hrj: (Default)
hrj ([personal profile] hrj) wrote2009-05-28 10:26 pm

Music to my ears

I desperately need to put together some new exercise playlists in iTunes. Currently I have 12 half-hour sets -- that is, half an hour plus an additional cool-down song -- although not all of them are for everyday use. (The "marches" playlist is for light days, since I can't get a full 500-cal workout out of a 120 bpm tempo.) I don't like using the same set more than once a week, and even at that I tend to rotate them out of use after a month or so. It's interesting seeing which bands and performers fit my needs best. The Beatles come in three speeds: way too slow, right in my zone, and brief sprints only. The Carpenters are great: a nice variety of speeds within my overall required range (roughly 130-180 bpm) and a good solid beat (duh!), similarly Paul McCartney, also Simon & Garfunkel. ABBA has just barely enough to cobble a set together: mostly too fast or too slow. Carly Simon, way too slow; Eagles, alas, ditto. Elton John, solidly in the zone. Heart: a few at the slow end but nothing in mid-zone. Gordon Lightfoot, a couple in mid-zone but mostly way up in sprint territory. Queen has a nice range of tempos but I'm working mostly from a live album and the tempo consistency and intro material is a problem. Some favorite performers just never quite hit the mark: Steeleye Span is all at barely-warming-up speeds, Plethyn's all way too slow, any entirely too many great bands are enamored of constant tempo changes. Hmm, looks like I have enough tempos plotted out to put together a Beach Boys set. It's a starting place, anyway.
loup_noir: (Default)

[personal profile] loup_noir 2009-05-29 04:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Stuck in the seventies and eighties, eh? You're looking for singer/songwriter stuff only?

[identity profile] hrj.livejournal.com 2009-05-30 02:27 am (UTC)(link)
Keep in mind that my requirements for exercise music are much narrower than my requirements for general listening music. In addition to the tempo requirements, it has to be a piece I know like the back of my hand because the more familiar I am with a piece, the better it creates time-slippage whereby the song exists both in eternity and in an instant. I use the "instant" function for exercising rather than the "eternity" function. So while I have a few performers in the exercise playlists that I've become relatively recent fans of (like Melissa Etheridge, the Dixie Chicks, et al.), the vast majority of songs that fit the criteria are going to be ones I've been listening to for a long time. Another reason I stick with very familiar music is the "no drastic tempo changes" aspect -- unless I know the song well, I don't know what the tempo profile is likely to be. There are a lot of songs even by 70s & 80s performers in my files where I'm uncertain of the tempo profile so I haven't put them in a set yet.

[identity profile] visc-lore.livejournal.com 2009-05-29 05:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Yea, seventies and eighties! The last time any really good music was written/recorded, IMHO ;-)

and yea for your dedication to working out. I'm impressed.

[identity profile] hrj.livejournal.com 2009-05-30 02:32 am (UTC)(link)
CS&N tend to fall in the "too fast or too slow" category, based on the songs I've timed. My general experience has been that the British folk-rock genre tend to fall in the 110-130 bpm range, which is very little use to me. But I'll check some of these out. But see also my comments to loupnoir.

[identity profile] gunnora.livejournal.com 2009-05-30 03:43 am (UTC)(link)
I like some of the amplified folk. GBS and Tears for Beers etc really pace the folk music fast, so they're the familiar songs, but with more modern arrangements and sometimes very fast tempi.

I wish I could have found a video of Dust Rhinos doing "Mary Mac" - that's my favorite exercise piece ever. You can listen to the MP3 here