The song Dare you to move has quite an interesting play of syncopation. It makes you feel as if the music is in compound meter.
so in 4/2 It would look like that
however,in 4/4 it would be something different altogether. well, on the surface, not so much you're just adding bar lines.
however, if you look at the text, ahh.. now there's a difference.
Now when we look at this intro and 1st verse with text, it becomes a little clearer now.
Here, in the 1st stanza of the verse, we have an asymmetrical period that is interestingly
Which doesn't look very 'correct' in terms of the harmonic progression until you realise it's actually just a whole Tonic expansion
when you look at the BIG picture of the 1st verse, you then see
an interesting feature is the difference in bar 17 and 29. bar 17 uses F#m which is ii 7 while bar 29 uses Em which is i 6.
Tonicization? More like chromatic decoration I would suppose.
I'll post more soon. Haha
'cos I need to analyse other stuff 1st -.-'''
oh yes and write some 4th Species counterpoint. HAIZ...
Joel, interesting experiment with the time signature, but before you make meaningful observations, please clarify your understanding of compound meters. Then ask yourself if there is any difference between notating it as 4/4 and as 4/2 (for the performer, for the listener, and perhaps for the songwriter).
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to analyze this song hypermetrically.
As for the phrase structure, ask yourself what in essence is a period (in the classical sense) then re-examine/hear the phrase relations here.
The harmonic dissonances are worth commenting on (i.e. not just label but consider their expressive effects). Also, look at the whole song to consider to what extent classical tonality applies here.
I guess a compound meter is how beats can be divided into different groupings in a bar. for example 6/8 can be grouped in 2's or 3's.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how the opening phrase is 3+3+3+3+4 it feels as if it is in compound meter (16/8)
Unless I have understood the term wrongly and hence the misrepresentation of the word.
Metrically, it should be in 4/2 as it would then add up to the 'correct' 8 bar pop phrase.
rather than starting suddenly in the middle on bar 2 (I now feel it should be 2/2 instead), it would be more appropriate to start on bar 1's upbeat (4/2).
moreover, for the listener and the songwriter, not only would the song feel slower, it also gives a lighter feel. a good effect on the play with the words:
welcome to the planet,
welcome to existence
It plays along with the feel like hey you've just woken up everyone's here.
however, I feel for the singer, it would make more sense that he starts on the down beat of the bar, rather than the upbeat.
yet the hypermeter would shift drastically.
Hypermetrically as in
Inst:1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 (overlap)
Voice:.....................1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2
Voice(cont):1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3('extra bar' to complete the 8 bar groupings)
If I were to reanalyse the piece (as I've heard it close to 50 times now)
It would be C#m7 E5 E Esus2 A5
and interestingly I've heard an inner voice part that goes C# B E D# A
Since a Classical (or neo-classical, as Dr Eugene would rather label it,) period is made up of an Antecedent phrase which ends on a HC or IAC and a Consequent phrase that ends on a PAC.
so, with the reanalysis, it can be seen that the progression would go
Antecedent: (vi I I7 I I4)x2 ii4 IV
Consequent: (vi I I7 I I4)x2 i6/5 V4 - I(chorus)
in the skeletal sense (ignoring the 4s due to the open B and E strings of the guitar) it is rather close to the classical period. And to some extent I believe that classical tonality applies here. This would be the explanation of the G-natural instead of F# hence i6/5 instead of ii4, creating a more complete closure of i6/5-V-I as compared to ii-IV-V (which is not very typical 'classical' cadence)
Joel, compound time implies that the beat is subdivisible into three, as opposed to the duple subdivision in simple time, e.g. 3/4 is 1+2+3+ (simple time) whereas 6/8 is 1++2++ (compound time). In this case, the intro involved dotted crotchets that create a syncopated feel against the simple quadruple metre, each of these note values are 1 1/2 beats long, the moment you heard them as 1++, they are no longer syncopated.
ReplyDeleteYour spotting the hypermetric overlap is good, but I'm not sure if I would interpret it as a hypermetric reinterpretation. The chorus, esp., gives the feeling of the vocal phrases coming in on the 2nd and 4th hyperbeat; the guitar accented strummed chords sound like 1st and 3rd hyperbeats to my ears, and the whole song ends with a complete hypermeasure if you heard it that way.
Not sure about your harmonic analysis. The version I heard has a prolonged use of E maj chord, no C#m, in the opening verse.
Re the period, are you sure you have not misquoted Dr Eugene? There is a neoclassical period in music history (with its associated styles) but not neo-classical period as in a phrase structure label. Your ensuing discussion seems to conflate the two meanings. In any case, the verse sounds more like pairs of repeating phrases rather than a simple period; the chorus does start with a recognizable classical phrase structure (can you identify it?).
Your point about ii-IV-V is also erroneous: IV-V is a common classical cadence, you probably mean ii-IV to be a less common classical progression (not the cadence).
I was using the MV version: http://youtu.be/iOTcr9wKC-o
ReplyDeleteThe chorus does start with a sentence:
Dare you to move; short x2
Dare you to lift yourself up off the floor; long
and interestingly, the hypermeter of the chorus starts on the 3rd hyper beat from the verse before.
so if we continue the hypermeter from the verse
...12123
voice....12121234
inst.........12121234
so there's sort of a displacement in there. however, when it reaches the bar with a rest beat in the instrumental part (lyrics: Today never happened >BEFORE<)
it seems as if the instrumental hypermeter is stopped at 1231(guitar resumes the syncopated strumming).
oh yes and my part about the common classical cadence I mistyped it. I was actually meaning ii-IV-vi. If it is the other version which is ii-IV-I, then yes, it is a 'proper' cadence which emphasises my point about it being a weaker close than the final PAC.
Yes they do sound like repeated phrases but if my analysis is right can I say the consequent phrase imitates the antecedent phrase? since the cadences are different.