XxxXxxXxxXxxXxXx...

jer said:
For someone who's asked not to make the thread personal, it sure feels like you did exactly that by saying my thoughts were dumb.

Congrats on all your successes.
Click to expand...

yeah sorry, comments not directed towards your thoughts. Nothing wrong with finding a beat boring, or not liking coldplay, or U2 for that matter. We all have our pet hates. I have a habbit of sounding off on the internet cause its the internet and its the only place i can sound off about my thoughts. no disrepect.
 
I know what you mean. It's not that I don't like the beat from Clocks, but I'd be reluctant to want to use that beat, too.

Same thing with "Those Shoes" by the Eagles. When Tool did "Sober" all I could think was Those Shoes. As much as I like that beat, I avoid it when I can because it's just too recognizable for my comfort level.
 
To me, this sort of thing is a challenge! The objective is to make it feel good...and if it sounds tired and overused, that's not good...so you have to find an alternative that still has the same overall pattern.

I must admit this one can sound a bit boring in the wrong context, but I'd be tempted to play four over the top and emphasize the semi-polyrhythmic aspect to this part.
 
One that I do my best to boycott is the RLRLFF fill. It is "played out" as they say, but occasionally I fire it out much to my chagrin. It's just a personal thing, if you love it than have at it!
 
jer said:
My job isn't to play "for the song" while keeping it interesting, it's to be the canvas on which the songwriter paints their subject.
Click to expand...

That's something I've wondered about lots too. On one hand, you want to provide as "appropriate" accompaniment as possible, but if all the songs in a set have a similar feel then it's boring to me as both a listener and a player. How much do you mix it up so the songs aren't same-y?

I see people totally loving bands whose repertoire is full of similar-sounding songs and I know I'm missing something. It's the same reason why I often struggle to understand where Rolling Stone magazine is coming from.

As you said, it's the emotional side. Being ADHD, I struggle to keep focused on lyrics long enough to understand them. So I hook more in to the form of the music than the content. I seem attracted more to the design of music, especially the "colours", more than the meaning. Superficial as hell - I just like cool sounds :)

Result is, I have generally varied the colours of my various bands' songs more than most other rock-based drummers. Some would consider my approach to some songs as sub-optimal, and they would be right if you refer to "optimal" as something that most listeners - both educated and uneducated - think is better.

But the way I see it, good jazz drummers often provide a broad palate of colours within each song. If I don't had the chops I'd do that too, bust since I don't I provide a broad range of colours over the course of a set.

So our playing is heavily slanted by our personalities, which of course determines our tastes. It also depends on how much influence other peoples' tastes have on your playing - broader audiences, local audiences, the band and your friends. I have almost always played to please myself and band mates in about equal measure, without much thought about audiences.

That's my 2c, which of course is about how much money I've made from music :)
 
larryace said:
Keeping a steady beat may be "boring" to play, but not to listen to. Have faith that you aren't boring.
Click to expand...

Can't agree with you more.


newdayscenario said:
Oh wow I was seriously thinking about this beat in depth earlier this week for some reason. Crazy coincidence.... ...Ultimate advice though: record and listen back. Does it sound like something that works or not? Taking a step back is everything sometimes.
Click to expand...

Crazy coincidence, yeah...

I've got the song recorded playing both the beat and just straight. It doesn't not work in either example, you are quite right in stepping back... thinking I'm going to have to put it to a vote within the band.

samthebeat said:
yeah sorry,
Click to expand...

Tks.

MikeM said:
Same thing with "Those Shoes" by the Eagles. When Tool did "Sober" all I could think was Those Shoes. As much as I like that beat, I avoid it when I can because it's just too recognizable for my comfort level.
Click to expand...

"Cause I'm a high plains drifter!"

PQleyR said:
To me, this sort of thing is a challenge! The objective is to make it feel good...and if it sounds tired and overused, that's not good...so you have to find an alternative that still has the same overall pattern.
Click to expand...

Knowing I've recorded songs that use this pattern, I found 2 examples, and yes, I've tried to introduce an alternative... but this is where I feel I'd be entering an area where it could be super easy to get caught up in trying to do something cool or interesting and slip away from playing to the emotion of the song. A fine line to be walked on.
 
Wavelength said:
II-V-I is the harmonic essence of jazz, which is pretty much black person music in its heart.
Click to expand...

Yeah, did he mean to say I-IV-V? It's hard for me to imagine Zappa railing against a ubiquitous jazz progression (but maybe he did, being more interested in classical structures later in life).
 
jer said:
... and other drum clichés.

Variant on the above, (U2, Beautiful Day) would be XxxXxxXx (Coldplay, Clocks), or "resolving quarter note triplets".

