TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Your favorite BPM speed
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »

this is like considering architecture by how high above sea level it is.

completely unrelated to the quality

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec this is like considering architecture by how high above sea level it is. completely unrelated to the quality

Not completely.

10-15

130

110= night night

150= speed/crack needed

i would have to say about 140-145 does me just right

Dancing= 115 (approx, sometimes slower, but then the dancing style changes completely) to approx 150.

Listening= 0 to 140

quote:

Originally posted by ThaMaestro i think one is accurate enough, when a mix between 2 songs is adequately beatmatched, sounds seemless without any major bumps or beats that are out of the rythm ... thats what matters, not what BPM-counters tell you. next to that, dont look at bpm-counters during mixing. you become a better mixer/dj when yuo do it without the help of those things. in the begin they're handy, but later you dont have to trust them, you must be able to do it on your own. next to that, those things arent always right. it occasionally happens to me that i mix a track from 135 to 137 bpm, simply because the bpm is not accurate, or very slow to give new updates on the bpm-count ...

I know, I try not to look at them and I am well aware that they aren't accurate. Sometimes though I have no idea if the tracks are both say 130 BPM when one says 129 BPM and it sounds like it's matched to 130 BPM but sometimes I don't know if I should just trust my ears or trust the BPM counter. Haha I know my ears are more accurate but say I do have the track at 130 BPM even though it reads 129 and I want to mix that into 130 BPM, but then it wouldn't match up right. I would have no way of knowing if my ears or the BPM is more accurate, because at some points it could be right. I was trying to mix last night and this happened and I had no clue if the track was indeed 130 even though it was reading 129, but it sounded matched...

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT You are drunk. And so am I. So therefor, we agree. Hooorah!

Yeah I was so wasted.....

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I think 0 BPM would sound really cool. DJs should try playing tunes at 0 BPM that way there wouldn't be much of a beat...at all and people wouldn't dance anymore, they would stand around with a beer in their hand starring at a DJ doing absolutely nothing...

at 0 bpm not only would there not be a beat, but there will not be any music whatsoever.

in a track of infinite bpm (from a post on the first page) and a finite length there would only be time for one audible moment of sound/s.



the tracks i enjoy the most are often in the range of 110-132 bpm.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T at 0 bpm not only would there not be a beat, but there will not be any music whatsoever. in a track of infinite bpm (from a post on the first page) and a finite length there would only be time for one audible moment of sound/s.

Lol I was just kidding...being sarcastic. Hence why I said the DJ would stand their doing nothing.... Like what John Cage did back in the 20s.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T at 0 bpm not only would there not be a beat, but there will not be any music whatsoever. in a track of infinite bpm (from a post on the first page) and a finite length there would only be time for one audible moment of sound/s. the tracks i enjoy the most are often in the range of 110-132 bpm.

What the fuck?

quote:

Originally posted by Rainborn What the fuck?

A beat isn't just percussion you know. It's the rhythm of the track: how much music happens in a space of time. I can't describe it very well because I'm not a trained musician.

128 is by far the best bpm for a progressive track.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J A beat isn't just percussion you know. It's the rhythm of the track: how much music happens in a space of time. I can't describe it very well because I'm not a trained musician.

Yeah... that's correct, now that I think of it.

Fuck! There's always something that I miss...

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J A beat isn't just percussion you know. It's the rhythm of the track: how much music happens in a space of time. I can't describe it very well because I'm not a trained musician.

What about just pure sound, or pulses of sound ala a-tonal or chance music or music concrete. You know the really experimental, minimalist stuff done in the early 1900s and is still done to this day by various performers, some that just record silence with slight pulses. Wouldn't that be almost 0 BPM? There really wouldn't be much besides these fragments of sound...Richie Hawtin has experimented with this kind of stuff, esp when he was releasing stuff under the Plastikman alias. Also Pan Sonic does some really crazy stuff, some of the most minimal and just plain weird "music" i've heard.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 What about just pure sound, or pulses of sound ala a-tonal or chance music or music concrete. You know the really experimental, minimalist stuff done in the early 1900s and is still done to this day by various performers, some that just record silence with slight pulses. Wouldn't that be almost 0 BPM? There really wouldn't be much besides these fragments of sound...Richie Hawtin has experimented with this kind of stuff, esp when he was releasing stuff under the Plastikman alias.

