0:01

Most flutes involve a single cylinder that you blow

0:03

across or into with holes that you

0:05

cover or uncover to raise or lower

0:07

the instrument's pitch. A pan

0:10

flute is pretty different from that, though, in effect

0:12

binding together a bunch of flutes and letting you

0:14

play them all at

0:15

once. Welcome

0:23

to Strong Songs, a podcast about music.

0:26

I'm your host Kirk Hamilton, and I'm so glad that

0:28

you've joined me as I answer questions about pan

0:30

flute, sea flute, recorder, piccolo,

0:32

shakuhachi, and many, many more.

0:35

This

0:36

is an entirely listener-supported show,

0:39

which means that every cent that I make off of

0:41

Strong Songs comes directly from you,

0:43

the people for whom I make it. If you get

0:45

something out of this show, if you're glad it exists, I

0:47

hope you'll consider going to patreon.com

0:49

slash strong songs and becoming a

0:52

patron. On this episode,

0:54

it's time to dig up my dusty reading glasses

0:56

and rummage through the mailbag, because I've got a whole bunch

0:58

of your listener questions to answer and

1:01

only about an hour to do it. We've got pop

1:03

counterpoint, indie cross rhythms, and some Peter

1:05

Gabriel, so let's get out our letter opener,

1:06

stack up some envelopes, and get into it.

1:18

Hello, everyone.

1:29

I'm so excited to answer your questions

1:32

on this, the first mailbag episode of

1:34

Strong Songs Season 5. As always, before

1:36

we get into it, if you have a question that

1:39

you'd like me to consider answering on this show,

1:41

send it to listeners at strongsongspodcast.com.

1:44

No guarantees that I'll answer it. I get

1:46

too many questions to fit into Q&As

1:49

at this point, but I thank everybody

1:51

who's ever sent in a question, because, man,

1:53

there are a lot of great musical questions out there, as it turns

1:55

out. So that's listeners at strongsongspodcast.com.

1:58

looking forward to hearing

2:01

your musical questions. Speaking of musical

2:03

questions, let's get into it. Our first question comes

2:05

from Charlotte, who writes, there's a song

2:07

called, You've Got Your Troubles by

2:10

The Fortune. I

2:11

see that worried look upon

2:14

your face. You've

2:18

got your troubles. I've

2:20

got my eyes.

2:22

Charlotte continues, it's a fairly classic

2:24

60s kind of tune, the horns, the harmonies,

2:27

et cetera. But it's elevated by something

2:29

at about the 2 minute and 30 second

2:31

mark. It's a vocal part, but not

2:33

just a harmony part. It seems to go in a completely

2:35

different direction from the rest of the song, and

2:38

it just doesn't seem to fit. But it draws

2:40

you in. It's like salt on something

2:43

sweet. It shouldn't work, but somehow

2:45

it does. Is there a name for this sort

2:47

of interlude, and why does it work so well

2:49

musically? Well, let's listen to what

2:52

Charlotte

2:52

is asking about. Here is the section

2:54

in question.

2:58

And if I said to you, but

3:00

I ain't got no pity for

3:02

you, oh, I've got your troubles.

3:05

You see, I lost my, lost

3:07

my, lost my little girl

3:09

too. I'd help another

3:12

day. So that's very cool. That is indeed

3:14

an unusual technique for the time. And

3:16

as Charlotte says, it's not a harmony vocal

3:19

part, and it does indeed go in a completely

3:21

different direction from the rest of the song. I

3:23

would call that a counter melody, in that it's

3:25

a second new melody that's been written to

3:28

fit in and around the existing melody, flushing

3:30

out and expanding the song as it currently

3:33

exists. And so forgive

3:35

me, if I said to you, but

3:38

I ain't got no pity for

3:40

you, oh, I've got your troubles.

3:43

You see, I lost my, lost

3:45

my, lost my little girl too.

3:47

It's the sort of thing that you'll hear more often in

3:49

instrumental music, chamber music, where

3:52

counter melodies are a part of counterpoint,

3:54

a style of writing with interlocking melodies.

3:57

A fugue is one of the most famous examples

3:59

of counter point in composition.

4:02

That's where an ensemble will play a collection of independent

4:04

melodies that wind and twist around one another

4:07

as opposed to a single melody harmonized

4:09

across several voices. For

4:11

a classic version of that, here is a Bach feud

4:14

recorded by the Emerson String Quartet. It

4:16

starts with one part

4:19

and then a

4:21

second part joins, playing a different melody

4:24

that still works with what the first part

4:26

is playing.

4:31

By the time the third part comes in, they're all playing

4:34

different melodies, but the melodies have been composed

4:36

to work together. And

4:43

soon the full quartet is in with each

4:45

musician playing their own individual part

4:48

that still work as part of a greater whole.

4:56

So in this fortunes tune, they're doing a simplified

4:58

version of that same thing. Most of the

5:00

time, they're all singing the same melody together,

5:03

just singing different notes so that they outline

5:05

the harmony of the song.

5:08

It's really just a lead part in

5:10

a higher harmony.

5:20

And

5:27

then there's just a harmony part that's a third higher,

5:29

kind of outlining the harmony. In this case,

5:31

it's in A major, so it's going from an A major chord

5:34

up to a B major, which gives it that

5:37

nice bright two major sound that

5:39

I have talked about many a time on this

5:41

podcast.

