Okay I'm not understanding your line of reasoning here. Your question, to me, is almost tautological...
This kick/hh pattern is prevelant: a) because that's the most stripped down house/techno beat besides just a kick that one can have and b) because genres are defined by their cliches, and this one is typical of minimal, and has been for years ... ie. when it was still microhouse, and before that minimal techno or minimal tech-house... The "rhythm" does more than that, even in the example you posted (though it's not anything I'd necessarily buy). Listen to the other parts besides the kick and hihat... By your logic, there shouldn't be any more 4 on the floor kicks either, right? But that's not how dance music works, dance music relies on cliches to define genres and to give dancers constants to work off of, in the midst of other elements that may be unfamiliar or changing quite a bit. This rhythm isn't meant to be the interesting/non-boring part of the track, it's like the skeleton or scaffolding, and the interesting parts would be built on this scaffolding. That's how I see it anyway. ~David On 1/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Browsing through new releases I find that there's an overwhelming number of tracks with rhythms that are all carbon copies of each other. Why are so many "techno" tracks sounding like this? http://mp3.juno.co.uk/MP3/SF244221-01-01-01.mp3 anyone else feel that there's a glut of stuff that all swings on this general pattern (boom tsk boom tsk boom tsk)? It's getting boring.... MEK
