painting going: "Give Me Stars"... Hahaha , what in the world?!
This mentality seems ridiculous, but it's extremely common nowadays. The newer generations are truly in trouble, being surrounded by that distorted spirit.

Anyhow, I think there's not much more to say about the 'voting' system... obviously it's not particularly regulated so... I just think that sincerity and responsibility are key components of the voting process for everybody. That's all.

[mehum]

The problem with an argument, as noticed by the Pythons, is that it's hard to stop once you begin.

In this case I'm more interested in the mathematics and "game design" aspect than the actual application in regards to OSC. Also, as a strategy game nut I enjoy analyzing and deconstructing mechanics like this...

Quoting myself,

since every person rates every track, it doesn't matter if you use the range of 1-3 or 3-5 (except in relation to your own track). Your impact on the final scores will be exactly the same.

I think it's easy to overvalue the 5's. In the case above, a 3 would mean exactly the same as a 5 (again, disregarding the 1 you're giving your own track but that only matters if you're in the top).

In the same way, if everyone gave only one 5 and to the same track, the tracks with most 4:s would of course end up in positions 5-2.

As a hypothetical question: if one person were given the chance to, instead of using the range 1-5, use the range 6-10 (giving their own track a score of 6), how would that affect the end positions?
The answer is, of course, that it wouldn't affect it at all (in comparison to using 1-5).
Now, try it again with the range 101-105.

In wagtunes' example, if everyone voted the same way, the top tracks are the same, only there's a clear winner in the relative example. We'd just have to roll the dice for a few different tracks
Since it's unlikely everyone will pick the same favorite, it's a slightly better chance for an underdog in the relative example. The total score does not matter, only the relation between the scores.

This is why the "push down the rest one notch" when you have one clear favorite actually makes sense mathematically, although it seems unfair psychologically.

IANAS (I am not a statistician ) so please correct me if I've made a logical error somewhere!

[wagtunes]

The problem with an argument, as noticed by the Pythons, is that it's hard to stop once you begin.

In this case I'm more interested in the mathematics and "game design" aspect than the actual application in regards to OSC. Also, as a strategy game nut I enjoy analyzing and deconstructing mechanics like this...

Quoting myself,

since every person rates every track, it doesn't matter if you use the range of 1-3 or 3-5 (except in relation to your own track). Your impact on the final scores will be exactly the same.

I think it's easy to overvalue the 5's. In the case above, a 3 would mean exactly the same as a 5 (again, disregarding the 1 you're giving your own track but that only matters if you're in the top).

In the same way, if everyone gave only one 5 and to the same track, the tracks with most 4:s would of course end up in positions 5-2.

As a hypothetical question: if one person were given the chance to, instead of using the range 1-5, use the range 6-10 (giving their own track a score of 6), how would that affect the end positions?
The answer is, of course, that it wouldn't affect it at all (in comparison to using 1-5).
Now, try it again with the range 101-105.

In wagtunes' example, if everyone voted the same way, the top tracks are the same, only there's a clear winner in the relative example. We'd just have to roll the dice for a few different tracks
Since it's unlikely everyone will pick the same favorite, it's a slightly better chance for an underdog in the relative example. The total score does not matter, only the relation between the scores.

This is why the "push down the rest one notch" when you have one clear favorite actually makes sense mathematically, although it seems unfair psychologically.

IANAS (I am not a statistician ) so please correct me if I've made a logical error somewhere!

This really isn't complicated. It's simple logic. If you can only have one 5 and all other "would be" 5s are pushed down one point because of that, each of those "would be" 5s now have one point less of a chance of making it into the top 5. They are the only tracks being "penalized" unless you trickle down the process to the 4s, 3s and 2s.

At that point, the voting process would become so complex and convoluted that it wouldn't be worth going through all the trouble.

Imagine having to sift through 20 4s and decide which one gets the 4 and thus pushing the others down to 3s.

Where does it end?

You might not like my voting criteria but it's simple as hell. I don't have to worry about listening to every track and comparing it to every other track. Imagine I had heard Syntax's track last. I'd then have to go back through all my other 5s and vote them down and THEN have to go through all the 4s to determine which one is the real 4. And then if the 3s are really 3s in comparison. And it just goes on and on, having to listen to tracks 3, 4 and maybe 5 times.

