XxxXxxXxxXxxXxXx...

jer

Silver Member
... 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?
 

Mikecore

Silver Member
I think we are talking about what Frank Zappa termed "hateful practices", such as the II-V-I chord progression (the essence of bad white person music). Drumming has some of its own, to be sure.

The example you cited is like a disease in marching lines (or at least it was in the mid-90s). A modern hateful practice behind the kit is the militaristic, 4/4 disco stomp employed frequently by Ronnie Vanucci and some others, without regard for it's effect on the song. That's right up there with "guyliner" and "Police State Chic". It's like a drum machine with a very boorish attitude. I hate playing that kind of stuff.
 

jonescrusher

Pioneer Member
There can be no good reason why you'd hate to play that particular cliche over a 2 & 4 groove, other than you dislike the music it appears in.
 

jer

Silver Member
There can be no good reason why you'd hate to play that particular cliche over a 2 & 4 groove, other than you dislike the music it appears in.
I wish it were that simple of an answer. Sure, "Clocks" gets a little repetitive, but I wouldn't skip it if it came on the shuffle.
 

KBadd

Silver Member
You are gonna have to put a spin on it and maybe even turn it around and confuse guitar man. Guitar players here a "beat" and say THAT'S IT! WE know it is a rip off 100%. Mess with it and change some things. Best to you.
 

jer

Silver Member
I think we are talking about what Frank Zappa termed "hateful practices", such as the II-V-I chord progression (the essence of bad white person music). Drumming has some of its own, to be sure.

The example you cited is like a disease in marching lines (or at least it was in the mid-90s). A modern hateful practice behind the kit is the militaristic, 4/4 disco stomp employed frequently by Ronnie Vanucci and some others, without regard for it's effect on the song. That's right up there with "guyliner" and "Police State Chic". It's like a drum machine with a very boorish attitude. I hate playing that kind of stuff.
"Axis of Awesome's" 4-chord progression as another example.
 

KBadd

Silver Member
AS I LISTEN NOW............................to me..........................try "less" (fewer......will sort of sound like the tune is slower) beats with the left hand and switch up the snare to the toms (hi and low).....this is a classic AC/DC riff. You can get it!!!
 

Sjogras

Silver Member
Yea, I agree on this... My guitarrist friend keeps playing this song, (and such) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOY_UV9GhIM&ob=av3el when were jamming, while my style of playing is more prog/jazz based... All that I can think of when I hear this type of rythm is:

LA LA la-la-la-la LA LA la-la-la-la LA LA la-la-la-la LA LA la-la-la-la...

AND ITS SO BORING! I usually tackle this by playing a polka until the guitarrist gets bored :)
 

brentcn

Platinum Member
I wish it were that simple of an answer. Sure, "Clocks" gets a little repetitive, but I wouldn't skip it if it came on the shuffle.
I think Jones makes a great point. I would not argue that you dislike the genre, but rather the execution.

The reason "Clocks" works (ha!) as a song is because of the bridge. The bridge does the trick because:

1. It presents new chords we haven't yet heard in the song.

2. The phrasing (pattern) of the bridge chords is different than the phrasing of the verse and chorus chords.

- The verse/chorus is | D | Am | Am | Em |

- The bridge is | Fmaj7 | Fmaj7 | C | G |

Songwriting is tricky business, as difficult as learning an instrument I would wager. Most songwriters get hung up on melody, lyrics, and chords, and think very little about contrasting the different parts of a song with phrasing and chord choices. I suspect that you hung your head because you know your friend is not that sophisticated a songwriter, and without those chord and phrasing changes, you know you're in for a boring ride.

It bears repeating that phrasing can be a very powerful songwriting tool. Many respected pop songs have the same chords in all song parts, but because the phrasing is changed, the next part seems different from the one before, and it keeps our interest.
 

jer

Silver Member
I think Jones makes a great point. I would not argue that you dislike the genre, but rather the execution.

