µB
Offline
A gray world of dread

Hmm, if I understood animalstlye's intention right, the idea wasn't to have a genre discussion (which has indeed been done a few times), but how the subject is presented to the outside- to have misunderstandings eliminated right from the start.

The problem is that that's hard to do because we don't have a common nomenclature. To pick up on what irrlichtproject said for example, I remember a short exchange here about what 8-bit in regards to music means (is it processor register size? output wave resolution?)

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden

{{citation needed}}

Also, you need to read up a bit on the Paula (look the sound registers up in "Mapping the Amiga")! It is  very different from typical modern sound cards in that each of its four channels have independently variable sample rates, so beyond setting up waveform pointers and loop lengths, it can be controlled simply by changing rate and volume, like a PSG chip. Oh, and it does channel to channel modulation effects: FM and AM.

So yeah, citations, citations, citations... Not just to increase the credibility, but also to make sure you never include misinformed statements like that.

Just a note from a quick glance... I'll be back! smile

PS: I don't think "arguably" belongs in a wikipedia article.

BR1GHT PR1MATE
Offline
BOSTON

Hmm. I think that this is a really important topic, so thanks for bringing it up.

To be totally honest, while I totally think that Joey totally has the best intentions with this (i hate that definition too), I don't think that we should be having people who who are current performing chip artists writing the wikipedia definitions.... its just impossible not to be biased in one way or another. As an artist, you have to have cultural motive and preference in order to create anything of any value, but for journalism, especially with a newer and lesser understood genre being unveiled to the public, those traits are poison.

If we as a community are serious about getting some legit, updated information on the wikipedia page, we should be looking towards people who are familiar with broad critiques of culture such as journalists or musicologists who would be more interested in the "long view" of chiptune within music and culture, rather than debate points and definitions that are basically meaningless outside of the chiptune forums.

/2 cents

Last edited by BR1GHT PR1MATE (Jul 23, 2010 3:56 pm)

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden

Citations 5 & 6 don't support the statements from which they are referenced

EDIT: in the chiptune article

Last edited by boomlinde (Jul 23, 2010 4:05 pm)

animalstyle
Offline
killadelphia
µB wrote:

Anyways, I'd say delete that article for good and maybe insert that word as a jargon term in the chiptune article. As it stands now, the Fakebit article is just silly. Hardly warrants an article of its own.

right on - i don't know how to delete the page.  i actually emailed wikipedia about that before i changed the definition.

animalstyle
Offline
killadelphia
arfink wrote:

Properly cared for, IC's will last.

yeah...  how many years?  which chip?  ...everything dies dude.  especially electronic devices.

arfink wrote:

proper care will keep them around in working condition indefinitely.

how many people in this forum keep their room clean?  humans just busted a fucking hole in the earth that's killing entire eco-systems.  i don't have as much faith as you.  you can't deny that the original chips will not get more rare as time goes on.

µB wrote:

Hmm, if I understood animalstlye's intention right, the idea wasn't to have a genre discussion (which has indeed been done a few times), but how the subject is presented to the outside- to have misunderstandings eliminated right from the start.

yeah - i'm just worried about what people are seeing represented up there.  it's so inaccurate, and i think everyone here can agree that the article is sort of a mess - even with the things i put in there.

Br1ght Pr1MATE wrote:

I don't think that we should be having people who who are current performing chip artists writing the wikipedia definitions

why not?  you wanna let academics define that shit - they usually send music genres into a catatonic state with the neat little edges and packages.  when was the last time i read an art history book and was like - "right on!  fuck yeah!"   ...um never.  Mile's Davis' autobiography is a much more accurate view into the jazz scene than some academic's book.  I think you're wrong - we should not let other people (who dont understand the music) define it for us.  there is great danger in that.   Should we let the media define it for us?  NO FUCKING WAY!

Last edited by animalstyle (Jul 23, 2010 5:38 pm)

Reteris
Offline
̛̛̩̥̩̥̩̥̅ ̥⎬̛̛̛̛̛̥̥̩̥̩̩
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

I don't think that we should be having people who who are current performing chip artists writing the wikipedia definitions....

Yeah! Who are we to speak for ourselves? Lets have fox news define it as mario at a rave.

e.s.c.
Offline
IL, US
Reteris wrote:
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

I don't think that we should be having people who who are current performing chip artists writing the wikipedia definitions....

Yeah! Who are we to speak for ourselves? Lets have fox news define it as mario at a rave.

no, he has a point....all of us active in the scene have pretty well defined difinitons of what it is to them, but different aspects are more or less important depending on the individual (ie: some would consider anything that isnt strictly off the soundchip of a console to be not chipmusic, even if just adding an instrument like a drum machine to the mix, while others think crystal castles are chipmusic and those people are clearly wrong)
i think a well informed outsider would be best qualified to write it, now the question is where do find one? this scene has a habit of converting fans into artists

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden

Well it doesn't matter who does it, as long as all information is based on and verified by various reliable sources, which I don't think is the case right now (although it is a lot better than the previous chiptune article, IMO).

arfink
Offline
Minneapolis
animalstyle wrote:

yeah...  how many years?  which chip?  ...everything dies dude.  especially electronic devices.

how many people in this forum keep their room clean?  humans just busted a fucking hole in the earth that's killing entire eco-systems.  i don't have as much faith as you.  you can't deny that the original chips will not get more rare as time goes on.

