The Stupefyingly Funky Jonas Brothers!

Tornado

DFO Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,049
Location
Dallas
Rick Beato has an interesting new video. He's preaching to the choir of course, but I can't get over this professor or musicology that's making videos for The New York Times. Where did they find this guy? The phrases "The Jonas Brothers" and "Stupefyingly Funky Proportions" should never be in the same sentence.

 

Hop

DFO Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
1,984
Reaction score
462
Location
L.A., CA
Nothing like some fathead bloviating...
"These 14-seconds are like opening a wormhole through musical space/time tying the tracks drummer... all the way back to Clyde Stubblefield...

I'm translating it as "I have a crush on all three of the yummy Jonas boys!"
 

dcrigger

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
5,300
Reaction score
1,499
Location
California
Wow I love Rick and his videos, except when he digs into this tempo/quantize thing...

I don't disagree with his conclusion in this case - this track is never for even a moment "stupefyingly funky" - but his reasoning (something quantized can't possibly funky!?!????!!) and his techniques used to prove his point are just faulty as all get out. Grabbing a tempo off of Live BPM reading an analog recording and then throwing it up on ProTools at that tempo in order to declare yea or ney whether it is quantized or not is just nonsense. It looks impressive - would seem to make sense - but it doesn't work like that - particularly with analog recording. I don't want to write a term paper on why - but it just not that simple.

But my main point is the former - this premise that funky can't happen without measurable slop. And that's just BS. Rick would be amazed just how close to the grid that many great feeling players can be - so close they would fail his sloppy quantize test without a bit of quantizing in place.

Anyway I'm not saying that quantizing makes for a funky track - just that it doesn't automatically disqualify one either. And Rick seems to constantly want to make the point that it does - that quantizing automatically prohibits funkiness - which again is nonsense IMO.

The Jonas Bros track - particularly that breakdown section - isn't "stupefyingly funky" because (IMO) while the drum loop may be pretty funky, the whistle part in no way helps the pairing of the two to be more funky than that loop - the whistle melody is both rhythmically and harmonically incredibly pedestrian and white bread - making their pairing equally so. Sort of a least common denominator thing. IMO the quantizing of the loop is that LEAST of that sections problems - if being "stupefyingly funky" was the goal.

Sad to say - I continue to find Rick's rhythm and drum offerings disappointing. particularly in contrast to how great his other stuff is.
 

Tornado

DFO Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,049
Location
Dallas
Wow I love Rick and his videos, except when he digs into this tempo/quantize thing...

I don't disagree with his conclusion in this case - this track is never for even a moment "stupefyingly funky" - but his reasoning (something quantized can't possibly funky!?!????!!) and his techniques used to prove his point are just faulty as all get out. Grabbing a tempo off of Live BPM reading an analog recording and then throwing it up on ProTools at that tempo in order to declare yea or ney whether it is quantized or not is just nonsense. It looks impressive - would seem to make sense - but it doesn't work like that - particularly with analog recording. I don't want to write a term paper on why - but it just not that simple.

But my main point is the former - this premise that funky can't happen without measurable slop. And that's just BS. Rick would be amazed just how close to the grid that many great feeling players can be - so close they would fail his sloppy quantize test without a bit of quantizing in place.

Anyway I'm not saying that quantizing makes for a funky track - just that it doesn't automatically disqualify one either. And Rick seems to constantly want to make the point that it does - that quantizing automatically prohibits funkiness - which again is nonsense IMO.

The Jonas Bros track - particularly that breakdown section - isn't "stupefyingly funky" because (IMO) while the drum loop may be pretty funky, the whistle part in no way helps the pairing of the two to be more funky than that loop - the whistle melody is both rhythmically and harmonically incredibly pedestrian and white bread - making their pairing equally so. Sort of a least common denominator thing. IMO the quantizing of the loop is that LEAST of that sections problems - if being "stupefyingly funky" was the goal.

