PDA

View Full Version : Why does this always have to happen?



baboon2004
29-10-2004, 07:48 AM
Okay, so I'm a bit late off the mark with reading this, and it's not all bad, but the last answer is worrying:

http://www.rwdmag.com/music_articles/features/44284/roll_deep/young_man_standing/

And 'I Luv U' MAY only be the 3rd or 4th beat he made, but that doesn't stop it being arguably the best, and certainly the most influential.

Nick Gutterbreakz
29-10-2004, 08:09 AM
I hate to say 'I told u so'....

be.jazz
29-10-2004, 10:07 AM
the last answer is worrying
Why are instruments worrying?

baboon2004
29-10-2004, 12:12 PM
Instruments in themselves aren't worrying, it's just the (OK, fairly implicit in this interview) idea that using 'real' instruments = growing as an artist that is worrying. Who needs a drumkit when you can make rhythm sounds as amazing as the ones on Dizzee's releases so far on virtual instruments?

" Lyrically and production wise I’ve progressed, you’ve gotta understand that ‘I Luv U’ was like the third or fourth beat I made. " - and wtf is wrong with the production on that tune? Sounds great to me, and to a lot of other people as well. No need to apologise or make excuses for it - quite the opposite.

If Dizzee 'does a So Solid' and jettisons grime for something more 'musical' (to be fair, there's absolutely no sign of that in his music so far), then he can only expect to go the same way as them.

matt ob
29-10-2004, 01:37 PM
God forbid that he should grow as an artist. Time for the backlash is it? :rolleyes:

echo-friendly
29-10-2004, 01:57 PM
I'm really happy when artists don't make enduring careers but rather burn up bright and disappear as fast as they came out of nowhere. the reason is that, while maybe not doing the same thing all their life, artists nevertheless mostly produce but variants of an idiosyncratic style that listeners understand quickly -- all the more so when an artist, because successful, spawns copy-cats -- and grow tired of rather soon. the though of, say, dizzee doing a U2 and clogging my cochleas for the next 20 years fills me with infinite dread, as much as i appreciated his initial efforts

baboon2004
29-10-2004, 02:25 PM
God forbid that he should grow as an artist. Time for the backlash is it? :rolleyes:

:eek: My wrist has been duly slapped.

I never said he shouldn't 'grow as an artist', tho' I'm not sure whether that's supposed to mean 'make better records', 'do something different', or 'use real instruments (man)'. And I was only referring to his comments in an interview, not to his music - you call that a backlash?

To me, Dizzee's music is still amazing,and I hope he has a long career in the biz. But why apologise for your early efforts when they're so incredibly good?

echo-friendly
29-10-2004, 02:38 PM
To me, Dizzee's music is still amazing,and I hope he has a long career in the biz. But why apologise for your early efforts when they're so incredibly good?

common artistic problem: how to synchronise my aesthetic judgements about my work with that of its prospective or imagined audience? after all, you will have spent literally months listening to the same 4 or 5 bars before they hit the airwaves, turntables and P2P sites. and that changes your perception drastically.

baboon2004
29-10-2004, 02:54 PM
Good point, well made.

Still, while this may well not prove to be the case with Dizzee, a disheartening trend exists (the first example that comes to mind is Goldie's downward slide from 'Terminator' to those jazz-funk lite tracks on 'Timeless') whereby artists who break through from the underground to the mainstream consistently undervalue their previous work, and begin to equate 'progress' with increasingly smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality', definitions that they themselves challenged in the first place.

Echo-friendly - surely it is the artists who manage to overcome the problem you highlight who most often achieve longevity?

bun-u
29-10-2004, 03:07 PM
I’m a bit suspicious of this kind of sentiment…reads to me like you want to somehow bottle the raw, angry and ignorant dizzee (enjoy the dayly hour of ghetto escapism, away from your more mundane, unreal world). To see him growing as an artists…. wanting to learn instruments, leave the grime scheme, the ghetto, discover other influences…become dare I say it….more like you or me, seems to sound the alarm bells

echo-friendly
29-10-2004, 03:30 PM
Good point, well made.

Still, while this may well not prove to be the case with Dizzee, a disheartening trend exists (the first example that comes to mind is Goldie's downward slide from 'Terminator' to those jazz-funk lite tracks on 'Timeless') whereby artists who break through from the underground to the mainstream consistently undervalue their previous work, and begin to equate 'progress' with increasingly smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality', definitions that they themselves challenged in the first place.

