Groovy

   I don't know if my thoughts are in context with your
subject but here are some things I think about. I hear
the term groove or beats or loops and it seems that
for "me" that this doesn't work for my productions.

  There is something about a "backing track" or "band
in a box" that gives it a somewhat pre fab'd  sound.
They can sometimes sound very good but don't seem
to sound "unique" to the guy producing the song.

   I'm thinking more in terms of "punch" lately. In
terms of "tone" where the quality of tone "is the
groove". Where if one wanted to they could say
that every part in the mix has distinction and that
is what gives the mix the "rhythmic" feel.

  I'm trying to go with not putting the burden of
a groove on the drums. Although that's what they
do it sometimes seem that a person may get
busy on the drums in order to create some
"activity" in the song when some great guitar
work might carry the groove a little better.

  That makes me think of how some acoustic
guitar players do some slapping of the guitars
strings and or body of the guitar. Michael
McDonald's style of piano playing is very
groove sounding. Stevie Wonder comes to mind
there too.

   The amazing thing is guys like these could
do just a piano/vocal and "still" sound very rhythmic.
Then add bass and drums and now it has groove
and punch. A piano may sometimes be viewed as
a melodic instrument but it also relies a percussive
action.

  Maybe almost all instruments rely on that too. Even
the bow of a violin has an "attack". This would lead
me to think that "how good" a persons technique is
as a player has everything to do with the groove
or feel.

 

 

 

+1 Jimmy and Jamie,

Jimmy, you understand the dilemma I've posted (though my grammar is atrocious).

Groove is still a problematic element that I've detected in all of us of late, IMHO.  Its the 1st thing that makes or breaks my opinion of a song.  I'd bet most producers listen desperately for a convincing groove, perhaps first and foremost.

I can tell when its pre-fab'd and plastic or when someone mixes solely with cans.  A groove may be overdone and plastic-fab'd or its blurred out by crowded instruments.

I'm pondering:

While house/club music, drums and bass, R&B, funk, trance, electronica, etc. rely almost too heavily on majestic grooves ... the reverse seems most common (to my ears).

I'm beginning to hypothesize (non-dogmatically):

1) Stevie Wonder's vox and piano had immediate groove because the man lived by sound pulse-chimes much more than non-blind artists.

2) Great artists are hyper-sensitive to groove pulses ... they don't abuse them ... they keep their listener(s) awake and interested during the chorus.  They may relax the groove pulses and chimes ... during verses and such (or vice versa)

3) Bass-guitar, kick, snare, and hats may envelope around a solid groove foundation.

4) A great funk artist may likely spend in-ordinate amounts of time developing grooves ... not just a day of mixing.
 
5) A real groove is the 'living word' of music; it is not achieved by mere robotic rhythms, acid loops, Jamztix loops, bass-line pumping, nor just patching and pasting on top of songs. 
 
6) A real groove has a strong 'message' that supports the song-message (hook, title, chorus, etc.)
 
7) A groove and its elements are exceedingly complex; hence intuition may precede music theory in developing great grooves.
 
8) Some grooves may be seasoned and spontaneous, like Stevie Wonder, Peter Paul and Mary, etc..  Others may take an inordinate time to develop (i.e., in the studio) and have little to do with so-called 'performance'.
Just hypotheses

   Phillip
       You use some terms that are descriptive about
the elements of a song. It is clear that you listen to
music from a musical stand point. Often times things
can be infer'd rather than actual. I really wish that
there were more people like yourself that would
visit these concepts.

   Sometimes the answer to a question is right
there in front of us but we can't see it. Sometimes
we have to study things in an extremely complex
manner before it can become so simple.

  A great producer to me is one who can "bring out
the best in a person and a song. I'm guessing that
some people when doing they're own tune will
think more like a mix engineer and musician.

  And forget or not put value in what effect or how
good a song sounds to a non musician. This is fine
depending on what a person wants. If I want to
simply have fun and enjoy then nothing is wrong
with that.

  However one can live in a virtual reality sometimes.
That's where it can get confusing. It's like a band
doing cover songs. I've done cover songs all of my
life but one day it hit me. "What have I accomplished?"
At the time I "thought" I was doing something and
actually I did. "I learned from it" That is what I
acomplished.

   Being good at producing to me is much more of an
artistic skill. It is one thing to be a "technical virtuoso"
but if the (say a player) has no artistic skill then it is
sounds without character. I almost always form a
"view" of what the quality of a song is in the first 2
seconds.

  I don't choose to do that it's just what the "tonal
impact" has on me. Another thing too is it seems
that if a songs "players" be it one or many different
people aren't well matched then there is a bit
of an unbalance.

