|
Hail Dillinger On a different note, can anybody suggest an example of a band that's rhythmically interesting in a math rock kinda sense but still capable of writing good catchy songs? There are plenty of bands that make dissonant complex math rock and plenty of bands that write great melodic 4/4 pop songs (which are both good things), but I feel like I've never heard anyone who's right in between the two extremes and I've always thought that would be my hypothetical ideal band. Bands like Radiohead and Animal Collective can use odd time signatures and polyrhythms in cool ways but still don't approach the complexity of a real Don Cab style math rock band and are still pop in the grand scheme of things. Then there's Battles who get their tunes stuck in my head just fine but who don't really use lyrics and still lean math rock in the end. Long story short there's a void in my musical life that can only be filled with quality math pop. Has anyone invented it yet?
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
d0grent posted:Yes my friend. So Many Dynamos is what you are looking for. You'll find anything that has a poppy sound also has more stable/safe rhythms, but I digress: Heard Minus the Bear before, yeah. Both them and dynamos sound not bad at all but seem lighter on the "math" than what I had in mind. You're right about safe/stable rhythms. Minus the Bear switches time signatures and uses stuff besides 4/4, and that's all well and good, but really I just consider that a basic part of being in a good band almost regardless of genre. Basically what I have in mind is a band with the rhythmic complexity of Dillinger Escape Plan and the melody of, say, Grizzly Bear that embraces both extremes simultaneously without moderating either. It's kind of a ridiculous idea. May attempt to make it happen on my own some day though. Regarding the talk of time signatures, it's a bit of an oversimplification to equate odd signatures and time signature changes with math rock - as bands can use some of those tools without really qualifying as math rock while math rock bands can play in 4/4 just fine. I can't really explain why that is and what it means though. Kind of like how I know prog and math rock when I see them but couldn't actually describe the difference. Part of the problem certainly is that all of these terms are vague. I guess it's also a matter of what a given band does best and what techniques they emphasize. I'm a drummer with just some basic theory background, so somebody please correct me if any of the following is dumb, but one thing that really needs to be mentioned is polyrhythms, which is something I'd equate with math rock probably even more than wacky signatures and time changes in themselves. My rough definition of a polyrhythm for all intents and purposes is two or more rhythms in different time signatures progressing simultaneously. The most basic example I suppose would be playing three evenly spaced beats on one hand and two on the other such that the first of each land together (try it at home!), but it gets much more interesting once you ditch the even spacing part and throw a five or seven in there. The wiki's got a ton of examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyrythm This certainly also exists outside of traditional math rock though. If you've heard Radiohead's latest that's got some fun 4/4 (drums) against 5/4 (guitar). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ztWvuyXeU#t=1m40s On another note, have you folks heard the Them Crooked Vultures album? There's a lot of this stuff blended in with the standard hard/stoner rock/pop throughout and I think it's surprisingly well done. Harminoff posted:Are there any other bands that focus on the drums as the main instrument? Most music is all about the guitar or vocals, and drums are around to keep the beat. I love drums though, and would like to find more music with them brought to the front of the band. Don Caballero above all, I'd say. Damon Che is incredible and usually the obvious main attraction. Decades fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jan 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2010 23:37
|
|