why is low bpm better than high bpm?

On 2010-12-19 21:04, psychoacoustics wrote:
tempo is directly proportional to your age...

On 2010-12-19 22:30, TimeTraveller wrote:
I think with lower tempos you can perceive more detailed the low end and you can concentrate more on groove but in the end there is enough of great fast music like megalopsy or cpc for instance that cobines all this elements as well to the fullast.
..and much more faster than 148 bpm lets face the truth.
I share the objectiveness that lower tempo can sound maybe punchier and with more low end.But I love psy ala atriohm,polyphonia,megalopsy,abnormal project for many reasons too etc.
On the other hand one of my personal production reference is disco hooligans - his producitons are excellent.In terms of production his works are really clearly banging with depths.

So I like both sides but only when produced with good engineering and compository skills imo.
There is a lot of stinking cheese and darkpsy nazis in the lower tempos and a lot of wannabe funny noise devils in the higher tempos but as well enough of great artists in both areas to me.
I listen only to very few selected tunes or albums I must say,this ones I like I really inensively like.The most avarage is annoying my synapses only tbh than I prefere differents genres instead. So I wish more really inteligend good psy will come out in the future.
I would say there is no better your own ear will decied what you really like yourself.
All this lower-tempo-is-better competition is a bit ridiculous tbh imo.

On 2010-12-19 22:30, TimeTraveller wrote:

There is a lot of stinking cheese and darkpsy nazis in the lower tempos and a lot of wannabe funny noise devils in the higher tempos but as well enough of great artists in both areas to me.

On 2010-12-15 10:31, Cardinals Cartel wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-03 03:30, Plasmorh wrote: the more slower the music , the less music u need to make did i make myself clear ?

Well .. I realy think this is one of the most interesting joke ever i was reading here in isratrance .

You realy think so or you just wrote it to say somthing because this is totaly wrong and you dont know what you are talking about .. Man .. Sory to tell you but try think for a second , Its inverted , When you work slow so you have an much more 'Place' to add many sounds in (You dont have to be minimal because theres low bpm) , Tool and element and to creat an real harmony and deepness together and to hear the sound (With an more live feeling ..) Then in high speed go to nowhere .

I used to work 10 years ago on 160 bpm and belive me to work right and under 148 bpm will bring you only an good results .

On 2010-12-02 21:58, Plasmorh wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzF07V-_PWs

this is a insane 240 bpm track that actually works......

it has body and developtment.... and its hard to accomplish that 200bpm+

at least for me

On 2010-12-30 14:51, disco hooligans wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-02 21:58, Plasmorh wrote: this is a insane 240 bpm track that actually works...... it has body and developtment.... and its hard to accomplish that 200bpm+ at least for me

In what way does it work? I don't think there is anything that is good about this tune, but I am interested to hear why you think this works and in what way? Once we get past the fact that there is no bottom end drive.

On 2010-12-02 23:25, daark wrote:
what i become deaf after 180 ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu8WiSS0z1s&feature=related

On 2010-12-27 00:14, Trevon wrote:
his max was 134? ahahah
minimal is click clack click clack.. can be very boring.