  I remember that when I played with great musicians
it was so remarkable what I could do. But most of my
performance were with average musicians. And therefore
"average" is how I sounded too. I am what I call an
"average" player. I'm not a bad player but I'm no
virtuoso either.

  The reason I mention this is because an average
person with "desire" can do something if they have
the faith to do so. Maybe we sometimes look at the
big timers and separate ourselves. As if to say "I
could never do that".

  And if one can't then of course one never will.
It is also about whether we give up or keep trying.
Some of my former/fellow musicians have quit
all together. This can also be relative to our
pursuit to become good at what we do as writers
or mix engineers or producers. We some times
get into a certain "level of acceptance".

  Sometimes it's the "it is good enough" concept.
Some people don't enjoy the "work" it takes to
achieve. And that's O.K too. Some like it simple.
No problem there either. But if a person has
an inner desire create works in a manner that
is satisfying to this individual then there will be
challenges and limits to overcome.

   In a song there may be too many parts or
not enough. More stuff does not make things
better if there is no strong foundation. Yet a
strong foundation needs something to top it off.
"this apply's to songs with the typical
instrumentation".

   It's almost as if to ask the question of "what is
the song saying?" The sounds of a song are in
a since "voices". Is a "voice" heard? sometimes
yes and sometimes no. And sometimes the "voice"
when it is heard is unpleasant.

   My My My is the study of artistry an art in itself?

I totally disagree that Neil Peart has no soul in his playing.

Where's the "roll eyes" smiley?

jamesyoyo


John Bonham's drumming

• the spaces between the notes are the the stuff grooves are made of. If you made midi files from his beats, I would guess nothing would hit exactly at 000, but a lot would be around 950 and 010. Those tasteful uses of milliseconds of space separate a drummer from a drum machine. Compare him to Neil Peart, who is dead-on with every beat and technically perfect yet has no swing or soul.

+1

Or as Duke Ellington said: "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing."

But in the case of "groove" it's not an outright triplet swing (which technically takes us back to the metronome again), it's just a light fudging of the beat like jyo said. If you're right on the metronome then you're straight rock like Neil Peart. If you swing too hard, you're in the jazz camp like Bruford. But if you find that perfect pocket between the two, like Bonham did, you're the groovemeister.

Also +1 to jimmy's point that a groove also depends on the interplay between instruments. If you can nail that, you don't need a groovy drummer or beat. Example: INXS "What You Need" where they have 5 different instruments in perfect syncopation, each playing its own distinct rhythm. The result = a groove that makes you move, even though there's no shuffle or swing involved.

Another thing I've learned is that it's not what you play, but often its what you don't play (dropping out for a beat) that makes a groove. If you're a bassist and you thump on every 8th note, you won't make a groove. But if you know how to leave the right holes, accentuate the offbeats and leave gaps of silence, then there's your vibe. Check out the bass in "ABC 123" ...really sparse but effective. Btw that song is another great example of instrument interplay.

I think drum machines can have more soul than most drummers if used correctly. Marvin Gaye showed us that. There's also Phil Collins--yeah I can hear a few boos from the audience for his overuse of drum machines, but some of his early hybrid machine/live drum beats are absolute groove classics. Here's a good example ("Hand in Hand"). But in all of these cases, the drum machine relies on a live performance to wake it up.

I don't know if today's drum machines still have this feature, but I had an old one that had a knob for "Swing". You could dial it to 100% for perfect triplets, or you could back it down to 50% for straight time (why it only went from 50 to 100 always confused me. Prolly some mathematical formula). I suspect most of the classic "groovy" drum machines used that feature to achieve the loose feel we're talking about.

But overall, P, I agree with you... no machine can substitute for a living creature on the kit. On some philosophical level, I think "groove" is a representation of how life deviates from inanimate objects: dynamic, imperfect & unpredictable. Maybe that's why a song with a groove instantly connects with us on a deep level?

The Song Remains the Same was filmed 7 years prior to Bonham's death. The reason they seemed to have no confidence is that JPJ was a natural drip on stage, and Bonham was probably drunk off his behind.

I saw the Zep film in 1981-2, which was filmed in 1973 and released 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_Remains_the_Same_(film);
 
... for me, Bonham was long dead already (September, 1980) when I saw the film (albeit, 8-9 year old images of Bonham and the concert tours).  He was 32 y/o when he (apparently) drank himself to death.

... Perhaps, Bonham's hard rock groove ranks tops for hard rock, by many hard rock artists and fans.  Frankly, I myself don't know anyone who comes close.  Though, currently, hard rock is not my idol.

Apparently, "remaining members decided to disband Led Zeppelin after Bonham's death" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bonham)

Doubtless, Bonham's renowned vibe and groove was critical life-blood for Led Zeppelin.

