WIKIPEDIA definitions for chiptune and fakebit (Page 2 of 4)

{{citation needed}}

Also, you need to read up a bit on the Paula (look the sound registers up in "Mapping the Amiga")! It is  very different from typical modern sound cards in that each of its four channels have independently variable sample rates, so beyond setting up waveform pointers and loop lengths, it can be controlled simply by changing rate and volume, like a PSG chip. Oh, and it does channel to channel modulation effects: FM and AM.

So yeah, citations, citations, citations... Not just to increase the credibility, but also to make sure you never include misinformed statements like that.

Just a note from a quick glance... I'll be back!

PS: I don't think "arguably" belongs in a wikipedia article.

Citations 5 & 6 don't support the statements from which they are referenced

EDIT: in the chiptune article

Last edited by boomlinde (Jul 23, 2010 4:05 pm)

yeah...  how many years?  which chip?  ...everything dies dude.  especially electronic devices.

how many people in this forum keep their room clean?  humans just busted a fucking hole in the earth that's killing entire eco-systems.  i don't have as much faith as you.  you can't deny that the original chips will not get more rare as time goes on.

yeah - i'm just worried about what people are seeing represented up there.  it's so inaccurate, and i think everyone here can agree that the article is sort of a mess - even with the things i put in there.

why not?  you wanna let academics define that shit - they usually send music genres into a catatonic state with the neat little edges and packages.  when was the last time i read an art history book and was like - "right on!  fuck yeah!"   ...um never.  Mile's Davis' autobiography is a much more accurate view into the jazz scene than some academic's book.  I think you're wrong - we should not let other people (who dont understand the music) define it for us.  there is great danger in that.   Should we let the media define it for us?  NO FUCKING WAY!

Last edited by animalstyle (Jul 23, 2010 5:38 pm)

no, he has a point....all of us active in the scene have pretty well defined difinitons of what it is to them, but different aspects are more or less important depending on the individual (ie: some would consider anything that isnt strictly off the soundchip of a console to be not chipmusic, even if just adding an instrument like a drum machine to the mix, while others think crystal castles are chipmusic and those people are clearly wrong)
i think a well informed outsider would be best qualified to write it, now the question is where do find one? this scene has a habit of converting fans into artists

OK, lets get through these:

1- depends on the chip. Lots of chips have no lifetime rating, they just run for a long time (longer than testing can kill them with) and it's highly dependent on operating conditions. Flash is rated for a certain number of rewrites before failure, usually several hundred thousand or so. Otherwise, few chips will just "break down" from use unless they have unusual operating stresses placed on them. AKA, regular electrical operation isn't enough to break down the chips with any kind of rapidity. Other forces are the problem.

2- yes, everything "dies," or at least breaks down.

3- Actually, living things like animals and humans die more often than electronics.

4- I have no idea how many people clean their rooms. That's not what I'm talking about.

5- the gulf oil problem isn't related, nor is it yet proven that the entirety of the problem is caused by humans. In fact, oil seepage is nothing new.

6- maybe you don't have as much as me. I wouldn't know.

7- I can, but it would be stupid to deny that the original chips will get more rare. But only because people won't do the work to preserve them.

BR1GHT PR1MATE and I talked about this at the bar for a long time today, haha. While it probably wasn't intentional, I think the name Fakebit just sends the wrong message. Which is why I hope it either dies or never blossoms into something people looking in from the outside will see when they are exploring the space. It neglects to define the music subjectively and instead creates a perception of second rated-ness. And while the music may be inauthentic from a technical standpoint in that it doesn't utilize original hardware, the intentions are not inauthentic, and neither is the inspiration, or the love, or any of that stuff. And that's where my issue lies. It creates a negative impression.

"Fake" is a negative word and I think it does a good job of selling short the possibilities within that so-called distinction (a distinction despite which I think is totally relevant and reasonable to make) to those who might have otherwise considered it a reasonable way to make cool music.

Last edited by Disasterpeace (Jul 24, 2010 4:38 am)