The reason "Clocks" works (ha!) as a song is because of the bridge. The bridge does the trick because:

1. It presents new chords we haven't yet heard in the song.

2. The phrasing (pattern) of the bridge chords is different than the phrasing of the verse and chorus chords.

- The verse/chorus is | D | Am | Am | Em |

- The bridge is | Fmaj7 | Fmaj7 | C | G |

Songwriting is tricky business, as difficult as learning an instrument I would wager. Most songwriters get hung up on melody, lyrics, and chords, and think very little about contrasting the different parts of a song with phrasing and chord choices. I suspect that you hung your head because you know your friend is not that sophisticated a songwriter, and without those chord and phrasing changes, you know you're in for a boring ride.

It bears repeating that phrasing can be a very powerful songwriting tool. Many respected pop songs have the same chords in all song parts, but because the phrasing is changed, the next part seems different from the one before, and it keeps our interest.
The funny thing is, although you may be onto something with a lack of sophistication, he's probably one of the best songwriters I've ever worked with. While I'm talking about theory, he's talking about emotion.

After writing this thread, I was wondering if groove (or lack of) was what my "problem" with this rhythm. While I agreed with myself that this rhythm lacks a pocket as I'm used to, I also considered it's a time tested pattern we hear and accept regularily as being something we are familiar with and can easily identify with.

This, in combination with a constantly maturing approach to music really has me questioning "what the heck do I really know?" I've really been working on playing "for the song" over the past few years and now wonder if even trying to come up with something interesting while playing for the song is hindering my ability to simply play emotionally.

Listeners connect emotionally with a song through it's lyrics and the moods that different chord progressions can paint, (like going to the major in the bridge of Clocks). 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.

Thanks for the thoughts.
 

samthebeat

Silver Member
whats this thread about?? im a bit unsure.

are you bored with playing a beat??? suk it up
dont like coldplay??? the most sucessfull english band of the 00's peroid. Sold 50 million records, thats a fact.

If you dont like playing something dont play it, but dont forget musicians expect to hear certain things, and drummers are ten a penny so if you want to keep your job, play the song and keep your mouth shut.
 

Frost

Silver Member
Hat/Snare, Hat, Hat/Kick, Hat...

Single stroke rolls between high-hat/snare with syncopated double-kicks - a.k.a the stock standard blast-beat

Plenty of over-used beats, I guess part of what it comes down to is that there is only so much to the kit, especially if you're playing a four/five piece with a hat/crash/ride and if you want to play in time without doing much with the dynamics (eg. all fast, all loud, all the time without accents) eventually you're going to do something that someone else has done before.
 

brentcn

Platinum Member
The funny thing is, although you may be onto something with a lack of sophistication, he's probably one of the best songwriters I've ever worked with. While I'm talking about theory, he's talking about emotion.

After writing this thread, I was wondering if groove (or lack of) was what my "problem" with this rhythm. While I agreed with myself that this rhythm lacks a pocket as I'm used to, I also considered it's a time tested pattern we hear and accept regularily as being something we are familiar with and can easily identify with.

This, in combination with a constantly maturing approach to music really has me questioning "what the heck do I really know?" I've really been working on playing "for the song" over the past few years and now wonder if even trying to come up with something interesting while playing for the song is hindering my ability to simply play emotionally.

Listeners connect emotionally with a song through it's lyrics and the moods that different chord progressions can paint, (like going to the major in the bridge of Clocks). 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.

Thanks for the thoughts.
Happy to get you thinking!

Just a thought, but the rhythm you mention is also in the intro of "Welcome To The Jungle" by Guns N Roses. It's just as likely that faster tempos and a meaner attitude might be what you're missing! I once heard Coldplay described as "p*&$^% rock".

In both Clocks and Welcome To The Jungle, that beat goes right along with the arpeggios that the piano or guitar is playing. If your friend's song does not have such a rhythmic pattern in the piano or guitar, then there is no musical reason to play the pattern on drums. If your friend is simply bored of plain ol' 2 and 4, then he should write music that states a different rhythmic approach. Perhaps he thinks he can "inject different-ness" by applying a "new" drum beat.