With 60 tracks entered, um, no, ain't gonna happen.

My way it's over and it's done. I think you're a 5, you're a 5. Doesn't matter if I hear a track better than yours down the road. I just give him a 5 too.

If the voting system were 1 - 10, this would a lot easier and relative voting would be easier to do. The difference between a 9 and a 10 is only 10% whereas the difference between a 4 and a 5 is 20%.

That is HUGE.

So we could have a stricter criteria.

10 - Professional level in every way

9 - Just short of professional by a whisker. Maybe the stereo field in one part of the track isn't as wide as it should be. Or a level was too soft for one instrument in one 5 second part of the song. Or something else so obscure and minute. But this way, we give somebody a score that is really good and will most likely get them into the top anyway as opposed to knocking somebody down to a 4 which could conceivably knock them out of the top 5.

So essentially we have this.

10 and 9 is equal to a 5 but the one point, if there are many tracks could fairly affect the chances of a top 5 finish.

8 and 7 equal to a 4 but again, that one point would separate the better 4s from the lesser 4s.

And so on down the line.

Personally, I'd love to see a 1 to 10 voting system. I think it is more fair. The difference between a 5 and a 4 is just too great percentage wise. A 10 point system would make this whole thing a lot more balanced.

In fact, with a 10 point system, I probably would only give out one 10 as opposed to the 4 or 5 that I usually give out.

I can't tell you how many times I listen to a song and say to myself, "Well, it's better than a 3 but it's not quite a 4. I wish I could give it a 3.5 but I can't."

With a 10 point system, effectively that's what you're not doing.

So given this breakdown.

10 and 9 = 5
8 and 7 = 4
6 and 5 = 3
4 and 3 = 2
2 and 1 = 1

If I hear a song that I like better than a 3 but not as much as a 4, I can give it a 6 instead of a 5. That one point might give that track an extra push towards the top if other people also like it better.

I don't like having to decide between two numbers that, percentage wise, can have drastic consequences for a track.

That's why they have the kind of scoring system that they do for the Olympics.

We need something closer to that.

The range we have now, IMO, is too narrow.

[fairplay]

Voted.

[mehum]

You might not like my voting criteria but it's simple as hell.

I apologize if it came across as if I had any opinion on your (or any other's) voting system. I sincerely don't and think everyone should be free to apply their own logic and ethics.

The only point I'm actually questioning is the argument that relative voting makes it harder for underdogs to win and kind of claiming the opposite from a theoretical standpoint (which may be seen as defending my own voting system ). Other than that I'm just exploring the mechanics of the game system that is the voting.

I do agree the voting takes too long time with many entries and that an absolute system works better in that regard. The way I've handled it the last two months is in three steps, meaning each track gets listened to at least 2-3 times.
First I listen through all tracks, either as background or for commenting, to just get an idea of where the general level is and possibly find a few favorites.
Then I go through all tracks and assign them either a 2 or a 4. I might already here also pick clear 1s and 5s.
Third, I pick tracks that are low 4s or high 2s. As I've already heard all tracks I usually just listen quickly to some parts or sometimes not at all. If I have more contenders for 5s I might have a listen and compare a bit.
It's a bit of a hassle, but it's usually quicker than it sounds. The 5s usually pick themselves although it may change with some careful listening.
But the most important part is that I've (now after a few rounds) have stopped obsessing about the points I give.

each of those "would be" 5s now have one point less of a chance of making it into the top 5.

It only has one less point of a chance in relation to the track(s) you gave 5. That is not a very drastic difference. Say this track got DQ:ed. Now all your 4s are effectively 5s.

For the record, I ended up with four 5s this month.

I don't like having to decide between two numbers that, percentage wise, can have drastic consequences for a track.

Well, the percentage is not really 20% since there are about as many voters as there are entrants. I suppose it would be closer to 20% divided by the number of voters but I think it would also depend a little the general point distribution... Someone better at maths than me may want to correct that

That's why they have the kind of scoring system that they do for the Olympics.

