Offline
Godzilladelph
Saskrotch wrote:

thank you for guidelines on how to make my music interesting

Offline
buffalo, NY
pixls wrote:

I'd just like to say something about the point about "humanizing" the chip sounds.
While I think adding to the interest of the sound can be helpful, and yes square just on and off is quite boring and i wouldn't recommend it, there is something to be said about working to the nature of the medium, which is innately digital. While it might not be everyone's goal, I think that part of what chipmusic needs to be successful is to work towards almost a perfect example of the medium, whatever that would be. And of course for different people what that means will be different.
Mostly I just wanted to say that maybe "humanizing" the sound isn't the best, or at least not the only way of making the sound more interesting and complex in the realm of chip music.

the way I view it is like this:

I love to humanize chip sounds to sound like natural instruments, but I also enjoying embracing the strengths of chip which is machine-like precision

Offline
México, DF.
Wizwars wrote:

drugs.

My EP is called ketamine for a reason.

Offline
Chicago IL

i think a big problem is that a lot of people are more interested in being musicians than writing music, you know what i mean

Offline
Sergy, France

the medium is the message. trololol!

Offline
A gray world of dread
4mat wrote:

What I'm saying is, the decisions of the coder of the driver also partly influences the music written with it.  Do you see?  But when the coder IS the musician you have another layer into how the music is played back, beyond using the command set that is supplied in the editor.

Reminds me of one of my fav 'pusher quotes. I've flung this around before, but it's good, so I'll just do it again.

squarepusher wrote:

I hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: accoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.

This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.

A naive notion of creativity seems compromised if we consider that a given musical piece was at least partially dictated by the tools of its realisation. Although I emphasise that never can a musician escape the use of some sort of musical tool, there is nevertheless a choice which is always made, unwittingly or otherwise. We can choose whether to understand what rules the tool imposes on our work, or we can disregard them and leave the manufacturers as "sleeping partners".

I suggest we can enhance creative potential by a critical awareness of the modes of operation of these tools. Thus, I urge an unmasking of these black boxes of the contemporary musical landscape. Circuit bending can be one way - analysing and modifying electronic circuitry. Another is to understand the ways in which musical data is encoded and modified by currently ubiquitous digital means. In addition, various software platforms now exist which, with varying levels of flexibilty, allow users to generate their own instruments.

The modern musician is subject to a barrage of persuasion from manufacturers of music technology. The general implication is that buying new tools leads to being able to make new and exciting music. While it is true that certain degrees of freedom are added by new equipment, it is not the case that this entails wholesale musical innovation. What seems more likely is that new cliches are generated by users unanalytically being forced into certain actions by the achitecture of the machine. For me it is parallel, if not synonymous with a dogmatic consumer mentality that seems to hold that our lives are always improved by possessions.

Imagine the conception of structural rules to do with electric guitars before and after Jimi Hendrix. An instrument is always open to re-definition. Thus I encourage anybody remotely interested in making music to boldly investigate exactly what the rules are to which you, as a modern musician, are subject. Only thus can you have a hope in bending and ultimately rewriting them.

That's one of the reasons why I'm so fond of experimenting with creating (soft)synths. ExploreExploreExplore.

Offline
England

jesus squarepusher is a boring fart. haha we didnt get tickets for his london 30 march 2013 date sad

mmm i dont know if everyone made music according to these rules, music would be really fucking boring.

Offline
uhajdafdfdfa

it seems like "how to write a pop song" to be honest

Offline
A gray world of dread
Jellica wrote:

mmm i dont know if everyone made music according to these rules, music would be really fucking boring.

Ja of course, but if everyone made music like RDJ, Aphex Twin would be boring (assuming you refer to the OP). What was listed are fairly standard tricks, which I thought makes a nice reference for beginners- seeing that threads on compositional techniques here are rare as hell and get shouted down with GWAH TEMPLATE JUST MAKE MUSIC fairly often. Also, it doesn't hurt to be reminded of the basics from time to time.

Last edited by µB (Nov 28, 2012 9:31 am)

Offline
buffalo, NY
µB wrote:
4mat wrote:

What I'm saying is, the decisions of the coder of the driver also partly influences the music written with it.  Do you see?  But when the coder IS the musician you have another layer into how the music is played back, beyond using the command set that is supplied in the editor.

Reminds me of one of my fav 'pusher quotes. I've flung this around before, but it's good, so I'll just do it again.

squarepusher wrote:

I hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: accoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.

This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.

A naive notion of creativity seems compromised if we consider that a given musical piece was at least partially dictated by the tools of its realisation. Although I emphasise that never can a musician escape the use of some sort of musical tool, there is nevertheless a choice which is always made, unwittingly or otherwise. We can choose whether to understand what rules the tool imposes on our work, or we can disregard them and leave the manufacturers as "sleeping partners".

