Previous Next Index Thread


 On 6/29/96 8:29AM, in message <4r3i50$>, David A. Scott 
 <> wrote:
     > In <4r18gm$> (Jester)
     > writes: 
     > >Um, not to be pedantic, but a song cannot be over 240bpm.
     > >The technical definition of a beat is a quater note, of which you
     > >can only have 240 within one recorded minute of a song.
     > >So, 20 million BPM is a technical impossiblity, and so
     > >are the 330 BPM tracks on some gabba albums. They may have
     > >330 notes played per minute, but they are not 'beats'.
     > >
     > >Jester
     > Yep Jester, you're correct. I was just trying to point out that there
     > wasn't really any relation between BPMs and frequency. A 20,000,000 BPM
     > song would be nuts. Of course, not only wouldn't it be "beats" in the
     > true sense of the word, but the notes would just be one big blur.
     > I'm sure Johnny was just having fun with people if he told them he had
     > a 20,000,000 BPM song. Sort of like the people a while back who were
     > looking for the exact frequency that would make people involuntarily
     > empty their bladders.
     > Or how about a bass mix that's so low-frequency that it's below 20 HZ?
     > Now, THAT would be the ultimate bass mix!
     > "Mommy! My speakers broke!"
     > "Well Johnny. I told you not to play those damn bass mixes."
     > -Dave-
 Doesn't BPM tell you the tempo of the song?  This argument made me push my 
 sequencer's tempo setting to the max, which is 500 - is this BPM?  My sequencer 
 played 101 bars(common time) in 48 seconds. This suggest that I would have had around 
 500 quarter notes by 60 seconds.  I don't know if 240 is some law of physics but my 
 machine, obviously, can play a lot more quarter notes per minute.  Incidetally, I 
 liked what I heard..I'm going to play around more in the gabber speed spectrum.
 Keep Kreating Angry Musik