Posted - 2020/12/14 : 15:48:05
Hardcore has spent the last three decades speeding commercial dance trends up to 170 BPM. Every attempt to carve out some kind of genuine identity has eventually failed, which is why there are only three relevant golden eras/distinct styles of hardcore: breakbeat ('91-95), happy ('96-'99) and supersaw ('03-'11) -- the latter turning out to be surprisingly resilient and lasting compared to what came before and after. To each their own on personal favourites: I obviously favour the supersaw era but have respect for the other two.
I have a morbid interest in what hardcore is going to be in the '20s. Let's find out, I guess.
Posted - 2020/12/14 : 17:33:38
I'm still listening but overall I've thoroughly enjoyed this mix. Much, much more than I thought I would given the direction hardcore took to drive me from the scene in the first place. The effects actually weren't as common in the backend from what I noticed (though I was writing on here at the time!). Good stuff, well done. :)
Posted - 2020/12/14 : 21:47:01
For something harder, new album from Skinrush. This isn't the type of hardcore I usually listen to but came across this from checking out some Enzyme Records releases. Hadn't heard of this duo before. Thought this new album seemed well produced - songs seemed quite interesting with good breakdowns and good use and choice of vocals. Some tracks are hard but like sound of the kickdrums in some tracks and some good melodies. Some tracks contain some good variations in kickdrums.
Nice to see active new members since I left. Just for that, I'm going to check out one of your mixes. :)
Hi and thanks. Are you back for good? I would like to take on your 60 hardcore tracks in 60 minutes challenge.
Engage yourself for effort-posting, my friend. But records are made to be broken. :)
This is going to be a very long post because it includes a copy-paste of a thorough ruleset I constructed with my friend Mike in 2015 for hardcore speed-mixing competitions and I think it's still a very solid base (and it's the ruleset that "60 Songs" follows). We were hoping to get other people involved so the fact that you've asked and given me the opportunity to post this makes me happy!
Feel free to send me anything rapid. I hope to have the excuse to eventually set up a site for tracking the record and contest leaderboard as I said I would in the draft rules (see below). Don't worry if you're not close to breaking 0.9 yet. All of my other mixes are 0.6-0.7 and I plan to put those in the leaderboard too just to make it clear how much is required. Besides, 0.6-0.7 is still a rapid ****ing mix; traditional compilation mixes and the most basic sets are 0.25-0.4, extending up to about 0.5 for livesets and studio mixes if the DJ has a reputation for playing quickly. Gammer is the only famous hardcore DJ who consistently plays above 0.5TPM and not actually by much a lot of the time. From these stats you can see why 0.95 is a big deal, to the extent of quite justifiably being considered a record.
FWIW, I'll probably return at some point next year to finally at least break 1.0 (if you beat "60 Songs", I definitely will return for my crown!). It's incredible and infuriating to me that running 3 minutes over on "60 Songs" gave me a 0.95, which sounds far away from 1.0 when it's really so damn close. I won't be making that mistake again: all I have to do is ensure that the number of tracks beats the number of minutes to guarantee the win. I could actually re-record "60 Songs" with an extra few minutes containing a silly number of tracks.. And I would win doing that, because the rest of the mix is already well inside the rules. But it just wouldn't be cricket. It'd be poor sportsmanship and I know there's a group of people who enjoy my mixes so I'd be gypping them out of a brand new one after years of dormancy.
