peace love and chiptune
Offline
The limitations used to motivate me to push my limits, well at least back when i used LSDJ. I really don't limit myself when it comes to any music. The only time I really limit myself is for compos (where categories are set by filesizes of the modules) or if i'm doing an OHC where I'll sometimes be like "This is way too many channels, I won't be able to finish in an hour with so many!" I think limitations can really push creativity, though.
It's definitely something not necessary to chip-music, though. The main reason I make chip-music it is because it's something I know well and because it's what I like to do now and then. I think at first, you think "Wow, this chip-music stuff is really simple! I can do it too!" but then after you stick your head in a bit you start to realize it can get pretty complex. At least, that's what I think draws people in.
Offline
New York City
godinpants wrote:
Does "confronting limitation" justify lesser quality as a "proof of concept"?
No. And it's usually never a "proof of concept".
In my opinion limitation makes you think a lot more about how to reach a result, and juices the most out of your imagination. I live in a country where resources are usually limited for the common folk and you grow up with this in mind. We are famous for doing tasks with whatever we can, sort of like MacGyver but on a big scale and not so exaggerated 
I like this and I am not at all into nostalgia. I never stopped using a tracker since I first laid hands on one in 1993, and this is how I progressed into new platforms like Game Boy after my Amiga beginnings. It is the natural way for me to express. I like limitations in my graphic design work, we have plenty, for example: a grid. Aren't all typefaces created under a set of common, strict rules? That's limitation. Why did Van Gogh use a certain type of brush style? Sounds like a chosen limitation 
Last edited by akira^8GB (Feb 11, 2011 1:53 am)
Offline
Brooklon
godinpants wrote:
Do you think limitation is a reason you do chip?
There seems to be a bit of a consensus here and that doesn't come at all as a surprise to me. However limitation is something that is in no way left to chip music alone. Rather it's a strategy that is employed in almost every aspect of design. One example (and one that I often use) is that of printmaking - specifically woodcut. People could easily ask a printmaker, "Why do you spend hours and hours cutting tiny slivers out of this piece of wood when you could spend a few minutes in Photoshop or Illustrator and get the same effect?" But the joy lies precisely in seeing how far you can push that plane of wood, what you can get it to do, the subtle characteristics of the original wood that are still evident even once you've completed and printed that woodblock 1000 times, and the process of creating that final work. None of these things are available to someone who "bangs out" something that looks like a woodprint in one of the fine Adobe products.
For me, at least, the beauty of chipmusic is precisely the limitation and its relationship to the process. If chip music was exclusively produced on Renoise or Ableton or whatever, I think I would have moved on years ago. It would just get boring. Just keep in mind that limitation exists in design for a very specific reason: it forces people to review their creative process.
godinpants wrote:
Does "confronting limitation" justify lesser quality as a "proof of concept"?
This question is totally flawed since you are suggesting that products of limitation are immediately lesser in quality (if I understand you correctly). Assuming that, we can just go ahead and say Dan Flavin, Mies van deer Rohe, Steve Reich, John Cage, Mondrian and anyone that has ever referred to their work as "minimalist" as being of "lesser quality". And while I'll give you that minimalism and the limitations that artists choose when they produce chip music are different, at their core they are the same: "do something awesome within a set of constraints".
Also, there's no "proof" needed to understand that limitations are successful as a strategy in in all the forms it can take. If minimalism or limitations needed to be proven as a method, that shit was done and found to rock a long time ago.
Last edited by Note! (Feb 11, 2011 2:07 am)
Offline
hardcore, Australia
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.
This can be applied to just about everything really.
If you ride a motorbike, there is usually some limit on the size of bike you can learn on, before progressing to a larger more powerful bike.
You need to learn to walk before you can run.
But if chipmusic in this analogy is the walk, where will we run? or will we at all?
akira^8GB, that's a point i made in my thesis a few years ago, that nostalgia is non existant if you never left an idea in the first place.
L-tron wrote:
Once you get to know a program really well, you learn the limitations of the sounds
But what is the result of that knowledge? Do you accept them as a dead end or a detour? Does it encourage you to find new ways to explore what you do have access to?
Offline
hardcore, Australia
Note! wrote:
Just keep in mind that limitation exists in design for a very specific reason: it forces people to review their creative process.
godinpants wrote:
Does "confronting limitation" justify lesser quality as a "proof of concept"?
Note! wrote:
This question is totally flawed since you are suggesting that products of limitation are immediately lesser in quality (if I understand you correctly). Assuming that, we can just go ahead and say Dan Flavin, Mies van deer Rohe, Steve Reich, John Cage, Mondrian and anyone that has ever referred to their work as "minimalist" as being of "lesser quality". And while I'll give you that minimalism and the limitations that artists choose when they produce chip music are different, at their core they are the same: "do something awesome within a set of constraints".
Also, there's no "proof" needed to understand that limitations are successful as a strategy in in all the forms it can take. If minimalism or limitations needed to be proven as a method, that shit was done and found to rock a long time ago.
