Unintentional field study: The Beggar Duck

This post started off as a goof on several levels, but quickly became far more interesting than expected. It began with my mild obsession with this web discovery last week: ducks wearing dog masks. Today I had the opportunity to capture video, and the visual effect is, to me, pretty stunning and hilarious:

I posted this on Facebook, and my college friend Matt jokingly (?) suggested I transcribe the duck sounds. So I thought why not? It didn't take long to realize that the duck isn't quacking randomly. It's almost a sort of Morse code, with short and long notes:

I used a sort of inflected 4/4 time because it's convenient. The measures of "1/16" could be notated as ritards, perhaps, but I like trying to keep it steady. That feels a little more honest.

I actually took two videos today; the other is pretty similar:

This is far from my area of expertise, but there seems to be some sort of pattern. Is this related to what a duck learns as a duckling, expressing hunger? Or is it simply "Look at this chump with a camera phone. Let's scam some stale bread out of him!" (For the record: I do NOT feed the ducks. I'm a good citizen.)

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.

Yeah, what Arto said.

"Listen to the Ambitious Lovers, the whole idea was Al Green and samba. That against this; this against that; a blend, a juxtaposition, loud/soft. There's no particular point in putting these things together. The point is what comes out in the end."
-Arto Lindsay, 2000 (full interview here)

Very well said. I like to think a lot of my music works in this way. He continues:

"To me, it doesn’t make it interesting just to do something for the sake of doing it—like a disco beat with a Muslim singer [not so pc today -RG] on top. Does it sound great? Does it make me feel different? Is it a shock like a cold shower? Does it clean my ears out? We’re coming out of a period now in which juxtaposition has been an end in itself."

Besides what I believe is an amazing diss of Sting's "Desert Rose" (which the interviewer either didn't catch or decided not to touch), he's so right on. It's not enough to slap disparate elements together. Rather, does interesting music result from this juxtaposition? Is there something that comes about because these elements have been set in relief? Or is it just a novelty, a sort of postmodern, collage cop out?

Anyway. Arto is great, and clearly a deep, comprehensive listener.

Be more constructive with your feedback

I hear the word "cheesy" used quite frequently to describe music, especially pop music of the '80s. I even hear this from the mouths of musicians, even though it is an inherently dismissive and uncritical way to describe music. This is not to be confused with another demographic, the younger (than me) group that loves the '80s ironically ("wow, this is SO eighties!"). This type of surface, non-musical enjoyment is not exclusive to 20-somethings in DayGlo t-shirts and ugly high-top sneakers, of course. The packaging of popular music is and always will be the thing that attracts "listeners."

For this essay, I'm making a proposal to a different group: people, especially musicians, that claim to be music lovers, yet are still inclined to dismiss huge chunks of music as "cheesy" without any explanation. I've compiled a list of what I think most people mean when they say "Oh, I can't stand the '80s...that music is so cheesy."

-"I do not like the sound of early digital recording technologies and techniques."
    -"Digital reverb is too cold and brittle for my taste."
    -"I prefer the warmer sound of analog guitar effects." ("Why does Andy Summers use that out-of-tune chorus sound all the time?")
    -"I don't like the way the drums were recorded, generally speaking. Gated reverb is not for me."
    -"I prefer the sound of analog monophonic synths to the thin-sounding digital synths of the '80s."

-"The singers are all so insincerely sincere and overly emotive."

-"I don't like the sound of electric bass with chorus. Or guitar with chorus. Or drums with flanger, for that matter."

Those are possibilities. More often it's the following:

-"I am distracted by the fashions and styles present in early music videos. So much, in fact, I am unable to take the music seriously."

-"I grew up in that era. I liked real New Wave. You know, not The Police. Madonna was always just pop junk to me. Dead Kennedys!"

That's what people mean by "cheesy." I just wish they would be more specific. "Cheesy" is meaningless in this context. It's not even correct, by definition. "Outmoded" or "unfashionable," perhaps. Either way, dismissing an entire decade of songs based on haircuts or production values is unfortunate. It's a bit like saying you don't like Buddy Holly because his glasses seem like an affectation, or because the kick drum really doesn't cut through the mix on those Bill Haley records. And don't get me started on all that Phil Spector junk...man, let's throw everyone in a room with a couple mics...what a mess...so cheesy...and don't get me started on The Supremes and their cheesy hairdos...and didn't Bach look stupid in that wig?

