Re: Limitation (Page 6 of 12)

For me this discussion is about 50% interesting and 50% irritating. The conversation about creative motivations, why we choose our particular set of tools, what we get out of that choice & what the tradeoffs are, etc., is interesting. I'm having a harder time putting my finger on where the irritation is coming from. I guess a lot of the questions & responses feel "loaded" to me, with strange (or at least arbitrary) preconceptions or assumptions.

Then there's a certain "who cares" aspect to it all that I suppose comes from being jaded or just cantankerous or whatever. Ultimately the subject boils down to "why do you do what you do" and "why do you like what you like," the former (theoretically) being derived from the latter, and the latter being totally subjective, making the conversation superficially interesting but ultimately pointless. At least in this specific context, where a bunch of chip-heads are talking to/at other chip-heads, about being chip-heads.

So, just to add to the din, I wanted to interject a couple of observations on some of the points that were nagging at me.

There's a semantic aspect to the discussion of "limitations" that's bugging me a lot. I think there's a tendency to misread or misunderstand (and to be fair, to outright misstate) sentiments of doing chipmusic (or whatever else) "because of the limitations." Indulge me in the presumption for a second, but I think when people say this, what they really mean is that they're doing chipmusic because of the specific nature of the particular set of limitations that are unique to the medium. As opposed to the specific nature of the limitations bounding any other instrument or creative environment. As a lot of people have pointed out, limitations exist with any creative medium or tool set. I can play a guitar but I can't make it read a MIDI file. I can sequence music on my laptop but I can't strum it. So I think that when people cite the appeal of limitations, it's a sort of expressive shorthand for what they really mean to cite, which is a more nuanced appeal that comes not from the existence of limitations but the specific places they happen to lie.

In other words, for me, chipmusic's specific set of "limitations" (or borders or boundaries) create an environment in which A) I can make programmed, sequencing-oriented music, B) I can do it with a certain immediacy, i.e. readily and easily with low setup time, C) there are relatively few aspects to divert creative attention away from songwriting, i.e. plug-ins, effects, range of timbral choices. I don't like chipmusic because it has constraints, I like chipmusic because of the specific nature and "geometry" of its constraints, i.e. I like the specific combination of what it allows, and what it "removes from" (or "opts not to place into") my main focus of attention.

I think there's a tendency to interpret the term "limitations" with a certain arguably negative connotation — "you can go no farther than this point," an antagonistic attribute that you have to work "against." But I think when we talk about chipmusic's limitations, what we're really referring to are the borders of chipmusic. Not that they exist, but where they sit. What they include, and what they don't.

Don't know if that'll make any sense to people, but that's a (half-baked) summary of my take on that particular subject.

I also wanted to chime in on the conversation about the tools vs. the results. There're are lot of opinions being put forward about whether it's relevant to place emphasis on your choice of tools, or whether at the end of the day "it's the music that matters." I found myself getting kind of annoyed at how polarized the conversation seemed to be, and how "binary" the subject seemed to be for people. I don't understand why this is seen as an either/or proposition. In my opinion there's basically a spectrum, and at one end you have process and at the other end you have musical result. At the process end sit people for whom the appeal of chipmusic is based entirely on the concept of making music (or controlled sound or whatever) using simple soundchips and devices (arguably) not expressly intended as musical tools. At the musical result end sit people for whom the appeal of chipmusic is based on their appreciation for compositional style and/or "skill," presumably combined with some sort of subjective timbral affinity for the types of sounds and techniques typically associated with chipmusic.  And in the world of chipmusic listeners, you have people falling at each extreme, but also people falling at all points in between. Maybe the appeal of chipmusic is 100% process for some people, whether it involves a precision pop hit or an abstract noise collage. Maybe the appeal is 100% result for other people; fuck how it's made, how's it sound? And maybe people occupy all imaginable points in between, with leanings favoring one direction or the other, but still able to appreciate both aspects. The idea of a spectrum like this is also a total oversimplification, but at least it allows for a continuum between the two extremes, whereas I feel like a lot of the conversation about process & result tends to feel more like the two extremes existing in isolation and opposition. I just don't think that's an accurate way to look at the subject.

OK bedtime.

Some interjections for people mentioning the guitar playing world-

When I first tried guitar, it was frustrating, because my hands were too small for the instrument I had! (I think I was 8 years old at the time.) I remember my father bought me a ukulele so that I'd get a better feel for neck-and-strings but I found it to be an annoying instrument and stuck with piano instead.

Once I could fit my hands around a guitar, I still found it annoying only because by then I was so much better with keyboard instruments; you can practice an instrument like a guitar for years and years and literally hit a "wall" where you never get any better at it. This causes more than a few to quit the instrument and can be said about any instrument, I suppose.

Musicians of any kind don't think about the limits of their instruments until they have skills that exceed those limits. Then, they concern themselves with either learning to work around the limit or replace the offending piece of gear.

You'll notice that people that make (insert electronic style you hate here) on expesive DAWs that all sound the same, tend to sound the same because they also set limits, in this case, limits of musical style. If some of you reading this ever get sick of LSDJ or find whatever other tracker "too limiting," that is the trick to working a DAW- your style will dictate the effects decisions, number of tracks, etc. and there is nothing wrong when that happens.

Yes, some people take up music for reasons of image, and it's a good motivator for the ones that don't mind working to get good at it. (The ones that don't like the amount of work it takes to get good usually end up quitting.)

I've never seen it as a spectrum, really. I see it more like a Venn diagram: there are those who are into the process, there are those who are into the result. But some of us fall right in the intersection.

I don't see it as a spectrum because I don't bother looking at how MUCH people are into one aspect or the other. If they like music, then they do. If they like sequencing and its nuances, then they do. Everything else falls into the dilemma of 'taste' and it would be too complicated to consider.

Because getting into details such as if one person like the process and/or the result is already quite complicated in itself anyway.

But yes, dammit, yes. Both terms aren't apart, and by definition they shouldn't: the process brings forward a result. The result comes from a process.

My first recorded music ever was playing a Us$ 10 acoustic guitar my folks gave me when I was 12 and recording it on my aunt's boombox. I kept that way for a long time. Then, when I started making electronic music in 2000 I was amazed by how Fruity Loops, Acid and all those computer softwares didn't look to have any limitations.

Then some years later I discovered 8bitpeoples and had this religious revelation: limitation is where the fun is.

seriously, dude. yes.

Nothing else even really needs to be said IMO.

We (as humans) naturally tend to seek the motivation for our behaviors, and this topic is no different. Of course, when two contrasting motivations arise, we aim to justify our own approach. Let it be. You enjoy it because you enjoy it.

This is my opinion:

I make chipmusic because I like the sound, it is (around here atlease) pretty indie, not everyone does it and most of the time it's pretty quick and easy, and yes, I do like the limitations.

Now more about limitations; limitations can be good and bad. The limit that the Gameboy only has 4 channels is a huge challenge, but if you think again, making a melody and chord progression and drums in LSDJ is a thousand time easier, quicker and cheaper than if you'd record a piano, a guitar and some drums. At least for me. You just need a gameboy.

Another good thing about only having 4 channels with 3 instruments is that you don't have to focus on instruments as much, of course. I'm thinking about when I sit in Milkytracker and my 1 million samples library and just think: "what now?". I don't have that problem in LSDJ; limitations can be good.