Sad to say - I continue to find Rick's rhythm and drum offerings disappointing. particularly in contrast to how great his other stuff is.
I'm not sure where you're going with the analog thing, but it's by definition not quantized. That only came about with digital. Steely Dan and their insane analog editing, notwithstanding. Quantization just robs the performance of the human element. It's not funky. Yes, there are drummers who are so with the grid it's scary, but they still maintain their humanness. He didn't need to pull the track into protools to determine it was snapped to the grid digitally, that was obvious to anyone with ears.
 

Trilock_Gurtu

Very well Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
749
Reaction score
488
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Wow I love Rick and his videos, except when he digs into this tempo/quantize thing...

I don't disagree with his conclusion in this case - this track is never for even a moment "stupefyingly funky" - but his reasoning (something quantized can't possibly funky!?!????!!) and his techniques used to prove his point are just faulty as all get out. Grabbing a tempo off of Live BPM reading an analog recording and then throwing it up on ProTools at that tempo in order to declare yea or ney whether it is quantized or not is just nonsense. It looks impressive - would seem to make sense - but it doesn't work like that - particularly with analog recording. I don't want to write a term paper on why - but it just not that simple.

But my main point is the former - this premise that funky can't happen without measurable slop. And that's just BS. Rick would be amazed just how close to the grid that many great feeling players can be - so close they would fail his sloppy quantize test without a bit of quantizing in place.

Anyway I'm not saying that quantizing makes for a funky track - just that it doesn't automatically disqualify one either. And Rick seems to constantly want to make the point that it does - that quantizing automatically prohibits funkiness - which again is nonsense IMO.

The Jonas Bros track - particularly that breakdown section - isn't "stupefyingly funky" because (IMO) while the drum loop may be pretty funky, the whistle part in no way helps the pairing of the two to be more funky than that loop - the whistle melody is both rhythmically and harmonically incredibly pedestrian and white bread - making their pairing equally so. Sort of a least common denominator thing. IMO the quantizing of the loop is that LEAST of that sections problems - if being "stupefyingly funky" was the goal.

Sad to say - I continue to find Rick's rhythm and drum offerings disappointing. particularly in contrast to how great his other stuff is.
I think in a round about way he was saying its not funky because the track isn't breathing, doesn't have push and pull, which quantizing does remove. One thing is for sure, generally, quantizing does not make a track funkier. Great funk is dirty, and dirty is not perfect, and that's relatable to most people.

I think you can have an amazing funky drummer, like Adam Ditech, play with a click, or a grid track, and he can play around it, humanize it. A great drummer will know how to do this, how to humanize the grid, but these elements should not be quantized, whats the point of having a Adam Ditech, a Stanton Moore, etc, play?

Even in hip hop world, easily one of the most revered DJ's is J-Dilla, who stood out for not quantizing. He knew how it often left a funky beat missing that special something. Look at Questlove's playing on D'Angelo's 'Voodoo', a epic album. Quest has stated that the inspiration was J-Dilla's 'jerky', 'drunk sounding', 'sloppy', beats. That album quantized would be blasphemy, imo.

Questlove, not quantized - and that's funky.


Or a J-Dilla track, no quantizing, only him and a MPC...funky.

 

Mongrel

DFO Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
2,358
Reaction score
1,349
Location
South Jersey, USA
I admit I don't know much of anything...

But when I compare Rick B's observations to his critic's observations I always find it easier to land on Rick's side of the argument.

Bottom line: you lose something when a machine takes over too much of a record.

Bottom line part II: You ain't making funk without a soul, and machines ain't got no souls...
 

dcrigger

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
5,300
Reaction score
1,499
Location
California
Thoughts/replies to Tornado, Trilok and Mongrel's posts....

1. Any disagreements or agreements are to some degree moot regarding this as what is funky and isn't funky is so subjective - that there is little chance for "winning" any argument that relies on having defined... what is funky?

