Funny how this thread has actually made the wikipedia page SHITTER than it was.
Haha.

Let's hope changes keep happening to the point that it is far better than it originally was.

Added a bunch of "citation needed" to unsourced statements. I'd say we need to work those through either by finding reliable sources or by removing them. There are some statements that I find dubious or obviously untrue, but i left them in and tagged them for discussion. POV language in a few parts, too.

I also removed the "representative artists" section or whatever it was called since it didn't seem representative to me at all, there were no sources cited to back that claim up, and because it was basically just a list of artists like the one that was removed from the old article after some discussion. I doubt any of us will ever be able to make an unbiased, concise and relevant list of representative artists, even if we combined our efforts. Also name dropping lists are booooring and don't really belong on wikipedia.

All really good and valid points man, it's a really sticky subject.

How about polly tracker sids? VST? Samples which aren't from source file formats? What's real hardware and what isn't? Is a 386 with soundblaster "real hardware"? Is ahx fakebit? Is music made with more than one system and mixed in modern software (little-scale springs to mind) fakebit? As for "respected [sic] hardware", Amiga and PC are mod and IT's hardware respectively and you can play mods on amiga and IT on PC, so what's fake about that?

The fakebit article should just be deleted/merged with the chiptune article, it doesn't seem to contain any useful or interesting information.

Nah, tl;dr.

I see what you mean about the .it and .mod, though. However, they would fall under fakebit on my radar. If I can't play the source file on its respected hardware, then it isn't pure.

I'm not saying that it's bad. Hell, most .it and .mod are fucking AMAZING and done by seriously tallented composers/trackers.

I'm just an oldschool biggit purist with no modern new age thinking, haha.

i guess mod files have no legitamicy?  again - this is only talking about the tools and not the culture.  music is not just tools. the history is just as important.  no disrepect Heos...  did you read the earlier posts?

herr_prof we need:

a peer reviewed article would be nice in concept, but i don't know...   that still doesn't solve the problem of wikipedia - unless we ported it over afterwards.

Chip music: Any music composed using source file formats (.nsf, .sid. .sap, etc.) that can be emulated or played on real hardware.

Fake bit: Any music composed using samples of source file formats.

Nuttshelled

Yes that's a good idea since the 8bc wiki died and chipmusic.org doesn't have one.

+1
this would help reduce how often useful articles get deleted as well

Or maybe the chipscene should have its own peer reviewed wiki.

I think there are enough published material to write a well-referenced article, if only for the sake of lazy journalists/bloggers. From the earliest use of the term (as far as I've managed to find), chipmusic was a combination of technical restraints (filesize), aesthetics (beeps) and method (trackers) on the Amiga. Fakebit is more a reaction to the newer PSG/FM-centric definition of chipmusic, I guess. I published early ideas about this (and chipmusic as media/form) in Karen Collins' book From Pac Man to Pop Music.

I'm currently finishing my thesis on chipmusic, which partly focuses on the "social construction" of chipmusic rather than the ill-fated dream of one (1) "objective" definition (whatever that would be). It's not as easy to say that it's (almost) a consequence of hardware, for example since the software has standardized so many aesthetical elements. The techno-centric way of thinking also reproduces some rather dusty (humanist/individualist) ideas of man & machine as two completely separate things.

Anyway. If someone wants to get these ideas into Wikipedia, feel free to fight the Wikipedia maffia and I can join in and help. I still think that the media-form distinction works, where media is both production/distribution/consumption, whereas form is more about consumption. After my thesis, I'll try to get some of these things published so there'll be some more weapons in the Wikipedia war

I agree it (http://chipflip.wordpress.com/chipmusic/) is better.   Why can't we tweak that and port it to wikipedia.  I'd be happier with that.

emailed anders...

Wow, thanks for a great link. I hadn't read that one before, which is really too bad... it's probably the most well-researched and in-depth definition I've seen. And it totally wouldn't work for a wikipedia definition, haha.

"Chipmusic may or may not be a genre or a form, which might use some specific hardware (unless it doesn't) some of which might include video game sound-chips"

I do't have any energy to devote to this.
It was not my intention to offend you with my words. I didn't even said that you wanted to be the president of chiptune, I just used your example about the constitution to support my point of view that what has happened is wrong.

I depart the thread I shouldn't have entered, after all I expressed my opinion in my first post and I stand by it.

Sorry about the inconvenience.