Echo-friendly - surely it is the artists who manage to overcome the problem you highlight who most often achieve longevity?

let me start by saying, as explained in a previous post, that artistic longevity isn't neccessarily a positive attribute. I do see the trend you are pointing to. i'm not sure goldie is a good example as one wonders how much impact he has had on the productions, sold bearing his name (can you say rob playford? what is playford doing these days i wonder?)

maybe this trend is because in the transition from home-keyboard nerd to serious musician, one encounters more and more conventional musicians and their aesthetic ideals are (unconsciously) accepted, another thing one has to bear in mind is that often a musician's early efforts may have tried to achieve a conventional "smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality'" in the first place and it was just the lack of producer skillz that prevented the listeners/us to see that.

I often think that luck/coincidence is a cruicial factor. Luck in the sense that for some the personal aesthetic trajectory coincides for longer with that of the audience than for others.

hint
29-10-2004, 03:32 PM
Still, while this may well not prove to be the case with Dizzee, a disheartening trend exists (the first example that comes to mind is Goldie's downward slide from 'Terminator' to those jazz-funk lite tracks on 'Timeless') whereby artists who break through from the underground to the mainstream consistently undervalue their previous work, and begin to equate 'progress' with increasingly smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality', definitions that they themselves challenged in the first place.

"timeless" was a big album - loved by many, many people. the "downward slide" is your take on it... perhaps goldie sees it as doing what he always wanted to do, but couldn't before?

he certainly doesn't undervalue "terminator". I think perhaps the problem is that others overvalue it. goldie says he wrote it cos he wanted to fuck up peoples' minds at Rage... i.e. just hit them hard on the dancefloor with something that sounded fresh and raw. job done - the track's monumental.

look at photek - he totally nailed a unqiue sound... made his mark... and moved on. why should he try and improve on a standard that everyone else since has failed to match?

I love the fact that dizzee is not only inspired to try new things, but is also happy to talk about it in frank and honest terms. "I luv u" may well be his "terminator" - but how many legacies does one artist need? we're talking about one very talented, ambitious young man listening to another very talented, ambiutious young man (marvin) and having his mind opened. if you think that's a bad thing.... jeezzz... so be it.

how did you feel the first time you heard "what's going on?"... what did you do with that feeling?

baboon2004
29-10-2004, 03:33 PM
Bun-U - with all respect to the point you've made (and I understand the suspicion) I think you're reading things into my posts that just aren't there. My points don't relate exclusively to Dizzee and other 'ghetto' artists, nor am I seeking to live vicariously in the ghetto through grime (at least, no more than can be alleged against any middle-class person who listens to music 'from the ghetto').

My point would be the same if, say (this may not be a well-thought out example, but I'm sure you'll understand my point), Superpitcher or Aphex Twin hinted that they wanted to use real instruments instead of synthesisers, and started to say that their early productions were a bit limited. And for all I know, these two artists could be, demographically speaking, very much 'like me'. Personally, I don't give a shit if Dizzee Rascal is making his music out of Bow or a penthouse in Chelsea, just that it's not afraid to be 'musical' on its own terms, and doesn't try to fit other people's notions of 'musicality'. Surely this adventurousness iswhy most of us love grime?

And when did I seek to deny Dizzee the right to pick up new influences? Indeed, it's quite possible (as many have remarked) that Sylvian and Sakamoto could have been influences on some of the 'Boy in Da Corner' tracks, and Dizzee often mentioned his love for Nirvana in interviews - clearly he already has a wide range of influence from all corners of the music spectrum.

And it's you who seem to be calling Dizzee 'ignorant', because I certainly didn't.....

echo-friendly
29-10-2004, 03:35 PM
leave the ghetto,

yeah, stepney green, a cosy borough in one of the wealthiest palaces on the planet.

i wonder if most western adolescent's lyrics and that banging on about the street/hood and how dangerous it is, is just because 3 months ago these guys had to be home before 10 or else their mum would not allow them to watch TV for a fortnight.

baboon2004
29-10-2004, 03:47 PM
let me start by saying, as explained in a previous post, that artistic longevity isn't neccessarily a positive attribute. I do see the trend you are pointing to. i'm not sure goldie is a good example as one wonders how much impact he has had on the productions, sold bearing his name (can you say rob playford? what is playford doing these days i wonder?)

maybe this trend is because in the transition from home-keyboard nerd to serious musician, one encounters more and more conventional musicians and their aesthetic ideals are (unconsciously) accepted, another thing one has to bear in mind is that often a musician's early efforts may have tried to achieve a conventional "smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality'" in the first place and it was just the lack of producer skillz that prevented the listeners/us to see that.


