Search options (Page 3 of 24)

what

yeah but like do you understand that in a thread in which everyone is sharing chipmusic they /like/ you came in and started telling people that the songs that they like are bad

and your arguments for why they were bad were literally "they sound like eurodisco" and "they were in c major"

so for you to claim some sort of intellectual high ground based on a key signature is a teeny bit disingenuous don't you think?

the entire soundtrack of red dead redemption was written in a minor at 130 bpm so they could layer instrument parts on top of each other seamlessly and naturally

but it's also an amazing soundtrack? and my reasoning for thinking so is more complicated than "a minor" and "sounds like morricone"

just saying

you might want to look into grabbing a daw (free or otherwise) that has input monitoring capabilities

and then, depending on the emulator, you can use a digital audio cable to route the emulators' output into the daw

and you can even go one further and map the start button on both emulator instances to the same button

even with hardware though I just got really good at hitting start on both gameboys at the same time and then put each gameboy's speaker up to a different ear

those were different times

maybe condom was all a dream

last I checked this forum was called chipmusic.org and not trialsandsentencingofmusicequipmentretailers.org

I probably should have made this more clear, but I only referenced skrillex as a stand in for brostep in general

what I was trying to figure out was why this track in particular somehow made brostep (an aesthetic with a pretty big stigma attached to it here AND elsewhere) palatable for an audience that very often defines itself in opposition to the mainstream, brostep included. in this case, it's fine if the aesthetic referenced isn't everyone's cup of tea, SO LONG AS it's made on an NES

yet the opposite situation, in which a mainstream producer uses chiptune sounds in an otherwise modern-sounding track is pretty universally frowned upon by the community. honestly, both situations are pandering -- one of them just happens to pander to us in the way that we like, so it's excused

again, I really don't mean to slight the track (I think it's really awesome honestly) but I think a big reason why one situation is considered "chiptune" and the other isn't is based around the word itself -- it's obviously not just an aesthetic, because if it were, then we'd be totally fine with producers using chip sounds in tracks everywhere. "methodology" seems like a better word for it, but if that's the case then, assuming that the methodology involves voluntarily limiting yourself to obsolete technology, a lot of music falls under it. it's probably something like a methodology applied toward a specific aesthetic or something weird like that

and yeah this veers dangerously close to "what IS chiptune" but this kind of scene-wide self-evaluation is what allows growth -- I see the progression of dubstep as dubstep -> brostep -> trap -> future bass, and as (hugely) simplistic that model might be, I REALLY like where it ended up! and I think the huge stigma attached to brostep and its artists really pushed everyone within the genre to expand it to where skrillex is now making tropical beach pop (which has its own stigma (which creates its own evolution)). NOT TO MENTION outside artists coming in and very blatantly ripping off specific aesthetic references for their own artistic ends like purity ring, who made really deep, textured synthy bass music and threw trap beats underneath which created its own offshoot

but when I see members of the community talking about how edm producers using chip sounds is bad, while I see where the sentiment comes from, I do think that chiptune risks stagnancy if that kind of production is universally scorned -- I kind of see it as an opportunity for a collaborative affair where we can bring the aesthetic into cool new places. like if anamanaguchi made their power-punk stuff and other power-punk bands were like "yo fuck these guys they're just cribbing our style for VIDEO GAMES" they wouldn't have gotten anywhere

going back to the question, I wouldn't say I "enjoy" chiptune as much as I want to listen to it after I've jumped forward in time 10 years? a lot of the "big" artists that seemingly "graduated" from chiptune are doing really interesting things, and it'll be cool to see what happens to the scene after the video game associations are removed and the methodology stays

yeah I meant purity in a more general sense of what fits under the umbrella of "chiptune" and what doesn't, I only used myself as an example because I've been doin' INTROSPECTION YO

if little compositional/timbre-related gimmicks like having a "drop" or throwing some square waves in an edm track are the things that make you not want to listen to a track, I honestly don't see how you can even listen to chiptune at all

like chiptune is an entire aesthetic based on what a large percentage of music listeners would call a gimmick

maybe artists shift away from "pure" chiptune because the things that determined aesthetic purity w/r/t chiptune have only gotten narrower as time has passed while music in general has gone in all sorts of directions

I stopped listening to chiptune when the most interesting thing about the aesthetic became "sounds like old technology"

read: "sounds like old technology" wasn't always the most interesting thing about chiptune

edit edit: this is a fairly long winded way of saying chiptune changed and I didn't change with it