So for me in the land of intellectual exploration here - not you're right and I'm wrong... or vice versa.

2. This wasn't my point with talking about analog - but saying that "is by definition not quantized. That only came about with digital" is just historical wrong. And I'm not just talking about Steely Dan - though their (and the many, many others) cutting up analog drum tracks in order to "fix" timing inaccuracies was totally and completely quantization in every sense of the word and act. And far pre-dated the digital age.

But more importantly let's talk drum machines - from Sly's use of the Maestro Rhythm Ace throughout "There's A Riot Goin' On" from 1971(!!!) through so much of the music first created with the infamous TR-808 drum machine - all pre-dates digital. And lot's of this music - at least at the time - was considered quite funky.


That's just the Rhythm Ace and 100% quantized (there was no other choice with the Rhythm Ace) :)

3. My reference to tracks made on analog tape was that you can't expect them to sync up to a fixed tempo in ProTools - because analog tape machines (unless locked to timecode, which nobody did unless syncing two machines together) drift - a lot - and significantly. Most analog recordings will barely sync 4-8 bars before getting very noticeably out of sync - so expecting to line up the grid for more than a few beats is doom to fail. SO overall a technical distinction meant to point out the sloppiness of Rick's methodology in demonstrating this.

4. "Quantization just robs the performance of the human element. It's not funky." And yet, "Family Affair" above sounds both human and funky. In a nutshell, I disagree with this statement for if no other reason that it is an absolute. "Without X amount of human slop, music can't be funky" That's what you are saying.

5. But before hammering on that - let's talk about "Quantization". Rick continually seems to want to define quantization to "100% locked to a 1/16th note grid" which was a decent definition circa 1998. Since then we've had variable swing quantize (different placements of the offbeat 1/8th or 1/16th, percentage quantize (that moves each note closer to the grid but not all of the way there by a selectable percentage - so you can select part of a live performance and make it 20% less sloppy or 80% less sloppy in relation to the grid), quantize humanization (where a random element of variation can be dialed in where desired), and groove quantize (where the rhythmic feel of an existing performance can be used to create the "grid" to which a new performance can lock - take section of a James Brown drum break and use it as the rhythmic template for new material.

So there's a lot more to this than Rick let's on and I'm afraid that you may be unaware of.

6. Next - let's talk "Preserving the Human Element"... I'm sorry, but when it comes to making records, a great deal of time is spent trying to sort the valuable "human element" from the great mountain of crap human elements you have to slog through. Every aspect of making a record has always been predominantly about sorting the wheat from the chaff. Getting the arrangement right. Getting it tight. Then capturing takes that feel good that aren't riddled with clams. So we rehearse. Then we record multiple takes. To either choose between. Or edit together to create one - better - but less human (because we never played it that good) performance. Then came overdubbing... so we don't all have to get it right at the same time. Then came punching in and out - so we can fix the clams in the otherwise good bass track, we can punch in that bar where we clicked a rim and that other bar where we missed the rim shot, or subbed the fill. Then we started playing to a click - 1st, so we could incorporate sequencers and drum machine parts more easily into our records when desired, then 2nd, to make the transition for making a demo and making a master record more one big process rather than two separate processes, and finally now... because it's cheaper and easier and safer, than not using a click.

All of this - removes undesired human elements form the recording.

Can this be bad? - absolutely. Anything over done - or done to death can be bad.

Rick keeps make the point that these techniques killed the feel of rock music... to which a say nonsense. People - Humans - made these records sound all the same.... By Making Them Sound ALL The Same. Quantizing doesn't do half the damage that using the same 4 chords over and over does. These records would all sound cookie cutter - no matter how they are played or recording - because the people making them and selling them want them to sound that way - choose for them to sound that way.