The Olympics needs an absolute system by necessity (as explained in a post above) and a more granular system since the number of jurors are comparatively small. On the other hand, there anything under 7 or 8 means you're effectively out of the competition.

The Eurovision Song Contest, mentioned by Taron, is by design a much closer comparison. 50ish entrants and each entrant is a juror. With an absolute voting system they should all be rightfully rated 1

We need something closer to that.

The range we have now, IMO, is too narrow.

I respectfullt disagree

[actioncat]

On an only slightly related note, for my first OSC my original understanding of voting was that it was ESC style with only one 5, one 4, etc., it wasn't til I actually saw the voting page that I realized I had it wrong

[Mojo42]

I`m on nightshift and cannot join the discussion at the moment, but I have read what was writen here while I was offline. I will consider about all this and probably join the discussion later this night. But just in short:

Yep this here is a very special situation at OSC. It is not comparable with other contests because alone the fact that the contestants rate each other seems to be unique. It is a special case and so special measures are needed. That`s my considerations so far.

[Mojo42]

@Mehum: I understand something now
I understand that we have got a missunderstanding

Your voting system is neither in conflict with my idea of voting nor with wagtunes idea of voting. The missunderstanding is caused by the words "relative" and "absolute" voting.

Look again at wagtunes demonstration of this fictitious voting of 10 entries. The first is called the "absolute" voting and there you see three 5`s.

The second is called the "relative" voting and there you see only one 5.

The last one is Taron`s idea. Selecting one favorite, although there are probably/mostlikely/for sure (!!!) a lot more who would deserve a 5 too, rate all other lower than 5 for to push this one and only favorite candidate toward the top 5 position.

If wagtunes and me are talking about relative/comparative voting then we mean the way of voting Taron does, and not the way you do
It was just not expressed exactly, that`s why the missunderstanding happened. The problem is not "absolute" or "relative" voting. The problem calls: Fair voting or tactical voting.

If there are a couple more members who vote like Taron does or similar in giving just two or three 5`s although there are actually approximately five until seven potentially 5`s then it means that potentially 5`s got downrated just for to push one or two or three of ones own personal favorites toward the top 5 position and that is for sure a problem.

This kind of tactical voting will have for sure an effect on the places at the top and for to know this we even don`t need this nice demonstration by wagtunes.

Concerning your voting:
Hey, no problem. All is fine with that.

You give all entries which are a 5 in your opinion actually a 5. You don`t give a 4 if you mean that it is 5 just for to push someone special toward the top, right?

In this sense: Yes you are absolutely right. There is no difference in result between your way of voting or the way wagtunes does or the way I do. Because we all give a 5 there where we see a 5 and where we are honesty the opinion that it is a 5. We sort all entries which are on a 5 level actually in our category for a level 5 track.

Wagtunes doesn`t compare that much, with other entries, but he also creates categories/levels and so he has clear guidelines. He also sort all entries which fits into a certain category to there.

You are probably pretty tough in voting ( ) and there won`t be much entries which are as good enough in your opinion for to give them a 5 but that is okay because all what matters is: All what is honesty a 5 in your opinion will get a 5.

I`m not as critical as you and so for sure I will find a lot more 5`s than you but that is also okay as long as the tracks are at least almost on the same level. Absolutely equality in quality is simply not possible. But one can try to to sort the entries as best as possible.

The point is: What wagtunes, you and me are doing is simply voting. We are creating certain categories/level on the basis of certain criterions and sort the entries according this categories and no one of us would give just one single 5 for some tactical reasons although we are finding four 5`s more for to sort into the same category.

Simply all what belongs in our 5 category will get a 5. And so it actually makes no difference in the end and you are completely right with what you`ve said. There is also no conflict between your way of voting and the way wagtunes does or how I do. That`s pretty normal voting and correct voting.

But what Taron is talking about is tactical voting.

This is not voting according certain criterions/guidelines and the creating of categories which guarantees at least to be as fair as possible, this is just determining who should be on top. That has nothing to do with voting. A fair voting should treat all entries which are on the same level or close to one certain level same way.

For to make it finally clear:
- Normal (fair) voting is to create certain categories/levels (like you do) and sort all entries according this categories. You do this based on a comparison of all entries for to find the lines between the levels and that`s okay because the only thing which matters here is that you are fair in putting all entries which has the same level into the same category.