5:56

So we hear that harmonized melody a million

5:58

times in this recording. It repeats over and

6:00

over and over, it's the main refrain,

6:02

so you really get it in your ear, and then

6:04

suddenly near the end of the song, they add

6:06

this new counter melody that really sticks

6:09

out.

6:22

It sticks out for a couple of different reasons. It

6:24

sounds like an overdub and it really sticks

6:26

out in the mix, particularly in stereo. I'm

6:28

guessing it sticks out as much as it does because

6:31

it was initially designed to stand out

6:33

in mono. It's also just a much busier

6:35

melody than the main melody, and it's much more

6:38

vertical and rhythmically complex.

6:54

Like that's a difficult line. That's a

6:56

singer's line. It's got a lot of chromaticism.

6:58

It moves through the harmony in a really hip way,

7:01

especially on that two chord. 🎶 That I

7:03

ain't got no pity for

7:06

you 🎶 🎶 That F natural on

7:08

that four minor chord 🎶 🎶 Well that

7:10

ain't true 🎶 🎶 Resolving to the E

7:12

major 🎶 🎶 You

7:13

see I lost my 🎶 Jumps

7:16

the octave up to a high F sharp, I mean, this

7:18

is really hip stuff. It's a great line.

7:27

🎶 No pity for you 🎶 🎶 Well that

7:29

ain't true 🎶 🎶 You see

7:31

I lost my 🎶 🎶 Lost

7:33

my 🎶 🎶 Little girl too 🎶 So

7:35

as you could hopefully hear that time after

7:38

I laid it out and explained some of the harmony, that

7:40

counter melody fits exactly with the harmony

7:42

of the song. It's really tightly

7:45

written. It's just a second melody.

7:47

It moves through the chords in a different way, but it

7:49

moves through them very precisely. And

7:51

that's what makes it a counter melody. It sticks

7:54

out because it's designed to stick out, but

7:56

in the end he's singing all the right notes in all the right

7:58

places, so it winds up just...

7:59

bringing out this light, bright new

8:02

quality to the song rather than changing

8:04

it. I actually really like how you describe it, Charlotte,

8:07

as salt on something sweet. That's just

8:09

it. It's a new sensation on top

8:11

of a familiar taste that brings out

8:13

what worked about the flavor to begin with.

8:28

Scott writes, what makes the song T-I-B-W-F

8:32

by the Budos band sound so

8:34

dark and funky?

8:40

This question might be too open-ended, Scott

8:42

allows, but this song just oozes funk.

8:45

So what is it?

8:59

So

8:59

that is a very funky recording and that is

9:01

indeed a very open-ended question. I'll actually

9:03

just give a quick answer because it's such an

9:05

open-ended question. It could go a million different directions.

9:08

Basically, what I think makes this recording

9:10

sound so funky is the way it was mixed,

9:13

the equipment they used and the way

9:15

it was performed. So it's

9:17

pretty much everything. This sounds to me like a band

9:19

that really knows how to play it together. It sounds like they

9:21

were recorded all at the same time and

9:23

all in the same room. And it was mixed and produced

9:25

by someone who had a strong sense of the kind

9:28

of recording they wanted to

9:29

make and the kind of vibe they wanted to get.

9:31

It sounds like a record from the 1970s. So

9:33

either it was recorded on analog hardware from

9:35

the 70s or on modern hardware that's emulating

9:38

hardware from the 70s. It's got that thick

9:41

tape saturated sound. The bass

9:43

has that muted, thumpy tone. The

9:45

organ is really hot and direct. The guitar

9:47

has that really vibey, vintage reverb. I

9:50

mean, if you sit down and you listen to the

9:52

meters, you can hear this same kind of sound.

9:55

If you listen to Booker T or the Dap Kings, Sharon Jones'

9:57

band, the Buddha's band actually puts out records

9:59

on Dap Kings. tone records, so they're definitely

10:01

in that lineage as well. They're also channeling

10:04

some afro beat and afro funk sounds, Ethiopian

10:06

funk artists like Iolu, Messafin,

10:08

there's a whole lineage of great funk

10:11

out of Ethiopia, and that's another influence

10:13

on this band. They know exactly what they're

10:15

going for, and they nailed it because they

10:17

used good reference recordings and they went for that

10:20

sound. Really though, more than the

10:22

gear or the way that it was recorded, this

10:24

just comes down to confidence to me. Like

10:26

the groove on this is so confident, the

10:29

way that it's played

10:29

is so confident. This band knows exactly

10:32

what they want to sound like, each player knows exactly

10:35

how they want to play, and that plays the biggest

10:37

role of all. These players just know how they want

10:39

to sound, they know how they want the groove to feel,

10:42

and you can feel that confidence in every

10:44

measure of this recording.

10:55

Ralph Eric writes, Hi Kirk, on

10:58

my way home from an amazing solo piano concert

11:00

by the Norwegian pianist Kettil Bjornstad,

11:03

I listened again to his 2004 record,

11:05

Sea Ferrer's Song, which is a concept

11:08

album on the murderous border politics of

11:10

the EU in the Mediterranean. Track 3,

11:13

Dying to Get to Europe, has my favorite

11:15

guitar solo ever by Avind

11:17

Arset. But from a theoretical point of view,

11:19

I always wondered why it is good at all. Maybe

11:22

you like the album, and maybe you have

11:24

an answer. Well, it's always hard to come up with

11:25

an answer for why something is good, but I think this

11:28

is a remarkable guitar solo, so let's

11:30

listen to it.

