On the question of artistic identity, and stuff...

Some artists will chose to change their name / use multiple identities depending on which project they are working on or with which media they are conveying their art through.
For some of these artists, the name change is effectively a change in artistic persona, involving the question of the subject's perspective and identity in their work. Read on Romain Gary/Emile Ajar for a real life example. Or ask Carl, maybe. Some will produce their work through a character's perspective as a layer between the artist and its work, yet will still release their work under their name. David Bowie would be a good example of that.

Most artists will release all of their work under the same name, be it their legal name or their pseudonym.

Now, considering that a lot of artists dabble, explore, evolve, morph etc... where do you draw the line? At which point did X became Y and should X be now known as Y? If said point in time has been determined, does X have to be known as Y?

Now, my personal opinion is that every artist should be free to present themselves as they wish, be it their name or how they choose to label their work. The audience members will decide what suits them.

Say I like my curry extremely spicy. Say Restaurant A advertises on their menu extremely spicy curry +++. I order it. It's subjectively bland.
Now I have a few options:
-Try Restaurant B (Yay! Their curry is so spicy I can barely handle it!)
-Fuck a curry, I don't ever want curry again in my whole life, just give me a burger already! (My loss. Curry is awesome.)

Also, necro-poster necro-bumping.

This thread was about people who quit the genre but continue to play the shows.  Regardless of software vs hardware, everyone has a line that gets crossed about what chipchoon is in their heart and ears.  If someone has "moved on" the only person you could get mad at is the shows organizer.  But if the show is a success with a decent, fun turnout, then you're just being a dick.  Don't rain on parades, dick.  People decide to "move on" because they see the scene as an amorphous finite blob.  While this scene is capable of giving you friends you can endlessly talk shop with, and it can help you organize a tour (like the old old punk scene), you won't find an audience outside the scene without playing non-chipchoon shows.

I also would like some kind of hardware compressor in my rig instead of software on my NSF's (plus the other stuff).

Yeah this thread was about chiptune vs. non-chiptune, basically. I make byte tunes. Well bytetunes and seamo.

I really want an outboard mixer and limiter so I can stop using the software ones. I'M GONNA HARDWARE MY SOFTWARE HARD.

P.S I'm not even being sarcastic. I want my hardware vs my software. :C

I want to make an analog computer out of a brain so i can end the software vs hardware warz

It's a black hole. We just keep getting sucked into it for some reason....

Hang on, why are people discussing hardware vs software again?   The "post-chiptune" or whatever you want to call it is about the music, not how you're writing it.   

edit: can't be bothered to get into the hardware debate again.

Thanks for the insightful response. What you say makes a lot of sense. I will defer to your expertise and experience.

I still feel like discussions like this should take place because nothing ever gets resolved or laid to rest by just ignoring it. The fact that this thread has gone on so long indicates that whatever resolution there is to be found on this "issue" is yet to be reached, but it will be reached eventually. Seems like it's mostly new people (like me) who are confused/conflicted.

That being said, the longer this discussion goes on the less it makes any sense. I kind of wish there could be a proper debate without all the "why are we even talking about this?" between "respected" artists who are "hardware till we die!"  and respected artists who are "whatever, man. Amiga, SID, Renoise, Reason... whatever", with the "I went from easy FL Studio VSTs to SlowTracker for DOS and now you are telling me it doesn't even matter!??!?" people as mediators.

I'll just say I've faced enough cognitive dissonance already to accept chipchoons for what they are.  No, not all chipchoons are techno but you'll find that, compositionally speaking, that pop/dance/rock music inherently shares similar symmetrical rhythms and melodic/harmonic pacing.  Once the actual song writing is obscured by the medium's presentation the source genre is lost.  So no, not all chipchoons are techno.  There is metal, classical, bluegrass and everything in between chipchoons.  I speak from my experience going to and playing chipchoon shows for a long time.  Most acts sound like techno to me.

ilkae, thanks for the link!  I like to emulate my .nsf files in winamp for my shows. 

HOW DO U MAK FAT KIK SOUND IN LSDJ??

http://chipmusic.org/forums/topic/10083 … o-move-on/

I think that the tendency to focus on the hardware chip itself as the source of "legitimacy" within this particular scene was discussed very well in this thread.

All chipchoon is techno?

I like what this man is saying

I still advocate that 'chip music' is music played back from an audio chip and 'chipchoon' is a bunch of goofy fools who like underproduced techno.

Sure, make a genre.

What's pure chiptune? Are chipmusic and EDM ususally mutually exclusive? I'd have guessed that the two very vague and broad terms wouldn't necessarily impose on eachother. You don't "blend" with EDM, either it's electronic dance music or it isn't. Having performed chipmusic live a load of times, I can say that whatever you play could easily classify as electronic dance music.

In what sense exactly doesn't the genre matter? In any sense?

Who are all of you people?