Thought of the day: Keeping things interesting.

[steevio]

the typical minimal, techno, house stuff.

this

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.

[AK]

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.
.

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.

I have an open mind and a willingness to always try new things and be experimental, sometimes it's sh!t, absolute pants and then other times I think I'm onto something I could be proud of. My own 'modus operandi' is to focus on the music itself and not too much about whether the rhythms are common time or not. I steer away from obvious chords, over-used sounds and musical fashions but must admit to not really giving other time sigs that much attention. Whether that is my western musical conditioning or not though, is actually quite irrelevant because it still boils down to me not really feeling a groove that is overly complex in its nature. 3/4, 6/8 rhythms I can very easily feel but when talking about more rhytmically challenging time sigs, it starts to uninspire me from a dance music perspective - at least to try and write music around but hey, that's just me and to be honest, I see not more value in any time sig, I have more focus in trying to get a musically inspiring idea which doesn't sound like every Tom, dck & Harry.

Nobody should deny themselves anything though in music, it's beneficial to keep that open mind and to always try out new things.

[AK]

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.

[steevio]

i always seem to be missunderstood on here when it comes to time signatures / polyrhythms etc..

i wasnt talking about these things, i was really only suggesting that there shouldnt be a need to keep a tune ineteresting, it should have enough uniqueness and originality so as to be able to hold the interest of the listener without embellishments for the sake of it, and that the main reason why our (broad) genre often fails in this respect is because the focus is too often on straight 4/4 loops, and i dont mean the time signature, i mean loops that repeat after 4 beats.

[steevio]

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.

that is so basic, if your sequencer doesnt allow it, you shouldnt be using that sequencer.

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

[Stomper]

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.

that is so basic, if your sequencer doesnt allow it, you shouldnt be using that sequencer.

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

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.

the typical minimal, techno, house stuff.

this

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.

why is typical/standard wrong?
i once talked against commercial music to one of my teachers, she told me that if there were no commercial songs, underground music would not be exist. you got to have one in order to have the other. i think that it also applies here.

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.
if you mean to keep things interesting by applying different time sigs to sounds on top of that core, than i totally agree. but i think you cant over do it (more than 1-2 sounds is too much imo). i also think that even with such patterns it will become boring after a while if you dont apply subliminal modulation. i never meant that this kind of modulation should be instead of anything. if its too predictable than its not good no matter what you do. subliminal modulation is a must do to an already good drums arrangement.

[steevio]

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.

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.

to me that is the most boring way to make music.

[tone-def]

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.

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.