"free" groove comparison

[rachmiel]

personally, i found number 2 more appealing because it manages to give that semblance of a tight rhythm while still flirting with chaos--walking that fine line is always intriguing to me. the first one was more overtly "pulse-less" so it seemed a bit like playing tennis without a net; it didn't sound as challenging to the composer even if it would possibly be more challenging for the listener.

interesting. both were challenging, but in different ways. i've spent HOURS poring over a short (~1 minute) "free groove" (aperiodic flow), then played it for people who said: Dude, that sounds completely random. oy!

[rachmiel]

I feel used :( Using my comment for your social experiment.

it's not my intention to use people for experimentation. it's more like: something fascinates/perplexes me and i turn to "the group mind" to expand my own limited take on it, both for my own "edification" and for an exploration of the topic at hand.

[aciddose]

well even analog (zener or reverse biased PN junction) noise is not random at all. it's complexity is just so high as to be unpredictable when you filter it down into the audible range or sample it at regular intervals.

if you've ever watched water flow over stones in a creek, or leaves blow in the wind or any similar things it should become obvious that each has it's own hidden structure that is only revealed upon close inspection. only with knowledge of this structure does it become more a regular but highly complex thing.

so it comes down to the amount of effort you've applied in attempting to select rhythms. to the ignorant observer your selections appear to be random, while with the knowledge that you have made logical selections even if driven by the sub-conscious we become aware that your behavior is merely chaotic

perhaps you've hidden your structure a little too much for the casual observer to enjoy it?

[rachmiel]

perhaps you've hidden your structure a little too much for the casual observer to enjoy it?

could be. but not on purpose. in fact, one of the main goals of editing the rhythmic flow is to *reveal* the audible structure. though, when it comes to abstract free grooves like these, what's audible for me might not be for another person. so i guess you could say i'm composing foremost for myself -- does it *work* for me? -- and hoping that there are others out there who find it equally (or close) compelling and musical.

[fateamenabletochange]

I think the 2nd one has more of a groove to it, then I read above ...kind of interesting the way the ear will search out something that has more pattern in it. I think, the first could be just as good or better depending on what you put it into, what it's characteristics were, hard to anticipate about that.

[Aroused by JarJar]

I feel a strong and definite 1-2-3-4 in the second one, and would never have guessed that it was meant to random or free. It's a very nice rhythm track in my opinion- other instruments added would make the pulse perfectly clear.

Usually I would prefer non-4 rhythms, but I think the first one doesn't really "find itself". So, it's not the lack of obvious structure that bothers me, I find rhythm in the rustling of leaves, but the fact that it doesn't really work on its own terms. In my opinion.