Fast music

[1:(]

Waffles says this would make a good topic. I agree.

So let's go over things...

Should fast music be short? Or does it depend on style?
Can a band write songs with slow parts and still be considered fast?
Does the overuse of fast beats kill a song?

My opinions:
-Fast music does not have to be short, but it often helps just because of the way I like to listen to music.
-I'm going to say yes, but I'm also going to say a band like that is not JUST fast, they are also other things.
-Depends on how long the song is.

[DerekRIHC]

my point in the other thread was although a lot of different music can appropriotely be considered "fast", i personally wouldnt use the term "Fast" as the main descriptor of a band who played *that* style of music (slayer-esque).

[1:(]

Well, another thing I'll say right now is that if you're looking for a band that can play fast for more than two minutes, you're going to have to go outside the realm of hardcore.

The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head is probably that Psyopus album I reviewed a while back. It has its fair share of time changes, but it is pretty consistently fast.

[Hell Bent For Karate Mullets]

Fuck me in the goat-ass. I just posted this in the Now Playing thread:

"There are a ton of bands that use snare-based blast beats, hyper blasts, and gravity blasts along with chord progression that play songs lasting several minutes. Whether or not you think their music sucks is completely up in the air, though.

As far as Slayer not being "fast", take a song like "Necrophobic", "The Anti-Christ", or "Reigning Blood" and stack them against modern blast beat oriented grindcore, and Slayer's still probably going to wind up the victor. Those are legitimately FAST songs. Obviously, Slayer doesn't write everything that insanely fast, but when you're talking about pure beats-per-minute speed you have to tip your hat to some of Slayer's earlier material."

[Hell Bent For Karate Mullets]

And yes, you're going to have to start looking at death metal, black metal, and grind-based bands if you're basing the term "fast" on use of snare and song progression. If we're talking about hardcore, I can't think of a single band that plays fast songs consistantly over two minutes long.

[1:(]

Well, clearly the standards for fast music today are different than they were in the early 80s. People just hadn't pushed the envelope that far yet and Slayer was one of the first bands to start pushing it.

[DerekRIHC]

HBFKM, I'm not saying those bands aren't "fast". Again, I'm saying that "fast" is not the first word that comes to mind when trying to sum them up.

[Hell Bent For Karate Mullets]

Let me ask you this question then: Have you grown up listening to hardcore and thrash, and is that primarily what you listen to today?

I'm just curious how our musical differences interpret what we consider to be "fast". I'm looking at it in terms of bpm. You seem to associate speed with time, as well. I have nothing against it, I've just never looked at it like that before.

[1:(]

I tend to side more with Derek with the idea that a song is faster if it's fast through the whole song and not just parts of it, which is why it's easier to do with short songs because you know...doesn't take as much stamina.

[sc00ts]

take a "fast song" that's like minute long or less and look at the structure. say you got 4 verses with a chorus between each just to come up with something truly basic. now try to stretch that over 2 or 3 minutes, what do you do? just repeat verses/chorus? add a bunch of extraneous bridges or some shit? write 10 more verses just to fill time?

shoot your shot and move the fuck on.

[1:(]

The thing about fast songs that are about a minute long is that they don't really follow a verse/chorus structure. You'll hear something more like "riff one, riff two, riff three, repeat riff one, riff four, end".

Some kinds of fast are just more easily accessible, I guess.

[Hell Bent For Karate Mullets]

Here be some killer questions.

lamp said:

Should fast music be short? Or does it depend on style?

I'd say it definitely depends on the style. Debate it all you want, but I'm of the general belief that the more technically complex the music is, the longer it can play for while still maintaining a fast tempo. Obviously, songwriting dwarfs technical ability every time so it would be unfair to compare one band to another.

Can a band write songs with slow parts and still be considered fast?

It honestly depends on how often the slow parts are used and how much it impacts the songs. I don't think it's as easy as saying, "Okay, so long as this band can maintain at least 180 bpm 95% of the time, then they can play as slow as they want for the remaining 5%".

Many bands will have a knack for writing either fast or slow material. If they write good fast material, primarily play fast, but throw in some sludgy filler here and there, then I would still consider the band fast.

Does the overuse of fast beats kill a song?

A fast beat? No. I can never get tired of a fast beat. Ever since I was old enough to recognize music from speech I was old enough to realize that I liked music fast.