Working on new material yesterday, songwriter mentioned he was thinking along the lines of Coldplay for a drum part and I knew what he meant and started playing the thread title, he got excited - "Yeah!, that's perfect". I sorta hung my head in shame.

I'm happy playing 2 + 4 all day, which has been beat (ha!) to death, but why do I get my back up when asked to play this, imo, cliché?

I suppose similarily, the intro to "Be My Baby", by the Ronettes stirs the same kind of reaction...

Any beats to add?
Click to expand...

I too know what you mean about that beat particularly!
It's not just 'that beat' but it's when you hear it on every UK commercial rock song in a 'trying to make their own version of Clocks' way.
I played with a great ex-metal guitarist, great thinker really special, who decided some years ago that he just wasn't into that any more. Kind of as though he came out of the closet, in so far as he came out saying 'what i really like is simple dated rock and pop'.
Which is just jingles.
Because he was amazing at what he did before.
I am all in favour of progress - I was on board with him with the idea. How our attitudes changed were that I noticed when I really got into interesting classic rock and pop from the past 20-30 years, that the songs him and I really liked were ones that, although they sounded simple, they were very, very refined. A whole lot of talent and experimentation and technical ability had been distilled to make these classic rock/pop songs. For him, it was more an attitude that 'simpler music = simpler to express ideas', which I felt bypassed the actual learning curve that could have been taken. Distilled, refined pop rock is timeless.

This sounds like I went on a random trail - my point is that you may feel, as I would have, that even if Clocks is a great song/sound, it does so by having been carefully crafted note-for-note, guitar inspiring drums, drums inspiring guitar and god knows how many other details about its origins. Even if these songs are sometimes written quickly (Chris Martin, whatever you think of him, has penned many wildly successful tunes and I respect that, without hesitation), they get rehearsed and practised and recorded and toyed with to perfection before we ever hear them on the radio.

My guitarist, at his worst, would write a riff that literally was like a stripped-down version of [insert popular rock/indie/whatever song of the era] and he'd be like "I need it to have,,,y'know,,,that beat, a kind of *gestures waving his arms with the ignorance of someone imitating a drummer without knowing how to play, combined with messy beat boxing*. I'd take a wild stab at it by playing a stripped-down version of what the song his riff sounded like would do drum-wise. Sure enough he'd go ''yeah that's great do that!''

This is what I too would (at least inside) slap my head in a kind of disbelief.

That feeling of 'not this beat/idea again' (as illustrated to mixed success by Lars Ulrich to James Hetfield in Some Kind Of Monster), is when you the drummer feel the overall sound is 'stock'. Filler, etc. Now you point out your guitarist (like mine) is very talented. If his passion is music (literally) then just illustrate to him what you like or what you could contribute to the song, rather than making him think the Clocks idea is poor. I don't mean lie to/manipulate the guy, I mean if you let your passion for an original but accessible sound show, you'll both be able to come up with something that naturally straddles the two paramount things - something interesting and original, while being accessible & enjoyable
 
BillBachman said:
One that I do my best to boycott is the RLRLFF fill. It is "played out" as they say, but occasionally I fire it out much to my chagrin. It's just a personal thing, if you love it than have at it!
Click to expand...

do you mean RLRLFF - FF = Foot Foot ie Kick Kick? or Floor tom Floor tom?
so a generic 6/8 feeling fill? I wondered as well if you meant stuff like snare-snare-kick-kick-tom-tom-kick-kick etc ... because I totally understand that too.

I asked a musicologist what that Clocks-style beat is - not when it's specifically orchestrated as on the record, but anything where you're playing effectively in 4/4 but technically it's 8/8 - and you accent ONE two three Four five six SEVEN eight - it's just a rhumba, right?

lastly - GREAT use of the word chagrin. Don't know why but I love it's comedy pomp!
 
Pollyanna said:
That's something I've wondered about lots too. On one hand, you want to provide as "appropriate" accompaniment as possible, but if all the songs in a set have a similar feel then it's boring to me as both a listener and a player. How much do you mix it up so the songs aren't same-y?

I see people totally loving bands whose repertoire is full of similar-sounding songs and I know I'm missing something. It's the same reason why I often struggle to understand where Rolling Stone magazine is coming from.

As you said, it's the emotional side. Being ADHD, I struggle to keep focused on lyrics long enough to understand them. So I hook more in to the form of the music than the content. I seem attracted more to the design of music, especially the "colours", more than the meaning. Superficial as hell - I just like cool sounds :)

Result is, I have generally varied the colours of my various bands' songs more than most other rock-based drummers. Some would consider my approach to some songs as sub-optimal, and they would be right if you refer to "optimal" as something that most listeners - both educated and uneducated - think is better.

