forum

[Proposal] categorizing markers on any edited audio

posted
Total Posts
6
Topic Starter
MJH

Ranking Criteria wrote:

• Unofficial cut versions of songs must add a (Cut Ver.) marker at the end of the current title. If a length marker is already in the title of the track, (Cut Ver.) would replace it. This is to distinguish unofficial cuts of a song from full length versions. Songs that are shortened in ways that nearly match their official versions, and songs that are a full loop of a looping track will not be considered cut.
 ◦ Note: If an unofficial cut contains matching sections in the same order and is roughly the same length as an official TV size, short version, or game version, it will instead count as an official cut and use the appropriate marker. Covers and remixes do not count.
• If a song has been edited to have a higher tempo, use a (Sped Up Ver.) marker at the end of the current title. If there is an existing sped up version marker in the title, replace it with (Sped Up Ver.). Sped up songs in Techno, Trance, Dance, or other similar genres must use a (Nightcore Mix) marker instead.
 ◦ Note: For tracks which are both cut and sped up, combine their markers into (Sped Up & Cut Ver.) or (Nightcore & Cut Ver.).
~ so far it appears these written rules cover only a fraction of the *simple* edits that could happen on an audio file.

despite the rarity of it happening (besides where it's shortened of course), I strongly believe leaving the rules as-is is just going to heap more and more unorganized cases, forming into a really bad mess. before the proposal I might as well try to brainstorm and list the possible ways in which an audio is transformed, without changes on its tempo; the following is only the output of mine that must be incomplete and arguable, so it'll need various inputs from various participants in this thread.


1. Cut Audio


  1. In any case the editor would remove part(s) of the original audio, resulting in shortened length, always.
  2. Examples are skipping the first verse, the second, the intro, the outro, etc.
  3. Related rules are Audio-Guideline-(3) 'If you do not beatmap the last 20% of...' and (6) 'Cut songs should maintain the general impression...'
2. Not a Cut

  1. Extended or not, more than removal is done to the audio. It is generally like snip & stitching the parts altogether.
  2. The editor would copy then paste a certain time period right after it or somewhere else, either making it loop or appear on the other part of the song. (e.g. beatmapsets/1615491#mania)
  3. The editor would switch the first and the second verse. Although this results in unchanged length of the audio, it won't match the original in the same order hence the need for a marker.
    (Words borrowed from Metadata-Rules-Standardisation-(7) '...matching sections in the same order...')
3. Exceptions examples

  1. beatmapsets/1281691#mania [Bow shock!! mapped by MJHs]
    The edit hardly affects the music, with adding a reverb in its very end (compare: https://youtu.be/9KZUIXIXerc)
  2. beatmapsets/995359/discussion/-/generalAll#/1194504 [Flyers!!! mapped by Fu3ya_]
    It is mixed using alternative vocal tracks extracted from the source game. Its structure and lyrics are not touched.
  3. beatmapsets/1754767#mania [End Time (A⇒Side long ver. edit) mapped by Evening]
    The audio is edited to the extent that it can be considered a remix of the original. At this point the editor may come up with a fitting marker themselves and can be given credit as well. (?)
with all of the above considered what I would like to suggest is simple:

We add another marker to differentiate the edited ones that aren't 'simply cut'- i.e. those that are technically Not a Cut Ver.
and one new marker ONLY, to prevent further complexification.
for now I'm leaving with an important side note that, since this proposal is pretty much open regarding the act of artifically extending the drain time, implementing anything out of it must be done with much care; the nominators and NATs should be able to rule out malicious intents on abusing the spread rule, if anything.




P.S. I was trying to incorporate in the post some extra ideas on alternative audio that certain BMS sabuns (e.g. https://youtu.be/Fo5FsYPzUS8) provide but realized it's more wise to not touch the subject >_>
Drum-Hitnormal
there's so many ways you can mess with the audio, its kinda hard to find a common word that would cover all those cases.

i can't think of a word to do that

if i add bunch of loli ASMR sound into my mp3, that would require use of your new marker?

although Cut Ver. isnt the most meaningful word for those special cases, i think people sort understand it as the audio is modified in some way. adding a new marker might cause more confusion than the problem it solves.
[[[[[[
I feel like something similar to what this map did, (Editor's Edit) would be nice, for light edit, an (Edit ver.) would be better imo

We still need to point out what's a "light edit" and what's a "normal edit" but yeah

@Drum-Hitnormal i don't think so, when i see the newest map ranked with a (Cut Ver.) marker, i'd think that the mp3 was, y'know cutted short, i don't usually think than the mp3 was edited in any other way other than that, but i maybe wierd sooooo
Dignan
Isn't this covered by this Guideline?

If the creator of the beatmap has remixed or covered the song, they are free to name it appropriately to signal that this song is a special version. In this case the original songs should still be clearly indicated in the title or tags in order for players to be able to search for the original songs.
As for what constitutes a remix, that would have to be a case-by-case decision. For example Skystar's Justability beatmapsets/475886#osu/1016701 vs. the original beatmapsets/1002073#taiko/2097539 I would consider a remix.
Ephemeral
Sufficient alteration to a track in the manner described here is what would typically be referred to as a "bootleg remix" if deciding what to call them is the issue.
Topic Starter
MJH
@dh

removals only -> cut ver
did a variety of things but used only the assets from og -> edit ver
did even more; for example composed then mixed a fully new track into music -> it's a remix.

quote unquote "ASMR"- it is technically a remix and with enough exquisite I doubt anyone will challenge it being one

and lastly, we DO need a new marker. in absence of right rule, 'extended' versions like
beatmapsets/1376308/discussion/-/generalAll#/3277087/8844595
can be claimed as remixes (read the post) under discretion of the mapper and nominators.


@dPeace

I'm also for (Edit ver.) and yes, drawing the line is of utmost importance here. while I believe any edited audio cannot be the reason to credit the editor alongside the title and the musician (in tags is fine should it be the case with another contributor), there might be rare exceptions anyways


@Sylvarus

yeah that's adding a different track so counts as a remix in my POV. I was mainly talking about non-remixes by the way, and RC doesn't cover all of that.


@eph

sufficiency would be achieved at around this level of alteration: https://youtu.be/09tzb8lkMwE
more seriously, bootleg doesn't indeed need stems but fiddling with a single audio file is never a remix IMHO

also for what it's worth crediting this much is demeaning to **actual** artists, but I know better than to rant about morals so I stop
Please sign in to reply.

New reply