Another good example, here's how to prevent 8 minutes of live slow tempo descending into a boring dirge.  (it's worth sitting back and enjoying the entire ride here btw.)

http://forum.cakewalk.com...px?high=&m=2612524

Interesting you should bring up Ringo, as far as groove goes I reckon he could have been replaced by anyone.

 

 
Well, for anyone interested in that debate, there are 8 pages of it currently going on over at Gear Slutz.  That is, until the John Lennon/ Imagine subject went off on a tangent.
 
I was not really even thinking of Ringo in terms of the groove of that song, only that the 3 rhythm players in that particular band had a groove going on that song.  I tend to pick songs that I think most people are pretty familiar with, when I site examples.
 
My personnal oppinion, Ringo did alright for himself.  If nothing else, he was a lucky drummer.

quantumeffect


IMHO, the terms groove and pocket characterize a human interaction and, that is the context in which I use these terms.  Also, and again IMHO, groove and pocket are NOT defined simply by the drummer but by the rhythm section (and I point this out because Owsinski spends a bit of time focusing on and being critical of drum issues in recordings he has worked on in relationship to groove).  From my point of view and in the context of the music I listen to and record, the groove and pocket are defined by the interaction between the drums, bass and rhythm guitar.  Also, it’s not simply the syncopation, the abundance of notes or conversely the sparseness of notes, it’s is how the different rhythm instruments are arranged and how they come together … both AC/DC and Allman Brother tunes groove and have deep pockets but, at least under the rock and roll umbrella, they are at fairly opposite ends when it comes to syncopation and density of notes.

In terms of live playing and interacting with musicians, if I am playing a section in a song with two rhythm guitars each playing a specifically arranged (and complimentary) pattern and the bass player is also playing a specific rhythmic “riff” … then I know from experience that to make that song cook or groove I will probably need to play sparsely and really define the pocket and, make sure the guys can find 1 and feel 2 and 4.  On the other hand, if I am playing with one guitar and a bass player and the guitarist is soloing, if I am confident in the bass player, I may fill extensively behind the solo and leave the pocket job to the bass player (think about the guitar solo section in the Live at Leeds version of Young Man Blues).

There has always been talk in drummer’s circles about playing ahead of the beat or behind the beat … or, in “groove / pocket” speak … where does the backbeat sit in the pocket?  Alternatively using a “wave in the ocean” analogy, if the beat is a big wave then, then for example, the snare could sit right on top of the wave, ride slightly in front of it or ride slightly behind it.  You will hear blues guys talk about sitting back (or laying back) in the pocket meaning … they are riding the backside of that wave.  In my personal experience, I worked for many years with two guitarists (brothers) that were both exceptional rhythm players.  Going back and listening to live tapes of nights where I felt we were really tight … the guys had an uncanny (and most likely unintentional) ability to lock into the groove by playing behind my beat.  Everything on tape sounded like it was on the verge of rushing but the tempos were solid and the songs were charged with energy as they should be in a live situation and it gave the vibe that the drums were seriously driving the band.  Years ago, I remember reading an article in Modern Drummer magazine that really stuck in my head about this very topic.  The author of the article, who was a high profile gigging drummer / hired gun, described an experience he had while trying to come to grips with this concept by attempting to sit back in the pocket on a slow blues during a live gig.  He went on to say that the band kept trying to follow him resulting in a performance of the song that pushed and pulled.  He also went on to say that he ended up getting a lot of grief from the rest of the band because of it.  I’m not even sure if I’m trying to make a point here other than the idea of manipulating the pocket is not just simply shifting one thing around but ... it’s a vibe you get from a well-oiled rhythm section and I guess questions: who is riding the front of the wave?, who is riding its backside?, and who is sitting on top of the wave? become a matter of perspective.

Cool explanation... thanks for your thoughts. very helpful.

I stumbled across this just now and thought of this thread.

http://news.harvard.edu/g...hen-the-beat-goes-off/

It kind of bears out what I'm saying in that you ARE the groove.

It also explains to some degree why 'groove quantisation' is far more effective than time based 'error' approaches to humanising. 

Basically you don't need to work out the mathematics of it, as put forward in the article, if you've already made or found a good groove to conform to.

It sounds like from the description that the percussionist was playing to a click and not with other musicians … and if I’m not mistaken, they evaluated the percussionist's performance relative to the click.

When I record, I often play to a click without music and without fellow musicians (similar to the way I am picturing this experiment).  My personal perception is that, in this situation, I am not the principal time keeper but the secondary time keeper responding to the click.  If I feel myself deviate slightly from the click or maybe play a fill or accent pattern … I am always trying to come back to the click, which in my opinion, is not necessarily musical (I honestly try to become one with the click but sometimes I find myself battling it).

When I play live or record with a live band, I am (more often than not but, not always) the primary timekeeper.  And being human, there are fluctuations in my playing.  The difference is that I am not trying to get back to the click but, the other musicians are responding to my playing and I to them.  The result is that there is an inherent ebb and flow … albeit, tight rhythmically with solid time.

I know what I am about to say is anecdotal and not based on statistical analysis but, after looking at the transients associated with my drumming (in Cakewalk) for the last 15 years or so, there is a difference in the way I play when I am the primary vs. the secondary timekeeper.

