TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Part 1: What is Call and Response?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Part 1: What is Call and Response?

Part 1: What is call and response?

Call and response, at its most fundamental level, is a binary structure composed of two intertwined musical parts. Although its typically regarded as a vocal technique, the underlying basis of the concept reach out much further and have greater implications for dance music...

Pop music and dance music is based off of the verse-chorus format. At the grand level of arrangement, you have two separate structures that liken themselves to a call and response format: AB AB

At the beat level, you have the famous back beat consisting of a kick and snare that create that same call and response format: Kick-snare-kick-snare ABAB

In all cases, repetition plays a large part in making the call and response structure more effective.

A repetitive loop, in this example I will call "A", repeated without variation can be especially nerving. Adding in a second part to the music, I will call "B", can add much needed variation.

When you add on that second part, something special happens. Each part acts as a relief from the other part. So when A plays it gives you relief from B,and when B plays it gives you relief from A.

In music, a part can only sound as different compared to the parts around it.

With a call and response structure, there is a close relationship between the two parts and whatever differences there are between them is enhanced by the symbiotic relationship. If one part is bright and the other one is dark, each part will be accentuated via contrast.

This repetitive nature of ABABABAB is a sort of mindhack, where each part brings upon a brief flickering of ignorance toward the other part.

If the two parts were arranged without a binary structure, you are left with a continueous repetition of A or B, or with both parts stacked on top of one another.

If the parts were arranged like so:

AAAAAAAAAA

BBBBBBBBBB

several of the benefits of call and response are lost. Now the structure is much more reptitive and neither part is designated relief from itself. Now there is a new problem of clarity. In a call and response structure, the clarity is almost assumed because each part plays by itself, but now because both parts are playing simutaneously there's a new mixing problem to behold.

With a few clicks of the mouse, a repetitive arrangement of two repetitive parts can be easily transformed into something much more engaging.

By taking out half of the music parts, you make the parts twice as engaging:

AAAA

BBBB

<

ABAB

Suggested listening activity:
Next time you listen to music listen for musical parts that sit next to each other, but do not play together at the same time. Listen for how broad structures complement each other, but also listen at the micro level of the beat and how different samples or notes affect each other.

Coming up next...
Part 2: What ideas work well for call and response?

prime example

quote:

Originally posted by stewart.m prime example

Interesting to note how the percussive noise click/crackles bring tension with the vocals and then they fade bringing relief with the strings parts. A binary tension relief structure.

quote:

Originally posted by Mise Interesting to note how the percussive noise click/crackles bring tension with the vocals and then they fade bringing relief with the strings parts. A binary tension relief structure.

What you;re talking about is more song structure programming to give contrast and not really what Beatflux is getting at.

For call and response programming on both micro and macro levels, jaytech is the undisputed master - his tracks really are a master class in this area:







However you listen, to either the perc doing a simple AB, or the structure itself on 4, 8, 16 or 32 bar repetitions and divergence, you can hear so much call and response going on.

cool I'll check those tracks!

I was rather good at that




60: maindrop
114: Two bar pattern, the first bar is sort of an unfinished phrase, finished in the second bar
130: on the 4th 16th of 2nd beat, you get whua whua which is replied with a synth that responds right after on the 3rd beat. So say those are A and B.

At 143 , you get a rhodes sound that sounds on the first off 8 but responds to both A and B on the last 16th note., Call that C

At 1:57 you get this distorted lead that comes in on the upbeat 16th and dubtails with the rhodes on the first 8th. Call that D
As it proceeds things sort of get more defined.

2:40 doubling D is the lead i hinted at in the intro. Call that E
Also added to the overall phrase structure is a synth that plays every 2 bars that responds to this lead by playing a descending 8th note pattern on the 3rd beat. It also answers the percussion the first bar of the 2 on the same beat which sounds like 8th notes playing random pitches. You can hear that sound more clearly near the end at 6:32

at 4:47 : You get 2 independent melodies forming a nice counterpoint. The one lead is the same intro lead but expanded. The distorted on is D again expanded.

Basically, every idea has its space linearly and everything is dovetailed in a way to provide a phrase that has movement , syncopation and a sense of phrasing.

Granted the track is old and i think you will find alot of more current uses of it in stuff ala wolfgang but it is easy to follow in this example.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney Basically, every idea has its space linearly and everything is dovetailed in a way to provide a phrase that has movement , syncopation and a sense of phrasing.

That's a good way to describe it: dovetailing.

Nice topic

im a beginner at jazz pianio (just did my grade 1) and call and response(or question and answer as they call it in the workbook im slowly ploughing my way through) it seems is an important part of learning to improvise

you can have call and response in terms of rythmic or melodic phrases - or between the bass left hand and lead melody in the right.

Also some phrases can sound more like a call - and others sound more like a response depending on if the music sounds resolved.

Nice idea looking at it in terms of a larger scale too



edit: that last jay tech tune is awesome! great example

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux That's a good way to describe it: dovetailing.

orchestration term.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney Carpentry term.

Fixed

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Fixed

ornithology term, huzza

Can definatly picture some classical pieces I have heard this in. Can't believe I haven't tried it out yet myself in EDM. Going to try it soon.

Thanks for posting; good topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney

One word, you magnificent yank:

quote:

Originally posted by stewart.m prime example

this is not in any way an example. There is no dialogue between any of the parts.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney this is not in any way an example. There is no dialogue between any of the parts.

