DIGITAL_DEVIL_DATABASE Community Forum

I just got my copy of P3, and the first thing I did was put on the soundtrack and listen to the whole thing.
 I have to say, I thought it was O.K. It sounded different compared to other Megami-Tensei games. I'm not really into the hip-hop, and I thought some of the English sounded kind of funny. But my favorite songs are definately Aria of the Soul and Kimi No Kioku.
So, I was wondering if anyone else has listened to it, what songs they liked, disliked, or anything else they have to say about it.
So.....Discuss!:axeman:

"Mass Destruction", "Want to be Close" and "Kimi no Kiouku" are one of the best, another good one but just to repetitive is "Tartaros".

I like the music a lot, it matches with the game's setting.

Yeah, I like the direction Meguro took with it. The hip-hop feel really helps set the setting for how young the characters are.

"Mass Destruction", "Battle Hymn of the Soul", and "Burn my Dread" are three crazy good tracks.

I heard a few tracks that were very upbeat and hip hop. Normally I'd detest that in an rpg but Persona 3 is about being young,alive, and living it up in high-school so the sound-tracks go perfectly with the setting from my first impression.

Well, the rap is tolerable. I despise rap, but whoever composed the soundtrack managed to make it good...for as far as poetry on steroids can be.

However, I must say Burn My Dread should be awarded 'Best Battle Music You Can Dance To'. This is the first time I snap my fingers to a video game song.

I don't usually like hiphop-ish stuff, but I thought it worked really well here.  Definitely a nice change from a lot of other RPG soundtracks.

I still wish there was more piano songs on the soundtrack. The few we get are absolutely stunning.

The "Velvet room" track was beautiful this time around. A lot clearer and yet it kept to  the tradition of the other games. I enjoyed every score  which is strange because most of the genres of music in the game normally aren't my thing.

What's the name of the tracks played during the Yakushima Vacation and Operation Babe Hunt? I managed to find a site for downloading the mp3s, but I'm unfamiliar with the track names.

I think the track at the beach was "breath hard" but don't quote me word  for word. The "changing of seasons" track was one of my favorites. It becomes  the  main music for school after you reach a certain point. Hopefully that is not too big of a spoiler.

I liked the battle theme of the full moon bosses. By the way, what's the track name for the dorm BGM?

Battle hymn of the soul, Subete no Hito no tamashii >> All except FES soundtrack IMO

By the way, does anyone know what track is playing while Akihiko was having his resolution? I need more sad songs ;p

Sorry to revive this tired old post but I just HAVE to provide some sort of counterpoint to all the apparent love the soundtrack is getting.

First of all, IT SUCKS.  I see a lot of people above seem to think it fits the mood/story of the game somehow, though I don't believe anything could be further from the truth.  I found myself constantly feeling how the soundtrack did not mesh with the game at all.  Move that body movethatbody make sure you don't hurt nobody?????  What the shit is that?  I thought I was playing a game about fighting evil shadows and summoning eldritch creatures with Tarot cards...  And then there's all those annoying horn-synths and that Japanese chick singing broken English BADLY.  I mean, seriously, what was Atlus THINKING?

If there was some feature about the game that required you to listen to the music (ala Mother 3) I would've declared it unplayable.  As it is, it mars the whole experience of playing the game.  However, there are a few tracks that do fit the game nicely, the Tartaros music is a good example, but the new Velvet Room music is god awful too.  I mean there are parts to when she's singing so high its almost ear piercing.

All in all, the music in P3 gives the whole game a very disposable quality, whereas the previous games could be looked on as rather classic.  I would never want to play through P3 again, whereas the MIP and P:Tsumi and P:Batsu I might think about fondly from time to time, even pop in and play for a bit.  I'd love to say that about P3, but I can't, if only because of the music, so I won't.

You're certainly not alone. I kept the sound muted throughout 90+% of the game's duration, I would not have been able to tolerate playing through it at all otherwise. For all the game's problems, the music is surely the single most hilariously awful aspect.

"Disposable" is a worthy description for the whole of P3.

Was the term "eldritch" actually adopted by the game that way?

Whatever happened to the BGM option?


editted: Someone could hack the soundtrack. It wouldn't be difficult at all I'd think. I might even do it myself, if I decide to play it.

