Totally, i’ve recently been exploring how producers and studios would have worked back in the day, integrating sequence material within a multitrack studio environment. I think ultimately the answer to some of these limitations is a hybrid approach of sequencing some elements and tracking others to audio. (which is obvious to people using DAWs I guess haha)
2 Likes
agreed, I seem to love having a part starting just before the 1 (is ‘anacrusis’ the word?)
I love repetitive music that is actually played → Can, Fela Kuti etc. Extremely repetitive but with the natural variation that comes from a human player seems a sweet spot for me. it’s probably why the Octatrack is the Elektron that’s stuck with me longest, it’s possible to record decently long loops of stuff being played in.
3 Likes
One thing that re-occurred to me yesterday while I was walking home is that often (I’m thinking YouTube content creators mainly) it’s explained as being “in 4/4”.
I think there are pieces for which that’s definitely true, but idk - the kinds of techno that I really enjoy listening to (e.g. Kangding Ray) often aren’t really in 4/4 so much as having a kick that acts as an especially low indicator of the pulse - like a metronome. The kick is a hypnotic element around which other rhythms and/or planes of tone are manipulated.
I suspect the reason a lot of people get trapped in the loop is that they start thinking in blocks of 4, and then wonder why what they have never quite sounds as linearly satisfying as the records they listen to. Somewhat akin to a student who’s learned block-chord harmony and can’t quite get their music to sound like the seamless flow of interlocking melodies good counterpoint comprises.
See also this video that arrived in my feed t’other day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNymEp4fo8.
2 Likes
That’s really well said, and I believe that the moment you anchor something that fundamental, then you can pretty much put whatever on top. You get that pulse and then you can sprinkle that with whatever odd time signatures you can manage to make work. That’s the way I try to escape the 4 bar loop curse, anyways (with sadly varying degrees of success).
In the case of Elektron boxes, for example, that could mean pairing that metronome with all the modulations, and having whatever odd-step sequences modulated by steady-metronomed sources.
1 Like
A popular choice falls on creative variations of rhythmic groupings such as 3-3-2 and 3-3-3-3-2-2. You can observe these two rhythmic patterns as much in Western pop music as in many other genres in the world. I’m pretty sure that they also linger deeply in electronic styles when you analyze their rhythmic patterns more thoroughly. That said, these 2 patterns do not enjoy exclusiveness, naturally.
1 Like
+1 to the Kadenze course - I did this around about 10 years ago, found it really useful as a baseline for where I was at and the limitations of how I was doing things. About a month later was when I first encountered clave / timeline music via Touissant’s paper on euclidean rhythms and tbh I’m still working out the implications. Should actually do the course again from where I am now.
Both highly recommended.
The e-t system is another idiosyncratic way of thinking about rhythm and structure, apparently Jaki Liebezeit was fond of saying, “no music behind bars”.
New post from Ethan Hein is timely for this thread:
4 Likes
Excellent, thank you. I wasn’t aware of those but I have the Can DVD set from 2003 which gets a regular airing. Also highly recommended.
1 Like
I guess the way I think about that rhythmic push & pull is to have some elements always being on-beat, some always being off-beat, and some moving between on-beat & off-beat - ether by being in an odd-numbered time signature, or by using a “timeline rhythm” (e.g. clave).
From what I’ve learned so far the skill is in deciding the mixture of elements and how they interact with the sound design side of things.
I don’t have much experience in this genre yet so I find I can’t add too many instruments in any category without it all starting to fall apart, but some writers are able to make a straight rhythm with very little on beat/off beat work and other writers are able to have loads of patterns in odd-numbered time-signatures such that they only line up occasionally.
Just a question of time, experimentation & study I expect.
2 Likes
As is with every good thing in life.
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s limiting to compose linearly (why would it be? it’s an open canvas). OTOH, not composing linearly is limiting and you have to use a lot of clever decisions like the conditionals and even have the nerve to modify the patterns while playing. Both are valid styles but clearly the linear way is more flexible. I think that Elektron especially conforms to modifying the pattern in real time with tools such as func-tweak jumping to usable integer values etc. but it is not the case on many other synths, making it more scary and prone to failure. I do tweak my analog synths while playing the seq ofc, but nothing too dramatic that might fuck things up easy.
I like to combine both styles. I sequence 99% of my songs on Digitone. Most songs are 3 (A-bridge or chorus-B) to 5 patterns (intro-A-bridge or chorus-B-outro), but I do have some that are only 1. I tend to compose using more traditional approach with harmonic progressions and melodies etc. and struggle with the textural stuff.
This thread reminded me of the overdubbing feature on Digitone 2. I might want to start using that! Should be good for composing on single pattern and printing straight away. Good way to escape the 4/8 bar limitation.
I have been lately trying to incorporate more live playing to my electronic music. Most often I jam for 16 to 32 bars on my bass over the 8 bars from Digitone and that’s a section. Planning to start playing keys and guitar in similar fashion sooner or later as well. It’s cool as you still have the ability to tweak the synths afterwards when printing the jam, and the live playing of guitars/keys is giving extra human feeling to it.
2 Likes
That’s totally my approach. The things that I tend to program or to polish more are the predominantly rhythmic parts but beyond those the music feels more alive when recorded by live performance.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s limiting to compose linearly … OTOH, not composing linearly is limiting
My experience is that both methods come with their own limitations.
Writing everything out beforehand often involves quite a bit more programming than jamming using short pre-programmed sequences. Personally I’m not a big fan of doing long sequences and/or chains of patterns using step sequencers - it’s a 7th circle of hell activity.
OTOH jamming using short pre-programmed sequences means you have to practice each song to the point where you begin to wonder if it mightn’t have been simpler to pre-program everything.
I guess I think the real limiting factor is only knowing how to do one or the other.
If you know both and predominantly choose to do one it’s a deliberate decision.
2 Likes