Here's a little thing I was wondering about, how do you create depth in your tracks?
The reason why I'm asking is that I have spend the last months in trying to finish some tracks that I had been making on Nanoloop for iOS in the last years. Since these were more like sketches than anything else I exported them from the iPhone to individual tracks and finished them in a "normal" DAW.
There it became apparent how much more you can do to add depth to the tracks, like eq-ing, adding reverb, working on the stereo spread and so on.
But then chipmusic was always about doing advanced stuff with the little tools the chips/trackers would offer, which is also the fascinating thing about it. In fact I'd like to push myself to writing a whole album just with SIDwizard (as soon as I can find some space to put the c64), which in turn poses the question: how do you give more depth to the tracks if the more conventional methods can't be used? Or maybe the cool thing about chipmusic is that it's all "in your face"?
how do you give more depth to the tracks if the more conventional methods can't be used?
I'm probably going to give a long rambling answer, so apologies in advance. I prefer music that uses elements of chip, but creatively incorporates other sounds or instruments. That can either be building on a base of chipmusic with vocals and guitars, or using a SID synth or Game Boy on top of a more traditional band track (though I generally lean towards the former).
For my own music, I often write the song structure in LSDJ, and then MIDIOUT to layer up with some other interesting analogue synths and drum machines, which gives the tracks a bit more oomph. I'll then add in some additional guitar lines or vocals or synthy parts depending on what they need.
Check out these two releases if you are interested:
https://bowtie.bandcamp.com/album/tokyo
https://bowtie.bandcamp.com/album/drouth
Here's some of the things I've tried to spice up my tracks without adding in other instruments:
* Record each channel separately. (so PU1, PU2, WAV, NOI separately, so you have more control over them).
* Record each channel dry, and then re-record them using different hardware effects (or just duplicate the channel and apply VSTs if that's your thing). I tend to use a delay/reverb on PU1 and PU2, maybe a distortion or fuzz on WAV, and a gated delay on the drums.
* Stereo spacing! Pan some reverbed or effected channels to the left or right, and then keep the dry channel in the middle.
* Record the tracks to tape, then re-record them back to the DAW to give some texture.
In terms of what you can do actually within a tracker rather than in production, I've got less suggestions for. It'll really depend on the individual tracker. In general though, in LSDJ I would try to:
* Be careful not to make things too dense or 'messy' with competing runs or melodies. Be aware of the silence, and let each individual channel shine. Double up channels so they are playing the same thing to bring them out stronger, and don't be afraid to mute or have some channels play nothing. This means your tracks can be simpler, but appear deeper.
* Vary the instruments within channels. Something I don't do enough of... switch up the waveform/instrument settings within chains. Done creatively, it can sound like you have a whole lot more going on in the track than you actually do.
* Clever use of panning (usually keep the bass line centred though, as it grounds the track, and if you ever cut to vinyl it can cause problems if it is panned).
* Rather than writing in the 'chip' sort of mindset where there is one strong melody, think about the 4 channels as if it was a band. PU1 and PU2 guitar (lead and rhythm), WAV as bass, then NOI as drums. Write the tracks as if a grunge/rock band would play them. It can lead to more complex tracks, as you think about the parts differently, rather than a single melodic run.
@unexpectedbow: thanks for all the inputs! I usually also prefer to incorporate chip elements in a more varied combination of instruments and sound sources. Actually mostly I have been working with using chip elements in experimental compositions (eg. Game Boy and Bass Clarinet duets) or electronica tracks. The album I was referring to earlier also is associable with this approach, despite being written using a classic chiptune tracker (Nanoloop), even if it's the iOS one and not the Game Boy one.
I agree with the list of proposed techniques, which one way or the other I have been using when producing tracks using a DAW or multi-track recorder.
I was more interested in thoughts on creating depth in "pure" chiptune music (though I'm aware of this being a very wide field), so thanks for those ideas as well!
I totally agree about the silence thing. That's indeed very important, in music in general I'd say. Also, I think chipmusic is at its best when it's minimalistic in its approach.
Also I totally agree about the last point.
I think I maybe have to be more specific about what I intend with depth. I really mean the whole foreground/background interplay which you have when treating sounds in different ways in musical production.
I was thinking that also the type of waveform that one uses can determine where we put the sound... for example the noise wave usually is very present and close. Actually one issue I always have is that the hihats I make tend to be too much in front of everything, while I'd rather have them sit in the background (and most of the time I avoid using the chip to make the drum parts at all). Lowpass filtering, or eq-ing the noise helps a lot though.
I think that a more harmonically poor wave like a triangle or sine wave usually sits more in the background than a square wave. This can probably be used to create depth, but I haven't really tried to do that in a more programmatic way, since I really only thought about it now 
Rather than writing in the 'chip' sort of mindset where there is one strong melody, think about the 4 channels as if it was a band.
Though... thinking about it... a lot of chipmusic follows the "song" paradigm. i.e. a paradigm where you have one central melody, some instruments that underline and support it harmonically, and some drums to do the timekeeping and to enhance the rhythm. Which is basically the same any pop/rock (including more underground flavours of it) band does. Usually the voice carries the melody, maybe you have a second lead instrument that takes over from time to time, and the rest is there to complete it by adding harmony, low end and enhancing/marking the rhythm.