I dislike Persona 3's soundtrack.I grew tired of listening to the same lousy songs loop over and over again.

I didn't think they meshed very well with the game. Some of the songs were good - I liked the new Velvet Room BGM (I still love Revelations' one more) and the final boss theme was a clever play on that theme, but some of the music was pretty alienating unless you happen to like J-Pop and J-Hip Hop. Unfortunately I despise the two, but I managed with P3's soundtrack. I hope they make P4's music along the lines of Eternal Punishment (in terms of style) and I hope they don't continue along the same main character-in-high-school vein. I personally liked the "outsider" view on high schools that was present in EP.

It's not like the music was crap (in my opinion), it was just a poor choice in terms of theme for the game.

Glad I'm not alone at least.  I just couldn't believe there wasn't one initial dissenting opinion...

Music is a pretty nebulous topic though, I mean one man's crap is another man's treasure, there really is no accounting for taste.  P3 was just trying way too hard to be contemporary/appealing with their soundtrack which is understandable to a point but makes for an entirely unlistenable experience.

That's why we have good taste and bad taste :group

Don't puss out just cause you don't get it :whistle:

Who's the arbiter of what's good and bad taste though?  Some prefer snails and some prefer oysters and some prefer both, we've all seen Spartacus (hopefully).

I still think the music in P3 is crap, I just don't want to catch hellfire (pretty avoidable on this board though) for thinking thus.

Well I'd rather not get into dissecting this line of thinking... especially cause I'd be inevitablly be accused of seriousness. In short, "taste" is a function of brain chemistry/wiring whatever you wanna call it. So yeah, its subjective. But saying a piece of music can't be judged good or bad, is akin to suggesting Manson woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

The universe is a nebulous place but that doesn't mean its inhospitable.

People can be conditioned to pay for anything and like it, but that doesn't make it fine and dandy either.

The problem of music is for the truly uninitiated there is so much sentimentality embroiled in it. It takes too much introspection for most to divorce yourself from social conditioning and listen to music as it truly is.

I can't personally fully indulge in just any kind of music, but I'm confident I can listen to any piece from any genre/culture and decide whether it is objectively listenible/applicable or not within some broad margin or error -- presuming the listener's mental landscape vaguely coincides with reality (in the broadest sense of that word)

I didn't say you couldn't judge music to be good or bad, I just said it's impossible  for that judgment to be valid since there's no good or bad that applies the same  to everyone.  It's like someone from LA saying, "This weather is terrible," and an Inuit saying, "This weather is great," when its 5 below and snowing out.

I don't think it's necessary to be introspective to enjoy music either, though I know it helps with certain genres.

Well of course I'd have to disagree with the basic sentiment of this notion. As for Californians vs. Inuits, your basically making a statement of degree. Or at the most sentiment (familiarity), which is not the same thing as good/bad (right/wrong) ...but I'm not so low brow to pick at a reaching analogy.

I dunno, the nature of this thread is rife for philisophical debate despite that I've really not been in any position to evaluate P3 outside of having listened to the battle theme once.

I could see how it might've flown in Japan. But I would never imagine a NA release with this particular soundtrack intact. That never would've happened only a few years ago. Its a fusion of so many music forms based in deep American heritage completely bastardized and overdubbed with so much belated belted out engrish. Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a fan of the catchy English one liner theme song formula as the next guy. The bread-and-butter of 80s anime music stylings. But more than five tone-deaf english words in any piece of jpop rightly so deserves to be mocked from the rafters. Especially if it sets foot on these shores.

Right vs. wrong/good vs. bad is a statement of degree.  Of course Manson didn't just wake up on the wrong side of the bed, but he wouldn't have done what he did if he thought what he was doing was wrong now, would he?  And you can't exactly knock me for "stooping," to analogy when you essentially did the exact same thing.  :mickey:

Following your logic assumes that there's some sort of arbitrary consensus for what's good and what's bad.  The distinction between goods and evils is a personal one.

Not to say I don't completely agree with you about the soundtrack.

The fact that you've *seen* Spartacus and are referring to it proves you have "bad taste." :dazed:

What?  That movie's a classic.:lurk:

I was knocking myself for digging deeper into an analogy than was obviously appropriate. What is with the Mickey emote btw? A custom emote for taunting me? Or am I missing out on something?


