913 Feb 14, 2011 11:12 am
Re: skulls and heads: we love them, but why? (26 replies, posted in General Discussion)
914 Feb 14, 2011 11:08 am
Re: skulls and heads: we love them, but why? (26 replies, posted in General Discussion)
915 Feb 14, 2011 11:06 am
Re: skulls and heads: we love them, but why? (26 replies, posted in General Discussion)
MORE SKULLS.
WE NEED MORE FUCKING SKULLS.
THEY STOP OUR HEADS FROM CAVING IN.
GIVE ME SKULLS OR GIVE ME DEATH.
917 Feb 11, 2011 4:46 am
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
Acoustic guitar players don't generally list "the limitations" when asked why they chose their instrument.
What i'm curious about is why it seems to play such a large role in the chip community.
918 Feb 11, 2011 4:26 am
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
nitro2k01 wrote:
This type of track is typically judged on other qualities than just "musical quality". It's really more about accomplishment. Showing off your note-cramming skills. The bar is not lowered, it's just different criteria.
How about the accomplishment of 4 channels over a modern DAW?
Accomplishment over the limitations imposed by the medium.
A composer with experience in the medium will assess it that way, but what about outsiders or listeners. Are limitations important to them? are they aware they exist?
Zomvor wrote:
My LSDJ upload took me a week to make...I'm more deserving of praise" or my favorite, "My tracker is harder to use than your tracker! Kiss my feet."
Superiority through overcoming a "more difficult" process. "it was more difficult to make so it must be better"
Attempting to imply the method leads to a greater output. So greater limitations = harder = better music!
This is what i mean about the proof of concept idea. "hey you can make music on a 1 bit one channel tracker" but is it good?
919 Feb 11, 2011 3:19 am
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
Note! wrote:
Again, limitation is not a concept. It is, in some amount, part of every single thing that has every been designed (bold, I know). The fact that it's more prominent in things like chip music does not require it to be "proven" any further.
limitation isn't a concept, but choosing to work within limitation is.
godinpants wrote:
I'm not suggesting they are of lesser quality. What i am suggesting is that if i were to reproduce a track in one channel as opposed to four, Would you expect equal outcomes based on the increased limitation?
note! wrote:
Expecting the same outcome from three less channels would be silly but I would expect the same creative output - i.e. reworking a track to take advantage of it occupying a single channel. Again, that's kind of the heart of the whole thing. Limitations require you to redesign - but the creative input and output should remain the same.
Yes. This is what i am looking for.
Note! wrote:
godinpants wrote:Furthermore, would the aspect of "this was written in one channel" make you more lenient in your critique of the track?
It depends on if you explicitly tell me that "the track is done on one channel". If that's the case, I would, of course, judge it based on the fact that you're telling me it's a one-channel track. That's beyond my control. But my critique would definitely not be "more lenient" because of it. Nobodies should.
But your expectations would change?
This is what i see whenever some chip musician is asked how they produce their music.
As soon as you say "i make music on a gameboy" people change their expectations. I admit that's a bit different, but it feels like sometimes people use the whole "its a gameboy" idea to justify their work. Much in the same way limitations are always brought up.
920 Feb 11, 2011 2:23 am
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
Note! wrote:
Just keep in mind that limitation exists in design for a very specific reason: it forces people to review their creative process.
godinpants wrote:
Does "confronting limitation" justify lesser quality as a "proof of concept"?
Note! wrote:
This question is totally flawed since you are suggesting that products of limitation are immediately lesser in quality (if I understand you correctly). Assuming that, we can just go ahead and say Dan Flavin, Mies van deer Rohe, Steve Reich, John Cage, Mondrian and anyone that has ever referred to their work as "minimalist" as being of "lesser quality". And while I'll give you that minimalism and the limitations that artists choose when they produce chip music are different, at their core they are the same: "do something awesome within a set of constraints".
Also, there's no "proof" needed to understand that limitations are successful as a strategy in in all the forms it can take. If minimalism or limitations needed to be proven as a method, that shit was done and found to rock a long time ago.
I'm not suggesting they are of lesser quality. What i am suggesting is that if i were to reproduce a track in one channel as opposed to four, Would you expect equal outcomes based on the increased limitation?
Furthermore, would the aspect of "this was written in one channel" make you more lenient in your critique of the track?
921 Feb 11, 2011 2:17 am
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
Decktonic wrote:
Also something else that is interesting and hasn't been mentioned too much in this discussion is that I had a very good experience learning to make music within these limitations, whereas I couldn't learn working with software that had very few limitations. Basically, I learned a lot working with a limited platform before I was able to get really comfortable with using a platform that wasn't so limited. I think this is related to what's known as the "kitchen sink" problem.
This can be applied to just about everything really.
If you ride a motorbike, there is usually some limit on the size of bike you can learn on, before progressing to a larger more powerful bike.
You need to learn to walk before you can run.
