Patrick Tice-Carroll
"Conversation 3"
Anne Danielsen and Fernando Benadon
Article Summary
“Conversation 3” is a conversation between Anne Danielsen, a widely published author
and professor at the University of Oslo, and Fernando Benadon, a professor of music at
American University. The main discussion is based around the different tactics employed by
theorists and musicians in the detailed transcriptions of pop and rock music. They pay particular
attention to rhythmic figures that are difficult to transcribe in traditional Western notation,
including those associated with groove, swing, and microrhythms. The latter term encompasses a
wide range of rhythmic discrepancies that are present in several genres of pop music, more
commonly known as “laying back” or “playing behind/ahead of the beat.” These divergences
from the main rhythmic structure of the music are measured in exact milliseconds of transient
difference, typically notated with a numeric value and directional arrow above the displaced note
head.
Another method mentioned to depict transcriptions, particularly of groove and dense
rhythmic textures, is by generating and analyzing a temporal spectrogram of the composite audio
waveform. By studying the topographical features of this graph, it becomes easier to see larger
patterns and forms that take place over the song. While this does pose a vastly different approach
from standard Western notational analysis, it opens a new way of visualizing musical
information. Each approach has its own benefits and drawbacks, but the main point stressed by
all in the conversation was that each applies to its own area. No single method of transcription is
able to provide all the information someone could need. While standard notation proves helpful
for clearer sonic textures, spectrograms and like topical maps are able to guide the viewer
towards interpretations that would not be accessible otherwise, especially if the viewer is unable
to read music.
The methods of transcription in this article provide several non-traditional approaches
that offer interesting viewpoints in music analysis. However, some of the common practices that
were mentioned in the article are troubling. Both Danielsen and Benadon mentioned they try to
be exceedingly precise with microrhythms, attempting to capture the rhythmic discrepancies
down to the millisecond. While there might be some superficial value in knowing the exact
timing of a particular set of notes, there is no real application of that material in music making.
No musician plays in an ensemble with the idea of offsetting a particular snare drum hit exactly
330ms because that level of precision in common practice performance is impossible. The idea
of playing “behind the beat” is a familiar sound in all genres of music, especially pop and jazz,
but the exact distance from the beat becomes moot because of its lack of practical application.
One additional problem in the methods of transcription was the use of software to
artificially slow down the recording so that extremely rapid passages can be accurately notated.
While this seems like a useful tool to facilitate a transcription, it becomes a pointless exercise of
ear-training, rather than understanding the language used in the context of the music. Music is an
intangible, temporal artform, meaning that it can have no legitimate physical representation in its
truest form. To study recordings, especially through transcription, one should always analyze the
music in the context of its temporal landscape. What is the purpose of slowing down a passage
when you lose all context of the music? The recorded performer has mentally processed and
physically executed this music in real-time, and so our analysis should mirror that process at the
speed it was originally recorded.
