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.

___________________
"This is why Superman works alone." GC
old stuff from days gone by (2001-2004)
Mad For Brad's gay little contest

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?

___________________
cryophonik.com | facebook | soundcloud

Sonar Platinum | Ableton Live 9 | Logic Pro X | Access Virus TI2 Keyboard | Kurzweil PC3X | Nord Lead 4R | NI Maschine

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.

___________________
cryophonik.com | facebook | soundcloud

Sonar Platinum | Ableton Live 9 | Logic Pro X | Access Virus TI2 Keyboard | Kurzweil PC3X | Nord Lead 4R | NI Maschine

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.

___________________
cryophonik.com | facebook | soundcloud

Sonar Platinum | Ableton Live 9 | Logic Pro X | Access Virus TI2 Keyboard | Kurzweil PC3X | Nord Lead 4R | NI Maschine

Last edited by cryophonik on Mar-29-2012 at 19:17

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.

___________________
"This is why Superman works alone." GC
old stuff from days gone by (2001-2004)
Mad For Brad's gay little contest

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

___________________
cryophonik.com | facebook | soundcloud

Sonar Platinum | Ableton Live 9 | Logic Pro X | Access Virus TI2 Keyboard | Kurzweil PC3X | Nord Lead 4R | NI Maschine

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

Am I doing it right?