Chiptunes ...?

[PROTO·DOME]

I once tried to combine chiptune with orchestral and it was direct rejected because the chiptune and orchestral elements "didn't fit together"

Not wanting to be the harbinger of malicious criticism, but I think the chiptune elements weren't the worst thing here by a long shot.

[Dave Harris]

At no point were "purer" chiptunes ever regularly submitted before "Espergirl," so it's not surprising they weren't regularly submitted afterward.

It is very surprising if it just so happens that no-one else bothered to submit a pure chip remix during the last six or so years. Few people were writing 'pure' chiptunes back when Sam made Espergirl, but since then there's been an enormous explosion in chip music, with new software, new communities, new labels etc.

It seems far more likely to me that chip artists have deliberately avoided OCR. I don't attribute it to Espergirl specifically but I assumed it was commonly understood that OCR was not accomodating to chip mixes. That's the impression of basically everyone I know who writes chiptunes, many whom have remixed vg songs. *shrug*

we ALSO don't want to create the perception that in order for a chiptune (or solo instrument) arrangement to pass, it has to be ZOMGcomposerarrangementwank to counter the limited production options.

Totally agree that it shouldn't, but it brings me back to my point -- if Espergirl can't pass, what can? What was it specifically lacking, in terms of objective judging criteria, that another pure chip mix wouldn't also lack?

Glad this is keeping you entertained.

[SonicThHedgog]

Because of this thread, I will now be chiptuning more often.

[Nabeel Ansari]

I still can't find where DJP says "Chiptunes are against OCR policy". He only hints that it's near impossible.

So what if it's near impossible? What about all the people who've never even heard of Espergirl? Was the judge decision sent out by email to every OCR musician to make sure everyone knew about it? I hardly see how Espergirl caused people to not submit chiptunes.

if Espergirl can't pass, what can?

Something that's not composerwank.

It doesn't take new variations and LFO's every 2 seconds to qualify as good arrangement, and when there's a LOT, it actually detracts (in my opinion). Don't get me wrong, Sam's song is good. But it's a LOT of stuff in a short amount of time. And I find it funny that according to Gario, the sound of an instrument does not qualify as production at all.

[Monobrow]

I hardly see how Espergirl caused people to not submit chiptunes.

You don't see it, but that really doesn't mean that no one else did, or that your POV on the matter is at all relevant. The people that would know are people like Sam, Rushjet, and lunar, considering how they are deeply involved in the chiptune community. I'm not sure if you were even around back then, to know the vibe OCR even had about this stuff.

Besides, they are telling you it did, that's the impression they got, and that's what has previously been clarified, and they have been trying to rectify.

Something that's not composerwank.

It doesn't take new variations and LFO's every 2 seconds to qualify as good arrangement...

Stop right there, because no one really complained about the composition of that piece in the decision. In fact, people loved it, and still do. Yes, it's several years later, the song is dated now, especially for Sam, but you're giving off an implication that this was grounds for rejection. Equating that the reason why Sam's song wasn't passed was because of "composerwank" which is not at all factual to what happened. It was because it was a chiptune, there is no other reason.

That is changing now. I don't understand why you think denying that a problem was there in the first place is going to solve anything. Everyone has different perspectives on this. Let people speak for themselves.

[Gario]

And I find it funny that according to Gario, the sound of an instrument does not qualify as production at all.

You know you're repeatedly sticking your foot in your mouth, right? I never said the sound of an instrument doesn't qualify as a production issue, I said the choice of an instrument is purely an arrangement issue. Pure waveforms like squares, sines, triangles, saws, etc., are actually very clean and usable, in terms of sample quality (which is the only 'production issue' that a sample can have). If you don't like the sound of an instrument in a song and the sample is clean then the issue is compositional, not production.

You think you're talking about one thing when you're talking about another. Think about it and try again.

[Liontamer]

Considering I have my own 9-bit remix on the site [dueling consoles], I hardly think I could have had an incorrect perception in that regard. As far as 'causing misunderstandings' I've never implied anywhere that a traditional 9-bit remix, Primarily Electronic arrangment featuring prominent use of chip based samples using HQ processing, reverb etc. would pass the panel.

Calling the NES Jams song 9-bit and claiming that it OBVIOUSLY fits the standards is stretching the label maybe a bit too far. It has solo piano and a recording of an NSF unprocessed other than hard panning applied to both squares [a default feature on several nsf players] There is no precedent for anything like that, and even Brandon just posted that he was form lettered for using chip sounds with Orchestra.

Why are we playing the blame game anyway... I've never told anybody not to submit chiptunes. I MYSELF decided to give up on getting a direct recording of an NSF posted here...I don't run around discouraging others from trying.

