Sorry, it was a knee-jerk reaction to hearing this pattern over and over
again while browsing Juno's techno "new releases".
You are correct about it being a cliché. I've heard plenty of minimal
mixes that don't deviate from this pattern from start to finish. With this
being the standard beat for minimal it's no wonder that your average
"minimal" DJ sits on this beat all night.
> Listen to the other
> parts besides the kick and hihat... By your logic, there shouldn't be
> any more 4 on the floor kicks either, right?
With the emphasis on that kick and hihat it's difficult for my ear to not
focus on that. I know with minimal stuff there's tons of other things
going on but eventually, if things don't change up, that "boom tsk" starts
to get magnified until I'm ready to puke. Same goes with any techno that
sits on bang-bang-bang all night. Yawn. There's so much of that sort of
techno out as well. Too much sitting in one place. Maybe it's just the
instruments assigned to the patterns. Imagine a drummer in a band that
just played the same beat out on a kick, a snare, and a hi-hat. I thought
the funk was in the rhythm?
4/4 is fine - there's a lot you can do within that time sig. I just don't
hear people doing it in most techno.
MEK
"David Powers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/08/2007 05:58:45 PM:
> Okay I'm not understanding your line of reasoning here. Your question,
> to me, is almost tautological...
>
> This kick/hh pattern is prevelant:
> a) because that's the most stripped down house/techno beat besides
> just a kick that one can have and
> b) because genres are defined by their cliches, and this one is
> typical of minimal, and has been for years ... ie. when it was still
> microhouse, and before that minimal techno or minimal tech-house...
>
> The "rhythm" does more than that, even in the example you posted
> (though it's not anything I'd necessarily buy). Listen to the other
> parts besides the kick and hihat... By your logic, there shouldn't be
> any more 4 on the floor kicks either, right? But that's not how dance
> music works, dance music relies on cliches to define genres and to
> give dancers constants to work off of, in the midst of other elements
> that may be unfamiliar or changing quite a bit.
>
> This rhythm isn't meant to be the interesting/non-boring part of the
> track, it's like the skeleton or scaffolding, and the interesting
> parts would be built on this scaffolding.
>
> That's how I see it anyway.
> ~David
>
> On 1/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Browsing through new releases I find that there's an overwhelming
number of
> > tracks with rhythms that are all carbon copies of each other.
> > Why are so many "techno" tracks sounding like this?
> > http://mp3.juno.co.uk/MP3/SF244221-01-01-01.mp3
> >
> > anyone else feel that there's a glut of stuff that all swings on this
> > general pattern (boom tsk boom tsk boom tsk)? It's getting boring....
> >
> > MEK
> >
> >