I did note your first post about longevity, but, given the way you phrased it, I wasn't entirely sure whether you were being ironic. Sorry 'bout that.

Agree with almost all you say (really don't know enough about who did what on Goldie records), but I don't really buy the last point there. Couldn't it be perceived as a little patronising (not saying that you were trying to be) to suggest that the unconventionality in 'terminator' or 'i luv u' is there due to lack of skillz, and not on purpose?

baboon2004
29-10-2004, 03:56 PM
"timeless" was a big album - loved by many, many people. the "downward slide" is your take on it... perhaps goldie sees it as doing what he always wanted to do, but couldn't before?

I love the fact that dizzee is not only inspired to try new things, but is also happy to talk about it in frank and honest terms. "I luv u" may well be his "terminator" - but how many legacies does one artist need? we're talking about one very talented, ambitious young man listening to another very talented, ambiutious young man (marvin) and having his mind opened. if you think that's a bad thing.... jeezzz... so be it.

how did you feel the first time you heard "what's going on?"... what did you do with that feeling?

Of course that's just my take on 'Timeless', and I love some of the album. It's just that certain tracks seem overly conventional, and surely if Goldie had been that conventional from the beginning, no-one would see him as an innovator? Again, to make it clear, that's just my opinion.

Re the Marvin Gaye comment :rolleyes: I never said that listening to Marvin Gaye was a bad thing.

matt ob
29-10-2004, 03:57 PM
yeah, stepney green, a cosy borough in one of the wealthiest palaces on the planet.

i wonder if most western adolescent's lyrics and that banging on about the street/hood and how dangerous it is, is just because 3 months ago these guys had to be home before 10 or else their mum would not allow them to watch TV for a fortnight.

:D

Regarding Rob Playford - didn't he fall out with Goldie, hence the album after Timeless being a heap of shit? As far as I know Playford runs Moving Shadow these days.

appleblim
29-10-2004, 03:57 PM
interesting thread.....

i agree that "maturity" and proficiency on instruments doesn't equal better tunes, but give the boy a chance!

if he can make I Luv U after school on minimal equipment, maybe he can get other instruments to work to his advantage...

lets judge his music when it hits....

its as bad to presume that musicality will ruin music as it is to presume it will improve it....even in the now generally slated 'intelligent' or jazzy d&b scene that emerged round '96, there were still wicked tunes coming out of it, even if there were a lot of shitty "lets noodle on sax and double bass" ones....

bun-u
29-10-2004, 04:00 PM
"My point would be the same if, say (this may not be a well-thought out example, but I'm sure you'll understand my point), Superpitcher or Aphex Twin hinted that they wanted to use real instruments instead of synthesisers, and started to say that their early productions were a bit limited. "

Perhaps I was reading something that wasn’t there, but from my experience this point is only ever made about (for want of a better phrase) street-based artists, who as the fable goes, are wrongly yearning for a higher level of sophistication....

"yeah, stepney green, a cosy borough in one of the wealthiest palaces on the planet."

No poverty in London...wow, when did this happen, I'd better give up my day job!

baboon2004
29-10-2004, 04:06 PM
Yeh, Appleblim, good point :)

Maybe it's just that I hear too many comments about wanting to learn real instruments, with not too many the other way ie not too many indie bands (any more at least) thinking about incorporating elements of grime/garage into their music (though I suppose the Junior Boys could be interpreted that way??). On top of that, I just always genuinely preferred scenes with a healthy disrespect for the idea of being musical or having to play musical instruments. Surely one of the great things about smaplers/synthesisers etc is that its' imagination, rather than fingering skills (!) which counts.