Plastikman just sounds like trippy, minimal acid to me. As for that stuff, it doesn't particularly obey musical rules. You could say that it doesn't have a BPM, rather than having 0 BPM, because any value of BPM implies a rhythm.

The BPM doesn't really matter, you can do happy hardcore with 75 bpm.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Plastikman just sounds like trippy, minimal acid to me. As for that stuff, it doesn't particularly obey musical rules. You could say that it doesn't have a BPM, rather than having 0 BPM, because any value of BPM implies a rhythm.

Okay I see, I've just listened to "Consumed" before by him and it definitely seems like there really is no definite beat, it's just these pulses of sound, really sparingly throughout a piece. I didn't know if you consider these pulses a BPM or rhythm, because it's definitely a sound but it's very minimal. Some of it sounds like it definitely has a beat, other stuff just seems like washes of sound and pulses. But now that I think of it Plastikman has more of a rhythm and BPM than Pan Sonic's music does. Pan Sonic does some ultra minimal stuff...I dunno how you would calculate the BPM of some of their music/sounds/noise whatever you want to consider it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery the older I get the lower I like my BPM's...

yeah... high 120's. freaky heh...

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec this is like considering architecture by how high above sea level it is. completely unrelated to the quality

Not true. A song's tempo is important because songs are written specifically to be in a certain tempo range. Most trance is written in 'allegro' which means literally 'at ease'. Switch to Drum and Bass and that is typically 'presto' - fast. Gabber Hardcore is typically written specifically to be in 'prestisimo' which is very fast.

Note: Music written with a slower tempo can have smaller notes in quicker succession without sounding like a complete torrent. The faster the tempo, the less of this you can get away with, without it sounding weird and wrong. This is why very fast hardcore is often very 'bare' in terms of its instrumentation and in terms of the musical elements in most of these tracks. It is this way partly by design.

A psytrance arpeggio sounds great at allegro speeds. It sounds stupid at prestismo speed. Similarly, speed up a slow breaks tune to gabber speeds and listen to the groove crumble.

Tempo is more than just speed. It is connected to the mood in which the music is composed and the intented frame of mind it intends to put the listener into.

quote:

What about just pure sound, or pulses of sound ala a-tonal or chance music or music concrete. You know the really experimental, minimalist stuff done in the early 1900s and is still done to this day by various performers, some that just record silence with slight pulses. Wouldn't that be almost 0 BPM? There really wouldn't be much besides these fragments of sound...Richie Hawtin has experimented with this kind of stuff, esp when he was releasing stuff under the Plastikman alias. Also Pan Sonic does some really crazy stuff, some of the most minimal and just plain weird "music" i've heard.

No ambient music does not have 0 BPM. Alot of ambient music does actually have a tempo or some kind of cyclical pattern to beatmatch to. At least, in part. However, the key difference is that ambient music does not have a stable or fixed tempo. So whilst you can probably beatmatch on parts of an ambient tune, you wont have it synced for very long before it starts to wander off at a different speed. It can change alot over the course of a song and its often not deliberate.

This is why ambient DJs swing tunes out of intros or outros or simply layer ambient songs for interesting timbres and textures, crossfading at times when it sounds appropriate for the mood of the event. Its a completely different way of spinning records.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative In my humble opinion thats too fast for psy.

I disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge The BPM doesn't really matter, you can do happy hardcore with 75 bpm.

no, in all likeliness that '75bpm' piece would still be a 150bpm piece in reality, regardless of the fact it was written at half that tempo.

dividing the tempo yet at the same time multiplying the number of beats to the same number carries little significance to the tempo of a track.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Plastikman just sounds like trippy, minimal acid to me. As for that stuff, it doesn't particularly obey musical rules. You could say that it doesn't have a BPM, rather than having 0 BPM, because any value of BPM implies a rhythm.

most if not all plastikman tracks have a fixed identifiable bpm

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec this is like considering architecture by how high above sea level it is.

no it isn't... not remotely. sticking with that analogy, it's akin to merely stating the optimum altitude for certain types of architecture; not judging them based on said altitude. likewise, no-one's saying a tune's bpm counts for how good it is.. they're just either a) stating the speed they mostly prefer to play stuff at, or b) estimating the average speed of the majority of stuff they like.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Can't really say it matters. Though I've noticed that the older I get the lower I like my BPM's... eep.

It's been the other way round to me: I now like stuff ranging 250~300 BPM

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.