quoted 1 line There are 467 beats in every minute in your track, thats for sure. But> There are 467 beats in every minute in your track, thats for sure. But
all
quoted 1 line of those beats are the same boomboomboomboomboomboom drum smash, so you> of those beats are the same boomboomboomboomboomboom drum smash, so you
can
quoted 5 lines hardly use that as a meaningful measure of the bpm. The occasional heavy> hardly use that as a meaningful measure of the bpm. The occasional heavy
> metal/thrash samples seem to loop at a rate of about two measures per
> second, with each measure acting like a beat. So it sounds to me like a
> simple 120 BPM or so with big loud beats on every quarter note. One can
> interpret it either way, and of course you know best since you composed
it.
quoted 2 lines And for the most part, the song does move along at 467 BPM with no other> And for the most part, the song does move along at 467 BPM with no other
> sounds besides the boomboomboomboomboom.
Isn't that the point of "bpm"? To count the audible beats. Its a funny
thing because it really could be
interpreted differently depending on where the emphasis is. 40 bpm is 80
bpm is 160 bpm is 320 bpm.
So say there's 320 seperate 'ticks' per minute, if the boom is on every 8th
tick you're running 40 bpm,
every 4th you're 80 bpm, every other 160, and every 320. Makes sense. The
hazey area
might be where you have say kicks on every one of 320 ticks, but there's a
significantly louder more pronounced
beat on every 8th tick. There's loads of hardcore tracks that do this with
an underlying hiphop beats.
quoted 2 lines I still argue that unless you are composing your track for a hummingbird> I still argue that unless you are composing your track for a hummingbird
> on speed - or unless the human physical capacity for feeling out a rhythm
is
quoted 1 line not a major concern in your work (a perfectly acceptible and common idea> not a major concern in your work (a perfectly acceptible and common idea
in
quoted 2 lines contemporary music, exemplified by conceptual, ambient, and noise music) -> contemporary music, exemplified by conceptual, ambient, and noise music) -
> then you ought to keep the 80-140 range in mind as you compose. I think
you
quoted 2 lines did so unconsciously when you made sure that the song had some slower> did so unconsciously when you made sure that the song had some slower
> patterns on top of the fast pattern. Effectively, your track chugs along
at
Its definitely more interesting if you can switch the feeling of the tempo
in the track
even if you're following the convention of keeping the actual bpm or count
the same throughout the track.
With electronics alot of people are trying to push people to appriciate a
different aesthetic,
like you mention. I'm no musical scholar, but i don't know anything about
human nature that says
we only appricaite 80-140. Although i totally see where you come from with
it. When i hear slower tracks
i usually "feel" them in double time, and faster tracks i usually feel them
in half time.
quoted 2 lines 467, then when the thrash and vocal samples come in my focus immediately> 467, then when the thrash and vocal samples come in my focus immediately
> ignores the breakneck 'headbanging' part and moves over to the slower
'mosh'
quoted 2 lines part (this is the genius of the headbang/mosh/headbang/mosh song structure> part (this is the genius of the headbang/mosh/headbang/mosh song structure
> of, say, Slayer's "Angel of Death", which was recorded when many of you
were
quoted 1 line in kindergarden).> in kindergarden).
Or consider the whole black metal style with long slow orchestral parts then
blast beats.
You're probably rocking at quadruple time during the fast parts in some
tracks...
quoted 1 line I think a lot of d&b artists think that jacking up the BPM makes them> I think a lot of d&b artists think that jacking up the BPM makes them
more
quoted 1 line hardcore, when in fact all it does is make their tracks utterly> hardcore, when in fact all it does is make their tracks utterly
groove-less.
quoted 3 lines Groovelessness is cool, except for the fact that almost nobody ever likes> Groovelessness is cool, except for the fact that almost nobody ever likes
> it. This is all my personal opinion - I'm not a big fan of noisy music
> unless there's some perceptible thought-provoking conceptual foundation
for
quoted 1 line it.> it.
Does it? I don't know. Does it make that much difference between 160 bpm
and 175 bpm?
DJs years ago when i guess things were supposedly 'groovier' djs would still
push it up +8 which makes
a 160 track almost 175 anyway...Its pretty hard to deny the groovyness of
some of the new d+b coming out
that definitely runs over a 170 clip. And at one time i remember when
people thought 140bpm+ was undancible...
- cutups
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org