Offline
Westfield, NJ

So this isn't the first time I've heard this discussion and to be honest, I don't really know what to make of it. The platforms I use involve limited software on fully capable hardware, so basically my chipmusic is entirely defined by the software, not the hardware. But then some people would say that everything I make is either fakebit or not chip at all because it's not coming out of a gameboy or NES. And sometimes I don't call my work "chipmusic," I just call it "micromusic" because I'm working with a limited set of channels.

So my question is this: if person A uses a fully capable hardware device (like a modern computer or iPad) but makes music that sounds like classic gameboy tunes (either via samples, emulators or just clever synthesis) and person B uses a limited hardware device with a soundchip (like a NES or gameboy or c64) but somehow manages to push the limits to the point that it sounds like "modern music," would you say that person A is making chip music and person B is not? Would person A's music be more "chip"?

Offline
Abandoned On Fire

Person A would be creating chipmusic as form and person B would be (very accomplished at) creating chipmusic in their chosen medium.

I think both of us would agree that due to the hardware bias that's been developed Person B would receive higher praise and be seen as more "legit" IF AND ONLY IF the tools of composition were revealed.  If only the finished product in both cases were presented, and assuming they were both equally pleasing songs, then Person A would receive higher praise for being "more chip".

So now I think the best way to approach this discussion is:  If you don't know how a song was created how do you (as in you personally) decide if it's chipmusic or not?

Offline
BOSTON

> Makes post urging chipscene to move on from hardware vs. software

> Initiates largest hardwave vs. software thread in over a year

-_______-

Offline
Abandoned On Fire

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sv2dv/

Last edited by egr (Feb 5, 2013 3:29 pm)

Offline
Brunswick, GA USA
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

> Makes post urging chipscene to move on from hardware vs. software

> Initiates largest hardwave vs. software thread in over a year

-_______-

We're over it like the Hindenburg on fire.

There's a version of this discussion in the Vocaloid camp that leads to "most people would get a singer before learning to do this." With chipmusic it isn't quite as tall of an entry barrier, but some may recognize the sentiment.

Last edited by chunter (Feb 5, 2013 4:13 pm)

Offline
UK, Leicester
Decktonic wrote:

So my question is this: if person A uses a fully capable hardware device (like a modern computer or iPad) but makes music that sounds like classic gameboy tunes (either via samples, emulators or just clever synthesis) and person B uses a limited hardware device with a soundchip (like a NES or gameboy or c64) but somehow manages to push the limits to the point that it sounds like "modern music," would you say that person A is making chip music and person B is not? Would person A's music be more "chip"?

With the way I use the word chiptune, I would say B. I mean I wouldn't listen to it, or A's, but it's still more chip.

Basically I like the deep bittyness of older game systems, and it makes it feel more "legit" if it runs on the hardware, I'm just really damn fussy. It's quite easy to tell if someone is using samples or some app on their iPad. I don't know, it's just something about it never sounds quite right.

Offline
Los Angeles
Alpine wrote:

I'm just really damn fussy. It's quite easy to tell if someone is using samples or some app on their iPad. I don't know, it's just something about it never sounds quite right.

Maybe you are just picking out the things that do not sound right and missing the stuff that sounds fine. To me a lot of sample based plugins sound terrible (some synth edit stuff / toad / magical 8bit / etc) as well as DSP synthesis that utilize filtering algorithms for interpolation. There are ways around it, and some emulations or DSP based synths do a great job at it- But the terrible ones are also some of the more popular and give off a general distaste for the thing as a whole. Personally I just concentrate on what sounds good to me, and don't care where it's coming from. I use all the wares, both hard and soft. (ew.)

Offline
CHIPTUNE

Yeah, I agree with egr. Maybe we can go past what chipmusic IS and WAS, and move on to what it WILL BE? Given that we cannot always know how a song was made, then what is more relevant? Or, what will be most relevant to most music/tech people in the future? My guess is that the hardware/software discussion won't really be part of that.

What if ornamentation will be the most important part of the chip genre in the future? Perhaps we are more computer literate in the future as a culture, and can appreciate this sort of 'code craft'?

Maybe timbre will be irrelevant for chipstyle in 20 years, because analogue synthesizers will have taken back the bleepz. Perhaps its all about the step-sequency tracker style, since all other sequencers are generative?

(hm)

Offline
CHIPTUNE

ZE PHUTURE MANGO

Offline
babylon

chip music is music produced by a sound chip. i didnt know it had to be more complicated than that. everyhing else is chip "influenced". which is just as cool in my book. if the op's question is should we move on, like not worry about the definition anymore, then no. thats just caving in to people that want their music to be accepted as chip when it is actually chip influenced. for the most part its just as enjoyable but denying theres a difference is silly. i like this thread smile

Offline
buffalo, NY

To me its the whole package that entices me.  It's a familiar sound.  It's challenging AND rewarding.  It's ORIGINAL sounding (step outside the chipscene for a second).  It's punk rock, except people actually take pride in the music composition AND the message (whatever that is). 

I think the problem most of us have is that we've been so immersed in this scene that we've lost our perspective.  95% of people that I encounter are genuinely bewildered when I tell them about this kind of music.  It's not passe', there's no direction it needs to go.  The only thing it needs to concentrate on is making sweet jams.

