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.
You’re telling me shit I already know and trying to twist the facts. Whether the NES and SNES used synth or samples is immaterial to how the music was programmed. Trackers are literally made for programming MIDI instructions, just as those old games had their music programmed.
The number of voices and voice type changes nothing. You’re just trying to add in immaterial facts to add false weight to your assertion.
You’re telling me shit I already know and trying to twist the facts
I’m sorry, but if you already know all this, why can’t you make sense? You’re again coming in with a new claim that falls apart the second I add context:
MIDI is a digital standard for musical notation, one which trackers DID NOT USE. Lots of trackers use their own formats which can’t even be opened by other trackers, let alone any MIDI compliant software. Not to mention that MIDI files don’t come with samples, while tracker modules had to in order to reproduce a track correctly.
Trackers are as related to MIDI as they are to dots scribbled onto five lines on a piece of paper. All music can be represented using MIDI, because MIDI is just notes. That doesn’t mean all digital music uses MIDI. Especially when MIDI doesn’t store actual sound data.
Trackers, and I apparently have to say this again, USED SAMPLES. As in, NOT SYNTHS (like the NES). They played back recorded audio data from actual sound files according to a pattern input by the composer. Which yes, you could argue is equivalent to MIDI. But the samples are not, and they are a fundamental part of how trackers work. In order to even get started with using a tracker to create NES/SNES style music, you’d have to configure it with a sample-bank that contains the noises they would make.
Perhaps you are confused because MIDI sound cards did something similar. They used MIDI data to play music using the preset sample-banks that different MIDI cards came with, meaning the track would sound different depending on what sound card was used.
Tracker modules meanwhile came with their own samples, meaning they always played the same. Composers could also use whatever audio files they wanted to create their sample-banks.
“Those old games” also most certainly did not use MIDI, they either had their music produced using direct hardware instruction or whatever tools the game developers created for themselves.
But we’re getting off track. You’ve kept making new claims about trackers, what they are related to, the terminology around them, and what they are for, each of which has been subtly off.
To recap:
Tracker music is tracker music. The word “chiptune” can either refer to a sub-genre within tracker music, or “retro” music in general, which includes lots of other music aside from tracker music. However, it cannot be used to refer to tracker music and only tracker music. Those two terms are not interchangeable. That doesn’t change because “it’s much later now m8”.
Trackers were also not created to “replicate” or “reproduce” anything, they can, but they can also do more. They were developed specifically to take advantage of the new 16-bit sound card introduced in the Amiga, and worked by playing back recorded audio samples, while older computer music was produced by instructing synthesizers to bleep and bloop.
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.
You’re telling me shit I already know and trying to twist the facts. Whether the NES and SNES used synth or samples is immaterial to how the music was programmed. Trackers are literally made for programming MIDI instructions, just as those old games had their music programmed.
The number of voices and voice type changes nothing. You’re just trying to add in immaterial facts to add false weight to your assertion.
I’m sorry, but if you already know all this, why can’t you make sense? You’re again coming in with a new claim that falls apart the second I add context:
MIDI is a digital standard for musical notation, one which trackers DID NOT USE. Lots of trackers use their own formats which can’t even be opened by other trackers, let alone any MIDI compliant software. Not to mention that MIDI files don’t come with samples, while tracker modules had to in order to reproduce a track correctly.
Trackers are as related to MIDI as they are to dots scribbled onto five lines on a piece of paper. All music can be represented using MIDI, because MIDI is just notes. That doesn’t mean all digital music uses MIDI. Especially when MIDI doesn’t store actual sound data.
Trackers, and I apparently have to say this again, USED SAMPLES. As in, NOT SYNTHS (like the NES). They played back recorded audio data from actual sound files according to a pattern input by the composer. Which yes, you could argue is equivalent to MIDI. But the samples are not, and they are a fundamental part of how trackers work. In order to even get started with using a tracker to create NES/SNES style music, you’d have to configure it with a sample-bank that contains the noises they would make.
Perhaps you are confused because MIDI sound cards did something similar. They used MIDI data to play music using the preset sample-banks that different MIDI cards came with, meaning the track would sound different depending on what sound card was used.
Tracker modules meanwhile came with their own samples, meaning they always played the same. Composers could also use whatever audio files they wanted to create their sample-banks.
“Those old games” also most certainly did not use MIDI, they either had their music produced using direct hardware instruction or whatever tools the game developers created for themselves.
But we’re getting off track. You’ve kept making new claims about trackers, what they are related to, the terminology around them, and what they are for, each of which has been subtly off.
To recap:
Tracker music is tracker music. The word “chiptune” can either refer to a sub-genre within tracker music, or “retro” music in general, which includes lots of other music aside from tracker music. However, it cannot be used to refer to tracker music and only tracker music. Those two terms are not interchangeable. That doesn’t change because “it’s much later now m8”.
Trackers were also not created to “replicate” or “reproduce” anything, they can, but they can also do more. They were developed specifically to take advantage of the new 16-bit sound card introduced in the Amiga, and worked by playing back recorded audio samples, while older computer music was produced by instructing synthesizers to bleep and bloop.
I suppose you never discovered that MIDI can trigger samples, too.