Free Groove
by rachMiel

Rhythm is everywhere. Just close your eyes and listen. Sounds succeed one another, sometimes separated, sometimes overlapping. A honk of a horn, children’s voices, a hammer blow, church bells, all underlaid by the drone of traffic. This is rhythm: a procession of sonic events in time.

Groove, defined conventionally, is a rhythm whose notes conform time-wise to a periodic pulse grid that specifies which beats are permitted and which are verboten. You can tease the grid, play ahead of it, play behind it, speed it up, slow it down, syncopate. But you must respect it and, ultimately, adhere to it. This is particularly true in dance music, where stepping outside the grid is like breaking a sacred contract between composer and audience.

I would like to expand the definition of groove to include any rhythm that “swings” – that has vitality, complexity, intelligence, musicality, beauty. For example: the rhythm of spoken language (conversation and recitation), the rhythm of abstract electronic soundscapes (think: Kontakte), the rhythm of freeform improvisation (Phil Durrant), the rhythm of aperiodic natural phenomena (a forest, thunderstorm, city street), and so on.

I would like to propose that rhythms which obey a periodic grid (pulse, meter, etc.) be called groove, and that rhythms that don’t be called free groove. And, finally, I would like to ask all of you to please (please!) view these two approaches as points on a groove continuum, rather than two opposing camps.