I won’t attempt to extrapolate that statement to all drummers but …

I will venture that using statistical data to determine how a percussionist’s playing deviates from a click and then in turn use those results to humanize a drum program may ultimately get you the results you are looking for in a panel study (I suspect that high profile pop music is evaluated in corporate panel studies before money is used to back it … again, just speculation) but to call it humanizing is a misnomer.

Dave, I got the answer to the "battling of the click". My biggest problem as a drummer is to hone in on that sound...cowbell, wood-block, whatever gets used, it just screws me up. Yet I can play nearly dead on with anything else that locks me in on keeping time.

My fix is to create a midi of a beat instead of trying so hard to listen for and worry about that traditional "click". That in itself bothers me to where I sort of feel stagnant. Enter a programmed midi into the picture and everything changes for me. Try it sometime. Create a midi using step sequencer or something, then pan it to the left so it's not up the middle and annoying and you can tell your drums from the midi drums.

You'll find that this method is really close to when you jammed along to albums and you just lock right in with it. I've never battled a click since doing things like this and it's made a world of difference for both me and my clients. That annoying little click by itself is the problem in my opinion. With the tools we have today, we can still "groove" while playing to a click...the key is to use more of a "beat" than a "click" in my opinion. Try it sometime if you haven't...you'll be surprise how easy you lock in and no longer battle that click or even pay attention to it.

That's the other thing...whoever is drumming to that annoying click sound, often times is so worried about keeping it in check it can make their playing stale. Hence why some guys will show up and say "no, I'd really prefer not to play to a click because it sort of stifles me". I can groove with the best of them on a drum kit and I too seem to fall apart while thinking too hard about that cowbell or wood block. But put in a beat of something similar to what I'm supposed to be playing, and I lock right in and don't even listen to it as I play. Just like jamming to my favorite Chicago or Dream Theater album. There were times when I was learning to play drums that I couldn't quite play what a drummer was playing. I could play to my ability and still jam along because he kept the time. Same principal when creating a midi drum beat as opposed to that stagnant click sound....uggh...I can't tell you how much I hate that and how that sound stays in my brain for like 4 hours after using it! Midi beats panned to the left or I'd rather take my chances and go without a click at all. :)

-Danny

In a band situation, everyone feels the pulse. I'm not sure that the drummer is necessarily the 'time keeper', not in a good band anyway. Everyone can feel that pulse that's implicit in the music (though in much popular/rock music it's not implicit at all it's bashed out very obviously.) If everyone in the band is good, they can all play around the pulse and not confuse anyone else. The phrasing of the song will have a certain swing to it that everyone should understanding and either flow with it, or perhaps purposefuly go against it if that's musically interesting. So, yeh, groove isn't anything to do with short term changes in tempo, it's pushing and pulling against a regular tempo.

I do though think that the use of a click almost completely in modern music is one of the big problems with it. Without the ability to naturally play faster in more emotional parts and slower in calmer parts, or to slow down slightly when you want to go "Buffalo Testicles" mode and so forth makes modern music a lot more boring. But of course everything is sacrificed to the ability to overdub almost everything and get maximum sound quality, and the ability to edit everything after the fact. Getting a real human sort of push and pull and natural tempo variation I think requires that at least the backing track be laid down as a band without a click.

If the argument against doing that it is that it will make it hard to use lots of cheating tools to perfect everything, then I'd say right there that argument has already gone off the rails and is not only putting the cart before the horse, it's shooting the horse and leave it dead by the side of the road.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, but it's absolutely clear to me that far and away the most common reason for using a click track today is that it allows for so much cheating. A good band doesn't need a click track to maintain a steady tempo where it's desired. But, if you want to be able to comp like crazy, and gridify everything, apply quantized content, copy and past sections to create new sections, and you want to lay down the majority of the parts as overdubs, then it becomes very important to have it all strictly against a click.

I've got nothing against clicks in and of themselves, but clearly a good band can do a much better job without one, because they can allow breaks to stretch a little longer, they can play some parts a little faster to increase drama and so forth. Yeh, you can sit down and program all those tempo changes into the click, but that's not the same. It doesn't allow for a group of tight musicians to just let things happen on the fly.

At least that is case for bands who aren't basically doing what is so common in modern pop, which is completely unrealistic, unhuman music that's massaged into sterility after it's tracked, where having everything gridded is more important than anything else.

To me getting into a groove means something along the line of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhWArBhPWu0

I have been practicing my drumming using stuff like this...any other suggestions?

Read this:
http://bobbyowsinski.blogspot.com/2012/07/when-your-internal-clock-is-off.html

mike_mccue


Here's a super groovy piece of 6:8 meter I stumbled on yesterday while shopping for my next preamp:

http://soundcloud.com/aurora-audio/gtq2-gt4-2-demo



from: http://auroraaudio.net/pr.../gtq2-about/gtq2-media

The musical movement sounds, to me, like wisps of mist rising over a swift moving stream.

I think it is a good example of how, after a musician learns to play steady time, they can further their expressiveness by grooving a bit. I also think it is good example of how music can be groovy regardless of whether someone is playing the drums.


best regards,
mike

6/8 is always great fun.  You can groove to the 4's and/or the 3's and switch between the two at any time yet it still makes sense.  It always provides a good rolling sense of movement and flow.