This whole discussion is within the context of trackers specifically, not the mainstream definition of “chiptune” which can refer to any music, made using whatever, that have some bleeps and bloops mixed in.
The mainstream definition also includes music that isn’t tracker music, which isn’t what we’re talking about, and hence, it’s not the right term to be using.
Bringing up the word in its general meaning within a discussion about tracker music, is even more confusing and unhelpful, because in the context of trackers, the word chiptune refers to a specific type of tracker music.
Chiptune only “specifically” means music produced the same way as retro games, which necessitates a tracker. If they’re using a standard DAW, then it’s basically “cheating” lmao.
That “lmao” is really doing some heavy lifting for your credibility there…
Which definition are you even using when saying that a tracker is necessary? In the age of trackers “chiptune” referred to a music style from before trackers. If chiptunes existed before trackers, then someone obviously made that music without one.
To consider same sound produced with newer tools “cheating” or “fake” is an stupid distinction. Would not using trackers to create chiptunes then be cheating, too, since chiptune referred to tracker music that was emulating the even older style of 8-bit computer music? (Since again, trackers are a 16-bit era thing)
I’m starting to think you don’t even know what a tracker is, because while trackers could be used to make other styles of music from their time, plenty of retro games used other ways to produce music, such as MIDI sound cards or direct instruction of synth voice chips. All of which would be called “chiptunes” by most people today, not just trackers.
Trackers were created to take advantage of the new and unique audio hardware available in the Amiga.
Trackers use sample-banks, while both the NES and SNES heavily relied on voice chips.
The NES only had 5 voice channels, and they were each stuck with their initial synth-type, and while SNES could reproduce samples, they were used sparingly due to the space audio samples would take up on the cartridge.
Trackers could create music using actual audio samples. While the samples couldn’t be long or high quality due to RAM and CPU constraints, the way they functioned from the audio systems of the NES and SNES is fundamentally different, and more capable.
While it is possible to re-create the style of music produced by the NES and SNES with a tracker, that’s hardly what they were developed for. Trackers had far fewer technical limitations and could do so much more.
It’s called “tracker music”. A “tracker” is a type of music composing software that dates back to the very dawn of digital music.
Ahoy has a fantastic video about how they work and their history.
If you wanna be pedantic, it’s chiptune. You use trackers to make chiptune. And scene music is a niche within a niche.
No. Tracker music is 16-bit, within tracker music the term chiptune refers to a specific sub-genre which emulates 8-bit music.
Only much later did “chiptune” become a catch-all for all old computer music, and in that context it can refer to music not made with a tracker.
It’s much later now m8
And?
This whole discussion is within the context of trackers specifically, not the mainstream definition of “chiptune” which can refer to any music, made using whatever, that have some bleeps and bloops mixed in.
The mainstream definition also includes music that isn’t tracker music, which isn’t what we’re talking about, and hence, it’s not the right term to be using.
Bringing up the word in its general meaning within a discussion about tracker music, is even more confusing and unhelpful, because in the context of trackers, the word chiptune refers to a specific type of tracker music.
Chiptune only “specifically” means music produced the same way as retro games, which necessitates a tracker. If they’re using a standard DAW, then it’s basically “cheating” lmao.
That “lmao” is really doing some heavy lifting for your credibility there…
Which definition are you even using when saying that a tracker is necessary? In the age of trackers “chiptune” referred to a music style from before trackers. If chiptunes existed before trackers, then someone obviously made that music without one.
To consider same sound produced with newer tools “cheating” or “fake” is an stupid distinction. Would not using trackers to create chiptunes then be cheating, too, since chiptune referred to tracker music that was emulating the even older style of 8-bit computer music? (Since again, trackers are a 16-bit era thing)
I’m starting to think you don’t even know what a tracker is, because while trackers could be used to make other styles of music from their time, plenty of retro games used other ways to produce music, such as MIDI sound cards or direct instruction of synth voice chips. All of which would be called “chiptunes” by most people today, not just trackers.
Trackers are direct replications of the software used to make retro game music; specifically NES and SNES.
Trackers were created to take advantage of the new and unique audio hardware available in the Amiga.
Trackers use sample-banks, while both the NES and SNES heavily relied on voice chips.
The NES only had 5 voice channels, and they were each stuck with their initial synth-type, and while SNES could reproduce samples, they were used sparingly due to the space audio samples would take up on the cartridge.
Trackers could create music using actual audio samples. While the samples couldn’t be long or high quality due to RAM and CPU constraints, the way they functioned from the audio systems of the NES and SNES is fundamentally different, and more capable.
While it is possible to re-create the style of music produced by the NES and SNES with a tracker, that’s hardly what they were developed for. Trackers had far fewer technical limitations and could do so much more.