11:44

So Ralph Eric, you ask whether this solo is

11:46

good from a theoretical point of view, but that's

11:49

tough and not quite the angle that I would take, especially

11:51

with a solo like this, because Arset

11:53

isn't really going for something harmonically complex,

11:56

he's actually doing the opposite.

12:03

He's basically just in the key of E, and he's

12:05

going for a more timbrel, impressionistic

12:07

solo that's all about energy and power

12:10

and emotion, rather than how it's

12:12

moving through the chord progression.

12:17

I've talked about this kind of solo in the past

12:19

as a kite and anchor solo, where the

12:21

rhythm section is an anchor, and the soloist

12:23

is a kite flying free and

12:25

playing a lot more loosely.

12:31

That came up when I talked about the guitar solo on Rush's

12:34

Tom Sawyer. This solo is very different

12:36

from that one in a lot of ways, but it's similar

12:38

in that one way. It's the same principle. The

12:40

rhythm section here is playing right down the middle, and

12:42

the guitar is like disintegrating in

12:44

front of our eyes.

12:50

It's amazing. He's building these walls

12:52

of sound and then destroying them, and

12:55

given the anguish and tragedy underlying the

12:57

song and the thematic material that it's

12:59

written about, it's a perfect juxtaposition

13:01

between that steady groove and those

13:03

fuzzy, destructive swells of guitar

13:06

sound.

13:19

So yes, I think this is a remarkable solo,

13:21

but not for any theoretical or harmonic

13:23

reason, or for a conceptual one. It's

13:26

a beautiful and sincerely felt

13:28

performance, and one that I'd never heard before,

13:30

so thanks for hitting me to this record.

13:44

John writes with two questions that are related

13:46

to one another, and they're both pretty fun. The first one,

13:49

John writes, I dreamt a song recently or

13:51

at least a melody with backing and harmonies, including

13:53

a chord progression. At least to me, it

13:55

was a great song. When I woke up, I could

13:57

hear it relatively clearly, and I tried

13:59

humbling. humming it and recording that on my phone.

14:02

But the humming couldn't do it justice to the

14:04

fuller, richer sounds in my dream.

14:07

A couple of hours later, I couldn't hear it in my head

14:09

at all, which was disappointing. Do you have

14:11

any advice on better capturing dream

14:13

songs, or do I simply need to improve my

14:15

skills to be able to quickly play multiple

14:17

parts from memory? So

14:20

I have a couple of different pieces of advice for this.

14:22

I've had this happen to me before, and

14:24

a more common thing that'll happen to me is I'll just

14:26

hear a song while I'm walking down the street. I'll

14:29

have a really good idea

14:29

for a song, and I don't have any instruments nearby,

14:32

and I need to kind of quickly document

14:34

them so that I don't lose the idea.

14:37

So for starters, you have a voice memo recorder

14:39

on your phone, or you almost certainly do if

14:41

you're using a smartphone. That's a very useful

14:43

tool here, so I'm assuming that's what you're recording with.

14:46

That's what everyone's recording with. I do remember

14:48

a time before everyone had one of those

14:50

when you had to call your voicemail and

14:53

leave yourself a message with a song on it. And

14:55

you'd hear about singer-songwriters whose voicemail box

14:57

was totally full of their own voicemails

14:59

that they left themselves with song ideas.

15:02

So it's nice that we don't have to do that anymore. So

15:04

use that recorder. My biggest piece

15:06

of advice is to leave the thing recording

15:09

for longer than you might think

15:11

you need to. That could be hard in the middle of the

15:13

night. I would imagine you kind of want to go back to sleep.

15:15

But if you're trying to document a song idea that you've

15:18

had, just kind of let the tape roll.

15:20

I'll definitely find when I go back and listen to my song ideas

15:23

that on the longer recordings, it's

15:25

more likely that I repeat ideas

15:27

or I sing things in a slightly different way. And

15:30

as a result of that, I'll be more likely

15:32

to jog my own memory when I go back and listen

15:34

to it later, especially if I

15:36

was, say, asleep when I recorded

15:38

it or half asleep and I don't remember

15:40

it quite so well. Another piece of advice

15:42

that I'll give kind of sounds counterintuitive,

15:45

but it's don't just sing

15:47

notes and expect that you'll hear those

15:49

notes and have a memory spark. Try

15:51

to give as much information in the

15:54

note that you're leaving to yourself as possible that's

15:56

like non-musical information. If you can

15:58

say, this is kind of a ballad.

