132 or 136?
I am making an uptempo track out of my “drumming demo” posted before… what do you think works better 132 or 136 BPM? (Beats per Minute = the speed of a track)
132BPM
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
136 BPM
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
28. October 2008 at 17:05
With the first listening it was not so much difference between both examples but after the second and third try my choice is 100% and definitely: 136 bpm!!!
28. October 2008 at 17:43
132 fits more 4 me here..
28. October 2008 at 18:01
When I listen to the melody the drumming is to fast. Maybe 132 is ok for the drumming, but the bells are to slow. The bells are nice but not with a background like that, also the drumming is nice without the bells. Could be better to create an other backgroung for the bells, to have a another new song.
28. October 2008 at 18:08
hemm, i think i’d prefer 132
28. October 2008 at 18:12
Hard to choose… Really… Actually the sound example is not kicking, maybe that’s the reason why I have problem with choosing the proper one. I can choose both speeds
28. October 2008 at 18:15
132
28. October 2008 at 19:20
I have to second V-12.
Definitely not my cup of tea - so hard to tell.
28. October 2008 at 19:34
134
28. October 2008 at 19:37
I like the 136 bpm version much more.
28. October 2008 at 21:16
132
28. October 2008 at 23:06
136
29. October 2008 at 00:27
below 132.
29. October 2008 at 11:02
132, ist ein wenig besser.
Da rauschen die Einzelheiten nicht so an einem vorbei.
29. October 2008 at 11:47
132… definetly!
29. October 2008 at 12:30
I’d also prefer 132 bpm
29. October 2008 at 23:30
136 sounds better
30. October 2008 at 20:42
<=132
30. October 2008 at 21:46
155!!!!
no, maybe ill try out 134…
30. October 2008 at 22:24
155!!!
the energy of all the two snippets would be at least doubled
A dream comes true
ähm..okay, 134 would be a compromise
31. October 2008 at 00:25
I prefer 132 bpm.
31. October 2008 at 10:03
my vote is 136 bpm! Also, I’d add a huge clap/snare to the groove and paralell comp them with the VCA VU…it would kick ass!!!
Regards,
boka
31. October 2008 at 22:18
132 is perfect!
01. November 2008 at 12:07
136 BPM please
01. November 2008 at 12:22
hi rolf!
i would take the 132 bpm version.
the 136 bpm version “sounds” like “ich habs grad eilig”, like running after a leaving train, trying to catch it.
the 132 bpm version males the audience feel comfortable.
“eile mit weile”
01. November 2008 at 15:11
136
thank you for universe of love
02. November 2008 at 13:31
Wenn man die selbe Sequenz paar mall hintereinander anhört und dann die andere, dann hort sich die andere immer komisch an – hört man aber die wieder und wieder an und dann wieder die erste, so hört sich die erste komisch. Also man gewöhnt sich an jedes Tempo.
Da es für mich eher Abteilung (Chillig) fällt würd ich 132 nehmen, und du gewinnst an Zeit im Track – aus dem Grund, so faul ich bin – würd ich es nehmen.
03. November 2008 at 00:26
132 passt gut, aber wie mein vorredner schon sagt, man gewöhnt sich eh dran.
03. November 2008 at 15:06
132… sounds good.
04. November 2008 at 10:19
In it’s present form, I’ll take the 132 BPM.
If the track had been a little bit more “dark”, a faster BPM would have been more appropriate, perhaps…
Bu really, there’s no big difference hearing the 2 samples. Maybe in the whole song’s context, the difference would be more perceptible.
04. November 2008 at 22:41
hmm hard to say when u listen to the first (132) Version and then listen to the ohter it sounds speed up… (like 132 was original tempo)
like mitternacht… 
but i would say what about a compromie make a normal version and a remix in an other temno
04. November 2008 at 23:39
Grüß Dich Rolf, ist doch mehr als eindeutig, dass sich der Track nur bei den 132 bpm so richtig entfaltet und man jede Kleinigkeit zu hören bekommt. Je schneller, desto mehr Töne gehen hier an einem vorbei d.h. verloren. Also nur die 132ger Entscheidung ist die richtige. Gruß…
05. November 2008 at 00:00
Definitely 132, 136 sounds too rushed. Maybe even <132 would be an option.
05. November 2008 at 01:27
hej! for me the 132 bpm fits more to my ears, its more harmonic to the sound.
05. November 2008 at 22:55
At first glance, er listen, the 136BPM one indeed seems a bit too rushed for the sound. However, after relistening, I got used to the faster rhythm so I guess it all depends on the intro in the finished song. Make that faster and the 136BPM one would be just as natural as the 132BPM one. For me, it’s a tie
08. November 2008 at 16:19
I would prefer the beat 136…there is not much difference, but with closed eyes, 136 “feels” better…
Greetz from Stuttgart
11. November 2008 at 15:21
I think there’s not a big difference. If I think about speed, it’s usually in steps of 10.
I’m a musical child of the early 90’s, so I usually prefer faster electro tracks. But if it shall become a nice relaxing track (the bells would fit there), I would choose 132.
12. November 2008 at 11:49
132 works better for me. 136 is just the tiny little tad too fast
15. November 2008 at 17:34
132 ganz klar!
17. November 2008 at 17:07
so for now its 21:8 for 132bpm… sounds like a demographic advise to me
01. December 2008 at 01:11
i’d also prefer 132 - imagining a great song growing out of this snippet.
28. December 2008 at 23:19
132. Think it’s better than the other. Definitely.