But OTOH, I'd have to listen to thousands of new tracks, find the ones that I like, learn to mix with them, and then find good transitions for them -- **** me! This is why one mix doesn't just take me the length of its runtime. They're usually hundred-hour creations. Gammer says exactly the same about his mixes and he has a far smaller pool of tracks to realistically choose from.. And with all the years of hardcore I've missed (most of everything after about 2016), it's going to be a project and a half. But then all my mixes are projects. That's how I enjoy treating them. And it's why I've released an average of one for every two or three years that I've been DJing.. The strange thing is that I've done less than 40 mixes in my life despite having been a DJ on Krafty Radio, having played house parties and stuff, and having been at it for over a decade now with some (if I may say so) pretty cool mixes. From the beginning, I've wanted my mixes to be climactic events rather than just another everyday commodity. But that's enough of that tangent! Let me get on to the background and ruleset I created years ago! :)
Copy-paste of existing stuff from here on out:
I, with help from my friend Mikey who competed against me throughout 2015 and narrowly lost, already formalised rules for this exact scenario. My record mix ("60 Songs in 60 Minutes"), Mikey's attempt (which I still have somewhere but need permission to upload), and the mix we were both trying to beat all adhered to these rules (as well as my aborted sequel "120 Songs in 90 Minutes"). I gave up on "120 Songs" for a good reason - one which led me to think that *heavily* beating "60 Songs" is almost pointless or at least stupidly difficult - but more on that in a minute.
It might seem like there's a lot of rules - and there are - but they're mostly entirely standard stuff that >95% of hardcore mixes follow by default. The rules are there to remove ambiguity and to prevent a situation where someone crams three-second slices of tracks together to "win" by creating a technically unbeatable but also entirely unlistenable mess. That is the antithesis of the reason the competition was formalised in the first place, which was instead to encourage skilled DJs to create amazing fast-paced technical mixes for people who love that shit as much as we do.
As I started working on "120 Songs" and trying to break my own record, I quickly realised that 120 songs in 90 minutes would mean that each track would be able to play for an average of 45 seconds. As a DJ, you probably already recognise the significance of 45 seconds as almost exactly the length of one drop (both phrases). To create a mix that still sounded good under those conditions, I was going to have to do some ****ing stupid stuff, if, indeed, there was a way to make a mix like that still sound good.
After plotting about 20 minutes of material that included 10 double drops, I was struggling to go anywhere that didn't end in drop after drop after drop, and it wasn't very good to listen to. There's very clearly a limit on how high tracks-per-minute (TPM) can go before you start creating masturbatory speedrunning-type stuff for yourself and your own niche community that nobody on the outside would want to listen to. The magic 1.0 that I came so close to reaching on "60 Songs" is near the upper limit of sanity, in my opinion, but it remains to be seen by how much! Regardless, I do feel like there's tons of room for improvement in that someone could do an actual 1.0 or beat mine by a 0.01 or two and have it sound great.
The main takeaway lesson of the aborted "120 Songs" project is that you hit the point of marginal gains and diminishing returns long before 1.3TPM, and that the difficulty curve is exponential past a fairly low level. I'd say ~0.7 is where the difficulty curve blows up and that even ~0.6 is a challenge as it's the point after which you can no longer afford to let any track drop twice. At 0.7TPM, you get an average of 1:27 per song, which is a short breakdown followed by a standard drop and nothing else. With 1 minute and 27 seconds per track, a vanilla DJ would be stuck chaining them back to back, drop to breakdown and back again, in a repetitive pattern.
- 2012 (0.5 TPM): I created a 90-minute mix called "The Touchpad Hardcore Mix" (>0.5 TPM). I'd been DJing for two or three years. My style had always been fast mixing - "never let the same track drop twice" sums up my approach - but I wasn't planning on going for any kind of "record". "Touchpad" turned out to be very fast for a 90 minute mix and insanely fast for a mix done with a laptop, RealTek embedded soundcard and no mouse, controller or additional hardware. It had a lot of technical errors, particularly in cuts due to the 150ms latency I had going on with my soundcard and the difficulties of using a touchpad, but compared to a lot of mixes out there, it was unique. I'd found my niche. After that, I tried to evolve and switch up my style in every mix while still keeping an identity.
- 2013 (0.9 TPM, ineligible): Gammer was mixing close to his peak speed. Before he went back to mixing the old fashioned way even on compilations (I have massive respect for that), one of his prerecorded studio mixes, which he was fond of doing at the time, was about 30 minutes long but contained almost as many tracks as minutes. It was ineligible by our rules for several reasons but it was a blistering feat of speed regardless. He actually noticeably slowed down a little in most contexts for some time after this. I think he understood a lot of people's complaints that he no longer knew how to just let a tune drop (which is a pitfall I've always worked hard to *try* to avoid despite its inarguable impact on TPM).