15:59

It's got a big drum beat boom

16:02

boom boom boom boom just

16:04

kind of saying that singing it Describing

16:06

it that way lots of reverb on the drums and

16:08

they're gonna be strings playing this this

16:11

chord progression that moves down

16:15

And

16:18

if you kind of sing that and also describe

16:20

it a little bit It can be easier for

16:23

your future self to fill in the blanks and

16:25

sort of remember the full picture of the

16:27

recording Instead of just the melody or just

16:29

the bass notes that you're able to sing in the

16:32

moment Another piece of advice I will give

16:34

is to have an instrument nearby if at all possible

16:37

You'll kind of find that the more you do this the

16:39

more you allow these melodies to come into your

16:41

head Whether you're asleep or awake and then

16:44

sit down and actually try to pull them out of the air

16:46

and put them on paper The more it'll

16:48

keep happening to you And so you want to kind

16:50

of build an environment around

16:52

yourself that makes it easier To

16:55

really quickly sit down and find an instrument

16:57

and really nail down whatever it is that

16:59

you're singing I have pianos and guitars all

17:02

over the place in my house And there's

17:04

always one near enough by that if I have a melody

17:06

in my head I can grab a guitar and just really quickly

17:08

figure out what it is I'm playing what kind of chord

17:11

I'm hearing and then that information, you know

17:13

getting it on a guitar seeing Oh, okay.

17:15

So this is

17:15

E major C-sharp diminished D

17:18

major, you know And then saying that

17:20

into the recording into the note that I'm leaving to myself

17:22

again That's that extra information that can make

17:25

it a lot easier to recreate the song

17:27

later

17:28

The last piece of advice I'll give is not to be too

17:30

hard on yourself about an inability to remember

17:32

a song Especially if it's a song that you

17:34

dreamed if only because it's okay for

17:36

music to come and go It's okay for

17:39

a music a melody a song idea to

17:41

be ephemeral. That's kind of the beauty

17:43

of music is that it is ephemeral It's

17:45

just something that you hear It's something that passes

17:47

between two people or sometimes just

17:49

something that passes in and out of one

17:52

person's head We only started recording music

17:54

a hundred or so years ago. So if a song

17:57

does wind up eluding you

17:58

that's okay music can be

17:59

elusive, that's one of the things that makes

18:02

it so special. So John's second question

18:04

is in the same ballpark as his first one he

18:06

writes, hearing music in my dreams

18:08

makes me think about the source and inspiration

18:11

of music in general. Some musicians that

18:13

I love, like John Frascianti explicitly

18:15

say that the music they write comes from elsewhere,

18:18

e.g. the universe, God, etc. They

18:21

don't view themselves as creating it, but rather

18:23

receiving it. I love the humility of

18:25

this mindset. And I think there's something to

18:27

it. Although, of course, there's a place for practice,

18:29

hard work, talent, etc. I'd love

18:32

to hear your views on this and what others might

18:34

have said. So this

18:35

is something that I've talked about in the past

18:37

on the show. And it's one of the most fascinating things

18:39

about writing music. There's this feeling that

18:41

almost anyone who's ever written music has

18:44

probably felt, or at least is familiar

18:46

with. And it's the feeling that you're not writing

18:48

music, you're discovering it. It's this

18:50

beautiful, often spiritual thing.

18:53

I'll hear a little melody, the first part

18:55

of a phrase, and I'll sit down and I'll play

18:57

it on the piano, I'll leave it unresolved

18:59

and incomplete, and I'll just pose

19:02

it to the universe like a question. And

19:04

I've learned to trust

19:05

that the second part of that phrase will

19:07

sometimes just present itself

19:09

almost out of thin air without requiring

19:12

any active action on my part.

19:15

I just have to be open to the idea coming

19:17

to me. So when the juices are really flowing,

19:19

it can feel more like excavating a song

19:22

rather than building it. Like I saw this one

19:24

little idea, the little tip of this

19:26

ancient buried skeleton, it was just barely

19:28

visible above the ground. But that's all I needed

19:31

to get started. And an hour or so

19:33

later, there's heaps of dirt everywhere. And I've

19:35

unearthed this entire song, the whole

19:37

thing is complete. And I'm not sure

19:39

what causes that it feels particularly

19:41

pronounced in music for me, but I'm sure

19:44

that people have felt this way in other creative

19:46

disciplines as well. But I think

19:48

there is something particular about music.

19:50

And I think it's related to the subverbal way

19:53

that music operates, it touches

19:55

us in this really profound way, a given piece

19:57

of music connects to us so deeply. And

19:59

so effortlessly connects to every piece of music

20:02

we've ever heard in the past. I think that's a big reason

20:04

that one piece of music can echo out

20:06

across future generations and thousands

20:08

of other pieces of music in that certain

20:10

way that I really try to illustrate on this show whenever

20:13

I can. We all have these melodies

20:15

and harmonies coursing through our brains at every

20:18

moment. They're under every conscious

20:20

thought and conversation. They're sitting there

20:22

behind every action we take. And it's only

20:24

natural that when we begin to write music, it

20:26

feels like we drop a line into that subconscious

20:29

and just

20:29

see what comes up on the other end. It

20:32

feels different for everyone, I'm sure, but I think there's

20:34

a through line as well because I've heard a lot

20:36

of musicians articulate something like

20:39

this, something along these lines and it's

20:41

one of the most rewarding and beautiful things

20:43

about writing music. And I will say

20:45

that for me at least, that unconscious feeling

20:47

of discovery only gets me so far. It

20:50

can be amazing. I've written whole songs in like

20:52

five minutes because I feel like they were already

20:54

finished before I started writing them. But

20:57

even with a process that smooth, I still

20:59

wind up with just a really good raw idea

21:02

and it takes a lot of conscious chipping and whittling

21:04

to turn those raw ideas into a

21:06

finished song that reflects not just an inspired

21:09

creative process, but a conscious controlled

21:11

application of technique and

21:13

method as well. Well, sometimes.