So I don't see the big difference. But what can be useful is to think about every channel as having its own identity sound wise... which indeed takes us back to the band comparison.
You can go a long way if you program your instruments to sound more expressive!
• Experiment with strategic pitch slides.
• Incorporate vibrato to make your melody sound like it's being sung by a human
• Program your hi-hats to have varying attacks. Because if you were a real drummer, the hits would naturally be inconsistent.
Just a few suggestions, to get you started. Good luck!
which in turn poses the question: how do you give more depth to the tracks if the more conventional methods can't be used? Or maybe the cool thing about chipmusic is that it's all "in your face"?
I enjoy really dry sounds. I try to take advantage of them. But if you want depth on-device, basically just make your sounds As dynamic as possible within 4bit sound, which is actually quite a bit. Use different volumes to create layers. Use envelope command a lot. Use the left/ right balance to spread sounds in the stereo field. You can go far just with volume and panning.
Actually one more big one is pitch detuning. In LSDJ for ex, just vary the fine pitch of pulse instruments in the 2nd track. Play the same notes in both tracks, for a detuned effect. But just spreading out the pitches slightly gives nice results. It gives a crazy spacial sound.
Edit: oh shoot, another easy one is simulated delay. Just program delay effect using envelope command. If you have two tracks running simulated delays, ity will sound lush. Or interleaved delayed notes on the same track.
Last edited by breakphase (Dec 6, 2016 2:51 am)
Rather than writing in the 'chip' sort of mindset where there is one strong melody, think about the 4 channels as if it was a band.
Though... thinking about it... a lot of chipmusic follows the "song" paradigm. i.e. a paradigm where you have one central melody, some instruments that underline and support it harmonically, and some drums to do the timekeeping and to enhance the rhythm. Which is basically the same any pop/rock (including more underground flavours of it) band does. Usually the voice carries the melody, maybe you have a second lead instrument that takes over from time to time, and the rest is there to complete it by adding harmony, low end and enhancing/marking the rhythm.
So I don't see the big difference. But what can be useful is to think about every channel as having its own identity sound wise... which indeed takes us back to the band comparison.
Well, also, you don't have to have every channel playing something different. Adding depth involves using 2 channels to make a single melodic solo sometimes. Like with what break phase mentioned. You can use these techniques on any chipset that has 3 or more channels.
Here is a Sega Master System track I made that makes use of vibrato, dual channel chorus/detune effect, and delay techniques to really thicken up the soundscape: https://soundcloud.com/marcb0t/tarzan-boy-sms-version
Yeah, it's an 80's remix, hehe, but it shows what can be done on a chip that is less advanced than a Gameboy chip.
Notice in my song how it goes back and forth between dual channel melody, and using channels separately for harmony, and just a touch of arpeggio when necessary.
With the SMS chipset, you have to use 2 channels to mimic a 25% duty cycle pulse wave. With Gameboy, you can make more advanced sounds, since you can change the duty cycle per channel, and then dual mix those different duty cycles. Very thick and funky synth sounds are possible.
Thanks a lot for the suggestions! I'll definitely try these things! I'll keep you updated on how it goes!
im just naturally deep.
you can go down the whole recording each channel separately thing and playing in a DAW, but for me this kinda destroys part of the fun of using the old hardware or methods or whatever - i like to avoid standard techniques available on a modern computer to make music but this equally applies in the non-chip music i like to make.
chip music doesn't have to be in your face.
i prefer to spend time working on the textures in my music (rather than fancy chords and melodies), so for my c64 stuff its all about the filter interacting across multiple channels, weird ADSR commands, and experimenting with the ringmod. having 3 slightly different snare or hihat sounds and two different kicks.
the c64 has a bit of a mind of its own sometimes, so the unexpected interactions we have with each other have nice results.
@jellica: let me say that I really like your music, and I agree that there's quite a bit of depth in there! So maybe I'll just have to listen to some of it again, and get inspired!
but for me this kinda destroys part of the fun of using the old hardware or methods or whatever.
Totally! after making two albums in a DAW I must say that while I feel happy about the result, I didn't like the process much (and I realize that most of what I've done in a DAW felt kind of "joyless"). So yes... that's mostly the reason I brought up the topic in the first place.
Keep in mind that your goal should not be to make a chiptune. Instead, a better goal is to compose a song, then see if you can make a chiptune version as best you can. Kind of a different perspective.
I start with a song in my head. It might not be a chiptune, but I'll track it in a chiptune tracker. Hope this makes sense.
Think of yourself more as a compose, rather than a chiptune maker. Then the rest can follow.
chip music doesn't have to be in your face.
This goes for any music.
The key to giving a sense of dimension is in the arrangement. That means knowing how to use waveform, volume level, rhythm, chord voicing, and any other trick you know during the song to make it sound complete.
Think of yourself more as a compose, rather than a chiptune maker.
yes totally right. I wouldn't know how to define "chiptune" anyway, to me that's more about using a certain hardware than an actual genre (but I know complicated and loooong discussion), so writing a song is usually what I try to do.
This goes for any music.
yeah of course saying that chipmusic might have to be "in your face" was a hyperbole. Of course all music needs depth and subtleness to be good music. No question about that.