- Normal (fair) voting is also what wagtunes does, because he also creates certain categories as you can see a couple of pages ago. He also sorts all entries into this categories according his criterions which are determining the categories.

- Tactical (unfair) voting: Is not creating categories for to be able to sort all entries which are on the same level according this categories, but instead of that simply select personally favorites and giving them an advantage over other entries by scoring them higher than the rest for to make it most possible that they will reach the top. It is unfair because this is not equality. All entries on the same level should be treaten same way, that`s equality of chances.

Okay I hope now it becomes finaly clear what is the difference between voting and tactical voting.

Of course tactical voting has an effect on the top positions because that exactly is the sense of tactical voting

Concerning all other points of the discussion here like having a maximum amount of 5`s like it is at the ESC and stuff like that or changing the range from 5 to 10 points and so on....sure we can try this, but this will not solve the problem. Apart from that it would be too much complicated to avoid each possible misuse of voting. As a contrary suggestion I could also say what is with a rule for a minimum amount of 5`s? Or what`s about with a maximum of 1`s and 2`s ?

To be honest: After considering intensely about all this I came to the final conclusion the easiest and best way for to make sure that the voting at OSC is as fair as possible would be to create an independent jury.

Alone the idea to let the contestants rate each other is wrong in itself and must fail in the long run. Because yes exactly that would need maturity, but I can`t see any wisdom, fairness and maturity in tactical voting at all. And so it seems that the system failed.

Let`s create an independent jury for OSC, because that will end the drama finaly. This forum is huge enough for to find a couple of reliable, competent, voluntary, indepent jury members.

After almost each OSC we have got an endless discussion about the votings, but I guess we can`t solve the problem inside. Only an external jury could do this. Everybody who is playing fair don`t need to fear a disadvantage by being judged by a jury

[Taron]

Nope, "Tactical" voting is when someone puts down a top candidate for the sake of pushing others.
Putting up countless entrees to 5 points means: no voting.
It's still as subjective as any other method, because non of us- as far as I can tell- can be considered a "perfect" judge. We express our opinion in how we place tracks.
What I do and what mehum does is "relative" and neither of us is "tactical".
My personal favorite is in my opinion to be ranked higher than the others. Therefore it is relatively (in relation to the others) better in my opinion, not tactically... (that could be considered an insult, you know!)
These are not semantics, but simple facts. There's a massive difference.

Stick with your choices, of course, I'm not trying to brainwash anybody into my way of doing things. I'm new to this so I'm not worthy to argue against your established habits.
I would just advice to change the term "voting" then for the term "rating"! Then it's all clear.

Vote = choice
You are not a professional producer with experience and knowledge to judge. Instead you choose which tracks you enjoy how much and you place them in the order of your favorites. More than one Nr.1 means effectively that you simply have not made a choice. It's a forfeit. (aka:"I don't care, let the others decide!")

Rating = opinion
You are a professional producer with experience and knowledge to judge. You can make a reliable determination of what represents quality, largely independent from your taste. Place any number of tracks into any rating. For anyone, who is not such an authority this is...how shall I say...let's call it "playful" as the sweetest possible word for it. (aka:"today I'm a seasoned professional!")

Just my take on things. Essentially everything is "tactical", as it's a generic term for a way in which you approach anything. It only then deserve that label of being "tactical", when it represent falsehood, insincerity. I can promise you with all my heart that I'm 100% sincere in my voting and I allow myself to make a choice.

Out there "in the real world" people don't ponder over fairness or anything like that when they pick what they like or don't like. It comes to them, they check it out and then they decide. It's that simple.

Don't think for a second I wouldn't know how much I'm digging my own hole here, argh... that's the other weird price one might pay by trying to bring a point across no-matter-what. I really don't mean to be insensitive. I just don't want anyone to come to the warped idea that I would vote tactically right after I write a big thing about exactly that and how ugly that is.