I do understand the charges against some of the "digital-ness" from that decade. Producers were embracing new gear that was sometimes more reliable and easier to use (or sometimes just for newness sake) at the expense of "tone," which is subjective at best...the analog revival is now well into its second decade. But to ignore great songcraft just because there's a synth patch or guitar tone that makes you cringe seems very unfortunate.

Stravinsky invented the rock beat in 1913

In a piece that is strongly identified with and by ostinatos, the "Procession of the oldest and wisest one" section of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring is the standout, both in terms of density and number of patterns present.

In 20 measures of music (about 40 seconds) Stravinsky combines a BUNCH of patterns (I forget the exact count, and a count is tricky because some are doubled); the following pattern in the percussion is the foundation. The bass drum and tam-tam start before this; the guiro enters at measure 13 (:20) of the section:

When I was studying this as an undergraduate, I made the (typical) mistake of getting lost in the score without listening enough. If you just look at the score, it appears that the percussion instruments are playing "against" the steady eighth notes in the rest of the orchestra. It is actually notated in 4/4 at the beginning of the section, making its significance on paper even less clear:

What is actually taking place is this: the eighth notes are triplets when heard against the percussion. The boom/crash that is set up by the bass drum and tam-tam is further supported by the scraping of the guiro. What is notated like this:

is heard as this:

Which brings me to the drum beat. If you substitute the tam-tam with snare drum and the guiro with hi-hat it sure sounds and looks a lot like this:

a "characteristic drum beat" from Wikipedia

So to me, the "Procession" sounds like a whole bunch of triplets over a huge back beat. Because that's essentially what it is. The notation is slick and misleading, but the effect is very plain.

She's Gone: a clarification

I need to make a correction and a clarification to my post concerning the lack of a tonic triad in "She's Gone." While it's true there are no authentic cadences, and there are no root position tonic triads, the second chord of the verse is a first inversion I chord (I6, or "E/G#" before the modulation), a passing chord from IV to ii. The same bass motion in "I'm Just a Kid" uses IV, iii, and ii.

I'd also like to mention that the "V sussy" sound is more accurately described as an A chord with a B in the bass ("A/B"). This is a sus7 type sound, yes, but its voicing and (non)resolution (the A triad moves up to a B triad in parallel motion) make the "A over B" label much more descriptive and accurate. And it's easy to play on the guitar.

And I just learned that "I'm Just a Kid" was the B-side for "She's Gone." I am pleased by this.

Have you ever really checked out the bridge to "Oh, Pretty Woman"?

I love Roy Orbison. His songs, his voice, his image and stage presence, etc. Songs like "It's Over," "Crying," "Only the Lonely," "In Dreams," and "Leah" are incredibly well-crafted pieces of melodrama, great songs with great vocals. I've always found "Oh, Pretty Woman" (yes, that's the real title) easy to dismiss. Perhaps I've heard it too many times, perhaps it was that Julia Roberts movie. But it seemed like a throwaway. Then I decided to take a closer listen to the bridge. Oh my.

Can we even call this a bridge? Is there even a chorus? It's almost more accurate to call it through-composed. There are verses, certainly, but then there's this long, two-part "bridge" for lack of a better word. No matter what you label it, the harmony is really interesting both in how it relates to the rest of the song and between the two bridge sections.

First, the move to C major from A major is pretty drastic, especially for a hit like this in 1964. It's interesting to note that C major is the relative major of the parallel minor, A minor. Got that? It comes into play moving into the second section of the bridge. The first section is a simple ii-V-I-vi-ii-V-I progression in C major, coming out of the signature E7 arpeggio bass line pretty much unprepared (though the bass line does feature E-D heavily). Simple as it is, you can also hear it as the doo-wop formula (I, vi, ii or IV, V) displaced by two measures.

