| Author
|
why is low bpm better than high bpm?
|
redball
Inactive User
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
4
Posted : May 13, 2011 02:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-13 02:15, Cardinals Cartel wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-13 01:44, willsanquil wrote:
I have 26 years of experience living in the World
|
|
And i have 42
But this is not the issue , I write and explain it here many times so i dont want to be a dumb and do that again
and again i think its enough , If 15 pages didt help so im sure in page number 20 all will be the same .
And again .. Ppls can love music on 190 (And thats great ! . Realy ..) But they should know there is an better
(And much better) sound quality option at the down tempos .
|
|
and why should they be so aware of that? it all comes down to appreciation and taste, not quality. retaaaaaaard |
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : May 13, 2011 02:38
|
Dare I say ... with the high tempo stuff coming out that it is predominantly fairly newish styles. I can't help but wonder if in a few years time the sound quality will have improved considerably ...
Fair enough, 16ths at 190bpm probably cannot work on the grounds that there simply isn't enough waveform to sound enough for the ear to perceive it properly ... but that is assuming two things:
1) 16ths are the way to go - erronous, plenty of room for 8ths at 190bpm and they can sound pretty energetic at these speeds, but still with plenty of room - more room than 16ths at 120bpm.
2) Fidelity is the way to go - Now, this may sound very strange or not, but I quite like records that are not pristine. I actively like the sound of technology struggling against the barriers of what is actually physically possible. I think it gives more energy to a mix. Its as good as the producer whispering in my ear 'Do you see just how close to the edge we are here?!'. Its a little bit dangerous. The move to crystal clear audio with full on circa 2000 fucking depressed me intensely. I like dirty. I like filth. I like energy and dangerous living. Full On got too safe. Too easy listening ... so it had to die. Shit, it was around this time that Texas Faggot actually said that they were trying to write easy listening in an interview on goatrance.free.fr ... Now, I'm fairly sure that they were taking the piss (with them it is hard to know) - but either way, they hit the nail on the head.
Now, technically, you are quite right. At lower BPMs one can sound much 'better' in terms of audio fidelity. But ... do we agree on what 'better' even is on the overall schem of things?
I don't think you mean better, I suspect you mean something along the lines of 'clearer' - and I don't agree that is better. I like things to sound right on the edge of falling apart.
Crystal clear precise, nice, friendly, safe audio is not what I came to the party for. Children of Paradise taught me that in 99. I wish to be shocked, staggered and surprised by what I'm hearing. If that costs a bit of fidelity, speaking personally, thats fine - because its ideas that float my boat - as long as the execution is good enough to express those ideas effectively, fidelity can die in its cosy, timid ditch.
But then again ... my first foray into electronic music was industrial metal ... so ... maybe my perceptions are well wide of the mark for everyone else.
 .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
Tachyon
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
6
Posted : May 13, 2011 05:03
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-13 01:00, Cardinals Cartel wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-12 22:54, Tachyon wrote:
Some people like slow music , some people like fast music
Who are we to tell anyone that our preference in fast/slow is more valid or "better" than theirs
|
|
I can see 15 pages its not enough to understand and clear that simple point .
|
|
I did write a sarcastic reply to this; but it's really not worth the effort.
I'm sorry if you felt my 1 line reply to the starting question of a 15 page thread is an issue worth pointing out. |
|
|
|
Cardinals Cartel
Black Machine
Started Topics :
191
Posts :
3097
Posted : May 14, 2011 14:41
|
Tachyon .. I think you took it to hard and that didt was my meaning , There nothing personal in here , Just quote your post as example of 90% of the all writers here in this topic thats didt understand the real point we are trying to discuss about - 'Why is low bpm better (Got better sound) than high bpm'.
|
|
|
|
Cardinals Cartel
Black Machine
Started Topics :
191
Posts :
3097
Posted : May 14, 2011 14:52
|
P.s :
And i let you know 1 more thing ..
Before 'Daark' opend this topic we talk about in private so i tald him open new topic then ill write you there , So belive me i know what/And about what im writing , We dont talk here on the musical fun side or energy or drive and those (When you as a listener can think that this is the top of the track) No .. I think what realy interesting artists 'In first place' is the sound . So this topic is about the sound ..
|
|
|
|
|
