godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia

Atleast on 8bc whenever someone mentions "why do you chiptunes" the two most common answers are "nostalgia" and "the limitations".

After reading some stuff in that "chip sales" thread here i got a little carried away in a reply i wrote and wrote some kind of almost-essay on my thoughts about this whole "limitation" business. I kind of want to expand it a bit so I want to do some research.

So here is where i ask,

Do you think limitation is a reason you do chip?
Do you feel like the limitations of your chip music is any different to the limitations imposed by other platforms (they all have them)
Why do you want to work within these limitations? or, do you feel the limitations are an influence in your choice to work at all?
What is it about the specific limitations imposed upon you have any effect on your output?
Does "confronting limitation" justify lesser quality as a "proof of concept"?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Further reading
http://chipmusic.org/forums/topic/1734/ … -releases/

4mat wrote:

We want to move it away from being about the equipment we use and more what we're making with it

Decktonic wrote:

A lot of chip tunes seem to be made for the purpose of showing what can be done with a limited platform. Look at beeper music for example. In many ways it's "listen to the sounds I was able to make with 1-bit music" rather than "listen to the song I made."

Basically, a lot of the chip music community is about making music for the sake of proving what can be done with the hardware rather than making music for the sake of making good music.

Basically, I want people to stop saying "Neil Voss does amazing things with LSDJ" and instead say "Neil Voss makes great music." Moreover, I want people to appreciate it because the music is genuinely good and not just because it's technically impressive.

And an essay i wrote on input v. output that i think deals with the issue of "proof of concept" over "art"
http://www.godinpants.com/inputvoutput.pdf

BR1GHT PR1MATE
Offline
BOSTON

this is an interesting topic. i think my initial thoughts on this would be that most of this:

Decktonic wrote:

Basically, I want people to stop saying "Neil Voss does amazing things with LSDJ" and instead say "Neil Voss makes great music."

...would only be thought about by people 'in-scene'. And so it depends on your audience. For instance, we make pop-oriented music with vocals, so understandably many (if not most) of our fans are actually totally outside of the scene. Some have no idea there *is* a scene. When we have a show, I actually often have people (who are familiar with our music online, bought CDs, etc) come up and ask me "so what are you doing with the gameboy up there?"

So, while this may not be the case for everybody's music, I would suspect that if you are getting a bunch of downloads and successfully doing shows / touring / etc, most people are listening "because its great music" rather than because they hang out on 8bc/CM threads all day.

/2cents

Decktonic
Offline
Westfield, NJ

Maybe I shouldn't be one of the first to respond but I have nothing better to do right now! These are great questions.

1. Do you think limitation is a reason you do chip?

Yes, it is not the only reason but it is a big reason.

2. Do you feel like the limitations of your chip music is any different to the limitations imposed by other platforms (they all have them)

Certainly. Having 16 patterns, for example, is very different from using a tracker that can extend indefinitely, while having 6 voices is certainly easier than having just 4 channels.

3. Why do you want to work within these limitations? or, do you feel the limitations are an influence in your choice to work at all?

Only because it is a challenge. To be honest, I use the software because I like the sounds I can make with it. I'm willing to overcome the limitations, and would probably enjoy not having those limitations at all, but I do like the challenge and feel proud of myself when I come up with interesting ways to overcome those limitations.

4. What is it about the specific limitations imposed upon you have any effect on your output?

My music can tend to be repetitive because I often have to repeat patterns to have a song longer than 3 minutes on just 16 patterns.

5. Does "confronting limitation" justify lesser quality as a "proof of concept"?

I think in this case you need to define "justify." I think it certainly does, but I would never pay for a song that is lower quality & only a proof of concept. I might give the artist some kudos for accomplishing what they did with this song, but I won't listen to it again. I only listen to songs I genuinely enjoy. So a song being a "proof of concept" would not be a reason for me to buy it.

* p.s. I should qualify what I've said here with this: I have yet to actually put any of my DS10 songs for sale. So far, all the stuff I've released has been "proof of concept." But I am working on some stuff right now that I consider "good music" regardless of the limitations of the platform.

Last edited by Decktonic (Feb 10, 2011 11:20 pm)

tempsoundsolutions
Offline
TSSBAY01

this isnt 8bc.

BLEO
Offline
Geneva, NY

I came for the nostalgia, I stayed for the limitations.

godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia

Bright primate: that is a point i was writing about, to a composer that might make sense, but to a non musician listener, who has no idea of the work that goes into writing a song, let alone the specific platform used, such a comment is useless and does nothing to attract them towards the music.
This is where the input v output comes in.
My opinion on the topic is that there is an argument for both. To your peers, the nerdier side, the tracking, the polyphony juggling, the synthesis, is all appealing. This is the input. Perhaps it is their approval you are aiming for, but after the initial scrutiny and investigation, what does your hard work hold? There's a song, but is it enjoyable? Does it fulfil whatever musical intentions you had? Or was is simply a show of technical ability of you and your platform.

decktonic: you say the limitations are a challenge, but you would enjoy not having them as well.
would it have much influence on your music if the limitations didn't exist? or would you even use the platform?

As for justification, i'll take a stab at the demo scene. I've seen plenty of "cube floats in the air" demos, and while i assume there is a fair bit of work in getting that done nicely (someone can correct me here) it's not very impressive visually, but still i imagine the first time it was done everyone went "HOLY SHIT THAT IS BEAUTIFUL" and the dude/s got some mad respect for it.

Subway Sonicbeat
Offline
Brazil

I can't have nostalgia about 8bit stuff, I never had a NES or even a Master System, BUT I had an atari 2600. Hell, my first gameboy was bought because of chipmusic.

The limitations are more like a challenge, as already said. That's what lacks in music today: challenge.

