BR1GHT PR1MATE
Offline
BOSTON
godinpants wrote:

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?

Its hard to know, too! You have to be quite open to criticism to even be aware of these things. Sometimes its completely silly what people like; you can put tons of effort into a masterpiece of a song, and then the track that people will actually like is the one you whipped out in 15 minutes to fill space or whatever.

I think its important to realize that your opinion as the creator of the music only goes so far. Listeners will make of it what they will, and that is something that we as artists have surprisingly little control over.

Rainbowdragoneyes
Offline
The Mountains

- DJs typically don't write all the songs they spin.. some do, most don't.

- Obviously I did not say this is the only world in which people try to figure out how the music is made. Through my own experience, reading what people say about chip songs or releases, I see a lot more (not ALL, just a lot MORE) interest in the gear/software/techniques than feedback in regards to the composition. Nothing wrong with that, but like I said, when it starts to take the focus away from the music is when it becomes less musical.

pyEss
Offline
London

I make it just because I enjoy it, the sound, the process, everything.

RG
Offline
Milwaukee, WI
godinpants wrote:

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

Very good point. Nevermind me.

ACID HOUSE WILL NEVER DIE!

goto80
Offline
CHIPTUNE

As said, all technology has "limitations". If there were no limitations, there would be nothing. No character, no fun.

Chipmusic people are constantly confirming the idea that less channels is more limiting than more channels. (perhaps some mean that limited != limiting, but still..) Or less waves, bits or pixels or whatever. But it's not. Right? Why would you use something that *actually* limits you?

4 channels is *better* than 32 channels!

godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

you can put tons of effort into a masterpiece of a song, and then the track that people will actually like is the one you whipped out in 15 minutes to fill space or whatever.

So where does aknowledgement of process sit for you compared to aknowledgement of the output?

goto80 wrote:

Chipmusic people are constantly confirming the idea that less channels is more limiting than more channels. (perhaps some mean that limited != limiting, but still..) Or less waves, bits or pixels or whatever. But it's not. Right? Why would you use something that *actually* limits you?

That last point is something i am interested in.

If you are given 4 channels, do you write a 4 channel song? or a song in 4 channels?

BR1GHT PR1MATE
Offline
BOSTON
Rainbowdragoneyes wrote:

I see a lot more interest in the gear/software/techniques than feedback in regards to the composition. Nothing wrong with that, but like I said, when it starts to take the focus away from the music is when it becomes less musical.

I suppose that the case could be made that "8bitcollective" or "chipmusic.org" are almost specifically venues for the technological side, whereas if you posted you songs for criticism on "awesomecharmonicstructure.com" or "beautiful.ass.progressions.co.uk" you would find the opposite....

but your comment seems like a quite valid critique on the general culture of chiptune.

nitro2k01
Offline
Sweeeeeeden

I wouldn't say it's about limitations as much as using a unique (relatively speaking) tool. These are tools with their own quirks and perks, that you have to master. It's not the limitations per se, but the path these limitations inspire you to take, and also as a result how the software running on the lo-bit machines are designed. Who would get the idea of adding tables or grooves like those on LSDj, to some generic PC software? Incidentally, those are two of the features that I miss the most in other software.

Generally speaking, I don't "get" the concept of using lo-bit VSTs on a PC. You keep the "worst" part of lo-bit (simple wave forms) and throw away the "best" parts (modulation, arpeggios, fine tuned control.) To me, composing lo-bit music doesn't take away something, it adds something.

nitro2k01
Offline
Sweeeeeeden
godinpants wrote:

If you are given 4 channels, do you write a 4 channel song? or a song in 4 channels?

Let me put it this way. if you compose a song in such a way that there are more than 4 distinct sounds going on at the same time, and the listener "hears" more than 4 channels, you're not composing a 4 channel song. smile

Cartoon Bomb
Offline
VA

When I feel like making chipmusic, I do it because it's easier for me.  There's less for me to think about, and it's fun to squeeze out as much polyphony as you can, or to try and focus on a simple melody.  I never understand the "channel/sonic limitations make me more elite" mentality, or the "'fakebit' is for noobs" thing.   


