Flash Flash Revolution - View Single Post

**AutotelicBrown** · 09-4-2022, 12:19 AM

Not sure where you got the idea that what people refer to as "technical stepping" has anything to do with using or not additive layering.
In fact, the vast majority of FFR's catalogue (including recent charts) can be unambiguously considered "technical stepping" despite not that many using additive layering.

There's two very distinct charting concepts being conflated in your descriptions that I think become much clearer once separated:
(I) - How a single voice is represented (regardless of whether other voices are layered alongside)
(II) - How the interaction of 2 or more voices is represented

Intentionally or not, those are two distinct and arbitrary decisions a stepartist makes when making a chart under the prevailing paradigm where notes are directly associated to musical elements from the song itself.
Here is a simple example illustrating how (I) and (II) works:

In my view, additive layering refers specifically to the choice on (II) and would match Cases 1 and 2 in my example.
It's true that additive layering often leads to (I) being "one note per layered voice" but I believe that's more due to historical and practical reasons.
The historical part refers to the tradition of keysounded games (iidx, bms, djmax etc) that naturally have this combination of (I) and (II) from their mechanics, which in turn have served as inspiration for many steppers who use additive layering outside these games.
The practical part is due to the limitations of working with 4 columns. As illustrated in Case 2, having a voice be represented by more than one note makes the chart crowded very fast when you are layering multiple voices in an additive manner.

As for what you tried to describe as "aurally-oriented" and where most of your discussion leads, it pertains to the decisions made on (I) and shouldn't be bundled with the discussion on additive vs non-additive approaches.
If you are following a strict and unambiguous association (which FFR judges always favored), I don't think there's much point in distinguishing a "one note per sound" approach from "always use a jump/hand for a given sound" in the larger discussion pertaining to dumps and more abstract approaches.

I should also mention that only "technical dumps" fall in this categorization of (I), other types of dumps are part of a different paradigm where the notes act as one or more independent voices.
That being said, from what I understand, FFR only has "technical dumps" in mind for now so I think elaborating on (I) can still be relevant for those who care about that discussion.
It's also interesting to note that it's entirely possible to make a "technical dump" with additive layering.

Finally, on the topic of preferred terminology.

I think in the context of (II), just "additive" and "non-additive" is more than enough as currently most steppers assume "non-additive" by default and "additive" acts as a modifier when relevant.

In the context of (I), I'd break it down further into two main decisions:
(I-1) - If it is attack-based (either single note or chord exclusively over the attack), dumping (extra notes outside the attack, including sounds without a well defined attack) or a simplification (slower or quantized rhythms over a sequence of attacks)
(I-2) - If the association is strict (consistently used for a given voice) or abstract/interpretative (association can change based on other factors like loudness)

Generally speaking, "technical stepping" refers to the choice of (I-1) being attack-based + simplification, and of (I-2) being primarily strict association.

It's important to note that what I'm presenting here is only a descriptive framework to categorize a few aspects of charting. Same applies to what you presented in your post.
If you really want to talk about styles, the discussion should take into consideration a lot more things both in terms of charting decisions and the cultural context in which those decisions came to be.

Anyway, I personally have used both additive and non-additive approaches extensively (often both within the same chart) and could write lengths on the pros/cons of each and how to use either effectively.
Beyond the importance of judges being aware of those differences, I think any stepartist is missing out by neglecting either approach.

09-4-2022, 12:19 AM	#6
AutotelicBrown Under the scarlet moon Join Date: Jan 2014 Age: 31 Posts: 921	Re: Describing stepping/mapping styles Not sure where you got the idea that what people refer to as "technical stepping" has anything to do with using or not additive layering. In fact, the vast majority of FFR's catalogue (including recent charts) can be unambiguously considered "technical stepping" despite not that many using additive layering. There's two very distinct charting concepts being conflated in your descriptions that I think become much clearer once separated: (I) - How a single voice is represented (regardless of whether other voices are layered alongside) (II) - How the interaction of 2 or more voices is represented Intentionally or not, those are two distinct and arbitrary decisions a stepartist makes when making a chart under the prevailing paradigm where notes are directly associated to musical elements from the song itself. Here is a simple example illustrating how (I) and (II) works: Suppose you decided to layer only two voices, a lead melody and some percussion that at a given point have the following rhythms: I'll give 3 combinations of (I) and (II) that each lead to distinct placement of singles, jumps or hands despite all adhering to the same choice of layered voices. Case 1: (I) Each voice is represented by single notes. (II) When both voices coincide, you still have separate notes for each one. This would lead to exactly what is portrayed in the image, jump on the red 4th (1+1) and single notes for the rest. Case 2: (I) Percussion is represented by 2 notes, lead is represented by single notes. (II) When both voices coincide, you still have separate notes for each one. This would lead to the red 4th being a hand (2+1), the blue 8th being a jump and the yellow 16ths being single notes. Case 3: (I) Percussion is represented by 2 notes, lead is represented by single notes. (II) When both voices coincide, percussion (stronger voice) takes precedence and the lead (weaker voice) is ignored. This would lead to both the red 4th and blue 8th being jumps, and the yellow 16ths being single notes. In my view, additive layering refers specifically to the choice on (II) and would match Cases 1 and 2 in my example. It's true that additive layering often leads to (I) being "one note per layered voice" but I believe that's more due to historical and practical reasons. The historical part refers to the tradition of keysounded games (iidx, bms, djmax etc) that naturally have this combination of (I) and (II) from their mechanics, which in turn have served as inspiration for many steppers who use additive layering outside these games. The practical part is due to the limitations of working with 4 columns. As illustrated in Case 2, having a voice be represented by more than one note makes the chart crowded very fast when you are layering multiple voices in an additive manner. As for what you tried to describe as "aurally-oriented" and where most of your discussion leads, it pertains to the decisions made on (I) and shouldn't be bundled with the discussion on additive vs non-additive approaches. If you are following a strict and unambiguous association (which FFR judges always favored), I don't think there's much point in distinguishing a "one note per sound" approach from "always use a jump/hand for a given sound" in the larger discussion pertaining to dumps and more abstract approaches. I should also mention that only "technical dumps" fall in this categorization of (I), other types of dumps are part of a different paradigm where the notes act as one or more independent voices. That being said, from what I understand, FFR only has "technical dumps" in mind for now so I think elaborating on (I) can still be relevant for those who care about that discussion. It's also interesting to note that it's entirely possible to make a "technical dump" with additive layering. Finally, on the topic of preferred terminology. I think in the context of (II), just "additive" and "non-additive" is more than enough as currently most steppers assume "non-additive" by default and "additive" acts as a modifier when relevant. In the context of (I), I'd break it down further into two main decisions: (I-1) - If it is attack-based (either single note or chord exclusively over the attack), dumping (extra notes outside the attack, including sounds without a well defined attack) or a simplification (slower or quantized rhythms over a sequence of attacks) (I-2) - If the association is strict (consistently used for a given voice) or abstract/interpretative (association can change based on other factors like loudness) Generally speaking, "technical stepping" refers to the choice of (I-1) being attack-based + simplification, and of (I-2) being primarily strict association. It's important to note that what I'm presenting here is only a descriptive framework to categorize a few aspects of charting. Same applies to what you presented in your post. If you really want to talk about styles, the discussion should take into consideration a lot more things both in terms of charting decisions and the cultural context in which those decisions came to be. Anyway, I personally have used both additive and non-additive approaches extensively (often both within the same chart) and could write lengths on the pros/cons of each and how to use either effectively. Beyond the importance of judges being aware of those differences, I think any stepartist is missing out by neglecting either approach.