A discovery of sorts? (for me at least) Validate please?

Anon La Ply

Renegade
Henri, I didn't get the 3s so my list is not what Larry was shooting for.

Have to say that if a song is in 67, I'll practice it like that. Not that it makes much difference given that this band always speeds up. Remember FlowingWave and his tempo charts? I was curious to see how a couple of the band's songs would look. He (Daniel) kindly did that for me.

As you can see, they look like charts of profitable businesses so if a song is in 67 I can practice it anywhere between 63 and 71 for all it matters :)
 

Attachments

Mad About Drums

Pollyanna's Agent
Have to say that if a song is in 67, I'll practice it like that. Not that it makes much difference given that this band always speeds up. Remember FlowingWave and his tempo charts? I was curious to see how a couple of the band's songs would look. He (Daniel) kindly did that for me.
Wow, that's not bad Grea, not bad at all honestly, it's even good considering/assuming you recorded these tracks without a click or metronome, respectively an average tempo of 96 bpm and 88 bpm for the songs, if you compare these charts with some of the "In Search Of The Click Track" plots, they're pretty good, I'm not sure if I can do much better without playing to a click or 'nome.

As you can see, they look like charts of profitable businesses so if a song is in 67 I can practice it anywhere between 63 and 71 for all it matters :)
Haha... yes, but that would imply that you're satisfied with your current time keeping skills, isn't it? ...anywhere between 66 and 68 is a better, more challenging target, easily achievable, alone in a practice setting, slightly different when playing within a band live, where other band mates are pushing and pulling, and if I remember rightly, your band mates are not that keen on using a click or a 'nome.

Henri, I didn't get the 3s so my list is not what Larry was shooting for.
Okay... I did your chart again, adding the 3's into the equation, sorry Larry, can't really validate your theory, the principle of the context is great, but I can't use it if I want to practice something at 67 bpm, or 57 or 87... the "conventional way" seems to remain the "complete" option in terms of bpm values :)
 

Attachments

groove1

Silver Member
Ouch! Now I'm thinking about stuff like if you add up all the numbers on the list, what do you
get.....time for me to try another thread.
 
Last edited:

Andy

Administrator
Staff member
Ok Larry, a brief scan through this thread tells me I need some form of medical relief :)

If I'm getting you right. You're concentration is to simplify. In some cases that means extracting intermediate values as the difference they make is very small, but as a minute is a fixed value, & a tempo expression as a division of that minute is a variable, then surely the real world affect of subtracting the intermediate values at higher BPM's is far less than at the lower BPM's. The relationship isn't strictly linear, therefore, the number of intermediate values extracted should be applied proportionally.

I'm off to lie down ;)
 
Top