As interesting as this new local tonic is, the way he gets back to A major is what really gets me. At the end of the line "Pretty woman say you'll stay with me...eeee" the pitch C rises to C sharp over an A major triad. This moment is so great: are we heading back to D? Is this a secondary dominant? What is this chord about? And then he goes to F sharp minor for the line "Cause I need you"! This is so brilliant! What a bizarre deceptive cadence. Listen to it...that A chord does two things: sets up a vague anticipation that we just might be going back to another D chord AND gets the song back to A major, EXCEPT IT'S EARLY AND COMPLETELY UNPREPARED! By the time the A tonic triad arrives again with "Come with me..." its character has changed completely. Somehow, we are firmly back in the land of A major...EXCEPT THE IV CHORDS ARE MINOR! The D minor chords from the first part of the bridge stay through the second section, though the A chord manages to be the comfy home. The transitional A chord before it is totally uneasy and weird sounding. Isn't it amazing what a good songwriter can do with EXACTLY the same chord in such a short span of time? And doesn't the music just sail on through those two keys? So effective.

The bridge ends with, once again, the doo-wop formula progression I, vi, IV, V, except the D chords are minor, not major. The verses, which I've ignored until now, are also based on the doo-wop progression, a sort of elongated and otherwise adjusted version. Just goes to show you that an understanding, assimilation, and mastery of materials is of primary importance in creative work, no matter how banal the materials are.

Oh, and the second part of the "bridge"? 10 measures long: 3+3+4. So unusual, but completely smooth and slick. So slick I've never noticed it until now. I need to stop, I keep finding new stuff.

Two more comments:
The verses of this song have one 2 beat measure each. Unless you're counting in two, but that doesn't make much sense. Listen for the IV chord.

John Zorn's Naked City uses this classic bass line, in D, as the foundation for their arrangement of Ornette Coleman's "Lonely Woman." Cute, right?

Holy crap, "She's Gone" doesn't have a I chord, either.

That means that there are two songs, back-to-back, on the Abandoned Luncheonette album that don't have an authentic cadence. In fact, neither song has a tonic chord AT ALL. This is amazing to me. "I'm Just a Kid" dodges the tonic over and over. "She's Gone" seems to substitute a sustained Vsus to V pattern for the I chord.

I get excited about things like this. Judge me as necessary. But this is nervy, risky songwriting.

I prefer the longer, album version, and this audio is junk. but the video is too good.

It is possible to enjoy the music sincerely AND goof on the haircuts.

A few years ago I decided to create sounds (using electric bass and effects) that were inspired by analog synthesizers, especially the Moog bass on Stevie Wonder's Innervisions album and Herbie Hancock's Arp synth bass on "Chameleon." I've had varying degrees of success, both mimicking these sounds and creating new ones. I've used many different effects, done a lot of fussing with settings, used different instruments. Then yesterday I discovered this track and kind of felt like a dumbass, because Pino Palladino gets such a clear, full sound using, from what I can tell, a fretless bass with a lot of high end eq-wise, a little bit of chorus, and a Boss OC-2 octave pedal. It was humbling to hear this track for the first time. Humbling to hear him nail this sort of sound nearly 30 years ago on what could have been a totally forgettable pop track.

A few thoughts:

-Isn't it fun to watch an entire band "lip synch"?
-Is that mic stand made of copper pipe? Jesus, that must be HEAVY!
-I am going to learn every one of the guitarist's sweet, sweet moves.
-I think every synthesizer should be programmed to a default "ugly orchestra hit" patch whenever you slap at it from at least two feet. That would be terrific.
-Why is the other keyboard player so sweaty? Or is he just moisturizing some new ink?
-But seriously...how is it possible that his first generation Boss octave pedal tracks better than my new one? That's ridiculous.
-Without the octave effect his playing would annoy me--too much treble, chorus, wide vibrato--gross (like Paul Young's version of "Everytime You Go Away"--YIKES. Listen to the Hall & Oates version instead.). But with the octave it's juicy synth-town. Love it. And I do give a certain allowance for the meow-bass in 80's pop music (see Duran Duran).
-"Meow-bass" deserves it's own blog entry.
-This video fades just as the bass really takes over. I recommend finding a higher quality audio and checking it out. I do love this one a lot. Do yourself a favor--turn off your 80's irony brain and just love it. Great pop music that happens to be all about the bass. It is possible to enjoy the music sincerely AND goof on the haircuts.