Did you read my first reply?
That would seem to impy that I listened to your example. I still don’t know what you’re trying to describe–that’s why I’m asking for clarification.
Sorry I’m not better at explaining.
OK, I threw together a MIDI file in a hurry as a counterexample. (Let’s quickly bracket off any discussion of what sounds good vs. lousy, well-executed, etc…I could do this much better if I was where my piano is instead of dragging lines around on a computer screen…I’m well aware that it sounds bloody awful and too rushed and my own timing is off). I used a 3, 3, 2 in 8 syncopation.
If (without going into the details of exactly what I’m doing and exactly what Madonna et al are doing beat by beat in the comparable measures) I wanted in a broad general way to refer to the Madonna-esque pattern so as to distinguish it from syncopation such as in this example, how would I do that?
Part of the problem here is that I don’t know how to describe in words what it is that I’m requesting descriptive terms for. Heck, if I had descriptive terms for it, I wouldn’t need to ask the question, now would I? Anyway, thanks for your patience. Maybe this will help:
Okay - I listened to your counterexample. Sounds like “double-timing” to me - you start with a straight beat, then double-up the pace (while keeping the essential speed of the fundamental beats) for some parts.
In my band, we often double-time out of a song - so if we are repeating a chorus in the normal time on our way out of a song, our drummer then begins hitting every beat hard instead of every other beat to build the tension to a climactic outro.
Hearing a shift to double-time in the middle of a melodic phrase, to my ear, is NOT that common. It is tiring for a listener to pull back and forth like that.
Word, man. Double-timing. Quadruple-timing. Octuple-timing, etc. Like I said, subdividing the beat by the exponents of 2.
“the vatican roulette.”
But, folks, I’m not asking what to call the counterexample. I know what to call the counterexample: “syncopated”. I could make a version that doesn’t double-up the pace but which still has dotted eighths, still bounces along 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2 in every eight-beat section.
Question is what to call the original example. And “not syncopated” doesn’t cut it. The first measure (the part that’s the same in the original example and the counterexample) is also not syncopated. I’m specifically asking “What do you call the sequence of relatively fast tonal events that follows the four long notes in the original example?”
If, by your “first example” you mean the snippet of Madonna’s Live to Tell, I got ya…
a few points:
-
Sir, “syncopation” is not being discussed here. Period. Double-timing is NOT syncopation. Syncopation is similar to “playing ahead or behind the beat” in that you start with a base, militaristic on-beat count (like a metronome would do) and “play with the time” by playing *against * the time in some form or fashion. Syncopation does this in a specific patterned way; playing behind/ahead of the beat is more of a feel thing that may be repeated each measure but doesn’t have to be.
-
in listening to both the Madonna clip and the counterexample, both are simply “drum patterns” - since percussion as a rule doesn’t have melody, drummers will have a pattern they use to “tell their musical story” for that particular song. A most-famous example is the drum intro to Aerosmith’s Walk this Way - sure, we can break that beat down technically and discuss where he is playing behind the beat, syncopating or whatever - but bottom line? It’s a cool drum riff that became a signature for that song.
-
so while a drummer’s job is to set the time for the song, they also, just like guitarists and bassists, come up with Cool Riffs™. And since drum patterns by definition are rhythm based, then the cool riff is going to use main beats and sub beats to create the riff. The fact that, at the beginning of the drum riff, it is simple and spare, but the back half of the riff/pattern is a bit more complex is simply the way that riff was created. One could easily start off complex and get simpler at the back end of the pattern, etc.
Listening to those two example and hearing your additional input, it really sounds like you are making this harder than it has to be…
My $02 and I sincerely mean no offense; I hope that comes across…