OK, lets get through these:

1- depends on the chip. Lots of chips have no lifetime rating, they just run for a long time (longer than testing can kill them with) and it's highly dependent on operating conditions. Flash is rated for a certain number of rewrites before failure, usually several hundred thousand or so. Otherwise, few chips will just "break down" from use unless they have unusual operating stresses placed on them. AKA, regular electrical operation isn't enough to break down the chips with any kind of rapidity. Other forces are the problem.

2- yes, everything "dies," or at least breaks down.

3- Actually, living things like animals and humans die more often than electronics.

4- I have no idea how many people clean their rooms. That's not what I'm talking about.

5- the gulf oil problem isn't related, nor is it yet proven that the entirety of the problem is caused by humans. In fact, oil seepage is nothing new.

6- maybe you don't have as much as me. I wouldn't know.

7- I can, but it would be stupid to deny that the original chips will get more rare. But only because people won't do the work to preserve them.

akira^8GB
Offline
New York City
animalstyle wrote:

i'm just worried about what people are seeing represented up there.  it's so inaccurate, and i think everyone here can agree that the article is sort of a mess - even with the things i put in there.

Me, like you, don't like what is written there. I don't like most of what is written anywhere regarding this matter. Every time I read CHIPTUNE I cringe, because to me is chipmusic. Fuck, I don't like people seeing it represented solely by anything that happened in the last 10 years, 8bitcollective, chipmusic.org or other online communities either, I think it's a partial image, and misleading. And some times I think "I could define it so much better!"
But I don't think ANYONE should do this right now. Maybe in 15 years, when the fad has passed and most have moved onto new stuff, some people will have a clear picture of what HAPPENED and define it.

That brings up the most valid point here, summed up by Linde in the post before: none of us can make a 100% objective, encyclopedic definition of what this is. NOT YET. NOT RIGHT NOW It's HAPPENING now. It's been happening for 20 years. We are making it happen. Our view is overly subjective. You can't set it in stone in a Wikipedia article, I can't do it, The Pope can't. Not at this moment. This type of article discussion is exactly what makes people wonder if Wikipedia is good or really bad.

Let it rest.

Define chipmusic by actions rather than try to define it with words in Wikipedia. That will happen in due time. And none of us has the right to do this or has the ULTIMATE TRUTH.

herr_prof
Offline
Unsubscribe

BR1GHT PR1MATE
Offline
BOSTON
akira^8GB wrote:

Define chipmusic by actions rather than try to define it with words in Wikipedia. That will happen in due time. And none of us has the right to do this or has the ULTIMATE TRUTH.

well put!

Disasterpeace
Offline
Berkeley, CA

BR1GHT PR1MATE and I talked about this at the bar for a long time today, haha. While it probably wasn't intentional, I think the name Fakebit just sends the wrong message. Which is why I hope it either dies or never blossoms into something people looking in from the outside will see when they are exploring the space. It neglects to define the music subjectively and instead creates a perception of second rated-ness. And while the music may be inauthentic from a technical standpoint in that it doesn't utilize original hardware, the intentions are not inauthentic, and neither is the inspiration, or the love, or any of that stuff. And that's where my issue lies. It creates a negative impression.

"Fake" is a negative word and I think it does a good job of selling short the possibilities within that so-called distinction (a distinction despite which I think is totally relevant and reasonable to make) to those who might have otherwise considered it a reasonable way to make cool music.

Last edited by Disasterpeace (Jul 24, 2010 4:38 am)

GaMEcat
Offline
Manchester UK
e.s.c. wrote:

i think a well informed outsider would be best qualified to write it, now the question is where do find one? this scene has a habit of converting fans into artists

http://woolyss.com/chipmusic.php ?

animalstyle
Offline
killadelphia
Disasterpeace wrote:

I think the name Fakebit just sends the wrong message.

totally man...  i was actually thinking of dudes like you when i read that shit.  makes me angry to think that someone could exclude you soley based on the fact that you use different tools.  Disasterpeace, to me, is more chip than some people who actually write within the limitations or with the chip.

8GB wrote:

Define chipmusic by actions rather than try to define it with words in Wikipedia. That will happen in due time. And none of us has the right to do this or has the ULTIMATE TRUTH.

i understand what you mean - no definition is accurate really...  and yes actions do speak louder than words, but i am still worried.  Mainly i'm worried that people will become interested in chip music through our actions, then read the chiptune defintion, get confused or misunderstand, and then possibly even get turned off.  As far as saying that we don't have the right...  that's anything far from the truth.  Thats like saying we don't have the right to define our own unique style because style is a concept that is much larger than us.  what?  The consitution of the US was defined by individuals and made to structure something much greater than the themself.  The definition for Chiptune could very much do the same.  I don't understand what you guys are talking about when you say we shouldn't define it.  There is an inherent problem with this:  If we (the artists) don't define it, people like the media and 10 year old kids will write stupidly inaccurate things about it.  If we don't change it, the next time you hear an awful story from the media about chip music don't complain, because it will be our fault.  Here's a mock scenario:  A Reporter does't know much about the art form... they go to wikipedia for some help, pull some information off the defintion and mix it with a story about you.  I shouldn't have to elaborate.

Last edited by animalstyle (Jul 24, 2010 3:01 pm)