And then you have the obsession with pooping out a song in one hour. If you can do that well, then more power to you, 'cause I sure can't.

godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia

I think discussion of gear is an important part of the chip culture in that it's the gear that draws us together, instead of a genre.

godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia
nitro2k01 wrote:

I wouldn't say it's about limitations as much as using a unique (relatively speaking) tool. These are tools with their own quirks and perks, that you have to master. It's not the limitations per se, but the path these limitations inspire you to take, and also as a result how the software running on the lo-bit machines are designed. Who would get the idea of adding tables or grooves like those on LSDj, to some generic PC software? Incidentally, those are two of the features that I miss the most in other software.

Personally i feel the limitation side of this is an irrelevant aspect of chip music.That is largely why i am interested in what people have to say.

nitro2k01 wrote:

Generally speaking, I don't "get" the concept of using lo-bit VSTs on a PC. You keep the "worst" part of lo-bit (simple wave forms) and throw away the "best" parts (modulation, arpeggios, fine tuned control.) To me, composing lo-bit music doesn't take away something, it adds something.

So what if you could emulate technique with a new sound set?
I suppose renoise might fit there.

nitro2k01
Offline
Sweeeeeeden
godinpants wrote:

I think discussion of gear is an important part of the chip culture in that it's the gear that draws us together, instead of a genre.

Yep, or put differently, chip music is not a genre, but an instrumentation. (Although it has some connotations of which genre it's supposed be, etc...)

nitro2k01
Offline
Sweeeeeeden
godinpants wrote:
nitro2k01 wrote:

I wouldn't say it's about limitations as much as using a unique (relatively speaking) tool. These are tools with their own quirks and perks, that you have to master. It's not the limitations per se, but the path these limitations inspire you to take, and also as a result how the software running on the lo-bit machines are designed. Who would get the idea of adding tables or grooves like those on LSDj, to some generic PC software? Incidentally, those are two of the features that I miss the most in other software.

Personally i feel the limitation side of this is an irrelevant aspect of chip music.That is largely why i am interested in what people have to say.

As a composer, it seems like a very relevant aspect, as opposed to for a listener. However I'm only claiming to speak for myself. What I said is no universal truth, just my opinion.

godinpants wrote:
nitro2k01 wrote:

Generally speaking, I don't "get" the concept of using lo-bit VSTs on a PC. You keep the "worst" part of lo-bit (simple wave forms) and throw away the "best" parts (modulation, arpeggios, fine tuned control.) To me, composing lo-bit music doesn't take away something, it adds something.

So what if you could emulate technique with a new sound set?
I suppose renoise might fit there.

Spot on. Renoise is just about the only non-chip sequencer I'm using. It's not a new LSDj (still missing tables and grooves, although these can be emulated fairly well in Renoise with higher LPB settings. But yes, I like some of the things you can do with high precision sample-slicing in Renoise.

Esopus-dragon
Offline
New York, New York
Subway Sonicbeat wrote:

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.

I agree with what you said completely. The sounds are harsh and that is beauty.

L-tron
Offline

Working with limitations is definitely part of what draws me to Chip. The limitation of 4 channels often helps/forces/challenges me to create interesting melodies and rhythmic patterns that I may have not created had I had more channels. Also it's part of the appeal/fun for me personally.
Also trying to get unique sounds is another.

One of the platforms I use is LSDJ, and when listening to LSDJ tracks by other artists, it's fun to analyze the synthesis and channel economy.
If someone makes a really unique sound within the limitations of the program and I can't figure out how to make it off the top of my head, that often drives my curiosity and inspires me to work on sound or write more music. Once you get to know a program really well, you learn the limitations of the sounds, and when you hear a sound made with that platform that you've never heard before, it's exciting, empowering, and inspirational.

Decktonic wrote:

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.

Great point!