But if chipmusic in this analogy is the walk, where will we run? or will we at all?
akira^8GB, that's a point i made in my thesis a few years ago, that nostalgia is non existant if you never left an idea in the first place.
L-tron wrote:
Once you get to know a program really well, you learn the limitations of the sounds
But what is the result of that knowledge? Do you accept them as a dead end or a detour? Does it encourage you to find new ways to explore what you do have access to?
922 Feb 11, 2011 12:49 am
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
nitro2k01 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's about limitations as much as using a unique (relatively speaking) tool. These are tools with their own quirks and perks, that you have to master. It's not the limitations per se, but the path these limitations inspire you to take, and also as a result how the software running on the lo-bit machines are designed. Who would get the idea of adding tables or grooves like those on LSDj, to some generic PC software? Incidentally, those are two of the features that I miss the most in other software.
Personally i feel the limitation side of this is an irrelevant aspect of chip music.That is largely why i am interested in what people have to say.
nitro2k01 wrote:
Generally speaking, I don't "get" the concept of using lo-bit VSTs on a PC. You keep the "worst" part of lo-bit (simple wave forms) and throw away the "best" parts (modulation, arpeggios, fine tuned control.) To me, composing lo-bit music doesn't take away something, it adds something.
So what if you could emulate technique with a new sound set?
I suppose renoise might fit there.
923 Feb 11, 2011 12:41 am
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
I think discussion of gear is an important part of the chip culture in that it's the gear that draws us together, instead of a genre.
924 Feb 11, 2011 12:22 am
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:
you can put tons of effort into a masterpiece of a song, and then the track that people will actually like is the one you whipped out in 15 minutes to fill space or whatever.
So where does aknowledgement of process sit for you compared to aknowledgement of the output?
goto80 wrote:
Chipmusic people are constantly confirming the idea that less channels is more limiting than more channels. (perhaps some mean that limited != limiting, but still..) Or less waves, bits or pixels or whatever. But it's not. Right? Why would you use something that *actually* limits you?
That last point is something i am interested in.
If you are given 4 channels, do you write a 4 channel song? or a song in 4 channels?
925 Feb 10, 2011 11:55 pm
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
RG wrote:
I have a question as well, if I may be so bold.
Is it worth having these self-imposed limitations if everyone's music starts to sound as though the same person made it?
Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone but it starts to wear on you when flipping through 8bc's playlists.
This can be said of a lot of music though, a lot "less limited" platforms can produce music of the same generic nature.
Rainbowdragoneyes wrote:
Also, the chip world is also one of the only times where your performance can be judged on how well you manipulate your source files.
Surely this is what a DJ does. Or for that matter a turntablist or similar.
Rainbowdragoneyes wrote:
People within this scene are interested in the hardware and how the music is composed, I would say arguably more than the music itself. I see a fuckload of "what did you use to make this"
A lot of guitar boards are filled with "how did you get this tone" "what pedals and amp did you use"
Infact the site guitargeek.com is based on this.
926 Feb 10, 2011 11:36 pm
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
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"?
927 Feb 10, 2011 11:30 pm
Re: Re: Limitation (189 replies, posted in General Discussion)
Bright primate: that is a point i was writing about, to a composer that might make sense, but to a non musician listener, who has no idea of the work that goes into writing a song, let alone the specific platform used, such a comment is useless and does nothing to attract them towards the music.
This is where the input v output comes in.
My opinion on the topic is that there is an argument for both. To your peers, the nerdier side, the tracking, the polyphony juggling, the synthesis, is all appealing. This is the input. Perhaps it is their approval you are aiming for, but after the initial scrutiny and investigation, what does your hard work hold? There's a song, but is it enjoyable? Does it fulfil whatever musical intentions you had? Or was is simply a show of technical ability of you and your platform.
decktonic: you say the limitations are a challenge, but you would enjoy not having them as well.
would it have much influence on your music if the limitations didn't exist? or would you even use the platform?
As for justification, i'll take a stab at the demo scene. I've seen plenty of "cube floats in the air" demos, and while i assume there is a fair bit of work in getting that done nicely (someone can correct me here) it's not very impressive visually, but still i imagine the first time it was done everyone went "HOLY SHIT THAT IS BEAUTIFUL" and the dude/s got some mad respect for it.
928 Feb 10, 2011 11:19 pm
Re: Tattoos? (127 replies, posted in General Discussion)
tattoo art might be taking off, but i wouldnt call what i see around here art.
thousands of southern cross and "aussie pride" tattoos are nothing special.
tattooing may be a way of life, but for the people i'm talking about, it's just the same as buying a new iphone or thick rimmed glasses, or trendy haircuts and all that.
"oh shit hardcore's cool, better go fit in with the scene"
As for jealousy, i have no intention of getting a tattoo, and from the content of my post it seems fairly clear that they having a tattoo isnt some secret love of mine.
Back on the thread though - every couple of months, atleast on 8bc if not here, someone comes along with their mario tattoo idea or a gameboy or something pixelly. Typically the idea gets shot down, with photo examples of why.