Jump to content

Talk:Break (music)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need for separate article on instrumental break rather than a redirect to this page

[edit]

An instrumental break for pre-hip-hop popular music usually denotes a section where a musician takes a solo, perhaps only a few bars in length. This is actually quite different from the hip-hop definition, although the hip-hop custom of a break derives from this practice which goes back centuries - in the eighteenth century such an improvised passage in a musical piece was called a cadenza, so there is linkage. However, "Instrumental break" should not direct here - it's really a different thing altogether, with a history that at least encompasses the entirety of recorded popular music in the twentieth century, and requires its own article.PJtP (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Take Me to the Mardi Gras"

[edit]

Originally the page said that Cash Crew were the first to sample the break from 'Take me to the Mardi Gras', but it was actually Rick Rubin in 'Peter Piper', a 1986 Run DMC track. Cash Crew did a re-construct of the beat on a drum machine, not the same thing at all.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable breaks

[edit]

I wouldnt concider underoath, parkway drive, nor bring me the horizon notable in any way for their breakdowns, where is the few of the first such as dark angel's darkness descends? Or metallica's one, or earth crisis's wrath of sanity Slayer's angel of death? Those where the few of the first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.203.98 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please add evidence of notability before adding these to the article. As it stands it's just a list of songs that contain breaks and therefore indiscriminate / unencyclopedic. An external link to a reliable source detailing its significance or an existing WP article about the break itself (or a section in a song article evidencing the significance of the break) should be the minimum requirement. Deizio talk 15:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the breaks had citations. I'll readd those. Hyacinth 09:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This problem is still apparent... what makes a break notable? I'm thinking specifically of inclusions like Despised Icon and Beneath The Massacre. No citations for notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable breaks

[edit]


More uncited breaks removed

[edit]

The above removed as uncited. Hyacinth 04:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

I object to the redirection of "breakdown section", which is a separate and distinct terminology and the parent concept behind break as in breakdance. Breakdown Section is the highest and most proper terminology for this usage, and it has its own singular origin and usage. Start asking REAL DJs what the most appropriate term is before you take the entire language into your own hands and move things out of order. What about discussion on such matters? - tednor

I second that motion, mostly because the distinction between breaks and breakdowns in the current article gets very hazy, with multiple, overlapping definitions and usages jostling each other. There should be separate articles for "Break (music)" and "Breakdown (music)". InnocuousPseudonym 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can't ask DJs anything and cite it in Wikipedia, as that would be original research. Hyacinth 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to cite self-evident and uncontested information, so have a DJ or two read this mess and sort out the terminology for the entries.--Tednor 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't. However, this is contested, right here, right now. Hyacinth 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to which I give you this: http://www.disco-disco.com/tributes/tom.shtml as only ONE in a multitude of potential sources (as this is the source for the two points you have specifically contested)--Tednor 17:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, "the breakdown" is shorthand for "the breakdown section", so breakdown section needs to be the highest usage of the term. "Breakdown" itself is extremely vague: it can be a verb, it can refer to a nervous breakdown, an automotive crisis, etc... "Breakdown Section" specifically refers to the location on a dance recording that follows the second chorus, there is no conflicting usage for this exact term.--Tednor 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on similar yet different topics may be combined until those articles are no longer stubs. This keeps wikipedia from having dozens of one sentence articles on closely related subjects. Once the section on breakdowns would no longer be a stub as its own article it may be made such, with a link to that article featured at the top of the now shortened section on breakdowns in the break article. Hyacinth 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is exactly why i wrote the two paragraphs you removed!--Tednor 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks at this point that you would have enough to write on breakdowns to justify their own page. Hyacinth 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So neither of you would mind if I move the material on breakdowns to a new article, "Breakdown section", as Tednor suggested? InnocuousPseudonym 21:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Section