Mostly I like the sounds, not the limitation or nostalgia. Is all about the sound of it. Is a harsh sound, almost punkish and I always loved synths, so...


About this:

godinpants wrote:

As for justification, i'll take a stab at the demo scene. I've seen plenty of "cube floats in the air" demos, and while i assume there is a fair bit of work in getting that done nicely (someone can correct me here) it's not very impressive visually, but still i imagine the first time it was done everyone went "HOLY SHIT THAT IS BEAUTIFUL" and the dude/s got some mad respect for it.

The thing with those cubes floating in the air - AFAIK and i'm not a guy who knows a lot about the demoscene - is that they are hard to code and "look good". Is more about the skills with coding.

Last edited by Subway Sonicbeat (Feb 10, 2011 11:36 pm)

godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia
tempsoundsolutions wrote:

this isnt 8bc.

But with comments like that we're on our way there right?

I mentioned 8bc at the beginning, because it does have a longer history.
Do you think in world war two, when they were deciding to give people guns because "we'll need them to shoot like we did in world war one" people said "fuck off the guns, this isn't world war one"?

Decktonic
Offline
Westfield, NJ
godinpants wrote:

decktonic: you say the limitations are a challenge, but you would enjoy not having them as well.
would it have much influence on your music if the limitations didn't exist? or would you even use the platform?

Hmm... I make music without those limitations in other software, and it's still repetitive, so maybe it's more a matter of me being comfortable with the limitations because they aren't a big hurdle to the kind of music I make. Maybe this is something I need to think about more... I know I enjoy the challenge _sometimes_ but I really do wonder what it would be like if they weren't there.

Also something else that is interesting and hasn't been mentioned too much in this discussion is that I had a very good experience learning to make music within these limitations, whereas I couldn't learn working with software that had very few limitations. Basically, I learned a lot working with a limited platform before I was able to get really comfortable with using a platform that wasn't so limited. I think this is related to what's known as the "kitchen sink" problem.

Andrew Winzenburg
Offline
Subway Sonicbeat wrote:

Mostly I like the sounds, not the limitation or nostalgia. Is all about the sound of it. Is a harsh sound, almost punkish and I always loved synths, so...

This.

I don't see why people assume that having an affinity for the sound of the hardware must be due to nostalgia or other sentimental reasons. Can't I like it because it sounds good??

Decktonic
Offline
Westfield, NJ
Andrew Winzenburg wrote:

I don't see why people assume that having an affinity for the sound of the hardware must be due to nostalgia or other sentimental reasons. Can't I like it because it sounds good??

+1 agreed

RG
Offline
Milwaukee, WI

I have a question as well, if I may be so bold.

Is it worth having these self-imposed limitations if everyone's music starts to sound as though the same person made it?

Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone but it starts to wear on you when flipping through 8bc's playlists.

Rainbowdragoneyes
Offline
The Mountains

I started writing music on gameboy because hacking into the midi files of old mario games and composing using a gameboy is good fun. Sometimes I wish I had more channels, but I've grown accustomed to using only four. Sometimes I layer shit in post, thereby doing away with my "limitations". The aural aesthetics of 8-bit are pleasing to mine ears, I could care less how many "channels" I'm listening to at once. And unless you know your hardware, you won't recognize how many, and it won't matter.

People within this scene are interested in the hardware and how the music is composed, I would say arguably more than the music itself. I see a fuckload of "what did you use to make this" and comments on anything but the music that is written, this is just about the only scene I'm aware of in which people pay more attention to the discipline rather than the jams. It is fun to learn and to know and keep up with, but it takes the focus away from what you are doing, which is making music. Or in some cases, fucking farting into a gameboy and fishing for compliments.

Also, the chip world is also one of the only times where your performance can be judged on how well you manipulate your source files. You don't see bands bringing their pro-tools rigs on stage to play a show, and if you did, it would be rather silly.

RG
Offline
Milwaukee, WI
Subway Sonicbeat wrote:

The limitations are more like a challenge, as already said. That's what lacks in music today: challenge.

Crazy you say this, here's a line from a recent Stagediver Q&A:

"If I want to hear something, I make it myself. It offers a creative challenge that's exactly what music is missing – challenge! Music is too godd*mn polluted – even if we're talking basic song structure, humans reached the apex of creative expression in the mid-90s. Deconstruct everything available, with the technology available, in order to move forward.

I guess it's just safe to say that I can't understand any musician who wouldn't want to consider a good challenge, to themselves and the listener."

http://onmilwaukee.com/myOMC/authors/bo … clair.html

Theta_Frost
Offline
Milwaukee, WI

For me, it's the actual synthesis.  The change of sounds from mainstream music fascinates me.  Limitations are good.  It does encourage creativity.  But I'm as likely to listen to a good "song" as I am to something technically impressive.  A lot of chipmusic's fascination for me is in what is possible given these limitations.

godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia
RG wrote:

I have a question as well, if I may be so bold.

Is it worth having these self-imposed limitations if everyone's music starts to sound as though the same person made it?

Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone but it starts to wear on you when flipping through 8bc's playlists.

This can be said of a lot of music though, a lot "less limited" platforms can produce music of the same generic nature.

Rainbowdragoneyes wrote:

Also, the chip world is also one of the only times where your performance can be judged on how well you manipulate your source files.

Surely this is what a DJ does. Or for that matter a turntablist or similar.

Rainbowdragoneyes wrote:

People within this scene are interested in the hardware and how the music is composed, I would say arguably more than the music itself. I see a fuckload of "what did you use to make this"

A lot of guitar boards are filled with "how did you get this tone" "what pedals and amp did you use"
Infact the site guitargeek.com is based on this.