melkor
Offline
pdx
fluidvolt wrote:

Melkor, your argument makes no sense. You asked if there were good 1bit songs/compositions, and some were presented to you. Perhaps the compositions presented aren't up to your standards, but in theory a good 1bit piece should be every bit as attainable as a composition for any instrument. To blacklist a composition by the virtue of what instrument it was composed on/for seems heavy-handed and frivolous. What if you arranged an excellent piece for two cellos as a 1bit piece? Would the composition itself, distinct from the performance, suddenly and irrevocably be degraded?

You ask if they would be considered good if they were made on more advanced software but that is a side-stepping of the main argument; A good composition would still be just that even if it were only sheet music scrawled on a cave wall.

Some good points here, but: there is a distinct difference between a song and a composition. A composition is as you say "only sheet music scrawled on a cave wall," while a song is a composition performed. An excellent cello piece arranged for 1bit, would obviously lose nothing as a composition, but I think would lose something as a song. I was not evaluating the aforementioned 1-bit songs as compositions, but as songs. Maybe this is just pure subjectivity, I don't know.

@ant1: I think you're in the minority with that viewpoint. Obviously some people like the raw sound of 1bit, but I think most people enjoy the songs because of what they were created on.

BR1GHT PR1MATE
Offline
BOSTON
ant1 wrote:

i would still like shiru's songs if i found out that the he was lying and they were all made in cubase

me too! i think his songs are totally awesome and would be great arranged for any instrument(s). Shiru's music has everything that makes for strong musical content (from my perspective): great melodies, dramatic harmonic movement, epic grooves, and a strong "original voice"; I could tell these tunes were Shiru's if they were played on a banjo.

@Melkor: From your response, I can't really tell if you are talking about the "musicality" of 1-bit music or what. Beyond simply disliking them, what are the qualities of these tunes don't you feel "measures up" to your musical benchmark? If you don't like 1-bit music, I suppose thats fine, but that doesn't mean that they are devoid of art any more than bach's music for solo cello would be is you just didn't like the cello.

/meh

*edit: ah funny, fluidvolt said basically the same thing while I was typing this!

Last edited by BR1GHT PR1MATE (Feb 15, 2011 12:43 am)

fluidvolt
Offline
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

If you don't like 1-bit music, I suppose thats fine, but that doesn't mean that they are devoid of art any more than bach's music for solo cello would be is you just didn't like the cello.

This is basically what it boils down to.

BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

*edit: ah funny, fluidvolt said basically the same thing while I was typing this!

Tag team musicology go!

tempsoundsolutions
Offline
TSSBAY01
godinpants wrote:
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"?

well, now that we're (predictably) 8 pages in...i only said that because here we can have this discussion!

nickmaynard
Offline
rochester, ny
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

If you don't like 1-bit music, I suppose thats fine, but that doesn't mean that they are devoid of art any more than bach's music for solo cello would be is you just didn't like the cello.

i don't know if this really pertains to the discussion, but i bet bach would LOVE one bit music. i was a music performance / history major for 2 years and i played a lot of bach cello and lute pieces. i think he'd love chip music in general, honestly.

Last edited by nickmaynard (Feb 15, 2011 9:05 am)

melkor
Offline
pdx
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

@Melkor: From your response, I can't really tell if you are talking about the "musicality" of 1-bit music or what. Beyond simply disliking them, what are the qualities of these tunes don't you feel "measures up" to your musical benchmark? If you don't like 1-bit music, I suppose thats fine, but that doesn't mean that they are devoid of art any more than bach's music for solo cello would be is you just didn't like the cello.

/meh

Why the "meh"? Isn't this fun?! But at this point I think we've come to the dead end of pure subjectivity. But I will press boldly onward.

Firstly, the "qualities of these [1-bit] tunes" that I don't like are the completed things themselves, the sound. I don't initially listen to music to hear great compositions, but rather the presentation of a composition (a song). I only pay attention (at least specifically or intentionally) to the compositional aspects AFTER the sound, groove, etc.. catches my attention and thus garnishes my approval as "good".