- 2013/2014 (0.811 TPM): During this time, I made a habit of keeping up with Gammer's mixes as I had done since the beginning. Even if I'd gone off him as a producer by this point, his mixes were a snapshot of where mainstream UK hardcore currently was and where it was going (the same function CXH used to fulfill) and his snappy mixing style was still a fun delivery system. I calculated the TPMs of all his fastest livesets during this period and still have the result of his highest in a text document: "Gammer: 0.811tpm". That kickstarted the TPM love affair for me and Mikey.
- 2015 (0.83TPM): I was very active in production in 2014 and 2015 so I was just devouring other DJs' mixes throughout the non-producing parts of my days as a way to stay constantly exposed to the wonders of my favourite genre, old and new. I heard every major DJ and almost everyone in the scene with more than 50 SoundCloud followers during this period. Any time I heard a mix in 2014 or 2015 that sounded like it had a high TPM, I'd figure it out. I heard some people floating around the 0.6-0.7 mark (which, for context, is faster than the vast majority of DJs and means basically never letting a track drop twice). Only one guy with one mix was above 0.8 and it was one of the guys with strange names in that "French production collective" (one of them is on this forum -- or at least was). I'd like to try to find out the other DJ's name from him at some point (the guy did an unauthorised but very funny remix of one of my own productions but I just can't remember his name!). All I remember is that the mix was 93 minutes long and that its TPM was 0.83. The guy didn't have great English but it was pretty clear he was boasting about his TPM in the SoundCloud description. And that set the scene for me and Mikey. We were also spurred on by what was happening in dnb at the time, where it was perfectly possible for any competent DJ to get to 1TPM (I've done it: it's much, much, much easier than in hardcore due to the comparative nature and particularly structure of the genres. 1.1 or even higher is the target for dnb IMO, but plenty are competing for that one.
- 2015 (TPM: 0.92-95): Mikey and I planned, performed and recorded mixes in tandem. I produced "60 Songs in 60 Minutes" and he produced "G-Force 60". Both were intended to be mixes just over the one hour mark with 60+ tracks in them (i.e. the bare minimum one could do to break the full-length 1.0TPM boundary). I still have his mix somewhere on my many 10TB HDDs and will try to get permission to upload it since Mikey, like me, long since gave up on modern hardcore. He achieved 0.92, which was still remarkable and probably in line with or better than anything anyone else had achieved up until that point (to the best of my knowledge anyway). I went the extra mile and got enragingly close to that 1.0 with my 0.95.
- Now (?TPM): I'm sure there have been plenty of fast, high TPM mixes hitting all of the competition criteria since 2016 when I was driven away from the scene by the low average quality of the music coming out and by a serious long-term illness that would make it extremely difficult to commit to a scene my heart was no longer in (I'm receiving something resembling serious treatment ATM!). I haven't done a thorough check but AFAIK nobody with a public presence has uploaded anything to dethrone "60 Songs" in the meantime.
1:04:07 (1 hour, 4 minutes) is my actual competition time on that mix. The rest is a kind of "extended mix" that happened because I decided to run with the Future Set vocal mashup until the end for listeners' sake (it's also why there's an audio ****-up about a minute later where one channel just cuts off because the full version wasn't supposed to exist). The competitive version cuts off right after the end of the first drop at 1:04 for a total of 61 tracks in 64 minutes (61/64 = 0.95). To keep it foolproof for the mathematically disinclined, we calculate the score as (eligible tracks)/(whole minutes rounded down) -- otherwise it's a multistep calculation to include seconds and the less intuitive or careless mathematician might try 61/64.07.
ACTUAL RULES AND STUFF Basics
- The mix must be a full-length (>=1 hour) mix consisting of a supermajority (>=66%) of happy/UK hardcore tracks (or closely related rave genres). The mix should have a base tempo inside the genre standards (165-185 BPM). If your typical speed is honestly outside this range, you can continue to use it (the advantage of mixing at 180 vs 175 is actually not spectacular). Remember that going above 180 can be quite offputting to new listeners, which is kind of the opposite of what we're going for.
