Normal 0 false false false NO-BOK JA X-NONE

Thanks for all the interesting posts! And apologies for throwing in the feel issue in the middle of an ongoing discussion. However, suddenly it struck me that there are some connections between the issue of feel and the big question of click. Let me explain:  

I think using click affects the session in profound ways that go way beyond its role as timekeeper, and also beyond discussions of man-machine relationship for that matter.  If one sees groove as a conversation between different layers of rhythm (as I have suggested in my book on funk) using click means to add a layer of very precisely timed quarters to the rhythmic fabric. And as any other new rhythmic figure that is being introduced to a groove, it starts affecting the whole. If the groove is "deep" and open, the introduction of the combination of accurately timed quarters and point-like sounds of a metronome or another sharp percussive instrument can be highly problematic. Whether this metronome-like rhythmic layer is played by a wo/man or a machine is perhaps not that important. A human would, however, in contrast to the machine, most likely feel uneasy when doing it and therefore stop!

In other words, accurately timed quarters made with an instrument with a point-like sound do not fit well with all grooves, and clicks may thus change the feel of the groove in unwanted directions. In some genres, however, such as electronic dance music, the tight, accurate feel of a click would be highly appropriate and represent an element that draws the feel in the right direction. So yes, the decision of how to record or produce the groove (with or without a click, with or without machines) is a question of musical genre (in addition to logistics, of course).

Then, there is the question of tempo fluctuations. The machine is not able to adjust to unplanned changes in tempo. Sometimes they are unwanted, but sometimes they actually are of the good. In Afro-Cuban music, for example, tempo always increases during the montuno and this is – according to the experts – how it should be. In these cases recording with a click is of course highly problematic. 

Paul asks for examples where click provides something to the session that is unique to this technology. Here, I think there might be an unexplored potential in the metronome's lacking ability to interact with 'fellow' musicians. As shown in several of the analyses in the collection that I have edited called Musical Rhythm in the Age of Digital Reproduction (mentioned by Paul in his post), the insensitivity of the machine can be used to produce entirely new feels that would have been very difficult to create with musicians. 

When asked: “How do you know when you have arrived at ‘groove’?”, drummer Chris Taylor of the Performance in the Studio (PitS) recording session answers: “Oh, you feel it. Definitely, it’s a feeling thing, you know … how can I express that in another way...?” (Chris Taylor – Drums 1, vimeo.com/55278313, 19:00 – 19:15) 

In a paper posted in the Ideas section of this conference I show that it is in fact possible to capture aspects of feel through analysis. However, at the same time, what we can learn from the PitS session is - among other things - that referring to analyses or using an analytical language during the process of recording a groove, is neither necessary nor very helpful in order to nurture the production of feel. We may learn from analyses before and after. However, when actually in the situation, when supposed to produce the feel, it’s not something that you think about, it is something that you do. And the only indication as to whether you actually succeed in producing it, is a bodily sensation: I feel that I feel ‘the feel’.