Everyone knows there is a consensus for good/bad even if they don't really comprehend it / grasp the detail. To say otherwise any sane person would give you a dubious look. Its no different with music. There is no opposite culture out there. There is archetypes built into music and all forms of communication which are derived from axioms of reality/the very nature of being that probably transcend all concepts of artifice. You can't say 1 is arbitrary, nor is good music. Of course we discuss music, but really this a conceit of all art or even judgment.

I'm not suggesting you have to be introspective to enjoy music. Perhaps quite the opposite. Chances are though if you're not you'll attach yourself to a particul imprinting of what music means at some point in your life and never be able to enjoy good music which comes from other venues. This association of music is really tied to sex/attraction, where as the alternative way to enjoy music derives pleasure  indirectly from the rush of intellectual understanding.

Ultimately the measure of good music/art is the interest quotient, or how much is inspires you to think. And if you want a pure objectification, the measure is the degree it inspires god to think (where in god is defined as an all knowing/understanding singularity, or like a man that knows everything possible)

Nah, the Mickey emote is in the smilies bar...  emeyesee-kayeeewhy-emohyouesseeeeeeeee  


Well of course that's debatable, I mean the only consensus that exists for good and evil is an arbitrary one of temporary attitudes and cultural movements relative to the times in which they are experienced.  And really your response is so dismissive...  The easiest and often most immediate reaction of people whose fundamental beliefs are challenged is to question the sanity of the challenger.


I didn't say there was an opposite of culture, I'm saying that culture itself is nebulous and transitory.  And though I think what Freud and Jung had to say about cultural archetypes to be entertaining, it's essentially fiction and self-delusion to think that these archetypes could provide some sort of compass or insight into the nature of a broad-based and applicable (to the whole of the natural world) definition of right and wrong.


Attaching personal meanings to life (and naturally, music) is what being a human being is all about.  Sure I suppose listening to music (or experiencing any sort of art really) can be a transcendent experience but you certainly can't expect this of a casual listener, or anyone that's not a completely dedicated listener.  Experiencing music is an intensely personal experience, and everyone's experiences are essentially different, though perhaps not mutually exclusive.


But see that's your own personal take on it.  It has nothing to do with culture as a whole or objectivity in any sense really.  Meanings and preferences are your own personal attitudes, not a generalized consensus to arbitrate judgments of a cultural good and evil.  Music, like all forms of communication and art, is existential.  Thus any sort of label ascribed to them, other than a personal one of course, is necessarily faulty.

Oh you just went there :doh:

You're mearly choosing to adopt an easy purview of the human condition. Specifically existential humanism. Which is a great principal by which to articulate ground rules for a maturing society. But its by no means the bedrock of existence itself. If you attempt to appraise everything in terms of the individual, of course your notions of common-sense will differ. But you're playing with symbols, not concepts. The concepts themselves are patterns both macroscopic and micro which repeat and propogate themselves throughout the natural universe (however you wanna define that)

Small caveat, you're needlessly shifting the argument here away from "bad/wrong" to "evil" or mixing the concepts. Frankly evil is much easier to delineate than bad, as it is an absolute modality. Bad/wrong on the otherhand are purely situational in most realms of thought, however within the realm of atistic merit this is in most practical instances of debate not the case, so we're in the clear.

Notice how you've gone from questions of taste to some very broad philosophical dilemmas (which I was attempting to avoid)

editted: Also notice, to say, "Wow I really like/dislike this music.", is a radically different statement than "This music is bad/unlistenible." Of course you can disagree with  this observation, but then you're just mincing symbols again I think, which gets us nowhere.

PS: So what does a Mickey emote really mean then? :batman:

Mickey/Mikey... harhar.  Jeewhiz you're thick sometimes. :geno:


Look who's talking, Mister-"this thread is rife for philosophical discussion."  Although I think you meant "ripe," since there really isn't much in the philosophical bent in the whole board.

Let's pick apart your points here, shall we?