That's because he's been totally confused by the OP's discussion, and this is a perfect example of why people who don't understand these things shouldn't be trying to teach it. This is NOT a discussion of call & response, it's a discussion of musical structure. Call & response is typically used to describe phrasing and, as you mentioned, musical dialogue. What the OP is trying to convey is more a discussion of themes, variations on themes, and how they are relevant to musical form and structure (e.g., rondo, sonata, binary forms, strophic forms, vs. through-composed, etc.). Yes, there are parallels between call & response and musical structure, but using one to define the other is a great way to confuse people and demonstrate that you really don't understand it - i.e., why not just have a discussion of structure instead?

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik That's because he's been totally confused by the OP's discussion, and this is a perfect example of why people who don't understand these things shouldn't be trying to teach it. This is NOT a discussion of call & response, it's a discussion of musical structure. Call & response is typically used to describe phrasing and, as you mentioned, musical dialogue. What the OP is trying to convey is more a discussion of themes, variations on themes, and how they are relevant to musical form and structure (e.g., rondo, sonata, binary forms, strophic forms, vs. through-composed, etc.). Yes, there are parallels between call & response and musical structure, but using one to define the other is a great way to confuse people and demonstrate that you really don't understand it - i.e., why not just have a discussion of structure instead?

There's no way in hell I'm going to even attempt to go up against you on music theory or songwriting, but I do think what Beatflux wrote, at least to the layman (or my interpretation) does relate to call and response in broad terms, whether it be related to song structure or better worded: programming.

That burial track actually has nothing to do with the OP's discussion. There's is really no call and response going on, and hence why i posted the jaytech tracks; the perc is always 1 or 2 bars paying something of a "call" then the following 2nd or 2 bars (respectively) giving an "answer".

He does it with the basslines in the same way with the phrasing. Then he does the same thing with the melodies, and again why I said that if you map out his track structure it's all classic AB call and response phrasing, regardless of whether you're looking at simple perc loops or 8 bar melody resolutions.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN but I do think what Beatflux wrote, at least to the layman (or my interpretation) does relate to call and response in broad terms, whether it be related to song structure or better worded: programming.

It does, but when it's applied to song structure or programming, it's no longer call and response. As I understand it, call and response is just a specific type of relationship between two distinct musical phrases.

Once you get into the "grand level of arrangement" or "the beat level" you aren't talking about phrases anymore. I guess it's a matter of semantics but when the thread is called "What is call and response?", and the explanation doesn't fit the definition, it just leads to confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Kysora It does, but when it's applied to song structure or programming, it's no longer call and response. As I understand it, call and response is just a specific type of relationship between two distinct musical phrases.

Well, if that's the case (and I'm not well versed enough in specific music definition terminology to know), then you're absolutely right.

I'd actually like to know for sure - can anyone give the true definition? (and no please don't just fucking post the wiki).

quote:

Originally posted by Kysora Once you get into the "grand level of arrangement" or "the beat level" you aren't talking about phrases anymore. I guess it's a matter of semantics but when the thread is called "What is call and response?", and the explanation doesn't fit the definition, it just leads to confusion.

Bingo.

AFAIK there isn't a "true" definition out of a dictionary or anything, I'm just going by what I learned in the few theory classes I've taken, but I'll let cryo or L4C chime in. They could explain it better than I can.

C&R has its roots in African music, was made even more popular in religious music (e.g., think southern baptist music), and is generally associated with one person calling out a line and another/others responding. That's not a rigid definition, as C&R has been extended to include other interplay between instruments and lines sung by a single person, etc., but to use it to define musical form and structure is getting way off base. That's not to say that the ideas presented in the OP are "wrong", just that they should be discussed in the context of structure, not C&R.

Edit: also, just to add a little more insight, the answer to "what is call and response?" is right there in the terminology. The way is generally works is that the caller asks a question or sets up an idea, and the responder(s) answer the question or complete the thought, usually with a similar pentameter. The two are intertwined and that is what makes it effective. When you're talking about song structure, such as ABACABA, the individual parts are introducing new themes or variaions thereof melodies are developed, etc., That's not the same as calling and responding to each other.

this concept is not very hard to grasp

it is a dialogue between musical ideas. One element states one idea. another replies with a contrasting idea that brings balance to the phrase. IT could also be the same thing stated with a different instrument, at a different time....

It lis literally a conversation. The reason it works in music is because just like a conversation, having everyone talking at the same time is annoying,

The term is never used to describe formal structure on a large scale.


i don't really buy into the general idea but this lecture will make you think about music in a different way that touches on this topic And it is taught by Bernstein.

Here's a brief example of a pseudo-call/response that Aliciya and I used in the prechorus of one of our tracks. All the parts were sung by Aliciya, but I processed the second part of each line differently and we added a harmony to give it a call/response effect.

Starts at 0:13

Call: You're toying with disaster
Response: Tell me what you're after

Call: You're hiding in the shadows
Response: Looking for the answers

http://www.cryophonik.com/files/cal...nse_example.wav

Call: There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Lizah.
Response: Then fix it you damn fool.

Am I doing it right?

quote:

Originally posted by Mel David Call: There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Lizah. Response: Then fix it you damn fool. Am I doing it right?

ay david i got the rme ufx and its fantastic!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.