software vs hardware - time to move on? (Page 1 of 5)

What shall we discuss instead? I thought the point was to share techniques.

Well, it depends on the platform. You wouldn't create a clicky wavetable on a modern PC, like you would on a gameboy. It's fun to work with unique hardware.

I haven't seen the hardware vs software thing to be much of discussion topic in the past year or so. I think most of us have moved on?

I think what I interpreted this as may be horribly wrong, but I think goto80 is talking about how we can create art using our hardware and software, but instead we may not be focusing 100% in the right direction. As we continue to further things like LSDJ peripherals and Gameboy this, Atari hardware that, we aren't creating new software like we used to. Nitro2k01 blew our minds not too long ago with his new waveform generation thing, and that is only one step. goto80 isn't saying anything sucks as it is, but what the chip scene has accomplished thus far is still only breaching the outer atmosphere of what these platforms can do. We can be content with making music, and short movie-like demo stuff, but there is still more to make. New ideas, images, sounds, and interface, new feelings too.

We possess all the tools and the knowledge to make new software and repurpose our chip hardware, but we don't seem to be so interested in that right now Stuff like nitro's homebrew ROMs are awesome, and there is room for plenty more awesome in this scene. Why don't we contribute some more? (I don't know, I wish I knew the answer to that.)

^ That's what I gathered, but I may be wrong.

Personally, I think the hardware aspect of chipmusic is only relevant in the modern context (by "modern" I'll say I mean the last 10-15 years), where just about any sound imaginable can be either created from scratch, or played back with essentially perfect fidelity, on any standard modern computer. As a consequence, it's not terribly remarkable when a standard modern computer produces... any particular sound or music at all.

Sample-based chipmusic wasn't hardware-oriented because it didn't need to be, because the hardware had no direct bearing on the nature of the sounds being produced (samples). Also hardware wasn't terribly relevant in the 1990s because people doing sample-based chipmusic were probably using machines typical of the era (Amigas in the early '90s for instance).

But the state of standard home computers even by the late '90s had jumped enough that the contextual backdrop had changed, and our expectations about the abilities of computers changed with it. I think when it comes to chipmusic, the hardware detail carried more weight against that more modern context; it was suddenly quite surprising to see antiquated home computers and handheld gaming devices producing music that defied our expectations of the machine's capabilities. Obviously it was our expectations that were flawed, these devices weren't actually operating outside of their abilities. But at the same time, the extent of those machines' abilities was never tested (or more fairly put, was never demonstrated widely enough for the average person to be aware), and so it created a point of surprise / interest. As a result, the device (and by extension, the process) became a distinguishing factor, and (for some) part of the appeal.

I also think there are some semantic ambiguities in statements like this. Obviously in a computing context, hardware & software are interdependent. I think the "hardware vs. software" idea in chipmusic is just semi-lazy shorthand terminology that really means "making chipmusic, as an aesthetic choice, on a machine that is capable of producing many other sounds, vs. making chipmusic, as an aesthetic and a process choice, on a machine that is not capable of producing other sounds."

Do I think it's a splitting-of-hairs discussion? I do. But I also still think it's a legitimate distinction, and not in a value-laden way. I think that most people who are interested in chipmusic can and do enjoy chipmusic regardless of the tools used to make it. It's just that for some people, the "hardware" detail can carry an additional element of interest.

my first impression of chipmusic has always been more software-based, back when i listened to chiptune 4chn MODs.   the idea of "hardware limitations" wasn't even front and center in my mind, i just thought, hey there are these songs that are meant to sound like older machines. 

for me it was always more about the aesthetic, the sonic result and what kind of emotional/nostalgic itches they scratched. 

i think my interest in the hardware aspect could be compared to, say, an archaeologist trying to understand how the state of technology at a particular time in history shaped the products of a society.  it's fun trying to gain that understanding, but the novelty can only last so long and after that it's time to create new product.

i don't really have any aspirations as to my contributions to society at large as a chipmusician, but my interest in chipmusic has always been rooted in appreciating the compositional purity of chipmusic - in other words, when you take away from today's music basic frills and luxuries such as "conventional instruments", can a piece of music still be appreciated for being compelling?  that's the one lesson i hope chipmusic can teach the world as/if it grows in popularity.

Last edited by bryface (Feb 4, 2013 7:13 pm)

I'll elaborate on this more later when I have access to a real keyboard,  but I don't want to throw out the distinction entirely; maybe just refine it a little. So far the assumption made is that hardware and software operate with each other in a dynamic way but our discussions of these interactions don't acknowledge the hardware as environment for software and vice versa. So instead of hardware vs. Software I think what we want is hardware WITH software, or analysis of software assuming a specific hardware context.

For an example of what I'm talking about, check out the book 10PRINT at 10print.org! It's an analysis of a single line of code run in a c64 environment by many different authors dissecting what it means in a really interdisciplinary way.

Last edited by spacetownsavior (Feb 4, 2013 9:07 pm)