chipmusic synonymous with low quality? (Page 2 of 7)

Hint: One is against the rules, and the other is a personal opinion.

Similarly, if you disagree with the original poster, why don't you just stop reading? Oh right, we're expressing opinions which we are entitled to even though we could just stop caring!

I think voting and structured sharing would solve a some of these problems. I'm not sure how it would create a nazi elite. Letting random people upload songs, giving them the benefit of the doubt by not revealing any substantial information of who liked/disliked it and why will at least cause people like me not to bother with it. For example, ordering songs by the average rating within a list of users you trust would be pretty useful.

Whoever uploads the highest quality lo-fi song, shall have control of the floor.

Q: Does most chipmusic suck?

A: Yes.

most "great" art, though, has involved finding ways to climb up from the overwhelming sea of mediocrity.  same with chipmusic.

i think the problem is that at least nowadays there aren't that many effective mechanisms to sift the gems from the crap. 

you only have a small handful of netlabels that implicitly serve that function, but even their usefulness is diluted right now by other netlabels that release too much middling stuff because they either a) operate way too inclusively out of a distorted sense of equality whereby all chip musicians deserve the same kind of attention, or b) simply have a low standard of quality.

Have you listened to any of the classics? Or looked up some of the artist who've performed at Blip / Squaresounds / [insert large gathering of artist festival here] ? With every music & art scene there will always be a high signal to noise ratio. It's probably a good idea to get a good balance of both.

If you want to be reviewed.

Someone would probably say that.

I would.

The issue is finding what you like in a sea of submissions. But yes, you are a grumpy old fuck. (welcome to the party)

Edit: I'd suggest as far as the music on this site, is to filter the music section by ratings by clicking on filters next to the search on the music page and select "high ratings". It should be more balanced due to higher activity from visitors, but not weighted by how popular it is necessarily.

Okay now that that's over, I still really want to hear people's answer to my question, so I'm going to repeat it.

I think he means quality in general. Time and care in making something I guess. But it's subjective too.

I manage to find a lot of awesome chip music. A low quality release can be spotted pretty quickly. I don't think it's a problem, and I dont think its limited to chip music.

Last edited by breakphase (Feb 25, 2013 8:21 pm)

Oh my. Turn around five minutes and drama everywhere. Okay then, let's pick at it.

First I haven't specifically talked about this website in terms of the music I have been exposed to. I have said 90% of all the chip music I have heard recently is forgettable noise, not "shit". Second, since there was already a thread with a similar general direction where discussions of limiting artist releases was starting to mix up the technical difficulty of maintaining such a huge archive with the fact that a lot of it might not be worth archiving I thought the "quality" discussion could be exported elsewhere and explored. Third, in three sentences you managed to say I attack all music here, then you say you defend all music here, then you say I attack 90% of it, then you defend only a portion of the music released here. You are more than welcomed to participate to the discussion, but momentary statistics that change to fit a volatile mood isn't going to be very constructive. Clearly you seem offended by my post. Such was not the intent. You are also picking one 1 line out of four paragraphs that are mostly open-ended and inviting for discussion, so if anybody is "trying to start shit", I don't think it's me.

Now onto the more constructive replies...

We're pretty much on the same wavelength there then. I appreciate music for its musical qualities. Interesting melodies, clever chord progressions, fun ways to reinvent classics, good overall cohesiveness and honesty in the writing. Whether the recording quality is good or bad is irrelevant to me unless, as you say, we're dealing with something that is just aberrant. Technique is interesting but by no means a necessity. Amazing songs have been writing on three basic guitar chords that are just as valid as virtuosos chaining 83 chords require 18 fingers each and jazzing a 8000 note solo in two bars. Both have their place and are enjoyable as long as the musical intent remains honest. I have a dislike for rock-bands-with-two-chips-sound-tacked-on-for-effect and overly generic electro/house material, but that is personal opinion and not a matter of quality.

Well that's what I'm doing in a way. I've identified a few artists I really like and try to find more music by them. But I find the popularity rating is a bit weird. If I'm not mistaken it's not calculated by votes but simply by the number of listens which I find is a system that tends to push the same material on top while sending releases by unknown artists to the bottom. People listen to songs that are popular because people have been listening to it because people have listened to it etc etc. So far almost half of the tracks I really liked were in the sub-20 listens. I want to comment on them, but seeing as nobody else seems to do it, would it even matter? And tracks that ask for criticism...I feel if I indeed criticise them, I'll be accused of starting shit again. It all seems like a pointless argument in the end and I'm starting to see why Forabrokenearth told me to give up and not get involved

Agreed. I don't like this "all musicians on this scene should be equal" philosophy. Healthy competition makes people want to get better. But maybe I am indeed looking at this from the wrong perspective and should focus more on the eps and albums rather than the single tracks.

Well, I come from the old Amiga scene so my list of classic probably greatly differs. I was just recently exposed to the chiptune "scene" and found it to be mostly gb/nes-centric. I even saw a documentary which, while it was entertaining as all hell, basically ignored most of the chiptune history from the Amiga/ST and early PC days. I might need to sit down and brush up on what's considered the "classics list" these days.

If it wasn't time to change my adult diaper and take a 6 hour nap on the couch, I would totally cane you on the head.