But the way I see it, good jazz drummers often provide a broad palate of colours within each song. If I don't had the chops I'd do that too, bust since I don't I provide a broad range of colours over the course of a set.

So our playing is heavily slanted by our personalities, which of course determines our tastes. It also depends on how much influence other peoples' tastes have on your playing - broader audiences, local audiences, the band and your friends. I have almost always played to please myself and band mates in about equal measure, without much thought about audiences.

That's my 2c, which of course is about how much money I've made from music :)
Click to expand...

I am literally a hundred percent behind you here.
Pretty much everything you have said here applies to me 100% including learning difficulties. I also note how you like me don't mean that as some kind of sympathy or sob-story thing - you just mean, in self-awareness, that you see how it might affect your playing.
I have had the exact same things said to me by other players, and also get you when too have heard ... let's say, very ostinato-based contemporary music that people love in droves, and feel you might be missing something.
I figure it's like this - if we could sum drumming, the personality and all into two major categories between people (you see these parallels in relationships too), then it would go something like this:

you either:

1
- have lots of things firing off at once in your head and you're swept one way and another two and from. you're often deemed very creative, in bad and good ways. flawed but great.

2
- are co-operation incarnate: you add well to a situation, you're useful and reliable, and you also require a sort of ignition from things around you or other people kick-starting yourself


If'n it were at all worth thinking along this line, I'd propose you and I are Category 1.
If you were a Category 2, your inclination in life generally would need to be one where you seek to do something a bit different, that you take your solidity and build on top of that.
If you're a Category 1, you tend to be a bit divergent naturally (for good and bad). The answer is to take that creativity and learn to co-operate and make it a unique contribution

I'm not lecturing by the way - it's just this subject has struck a real thing with my thoughts.

I know if I love you so much why don't I marry you etc Hah
 
icebello said:
I figure it's like this - if we could sum drumming, the personality and all into two major categories between people (you see these parallels in relationships too), then it would go something like this:

you either:

1
- have lots of things firing off at once in your head and you're swept one way and another two and from. you're often deemed very creative, in bad and good ways. flawed but great.

2
- are co-operation incarnate: you add well to a situation, you're useful and reliable, and you also require a sort of ignition from things around you or other people kick-starting yourself


If'n it were at all worth thinking along this line, I'd propose you and I are Category 1.
If you were a Category 2, your inclination in life generally would need to be one where you seek to do something a bit different, that you take your solidity and build on top of that.
If you're a Category 1, you tend to be a bit divergent naturally (for good and bad). The answer is to take that creativity and learn to co-operate and make it a unique contribution
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. If I had the chops I would be more of a category 1, chasing down every accent like a mad butterfly collector with a net. However, I only have the chops to be solid. I don't have the subtlety or patience to play straight backbeat with varied nuance every song, so I look for alternatives. There'll be songs in our set where I play something a bit quirky yet, if it was the only song I was playing, I might just play a standard backbeat.

So the way I approach a song will be influenced by the parts I've played in other songs in my band's set. Ideally, it's not the right way to approach things because each song should be interpreted entirely on its own terms without reference to anything else, ie. X bassline is screaming for Y beat. So I ended up playing with quirky little bands that went nowhere but who enjoy my approach. I guess their ears crave variety too.

Having said that, a lot of times I find musicians impose their standard beats and fills on every song - the cookie cutter approach. To me, that denies the individuality of each song although some would say that helps the band maintain a cohesive direction. That's what I think the OP is talking about - being formulaic.

I think for commercial success over the past 30 years players have needed to be at least somewhat formulaic rather than taking my shallow and hobby-ish higgeldy-piggeldy approach. It depends on what you want out of music.
 
icebello said:
I asked a musicologist what that Clocks-style beat is - not when it's specifically orchestrated as on the record, but anything where you're playing effectively in 4/4 but technically it's 8/8 - and you accent ONE two three Four five six SEVEN eight - it's just a rhumba, right?
Click to expand...

Icebello I'd simply think of it as the first bar of a 3:2 clave repeated. There are two typoes of clave. This 3 clave is the Son clave meaning exactly what you specified (the other clave is the rhumba clave; when the eighth count is accented instead of the seven; either way there are still three accents in the bar).

im no musicologists, but i love every bit of info i can get about this, and as far as ive found, mainly from trying to learn new orleans 2nd line stuff, the clave has roots in Africa.... i some times wonder if the clave 3:2 is ingrained somewhere deep in human history, between 3:2, its reverse 2:3, or repeating 3, or repeating 2, theres so much musical fodder just there. and something about it gets the human moving!
 