21:16

Sometimes you do a whole lot of that stuff and then you wind up just

21:19

deleting it all and going back to what you started with because

21:21

the song was at its best at the very beginning.

21:24

That's the thing about writing music though, I suppose it's always

21:26

a little bit different. And when I write music,

21:28

I do feel like I'm tapping into something bigger

21:31

and older than myself. And it's an amazing

21:33

feeling.

21:37

Patrick writes with a couple of counting questions. First

21:39

he asks what's going on with the time in

21:42

the pre-chorus guitar part in black

21:44

country, new roads, the place where

21:46

he inserted the blade. I can't

21:48

tell if it's actually in a different time signature or

21:50

just landing in a really weird sparse way,

21:53

but technically in the same time

21:55

signature. All right, well let's listen and see what

21:57

Patrick is talking about. So

22:03

you can hear the guitar over on the left

22:05

and we're in 3, 4 here. 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3.

22:17

And here comes the pre-chorus. Listen to that

22:19

guitar over on the left.

22:21

I know you're

22:25

scared. Well,

22:29

I'm scared too. Hard

22:33

at every time I try to make a mistake.

22:35

All right, so what's going on with that guitar part? Well,

22:37

the guitar part is not playing in a different

22:39

time signature. The whole band is

22:41

still in 3, 4. What's going on is

22:43

that the guitar player is just playing a figure

22:45

that implies 2 over 3,

22:48

or I guess 4 over 3. The guitar

22:50

part is basically changing every 2 beats,

22:53

even though the chords are changing every 3

22:56

beats, because we're in 3, 4 time. I

22:58

guess you could also feel this in 6, 8. I don't want

23:00

to get too bogged down in time signatures. The

23:03

important thing is that this song has a 3

23:05

beat and the guitar part is moving

23:07

every 2 beats, which means they don't exactly

23:10

line up except every third

23:12

phrase in the guitar because that makes 6

23:15

beats. The song is in F sharp and it does

23:17

this descending chord progression here in the pre-chorus.

23:19

It goes from F sharp major to F

23:21

sharp major 7 to F sharp

23:23

dominant 7 to a B to the 4 chord.

23:27

That's a really classic chord progression. It's in a whole bunch

23:29

of songs. So if you count it, you get

23:31

this.

23:32

And a 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1.

23:42

So that's very straightforward. Now, if we play the guitar

23:44

part totally on its own, it sounds

23:46

pretty different. It sounds like this.

23:49

And a 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2.

23:59

Now I'm counting. I'm counting that figure in two, I'm counting

24:01

one, two, one, two, but that's just

24:04

to show you how that figure works.

24:06

In reality, the song is still in three and that

24:08

figure is still in three, it's just

24:11

super imposing a two feel over

24:13

the basic three-four time. In

24:16

music there's something called a hemiola,

24:18

which is a specific type of cross rhythm

24:20

that superimposes three over

24:22

two. I guess this is sort of a reverse hemiola

24:25

because it's superimposing two over

24:27

three, but the same principle applies.

24:29

I've

24:29

talked about hemiolas and cross rhythms in

24:32

the past on the show, but I figure I might as well

24:34

reiterate it since it's pretty common and

24:36

it's a cool effect. So if we count that

24:38

guitar part in three, which is a good thing

24:40

to be able to do, you get something slightly

24:42

different. It sounds like this.

24:45

And a one, two, three, one, two, three, one, two, three, one, two,

24:47

three, one, two, three, one,

24:52

two, three, one, two, three, one,

24:54

two, three, one.

24:56

So it's actually less confusing if you put the

24:58

two parts together. So let's do that. Let's

25:00

combine the basic chords, which are moving

25:03

in three,

25:07

and the guitar counterpart, which is moving

25:10

in two.

25:16

Here we go and see if you can hear and count both

25:18

parts at the same time. So

25:39

that's really just it. It's two over three,

25:41

like this. So

25:58

yeah, just some rhythmic superimpere. position,

26:00

also known as a hemiola, to

26:02

add some tension and displacement to an otherwise

26:05

simple guitar counter melody.

26:13

Patrick has a second rhythmic question. He writes,

26:15

can you take a crack at trying to explain,

26:18

tell me something good by Rufus?

26:20

I think it goes from highly syncopated in the verse

26:22

to not so syncopated in the chorus, but

26:25

I cannot figure out how they get from one

26:27

to the other. So let's take a listen and

26:29

I think I can explain what Patrick is hearing,

26:32

but you might be thinking up front, Rufus? Who

26:34

is Rufus? So Rufus is the band

26:36

that recorded Tell Me Something Good, but they're known

26:39

primarily for their lead singer, Shakakan.

26:45

Also fun fact, this song was written by Stevie

26:47

Wonder.

26:51

So this verse, this verse is extremely

26:53

syncopated, which is to say it strongly

26:56

emphasizes the upbeat.

27:00

Specifically, the bass and the vocals are

27:03

both entirely on upbeats and that's

27:05

unusual, especially for a bass line in

27:07

this kind of funk music. Listen to the bass

27:09

line. It's being doubled by a synth and so

27:12

it's in the middle and it's also over on the right.

27:19

So with

27:19

that pulse, it's just stats,

27:22

katoon, stats, uh,

27:25

uh, uh, uh, that bass line

27:28

is totally syncopated. It's the reason

27:30

that the intro to this song is a little

27:32

bit misleading because the wah-wah

27:34

guitar is actually the thing that's giving you the downbeat

27:37

over on the left, but your ear is going to be

27:39

naturally drawn to the gravity of the bass.