Secondly, A question: didn't classical composers (or modern) notate which instruments would play which part? Such as, a violin concerto or bass section, etc? I don't think I would like Beethoven's Ninth played with guitars (and I like guitars), or at the very least I don't think I would enjoy it as much as the piece performed "as intended" by Ludwig.

Thirdly, if we really want to get into the idea of a composition, is it strictly notation on a page, or could it include which instrument plays which part? Would the "wrong" choice of instrument render the song or the composition "bad"?

Fourthly, I don't doubt that several people truly enjoy 1-bit music for what it is. And further that some of it (I gather Shiru is quite good) is the paradigm of compositional excellence. But, that said, I have a sneaking suspicion that MOST people who enjoy 1-bit tunes do so (at least initially) not for brilliant composition, but rather because of composition embedded in a specific limitation. I think that the whole idea of pointing to compositional value is really an argumentative maneuver, because of the fact that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to argue about preferences, used to point to something beyond limitation. For example, "Ha ha, I win, you can't tell me what I don't like, and I like composition. And I like 1-bit BECAUSE of its compositional value."

Fifthly, this is a minor aside but I personally don't consider music as belonging to art. I think it is wonderful and emotive and pretty, and etc. and has artistic elements but that it is not art. It seems more primal to me, something deeper within us as humans, more Dionysian maybe.

Finally, to the people who after reading this thread want to respond "can't we all just get along? We all like the music right?!?!?" I disagree. Conversations like this are the very definition of getting along. Peaceful, thoughtful conversation in the midst of disagreement. And also are the definition of liking music I think, at least in a personal way. Challenging your own ideas about the things you enjoy.

Last edited by melkor (Feb 15, 2011 12:48 pm)

Jansaw
Offline
Canada

This conversation has moved from electronic limitations to analog limitation, then to what defines music that people like, only to move slowly to a discussion on the necessity of 1Bit music.
Now I can't help but pick out one sentence from your previous post, Melkor:

Melkor wrote:

this is a minor aside but I personally don't consider music as belonging to art.

I strongly disagree.
By definition, art is created to showcase the creative and expressive skill of the artISTS. Those who produce works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. While this obviously relates to visual arts, I believe calling music an art is EXACTLY how we should describe it; works of time created by a composer to convey expressivity through several emotional (therefore musical) catharses.
Would you call music non-expressive? This seems foolish to me. I believe people who view music in this light aren't musicians, only arrangers of sounds, yes there is a difference here. Musicians relate to the arts, and are expressive, arrangers of sound take ontological snippets of time and arrange them to be translated into psychological time purposes.
I agree that discussion is integral, and here I may just be the Schoenberg to your Stravinsky.

melkor
Offline
pdx
Jansaw wrote:

This conversation has moved from electronic limitations to analog limitation, then to what defines music that people like, only to move slowly to a discussion on the necessity of 1Bit music.
Now I can't help but pick out one sentence from your previous post, Melkor:

Melkor wrote:

this is a minor aside but I personally don't consider music as belonging to art.

I strongly disagree.
By definition, art is created to showcase the creative and expressive skill of the artISTS. Those who produce works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. While this obviously relates to visual arts, I believe calling music an art is EXACTLY how we should describe it; works of time created by a composer to convey expressivity through several emotional (therefore musical) catharses.
Would you call music non-expressive? This seems foolish to me. I believe people who view music in this light aren't musicians, only arrangers of sounds, yes there is a difference here. Musicians relate to the arts, and are expressive, arrangers of sound take ontological snippets of time and arrange them to be translated into psychological time purposes.
I agree that discussion is integral, and here I may just be the Schoenberg to your Stravinsky.

