From H James Harkins Sent Fri, Jul 3rd 1998, 15:52
From H James Harkins Sent Fri, Jul 3rd 1998, 15:52
>From: "Christopher Fahey" <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> > >> Some Andrew Weatherall remixes of My Bloody Valentine and other (Creation >> label) stuff sometimes would have idm-ish moments. They are mostly great >> grooves with odd percussion, but don't syncopate quite enough to really >> get the retroactively labelled "idm". By the way, for those concerned >> about the "intelligent" part of idm, why not call it "sdm", for > > Syncopation is certainly a common characteristic of much IDM. But it's >not at all a steadfast rule - Aphex Twin is not a funky person and to call >his beats syncopated would make Duke Ellington spin in his grave. 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. The note can be accented either by being louder than the surrounding notes, or by being longer. By the standard definition, then, there is almost no music that includes no syncopation whatsoever. Sousa marches seem to avoid it fairly assiduously, but I'm at a loss to think of anything else (maybe conceptual, minimal pulse pieces from the 60s and 70s, but those aren't meant to be easy to digest). Even Palestrina, probably the squarest Renaissance composer (and among the most sublime)--his music would die without suspensions, which are by definition syncopated. (Much of the complex feel of fast breakbeat music comes from the superimposition of different rhythmic grouping over the basic meter, usually 3's over 4's--mu-ziq being a prime example, and one of the good ones.) What you're talking about is something we don't really have a name for, much less any solid analytical understanding of. 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, or why polka bands use two trumpets instead of one (they're not exactly in tune, which makes the sound richer--anyone who's used a synthesizer for longer than 15 minutes knows exactly what's going on). Rhythmically, it all adds up to this completely opaque concept called "groove," which so far nobody has been able to define better than "you know it when you hear it." But HOW do you know? I haven't the foggiest. 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. 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. Add to that an investment in the "new" on the part of listeners, so that obvious innovation ends up being privileged over a damn fine groove (as in, "there's nothing really new about the new BOC release"). Fucked up music blows you away instantly, while a good groove can seem like nothing at all, IF your mind is only looking for hardcore innovation at the time. This is why I hated In Sides when I first heard it--I had bought the RDJ album the same day--but now, I think In Sides is the better album. 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. Enough rambling from me-- J ________ \ / | "I don't want more choices, H. James Harkins | I just want nicer things!" xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxxx.xxx | \/ | -- Edina Monsoon "The sky is big enough to let all the clouds pass." -- Kobai Scott Whitney