To Mongrel point - machines never "take over" any part of a record. Left to their own devices, machines just sit there silent not doing squat. Every sound a groove you want to attribute to machines has had a group of humans sitting there programming it and then sitting around asking "so what do you think? You like? Does it feel good?" Every single use of a machine on a record reflects a human being getting exactly the sound and feel he was looking for.

Which I guess brings us back to our definitions of funk and groove - I can remember tons of records with TR-808's or Linn Drum tracks that were grooving as allege out. Lots of records - which isn't surprising as the more quantized feel has been pert of groove lexicon for like 48 years (again "Family Affair was '71").

7. To say the J-Dilly stuff and the D'Angelo track is no way quantized is highly unlikely IMO. They both just have un-quantized elements. And quantized one's as well. And the J-Dilly parts are full of looped patterns - sections that repeat verbatim (just another way of normalize or quantizing the feel) I'm sorry, but it is all way more subtle than "quantize=bad", "un-quantized=funky". You really have got to dig into this stuff to get what's involved - get a copy of Logic or Ableton - and check out what is going on with the grid and around the grid. Check out how blatant quantizing can be and how amazingly subtle - it is just not the simple cookie cutter process than Rick describes it as. Not even remotely.

Anyway - no right or wrong here (except that history of analog part - and that's well documented on YouTube, Wiki, etc.

So more than my two cents - peace...

dc
 

Mongrel

DFO Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
2,358
Reaction score
1,349
Location
South Jersey, USA
Thoughts/replies to Tornado, Trilok and Mongrel's posts....

1. Any disagreements or agreements are to some degree moot regarding this as what is funky and isn't funky is so subjective - that there is little chance for "winning" any argument that relies on having defined... what is funky?

So for me in the land of intellectual exploration here - not you're right and I'm wrong... or vice versa.

2. This wasn't my point with talking about analog - but saying that "is by definition not quantized. That only came about with digital" is just historical wrong. And I'm not just talking about Steely Dan - though their (and the many, many others) cutting up analog drum tracks in order to "fix" timing inaccuracies was totally and completely quantization in every sense of the word and act. And far pre-dated the digital age.

But more importantly let's talk drum machines - from Sly's use of the Maestro Rhythm Ace throughout "There's A Riot Goin' On" from 1971(!!!) through so much of the music first created with the infamous TR-808 drum machine - all pre-dates digital. And lot's of this music - at least at the time - was considered quite funky.


That's just the Rhythm Ace and 100% quantized (there was no other choice with the Rhythm Ace) :)

3. My reference to tracks made on analog tape was that you can't expect them to sync up to a fixed tempo in ProTools - because analog tape machines (unless locked to timecode, which nobody did unless syncing two machines together) drift - a lot - and significantly. Most analog recordings will barely sync 4-8 bars before getting very noticeably out of sync - so expecting to line up the grid for more than a few beats is doom to fail. SO overall a technical distinction meant to point out the sloppiness of Rick's methodology in demonstrating this.

4. "Quantization just robs the performance of the human element. It's not funky." And yet, "Family Affair" above sounds both human and funky. In a nutshell, I disagree with this statement for if no other reason that it is an absolute. "Without X amount of human slop, music can't be funky" That's what you are saying.

5. But before hammering on that - let's talk about "Quantization". Rick continually seems to want to define quantization to "100% locked to a 1/16th note grid" which was a decent definition circa 1998. Since then we've had variable swing quantize (different placements of the offbeat 1/8th or 1/16th, percentage quantize (that moves each note closer to the grid but not all of the way there by a selectable percentage - so you can select part of a live performance and make it 20% less sloppy or 80% less sloppy in relation to the grid), quantize humanization (where a random element of variation can be dialed in where desired), and groove quantize (where the rhythmic feel of an existing performance can be used to create the "grid" to which a new performance can lock - take section of a James Brown drum break and use it as the rhythmic template for new material.

So there's a lot more to this than Rick let's on and I'm afraid that you may be unaware of.

