From Chris Fahey Sent Mon, Jul 6th 1998, 19:04
From Chris Fahey Sent Mon, Jul 6th 1998, 19:04
>Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 10:53:29 -0400 >From: "H. James Harkins" <xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxxx.xxx> >Subject: (idm) syncopated dance music >I just wanted to clarify this word "syncopation" a bit. Syncopation refers >to the placement of an accented note on a weaker part of the >measure--nothing more, nothing less. Thanks! This is very interesting to hear a real definition. >About the closest to it >that I've read is Charles Keil's work on "participatory discrepancies" >(PDs)--the micro-placement of notes before or after beats, Which is how I usually think of it, although maybe not micro. Where the syncopated beat falls not *on* the beat, nor does it fall *exactly in between* the beats, but rather just before or after the beat. And I'm not talking about random un-quantization for humanization effect, but rather the calculated employment of "missing" a beat slighlty to create tiny instants of tension and satisfaction. >I just know that when the second layer of >drums comes in in We's "in time," I'm powerless to resist. It's some >mysterious combination of micro-nuances in rhythm and the timbres of the >drum sounds, but I can't quantify any of it. I can. I love that track. Layer A is a 4/4 beat, while layer B is a 3/4 beat at the same BPM. After three measures, the two tracks end up back in synch, wrapping up the "verse" quite neatly. Layer A is the constant layer throughout I recall, with Layer B there to mix it up and redefine it. A_ _B -1_ _1- -2_ _2- -3_ _3+ +4_ _1- -1_ _2- -2_ _3+ -3_ _1- +4_ _2- -1_ _3+ -2_ _1- -3_ _2- +4_ _3+ >So what's wrong with fast, complicated breakbeat music? At faster speeds, >small time discrepancies become smaller, and ultimately imperceptible, and >the next step is to substitute the more intellectual pleasures of >complexity for the disappearing sense of groove. This is very interesting analysis. It's true, but again looking at We (or Laika who I keep plugging here), we see how it's possible to be both "groovy" and "thinky" at the same time. Both acts keep the fucked-uppedness knob down low to focus on grooviness, balance, and elegance. I think ultra-fast or ultra-fucked up "Speed-IDM" is oten a crutch to cover the fact that the attempt at funkiness has gone too far astray, leaving only the intellectually interesting beat experiments. On the cover of Feed Me Weird Things, RDJ praises TJ's use of 320 bpm beats or something. Now I would imagine that whatever he was doing at 320 BPM probably had something else, something more important, going on in the 100 bpm range. In fact, most of TJ's best tracks (IMO) seem to stick around the 100-140 bpm range with the strongest beats (i.e., BASS), with lots of funky faster stuff on top. Figures RDJ would have an orgasm on the 320 though. >Fucked up music blows you away instantly, >while a good groove can seem like nothing at all. Three words: Atari Teenage Riot Amazed the hell out of me the first time I heard them. I thought they were the future of music. Annoyed the fuck out of me by the third listen, and I hate them passionatley now. Most people I know have reacted in the exact same way. Except those friends who own any breakbeat records at all, who hated them at the first listen. >It isn't one versus the other, though--balance is required. Groove without >thoughtfulness can't hold attention for long, and too-complex, grooveless >music loses its charm once you figure it out and it ceases to bewilder. Good call! -Cf