27:42

So the first time you heard this, you probably heard

27:44

the beat turned around because

27:46

you assumed that the bass was playing downbeats.

27:49

You know, like one,

27:52

two, three, four.

27:57

Wait a minute. So

28:08

by the time the drums have come in, it's easier to hear

28:10

where the actual downbeat is, but it's still

28:12

kind of a tricky groove since it's

28:14

just odd to have the bass playing a beat

28:17

so consistently.

28:21

It's like the funkiest polka ever.

28:23

And it gives the verse this kind of poppy, jostling

28:26

groove that just feels unsettled.

28:29

It's going somewhere, but it hasn't arrived.

28:34

Which makes for a strong contrast

28:36

when they finally land on the chorus.

28:52

And it really is that simple. We go from

28:54

a bass line that's almost entirely playing

28:56

upbeats just going down a scale,

29:10

to in the chorus, a bass line that strongly

29:13

emphasizes downbeats and grounds

29:15

the whole chorus by matching the sung

29:18

refrain. Tell me something

29:20

good. Chaka sings that, but the

29:22

bass plays it too.

29:40

It really helps that chorus land and I think it's

29:42

a reason that it's such an iconic and

29:44

memorable song. And it's a great

29:46

example of how effective it can be to draw

29:49

a strong rhythmic contrast between

29:51

two sections of a song.

30:01

Cole writes, a song I recently rediscovered

30:03

has me scratching my head once again for the

30:05

same reason it did years ago. I'm talking

30:07

about the song Colors by Beck, which

30:09

is an absolute gem of a tune, I may add.

30:13

If you flip to the 1 minute 36 second mark, there's

30:15

a woodwind type sound that goes on a bit

30:17

of a riff.

30:26

And it tells me it may be a synth with a pan flute

30:28

sound, but I wanted to get your opinion. The

30:31

song and album notes don't appear to list any

30:33

unique instruments other than some keyboards

30:35

and synths that might be making the sound.

30:37

What

30:39

do you think?

30:43

So yeah, my take is that this is not

30:45

an acoustic instrument. This is a synth or a sampler,

30:47

some kind of an electronic instrument or a sampled

30:50

sound just because of the way that the pitch

30:52

moves around and the overall sound

30:55

of the instrument. It just doesn't really sound

30:58

like a pan flute, like if they actually put

31:00

a microphone on a pan flute and recorded

31:03

one.

31:09

So as

31:09

a wind player, over time you develop

31:11

just sense for when a wind instrument

31:14

is being synthesized and played on a keyboard. And

31:16

when it's actually being played with someone's wind, you

31:19

just kind of learn what to listen for. For

31:21

example, let me just pull up a pan

31:23

flute sound on a synthesizer. This is Massive

31:26

X Synthesizer doing a kind of a similar

31:28

sound. There's a slide toward the beginning

31:30

of this phrase, a whole step slide, that

31:32

just sounds like a portamento knob on a synthesizer

31:35

and not like someone sliding the note

31:38

on a flute.

31:41

I don't actually have a pan flute, but I've played

31:43

one and I play flute. You can get some slide-ish

31:46

sounds by maybe doing something with your

31:48

embouchure or some kind of unusual technique

31:50

with your fingers, but that sort of smoothness

31:53

on a whole step that only really happens on

31:55

something like a slide whistle in terms

31:57

of acoustic instruments. And even then, it's still

31:59

too-

31:59

smooth, it just doesn't sound natural,

32:02

it sounds artificial. There's also a uniformity

32:05

to the attack on the instrument. Every

32:07

single note begins with the exact same

32:09

breath attack sound, which is a dead giveaway

32:12

for an electric instrument or a sampled

32:14

woodwind because human players bring

32:16

so much subtle complexity to their articulation

32:19

and breath attacks when they're playing actual

32:21

woodwinds, it's probably the hardest thing

32:23

to get right when it comes to recreating

32:26

the sound of a wind instrument using a sampler

32:29

or a synthesizer

32:29

and it's always the first thing that I listen

32:32

for. When you begin to hear, oh, every single

32:34

note that begins begins the exact

32:36

same way with the same onset and the same

32:39

sound and the same dynamic, especially

32:41

when they're really quick one right after another,

32:44

like happens in the middle of this riff.

32:52

So yeah, this is a synthesizer, but it's

32:54

a cool sound that being said and it works

32:56

great for this song.

33:00

I think Beck is getting the exact sound that he wants

33:02

here. Synth Pan Flute is its own whole

33:04

stylistic arena and that's where he wants

33:07

to be.

33:10

Blake writes in with a very similar question.

33:13

He says this has puzzled him for over 10 years.

33:16

Blake writes, in your opinion, is the solo

33:18

at the end of Daft Punk's digital love

33:20

performed on a guitar or a synthesizer.

33:24

Blake writes that he first heard this when he was a teenager

33:26

and like a lot of people he initially assumed that it

33:28

was performed on an electric guitar since

33:31

the sound and the tone, the style definitely

33:33

evoke that 80s guitar shredder sound

33:36

like Eddie Van Halen, but as he

33:38

was learning more musical production techniques, he

33:40

began

33:40

to really listen closely to it and started to

33:43

have some questions about it, like maybe

33:45

it's not a guitar, maybe it's a synthesizer.

