Telerophon wrote:(I didn't read it because the thread title sounds absolutely dumb. "Less Flavor in Food?" "Less Stimulation in Sex?" "Less Words in Literature?")
yeah, but given his first post, what would you have renamed it to? if we can pick a better name, ill change it again
I didn't realize this was an already improved title, it must have been absolutely horrid before. 
I didn't mean to question your judgement as a moderator, either. Honestly, this thread is such a clusterfuck that I don't think I could even attempt to encapsulate what Lazare is trying to ask for with his "melodic chip-fusion music without repetitive rhythms" larking.
"Diverse Tonality in Chip Music?" Even that is too vague. I don't know. I'd say "Chip Music for The Illiterate," but that's kind of pointed. 
I'm really not even trying to be mean, but the Lazare posts I've seen really are characterized by the guy coming into a niche community and demanding seemingly in all seriousness to know why its conventions differ from more mainstream music—an ignorant question that belies both a lack of personal interest or research, and a flagrant disregard for older traditions in demoscene, homebrew, micromusic, hacker culture, et. al. that are still influencing parts of the "chip sound" today.
I think it's pretty obvious that there are many different platforms available to approach making "true" chip music, and running around saying "Why is everyone using a DMG ughhh" doesn't take into account reasons for it's popularity—actively developed and highly flexible software, relative inexpense, stereo output… there are a lot of compelling draws to the DMG.
Anyway, that opens another can of worms, which is the mainstream appeal of chiptune and "the chip sound" to laypersons who do not find the creation process interesting—which is what I assume we have here.
EDIT: Also, I mean, fucking ponies.
Last edited by Telerophon (Aug 2, 2012 1:49 am)