[edit]
Breakdown Sections as Creative Fodder
As pertains to hip-hop culture, the breakdowns of records were the points that early hip-hop DJ's would mix together to form extended periods of rhythm (over which MC's would soon be rapping). The breakdowns lasted for a minute or more in most cases, making it easy for the DJ's to manually "cut" between two copies of the same record (on two turntables using a mixer console) and keep the same rhythmic composition going indefinitely. This inevitably led to more material being composed on top of the raw rhythms. This first took place in the 1970's in the work of Walter Gibbons (in a disco context), and street DJ's such as Cool DJ Herc in hip-hop music, but would spread to all forms of electronic music as the 1980's progressed.
There are instances where a breakdown section has become a separate recording of its own, such as "Love Sensation" by Loleatta Holloway which became "Ride on Time" by Black Box, and "Good Times" by Chic which became "Rapper's Delight" by the Sugarhill Gang. Please see Rapper's Delight and Salsoul for supporting information.
A breakdown is different from a break as "breaks are for the drummer; breakdowns are for hands in the air" (ibid), a reference to the majority of breaks stripping away other instruments and leaving the drums or percussion. The current sub-genre of "breakbeat" is composed by DJs who loop recordings of drum breaks together into poly-rhythmic "breakbeat"

I removed the section above as it is about breaks, which are covered above in the article. Hyacinth 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...the reason this article appears to run on and diverge so much is exactly the reason I objected to the merger of Break and Breakdown section in the first place, and it's only going to get worse because (particularly in the area of Breakdown Section), there is an INCREDIBLE amount of elaboration yet to come. Why won't anybody listen to me? I shall leave this mess to those who created it...--Tednor 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If breakdowns are used to transition between numbers, then they cannot precede the climax in a number and are not a break from anything except numbers.

(note: breakdown sections are not used in this way ('between numbers'), they occur within a single composition exactly as described by myself and others who preceded me on this point (to precede and heighten the climax of a composition, as well as ease the mixing of two records and give the floor some righteous groove to dance to)--Tednor 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The problem isn't that the article includes both similar concepts. The problem is simply that one of those concepts is contradictoraly and confusingly explained. The only thing that having both related topics in one article is going to do is to make it easier to define and distinguish them consistently. Hyacinth 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph below is entirely about breaks. Breaks are what are used to create break beats.
The second paragraph seems only to provide examples of the above.
The third and final paragraph only describes some of the difference.
None of these paragraphs happen to be about breakdowns used creatively. Hyacinth 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect in assuming breakbeats originate from breaks. Prior to digital equipment, a LIVE dj had to cut between playing copies of the same recording, meaning a typical break gave him 20 seconds to align the rhythms of the two recordings. Amazingly, this was done by a few VERY talented DJ's (such as Walter Gibbons, who you removed...) but in reality it needed to be the Breakdown SECTIONS that were used to create hip hop in the broadest sense. "Breakbeats" as a GENRE itself followed the advent of inexpensice digital sampling equipment (one very notable exception is the group Coldcut, who spent hours splicing together sections of tape that sometimes consisted of 1/2 bars of drums, then ran the tape loop all over the room by sticking pencils into nooks and crannies to support the tape, then they had to manually control the feed through the reel to reel machine as they dubbed it into a larger section for more practical usage. They were probably the most exceptional group in the whole genre, and only issued a handful of tracks made this way because they simply didn't have time to produce lots of material in this fashion.--Tednor 16:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I am incorrect, prove it with a quote or citation. However, breakbeats did not evolve from breaks. They are breaks. You may wish to consult Toop'sRap Attack 2: African Rap To Global Hip Hop (especially p.113-115). ISBN 1-85242-243-2. Hyacinth 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quote:":None of these paragraphs happen to be about breakdowns used creatively."