- The mix has to actually make sense as a mix: the whole thing must stick to a well-defined 4/4 pattern (or 6/4 if you're playing something like "Paranoia") and not sound like someone using the crossfade transition in Windows Movie Maker. This is intended to be a very low barrier to entry and anyone who has a hope of legitimately beating any record produces these mixes all the time already.
- A full tracklist must be provided along with the mix. It must include every track that is audible for so much as a split-second (this is to help interested listeners figure out what they're hearing).
- Mixes must be performed and recorded live in one session. Preplanning your setlist and even your transitions is almost a necessity to get reliably good results. Even practicing in advance is recommended. Some people want to come off as effortlessly cool or ******** like that but I'll be the first to admit that I put a lot of time and love into "60 Songs" and I'd be shocked if anyone is producing mixes of similar technical prowess without either hard work or shortcuts (Gammer used to, if not still does, premix some stuff to make his double drops easier, which should make anyone who does it 100% live feel great).
- Postprocessing should be limited to trimming silence etc. from the finished mix and some optional volume normalisation (or mastering if you must). Small "quality-of-life" normalisation to make your mix more pleasant to listen to is encouraged if clearly needed (the goal of the competition is not winning so much as encouraging some awesome fast mixes). Ideally, one would have the skills to manage the perceived overall level during the mix as you would need to while playing out, but we all make mistakes with volume, which is always difficult to level properly between headphones and speakers.
- Some people put their mixes through mastering plugins with compression - and you can if you really want - but I personally don't do that and it's honestly a pretty bad idea: your average listener may not consciously notice but due to the way that tracks in genres like hardcore are already maxed out at 0.0dB, you're potentially introducing distortion and clipping artifacts into your mix that experienced listeners will hear and hate (some applications like VirtualDJ offer headroom options which can circumvent these problems to a limited extent: you're still pushing the compression even harder in a very compressed genre).
Definitions Subtrack: Any track that is audible but never becomes the primary or focal track is defined as a subtrack and counts towards the total track tally (so long as counting it doesn't violate any Track Eligibility rule). Subtracks are marked with a "-" before the artist/title in the tracklist (see Tracklist rules). Common uses of subtracks include double drops, acapellas, cuts, scratches etc. (unless they later become the primary track). Theoretically, subtracks can be nested (the naming algorithm is then recursive; see Tracklist Rules), but subtracks of subtracks are very rare in practice since they would usually require at least 3 decks playing aloud simultaneously without any ever becoming the focal deck!
10 Second Rule: The 10 Second Rule determines whether a track, subtrack or transition is eligible for inclusion for counting purposes. Tracks, subtracks etc. must be audible for at least 10 seconds to be eligible (these seconds can be consecutive or nonconsecutive as long as they total at least 10). 10 seconds is the gold standard because it's approximately the length of 8 bars at any reasonable hardcore tempo. If you're playing a hypothetical Track One together with Track Two for 8 bars before moving into Track Two, both tracks and the transition pass the 10 Second Rule. If you drop the odd beat or bar out of either track during this time for stylistic reasons (e.g. moving one way during a end-phrase fill), the tracks still count. There's some subjectivity here so just don't take the piss.
The purpose of your tracklist is primarily to promote our scene and its producers by helping people find the music. The list is also required for competitive purposes but I'm trying to be accommodating and mindful of the purpose of this whole exercise: to have fun and celebrate hardcore DJs and producers! As long as you're acting in good faith, you can use your own best judgement regarding the best way to present your tracklist. If the info is clear and available, some deviation is fine. There are, however, a handful of "must follows" for the sake of good competition and to easily generate stats programmatically using regexps.
Any intelligible format is acceptable for the artist and track names. I use the simple "<artist> [feat. artist] - <title>" format. Feel free to include record labels and/or timestamps etc. if you want to be extra helpful! Timestamps are especially helpful for judging your mix from a competitive standpoint (I regret not doing them previously and will do so in future!).