Or maybe I'm just wrong.

hint
29-10-2004, 04:10 PM
Regarding Rob Playford - didn't he fall out with Goldie, hence the album after Timeless being a heap of shit?


nah - it's not that black and white

rob playford was involved in plenty of the shit goldie tracks too. he engineerd "temper temper", for example.

mms
29-10-2004, 04:16 PM
Yeh, Appleblim, good point :)

Maybe it's just that I hear too many comments about wanting to learn real instruments, with not too many the other way ie not too many indie bands (any more at least) thinking about incorporating elements of grime/garage into their music (though I suppose the Junior Boys could be interpreted that way??).


but then he is talking about what's going on, a sprawling, symphony with full orchestra etc, not stiff little fingers.
thats a whole lot more interesting than some indie band. On the whole i'm shocked at the electric guitars' longevity, it's generally a pretty boring sounding instrument and the usual 4 man set up is really uninspiring , i can count on 2 hands the number of current bands i have any interest in or who are doing anything exciting with it.

hint
29-10-2004, 04:32 PM
i can count on 2 hands the number of current bands i have any interest in or who are doing anything exciting with it.

sure... but, be honest... how many grime producers would you say the same thing about? I mean people who regularly, currently, are doing something exciting with any kind of consistency? must be close to 2 hands' worth, right?

sure - there's a few strong moment-of-genius one-off grime 12"s out there... are you judging guitar bands by the same criteria - i.e. if they've done one single track you like, do you count them as an exciting band?

I'm inspired every day by music made with electric guitars.

matt ob
29-10-2004, 04:35 PM
nah - it's not that black and white

rob playford was involved in plenty of the shit goldie tracks too. he engineerd "temper temper", for example.

La la la, not listening. ;)

Look, Playford was part of 2 Bad Mice and can therefore do no wrong in my eyes.

mms
29-10-2004, 04:36 PM
but the grime producer to rock band ratio is about 1/100,000 so there should be some good stuff out there, i was being kind when i said 2 hands as well come to think of it.
Just a matter of opinion i guess, i got very bored of guitars a long time ago and it takes quite alot to make me excited about them

redcrescent
29-10-2004, 11:03 PM
A different take on how "conventional" music influences are already infiltrating grime...

Here's an excerpt from a 2003 Hyperdub interview with Wiley.

- Why do you use sounds that no one else would use?

Exactly, exactly: sounds people would think that're weak, or that's anything. But I just hear things. I play it and it just forms together innit. It's like a gift you know that? When I sit down I don't copy nothing, as such. I don't try and base my music around anything. Ideas just come in my head and I play them.

- There's a big Oriental feeling to them…

I used to watch a lot of Kung Fu films. I just like the idea of the Oriental thing. I started that idea, then I stopped it and then went back to it. It just something I like. I like Chinese music. I like Greek music. I've been buying loads of kinds of music: Greek, Chinese, African. I just went to some place called Sterns? It sells world music and I bought loads of stuff there. I'll take it back and sometimes I'll sample it, sometimes loop it, or take parts and put them in different places. I do all different bits to try and get the finished thing.

- That's strange to hear you're sampling because a lot of your tunes have sounded distinctive and related because the strings seem to come from a similar source or module…

I like orchestras innit. I listen to a lot of that. If I flick through a module and hear anything orchestral I might go in that direction. Though on another day I might go in another Oriental direction. I go in different directions every time I start.

redcrescent
29-10-2004, 11:11 PM
...just hope that, whatever he does, Dizzee doesn't end up doing a N*E*R*D by putting out something as disgraceful as Fly or Die just to prove that he's not only a cutting edge producer, but that he can also sound like a three-month old indie band using (watch me!) real instruments...

I'm not worried.

be.jazz
30-10-2004, 07:46 AM
And let's hope he doesn't learn how to sing! In-tuness would only have made "Dream" worse.

baboon2004
30-10-2004, 01:07 PM
As long as Dizzee doesn't end up collaborating with Snow Patrol or Paul Weller, I think it's all going to be OK.

New Roll Deep members for 2005?:

http://www.philhellenes.cwc.net/home_pics/tweenies10.jpg

LRJP!
30-10-2004, 03:35 PM
i don't think i'm worried - i mean he might end up playing the drums in the same way he programs them, which be fantastic!

Rambler
01-11-2004, 12:08 PM
he might end up playing the drums in the same way he programs them, which be fantastic!

Unlikely, and that's the point, isn't it? No matter how tight a drummer you are, a programmed drum track just sounds different to a live one. Whether you like that sound or not often lies at the heart of debates like this (plus the challenges to personal philosophies and prejudices that programmed/live instruments represent). To take an example pertinent to the thread, my favourite bits by far of Reprazent's New Forms are when the progrmmed drums kick in, over the live stuff. Everything locks down, hard, and the sound has a particular feel that you simply cannot achieve with live instruments; it's not just a question of a production shortcut, but choosing the sound and feel that comes closest to what you want to hear. If Dizzee wants to bring in live instruments, that's fine by me (on his own he's a great live act), but his sound will inevitably change - radically. 'I Luv U' with a session band would be horrible, for example.

