Re: Re: rhythm sequencers software

[Rick Walker <looppool@cruzio.com>]

On 7/22/64 11:59 AM, Per Boysen wrote:
> Not really, since RMX's random variation system - called "Chaos" - is
> hard to beat.
Hi,  as a life long rhythmatist, drummer and percussionist,  I feel 
compelled to weigh in on
this discussion.   Please forgive me as it's just my opinion; just my 
personal aesthetic here, but here goes:

I can't stand drum machine programs that have random variations in 
them.   To me,
they do not feel realistic in the slightest because they are not how 
drummers really think.

Not always, but a lot of times, what people desire in a real flesh and 
blood drummer is someone who is
committed to grooving,  able to perform very consistently and who will 
move the groove
at appropriate times.      I tell my drum students (and I reveal myself 
as a formalist) that
in pop situations, that one usually doesn't want to fill except at a 
minimum ratio of
1 - 16.      Drummers who are forever morphing their beats get fired a 
lot or at least tend not
to get hired.   The reason for this and one of the reasons why we can 
use static loops in lots of different
musics, is that it creates a trance to play the same thing over and over 
with a modicum of
technique and then we , deliciously, break that trance, causing tension, 
in order to return to the
groove which causes rhythmic pleasure.

The reason grooves that have randomization built into them tend not to 
emulate this quality of a
really good grooving drummer.
It's funny, and I'll probably get myself into hot water here, but I find 
it is usually keyboardists, guitarists
and single line players who favor programs like these and Not 
drummers/percussionists and bass players
(the people who, traditionally are assigned the task of holding down the 
'bottom' of a good grooving band)
and to me it always sounds unrealistic to me when I hear then used live.

Randomness, or the constraint, thereof can be used effectively in 
programming.  I do it all the time in my own
drum machine programming, but I think it should be used subtley (a good 
example is putting a fair amount of
attention to your hi hat patterns, as opposed to your filling patterns).

My advice to people is to use the static quality of drum machines to 
your advantage:   take the time to study
a really good groove drummer on a couple of records you really enjoy and 
see if you can program a 'song'
along the lines that this particular drummer uses (how frequently does 
he/she fill?;  do the fills have anything
to do with the rhythmic structure of the song?;  do the fills have any 
rhythmic relationship to each other?).

Another cool thing about human beings and patterning is that if we put 
30% 'Real' into a program most people
will read it as real.   In other words,  you can take the same kick and 
snare pattern and use it identically, but
program 6-10 hi hat patterns that have very small changes in their 
programming.  For example,  use
16th notes and program the slightest changes into volume, cutoff 
frequency and timing (if your machine will allow
such subtley) and then mix and match these patterns with the 'groove' of 
the kick and snare (and toms?) that is
static.    It will 'read' better.

Another cool trick is to take the linear rhythm of your groove and then 
program a fill that plays that rhythm exactly, but changes
the instruments that you use normally to play it........say toms for 
kicks or snares........These 'groove' fills
will propel the song along and you'd be surprised at how different they 
will sound or feel while still, well,  grooving!

Of course, there are lots of musics that are not intended to 
'groove'............jazzy,  etc.
But I think even in those forms, the great drummers had a since of form 
all the time and were not just
randomly changing what they play,  any more than a great melodic soloist 
randomly changes what they play.

Music is about listening and responding.........or about creating 
something and then , after the fact, responding
with other parts (we are loopers, after all so we are responding to 
ourselves).
Why shouldn't drum parts have the same kind of interactive quality, or 
at least emulate it the best we can
when we are forced to use pre programmed patterns.

My two cents.

rick walker