I would never call music non-expressive, but I would also never call most sentences or propositions non-expressive. I wouldn't call "arrangers of sound" non-expressive either. I also don't think that music is (primarily) a form of catharsis (am I understanding you correctly as catharsis as an Aristotlean purge of emotion?). Which is why I don't think it is art, but rather something better. I may be misunderstanding the terms, but I don't think music is an emotional purge (by the artist) to create or enhance emotions in those that experience it. Like an emotional vehicle for the artist. But rather something much more mundane or common. I don't think a child's crayon drawings are art and neither do I think an interesting pattern in nature is art. But these things are definitely beautiful and interesting. But any qualitative definition of art gets into trouble very quickly I think. Is punk art? It doesn't seem like it, specifically because of the anti-establishment/cultural outcastedness aspect of it. But then if music is art, why are the Misfits not considered art, and Mozart is? The Misfits definitely fit into our conceptions of modern art to a certain degree, at least more than Mozart. Is art then defined by intention? or what you seemed to say: "art is what an artist creates." The former seems problematic and too simple and broad (I meant this blink and then yawn of mine to be art) and the latter seems far too circular (What is art? That which is created by an artist. What is an artist? One who creates art.) Are the Beatles records art? The Misfits? Southern slave songs (which are some of the most expressive and emotional things one could imagine)? Again I say no, because they belong to the commons (by this I mean, not intellectual property rights but rather a seemingly universal intuitive understanding of music) in a way that I think is more powerful than mere "art".

Last edited by melkor (Feb 15, 2011 2:02 pm)

Jansaw
Offline
Canada

By catharsis I was referring to an outpouring of emotion. Like a Shakespearean play that undergoes a final act of expressing massive emotion (ex: hearing your favourite song at a concert of your favourite band). I would definitely call punk art, and a strong one at that. It's an expression by the composers, and in most cases in punk it becomes a very strong argument against socio-political factors. This, to me, makes it art. I do see where you are going, and I applaud you for having your own opinion; music can mean so many different things to so many different people. It's great.

chunter
Offline
Brunswick, GA USA

Etymologically speaking, anything a person creates is art. For example, "Art" is the root word in "artificial." Don't carry a pretense that art has some greater purpose or divine meaning- when you drop a turd in the toilet, that is also art.

I made such a broad definition in part because in the past I tired of people telling me they don't like sport (implying athletics) when in fact, anything you do for fun is sport (which debunks the famous knock that hunting, fishing, bowling, or any hobby you hate are not sport.)

This conversation has reached the point where it will simply be a lot of people saying "no it isn't," and "yes it is," without having any concrete way to back their opinions with fact. It's okay to dislike beeper music, we have the phrase "difficult music" for a reason.

I think the question that wants to be asked is, do we spend too much time composing for ourselves or other chip musicians and not enough time composing in a way that non-musicians are more able to appreciate?

goto80
Offline
CHIPTUNE
melkor wrote:

But, that said, I have a sneaking suspicion that MOST people who enjoy 1-bit tunes do so (at least initially) not for brilliant composition, but rather because of composition embedded in a specific limitation. I think that the whole idea of pointing to compositional value is really an argumentative maneuver, because of the fact that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to argue about preferences, used to point to something beyond limitation. For example, "Ha ha, I win, you can't tell me what I don't like, and I like composition. And I like 1-bit BECAUSE of its compositional value."

Not sure I understand you. But, since it's basically impossible to say why/how we like music, why do you want discuss it as if there was one answer to get to?

I guess we always understand a song in relation to some set of limitations. A gameboy-beat is different if we hear it in a hip-hop club. Stereotypes, languages and genres help us to understand situations in different ways. What if "mood" is a limitation?

Jansaw
Offline
Canada

I think, for me, it's reached a point where music and it's implications become unquantifiable. I'll continue to do what I do because I love to do it, and the influences I may have on my surroundings inevitably will, or will not, alter my environment.

Decktonic
Offline
Westfield, NJ

I think you guys might have to agree to disagree on this one!

muffins
Offline
NY

Can't wait to read the rest of this topic when I get home, but the quotes in the original post by 4mat and Decktonic are exactly how I feel.

noname
Offline
rochester, ny
chunter wrote:

I think the question that wants to be asked is, do we spend too much time composing for ourselves or other chip musicians and not enough time composing in a way that non-musicians are more able to appreciate?

This. Go.

herr_prof
Offline
Unsubscribe

Well if you dont make music that you yourself wants to hear, whats the point of making music?