godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia
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.

Zomvor
Offline

.

Last edited by Zomvor (Apr 2, 2016 2:32 pm)

godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia
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?

nitro2k01
Offline
Sweeeeeeden
godinpants wrote:
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?

No that's my whole point. It's typically only for music with artificial limitations, like one-channel songs, that people compose music specifically for the limitations. That type of song requires some knowledge about the technology to see what the accomplishment is.

My thesis, though, is that in general with chip music, this is not the case. In general chip music can be judged purely on intuitive musical qualities.

BTW, the same argument could be applied to acoustic guitar players. Are they in it for the limitations?

godinpants
Offline
hardcore, Australia

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.

e.s.c.
Offline
IL, US

/me pokes head in, slowly backs out

BR1GHT PR1MATE
Offline
BOSTON

i think it would be hard to dismiss the "focusing" aspect of limited channel trackers stuff... you know how in traditional japanese paintings, supposedly there is an area left blank so that the eye can "enter"? Thats how I feel about the limiting aspect of a tracker: I have a kind of starting point from which I know how how to proceed, which lets me focus on what to do next? rather than how do I begin? (which to me is a much more difficult question)

But I think that writing on any instrument has that, but you would call it technique, right? You play a few chords or notes from a scale that you know and then focus your inspiration around that, and try to shape it into something new from there. You dont go and relearn every note or chord on the fretboard just to write a new song.

godinpants wrote:

Acoustic guitar players don't generally list "the limitations" when asked why they chose their instrument.

I have an inclination that a vast majority of people who pick up the acoustic guitar probably think that it holds no limitation! Im sure guitar tunes (or other instruments that accompany guitars) probably represent a UNGODLY HUGE percentage of what is thought of as music in the western world. One instrument that can play almost every popular song of the past 75 years. Its probably good of us that our scene at least recognizes limitation, and has the insight that it itself is not the be-all-end-all of music!

I love these conversations about semantics and intent in art, its totally meaningless in a practical sense, but so dang interesting. Thanks for a fun thread godinpants. CM has been pretty fun this past week :]

Last edited by BR1GHT PR1MATE (Feb 11, 2011 6:46 am)

kineticturtle
Offline
Matthew Joseph Payne

I hypothesize that people generally choose the guitar (acoustic or otherwise) because of concerns regarding either accessibility (technical or financial) or image.

Both of these seem to sometimes apply to chip musicians - financial accessibility (although not technical accessibility) is often cited as a reason to get involved with chip or low-bit music. Image is rarely cited outright, but seems to be relevant in terms of wanting to be involved in a "scene".

PlainFlavored
Offline
Richard D. James wrote:

Then there is the question of the physicallity of the instrument this affects the way a human will emotionally interact with it and therfore affect what they will actually do with it! often overlooked from the maths heads,this is probably the biggest factor I think.
for example the smell of analogue stuff as well as the look of it puts you in a certain mental state which is very different from looking at a computer screen.

L-tron
Offline
godinpants wrote:
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?

I phrased that wrong. What I meant to say was "you learn the limitations of the hardware, platform, sound-chip etc".

One of the results of that knowledge can be the ability to listen to a .wav or mp3 and disect the synthesis in your head as you're listening. Your brain can hear a complex synth phrase or instrument and figure out how to make that without even picking up the device that it's made with. When you're that familiar with a platform and you hear a sound that you don't know how to make, it can inspire and encourage you to find new ways to explore the program deeper or from a different angle in order to enhance your creativity within that program. This isn't limited to sound design but also composition and channel economy.

Super tired today; hope that made sense.

This thread is awesome.

wedanced
Offline
San Francisco

fuck nostalgia. This aint no fucking gimmick. limitations are fun. its like solving a puzzle to me. it challenges my mind. limitations is the only way i know how to make music. Its possible making good music on these things you just to have to know what your doing and that challenge is fun as shit to attempt. trying the different limitations for each platform is fun and the things i learn about synthesis and techniques keeps this thing a running obsession for me.

for r33lz that nastalgia shit is lame. why waste time traveling traveled grounds?

do it big for real yall.

Last edited by wedanced (Feb 11, 2011 9:03 am)

cheapshot
Offline
Tokyo, Japan

excellent thread here.

my two bits:

Making tunes with LSDj has nothing to do with nostalgia. It's because I feel that I've always performed at my best when limitations have been provided for me. Examples:

+ Degree coursework (make a track using white noise only)
+ MA coursework (write an essay about the teaching of pronunciation)
+ Japanese language tests (you will be tested on these 189 different grammar points and 2000 kanji)

Making music on a gameboy is for me another version of this. (Here are four tracks (each with it's own limitation) and a limited set of effects, go make a tune!)

I have made tracks with cubase and ableton over the last 10 years or so, but often find the lack of limits to the amount of VST effects, instrument, possibilities, etc. stifling...

(on a side note, I think that's why I haven't taken to LGPT yet --> there is just a little bit too much you can do with it! smile )

µB
Offline
A gray world of dread

I don't really care about limitations. I compose in a DAW, use a motherload of effects, eq, compression, all the good stuff. If I want string samples in, so be it. If I want a specific synthesis effect, I'll just make a softsynth that can do it. I love that freedom, and I enjoy creating new sounds or ways to use the sounds- chipmusic is a timbral and compositional thing for me. As a listener I do like to listen to someone juggle a tune on 2 channels, and as a composer I sometimes do it myself, just to see if I can- but as nitro2k01 said, I only do that as a specific challenge for myself. It's great fun to get a bit competetive with fellow musicians in compilations and such, too.

At the end of the day though, the only curcial thing about any music, by me or others, is if I want to listen to it again (ie, I enjoy it).

Oh, and I really don't see what's so bad about being nostalgic. Nostalgia doesn't prevent anyone from moving forward.

Shriker
Offline
Hoxton, London UK

Beyond a shadow of doubt, I think we all love chipmusic because we're nerds that are fascinated with deconstructive listening. We all took things apart as kids, just to see what was inside. This music (when we have a basic knowledge of the software in question) is much the same, we listen firstly to the song for the overall mood, then re-listen to hear the hidden easter-eggs, such as a subtle waveform switch or a phasing harmony.
Other mediums, in my opinion, are harder to decipher. A guitarist could use any number of amps and effects, a dj could be using a trillion plugins to get that special reverb. I suppose the overall point i'm trying to make is that most fans of our music are chipmusicians themselves, with a basic to intimate knowledge of lsdj, nanoloop, fami, piggy etc, and these 'easter-eggs' are a wink to the listener as well as a musical device. The listener doesn't feel like an outsider or a fan, rather a colleague in a genre strewn with limitations.

ant1
Offline
uhajdafdfdfa

impulse tracker has sixty four channels. limitations suck

edit: what i mean to say is  "i couldn't care less about limitations"... nor nostalgia for that matter. i just like the way it sounds and there is some good music. i am not a nerd who loves to deconstruct things to find the limitations easter egg of the lsdj or?? i just like chiptunes because they sound good. sorry

Last edited by ant1 (Feb 11, 2011 11:23 am)

Shriker
Offline
Hoxton, London UK
ant1 wrote:

impulse tracker has sixty four channels. limitations suck

edit: what i mean to say is  "i couldn't care less about limitations"... nor nostalgia for that matter. i just like the way it sounds and there is some good music. i am not a nerd who loves to deconstruct things to find the limitations easter egg of the lsdj or?? i just like chiptunes because they sound good. sorry

affection was implied, i agree though.

Last edited by Shriker (Feb 11, 2011 11:29 am)