n00bstar wrote:
defPREMIUM wrote:

this prob will open up a discussion about what makes 'chip music' 'chip music' but we don't have to go there

I mean.... he called it in the opening post. But guess where this forum took it? Yeah. Exactly. Chipmusic is an aesthetic choice. Period. If you're at the point where you ask yourself if your music qualifies as chipmusic or not anymore, it probably isn't.

@defPREMIUM I gave a listen to your music. I, PERSONALLY, don't think it's anywhere near chipmusic. But I'm not about to argue if your music has a place here. Whatever boats your float man. I do think you should reach out of this scene and into the lo-fi art-pop scene though (think Lorde, but replace the hot girl with a sweaty nerd).

As far as being welcomed here... both you and your music are. Stop asking silly questions.

Well, by asking if his music is welcome here he was basically asking if it is chip music, wasn't he? This forum is chipmusic oriented after all.

Like I said, I don't actually care what music he makes. I simply tried to answer his question. I make experimental electronic music that happens to include chip sounds from time to time, but I generally make what I feel like making in the moment. I don't care about genres.

I think Invisible Robot Hands was trying to suggest that.

I think it should be considered chiptune if it sounds like chiptune, regardless of the equipment being used. If it doesn't sound like chiptune then it isn't. The term was coined in reference to C64 music and the music made on the Amiga that emulated C64 music if I'm not mistaken, so that's the kind of sound you should try to emulate if you want to make chip music.

But I honestly don't care what it is as long as I like how it sounds, but this community apparently does (since it's called "chipmusic") so there should be a clearer definition for it.

I don't see why you would automatically call something made in a tracker "chiptune". The songs on that EP sound nothing like chiptune and by your logic you could call any kind of music that as long as it's made in a tracker. Therefore chiptune is a meaningless term like EDM.

baudtack wrote:
qb wrote:

What exactly do you mean by "vibrations in the air"?

Sound. It's just the air vibrating in a particular pattern and pushing on your ear drum.

If you own the score then it's up to you to allow others to sell modified versions of it.

It should be pretty clear why that is a good way to do things. The law is there to stop people like Timbaland from remixing your song and making thousands of dollars in the process. In such instances most people would feel cheated.

baudtack wrote:
qb wrote:

Your argument is incomprehensible because it can apply to virtually anything. By your logic, nobody owns anything, not even themselves because fundamentally we don't really ever create anything.

I'm not sure how you extrapolate "no one owns anything"  from me explicitly saying that it's reasonable to copyright recordings and scores but not vibrations in the air, which is essentially what you hold a copyright on for songs. Regardless, I think we're probably done here.

What exactly do you mean by "vibrations in the air"?

I'm talking about cases where people pay no royalties and they don't ask for permission.

baudtack wrote:
Alpine wrote:

true, but they'd be happier than if you were making money off of them

How is it making money "off of them" if it's your work? The idea that you should some how own the vibrations of the air is crazy to me. Recordings? Yes. Written scores? Yes. If you say that no one can make a cover without my permission, where does it end? What about a chord progression that I write? Do you owe me money for that?

Your argument is incomprehensible because it can apply to virtually anything. By your logic, nobody owns anything, not even themselves because fundamentally we don't really ever create anything.

Well, you should expect most artists to mind if you remix or cover their work and make money out of it, and as long as they mind it you could argue that it is morally wrong.

Most of you were angry when Timbaland ripped off Janne Suni's song "Acidjazzed Evening" (which was essentially a remix) and now you're telling me that selling remixes\covers is OK even if you don't ask for permission? I know Janne wasn't credited as the original artist but I am almost certain that he would have still sued Timbaland for remixing and selling his song even if Timbaland had credited him. The only difference here is that chiptune artists don't tend to make thousands of dollars but that doesn't negate the fact that a lot of artists are going to be offended by your complete lack of consideration for their feelings.

Most probably won't mind it if you share them for free. The same can't be said about selling remixes or covers of their songs, though personally I wouldn't mind it as long as I was credited as the original author.

^ haha

All I want to say is this: don't be a dick by selling these covers\remixes you're making. I've seen that many chiptune musicians and even labels do this and I think it is a contemptible thing to do. My first release is going to be a compilation of remixes and covers, but it will be completely free as it should be.

43

(11 replies, posted in Releases)

Really cool release. There definitely isn't enough (MOD, XM, etc) tracker music being released in the chiptune scene.

44

(10 replies, posted in Releases)

Good stuff.

Both of these previews sound great so far. You should probably use SoundCloud for previews in the future. Bandcamp is more of a site that's made for selling or distributing finished material.

The weirdest and coolest thing I've heard in a while.

Some of 4mat's songs are quite upbeat. I'd definitely recommend his newest album (or any of the other ones): https://4mat.bandcamp.com/album/nadir

But if you want the cheesy kind of upbeat, there's stuff like this: http://cerror.bandcamp.com/
http://xyce.bandcamp.com/album/mosaik

48

(44 replies, posted in General Discussion)

Makes me want to buy a Game Boy so badly. I don't know why I don't own one now.