I don't what the guys is saying about this, but it looks like he's saying that taking a part from one record and using it to make another is not creative (?) I don't get it.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Aside from that, am I the "guys"? Read what you quote again, does it say anything like what you wrote? Hyacinth 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the length of a record by using repeated sections

[edit]

This accomplishment belongs firmly to Tom Moulton, the inventor of the dance remix, and not DJ Kool Herc. Furthermore, any mention of Kool Herc needs to firmly state the apocryphal nature of his existence. As someone who read the music weeklies religiously at the end of the 1980s, I will tell you flat-out that Herc went from being a myth to being re-constructed via second-hand accounts to slowly and magically evolving into a person that everybody seems to have known first hand. The chronology of the articles documenting Herc will verify this fact. At any rate, he was by no means the first person to string sections of rhythm together to make the record play longer. He was perhaps the most noted STREET dj to focus on breakdowns alone in his repertoire, a mention that I would not contest, provided it is accompanied by the fact that he is more aprocryphal than concrete. Furthermore, common sense tells us that plenty of Dj's were mixing between two copies of a record, that's what discoteques were all about with the birth of the remix and the possibilities it presented. To state such things as "the first to buy two copies of a record to mix between them" is pure hogwash!--Tednor 21:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just cite a source which claims that Moulton was the first. Then we can describe the difference between what Toop says and what other sources say. Hyacinth 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you missed the describing the difference between what Toop and your source says part. Hyacinth 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not directing you to Wikipedia:Verifiability earlier, but I now quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Hyacinth

"Immaculate"?

[edit]

I think something's been lost in translation from the source used to credit Tom Moulton, to this article. I have never heard the term "immaculate" (which literally means "spotless") used in a musical context, and whoever wrote that live performances tend to rise in pitch does not know what s/he's talking about. Most instruments cannot rise in pitch (if anything, they flatten rather than sharpen), first of all. I think what happened is this: Moulton probably was referring to the common musical device whereby the latter sections of a track might MODULATE (not "immaculate") to a different, usually higher, key. (Listen to any Barry Manilow record. On second thought, don't.) So if you're trying to cut the later part of the record in to the first, it'll be in a different key. That modulation can be obscured by (as Moulton did) using non-pitched musical information, such as percussion. (Nowadays, digital editing can merely change the pitch w/o changing the tempo...) My guess is that whoever transcribed the Moulton interview wasn't familiar with the term "modulate" (or hell, maybe Moulton wasn't - and misused the word "immaculate"). But I think that section of this article should be edited...unless someone can come up with a second citation for the use of "immaculate" as a musical term meaning "to rise in pitch." 2fs (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be Emasculate ? --87.194.174.252 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely MODULATE, as any survivor of grade one music theory knows. Also, isn't "I Feel Love" the one most famous example of a disco breakdown??81.178.147.64 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct09/articles/classictracks_1009.htm81.178.147.64 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to yourself now? Hyacinth (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a pitched instrument that can't both raise and lower its pitch. For example: Playⓘ. Hyacinth (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

[edit]
  • Most well known are breaks from soul and funk music such as the Amen break and the Funky drummer. On disco 12" records nearly every song has a break, most often multiple breaks, most noticeably an "intro", an outro, and a breakdown section.

The above was removed anonymously with no reason given. Hyacinth 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaks have a long history in Jazz and popular dance music- why no mention of that? (Citation: "50 Syncopated Breaks for 1st Violin" Keith, Prowse & co, as well as similar works by the same publisher)Saxophobia (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

[edit]

Which book is it that Brewster and Broughton wrote which seems to say everything you need to know about breaks on page 79? --Abdull 09:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the sources section. Note that it is not the only source used. Hyacinth 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Difference

[edit]
  • "Breaks are for the drummer; breakdowns are for hands in the air" (Brewster and Broughton 2003, p.79)
  • Examples of the elements left during a breakdown include "a single string note, a German woman having an orgasm, or the voice of God telling you to take drugs" (Brewster and Broughton 2003, p.79).

