Say WHAT?!: bassline telephone

I had no idea what I was getting myself into today. Someone suggested a Chic "Good Times"/Sugarhill Gang "Rapper's Delight" bassline tutorial after my "Cissy Strut" post, and I thought HA, sure, I've always wanted to learn that actual line, myself.

But there was a catch I hadn't expected: the lines aren't the same! I never knew that!

I always thought that "Rapper's Delight" (RD from now on) used a sample of "Good Times" (GT), but no--RD is pre-sampling era. The RD Wikipedia entry discusses it a bit, but the basic story is that the producer paid then 17 year old bassist Chip Shearin $70 to play the GT bassline for 15 minutes (I've seen this referred to as "interpolation"). This raises some very interesting questions, doesn't it? I'm not inclined to start an "authenticity" discussion here, but it does make me wonder--Which is more "authentic": a sample or a recreation of a track using studio performers? Guess it depends on what you mean by "authentic."

I'll leave that line of inquiry to others. But I do wonder about the differences. Were they deliberate? The RD line is a little less syncopated, most notably in measure 2. One of the things that makes Bernard Edwards' line so special is that he doesn't play on downbeats other than in the first measure of the pattern. His playing is also free of the time-keeping ghost/percussive notes in Chip Shearin's performance, and he was clearly recorded using top-notch studio gear (he sounds GREAT on this record).

Is the RD line straightened out on purpose, or is it simply a case of misremembering on Chip Shearin's part? Perhaps learning the line quickly? I'm not sure why the line would be changed deliberately, though the somewhat more "straight" bassline may have been easier for the rappers, and certainly their "flow" is typical of very early hip-hop: straighter, more on the beat. I don't think dodging copyright issues comes into play, because I don't think anyone thought much about it at the time, and the line is almost identical to, and certainly recognizable as, the GT line. I'm inclined to believe it's a case of a young player learning a line quickly and/or simplifying it to something he could easily recreate for 15 minutes error-free.

So this helps explain why a not-so-easy line to begin with is never played "right"--it's like a game of telephone! Like a friend of mine put it (and I hope he doesn't mind the quote): "[these] new performances spread like memes, and all semblance of the "original" is lost!" Not unlike "Cissy Strut".

And as it turns out, Chic's Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards made out just fine after threatening a law suit. This short interview is cool. And can you imagine going to a Clash/Blondie/Chic show?!

Simple is hard

"Cissy Strut" by The Meters is one of those tunes. A back pocket tune. A time killer at a gig. A tune so seemingly simple that it's easy to just not learn how to play it "right." And by right, I mean the original version. And the more I listen to it and the more I think about it, the more right it gets. It's so, well, funky. And it's so sparse. And the second riff is so straight! I love that.

I know, I know. It's a simple riff-based tune. Variations galore. Scofield and Lovano can do whatever the hell they want. But it's still important, I think, to know the material you're working with. And I didn't until very recently: I played extra notes, played the first riff totally minor pentatonic, totally missed the A. Embarrassing.

This tune is overdone. And overdone badly. It's great to hear how good the original is.

Along these lines, Ethan Iverson has a great post here about Monk's "Well You Needn't"--similar issues and lots of great discussion.

And if anyone is interested in the curious title "Cissy Strut" this looks great. Honestly, I've only skimmed it, but it's very interesting stuff.

"linear tonics": "She's Gone" and "Jane Says" revisited

I want to introduce the notion of a "linear tonic": a melody that states the tonic chord in the place of any "vertical" harmonic statements of the tonic. I'm sure there is a precedent for this in analysis, but I have never encountered it. Any unharmonized melody is related to this--solo renditions of The Star-Spangled Banner are perhaps the most common example in this country. Bad performances aside, there's never any doubt what the tonic is, provided the singer is competent and has steady pitch. We've heard the tune thousands of times, perhaps, and often with instrumental accompaniment that gives us all the cues we need to hear and know the key. Gregorian chant is another related example.

But what happens when all of the tonal elements are taken apart and put back together in a somewhat incomplete way? More specifically, what happens when the composer/songwriter takes the harmonic tonic (I chord) out of the picture completely, and instead projects the tonic linearly in the melody? And even more radically, what happens when this "linear tonic" occurs simultaneously with other non-tonic harmonies? That is exactly what happens in the examples cited below.

Perhaps it was my recent Daryl Hall sighting that got me thinking about this again. But it occurred to me that these two tunes have more in common than I originally thought. It's true that both lack a root position I chord (in the case of "Jane Says," no tonic chord at all), but they also share a striking structural similarity: the verse of "She's Gone" and most of "Jane Says" consist of what can be interpreted as a IV-V vamp, overlaid with a melody that is clearly based around the "unheard" tonic I. I'll start with the simpler tune:

I've discussed this in a previous post; my basic assertion is that the tune is in D major, the harmony consists of a IV-V vamp, and the tonic is projected linearly over the top of it. I honestly can't imagine another way to hear/see/think it.