- Use one line for each track played.
- Any track that is audible at any time must be included.
- The tracklist should be in strict order of audible appearance.
- If a track is ineligible under the Track Eligibility rules, start the line with a hash character ("#") before the track info (this allows for automated line counts).
- "Subtracks", under various names, are common enough that there's already a semi-established rule for listing them, which is what we use. A subtrack is listed on a new line directly underneath the track that it's a subtrack of and denoted by a dash symbol ("-") preceding the subtrack name.
e.g. "- Dougal & Gammer - Your One"
- Acapella tracks should be listed as a normal track or subtrack (in practice, they're almost always subtracks) but with "(Acapella)" at the end.
e.g. "- Carly Rae Jepsen - Call Me Maybe (Acapella)"
- Any special premade and/or non-live edits in the mix must be declared with a suffix that makes this fact clear. Include in parentheses an edit title or just your name and "Edit" as you would a remix.
e.g. "Darren Styles - Getting Better (Gammer Remix) (Elliott's Reversed Edit)"
Rules aren't fun. Unfortunately, some rules are necessary because it's super easy to create a statistically unbeatable mix that nobody would ever want to actually listen to. These rules may seem very pedantic - and they are - but I think it's better to be clear and unambiguous before the fact than to argue about it afterwards. Having the rules be well-defined is fairer for everyone. Honestly, you shouldn't even need to pay much attention: If you're engaging in the true spirit of the competition, you're probably following these rules without trying!
Mix Structure rules:
- The mix should contain at least 5 full breakdowns, 5 full drops, and should contain at least 10 melodic/vocal tracks (unless they aren't in your typical style). This is all somewhat subjective but it's good form not to break the rules simply because you can. Any one track can only be counted towards a single criterion from the list. The purpose of this rule is to promote variation in the mix and dissuade people from cutting through songs phrase to phrase every 22 seconds. These criteria are quite lenient: for reference, "60 Songs" with a 0.95 TPM contains probably at least 15 of each.
- At least half of the transitions between any two consecutive tracks in the tracklisting (where subtracks act exactly the same as regular tracks) must be _actual_ transitions and not just cuts. An "actual transition" is one that passes the 10 Second Rule. Double drops and other not-technically-transition segments where two tracks are playing together and meet the 10 Second Rule also satisfy this condition between the two tracks involved.
- Ideally, there should be a varied mix of styles of hardcore with some popular/anthemic tracks, which is to prevent unrealistic mixes of nothing but minimalist hardcore double-dropped for soulless efficiency. I mean, you can win by doing this but it'll be a pyrrhic victory.
- Tying into the last point, the overall result should ideally be a mix that people would want to listen to for fun and not just a vacuous technical showcase for its own sake. We formed the rules and laid down the gauntlet to promote more great fast mixes, not to stifle their enjoyability. There's no real point, in my opinion, in mixing if you're just doing it to fulfil some quota. These mixes, by virtue of being fast AND good, should make fans of hardcore say "wow, this is awesome".
- Although these rules seem rigid and austere, the reality is that any normal mix passes these tests with flying colours. Almost the only reason it wouldn't is if it was designed with mindless competitive efficiency as the sole priority. Just do your thing.
- Any track or subtrack (including nested subtracks) from the tracklist that passes the 10 Second Rule may be counted in the final tracks per minute calculation (except for any exclusions elsewhere in these rules). The 10 Second Rule exists to prevent e.g. cutting out single bars of random tracks and counting those.
- Subtracks used for/as double drops, acapellas, samples etc. all count as distinct tracks towards the total even if they never become the primary (focal) track.
- An acapella that exists separately from its original and must be beatmatched separately may be counted as a separate track as long as it passes the 10 Second Rule and doesn't overlap substantially with its origin track.
