Musicians: the effect of "swinging" the beat?

[anyrose]

why is everone so concerned with the “science” of swing? swing is emotion! it cannot be imperically quantified!

[pulykamell]

@anyrose

why is everone so concerned with the “science” of swing? swing is emotion! it cannot be imperically quantified!

True enough. However, Musicat was wondering why supposedly odd swing ratios like 1.8:1 were included on his drum machine. I was simply stating that, in fact, when drummers swing, the ratios aren’t a true 2:1 most of the time, hence the flexibility in his rhythm unit. I’d be willing to bet that when Musicat swings, he, too, is not playing at 2:1 and his swing approaches 1:1 the faster the tempo. He may not be aware of it, but I’d be willing to bet he does this.

[pulykamell]

Here’s one more fascinating study on swing. This one echoes my last analysis of jazz drummers, but also includes statistics on the swing of instrumental soloists within a jazz ensemble. As you’ll note, the swing ratio of soloists are much closer to 1.5:1 (or 3:2) than 2:1.

[WordMan]

@pulykamell

I mean, don’t you notice how drummers push and pull the beat? Take John Bonham, for instance. He’s the kind of the bluesy, behind-the-behind style of drumming. His drumming has it’s own swing because he places his snare hits on the back end of the beat. It got a lazy, funky swagger to it.

Then you have somebody on the other end of the spectrum: Stewart Copeland. He’s always pushing the beat, playing on the very front end of it. It’s a completely different feel from Bonham. It’s more frenetic, more jumpy.

Then, you have the king of playing smack dab in the center of the beat: Phil Collins. One drumming magazine did an analysis of popular drummers, and Phil Collins ended up rating the most perfect timekeeper of them all.

Gotta love the Dope - puly and musicat - you guys are the best. This had nothing to do with my OP, but I find it fascinating. Ultimately it feels like musicat was trying to give rules of thumb and pulykamell (what does that mean, anyway? ) is trying to show how rules of thumb don’t really apply, but the essence remains: swing is an artistic statement, a musician’s rhythmic fingerprint for that song. And because, as panache45 so nicely articulated, it skips along the standard beat and as a (usually, but not always) lighter feel, it invites a listener to get into the personal style of the players. As I stated, it is more organic and open that most standard-beat songs.

Thanks for adding so much to my thinking about this.

[tdn]

As far as drum machines allowing for odd ratios, yeah. I may not have the bleeding edge of technology in my studio, but both my drum machine and my synth allow you to tweak the swing. And my synth even lets you add a bit of random “human feel” to it.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@anyrose

why is everone so concerned with the “science” of swing? swing is emotion! it cannot be imperically quantified!

One rule of a technologically based society is: “If something looks like it might be quantifiable, someone will try to quantify it.”

Besides, it’s one way for arty types to make themselves more relevant to gearheads, and vice versa.

[Jpeg_Jones]

@pulykamell

…the duration of the second note was found to be constant at about 0.1 seconds for medium to fast tempi. This indicated that the second note had reached a limit of tone duration that corresponded to the shortest tone that can be individually perceived within a melodic line.

I think this is the most telling of all. “The shortest tone that can be individually perceived within a melodic line”.

So, no matter what the tempo, the swung note will always be approximately 0.1 seconds? Could be true. Realy fast swing is almost straight, which seems consistent with that theory.