My recent revelation was that the verse of "She's Gone" is very similar, with the added oddity of the B pedal in the bass:

Hall & Oates "She's Gone," verse, IV-V over B

I recently had a conversation with a friend whose thoughts and opinions on music I value very highly, and he said "Well, I always heard some sort of flat VII to I thing here." No. NO NO NO. And this is why: listen to and look at the tune! It's so clearly E major! It's more sophisticated than the Jane's Addiction example but it's the same thing at work: a linear tonic over a IV-V vamp. The chorus makes it even more amazing:

HOLY CRAP WHAT IS THAT AMAZING CHORD AT THE END OF THE CHORUS?! An Amaj9/B?! Again, no. NO NO NO. It's actually the closest thing we get to a tonic chord (besides the passing I6). It's as if the tonic E triad gets stuck after being hinted at up to this point, and it gets suspended over the vague A/B sound, which carries into the next verse. An A major sound, for sure, but far more accurate to hear the layers involved. And it's so crafty in terms of structure: an E triad sounding at the same time as that A/B sound, which almost functions as a "tonic by proxy." And not a coincidence that the lyrics are "What went wrong?" at this moment. It might be a simplistic interpretation on my part, but I appreciate that this lyrical uncertainty (is there ever an easy answer to that one?) is set with a totally non-functional, gorgeous, ambiguous chord.

So linear tonics. I think it's the best way to hear some things. Here's one more:

Fleetwood Mac, "Dreams": A minor, mostly a VI-VII vamp

Not quite A flat

Attention Police fans/total dorks/people that like finding answers to obscure trivia online (I know I'm not the only one that fulfills all three):

Why was "Every Breath You Take" recorded at around A=425Hz? That's closer to A flat than A. I don't believe there's another track on Synchronicity like that, and for such a "produced" album with so much new technology this seems very odd.

-Were they tuning to the piano?
-Were they finding a sweet spot for Sting's voice?
-Did they just slow the whole thing down a little? That can't be.

That's really all I've got. One friend suggested they did it for "smoothitude." A good answer, for sure, but not the one I'm looking for.

This isn't the sort of question that will keep me up at night. But it will prevent me from doing laundry, all for the sake of "research." So please, do me and anyone that comes in contact with me a favor and help me out with this.

And for the heck of it...you should watch the video. It hasn't aged well.

So broodity. So Sting-ity.

I love it when the music and video are clearly out of synch, like Andy Summers at 1:07. Oopsie! And Flea's left hand from 3:57 to the end of this one.

Give It Away

It seems like SOMEONE along the way could have synched that up. Man, that band has been putting out wussy junk for a solid 20 years!

But I digress. Any real input on this Police issue would be welcome. Or more out of synch videos. That would be ok, too.

OK harmonic analysis of Radiohead's "Exit Music (For a Film)"

One of Radiohead's more melodramatic tunes is "Exit Music (For a Film)" from the album OK Computer (please pardon any political advertising on YouTube...though the fact that "CommunistNihilist" has political ads attached to his/her video is very funny to me). This song lends itself to "classical" analysis, and is great for the end of first-year theory. It was supposedly "inspired" by Chopin's Prelude No. 4, though to my ears it's not all that similar besides the sol-le-sol element of the tune and the big sussy appoggiatura ending. The mood isn't the same, either. The Wikipedia entry for this tune suggests Electric Light Orchestra's instrumental "After All" as an influence; there are certainly melodic similarities, and both "Exit Music" and "After All" feature the move from a minor tonic to parallel major.

And while we're talking trivia, this is the Chopin Prelude that Jack Nicholson plays in Five Easy Pieces.

For music folks reading this (especially theory teachers), "Exit Music" has great examples of modal mixture, a secondary dominant, a Neopolitan (in function, if not an "N6", and I also like how the A minor chord foreshadows it), very clear non-chord tones in the vocal melody, and Picardy thirds (a sort of modal mixture, really).

I'd also like to mention that the first time I heard the fuzz bass come in I totally freaked out.

Sometimes it's foolish to try to analyze this sort of music in this way. But not this time. Here's my one-page kinda rough reduction and analysis (sorry that the figured bass is ugly).

Why does Appetite For Destruction kick so much ass?

Here are ten reasons why Guns N' Roses Appetite For Destruction kicks a great deal of ass.

1) tight, tight, tight arrangements
2) Axl Rose at his best
3) Slash is brilliant throughout.
4) unabashed lyrics about drugs and sex
5) The guitar arranging/production is on-par with that of Malcolm and Angus Young on Back In Black, which is BRILLIANT stuff. The placement in the stereo field and the contrasting tones? My gosh. I'm not sure this kind of guitar playing happens anymore.
6) The sequence of tracks is near perfect.
7) This album has "Welcome To the Jungle," "Mr.Brownstone," "Paradise City," AND "Sweet Child O'Mine"! Seriously?!
8) The other tracks are varying levels of great, too. "You're Crazy" is a standout.
9) "Mr. Brownstone" is a masterpiece. It will be getting an entry of its own.
10) I have a guitar tuned down a half-step just so I can play along with this album.

I welcome your input. But seriously. What an album.

A guitar is not a fashion accessory

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. But recently I've experienced more "acoustic guitar as fashion accessory" incidents. And I find this troubling. You know what I mean: acoustic guitars, often festooned with punk band stickers, slung ever-so-nonchalantly and carelessly over shoulders. I hear them played sometimes, but usually a guitar is just a super-cool backpack. That doesn't carry anything.

What am I supposed to think? That you're cool? Are you trying to impress ME? Well. I suppose not. But even a 16-year-old girl (your intended audience?) can't be THAT impressed.

Why does this bother me so much? Because I've spent a lot of time learning how to play. And I have a lot of friends that can play the shit out of the guitar.

Is it just envy? That you and your acoustic guitar over your back can get any sort of attention? Eh. Maybe. Maybe I need to think on this. All I can say for sure is that whenever I see you walking around with a guitar on your back (Did YOU pay for that guitar, kid? Jesus, I'd NEVER let a precious piece of property dangle like that!), I just think two things: 1) Can you play that thing?, and 2) Just carry it around in a case. Asshole.