Apart from the various Pegasus and the GameBoy Advance releases I have no experience with mentioned series. From the productions and OSTs that I'm familiar with, the main problem is that they're mono or duo-phonic. And no matter how much work you put into those compositions, they can't make for a complex all-around music especially when they're 8, 16 or 32 bit. I agree though that for example
Contra had a really intesesting music line, but it simply doesn't stand up to the current standards due to the quality progress.
I will concede some games such as Donkey Kong and the original Mario Bros, but the original Pokemon games, Super Mario RPG, and really most games on any console past the NES are definitely capable of polyphony and actively show it. For games where only wave forms are available, you could argue that it's a monophonic timbre, but it is composed in a polyphonic fashion.
Your argument doesn't seem to acknowledge the SNES's actual capabilities. Games such as Earthbound had a very fleshed out soundtrack by as early as 1994, even with just MIDI maps.
The problem with the whole technology argument is that while the progress of technology does open up different opportunities from a sonic and timbre perspective, that doesn't necessarily dictate the range of theoretical complexity that is available. There are certainly real limitations, such as how the Game Boy Color could really only arguably handle four voices (still the equivalent division of most standard choir pieces save a few harmonies here and there). Bach has proven that you only really need one voice to create a chord structure, and so while there were only certain wave forms and eventually MIDI's that were available to composers, that doesn't necessarily dictate the quality of what they wrote. If anything, advanced technology can arguably open up the ability to sound "good" without any sort of complex exploration at all, which is why this kind of argument doesn't really support or oppose the idea of video game music becoming more or less complex over time beyond the expansion from mere monophony that games such as the original Mario Bros had.
I would also suggest you consider taking a listen to certain pieces converted to 8, 16, or 32 bit to understand the full capabilities of each technology (one example is
Schoenberg). It's also worth noting that for a while seemingly "complex" pieces of the classical nature were not truly complicated, but had detail in voicing. You can compress quite a deal of pieces onto a piano, and can do the inverse to create an arguably fully fleshed piece.
I'm going to turn this exact argument against you. Just look at the opera. In the opera the main medium is voice and music, and the supportive media are dance and acting. When it comes to the most of the VGM, it's completely the other way. Now look at this: "The scenic arangation of the opera is especially designed to make coherent sense with the music arrangation which the opera requires. A standalone piece does not have any reference materials" and it doesn't make any sence.
You're trying to prove that VGM music can exist without the context. It's really hard, because VGM is always a secondary medium subjigated to the primary medium, aimed at certain tasks. Standalone music (I'm not talking about the pop music) must provide for the plot, landscape, acting, story, everything. VDM is much like the FM. And yet, most of the film music doesn't work as a standalone pieces. It really requires a mastermind to create something that works just as well as primary and secondary medium at the same time.
Personally,
this one is my absolutely favourite piece, where music and the video are on par. Bah! I'd actually say that music is dominant over the video. But it's a really a rare treat. And the only reason why it's like that is that the quality of the sound is absolutely shitty. Just compare it to the
film with the music made in the 2007.
But actually I'd ask myself, if it's as it should be. In my opinion supportive medium should be always inferior to the primary medium.
To be honest, I can't see how the opera argument is entirely relevant. I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't understand how that's necessarily a counter-argument of the idea of that two types of music are different, and one has a particular task that is influenced by a visual medium.
What you referenced if anything enforces the validity of "secondary" mediums, as the compositional techniques Prokofiev uses to reference the visual medium are extremely similar to most standard compositional techniques, such as giving certain instruments a character, and so on. I feel like you're trying to say that since there is a visual aid to prove that this is what Prokofiev is trying to do, it is thusly inferior as a standalone piece. To be honest, I'm not understanding you very well in this particular paragraph.
Irrelevant. Untill the apperance of the mp3 format VGM is totally negligible. Look at the first paragraph of my post, then look at the second paragraph.
and i consider that, based on the capacities of each form you've suggested to be incapable of even producing music, to be a useless assertion. If you are so wrapped up in strictly the ensemble or technology in which a piece is performed, then I'm not entirely sure I can respect your argument.
One question. Do you see live instruments as inherently superior to electronic counterparts, or do you see them as separate instruments? Because the biggest reason I defend chip is that I see them separately and listen to them for their sound, rather than identify one as an inferior version of the other.
Why you instist on the intent being relevant here? In the one sentence you're saying that OSTs are for listening without the context but also saying that we should forgive them for being flawed because they're not created as a standalone pieces. Make a decision please.
From my point of view. When I'm listening to the OST I'm listening to the music and the game or the film are irrelevant. Because I'm not watching them at the same time. And you said it yourself, OST is a standalone piece.
You're not understanding me. I'll try to break this down a bit more.
-Composer intended the piece to be a part of the game, and a soundtrack as an independent release was not what he had an intent to compose for (think about it, if he was writing pieces strictly so someone could publish them as a disc, would he really prefer that every song loops and fades out?)
-The creation of an OST is subjugating what a composer has created for a different purpose and offering it as a standalone experience.
-OST in itself is a standalone, but what the composer made has the compositional function of whatever intent he had for each component of the game.
The other thing I should mention is that this idea of being "background music" is far from all-inclusive. I reference Nintendo games because platformers are constructed with music that is meant to be able to function independently, and what is actually derived from those pieces are the mood. They generally tend to have a legitimate melody, polyphonic aspects, and intelligent progression. The only aspect that is arguably still inherent to them is the fact that they are designed to repeat themselves endlessly, and thus must fade out.
I could absolutely agree with that. It's like listening to the (normal) music without the first guitar/voice or the vocals.
The leading voice/instrument/idea is what makes the piece a standalone.
Not necessarily. It's what makes certain forms of Western music standalone, but a lead voice designed to be a leading voice is not necessarily the inherent quality that makes a piece function. What I've found as a percussionist is that our ear will naturally search for a focal point; a leading voice is merely a specific tool to attract an ear. However, relying on a leading voice can then de-tune the ear to melodies that may be present within the sound and texture itself. Searching for a leading voice and not finding one that strictly deviates from the texture can be a great way to not actually hear what is happening in the music. And even more, dictating that aspect as what makes the piece standalone means that you aren't listening to "standalones" very closely in the first place, if you fail to acknowledge the ways in which the texture will validate the melody.
Absolutely no. We both insist that originally VGM functions as the secondary medium, something inferior to the primary medium. The difference is, that I'm saying that it shouldn't have a handicap when we're considering it as a standalone and you beg to differ.
I just don't understand what you see a handicap as. From what I can tell you have a very particular way in which to determine how music is good (and I would frankly love to hear exactly how you determine this because there is certainly more than one aspect that I don't remotely agree with) and that is part of why you seem incapable of even acknowledging the idea of a tune simply not being able to function without being stuck with the conventional expectations of a piece.
