Offline
danimal cannon wrote:


  Movie scores... look at John Williams stuff, anyone can hum the melody to Indiana Jones or Superman, can you hum the melody to any movie score made in the last 10 years?

I catch myself humming certain songs from the Amelie soundtrack quite a bit.  I'm actually going to see the composer of this score, Yann Tiersen this Sunday with my girlfriend for Valentine's Day.  Just saying, there are still SOME good composers out there.  And you bring up a very good point about chipmusic limitations lending itself to melodic music.  Here is one of Yann Tiersen's compositions performed in LSDJ. 

Offline
CHIPTUNE

But....

Why do we talk so much about limitations? Is it just a way to conceptualize what we do and make it legit for outsiders? Since every instrument has its limitations, why are we so eager to emphasize this with our instruments, when others prefer to talk about potentials instead of limitations with their tools?

Trackers give more control and are fast to work with, especially the ones not based on samples. The low amount of waveforms and polyphony is maybe just the price you have to pay for this mega-luxury?

Celebrate!

Offline
Brooklyn NY US

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.

Offline
Liverpool, UK

tldr - shut the fuck up, make some ch00nz

Offline
Brunswick, GA USA

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.)

Offline
Brooklon
Bit Shifter wrote:

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.

This is something that I've always found quite surprising because absolutely everything has a limit and we are all, whether conscious of it or not, working within them. Food can only be cooked for a certain amount of time before it burns. A chair can only hold a certain amount of weight before it breaks. Paint can only be mixed so many times before it turns brown/black/turd color. These are all limitations but rarely do we see them as negative. Maybe people perceive chip music's limitations as a negative precisely because they mistakenly place them in the context of modern DAWs. But that's a little like asking a professional kazoo player how he can work with those limitations and that he should really be playing a MiniMOOG.

Bit Shifter wrote:

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.

High-five to Mr. Shifter.

Last edited by Note! (Feb 12, 2011 3:08 pm)

Offline
Bit Shifter wrote:

[...]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.

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.

Offline
buffalo, NY

^^^  I started off as the kind of person who was into the result, but now that I am a composer I'm also into the process.  What I've found is that the gameboy is a surprisingly robust and expressive instrument.  The only thing is, there are no presets, there's only your imagination and your attention to detail. 

I find when I compose on LSDJ I have to have an extremely critical eye for music production, paying attention to vibrato strengths and start points, slides, legato, volume gradients, panning and stereo field awareness, timbres, drum humanization... the list goes on.   For me, these challenges are fun!  I could easily make a tune with fruityloops presets, and I've done that.  But what overcoming these challenges and paying attention to details does is make me understand the nuances of music production, arrangement, and playing my instrument much more than previously.  And that makes me a better overall musician with a comprehensive understanding of it.   That's one reason I love chip.   The limitations FORCE me to sink or swim.  And I'm swimming.

Last edited by danimal cannon (Feb 12, 2011 7:06 pm)

Offline
São Paulo, Brazil

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.

Offline
☺☺☺

its not so much about the limitations as it is the breathing room

Offline
Nashville, Tennessee
Emar wrote:

its not so much about the limitations as it is the breathing room

seriously, dude. yes.

Offline

One word for me: workflow.


Compositionally AND in terms of interface.

Last edited by an0va (Feb 13, 2011 12:59 am)

Offline

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.

Offline
danimal cannon wrote:

The specific limitations of old chip stuff, specifically limited number of monophonic channels... LEND themselves to arrangements that are extremely melodic.   A lot of music today is devoid of melody (obviously not COMPLETELY).  Vocals tend to be as close as you get, guitars tend to just play chords.  Movie scores... look at John Williams stuff, anyone can hum the melody to Indiana Jones or Superman, can you hum the melody to any movie score made in the last 10 years? 

Obviously chip has graduated into having its own aesthetic, but the original limitations just lent themselves to such fantastic melodic arrangements, since you couldn't count on having HUGE DRUMS and guitars, and sexy chords had to be implied.


This is more or less what I was going to say. I usually make music in Cubase, and the majority of my music emphasizes rhythm and timbre. I always begin tunes with percussion, and the finished tracks tend to be driven by that. What made me want to work in LSDJ is knowing that I'm not going to be able to get that kind of rhythm (unless I want to use all four channels for percussion),and I can't rely on timbre to make my track sound better - I'm going to have to write some really good melodies.

So yeah, the limitations of LSDJ (and the Game Boy hardware) are what attracted me to it; I want to improve the melodies in my music, and LSDJ forces me to focus almost entirely on that aspect alone.

Offline

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.

Offline
NJ

for me, it's about convenience and control. i am able to create an entire song, album, project, etc all by myself with 4 AA batteries. i can do this while i'm at the bar, while i ride public transportation, at night after i jerk off (note: don't touch my gameboy, you may catch something), while i take a shit, at a diner, while smoking outside on a sunny day.. you get the idea.  there is no band mate to tell me when something should sound different etc.. some may see this as a stupid thing, considering the point of band mates is teamwork for progress, but I get to make the exact music I want to hear.

as far as the only limitation i see, it's our fanbase. it's limited to people that have similar tastes in our music (not chip music, but the specific artist's style). other than that, each specific piece of hardware has its own sounds. if you get tired of something, switch platforms, just like you would with anything else in life.  learn to progress once you think you've done everything you absolutely can do with said object.

Last edited by facundo (Feb 13, 2011 3:26 pm)