33:47

So let's listen. This is the guitar solo

33:50

from Daft Punk's digital love.

33:55

So

33:55

yet again we have a solo that while it does occasionally

33:58

sound like a guitar,

34:06

There's just something keyboard-y about

34:08

it to my ear. Down

34:14

here in these low notes, it's really the attacks again.

34:17

It just sounds like keyboard synth attacks.

34:22

That said, sometimes it really sounds like

34:24

a guitar. That

34:29

is perfect. So

34:39

this sounds to me like someone going all out

34:41

to recreate the sound of a shredding,

34:43

finger tapping Eddie Van Halen solo without

34:46

actually getting a guitar player to play it, which

34:48

is a lot of fun and was probably a pretty

34:50

interesting process. I actually found an interview

34:53

in Remix Magazine with Daft Punk's

34:55

Thomas Van Galter where they asked him about

34:57

that solo and how the band got

34:59

it to sound like something that they played rather

35:02

than something that they sequenced for a synth.

35:05

His answer, quote, that was a mix

35:07

of elements. It was done with the help

35:09

of technology, with the help of sequencers.

35:11

We're interested in making things sound like something

35:13

other than what they are. There are guitars

35:16

that sound like synthesizers and there are synthesizers

35:18

that sound like guitars.

35:24

The other goal is to create spontaneity.

35:27

Even though we're not that good, we played a lot

35:29

of things ourselves. With the help of technology,

35:31

you can manufacture skills that you

35:33

don't have. That's one advantage of

35:35

having a home studio, he says.

35:40

Quote, it takes a lot of time to put together

35:42

music that way. That's not always a luxury

35:45

that you may have in a regular studio. You

35:48

might have one or two months to record an entire

35:50

album in a regular studio, but in a home studio

35:53

you have more time to experiment.

35:59

saying we also just like

36:01

the idea of the solo. No one plays

36:03

solos in their songs anymore, remember this

36:06

was in 2001, and we wanted to include

36:08

some of them on the album.

36:14

I really like that answer, particularly

36:16

when he talks about how there are synthesizers that

36:18

sound like guitars and guitars that

36:20

sound like synthesizers. And I do want to

36:22

just note here that he didn't give a clear

36:25

answer, he didn't say exactly how they did it. It

36:27

sounds like maybe they used some guitar sounds even

36:29

though they clearly also used sequencing and

36:31

synthesizers. So however you slice it, this wasn't

36:34

a guitar solo in the way we think of one.

36:36

And the keyboard, aping a guitar solo,

36:38

that sound, it's so well established

36:41

at this point, it's been done so well and so

36:43

creatively by so many keyboardists that

36:45

some guitarists make it a point to try to recreate

36:48

that sound on their guitars.

36:50

Keyboardists can do things that guitarists can't

36:52

do. They can jump octaves, they can leap from note

36:54

to note and articulate things in ways that

36:56

guitarists generally can't just because

36:59

the instruments are played differently and

37:01

that can make it pretty thrilling when a guitarist manages

37:03

to play something that sounds like it shouldn't

37:05

be possible on an actual guitar.

37:08

Tim Henson, the guitarist for that band Polyphia,

37:10

that's kind of his whole thing, or at least one

37:13

of the most impressive things about

37:14

his guitar playing, it's that he routinely

37:16

plays riffs and ideas that sound

37:18

like they're being performed on something other

37:21

than the guitar.

37:34

So yeah, it's fun to try to get one instrument to

37:36

sound like another. It's something I actually do a fair

37:38

amount of while I'm making each episode of this show

37:40

and it's always an enjoyable challenge.

37:58

Augustine writes, during the

37:59

pandemic Taylor Swift was all over the news with

38:02

her project to rerecord her music on

38:04

her own after she couldn't buy the recording

38:06

rights. At the time a lot of people were excited

38:08

about the precedent and hoped it would shape a better

38:11

relationship between artists and recording

38:13

labels and by better I mean less

38:15

exploitative and abusive. It's been

38:17

three years now and while the project seems to have been

38:19

successful for Taylor Swift the new recordings

38:22

are very popular and very good do

38:24

you think it had the splash we were all hoping

38:26

for? Well I'll say up front that I am extremely

38:29

far from a music industry expert. I'm

38:31

no kind of analyst I just don't really do that kind

38:33

of analysis so I'll keep my answer pretty short.

38:36

I can't really say what kind of an effect that it's had on

38:38

the industry both because it still hasn't really been

38:40

that long and also because it's such an extreme

38:43

outlier situation. I mean Taylor Swift

38:45

is so huge these songs are so

38:48

popular it's kind of hard to say

38:50

what that means for everyone else.

38:53

I do think it's cool anytime an artist reasserts

38:55

control over their music and I think

38:57

that Taylor doing what she did has made more people

39:00

aware of the often important difference

39:02

between owning a song and owning a

39:04

recording of that song and more broadly

39:06

of how important it is to retain control

39:09

and ownership over the art that you

39:11

create if it's at all possible.