Pollyanna said:
That's what I think the OP is talking about - being formulaic.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this. Still waiting for the OP to weigh in, but if the part isn't called for musically (i.e. by the formula), then it's just a songwriter who wants to hear a beat when it doesn't work, like a child who wants candy instead of dinner, and the commonality of the beat is irrelevant. In this case, we can all get out of our own heads, and play the beat in order to remain friends with the songwriter (who has proven he doesn't want anyone else's ideas on this one).

On one hand, you want to provide as "appropriate" accompaniment as possible, but if all the songs in a set have a similar feel then it's boring to me as both a listener and a player. How much do you mix it up so the songs aren't same-y?
Click to expand...

IMHO, you don't, your songwriters are supposed to write songs, and then be flexible about their arrangement and interpretation, so that you don't get that scenario. Too often though, songwriters get into the habit of writing around what they are most comfortable playing, and at a speed they are comfortable singing, and not enough time is spent learning to write in different styles/tempos/time signatures. Too much ego, not enough training and experience.

If we do want to "mix it up", then we should think about the song itself to decide how to best accomplish the task. The sullen, melancholy lyrics of a break-up song are probably not going to benefit from funk beat and horn arrangement, but could the song work as a slow 6/8? Or take the lovesick piano ballad: does it work with a reggae feel, or should we give it the Coldplay treatment? The best songwriters are very open-minded and audience-conscious.
 
Originally Posted by icebello
I asked a musicologist what that Clocks-style beat is - not when it's specifically orchestrated as on the record, but anything where you're playing effectively in 4/4 but technically it's 8/8 - and you accent ONE two three Four five six SEVEN eight - it's just a rhumba, right?

Most Afro Cuban times are in 2/2(cut time) or 6/8. If you are playing in 2/2 no matter what direction the clave is moving ie 3:2 or 2:3. you should look at the note values as 16th notes,
 
Last edited:
There's nothing worse than being told by a bandmate that your beat is too simple or boring and "couldn't you play something more interesting" when the simple beat is what works! (and will probably be told later by a producer to simplify it.). I'm glad I just play in cover bands now and don't have to deal with that any more. I play someone else's beats. Blame him!

I've never really found any particular beats boring. Actually some of the songs I've enjoyed playing the most have been the simplest. I can just enjoy the song instead of concentrating on something complex. I actually enjoy playing the beats you mentioned as I play Beautiful Day in a U2 tribute band and have played it before with my other band. And Nicko McBrain (Iron Maiden) plays a fast variation of that beat on a few songs that sounds killer!
 
brentcn said:
I'm not sure about this. Still waiting for the OP to weigh in, but if the part isn't called for musically (i.e. by the formula), then it's just a songwriter who wants to hear a beat when it doesn't work, like a child who wants candy instead of dinner, and the commonality of the beat is irrelevant. In this case, we can all get out of our own heads, and play the beat in order to remain friends with the songwriter (who has proven he doesn't want anyone else's ideas on this one).
Click to expand...

True, sorry, you're right. No doubt accelerated senility on my part. I enjoyed the digression, anyway :)

Maybe Jer can find a compromise solution? The first obvious thing would be to suggest to the songwriter that copping a signature part from another song isn't ideal and maybe varying it a tad would give the song a fresher feel?



brentcn said:
... your songwriters are supposed to write songs, and then be flexible about their arrangement and interpretation, so that you don't get that scenario. Too often though, songwriters get into the habit of writing around what they are most comfortable playing, and at a speed they are comfortable singing, and not enough time is spent learning to write in different styles/tempos/time signatures. Too much ego, not enough training and experience.

.......... If we do want to "mix it up", then we should think about the song itself to decide how to best accomplish the task. The sullen, melancholy lyrics of a break-up song are probably not going to benefit from funk beat and horn arrangement, but could the song work as a slow 6/8? Or take the lovesick piano ballad: does it work with a reggae feel, or should we give it the Coldplay treatment? The best songwriters are very open-minded and audience-conscious.
Click to expand...

I've only ever been in one band with a singer/songwriter and fortunately he wrote songs with varying feels, colours and feelings. I'd struggle in the kind of band where the writer/s seem to be continually trying to perfect the same song and have a set that's effectively: Baby You Done Me Wrong #1, Baby You Done Me Wrong #2, Baby You Done Me Wrong #3 etc.

Hang on ... I forgot ... I did once play with a songwriter who was a bit like that (and yes, it was largely forgettable). Also, like Jer, I am phobic about a song/drum feel - and this singer/songwriter tapped right into it. It's a style like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRK0Prfpv8, which I find somewhat dull, standard and featureless. I think of it as rocked up stock standard acoustic guitar balladeering and it puts me to sleep.

Sorry Jer, a bit slow to the party here (I knew I should have turned left at Albequerque)... are any people left? Is there any wine left? :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top