Sam - I think your attitude on this might stop you from learning about why you like the music you do (and therefore hinder your ability to make good music), and prevent you from learning to communicate with your bandmates (which is just as likely to get you fired).
 

samthebeat

Silver Member
no need to make it personal, im just stating what any drummer would say regarding playing for the song and playing with taste. Less is definetley more.

I do ok on the job front, played 150 gigs last year, one tour of france, and and countless events, and done a few sessions. Sorry for being narky, but this thread is drumb.
 

jer

Silver Member
no need to make it personal, im just stating what any drummer would say regarding playing for the song and playing with taste. Less is definetley more.

I do ok on the job front, played 150 gigs last year, one tour of france, and and countless events, and done a few sessions. Sorry for being narky, but this thread is drumb.
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.
 

jer

Silver Member
Happy to get you thinking!

Just a thought, but the rhythm you mention is also in the intro of "Welcome To The Jungle" by Guns N Roses. It's just as likely that faster tempos and a meaner attitude might be what you're missing! I once heard Coldplay described as "p*&$^% rock".

In both Clocks and Welcome To The Jungle, that beat goes right along with the arpeggios that the piano or guitar is playing. If your friend's song does not have such a rhythmic pattern in the piano or guitar, then there is no musical reason to play the pattern on drums. If your friend is simply bored of plain ol' 2 and 4, then he should write music that states a different rhythmic approach. Perhaps he thinks he can "inject different-ness" by applying a "new" drum beat.
I really didn't want to specifically target "Clocks" or Coldplay, the beat appears in many places. I did also mention another cliché beat on the intro to "Be My Baby" which got no ground, (there probably aren't too many Ronettes' fanboys), but anyways...

While the particular tune my band is working on could go either way, as there is an 8th note pattern chugging away on bass, he could easily accent to match that rhythm or simply play straight, which is how I felt it. Either way, I like the song, it will work whatever way we end up doing it.

I was simply over come with a feeling of, "not this beat again", rolled my eyes and wondered if anyone else had beats they feel the same way about.
 

larryace

"Uncle Larry"
Sometimes, when playing long stretches of a beat that I feel is boring, (a 2/4 country beat/polka beat for instance) when I listen to the recording, it doesn't sound boring at all. I found, from listening back, that it's me who is creating the problem by thinking it's boring. The bottom line is...Just plain keeping time works. If you think it's boring, you're probably the only one thinking that. Repetive drums are hypnotic. I mean that in the best possible way. I absolutely love the song "Clocks". In fact, it's the song my alarm clock plays instead of a buzzer. That song makes me feel like I am flying, not in a plane, literally flying, and I love the drum part.
Keeping a steady beat may be "boring" to play, but not to listen to. Have faith that you aren't boring.
 

brentcn

Platinum Member
While the particular tune my band is working on could go either way, as there is an 8th note pattern chugging away on bass, he could easily accent to match that rhythm or simply play straight, which is how I felt it.
I'm pretty sure that's how I would have felt it, too. Although there is an opportunity to accent in groups of 3's and 2's, if the pitches aren't moving in these groups, or the notes aren't spaced as dotted 2 dotted quarters, what's the point of accenting with such regularity?

I think that if your friend is going to demand you play a certain part, he needs to understand why that part works in songs. I disagree with Sam here, you should not just "suk it up", you should constructively offer that a melodic element reinforce the beat, with spacing, or with pitch (as in the arpeggios I mentioned), or both.
 

newdayscenario

Junior Member
Oh wow I was seriously thinking about this beat in depth earlier this week for some reason. Crazy coincidence. Anyways though, I'd have to agree that anytime I've heard this used it is matched with an arpeggio being played by one of the other instruments in the song. Thus is probably the reason the beat was chosen by the drummer in the first place I'd say. If you aren't feeling it then I think you should stress the importance of not pushing a sound or feel that not only doesn't come naturally but must sound out of place to some extent (although I'm thinking it stems from a personal vendetta of sorts against the beat more than anything in this case). Ultimate advice though: record and listen back. Does it sound like something that works or not? Taking a step back is everything sometimes.
 
Top