What kills a fast song is the fact that the drumming is essentially the backbone of the music. You take a band like Hate Eternal. They have this killer drummer, lightning fast, but the guy just plays triggered blasts and minimal fills the entire time. That will kill a song every time.

My opinions:
-Fast music does not have to be short, but it often helps just because of the way I like to listen to music.

The length of the song rarely bothers me, unless it's a novelty/gimmick song like Brutal Truth's "Pray" or Lard's "I Am Your Clock". I could probably rattle off 20 songs right now that I wish were an hour long.

[Hell Bent For Karate Mullets]

sc00ts said:

take a "fast song" that's like minute long or less and look at the structure. say you got 4 verses with a chorus between each just to come up with something truly basic. now try to stretch that over 2 or 3 minutes, what do you do? just repeat verses/chorus? add a bunch of extraneous bridges or some shit? write 10 more verses just to fill time?

shoot your shot and move the fuck on.

So what would the difference be between a band playing three minute-long songs, and a band playing one song that's three minutes long and comprised of the previous three songs? The fact that you would need one name instead of three is the only thing I can think of.

[1:(]

Actually, there are other things I just thought of...

Short doesn't necessarily equate to fast either, if you're going by the drum beat. Some of Third Death's stuff could be used as an example, but for a better one, look up Crossed Out. The songs are set up like "4 second blast, 15 seconds of slow riffage, 2 second blast, 10 seconds of slowness, end on another 4 second blast". Counting all those seconds, that makes a 35 second song, but 25 seconds of it is slow. Does that mean it's a fast song or not, just because it's short? Questions...

[sc00ts]

hellbentforwaffles said:

sc00ts said:

take a "fast song" that's like minute long or less and look at the structure. say you got 4 verses with a chorus between each just to come up with something truly basic. now try to stretch that over 2 or 3 minutes, what do you do? just repeat verses/chorus? add a bunch of extraneous bridges or some shit? write 10 more verses just to fill time?

shoot your shot and move the fuck on.

So what would the difference be between a band playing three minute-long songs, and a band playing one song that's three minutes long and comprised of the previous three songs? The fact that you would need one name instead of three is the only thing I can think of.

the fact that the overall flow of the song would probably be out the window?

[Hell Bent For Karate Mullets]

sc00ts said:

hellbentforwaffles said:

So what would the difference be between a band playing three minute-long songs, and a band playing one song that's three minutes long and comprised of the previous three songs? The fact that you would need one name instead of three is the only thing I can think of.

the fact that the overall flow of the song would probably be out the window?

So in your entire life you've never heard a medley?

[sc00ts]

in your entire life have you ever heard a GOOD medley is the more pertinent question

[Hell Bent For Karate Mullets]

lamp said:

Actually, there are other things I just thought of...

Short doesn't necessarily equate to fast either, if you're going by the drum beat. Some of Third Death's stuff could be used as an example, but for a better one, look up Crossed Out. The songs are set up like "4 second blast, 15 seconds of slow riffage, 2 second blast, 10 seconds of slowness, end on another 4 second blast". Counting all those seconds, that makes a 35 second song, but 25 seconds of it is slow. Does that mean it's a fast song or not, just because it's short? Questions...

I don't think you can classify a song like that as either fast or slow. It would be like looking at a painting and trying to determine if it was "more white" or "more black".

A band with the ability to play fast does not make them a fast band.

[1:(]

Hmm.

I entered this thread thinking fast was more in terms of the snare beat, but when looking at it from a drummer's standpoint(playing the instrument), the snare is not the thing being hit most consistently in a drumbeat unless it's a blast beat. It's the loudest and most distinct sound, but you can move your cymbal hand twice as fast while playing at Slayer speed. Double bass pedals may also be something to consider if you're looking for density.

There is also the question of "Does it have to just be on drums to be fast?" and while I'll say no, people playing guitars as fast as they can just sounds like a homo wankfest.

[Hell Bent For Karate Mullets]

sc00ts said:

in your entire life have you ever heard a GOOD medley is the more pertinent question

In short, yes I have. More important, a medley is an example of taking a few songs and creating one longer song without interupting flow. Three songs with a verse, chorus, and bridge can be arranged and altered to make one longer song consisting of multiple parts.

Obviously this is going to be a personal preference by this point, and the discussion would spill over into solid simplicity vs. unnecessary complexity...and that could go on for pages simply because there can't possibly be a right answer.