Getting a tone and a groove.

[Eagle]

By asking that question, you've already agreed to my premise. If I post something that I think grooves, and you disagree, where is that going to leave us? It'll be one of two places:

1 - You'll assert that you're right, and I'm wrong and that I don't know the first thing about groove. And that aint gonna be a pleasant exchange of viewpoints when it is all said and done.
2 - You'll agree that it is groovy, even if it isn't your thing, and thus my position of groove being subjective will be proven true.

There's literally no point in continuing this conversation until you define your terms. I tell you what though, I did find this after a quick 30 second search: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305735618792440 - unfortunately the full article is hidden behind a paywall.

Also I have to say, I was really really REALLY hoping that this place wasn't going to turn into a cesspit of people trying to one-up each other. There's plenty of that idiocy over at TGP and thefretboard.co.uk - they're doing well more than their fair share. We simply don't have to.

I fundamentally disagree so far but trying to see your point. I don't have to like something to understand and appreciate it, art is not going to appeal to everyone but that is not because it is bad.

 

[Eagle]

Nope, groove, much like humour, is subjective, and may also rely on knowledge of a specific context.

I'll help you out:

Dee-lite

I disagree, You don't seem to understand how it is even communicated in music.

 

[Eagle]

Me like.

You pointless in this.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Puerto Rico??

not at the moment

 

[Orvillain]

I fundamentally disagree so far but trying to see your point. I don't have to like something to understand and appreciate it, art is not going to appeal to everyone but that is not because it is bad.

I disagree that groove is solely the preserve of timing. I also don't frame groove as a timing differential against a metronomic basis.

Groove is a perceptual phenomenon. The best I can describe my position is that you know when something grooves when it makes your body want to move - dance, nod your head, tap your foot.

This phenomenon can be achieved in all sorts of ways, and not specifically timebase related. You can do it using dynamics and timbre too. Even song construction and structuring can evoke the phenomenon of groove. Also, you've said nothing about sustaining the phenomenon of groove. Those songs you posted?? They seem groovy to me for about 30 seconds or so. Then my brain and body quickly grow tired of the music, and I want to switch back to something with a bit more bite to it.

Thus far I've avoided commenting on particular song examples, because I truly don't see music as a competition. But the Audiotree session you posted. I could handle about 3 minutes of it before I grew thoroughly destitute of interest, right to the core of my soul.

I'm not saying it is shit. Far from it. But I don't find it interesting or groovy enough to want to listen to it for any longer than a couple of minutes. And that right there proves to me that groove is experienced subjectively by the listener, and that everyone has their own internal concept of what groove actually is.

And that goes for all sorts of musical phenomenon too. Because I've had people post both mild-progressive rock music at me (ELO and Porcupine Tree for example) AND heavy metal (Metallica seem to be a favourite for this) and both camps claim that it is the heaviest stuff they've heard, and it really speaks to them. But in both cases I don't find their examples particularly "heavy", nor enjoyable for much more than a few minutes. In Metallica's case, I find them really really really average. But I didn't grow up listening to them, so I don't have the same emotional connection to their music.

That is all to say - music is subjectively created, subjectively experienced, and we can talk around the houses about it until we run out of breath. It aint that interesting at the end of the day.

 

[Eagle]

I disagree that groove is solely the preserve of timing. I also don't frame groove as a timing differential against a metronomic basis.

Groove is a perceptual phenomenon. The best I can describe my position is that you know when something grooves when it makes your body want to move - dance, nod your head, tap your foot.

This phenomenon can be achieved in all sorts of ways, and not specifically timebase related. You can do it using dynamics and timbre too. Even song construction and structuring can evoke the phenomenon of groove. Also, you've said nothing about sustaining the phenomenon of groove. Those songs you posted?? They seem groovy to me for about 30 seconds or so. Then my brain and body quickly grow tired of the music, and I want to switch back to something with a bit more bite to it.

Thus far I've avoided commenting on particular song examples, because I truly don't see music as a competition. But the Audiotree session you posted. I could handle about 3 minutes of it before I grew thoroughly destitute of interest, right to the core of my soul.

I'm not saying it is shit. Far from it. But I don't find it interesting or groovy enough to want to listen to it for any longer than a couple of minutes. And that right there proves to me that groove is experienced subjectively by the listener, and that everyone has their own internal concept of what groove actually is.

And that goes for all sorts of musical phenomenon too. Because I've had people post both mild-progressive rock music at me (ELO and Porcupine Tree for example) AND heavy metal (Metallica seem to be a favourite for this) and both camps claim that it is the heaviest stuff they've heard, and it really speaks to them. But in both cases I don't find their examples particularly "heavy", nor enjoyable for much more than a few minutes. In Metallica's case, I find them really really really average. But I didn't grow up listening to them, so I don't have the same emotional connection to their music.