6. Next - let's talk "Preserving the Human Element"... I'm sorry, but when it comes to making records, a great deal of time is spent trying to sort the valuable "human element" from the great mountain of crap human elements you have to slog through. Every aspect of making a record has always been predominantly about sorting the wheat from the chaff. Getting the arrangement right. Getting it tight. Then capturing takes that feel good that aren't riddled with clams. So we rehearse. Then we record multiple takes. To either choose between. Or edit together to create one - better - but less human (because we never played it that good) performance. Then came overdubbing... so we don't all have to get it right at the same time. Then came punching in and out - so we can fix the clams in the otherwise good bass track, we can punch in that bar where we clicked a rim and that other bar where we missed the rim shot, or subbed the fill. Then we started playing to a click - 1st, so we could incorporate sequencers and drum machine parts more easily into our records when desired, then 2nd, to make the transition for making a demo and making a master record more one big process rather than two separate processes, and finally now... because it's cheaper and easier and safer, than not using a click.

All of this - removes undesired human elements form the recording.

Can this be bad? - absolutely. Anything over done - or done to death can be bad.

Rick keeps make the point that these techniques killed the feel of rock music... to which a say nonsense. People - Humans - made these records sound all the same.... By Making Them Sound ALL The Same. Quantizing doesn't do half the damage that using the same 4 chords over and over does. These records would all sound cookie cutter - no matter how they are played or recording - because the people making them and selling them want them to sound that way - choose for them to sound that way.

To Mongrel point - machines never "take over" any part of a record. Left to their own devices, machines just sit there silent not doing squat. Every sound a groove you want to attribute to machines has had a group of humans sitting there programming it and then sitting around asking "so what do you think? You like? Does it feel good?" Every single use of a machine on a record reflects a human being getting exactly the sound and feel he was looking for.

Which I guess brings us back to our definitions of funk and groove - I can remember tons of records with TR-808's or Linn Drum tracks that were grooving as allege out. Lots of records - which isn't surprising as the more quantized feel has been pert of groove lexicon for like 48 years (again "Family Affair was '71").

7. To say the J-Dilly stuff and the D'Angelo track is no way quantized is highly unlikely IMO. They both just have un-quantized elements. And quantized one's as well. And the J-Dilly parts are full of looped patterns - sections that repeat verbatim (just another way of normalize or quantizing the feel) I'm sorry, but it is all way more subtle than "quantize=bad", "un-quantized=funky". You really have got to dig into this stuff to get what's involved - get a copy of Logic or Ableton - and check out what is going on with the grid and around the grid. Check out how blatant quantizing can be and how amazingly subtle - it is just not the simple cookie cutter process than Rick describes it as. Not even remotely.

Anyway - no right or wrong here (except that history of analog part - and that's well documented on YouTube, Wiki, etc.

So more than my two cents - peace...

dc
Good morning David. I haven't had time to read through your entire post, but I wanted to add just two quick comments....

While I enjoy the groove of "Family Affair", I don't consider it to be funk or even funky-precisely because the timing is so straight the entire tune.

Secondly, even though the timing of "Family Affair" is straight, it certainly (to me anyway) isn't quantized straight, and in comparison to the Jonas Boys it's has no where near that plasitc feel of 'perfection'. Probably because it's analog, which I think you said above wanders or something to that effect?

Anyway, I will certainly not be able to keep up with you on any serious level of debate on this, or most other subjects....lol. I just don't have the training, intelligence or fortitude for it! Lol

Which, come to think of it is why I probably relate to Rick Beato....

All the best.
 

Tornado

DFO Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,049
Location
Dallas
All I can really respond with is that all the analog editing and trickery "back in the day" couldn't hold a candle to the soul sucking power of digital quantization.
 