I'm not suggesting they are of lesser quality. What i am suggesting is that if i were to reproduce a track in one channel as opposed to four, Would you expect equal outcomes based on the increased limitation?
Furthermore, would the aspect of "this was written in one channel" make you more lenient in your critique of the track?
Offline
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The fact is, the chipmusic and module music scenes came directly from early hacker and programmer culture.
It certainly makes sense to me that our current scene would have a rift between those who like to use the power of modern technology and those who like to work within limitations and push their hardware to the edge.
Personally I see merit in both.
Offline
california
Do you think limitation is a reason you do chip?
Not really limitation, but simplicity. I think of it as being an appreciation of hardware. Whether you get it from a VST or a c64, it's about digital hardware. These sounds would not be created by someone with no knowledge of the hardware. The medium itself is a message.
Offline
california
Zomvor wrote:
I began to develop a love for 8bit wave forms because they are just so raw, yet clear and sharp.
Absolutely. I spend a LOT of time looking at the waveforms. They're very nice, especially when they come from real hardware.
Offline
Brooklon
Note! wrote:
Just keep in mind that limitation exists in design for a very specific reason: it forces people to review their creative process.
godinpants wrote:
Does "confronting limitation" justify lesser quality as a "proof of concept"?
Again, limitation is not a concept. It is, in some amount, part of every single thing that has every been designed (bold, I know). The fact that it's more prominent in things like chip music does not require it to be "proven" any further.
godinpants wrote:
I'm not suggesting they are of lesser quality. What i am suggesting is that if i were to reproduce a track in one channel as opposed to four, Would you expect equal outcomes based on the increased limitation?
Expecting the same outcome from three less channels would be silly but I would expect the same creative output - i.e. reworking a track to take advantage of it occupying a single channel. Again, that's kind of the heart of the whole thing. Limitations require you to redesign - but the creative input and output should remain the same.
godinpants wrote:
Furthermore, would the aspect of "this was written in one channel" make you more lenient in your critique of the track?
It depends on if you explicitly tell me that "the track is done on one channel". If that's the case, I would, of course, judge it based on the fact that you're telling me it's a one-channel track. That's beyond my control. But my critique would definitely not be "more lenient" because of it. Nobodies should.
Last edited by Note! (Feb 11, 2011 3:02 am)
Offline
Westfield, NJ
RG wrote:
Is it worth having these self-imposed limitations if everyone's music starts to sound as though the same person made it?
Yeah I don't think you listen to amateur rock or edm or any other forums for people who are still learning XYZ genre. A lot of amateur stuff sounds the same. It's has nothing to do with the platform and mostly everything to do with 2 factors:
- limited skillset of the "artist"
- imitating whatever is popular
I mean, we all know that everyone making music with LSDJ follows the same LSDJ tutorial, then does some covers and videogame remixes, then makes the same hyper techno stuff because that's what's popular with all the kids.
Offline
Sweeeeeeden
godinpants wrote:
I'm not suggesting they are of lesser quality. What i am suggesting is that if i were to reproduce a track in one channel as opposed to four, Would you expect equal outcomes based on the increased limitation?
Furthermore, would the aspect of "this was written in one channel" make you more lenient in your critique of the track?
You're talking about too different things. For one thing those who make chip music because they like to do so for whatever reason. And you're also talking about, for example one channel tracks, which is in a way, more of an artificial limitation. The latter is often done as a competition (formal or informal). This type of track is typically judged on other qualities than just "musical quality". It's really more about accomplishment. Showing off your note-cramming skills. The bar is not lowered, it's just different criteria.
And I think this may be true to some degree for chip music in general, but of course this is very dependent on both the individual composer's motives, and the individual listener's reference frame. That is not to say that you can't do chip music that is just good on its own merits, without being judged at a lower standard.
Offline
california
Decktonic wrote:
RG wrote:Is it worth having these self-imposed limitations if everyone's music starts to sound as though the same person made it?
Yeah I don't think you listen to amateur rock or edm or any other forums for people who are still learning XYZ genre. A lot of amateur stuff sounds the same. It's has nothing to do with the platform and mostly everything to do with 2 factors:
- limited skillset of the "artist"
- imitating whatever is popular
.
Every platform leaves an imprint in the final product...certainly that has something to do with it.
Offline
Westfield, NJ
godinpants wrote:
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.
Yeah also remixing. This is not exclusive to chip, it's more something very typical in electronic music overall. I think this goes back to the invention of the sampler.
Offline
Brooklon
Decktonic wrote:
godinpants wrote:Surely this is what a DJ does. Or for that matter a turntablist or similar.
Yeah also remixing. This is not exclusive to chip, it's more something very typical in electronic music overall. I think this goes back to the invention of the sampler.
Or how about whenever a pianist, or cellist, or singer, or whoever plays someone else's music live? That's definitely where performance is "judged on how well you manipulate your source files."
Last edited by Note! (Feb 11, 2011 3:16 am)