Good innovative fa-- "modern-DAW-based" chipmusic? (Page 3 of 4)

sylcmyk, disasterpeace, aivi & surhassu, i like these guys :  )

Imo, fish&chipp makes some pretty good stuff, he writes midis and then runs them through gcxsee or whatever it's called.

i prefer the term "music".

Sorry to wade it late, but I have to admit I'm kind of in Alpine's side of the court, here.

As someone relatively new to chipmusic, my whole reason for getting involved in the first place is because I wanted sound to come out of my Gameboy and now I have there is something inherently magical about it. I have had Pro Tools for years and while I am fully aware of the chipesque abilities within this domain, the fact that people have taken the time to consider which makes the best sounds out of a DMG, MGB or GBC probably means enough people care about the (and I use this word very reluctantly) "authenticity" of the sounds being produced. A surprisingly large number of people can hear nuanced differences in music, even if they can't describe them or care to know what those differences are. If you play someone a midi rendition of a string quartet and a real one, they'll say the music is the same but one sounds a bit odd, perhaps using words such as robotic or even fake, or maybe computerised. That's quite an obvious difference - the average listener can hear much more subtle ones, too, I'm simply using an example.

Maybe my years of listening to the sorts of bands who had to have this certain guitar, with this certain amp and this certain keyboard has made me a bit snobby about this sort of thing but I like having the sounds come from the original source. I'd always take an analogue piece of hardware like a 606 drum machine over a set of 606 samples, the original sound is what I'm after and I can alter it how it was intended to be altered, though admittedly chipmusic is far less elitist as analogue gear costs heaps and a gameboy set up is about £30 including the gameboy - why wouldn't you use the hardware?! (rhetorical, slightly sarcastic question)

Far be it from me to decide, but I personally believe it is unfair to label "fakebit" and whatever we're calling "purist chipmusic" the same certainly within the walls of this forum as there are fundamental differences in the way the sound has to be produced and as he says, if the point isn't to get sounds from the old hardware then I think I've missed the point, too. There's no denying that at the end of the day it is all "just music" and to the casual listener none of this will make much difference unless they themselves define their tastes by authenticity (and let's be fair here, some people do, and many artists market themselves in ways that flag up their authenticity to the sort of people that care about it as a key part of what they do in all genres, not just chip, completely ignoring those that will just hear "some music"). If we can have "House", "Funky House", "Ambient House", "Vocal House", I don't know, "Cawing Macacque samples House", then why shouldn't there be sub-genres of chip? It happens in all the others as well, synth-pop, punk-rock, metal, doom-metal...

In terms of how I ideally want to make my music, it is triggering the sounds on my Gameboy using mGB and MIDI out of Pro Tools (when I can finally get Pro Tools to send the right clock signals). The use of a DAW certainly makes it easier to produce in a lot of ways so I agree with others that it is mainly about the timbres but I don't think it can be argued that fakebit is a pretty accurate description for those who don't use the hardware. Unfortunately, it's not a particularly endearing term, much like labelling someone a "cripple" instead of someone who is "differently able". Both are technically accurate but one has very negative connotations and can be offensive. Synthchip or chipsynth or whatever was coined before has been my favourite alternative so far.

With all of this said, I've spent the last few months really listening hard to the tunes and links people have posted on here, learning more and more as I go. At the end of the day, if a piece of music sounds good I'm not going to stop listening to it just because a guy made it with digital synthesis or samples instead of an old games console. Someone else said music is music and I very much agree as I'm not going to stop listening to something good just because a guy made it on his computer instead of using hardware, though if that is entirely the case why aren't we linking stuff by artists who don't make chipmusic on here? Why are we on a chipmusic forum? For those that are interested in how it's made, why would there be a problem with making a distinction? Guitar mags are always telling people what guitar, pedals and amps have been used to get such and such a sound.

To bring this lengthy bawl to a close (sorry about that), I fully intend to use a combination of instrumentation in future compositions as my real intention is to create chip-based backing tracks for songs - SONGS - the main reason I compose music regardless of the style/instrumentation/limitations. If it needs digitally recreated stuff, then that's what it needs but if someone asks, it's nice to have a universally acceptable way of telling someone how it was achieved. Chipsynth FTW.

Am I late to the punch?

Because... we could always call it "synth". I mean sure, it won't always involve analog synthesizers a la Vangelis, but I doubt even the out run scene nowadays relies solely on hardware, much less old hardware.

And, well... we're using synth. AM? FM? Phase distortion? Additive? Subtractive? Granular? Procedural? Samples? Whatever? It's synthesis!

i prefer the term "egg"