Rock Salad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2018
Messages
263
Reaction score
148
Location
Tulsa, Ok. USA
My playing is super sloppy, but not very funky...
The best funk players seem to me to be the Most nitpicky about tightening it up. I.M.E.
I would guess though, that to properly grid a great funk drummer you would need either to grid a larger chunk like quarter notes or break it down super tiny like to 1/96 or more (96=32×3), hell you might even need to throw in a 5 or 7 in there to really make it stick.
 

dcrigger

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
5,300
Reaction score
1,499
Location
California
Good morning David. I haven't had time to read through your entire post, but I wanted to add just two quick comments....

While I enjoy the groove of "Family Affair", I don't consider it to be funk or even funky-precisely because the timing is so straight the entire tune.
The never ending problem with trying to quantify the subjective - and then agree on how to do it. But I think Rick has made this point demonizing quantization across a wide range of music than just funk. Funk just makes an easy target - and he's right, in that any style defined by more rhythmic variation than other styles is going to be more difficult to program effectively.

I think the main point I want to make is for folks to realize is that any tool used in excess can have its dangers - quantization, punching, editing, auto-tune... they can all be used excessively - sometimes to great success, but often resulting in sucking the life out of the music. But simply using the technique isn't what is bad - it is overusing it or using it improperly. And statements like "It can't be funk if it's quantized" accompanied by defining quantizing strictly by its most ham fisted form - is a educational disservice.

As a fellow old guy, I hate to say this - but on this topic, Rick seems to see modern production in a negatively light ("The way we used to do this was far better") and then in trying to prove his point, overstates his case. And doesn't bother to do his homework as to how this is done today (his Protool's approach to this is like 10 years out of date) and how it can be done better WITH today's tools. He doesn't bother with this - just going for an old guy "Get Off My Lawn" approach of "Look - Just look at how bad quantizing is". Like I wrote before - very disappointing, because on some many topic, he is so so great.

Secondly, even though the timing of "Family Affair" is straight, it certainly (to me anyway) isn't quantized straight, and in comparison to the Jonas Boys it's has no where near that plasitc feel of 'perfection'. Probably because it's analog, which I think you said above wanders or something to that effect?
My take on this is that it is always the combined effect that defines the groove - the drum part on Family Affair is wickedly quantized straight - even moreso it has no dynamics, no accents (something that effects groove at least as much as timing does - but that's a whole other topic). So while the drum machine is certainly very straight and not at all funky, the combination of it with what Sly (along with Bobby Womack and Billy Preston) plays along with it creates what at the time was deemed a groundbreaking funky track... Which brings us back to our definitions of funk... which for me personally isn't so narrowly defined as to omit the work of Sly Stone. (But my Venn diagram of musical styles consists of mainly large inserting circles - I have zero interest in tightly defining each style with visible between them. I just don't hear music that way)

Anyway, I will certainly not be able to keep up with you on any serious level of debate on this, or most other subjects....lol. I just don't have the training, intelligence or fortitude for it! Lol
Oh you keep up just fine. :) Anyway... thanks (I think) :)

Which, come to think of it is why I probably relate to Rick Beato....

All the best.
And to you as well.

David
 

dcrigger

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
5,300
Reaction score
1,499
Location
California
All I can really respond with is that all the analog editing and trickery "back in the day" couldn't hold a candle to the soul sucking power of digital quantization.
Mainly because they are so easy and so accessible... IMO we are having this quandary in many art forms not just music. Across every medium we have quite suddenly been handed tools that are remarkably powerful - and that's not in the long run bad thing IMO. But like Spider-man, there's now more than ever that whole "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" thing to contend with.
 

dcrigger

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
5,300
Reaction score
1,499
Location
California
My playing is super sloppy, but not very funky...
The best funk players seem to me to be the Most nitpicky about tightening it up. I.M.E.
I would guess though, that to properly grid a great funk drummer you would need either to grid a larger chunk like quarter notes or break it down super tiny like to 1/96 or more (96=32×3), hell you might even need to throw in a 5 or 7 in there to really make it stick.
I agree - there's a big difference between being rhythmically sophisticated and simply sloppy. And to me as well, I don't see any evidence that the great funk players are remotely interested in slop.

