chipmusic.org is an online community in respect and relation to chip music, art and its parallels.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
ChipMusic.org / Forums / General Discussion / Pitchfork: Radiohead's Kid A & OK Computer as 8-bit Video Game Music
That being said, I only cover songs I
a.) like a lot
and more importantly
b.) think I could really bring something unique to the table in recreating it
It's for this reason that a lot of times I like to do covers by mostly just memory, so that way if I don't remember how the arrangement exactly goes I will fill in the gaps with my own approach in exactly how I'd want to hear it myself
It's just a shame that there are people out there that unfortunately view covers as a cookie cutter method to publicity, I guess.
I don't have a problem with covers (as long as they are good, which is not really the case with these two albums), I think what you just said is true but it goes the other way around: music MEDIA views covers in chipmusic as a something they should give publicity to instead of actually putting some time and effort in investigating the chipmusic scene as a whole and showcase original works. They know their article will cash in with both fans of the recognized band AND nostalgia. Instant hit. But who would care less about the newest CONDOM release?
Well, mainstream media wouldn't care about SUBCULTUREARTIST - NEWFREEJAZZALBUM either unless it had a Justin Bieber cover on it or something.
Decktonic wrote:would they feature a chip cover of a rock song that tries to inject its own style or imagination into the original? would we call that a remix and not a cover?
Sure people would call that a remix and sure they would be wrong. Remix should always include original source material. If it doesn't, it's a cover.
99% of youtube users dont understand this. For them it is: Electronic cover = Remix
That being said, I only cover songs I
a.) like a lot
and more importantly
b.) think I could really bring something unique to the table in recreating it
It's for this reason that a lot of times I like to do covers by mostly just memory, so that way if I don't remember how the arrangement exactly goes I will fill in the gaps with my own approach in exactly how I'd want to hear it myself
Basically this imo, covers are 100% fine as long as you're bringing something new to the table, rehashing the exact same sounds and atmosphere might make the cover artist feel achievement, but everyone else is gunna be bored as shit.
Also I love radiohead but disliked these a far amount (mainly because of the above reasons, if it's the exact same but chip I'd rather listen to Radiohead doing it better)
http://www.pitchfork.com/news/46600-lis … ame-music/
I mean it sounds fakebit as all hell (complete with mario coin sounds and everything), but it's cool that pitchfork is covering something like this....... right?
Really. This is awesome. I've been listening to these two Radiohead albums so much and it's so entertaining to listen through them now as chiptunes. The idea is brilliant and it must be hard work to actually pull this off.
Kudos to pitchfork for this.
bawk bawk mainstream media bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk popular music covers bawk bawk bawk bawk
these songs are so great they´re good even made with magical8bit.
the thing is these songs only sound vaguely like the original, and not because they're taking any liberties, just because they're not good covers. Pitchfork has always been dumb, but the only reason they're posting this is because it's Radiohead and they fucking love anything remotely related to Thom Yorke. Like I love Kid A, it's a great album, these covers are just bad. that's really it.
Wait something to add. Covers should really be about adapting the original song in a way that either expresses the energy of the original, or changes it into something altogether different. these ones are emotionless note for note, beat for beat covers that don't bother trying to capture anything beyond basic notation
For once, pixls' invalidation instincts agree with mine.
9h05t5 don't talk
Last edited by 9H05T (May 24, 2012 10:42 pm)
No one cares that these covers weren't created on actual hardware, they care that the covers are totally uninspired with regard to sound design and arrangement. Also, that's what I care about too, but I don't actually care much.
Point missed yet again.
There's a lot of people doing fakebit, for the most part it's just as appreciated as the authentic stuff. I love hundreds of fakebit songs.
This however, is on the low end of the spectrum in terms of fakebit quality, whether it be in sound design or actually even getting the covers right! It reeks of laziness.
Point #2 is that it blatantly cashes in on the novelty of OMG 8bit. When this becomes something that defines 8bit music in popular culture, it just shows it as a lazy, poor sounding, novelty aesthetic when that couldn't be further from the truth.
This is lazy music being covered by lazy journalists
This is lazy music being covered by lazy journalists
↑↑↑ this ↑↑↑