No worries, there's no blame game. I'm looking at it from another angle, I suppose. "Dueling Consoles" was basically SNES sounds + Genesis sounds, so nearly all chiptune sounds, as opposed to the TMNT mix being NES sounds + a live piano, like a half-and-half balance of chip and organic sounds. That's where I was inferring the confusion was, in the balance of instruments, but you're saying you're clarifying you though it would fail over the lack of added processing/effects for the NES sounds. But again, it's all a balance, and all the standards say right now is discouraging (not outlawing) nothing but basic tones, which clearly the TMNT mix doesn't do. That's why I'm stating it's not shocking at all that the TMNT approach was OK on our side.

I'm not saying you're the one, you you right there!, spreading the word not to submit chiptunes here. I'm saying that some people are taking that perception though and running with it and telling others that as if that's written in the standards. That said, there are many chiptune artists out there who don't/didn't follow this thread or the decision 5+ years ago, and they're just either unaware of or uninterested in OCR to begin with, or not making VGM arrangements but only originals, and they're not showing up either now OR way back when.

EDIT: Nabeel, respectfully, no frustration meant, but mouth shut, ears open. You don't have much context for what happened before, and you're jumping to too many conclusions. No hate, not mad, but hang back and listen to the convo and just observe for a bit.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Stop right there, because no one really complained about the composition of that piece in the decision. In fact, people loved it, and still do. Yes, it's several years later, the song is dated now, especially for Sam, but you're giving off an implication that this was grounds for rejection. Equating that the reason why Sam's song wasn't passed was because of "composerwank" which is not at all factual to what happened. It was because it was a chiptune, there is no other reason.

I didn't imply anything of the sort.

You know you're repeatedly sticking your foot in your mouth, right? I never said the sound of an instrument doesn't qualify as a production issue,

If you don't like the sound of an instrument in a song and the sample is clean then the issue is compositional, not production.

Lolwut

[Sam Ascher-Weiss]

I'm not saying you're the one, you you right there!, spreading the word not to submit chiptunes here. I'm saying that some people are taking that perception though and running with it and telling others that as if that's written in the standards. That said, there are many chiptune artists out there who don't/didn't follow this thread or the decision 5+ years ago, and they're just either unaware of or uninterested in OCR to begin with, or not making VGM arrangements but only originals, and they're not showing up either now OR way back when.

Fair enough. For my part, I'll do my best to encourage others to submit, and I'll probably do something myself, as I said, when I have the time/energy.

[DarkeSword]

I still can't find where DJP says "Chiptunes are against OCR policy". He only hints that it's near impossible.

So what if it's near impossible? What about all the people who've never even heard of Espergirl? Was the judge decision sent out by email to every OCR musician to make sure everyone knew about it? I hardly see how Espergirl caused people to not submit chiptunes.

Judge decisions are posted publicly and can be read by anyone. The way the decision for that mix plays out can easily be interpreted as a discouragement of pure chiptunes to be submitted; not that it necessarily is, just that it can easily be read that way. You really don't have to stretch that far to get that conclusion, especially based on my own vote, which was basically a NO vote on technical grounds (i.e. "no because I based on other decisions we don't accept chiptunes"). Incidentally, that was a bad vote on my part.

If the entire crux of your argument here is "I don't understand how ANYONE could think that!" then you need to take a step back and realize that people are going to interpret things in different ways.

You have to remember, this was like 5+ years ago. I'm not trying to get all "you're just a kid on you" because that's dumb and irrelevant, but you really were not around on OCR back then and kind of lack the context of the mindset and feel of the site.

Espergirl wasn't rejected on compositional grounds (although that probably should have been the reason it was NO'd, IMO), so to call it out as being "composer-wank" (to borrow the term you borrowed from me ) in the context of discussion why it was rejected is silly.

A little more reading, a little less posting, bro.

[Nabeel Ansari]

so to call it out as being "composer-wank"

I accept everything you said except for this. I didn't ever say it was rejected for being composer-wank.

[halc]

loving all the use of the term "9-bit" in this thread :]

[Liontamer]

loving all the use of the term "9-bit" in this thread :]

Yeah, you know... 1 louder. [/Tap]

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Dare I ask, what the hell is "composer-wank"?

[Brandon Strader]

Dare I ask, what the hell is "composer-wank"?

It's that sticky white goo left at a 30 foot radius after a composer focuses entirely on a mix

[Gario]

Lolwut

Alright, you're just being an idiot, now. You do know that in those posts you proved exactly what I said, right? If I didn't know any better I would say you're just trolling me, with that.

Urgh, back to the original statement.

The production statement has some merit. Basic tones are completely obnoxious in certain contexts.

That is not a statement on production, the give away term being 'context', as that rarely has any application to production values. That is a statement on instrument choice (like telling someone that the person should swap, say, an oboe sound for a clarinet), which is not a production issue. Ever.

With this misunderstanding, the needless push against chiptune artists and the insistence that Espergirl is what people are upset about, you're completely missing the ball so hard in this thread. Seriously, before you post in here again slowly read the posts in this thread (as well as in the links provided throughout) and try to understand what everyone is talking about. Not that it even matters because the issues have been resolved, anyway, but you're seriously coming in from left field in nearly every aspect you've posted on, making an ass out of yourself all along the way.