- A track that is used for scratching is counted as long as the scratching passes the 10 Second Rule and no other track is used for scratching at any point in between. If the track used for scratchingis played normally elsewhere in the mix, the scratching may be counted as a subtrack anyway due to the level of skill involved. A maximum of one track used for scratching may be listed as a subtrack between any two consecutive tracks. These rules don't apply to samples of scratching premade by others and played over the mix: those count as samples (see the rule below on samples).
- A track that is used purely for samples - on a "sample deck" or otherwise - may be counted once towards the tracklist as an eligible subtrack if it meets the 10 Second Rule and no other track is sampled with "sample deck"-style techniques in between those seconds. Sample tracks are those that can be triggered at any time without regard for beatmatching. Samples are frankly stupidly easy to abuse here so only a maximum of five sample subtracks may be counted as eligible tracks. I rarely ever use samples in hardcore and almost nobody does, but I want to facilitate different styles of DJing. Nonetheless, even if used in good faith, they confer such a big advantage, whether intentional or not, that they have to be limited to five eligible tracks (which is entirely fair because playing samples doesn't actually deduct from your time to play other tracks). A good, legitimate use of sampling can be found in "60 Songs" where I rhythmically trigger a variety of cut up samples from Willow Smith's song about whipping hair over Re-Con's "The Grudge" (yes, it counted towards the total).
Mixing methods and classification:
- Mixes must be recorded live. If they couldn't be broadcast for others to listen to while you record them, they're not live.
- Other than the requirement that they be live, they can be of any type: vinyl, CDJ, live digital software (e.g. Traktor, VirtualDJ, Mixxx, Serato), or quasi-live digital mixing software (e.g. Ableton) in a live performance configuration. The hardware and software used (including any post-production software, e.g. Audacity) must be specified.
- Vinyl is obviously allowed but, as awestruck as I would be by a record-breaking vinyl mix, the near-total lack of availability of modern (or even post-2010) hardcore on vinyl as well as the inherent "inferiority" of the format for this purpose (in terms of time efficiency and number of tricks and effects etc. available), I can't recommend it.
- You may submit non-live mixes to be included as part of the competition history/leaderboard etc. but only in a separate subdivision for studio mixes. Non-live mixes include those that use pre-mixed files, use prerecorded components, are assembled in a full DAW ("studio mixes") like FL Studio, Logic, Cubase etc. or Ableton in a non-performance configuration, or are recorded in multiple sessions and assembled retrospectively. Non-live mixes must be declared as such. Note that non-live mixes are usually obviously such and honesty is the best policy.
- Depending on the discrepancy in functionality between Ableton and other software (which actually seems to be shrinking to some extent with VDJ8 etc.), we may, in a hypothetical future in which a group of us are competing, decide to rank Ableton mixes separately, (Live etc. bring with them a whole new paradigm of mixing that may act as a PED in a straight speed shootout as Live is somewhere between a DAW and a performance tool). We would hypothetically consult everyone involved for their thoughts on the matter before segregating Ableton.
- All hardware and software (and any unusual techniques or components in the mixing chain) must be specified. Providing more specific details about your setup (e.g. "a touchpad" in the case of one of my mixes) and how you achieved certain feats, especially unusual parts of your mix, is strongly encouraged in order to help your fellow speed freaks. I've recorded videos, written tutorials, and discussed tons of my techniques over the years; in return, some of the producers in our genre have been great to me. Sharing is caring, and **** selfish people in our scene. I use VDJ so there's no concern that you're going to make yourself look like more of a "noob" than me (I can use Traktor and Mixxx flawlessly but I'll always argue passionately in favour of VDJ for its customisability).
- You can of course use the notorious "sync" function of your software and even most high-end CDJ units. I personally don't give a shit about the sync wars. When used right, it can absolutely elevate your end results to new heights where you have more time not spent worrying about beatmatching -- and I believe the end result for our listeners is all that matters in a mix, as long as we're still retaining that human element where we're choosing which tracks play, when they play and how. Funnily enough, I never use sync myself (except in a handful of cases of ultra-live house party environments). VDJ's sync algorithm has historically not been great and even if it is good now, my ears can accurately percieve millisecond timing differences so I literally always beat the computer when I beatmatch manually. It's a personal matter and a balance between accuracy, ability and technicality (if you're really trying to push the technicality, for example, you might be willing to sacrifice the accuracy of beatmatching sometimes).
