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

We need to get the groove just because the groove is good. But...where does the groove come from. Is it a Rare Groove, is it Jazz, is it a fusion. or is it just bland, a bland groove that loses its momentum and by the time you finish listening to the song your totally bored.

So its more than just a "groove".

or is it?

Interesting you should bring up Ringo, as far as groove goes I reckon he could have been replaced by anyone.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

MakeShift

Interesting you should bring up Ringo, as far as groove goes I reckon he could have been replaced by anyone.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

There's been a debate going on about that one since the early 60's, it wasn't my intention to re-ignite that ol' chestnut, it just tickles me everytime I hear Charlie doing his groove thing whoever he does it with, it's just so unmistakeable...

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.

RobertB


Cool discussion.
I particularly liked this:
Quantumeffect
" 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."
While I realize many of you aren't fans of the Grateful Dead, they were masters of the groove.
Check this out, probably my favorite "groove" ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEniyvOtETc

Certain elements ahead, some behind, and some on the money.
It's not math. It's interaction. It's the subtleties.
It's the difference between technically correct, but mundane, and something that picks you up and carries you with it.

Funny you bring up the GD... I was just talking about their groove with someone yesterday.  My feeling is that no matter the tempo, they were able to lay back and make it feel as relaxed as possible.  Of course, as I was talking, the song that prompted the discussion (Scarlet Begonias) ended and a God Awful version of Johnny B Goode came on and ruined any credibility I had in the discussion

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.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting that.

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.

quantumeffect


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.

This sounds like much of the intellectualised rationalisation I've heard over the years when people are trying to explain why they can't adhere to the strict time that is often required in recorded music production.

I'm not saying it is in this case but it sure sounds like the same stuff I've heard over and over.

In reality, when you use the term 'time-keeper' you are already inferring measured divisions of time, the groove when you play to a click is merely relative to a strict division of time.  If you play without a click you are still playing to some internal sense of time division which may lead to tempo drift one way or the other which may be desirable (or not) during a live performance but is a nightmare if you are putting together a recorded production.  That isn't grooving at all it is merely tempo fluctuation.

If I play something with a particular feel or groove that will remain whether I play to a click or not, it's a seperate matter to whether my tempo is drifting.

None of us are the 'primary' time-keeper we are all responding either to that rhythmic clock that we can already hear of feel within or an external 'tick-tock' which is really useful if you are trying to create an accurate musical structure from various parts that need to fit together to form the completed structure.

A good player such as the one featured will have no difficulty in responding to either circumstance and the human element will not diminish, he will still push and pull against whatever time divisions he is working alongside in his own groovy way.

In 40 years of playing I've never analysed my stuff nor has anyone else as far as I know but I'd get hired mostly for my particular style I suppose, sometimes that would be live takes, sometimes (more often) as strict tempo work to a click.  The only thing I'd get hired for is because I earned a reputation for a particular kind of feel as I've never been a spectacular pyrotechnic kind of player, so if I didn't deliver that quantifiable groove or feel they were after even whilst playing to a click I guess I wouldn't have been invited back.