be.jazz
01-11-2004, 01:54 PM
I agree with you, Rambler, but alongside that there's an interesting dynamic developing, especially amongst drummers, where they are influenced by machines (along with actually using them themselves).

dubplatestyle
01-11-2004, 02:06 PM
examples of artists who incorporated "real instruments" while keeping it street/hardcore/modernist/"for the floor": timbaland, the bomb squad, ced gee, marley marl, mannie fresh, the neptunes, swizz beatz, organized noize, dr. dre, red spyda, oh like every great rap producer ever (who isn't an essentialist premier-style sample chopper), any number of house producers, arguably roni size...*

it IS possible. it's just that most of these producers don't/didn't draw attention to it. or, even when they did ("i see myself working with a symphony orchestra one day", gawd just shut up already you meglomaniac), they never got around to it because they knew which side their bread was buttered on. (one of the benefits of rap's hyper-capitalist rate-of-turnover is that it doesn't allow trackmasters to indulge their [cough] "creative" side if they wanna stay paid. the fact that he purposefully turned his back on jungle's populist core at a key moment is what allowed goldie to make "mother". this is likely why, if it ever materializes at all, the new dr. dre album will be god-fucking-awful.)

can you imagine, for a less rock-centric analogy for a moment, having to listen to a solo timbaland go through a lovesexy-through-musicology style two decade slough?

(and, yeah, live drums do sound different than the programmed kind, but anyone who doubts you can do similar things with a live kit should listen to the otherwise pretty boring jay-z unplugged, where ?uestlove imitates timbaland drum patterns beat for beat. the problem is that live drummers rarely *think* like drum programmers when they sit down to play. [see also all rock band takes on the "drum & bass beat".) [would they have go through some sort of derek bailey-style unlearning process before they could sit down blind and bash out a "niogga what, nigga who"?])

* it should go without saying that all these producers are represented here at their respective peaks, ha ha.

be.jazz
01-11-2004, 03:07 PM
(and, yeah, live drums do sound different than the programmed kind, but anyone who doubts you can do similar things with a live kit should listen to the otherwise pretty boring jay-z unplugged, where ?uestlove imitates timbaland drum patterns beat for beat. the problem is that live drummers rarely *think* like drum programmers when they sit down to play.
Yeah, ?uest is like the grandfather of the cybernetic drummer, no?

echo-friendly
01-11-2004, 04:03 PM
examples of artists who incorporated "real instruments" while keeping it street/hardcore/modernist/"for the floor": timbaland, the bomb squad, ced gee, marley marl, mannie fresh, the neptunes, swizz beatz, organized noize, dr. dre, red spyda, oh like every great rap producer ever (who isn't an essentialist premier-style sample chopper), any number of house producers, arguably roni size...*

i thought roni size was jungle's sellout guy ... anyway, "street/hardcore/modernist/for the floor" cannot be defined by use of a certain kind of sound. it should be seen as reacting to other/previous music and it's (perceived) audience. it is the music that consciously tries to differenciate itself from music understood to be associated with undesirable social groups. at the same time it defines a social groups (of listeners).

of course such differentiation can and has often been done via sounds. but that is not the only way. in pop music, this differentiation process tend to be on three dimensions (1) rhythm (but always within the 4/4 grid) (2) sound (3) lyrics. other axes exist but are never touched in pop's orbit. The last couple of years have seen sophisticated music production technology being commoditiesed and one of the effects of that was to obsolete the distinction between "real" and "synthetic" sounds. timbaland for example has pushed various sound -- synthetic and real -- but they tend to have been novel, i.e. not coded up as belonging to social groups the hiphop and RnB scenes try to differentiate themselves from. this is one of the reasons for timba's continuing acceptance as as cutting edge producer.

hint
01-11-2004, 04:32 PM
I think you'll find there is far more manipulation / use of "machine" techniques going on in rock music than you might assume. I'm talking about quantisation of live recordings, replacing individual hits with samples... that kind of thing. It's widespread practice in "modern" rock production.

saying that you can't replicate programmed beats on a drum kit is missing the point. you can perhaps replicate the rhythm but not the sound, mainly because so many programmed beats are made up of sounds which cannot be made with a traditional drumkit. of course, if someone sat down at a kit and played the rhythm from "I luv U", it wouldn't sound the same, but that's got nothing to do with the fact that it's being played by a human being in real time. it's because the sound palette is so far removed from sticks, skins, air and drum shells. you could use the techniques I talk about above and replace each hit with the samples used by dizzee and you would then have the same beat. the lines are blurry.

