Something's off
- Thread starter 8Mile
- Start date
drumdevil9
Platinum Member
I think it's more that different drum machines are gonna have minute discrepancies as far as BPM is concerned. It may say 98 but be a hair off. I've tried matching up my drum machine to my cakewalk and even though they display the same tempo, they diverge eventually.
It sounded strange to me too, for the record.
Last edited:
Drum machines, yes. My old Alesis ran a bit fast, I remember 96 turned out to be 96.3, which played havoc when we tried to synch it via smtpe to a computer! Well, this was many years ago...
But, not likely anyone is using an actual machine these days. Just about everything that's sequenced is done on a computer, where time is a lot less subjective. And, if a computer was going to be off, it wouldn't be a perfect .1 bpm, it would be more random, probably milliseconds. I checked the track in Acid, which I know lines up with ProTools and Digital Performer. I could try it in Logic, but I suspect the result will be the same.
Indeed, somebody made a deliberate decision to go with 97.9. I'm guessing it went something like this...
The producer was trying some tempos with Kid, and Kid was picking nits. It probably landed on 98bpm, and Kid said "how about just a hair slower." So the producer took off .1, and said "how's that?" Kid obviously replied "that's perfect!" and there you have it.
Bermuda
But, not likely anyone is using an actual machine these days. Just about everything that's sequenced is done on a computer, where time is a lot less subjective. And, if a computer was going to be off, it wouldn't be a perfect .1 bpm, it would be more random, probably milliseconds. I checked the track in Acid, which I know lines up with ProTools and Digital Performer. I could try it in Logic, but I suspect the result will be the same.
Indeed, somebody made a deliberate decision to go with 97.9. I'm guessing it went something like this...
The producer was trying some tempos with Kid, and Kid was picking nits. It probably landed on 98bpm, and Kid said "how about just a hair slower." So the producer took off .1, and said "how's that?" Kid obviously replied "that's perfect!" and there you have it.
Bermuda
There's one other possibility for the odd tempo, and that's that the track's speed was slighlty altered (occurs in mastering.) I've heard this happen, even with digital files. With 24/96 or 24/192 files, pitch/tempo changes can be made without artifacts. I don't really have a way to verify if the pitch on my file is exact, but that would be the giveaway.
But again, that would have nothing to do with the feel, I verified that the tempo/sequence is solid.
Bermuda
But again, that would have nothing to do with the feel, I verified that the tempo/sequence is solid.
Bermuda
Pocket-full-of-gold
Platinum Member
Perfect. Answered my next question before I'd even had the chance to ask it.
I did wonder if it was possible for something to have gone askew during post production.....either mastering or file transfer etc
Which is why it's worth verifying that the song is in tune... anyone have a keyboard/guitar and a great melodic ear?
It is odd that an error would cause the song to be exactly .1 away from the expected 98bpm, but I suppose it's possible. Still that doesn't account for the slightly loose playing.
Bermuda
It is odd that an error would cause the song to be exactly .1 away from the expected 98bpm, but I suppose it's possible. Still that doesn't account for the slightly loose playing.
Bermuda
P
plangentmusic
Guest
But that wouldn't disrupt the timing or the pitch -- especially these days where it'd be done digitally. This is just a case of bad timing, be it overdubbed parts, or sloppy playing to a machine, it's just not locked in. You can't polish a turd.
If it was done intentionally, the pitch would be true. But why would a .1bpm reduction - or is it a .9 increase - be applied in mastering? I don't believe it was a mastering thing at all, just suggesting it as the only possible other explanation if the track wasn't mapped that way.
Bermuda
P
plangentmusic
Guest
You're overanalyzing. They just have shaky time. The song sucks anyway. The lyrics appeal to a certain redneck/white trash sect and it caught on. It's still a crappy song.
Anon La Ply
Renegade
Not sure if I am making myself look silly or having auditory hallucinations, but a bit after 1:30 the groove doesn't feel good to me at all. I'm surprised the producer et al didn't get things more synched up.
If my band heard an issue like that on playback when doing a demo we'd be thinking there was a bad problem that needed fixing. And we're the smallest of the small time.
I'm missing something here. Wouldn't be the first time
If my band heard an issue like that on playback when doing a demo we'd be thinking there was a bad problem that needed fixing. And we're the smallest of the small time.
I'm missing something here. Wouldn't be the first time
And that's why I'm successful at dissecting tracks!
I think most players have forgotten, or are too young to have experienced how many blatant musical/lyrical/production mistakes were released to radio in the not too distant past. Timing issues, lyric flubs, arrangement flubs (someone came in at the wrong place...), tuning, bad punches & edits, etc etc. But we accepted those things because as listeners, we weren't over-educated about performance and production and what to expect from a track or a band. Players and producers and labels were only slightly ahead of us, since they went ahead and released those recordings anyway!
I don't think the track in question is so egregious, it's that so many of us have come to demand perfection. Funny, many of the same people decry the use of clicks & sequences. And artists and producers have generally risen to meet the demand that they basically created when they got better at what they did. It's gotten to the point where even the slighest variance can spark a discussion like this.
In my mind, a song or track either makes me feel good, or it doesn't. In this case, I just don't happen to like the track, but it has nothing to do with the organic nature of it at times. Playing it 'correctly' wouldn't improve it.
As for listening to the old songs - and still some new ones - with anomalies, I 'hear' them, but they're not really a big deal. I don't sit around pondering how those groups managed to be popular, and in some cases, still endure. It was what it was.
Bermuda
Last edited:
DrumEatDrum
Platinum Member
^ This.
I was listening to a bunch of old Who and Zeppelin, with headphones recently. With headphones, it's amazing to pick up on just how many things are out of time, not locked in together, or just plain speed up as the song goes on. Yet, it all gels together amazing well and sounds awesome.
If a band were to put out something that today, they'd be skewed alive for being way too sloppy.
Stroman
Platinum Member
"In my mind, a song or track either makes me feel good, or it doesn't. In this case, I just don't happen to like the track, but it has nothing to do with the organic nature of it at times. Playing it 'correctly' wouldn't improve it.
As for listening to the old songs - and still some new ones - with anomalies, I 'hear' them, but they're not really a big deal. I don't sit around pondering how those groups managed to be popular, and in some cases, still endure. It was what it was."
You nailed it, Bermuda. Sometimes, I feel the perfect is the enemy of the good. I look for goodness in music, certainly not perfection.
To each their own!
As for listening to the old songs - and still some new ones - with anomalies, I 'hear' them, but they're not really a big deal. I don't sit around pondering how those groups managed to be popular, and in some cases, still endure. It was what it was."
You nailed it, Bermuda. Sometimes, I feel the perfect is the enemy of the good. I look for goodness in music, certainly not perfection.
To each their own!
Anon La Ply
Renegade
I can't actually think of any members who decry the use of clicks and sequences and demand perfection - not that combo.
It does seem like we're unanimous here in not liking the song and, without anything "enjoyable" to latch on to, I agree the mistakes stand out more. I say "enjoyable" with inverted commas because the clip has over 6 million views, over 20,000 likes and just a couple of hundred dislikes so the appeal must be there, just not for us.
mikeyhanson
Silver Member
I don't mind the fact that I can't hear the song [youtube international restrictions...happens a lot, especially when any covers are posted]. I think I have saved a few minutes of precious earball time.