There are other non-Bonham grooves that define musical excellence: funk, jungle, metal, house, pop-rock, R&B, drums & bass, electronica, etc. etc.

...  that are oft prefered (by at least some here) over just classical hard-rock.

Feedback50; you've offered some excellent and thoughtful insight on many levels. 

Albeit, the fallacy of "if the performance was stellar to begin with"(???), doesn't excuse me to be a weak groove artist. 

Performance seems, to me, the end result of a 'bold and/or diligent' groove-artist ... not the beginning means to its end. 

Fixing mistakes, re-writing, collab'ing, redeeming performances, etc., and re-forming grooves seem to result in beautiful performances ... to me.

... and may lead to painterly polished performances.  (A portrait painter allows his mistakes to rhyme into beauty, preferring total beauty and happy accidents ... over clinical performances)

Redeeming song-grooves, does require multi-takes, overhauls, (re-performances) and many evolutions, IMHO.  But our sound samples seem sufficient for the task.

A great drummer (as you noted) is rare.  But a great groove artist, methinks, potentially exists in all aspiring song-writers.

What has always impressed me on Shotgun is that the guitar is totally supplying the entire groove. Take that away and it would be tough to get the groove.

I don't think there can be too much groove, but I think sometimes players try too hard (white-boy syndrome?). My favorite grooves cook like h*ll but seem relaxed at the same time. I think when multiple syncopations conflict there is a problem and more speed or volume doesn't make it better. (How many club bands have you seen playing funk tunes way too fast?) I think too many club bands in general mentally compare their sound to the original recording and somehow feel that their sound is smaller. Mild panic sets in and they start filling up all the holes (and space dissapers), or they start the song a little faster each night to accomplish the same end. There is a quiet confidence in a real groove that gets overlooked too often. Trying harder doesn't make it funkier.

I never found the orchestrated disco (or disco in general) to be truely funky. They had that mandatory "four on the floor" kick pattern, which isn't very liberating rhytmically. (I might make an exception for some of the Earth Wind and Fire disco stuff, and I'm a big fan of their not-so-disco material). There was some good funk stuff going on in the disco era but I wouldn't classify it as disco (Ohio Players, Stevie, etc.).

I guess never quite bought into the Supremes. I felt in that time period that the Stax/Atlantic stuff was a bit more real than Motown (Marvin Gaye and some of Otis' stuff being the big exeptions), as were some of the rock/soul ensebles (Sly, Isley Brothers) that came from that era. Then there were artists like Ray Charles or James Brown that always did there own thing regardless of popular trends. It's been well documented that Gordy carefully crafted Motown to appeal to interacial audiences with his recordings and performance coaching, and I give him great respect for what it did culturally in a time of broad racial divides. I think some of what he came up with redfined Pop more than it did Soul, and Pop (IMHO) doesn't necessarily prioritize groove over pitching the "artist".

Philip

... Can there be too much groove?
... How much groove is too much?  And/or
... Is there not a fitting balance for symphonic melodies and "funky pop" grooves?  (ELO, Heart, early disco, late Supremes, etc. ... come to mind)

I've been thinking about this a lot. I guess it's all determined by the listener, but I have to admit, my favourite grooves are the ones that are really subtle... almost imperceptible.

Heavy funk grooves are great, but if I'm not in the mood for it I'll usually pass. On the other hand, Zeppelin grooves appeal to me any day because they're sort of ambiguously funky (if that makes any sense). I've never really picked them apart, but I feel like the guitars are in straight time whilst the rhythm section is doing a shuffle. Maybe this sort of 'schizophrenic groove' is what appeals to everyone on some level.

The ELO tune "Do Ya" has that vibe to it. It starts with straight power chords on the guitar, but when the band kicks in, I swear there's a hint of swing/shuffle to it. I don't even know what instrument is doing it (you'd think drums, but it's hard to tell).

f50 said something that's spot on... if you try too hard, you will undoubtedly kill the groove. In fact, without even listening you can usually tell by looking at a player if they're groovin or not. Something to do with relaxing, holding their instruments loosely, and often smiling <--although I have no clue how that can affect things! I can watch Sheila E on drums for hours.

Er, of course that may have nothing to do with grooves... or music...

Last thought on this topic (for now anyway)....  Every player on the stage is in some way a percussionist. No matter if you're playing guitar, bass, keys, horns, vocalist, whatever. Your phrasing, your contribution to the groove is every bit as important as the drummer's. (Listen to the phrasing on a Joe Williams vocal sometime if you think a vocalist can't push a groove).

In the first year beginner's piano book that I had as child, on the first page it says something to the effect "it's more important to play a note on time than it is to play the right note". I think some of us forget that too easily. As far a phrasing goes my college jazz teacher used to say "Play all eigth notes as if their 16ths, and quarters as if they were dotted".