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


Reply via email to