Search options (Page 41 of 63)

Moving to General Discussion.

Moving this to General Discussion. Once a confirmed show is happening, please feel free to post about it in Upcoming Events.

Moving this to General Discussion. Once a confirmed show is happening, please feel free to post about it in Upcoming Events.

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.

Wow damn -- these guys approached me about playing, but at the time I was too burned out to take it on, and plus my "M.A.A.R. Alarm" was quietly going off a little bit. They seem like nice enough people, but in retrospect I'm relieved I didn't sign on. The presentation is basically the exact textbook example of what chipmusic's been trying to distinguish itself from.

Don't know if anyone uses Songkick for concert alerts etc. (I'm kind of into it) but for shits 'n' giggles I added an event listing there.
http://www.songkick.com/concerts/8075041

I mainly meant the songwriting. No complaints about the lack of polish, in fact for garagey stuff A) that's part of the charm and B) this stuff actually sounded quite nice from a production standpoint. Not trying to invalidate anybody liking this by any stretch, so no justification necessary — honestly I applaud new / cool / unconventional applications of chip sounds and this definitely fits into that category.