I can't tell if this is supposed to be Pavlovian or some weird, didactic version of New Age-ism but...  If you're trying to say that art/music can be judged good or bad (and applicable to the whole) based on how the art in question is constructed, I can sort of see where you're coming from, but patterns themselves have only so much meaning as each individual puts into them;  Art, by definition, IS existential.  Though patterns can repeat and are necessarily mathematical and can appear the same to multiple individuals, that has nothing to do with the emotional responses a particular piece of music can induce and/or memories that are triggered.  Concepts can be experienced communally but each response is different in everyone and categorizing music as listenable/unlistenable really only applies to yourself.  Even if you're going for "intellectual understanding," it's still your own personal response.  Own up to it.  You can't pass it off to consensus unless you're against an "intellectual understanding," as you put it and for quantifying all of humanity's emotional responses (which is impossible and completely pointless).


My small caveat: as I've put it before, "There are absolutely no absolutes," or if you prefer the less facetious version: "The only absolute is that there is no absolute."  Really you're just splitting semantic hairs.  You're the one who mentions evil first, my posts are in response.


Exactly as you maneuvered it.  I don't exactly see why laying the blame solely on me gets you anywhere since it obviously takes two to tango, as it were.  I'm well aware of the differences between saying you like/dislike something and saying its good/bad.  Originally I didn't make the distinction by mentioning I think before my first post, but I didn't exactly predict getting into a philosophical debate about the nature of art and music in general, though obviously you did somehow...  I wonder why? :program:

For the record, that was my original guess, but you denied it, so I pushed on. For the record :batman: is my condescension emote Robin :program:

Statements such as:
Always end in philosophical debate where I'm from. Even if I have to play Devil's Advocate.

There  I've picked at your first and last reposts now.

I'll have to try the creamy filling later I suppose  :)

There are both of these aspects to any form of expression. You're just refusing to admit the latter. Like existentialist, denying all meaning and existence itself. Which is precisely why existentialism as an -ism is not terribly popular you know.

I work with computers and numbers. I can program a computer to produce consistantly good or bad art. Its that simple. Sentimentality has nothing to do with such appraisal. Only sentimentality is subjective (by definition) ...the remainder of what art is, is purely objective.

You can see beauty in a cat, even though your not a tomcat. Most evolution selects based on purely objective/measurable qualifiers of beauty. Good music transcends time and the culture that produced it.

People all struggle with genetic and environmental predispositions. But ultimately as people mature, their minds begin to think more and more alike (optimally) -- That doesn't mean their personality disappears, it just means gaining access to an ever broader worldview and emotional maturity. Thats not to say a tragically mad man can't find a horribly produced piece of music or random sampling of caustic noise pleasurable, but it is a perversion of the senses only that could lead to such a state. Such is the face of true perversion, and don't kid yourself, the world is littered with it. This is why people dispise the music industry etcetera, and most people involved in producing movies and games really have no idea what they're doing, and our culture is suffering for it.

editted: Now that it springs to mind, I've half a mind to imagine some of the reason we're collectively wallowing in a sort of commercial dark age for art could have something to do with generations or art students being taught exclusively to these basic guidelines.

PS: Was the Mass Destruction song made for P3? Or taken from some jpop catalogue? Btw, has "mass destruction" ever been used outside of genocidal war circles? Maybe that is why it's particularly hilarious!

How's that for a trilogy :lurk:

Case in point:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582330-1,00.html

You're drawing the wrong conclusions as usual.  Why is it that I all of a sudden  become an existential-ist when all I'm saying is that a concept is existential in and of itself?

Also, punching numbers into a keyboard is hardly as broad as the spectrum of human experience as a whole.  You're working within a closed system with set limitations and expectations, all artificial in nature.

Even if "good" music could transcend time and culture, the qualities of which that would typify "good" music wouldn't, especially so if the culture creating them doesn't survive.  How many people of today still play the huehuetl and teponaztli instruments of the Aztec empire?

"Good" and "bad" change with time and tide.  You can hold things to what's been a standard that's been true for oh, maybe the last hundred years or so, or you look at it from a broader perspective and make your own judgments and own up to them.

I didn't characterize anyone as an adherent of existentialism technically. Though you shouldn't describe something as "existential", as that is more or less an unnecessary political statement -- to which subjective is perfectly a suitable alternative right?

The whole point of good vs. bad, is it is one or the other regardless of whether who or what gets it. That's the whole premise behind the critic, even if they're grounded in a culture.

The time and place where a piece of art is exhibited can't change it's merit, though it can certainly change its reception radically.