[wagtunes]

I honestly don't think there is a lot, if any, tactical voting going on here. I do think certain members have their favorite members as well as least favorite members. That's only natural in a forum where people make friends and enemies. I look at the people who give me low scores and it's always the same people, and usually ones who have publicly told me off under no uncertain terms. It's fine. I've come to accept it, just as I've come to accept that I've made a few friends here who give me high scores that, frankly, there is no way in hell I deserve. I'm objective enough with my own work to know that I'm between a 2 and a 3 as far as quality goes. When I see a 5 I scratch my head thinking what this person could possibly be hearing because there is no way any of my work is a 5. Conversely, when I get 17 1s (which to me means no effort put in) on a track that I busted my ass on, I know it's simply because these people don't like me personally and there's nothing I can do about that either.

It took me a while, but I've come to accept the OSC for what it is, a popularity contest to some degree. Fortunately, there are enough honest voters in that contest that the best tracks usually win. My own voting has convinced me of that as I almost always pick the majority of the top 5. As I said earlier, if Syntax doesn't win this month, I'd be stunned. It was clearly head and shoulders above every other track.

And that's all I really care about. When we start seeing clearly bad tracks winning because Person X is a "favorite" of the forum, that's when I stop participating in the OSCs. I am still convinced however that I could make the greatest track in the world and still end up near the bottom of the list because I've been too outspoken here and have pissed off too many people, which is why I put exactly 2 hours of work into this month's entry. After a while, you just stop caring. I continue doing this because I love listening to the other entries. Some of you guys are geniuses. I am truly in awe of your talent.

So vote how you like as long as the votes reflect the tracks with the most talent. So far, I think we've been doing an excellent job of doing just that.

And that's all that matters.

[Taron]

Hmmm...I've given you 2pnts, but actually simply because of the gap between yours and those I put into 3pnts.
But, really, you've got some great stuff in there. If you were to consider your tracks as a kind of "brainstorming" session, you could pick the section you realize as most powerful and extract it to make a really nice tune from that. There may be one or more sections that are really cool. I really like parts of your intro very much, but it has some literally painful sounds that do actively hurt so I had to frantically pull down the volume, haha ...so, that's ah...
Then it goes into a really nice surreal moment that I find pretty exciting. It's essentially like a second intro to a very cinematic moment. I would have most certainly made a choice there between either this or the first intro. I would've considered this part more powerful, though. It has a nice resolve. The friendly sound of the resolve, though, stays inside the center, while it could've come from a more ethereal space...I would've moved the chords closer to the center and pushed that pretty melody super wide and spacey. Maybe gradually bringing it inwards.
Then you have a very, very odd break there which is kind of unmotivated or not quite understandable. I remember someone commenting that it would be a funny "that's all, folks!", but I don't think you should've done that. It was way too interesting to just drop the ball then, you know.

SO...all in all, I think, you are actually a very passionate musician who suffers from underestimating himself. It's like you stop believing in your work in the middle of doing it, probably even entering into it with a kind of defeated mentality. It's kind of liberating to imagine one comes up from the bottom, like there was nothing to lose. But that only happens when you believe there's something to lose to begin with and you can't really fool yourself to not being influenced by that unfavorable belief.
We're musicians- you are a musician of ours- and in your heart and in your mind is all the power and understanding you need already to deliver genuine music to all of us, to share a sincere moment of yours. If anything, I believe you need to practice believing in yourself some more and trust and believe in your music. That means also to honor your music, give it your real attention as opposed to "moving on" when you should have recognized the power you've broken into already, but leave it behind instead.

Wag, I think, you should restart with the fire that is slumbering within you and totally respect your own music as you are manifesting it. What I mean is, when you have done a piece of your track and you believe you're ready to move forward, stop and go through a kind of internal check-list like a mean supervisor. Go through the section you really like and examine it for it's merits and problems. Then you may treat it like a child that you can nurture into maturity. Teach your music how to speak so that people can understand it, how to walk so that people can invite it in and how to run, when people start to light their torches and get their pitchforks... ...or so, hahaha.

When I listen to what you've got going, I can hear many years of a slightly mistreated hobby that has always wanted to be far more in your life than just that. What you may not realize is that this little step-hobby has long since grown to be a pretty darn respectable source of delight and inspiration. Just offer it proper respect and reveal who you really are as a composer and "producer" of your craft!