Both of the above quotes have been repeatedly removed without discussion on this page. I am readding them as clear reasons for removal have yet to be given. The first quote is an explanation of the difference between breaks and breakdowns. The second provides the only examples of what is featured in a breakdown. Hyacinth 22:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the reason they have been repeatedly removed is the tongue-in-cheek tone of both quotes. They read like lame jokes, not serious definitions or clarifications. For the purposes of an encyclopedia article both would come across better if they were paraphrased instead of quoted word for word. (For the record, I never took down the second quote and have left the first one alone since you restored it.) InnocuousPseudonym 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please paraphrase them. Hyacinth (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

How so? Hyacinth (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analyze a rap_song

[edit]

Perhaps some expert could Talk:Chord_(music)#Analyze_a_rap_song and list it as an example if there is anything special in it. Jidanni (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author of "Foggy Mountain Breakdown"

[edit]

Earl Scruggs is usually cited as the author of both "Earl's Breakdown" and "Foggy Mountain Breakdown". For example, on every album/CD I have ever owned with either song on it, the author is invariably cited as Earl Scruggs. Moreover, I cannot find Clemente Delgado referenced in conjunction with either song anywhere on the Web. If there is no further discussion of this soon, I feel I ought to edit the reference. Donmillsbridge (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Register break

[edit]

Break has another meaning in music... the change in tone between, for example, registers of the clarinet. Where should this information go, I wonder? Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal/hardcore Breakdowns

[edit]

Okay, it looked like some kid had decided to put his top 40 favourite hardcore breakdowns in as "notable breaks". I've HEAVILY abridged it for conciseness' sake.Kung Foo (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone wrote that Meshuggah were the first group responsible for "breakbeats" as we know them today. Usually I hear people attribute that influence to Suffocation which wrote breakdowns in the early 90s. I'm going to delete the Meshuggah blurb. It doesn't seem to help the article, it's unsourced, and it simply isn't true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.86.91 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I'm surprised Breakdowns_(Hardcore and Metal Music) isn't an article of its own. I mean they dominated more than a decade's worth of music, and were predominant in more than two. An article about them would surely fall under Wikipedia's new submission guidelines (well known, credibly sourced [sickdrummer mag, interviews, kerrang]). I could frame it now: " a break down traditionally begins with a slowed pace in the drums, usually playing the snares at half time, along with playing the cymbals at full time in regular pace, sometimes accompanied by blast beats on the bass drum. Palm muted riffs are incorporated, played at a considerably slower pace than the preceding section of the song, with the bass usually following the rhythm parts... while breakdown or "breaks" have always existed in music, their usage in hardcore and metal having noticeably evolved to its modern state since the 1980's.." I don't know how to word it properly for an encyclopedia, or how I can expand it to longer than a stub, and I would need to find proper sources beforehand, but I'll try, and imo it deserves an article. My argument is that BDs are as, actually more, ubiquitous to metal and hard music as the Wall_of_Sound was to oldies pop, which is documented on its own. Once the article is made, I would suggest noting something about their use under a See Also: section in Palm mute put See Alsos: where applicable in Deathcore, Metalcore, Technical_Death_Metal, Deathgrind, Death Metal, Angel_of_Death_(song) etc. , and maybe disambiguate Drop_(music) to Breakdowns(Hardcore metal music)#Bass_Drops. Someone mentioned history before, and all I'll say on the matter is that before Pantera in 1990 and Suffocation in 1991, BDs were significantly different than their current usage. Though me saying something like "they provided the template used by most metalcore/hard core and deathcore bands used today,respectively, being significantly more similar than dissimilar as opposed to BDs used by artists that came before them" is bot very encyclopedic. Once again I'll try to track down a source for that. 69.125.62.77 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

[edit]

How and where is this article unbalanced? Hyacinth (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

[edit]

How, where, and why is the factual accuracy of this article disputed? Hyacinth (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed at some point. Hyacinth (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations: Breakbeat

[edit]

Why and where does this section need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Uncited

[edit]

I removed the above as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the above because I'm pretty sure it's not in the source cited. Hyacinth (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)"

[edit]

I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.

NoeticaTea? 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Break_(music)&oldid=1195374706"