You mention 5's and 7's - you should YouTube videos on programming "drunken" swing grooves or quintuplet swing or septuplet swing - where folks have analyzed what the J Dilly drunken feel is REALLY about - and it ain't about ever varying sloppiness, that's for sure. It is very consistent and purposeful. And quite programmable.
 

stuart s

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
86
Wow I love Rick and his videos, except when he digs into this tempo/quantize thing...

I don't disagree with his conclusion in this case - this track is never for even a moment "stupefyingly funky" - but his reasoning (something quantized can't possibly funky!?!????!!) and his techniques used to prove his point are just faulty as all get out. Grabbing a tempo off of Live BPM reading an analog recording and then throwing it up on ProTools at that tempo in order to declare yea or ney whether it is quantized or not is just nonsense. It looks impressive - would seem to make sense - but it doesn't work like that - particularly with analog recording. I don't want to write a term paper on why - but it just not that simple.

But my main point is the former - this premise that funky can't happen without measurable slop. And that's just BS. Rick would be amazed just how close to the grid that many great feeling players can be - so close they would fail his sloppy quantize test without a bit of quantizing in place.

Anyway I'm not saying that quantizing makes for a funky track - just that it doesn't automatically disqualify one either. And Rick seems to constantly want to make the point that it does - that quantizing automatically prohibits funkiness - which again is nonsense IMO.

The Jonas Bros track - particularly that breakdown section - isn't "stupefyingly funky" because (IMO) while the drum loop may be pretty funky, the whistle part in no way helps the pairing of the two to be more funky than that loop - the whistle melody is both rhythmically and harmonically incredibly pedestrian and white bread - making their pairing equally so. Sort of a least common denominator thing. IMO the quantizing of the loop is that LEAST of that sections problems - if being "stupefyingly funky" was the goal.

Sad to say - I continue to find Rick's rhythm and drum offerings disappointing. particularly in contrast to how great his other stuff is.
Where's your video contradicting Beato with your points and playing example?
 

Tornado

DFO Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,049
Location
Dallas
On the topic of precision, "slop", and what feels good/grooves hard/swings/is funky....

How I see it is hard to quantify. To me, the quarter notes should be close to perfectly placed, the more in time the better, but a little "grease" or looseness in between those anchor points makes it feel great. It's not that drummers that do this can't play rigidly precise, it's that they choose not to. That's different than drummers who are sloppy because that's all they can do. I think that's why a lot of hip hop can actually feel good with perfectly gridded drums, not that the drums are providing that feel per se, but the rapper's loose flow on top of those rigid anchor points provide the groove.

This is all really subjective, of course. And good points from dcrigger about Rick using the most egregious examples to make his points, and that it's not necessarily representative of all use of these tools.
 

JDA

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
14,042
Reaction score
3,068
Location
Jeannette, Pa.
And yet, "Family Affair" above sounds both human and funky.
In a way it does and it doesn't. It sounds -listening to it 40 years hence- formulated to Fit the AM/FM radio---like an advertisement for what Sly & the Family Stone " could be like" live. It (the song) is almost an Advertisement. A cleaned-up version

In fact it's the 6 or 7 other instruments and voices (on top of the beat box) that over arch and make the track funky.
Take those top layers away and the beat box may not sound funky at all.
So point may be- it's not entirely- the percussion track- that makes (anything) funky
Not when you have that much 'funk' overlaid on top...

Which goes back to your comment about the whistling..being unco,
 
Last edited:

p83

DFO Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
601
Location
tacoma,wa,usa
i know every one responding here has put a lot of thought into their writing, but man trying to define ''funky'' and explain it just make my eyes glaze over.

you can think about some things too much................i would love to see james brown's reaction to this post.
 


Top