Oh yeah, and making back handed remarks against people is not only petty; it's downright insulting. I'd suggest you break that habit, as it only serves to piss people off.

[Dave Harris]

Dare I ask, what the hell is "composer-wank"?

a faux-derogatory term used against virtuosic kinds of music by people with infinitesimal genitalia.

[Grimm]

Dare I ask, what the hell is "composer-wank"?

I remember there was one bLiNd mix with a comment along the lines of "if this were done by anyone else but bLiNd I'd think they were just showing off." Wouldn't be surprised if it was this one

My understanding of "composer-wank" is when somebody comes out of nowhere and goes into a new style and absolutely destroys it to the point you think it's a completely different person. Alternatively it's when they drop something that makes you think they just took more than one level in badass at a time (danger, such obvious roidage may cause long-term health issues)

I personally tend to fall in love with composer-wank tracks (the aforementioned bLiNd track subtly and virt's over-the-top deliberately bombastic turn-it-up-to-eleven DKC2 mix are two of my favorites on the entire site)

[PROTO·DOME]

My understanding of "composer-wank" is when somebody comes out of nowhere and goes into a new style and absolutely destroys it to the point you think it's a completely different person. Alternatively it's when they drop something that makes you think they just took more than one level in badass at a time (danger, such obvious roidage may cause long-term health issues)

No, it referred to an overt display of compositional virtuosity simply because you can.

I'm sure someone said this. Did someone say this?

Someone said it.

[Liontamer]

No, it referred to an overt display of compositional virtuosity simply because you can.

I'm sure someone said this. Did someone say this?

Someone said it.

Now someone said it.

[Magellanic]

No, it referred to an overt display of compositional virtuosity simply because you can.

I'm sure someone said this. Did someone say this?

Someone said it.

I thought it whilst reading the previous posts. You maybe read my mind....possibly...

[Sam Ascher-Weiss]

No, it referred to an overt display of compositional virtuosity simply because you can.

I'm sure someone said this. Did someone say this?

Someone said it.

I understand what you're saying here, but I think it's a dangerous approach to think this way. "Because you can" refers to intent, this is when we start guessing at what motivated a particular artist in a given situation... which requires quite a big assumption, and what's worse, we're also passing judgement on said motivation.

It becomes a tool to dismiss an artist or particular piece without delving any further because we don't like the supposed intent of its creator. Speaking from my own perspective, I never did anything in my music 'simply because i could', I just held a very different set of aesthetic values when I was younger. I wanted to create in music, that which I looked for in much of the music that excited me at the time. I constantly wanted to be surprised/intrigued/challenged etc. as a listener. I loved nothing more than being thrown curve balls. So in my mind I was creating the ideal listening experience for like minded individuals.

Having aged quite a bit since then, my own values have shifted significantly and I no longer feel that way, but I don't look down on my former self or anybody else who holds that point of view. Espergirl, being a slight exception in that, again there was no "just because I could" motivation [thank you so much for that conveniently dismissive turn of phrase protodome], instead I was writing everything that I thought would sway the judges....I knew what they found "impressive" etc. in my writing, and I exploited that to try to give myself the best chance of making it... and while Shariq has certainly changed his tune now, if you read his decision at the time, it seems like I hit all the right notes so to speak.

[PROTO·DOME]

Whoa dude, chill, chill, I was simply explaining what the original term meant lexicographically because the previous few posts were oddly off the mark. This wasn't about you or your music.

[Sam Ascher-Weiss]

Whoa dude, chill, chill, I was simply explaining what the original term meant lexicographically because the previous few posts were oddly off the mark. This wasn't about you or your music.

If you read my post you'll notice I wasn't defending myself. I used myself as a reference point since the term was originally applied to me, and if you read back you'll notice I was practically the first one to say as much.

Telling me to chill infers that I'm overly heated in some way. I didn't in anyway feel personally attacked by you, I'm sorry if my post gave that impression. I was simply bothered by your use of the phrase "because you can".

you were responding to this "a faux-derogatory term used against virtuosic kinds of music by people with infinitesimal genitalia." Heh, I don't agree with either statement, but I think ultimately what Dave was saying, with the somewhat inflamatory tongue in cheek language, is what I said in that, it's a way of dismissing something as invalid without real cause.

Your response implied, [beginning with the word 'no' no less] that there is INDEED cause.. and the cause is the motivation of the composer.

I hope if you respond, you do to the actual content of what I'm saying.. rather than my tone.. telling me to chill.. because that again makes a false assumption in order to dismiss my point... starting to see a pattern here?

[Modus]

lexicographically

That does it. You can't throw words like that around and expect brains to remain unexploded. I need you to notch down the vocabulary before people get hurt.

Everyone without a Master's degree or higher please exit the argument. The area is unsafe.