Last edited by danimal cannon (Feb 5, 2013 6:12 pm)

Offline
Brunswick, GA USA

The definition became more complicated because I play mp3s on my wireless phone, which is also a soundchip. Does all music I listen to become chipmusic?

Chipmusic happened before there was a name for it, so I think there is no harm in assuming people will keep making music that way regardless of aesthetic or name.

I think it's safe to say the future looks a lot like a cross between one of goto80's gigs and a Deflemask session.

Last edited by chunter (Feb 5, 2013 6:18 pm)

Offline
babylon

people are making a lot of interesting points.
i used to argue with an ex-girlfriend that  ds-10 music was technically not chip but is generally accepted by the chip community because it is nintendo handheld music.  i believe she still refers to it as 8-bit or chip and it still gets accepted as such.
on the other side artist i enjoy like slugabed can incorporate a lot of chip sounding instruments without feeling the need to identify with them and worrying more about the genre theyre portraying.
also thought it was interesting to find out dj zincs super sharp shooter was written with octamed, i dont believe anyone ever called it chip, just some dope d'n'b.

Offline
Harrisonburg, Virginia

I've always heard and agree with the sentiment that chiptune is either a medium or an aesthetic. Similar to, but not really a genre (though I guess you could call songs composed solely with Gameboys, NESs, or what have you a "genre"), chipmusic is made with or emulating the sound, programming, etc. of old computer systems with soundchips limited in capability.

It's evoking a feeling or emotion much how classical music or rock music evoke different emotions.

I've looked at, for instance, LSDJ as the strings to the violin that is the Gameboy/GBC/GBA/AGS/DS/computer/everything else that emulates the GB's hardware or has that soundship. Obviously you could tear that argument apart and say "Well isn't Logic Pro the strings to any platform that can run it?" Yes, but it's not necessarily used to evoke the style (limited channel/voice composition), sound (simple waveforms, compressed samples, etc.), or computation (see Danimal's post) indicative of chiptunes/chipmusic, the medium, though it can be used in such a way.

You can utilize mediums with other mediums: recorded or live violin with an electronically synthesized song or backing. Music within film. LSDJ with a rock band. Percussion with guitars with basses with voice. It's a tool meant to utilize a certain sound and musical philosophy. That sound is always morphing, especially with electronic music and just most musical genres.

Take for instance dubstep. Most people would call brostep "dubstep." Is that wrong? Technically. Do they care? No. I'd classify fakebit vs. chiptune and hardware vs. software in the same struggle: Some people find the distinction important, some don't. Does that stop artists from making music and pushing the boundaries of their given medium/genre/instrument? No. Why should it stop us? This kind of discussion can be found in most musical scenes. It's the artists and groups within those scenes that tend not to get bogged down in these arguments that make innovative (maybe not "good") music.

So, I guess my answer is that it doesn't matter.

Last edited by Russellian (Feb 5, 2013 7:10 pm)

Offline
Sweden
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

> Makes post urging chipscene to move on from hardware vs. software

> Initiates largest hardwave vs. software thread in over a year

-_______-

As long as there are people who will either agree or disagree with the points made in the original post, and are willing to discuss them, I'm not sure what the problem is. You haven't made a single post relevant to the discussion yet.

walter b. gentle wrote:

technically not chip

For anything to technically be chip, I think "chip" (in the context of music) needs a clear technical definition. ZX spectrum beeper music (which I think is generally accepted as chipmusic), for example, isn't chipmusic by the definition you presented in your last post.

What about DSP music? I mean music that is 100% generated by a sound chip. No-to-minimal CPU interaction. The only difference between a modern audio DSP chip and any YMxxxx chip of the 80s or whatever really is that it's a lot more capable.

What about the Amiga? The word was really coined to describe a certain type of music produced on the Amiga, so I think it's relevant to point out that the Paula chip is quite unlike any sound chip before it and also a lot unlike modern sound cards, and that the definition back then had nothing to do with the particular software or hardware used to produce the music.

walter b. gentle wrote:

if the op's question is should we move on, like not worry about the definition anymore, then no. thats just caving in to people that want their music to be accepted as chip when it is actually chip influenced

Why is this "caving in" something to worry about? Are you afraid that the music won't stand on its own? Consider the person A and B example egr posted.

Last edited by boomlinde (Feb 5, 2013 7:22 pm)

Offline
BOSTON
boomlinde wrote:
BR1GHT PR1MATE wrote:

> Makes post urging chipscene to move on from hardware vs. software

> Initiates largest hardwave vs. software thread in over a year

-_______-

As long as there are people who will either agree or disagree with the points made in the original post, and are willing to discuss them, I'm not sure what the problem is. You haven't made a single post relevant to the discussion yet.

oh, i have nothing against any of it. only pointing out the irony :]

i mean, maybe i just missed the whole point of the post. are we supposed to be 'discussing the discussion' or something, and it just slipped back into the old circlejerk? i guess im just surprised everybody is so keen to do this routine again. but anyways dont mind me, ill leave y'all to it.