- For competition purposes, I recommend recording your mix in a lossless format and keeping it lossless as far through the chain as possible. FLAC is the ideal format for exporting your final trimmed mix, not least for an archival copy. But ultimately we're just making mixes for fans. MP3s etc. are more portable and more widely compatible. I'll accept a mix in any lossless format or any common lossy format equivalent to or better than MP3 CBR 128Kbps (or VBR V3). SoundCloud uploads, to the best of my knowledge, are transcoded downwards to 128Kbps MP3s for streaming so they're not ideal but they'll do, as will modern YouTube uploads supporting OPUS and 128-192Kbps AAC. My personal transparent MP3 bitrate is not far above 128 so I'm pretty lenient with that stuff, but if we create a contest page, audiophiles and the like are probably going to want better.
Tallying tracks and calculating results:
- The tracks per minute (TPM) calculation is the ultimate score. It's a simple division: (total number of eligible tracks)/(total length in minutes as an integer). Length should always be rounded down (i.e. take only the minutes part and ignore the seconds completely). We use a whole number (integer) because the mathematically disinclined or careless might try to express 12 seconds as 0.12 (it's 0.2, but the mistake is easy enough to make). The formula is intentionally a simple one-step calculation (no rounding, no conversion) because you shouldn't need any mathematical ability to compete.
- Since this is the de facto standard document for the competition, we've set the accuracy of the TPM format to 4 significant figures (functionally, 3 decimal places; for example, 0.914). 3 s.f. (e.g. 0.95) is just not good enough for tiebreaks when the results tend towards clustering around the same area. You can express your TPM as accurately as you like so long as you provide at least this minimum of 4 significant figures.
- In the event of a tie at 4 significant figures, the tie can be unofficially broken, if desired, by comparing additional decimal digits (e.g. 0.9144 beats 0.9143). Since we specify a 4 s.f. standard, however, it can't be assumed that your 0.9144 beats a 0.914 (doing so would unfairly penalise someone for sticking to the standard). The 0.9144 and 0.914 are therefore officially tied.
- As an unnamed competition with no official component, there is no leaderboard or anything like that (the targets to beat were already established by "60 Songs" and "G-Force 60"). Even though we've been remarkably thorough in testing other people's mixes on their behalf and are pretty confident that we're accurately tracking real records, this is still not a widespread contest in an organised, purposeful sense. We're hoping one day - especially when we eventually make this specification document public - to encourage a legitimate speedrun-style competition with a public leaderboard and several active participants. If someone intentionally tries to beat "60 Songs" and "G-Force 60" and gets anywhere near them (say, 0.8TPM) with a published mix, we'll make the competition official by designing a nice webpage featuring links to the mixes and known competitors (as well as a formalised specification, based on this one, contributed to by the founding competitors and subject to iterative evolution over time).
quote:Originally posted by MusicILove:
What happened to your previous posts btw? I didn't get to see if you quoted my posts about your mixes. They've been an excellent reintroduction to hardcore!
I think someone got too excited with the delete key.
I have my first track and transition already picked out. :)
Maybe we should have a thread for this. To keep things organised.
Probably. The only question is which subforum? Hm.
I'm so hyped I've actually started writing a brand new track for the first time in three years just for my next mix.
It?s because Silver removed the spam.
quote: I nuked all the chicken spam if you quoted it... it got nuked as well
I am going to start at 90s Happy Hardcore. Then move in to 2000s era which is my favourite. Then end with some new stuff. I already have 7 tracks worked out. About to test record to see my time so far. But it?s fast I know it.
I am in 2 minds about sync for this. I will do things the old way but if I have to use it for a track or 2 I will state it and when it was used.
I am very excited too. I have been wanting to do this ever since I found your original post. I am also a huge fan of Gammers old mixes.