I suggest we can enhance creative potential by a critical awareness of the modes of operation of these tools. Thus, I urge an unmasking of these black boxes of the contemporary musical landscape. Circuit bending can be one way - analysing and modifying electronic circuitry. Another is to understand the ways in which musical data is encoded and modified by currently ubiquitous digital means. In addition, various software platforms now exist which, with varying levels of flexibilty, allow users to generate their own instruments.

The modern musician is subject to a barrage of persuasion from manufacturers of music technology. The general implication is that buying new tools leads to being able to make new and exciting music. While it is true that certain degrees of freedom are added by new equipment, it is not the case that this entails wholesale musical innovation. What seems more likely is that new cliches are generated by users unanalytically being forced into certain actions by the achitecture of the machine. For me it is parallel, if not synonymous with a dogmatic consumer mentality that seems to hold that our lives are always improved by possessions.

Imagine the conception of structural rules to do with electric guitars before and after Jimi Hendrix. An instrument is always open to re-definition. Thus I encourage anybody remotely interested in making music to boldly investigate exactly what the rules are to which you, as a modern musician, are subject. Only thus can you have a hope in bending and ultimately rewriting them.

That's one of the reasons why I'm so fond of experimenting with creating (soft)synths. ExploreExploreExplore.

Holy fuck what a pretentious over-writer.  Barely readable.  TLDR = presets are influencing the way modern music is made.  Get good at your instrument before buying a new one.  I know this is pretty crazy coming from a prog musician, but there's beauty in brevity.

Last edited by danimal cannon (Nov 28, 2012 9:34 am)

Offline
A gray world of dread
danimal cannon wrote:

Holy fuck what a pretentious over-writer.  Barely readable.  TLDR = presets are influencing the way modern music is made.  Get good at your instrument before buying a new one.  I know this is pretty crazy coming from a prog musician, but there's beauty in brevity.

lol, I guess he really wanted to drive the point home.

Btw, I think that chipmusicians tend to be already a few layers closer to their hardware, in part because tracker interfaces are a lot less abstract in regards to the actual sound generation than staff or a piano roll. Also, the limited environment encourages exploration a lot.

Offline
buffalo, NY
µB wrote:

[
lol, I guess he really wanted to drive the point home.

No, he managed to almost obfuscate the entire point by trying to make himself sound smart.

Offline
uhajdafdfdfa

that's what i think of your music but you probably had sincere intentions when making it

Offline
TSSBAY01

hey danimal...

doot doot!

Offline

you'll never be a god if you follow those fuckin rules

edit: if everyone followed these rules everyone would sound like joule and no-one would sound like proswell and that's not a world i want to live in

Last edited by extreme zan-zan-zawa-veia (Nov 28, 2012 11:18 am)

Offline
TSSBAY01

nobody would be friends either because music would cease to be about simply the music and would be about competition and compensation and not at all expression, kind of like what danimal's whole spiel seems to be to me. kind of why we keep getting caught up in these circular discussions of objective nature as well.

danimal 'im trying to make a living with toys' cannon pretty often comes off as if he looks down on anyone for not being prog enough or whatever enough, perhaps even subconsciously and most likely believes that whatever he does in lsdj is the objectively correct intended purpose of it and theres no deviation in that to him. i would like to think otherwise and give him the benefit of the doubt, but theres too much evidence to the contrary. even just in this thread. but hey, read all the threads and make that distinction on your own. if that works for him i cant disagree with it especially if it creates success, but its a pretty reptilian philosophy to have if its in your best interest to try and keep things real.

and if that is your 20, there is no changing or challenging a mind like that because that mind was never open in the first place, only stuck on whatever goal of 'success' thats set. whatever you create will be blown out and you will be left with a bigger impression in your mind of not succeeding. things are not going to ever be fully successful for anybody because that is not what the word 'success' means. and nobody is ever gonna make a living off a gameboy no matter whether they make the musical equivalent of doves shitting rainbows or not because if it was gonna happen, it would have already done happened. and really, am i even talking about music anymore or is that some skrillex shit that i am approaching here. i dunno, but if i had to choose between a skrillex or a squarepusher, i'd much rather sit down with squarepusher and talk to him about stuff that would help me learn to improve my skills, rather than open a dialog with skrillex to find out how to improve the way i can fleece others into thinking im doing something new when its assuredly not. and thats not a dig toward dan despite some of the things ive said about him, thats a position that any person can put themselves in and can learn from if they actually care enough to experience it.