thisStomper wrote:the typical minimal, techno, house stuff.
this is what is wrong.
it doesnt have to be typical.
it should be unique, it doesnt have to be ground breaking or weird, it just has to be unique.
thisStomper wrote:the typical minimal, techno, house stuff.
I must admit, I do like the 4/4 structure and I wouldn't deny that it's 'conditioning' in a westerinised sort of way but I don''t necessarily think that in order to have some originality in techno, one has to venture out of 4/4 to acquire it. Obviously, writing a part or a whole piece of music in a different time sig other than common time doesn't itself mean the music is going to be any more interesting or original. There's still common rhythms that exist in other time signature which are easy to spot and define that time signature. Music for me, is to try to strive to maintain a bit of an identity whilst bearing some resemblance to an idea of how I want to sound.steevio wrote:
i dont necessarily agree that rhythms have to be simple to dance to, thats a western rock and roll thing.
when i was in Morocco recently i was checking out the Gnawa music of the Berbers, and their rhythms were quite bizarre, and there's 50 young guys standing round each bunch of musicians in the square in Marrakesh, all grooving to something i couldnt at first get my head around, theyre all clapping in weird places and i found myself incapable of clapping in the right place. then after 5 minutes i got it, my western conditioning didnt allow me to get into the groove at first, then once i'd broken through it was easy.
its all just conditioning mate. everything to do with music is purely conditioning.
.
that is so basic, if your sequencer doesnt allow it, you shouldnt be using that sequencer.AK wrote:It's actually difficult to try and write rhythms against rhythms in some modern gear. Try writing a 12 step pattern against a 16 step pattern in some sequencers, they wont allow it. Time sigs mess with my head anyways.
yes, its misunderstood because when you said you played 7 over 8, in my head i still hear it play over the typical core of kick on beat, snare on every second beat and hi hat between them.steevio wrote:that is so basic, if your sequencer doesnt allow it, you shouldnt be using that sequencer.AK wrote:It's actually difficult to try and write rhythms against rhythms in some modern gear. Try writing a 12 step pattern against a 16 step pattern in some sequencers, they wont allow it. Time sigs mess with my head anyways.
the last live set i did, i started in 4/4, changed to a 3 against 8 polyrhythm, then the last 1/2 hour was a 7 against 8 polyrhythm . i dont think anyone noticed, there were no less people dancing when i was playing the 7 over 8, its a total myth that unusual time signatures or poly rhythms are hard to dance to, if they were i think i would have been playing to empty dancefloors all my life, and gone off with my tail between my legs a long time ago.
i think its a very missunderstood subject
why is typical/standard wrong?steevio wrote:thisStomper wrote:the typical minimal, techno, house stuff.
this is what is wrong.
it doesnt have to be typical.
it should be unique, it doesnt have to be ground breaking or weird, it just has to be unique.
i've only ever released one tune with a snare on every second beat, that was way back in 1994 when i didnt know any better.Stomper wrote: yes, its misunderstood because when you said you played 7 over 8, in my head i still hear it play over the typical core of kick on beat, snare on every second beat and hi hat between them.
techno in the UK is moving away from that core. guys that came though the dubstep scene like Peverelist and Al Tourettes are destroying dancefloors with their broken beat techno.Stomper wrote: also, i think you misunderstood me. when i say typical i mean the core of all dance genres. its the same in trance, house, techno, hardcore ect. kick on beat, snare on every second kick and hi hat between each kick.
when you say unique, what im getting is to change that core, which i disagree with.