Conversation about the quality assesment of chipmusic (Page 2 of 4)

I like to listen to music when it makes me smile. It doesn't always have to be interesting rhythmically, melodically, etc. It just has to give you a certain feeling. Certain people listen to heavy metal because it makes them feel like someone understands them(just guessing there, I have no idea why someone would listen to it). Other people might listen to chipmusic because it makes them feel nostalgic(another shot in the dark). It's not a question of quality, it's a question of emotion. What you feel when you listen to a song. I personally can find something to like in a lot of songs. I also tend to form opinions about genres or artists based on one or two songs, which is a bad habit of mine, and then when I listen to more I discover that I like their music a lot(this is how I discovered basically all electronic music). It's all based on what you want to feel and what makes you feel that way.
Or maybe I'm just rambling and don't really know what I'm talking. Who knows? XD

seems legit.

Well, how about this one. My main criteria in a value assessment of a musical composition is the emotive response it evokes in me. Which is 100% subjective. Surely this is one of the main, if not the main purpose, of music.

It's easy if we're talking about a can opener because it has a primary intended primary function. To open cans. You could have the most gorgeously designed can opener by aesthetic standards. It could be light weight, low cost, recyclable and shoot fucking lazers but if it fails to open a can with ease then it can be judged as a low quality can opener.

What then do people think is the primary function of music?

Isn't that just popular opinion?

The quality of music is an interesting concept.

There is plenty of music in the world that has the intention of being bad/abrasive/jarring/offensive. A lot of the artists producing this kind of music manage to create songs that are very, very bad. In doing so, said artist achieves their goal. Doesn't that make it skilled or good, in the sense that it has achieved its goal?

I think one of the key differences in the landscape of the chipmusic world are these goals. It seems to me that people in different places often end up moving towards a common goal in varying fashion, but that goal will be very different from what a group is subconsciously (or very consciously) working towards in another location. This means that if you start comparing artists from different places against each other too specifically, you end up comparing apples and oranges.

...And while tracking (or coding) skill is (in my opinion) reasonably objective - how many sounds an artist can allude to have in a composition at once, how detailed instruments are, the accuracy of a snare envelope, dat bass, yada yada - a lot of these things can often mean nothing in a live setting. If your goal is not to alienate an audience with your changing time signatures and complex dissonant melodies with 3000 instruments in LSDJ you've blown it no matter how fantastic your tracking is. If your goal is to have a room full of people singing your lead melody and you've composed your drums with nothing but a 808 kit and they're singing... You've won.

tl;dr:
• different groups have different goals.
• tracking/coding skills can be judged somewhat objectively
• ...but that doesn't matter because if often has no bearing on an artist's goals.
• I'M OVERTHINKIN' IT.

@celsius: yeah its totally public opinion, which can and does change-the distinction though is that you cant come up with a list of traits that all "good" chip music has and then create songs using those traits and assume it will be awesome. any song made is part of a larger conversation informed by everything that came before it. i think it would be a fun exercise to take the things that are a no no in chip music and try to make an awesome song. thoughts?