That is all to say - music is subjectively created, subjectively experienced, and we can talk around the houses about it until we run out of breath. It aint that interesting at the end of the day.

There is not much in there I don't agree with. Yes music is not a competition but good technique is a prerequisite to realise communicating the vision. Subtle variations in timing and dynamic are the methods of communication and they need to be learned hence the objective part. The music its self is subjective. I always tell students that the only wrong note is one you didn't intend to play but the context and note choice is subjective to a large part. Poor delivery of the idea is just objectively bad.

 

[SillyOctpuss]

So no objective good for technique?

I'm not sure what you mean by this but can't be bothered arguing to be very honest. I will just say that everyone experiences music differently with very different perceptions. Music that elicits a a strong emotional response in you might very well leave me bored and disinterested. It doesn't mean that either of us are wrong because music IMO is entirely subjective.

Even if you talk about technique or even music theory. Despite there being scales it really doesn't matter whether any of this is followed or not if it elicits a response in the listener. You might say that a particular guitarist or vocalist is terrible and had poor timing or technique but that means nothing if other people like it.

Actually I was always a fan of Mike Skinner but a lot of my friends absolutely hated it when I put The Streets on. They said he couldn't rap or sing and had terrible timing but personally I love Original Pirate Material and A Grand Don't Come for Free. His timing and vocals just work for me. I've had the same experiences with Cake, their vocalist has some pretty unique timing that some people love and some people hate. It doesn't matter whether his timing IS off or not because loads of people love it and it's music so entirely subjective.

 

[SillyOctpuss]

Poor delivery of the idea is just objectively bad.

But only if you think it is bad. If someone else likes it then it is good so it's subjective.

 

[Orvillain]

There is not much in there I don't agree with. Yes music is not a competition but good technique is a prerequisite to realise communicating the vision. Subtle variations in timing and dynamic are the methods of communication and they need to be learned hence the objective part. The music its self is subjective. I always tell students that the only wrong note is one you didn't intend to play but the context and note choice is subjective to a large part. Poor delivery of the idea is just objectively bad.

I'm not arguing for being a shit musician. Nobody here is as far as I can tell. But the video you posted... I mean, even he doesn't know what he's saying; stumbling over his words a lot, looking up to the sky as he thinks about what he's trying to communicate, etc.

I don't even think you necessarily learn how to do these subtle variations in timing and dynamics. Sometimes they're just a byproduct of play - ie; treating music as the playful and fun thing that it is. You develop your own style over so many years by constantly playing and listening to yourself and pushing out into certain directions.

At least that is how it was for me. I'm no slick-dick shredder or anything, but I have a style that is identifiable as my own; or at the very least as the mish-mash of 30 years of influences and love of music all squished together to create something new. I didn't go to music school or study jazz to learn how to do that, it just came naturally.

My degree is actually in Sonic Art. I typically don't approach music from a notes-notes-notes perspective. I find timbre and envelope and rhythm much more interesting places to play.

As for groove....?? Well groove is a pretty difficult thing to define, and I think that is perfectly fine and okay. We don't have to understand every single diminutive aspect of music in order to be good musicians or artists. Mostly we just have to walk the path.

 

[SillyOctpuss]

That is all to say - music is subjectively created, subjectively experienced, and we can talk around the houses about it until we run out of breath. It aint that interesting at the end of the day.

I wish instead of rambling I'd just said this. It's really not very interesting.

 

[Gearzilla]

Yes music is not a competition but good technique is a prerequisite to realise communicating the vision.

Horse shit.

Some of the most engaging pop music is created by not extremely technical musicians, and often has a ton of groove.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Horse shit.

Some of the most engaging pop music is created by not extremely technical musicians, and often has a ton of groove.

 

[Cirrus]

I'm just going to skirt round the argument that's taken us to page 3...

I haven't watched the video...

I'm eating gluten free pringles in a futuristic hell world.

 

[Alex Kenivel]

Groove is the new Feel™

 

[Eagle]

Horse shit.

Some of the most engaging pop music is created by not extremely technical musicians, and often has a ton of groove.

What they play needs to be within their capability. It's that simple

 

[Gearzilla]

 

[Eagle]

played by great musicians. Like a Virgin was effectively Chic's last album.

 

[Gearzilla]

What they play needs to be within their capability. It's that simple

Meaningless drivel.

Whatever someone plays is within their capabilities by definition.

 

[Eagle]

you prove my point

 

[Eagle]

Meaningless drivel.

Whatever someone plays is within their capabilities by definition.

absolutely not . Write a book with 5 words.