you just have to listen to the original "amen brother" to hear that there's not so much difference between machine-made rhythms and live rhythms as far as physical boundaries go - i.e. placement of beats in a bar, syncopation, swing and dynamics. but saying that programmed drumming is better or worse than live drumming is like saying electric guitar is better or worse than acoustic guitar... the quality of the music and the nature of the final sound in the song is dependent on the musician and / or producer.

xero
01-11-2004, 05:21 PM
real instruments in 'street' music - isn't it a reversal of the trend away from live instrumentation in disco productions in the late seventies? Once the major labels stopped paying for huge bands & recording studios. Producers grudgingly turned to electronic instruments for their sounds - these sounds arguably influenced electro & hip hop & then house & techno and therefore were in some way the source of today's electronic street beats. Once the artists get big enough to command record company cash they turn back to live instruments, cos they can

mms
01-11-2004, 06:35 PM
i'm quite into that whole live drum breaks sampled vibe of people like paradox, his drums have a weird marshality to them.
It's a bit of a trait of the inperspective records lot.

Rambler
02-11-2004, 08:22 AM
you could use the techniques I talk about above and replace each hit with the samples used by dizzee and you would then have the same beat. the lines are blurry.

Which begs the question of course - why would you? There's certainly something culturally different between having a live drummer or a programmed one, but if we're just talking about the quality of sound, why spend time and money getting a drummer to exactly replicate a beat you've already got on your sequencer?

That said, I take most of your points - and it's certainly true that we shouldn't ignore the amount of production work that goes on most 'live' drum tracks these days. I'm still not convinced though that live drums are the same as programmed - particularly genuinely live, on a stage. A human drummer is unavoidably going to nuance his/her playing to the music at each moment - a programmed drum sequence isn't, and that lies at the root of the different effects they have, even when, as you say, the looped break comes from a live source. Within 4 beats, 'Amen' is slightly loose against a strict beat, but when it's looped, every first beat locks down precisely - that tension between swing and metronomic precision is part of what makes breakbeat in general so effective. For the record, I love me programmed drums as well as live ones, but I just don't see that they are interchangeable - or even why you'd want to if you could.

hint
02-11-2004, 09:25 AM
A human drummer is unavoidably going to nuance his/her playing to the music at each moment - a programmed drum sequence isn't, and that lies at the root of the different effects they have, even when, as you say, the looped break comes from a live source. Within 4 beats, 'Amen' is slightly loose against a strict beat, but when it's looped, every first beat locks down precisely - that tension between swing and metronomic precision is part of what makes breakbeat in general so effective.

yeah - I agree rambler. I think perhaps this thread has meandered a bit!

I was talking about the writing process - i.e. the fact that dizzee rascal might take up drums won't mean his rhythms will be any less interesting. it's the sounds that will change, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be inappropriate. writing with a drum kit and writing with a programmed beat aren't so far removed from each other really.

of course, when looping recorded breaks or chopping and re-arranging them you start getting results that are impossible to perform live. things like cymbal hits being chopped and shifted around so they cut in and out in an unnatural fashion. that's a big part of that early drum and bass sound that people cream themselves over - the abrupt gaps caused by individual hits being prematurely trimmed become as much a part of the rhythm as the beats themselves... the very essence of syncopation.

scissors
02-11-2004, 06:56 PM
i remember going to see roni size circa the 2nd album which 'boasted' a live drummer with the reprazent crew twiddling away on computers/gear alongside. as an interlude they digital-djed a string of their biggest tracks together. this ended up being the highlight of the show... the conceit of liveliveliveness i think was novel and exciting for a minute (wow a guy is really up there jamming out brown paper bag) but, yeah, fluidity and nuance and whatever sort of visceral nimble virtuousity (+ continuity) going on felt ultimately at odds with the *rupture*, rhythmic danger, or whatever you want to call it.

i guess the implicit fear in the thread title is that 'rounding up the live drummers as bid for authenticity/whatever' will always correlate to eradicating the (exciting!) presence of technology in the rhythms. but dizzee hasn't had a jazz thing kind of moment has he? he at least seems more irreverent, more open to recording drums tracks only to fuck about with them after the fact. then again maybe there isn't a massive US hip hop cash scene equivalent to keep breadsides buttered (heh "Mother Grime"?).