[wagtunes]

Hmmm...I've given you 2pnts, but actually simply because of the gap between yours and those I put into 3pnts.
But, really, you've got some great stuff in there. If you were to consider your tracks as a kind of "brainstorming" session, you could pick the section you realize as most powerful and extract it to make a really nice tune from that. There may be one or more sections that are really cool. I really like parts of your intro very much, but it has some literally painful sounds that do actively hurt so I had to frantically pull down the volume, haha ...so, that's ah...
Then it goes into a really nice surreal moment that I find pretty exciting. It's essentially like a second intro to a very cinematic moment. I would have most certainly made a choice there between either this or the first intro. I would've considered this part more powerful, though. It has a nice resolve. The friendly sound of the resolve, though, stays inside the center, while it could've come from a more ethereal space...I would've moved the chords closer to the center and pushed that pretty melody super wide and spacey. Maybe gradually bringing it inwards.
Then you have a very, very odd break there which is kind of unmotivated or not quite understandable. I remember someone commenting that it would be a funny "that's all, folks!", but I don't think you should've done that. It was way too interesting to just drop the ball then, you know.

SO...all in all, I think, you are actually a very passionate musician who suffers from underestimating himself. It's like you stop believing in your work in the middle of doing it, probably even entering into it with a kind of defeated mentality. It's kind of liberating to imagine one comes up from the bottom, like there was nothing to lose. But that only happens when you believe there's something to lose to begin with and you can't really fool yourself to not being influenced by that unfavorable belief.
We're musicians- you are a musician of ours- and in your heart and in your mind is all the power and understanding you need already to deliver genuine music to all of us, to share a sincere moment of yours. If anything, I believe you need to practice believing in yourself some more and trust and believe in your music. That means also to honor your music, give it your real attention as opposed to "moving on" when you should have recognized the power you've broken into already, but leave it behind instead.

Wag, I think, you should restart with the fire that is slumbering within you and totally respect your own music as you are manifesting it. What I mean is, when you have done a piece of your track and you believe you're ready to move forward, stop and go through a kind of internal check-list like a mean supervisor. Go through the section you really like and examine it for it's merits and problems. Then you may treat it like a child that you can nurture into maturity. Teach your music how to speak so that people can understand it, how to walk so that people can invite it in and how to run, when people start to light their torches and get their pitchforks... ...or so, hahaha.

When I listen to what you've got going, I can hear many years of a slightly mistreated hobby that has always wanted to be far more in your life than just that. What you may not realize is that this little step-hobby has long since grown to be a pretty darn respectable source of delight and inspiration. Just offer it proper respect and reveal who you really are as a composer and "producer" of your craft!

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting such a well thought out critique, but thanks.

The synth gave me fits. I had to freeze every track. It was a nightmare to work with. So I gave it all the time it deserved. I tried to actually convey that in the harshness of the intro, the dissonance of the middle section and the "beauty" of the finale because in the end, I wanted something good to come out of the experience.

That track was pure emotion. What I felt was what I wrote. I didn't try to refine or fix anything. I have no illusions about its quality. I fully expect this to be my worst performing track. And rightfully, it should be.

When the right synth comes along, and if I'm in the mood, I'll do something that actually shows people what I'm capable of. If you go to my RFM site, you'll hear some nice classical pieces. Naturally, they're not done with synths but with quality orchestral samples. The OSC is just something I do to give me a break from my work. Nothing more, nothing less. And like I said, I enjoy listening to the other tracks. I like to see if I can pick the winners. That's where the most fun of this whole thing comes for me.

[Taron]

...I, uhm...so, ah...this is not a hobby to you?

Yes, mantra evo isn't processing friendly for sure, but what kind of computer were you running it on that it would freeze the whole time?
You know that I'm using MuLab and I'm on a 2.6Ghz Xeon (12 core, okok, but still) with MME drivers, not even Asio (because that is blue screen galore for my machine). Yet, I have 30 instances of the Evo running in real time.

Anyway...we all were frustrated with it for a while.

But, yeah...I don't quite know what to tell you, because you certainly represent enthusiasm I find admirable and a little more confident than I would've anticipated. I'd say: "Good on ya'!" as the Australians like to say.

moving on...