Re:Harmony Explained: Progress Towards a Scientific Theory o...
by mtdewcmu on Saturday June 17, 2017 @03:23PM
(#14577318)
>>But I disagree that beat 1 is always the cause
I agree that that's a weak part of the theory and it could use more thought.
>>The pattern of dah-DUM is pretty common, and the dah would typically be a quarter or eight note before the DUM on the 1.
I thought about that case, and I considered whether to create the concept of a pre-echo.
Another edge case is when beat #3 is accentuated, like in almost any rock song:
BASS-tick-SNARE-tick
The echo pattern is what the listener expects to hear. When a beat is louder than it's "supposed" to be, it makes that beat sound louder and brings it out. I think the snare sounds more powerful as a consequence of being unexpectedly loud.
Wrt pre-echos, I think you could consider them a deliberate deviation from the echo pattern to achieve a particular sound. The difference between theory and actual rhythms is what we call music, right?
I agree that that's a weak part of the theory and it could use more thought.
>>The pattern of dah-DUM is pretty common, and the dah would typically be a quarter or eight note before the DUM on the 1.
I thought about that case, and I considered whether to create the concept of a pre-echo.
Another edge case is when beat #3 is accentuated, like in almost any rock song:
BASS-tick-SNARE-tick
The echo pattern is what the listener expects to hear. When a beat is louder than it's "supposed" to be, it makes that beat sound louder and brings it out. I think the snare sounds more powerful as a consequence of being unexpectedly loud.
Wrt pre-echos, I think you could consider them a deliberate deviation from the echo pattern to achieve a particular sound. The difference between theory and actual rhythms is what we call music, right?