Talk:Groove (music)

Unnamed section

this section is extremely misleading. there is no such thing as "Groove", this is why even in the article, it is siad that the term is subjective wich means that it means nothing. it is like the "Experimental" classification of music, which is only used because it sounds technical but has no actual definition within any genre.

Dude, if you can't be troubled to use capital letters, proper punctuation or proper spelling, you have no place criticizing fuzzy-headed articles. That being said, the last section is about a band's name, not the concept. MAKE A NEW ARTICLE, whoever added that. Yarg. --Gregapan (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Citequote

• Richard Middleton (1999) notes that while "the concept of groove" has "long [been] familiar in musicians' own usage", musicologists and theorists have only more recently begun to analyze this concept. Middleton states that a groove "... marks an understanding of rhythmic patterning that underlies its role in producing the characteristic rhythmic 'feel' of a piece." He notes that the "feel created by a repeating framework" is also modified with variations.<!--These two quotations appear to be from a book, published in 1999, but this needs to be made explicit, and page references are needed.-->

Could it have been the Middleton (1999) listed in further reading and that was originally the only item listed in the section title "Source"? Hyacinth (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

section on rare groove

I would like to add a section on 'rare groove' the term is in the Oxford dictionary and is defined as hard to source original music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a short section 'rare groove' the rare groove page itself is really very short, so it should probably be redirected here until it can be expanded. I tried to redirect it but had problems for some reason. If the content doesn't work here feel free to revert my bold move.--Kary247 (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to the Rare groove article, but you should probably see what the other editor thinks before redirecting the article. Don't you think? Currently, the text is duplicated except for this section.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having a short page. I think Rare groove will be fine as a link in the "See also" section of this page, but I don't see the value of repeating that page's text in a "Rare groove" subsection here. This page has more to do with groove as a "sense of propulsive rhythmic feel" and Rare groove is more about a genre of recorded tracks. Seems to me like they are two separate, somewhat related, topics. I'll wait a day or two, and then do it to it, unless someone else gets there first. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, that makes sense, the rare groove article has been expanded now so that is good. I am not sure how to set up the see also, but that would be a good idea. I have deleted the rare groove addition - thanks--Kary247 (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC). Machine Elf, I see the duplication issue - I think you started your work at rare groove by putting citation needed and unclear etc. . Then you returned and provided sources, which is great because it is a good article to expand on and it also means that the article can stand alone and does not need to be moved into groove(music). this section.--Kary247 (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well no, that's not correct. I started by following up on the "commercial libraries" {not in source} tag which was removed without explanation, and later made "more valid" by separating the "commercial libraries" part of the original text cited, (and then adding Pop). However, the source doesn't mention all the sub-genres and it's somewhat whimsical as a source for those it does mention... Even so, I just tried to clarify it's about Yale campus bands and instead went looking for a source to address the increasing accessibility of the genre. Meanwhile, you deleted the Rare groove#1980s and post-disco section and we posted here about the attempted redirect... But happily I found a twofer which also addresses one of the deleted section's needed citations on "rediscoved" music via sampling, (correctly tagged IMO, but not by me). I also found a great source on the compilation created for GTA: SA, the diversity of which was hardly covered by Funky President & Tainted Love. But perhaps listing a different compilation would be preferable, as Rare groove isn't so much about genres or sub-genres in their entirety... I don't find normative genres super informative in general, so I'm hoping someone will help sort it out.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello ! I saw "Groovy...[d]enotes music that" ..

Hello ! I saw "Groovy...[d]enotes music that" .. is that [d] in [d]enotes intentional ?

Thank you.

ठिस बुढा (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

It probably was intentional, but the alleged source fail to produce the citation, so I cannot confirm this is the case. The bracketed lowercase letter usually means the original had a capital, but the context in which it is being cited demands lowercase.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How about electronic/house music?

I'm pretty sure that a lot of progressive house music features "Groove". I've seen quite of few songs on Pandora that say: features groove. - Or something like that. Perhaps if any one here knows about electronic music they could start a little subsection. Skiingxmoose (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Groove is ubiquitous in popular music. A listing of each genre and subgenre would be both tedious and is unnecessary. Hyacinth (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The groove audio is wrong

The sound it is playing is not what is written here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Characteristic_rock_drum_pattern.png. It is missing every instance of the bass drum except for the very first one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.134.199 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The rock score (2nd picture) is not an example of a groove

The score is just about the antithesis of what a groove is. Groove is a subjective term and deals with subtleties that are completely missing from this bar of drum. I'm not saying that rock has no groove, i'm just saying that showing a straight quarter note drum beat notation is NOT the groove. The groove is DEFINED by the purposefull time and timbre variations added to the beat (that's how you actually call such a score) during performance. So in real life noone will actually play the beat straight like it was written but instead play it with a groove! The picture gives exactly the wrong impression of the word 'groove' and should be removed in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology?

We currently have this claim:

The term "groove" was taken from the groove of a vinyl record, meaning the track cut in the lathe that makes a record.[citation needed]

Does anyone have an appropriate RS for this (or possible alternatives)? Or is it perhaps just false etymology? 109.156.204.0 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Groove (music). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210103528/http://www.subcontrabassist.com/Lessons/CreatingGroove.htm to http://www.subcontrabassist.com/Lessons/CreatingGroove.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://travel2.nytimes.com/mem/travel/article-page.html?res=9C01EEDD123FF930A15756C0A9629C8B63
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021001042321/http://www.networx.on.ca/~njdevil/mainpage/Heavy_Metal/History/History_of_Metal.html to http://www.networx.on.ca/~njdevil/mainpage/Heavy_Metal/History/History_of_Metal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)