39:13

Though I kind of get the sense that a lot of new artists

39:16

understand that anyways so many new

39:18

artists these days are discovered on TikTok

39:20

and if you're discovered on TikTok that's

39:22

because your song already went viral which

39:25

means it's already getting millions of plays on

39:27

TikTok which means it's already getting

39:29

millions of plays on Spotify

39:31

so if you are in that situation and a

39:33

record label comes to you and says hey sell

39:36

us your song we'll give you a bunch of money you

39:38

don't really have as much of an incentive to give

39:40

them everything they ask for. You

39:42

can kind of push back and say well I already made the recording

39:45

I already own all of this it's already getting

39:47

tons of play on Spotify so I'm

39:49

not going to give up total control over my music

39:51

because I've seen what happens when people do that and

39:54

I want to maintain control. Now

39:56

that's one possible upside of a world

39:58

where basically the entire music industry

40:00

runs on the black box algorithms of a single

40:03

social media company. And I mean,

40:05

it's not like that's great either. So it's not like we're

40:07

living in some amazing new future. It's

40:09

just one way that musicians have adapted to

40:11

this new landscape. And if there's one thing

40:13

that musicians and artists more broadly have demonstrated

40:16

over the decades, it's that they are endlessly

40:18

adaptable. Whether or not it's fair

40:20

that they should have to be that adaptable.

40:23

So regardless of what'll actually come of Taylor's

40:25

re-recording project, my broad take is

40:27

that anything that potentially puts more power in

40:29

the hands of the people who actually make the music is

40:31

a good thing, given how poorly those people,

40:33

musicians, songwriters, composers, have

40:36

historically been treated by the industry

40:38

that profits off of their work. So

40:40

yeah, the music industry is a vast and tangled

40:42

thing. It's been building and collapsing on itself for 100

40:44

years. No one artist is going to change

40:47

that overnight. Even an artist as huge as

40:49

Taylor Swift. But I got to think that an artist

40:51

flexing her muscle, leveraging her success

40:54

and reasserting control over her back catalog

40:56

can only be a good thing. Whether or not it

40:58

leads to more other artists

40:59

doing the same.

41:17

Jamie writes, can you please explain what

41:19

changes at the end of Peter Gabriel's

41:22

sledgehammer that makes it so much

41:24

better than the first half of the song? My

41:26

guess is that the beat gets looser, but

41:28

I've never figured it out. Help, please.

41:31

OK, Jamie, let's compare the beginning

41:33

of sledgehammer to the end part of sledgehammer.

41:35

And then I think we can talk about some of the things that Peter

41:37

Gabriel is doing to make that end

41:39

really bring it home. So here's how the

41:41

groove works in sledgehammer at the beginning

41:44

during the opening verses of the song.

41:56

So they're an E flat major and they're just stand

41:59

on an E flat for the. this verse just

42:01

kind of vamping and grooving on E

42:03

flat major.

42:05

Then they go

42:07

to C minor, then

42:11

back up to E flat. So

42:17

that's how the verse works. It's mostly E flat

42:19

major with a little bit of C minor. Then

42:21

they get to the chorus where he says, I want to be

42:23

your sledge hammer. And they do something

42:25

pretty cool. They go to a C minor chord again,

42:28

which they did before in the verse. C

42:30

minor up to D flat major. And

42:33

then it resolves up to F minor,

42:35

which is kind of an interesting place to go. It's

42:37

a step higher than they were on the verse. And

42:39

the chorus is really kind of just in F

42:42

minor or F minor seven. I

42:44

want to be your

42:48

sledge hammer. Why

42:52

don't you call my name? I

42:55

want to be

42:58

your sledge hammer.

43:01

So that's the first part of the song that you're talking about,

43:03

Jamie. It's actually a really interesting

43:05

song. It sounds like it's just cooking along,

43:08

doing what you'd expect, but then you pop the

43:10

hood and look at what's going on. And it's all a bit stranger

43:12

and more creative than you might have initially thought,

43:15

which of course is typical of Peter

43:17

Gabriel. And that's part of what makes him such a distinct

43:19

and interesting songwriter. So now let's listen

43:21

to the part that you're asking about the second part of the song, when

43:25

they bring it home at the end and the energy

43:27

level really kicks up.

43:29

Man, I love that synth shakuhachi

43:32

so much.

43:39

So the most important thing about this part of the song is that

43:41

it's a different chord progression than

43:44

everything that's come before it. Well,

43:46

almost everything that's come before it. I

43:49

keep the habit, keep the habit,

43:51

keep the habit. Shut

43:54

my skin, shut

43:57

my skin.

43:58

this section

44:00

feel groovier and more exciting than the

44:02

verse. This is kind of the climax of the song

44:05

and it's all been building in this direction. For

44:07

starters, the backup vocalists are just way more prominent

44:10

in the arrangement here and they sound amazing.

44:12

So that's just gonna sound exciting because

44:14

hearing Peter Gabriel trade with killing

44:17

backup vocals just is exciting.

44:19

It sounds great.

44:25

So

44:28

the arrangement is more exciting but the chord

44:30

progression here also plays a big

44:32

role. First of all, it transitions from

44:35

that E flat major sound that was going on

44:37

in the verse to E flat minor. So

44:39

now we're in minor, it's got a darker, more

44:41

driving energy right out of the gate.

44:51

So it sits on an E flat minor for a couple of bars

44:53

and then it drops to B major, the

44:55

flat six major. That is another very

44:58

dramatic chord progression. So we start on this

45:00

dramatic E flat minor, then we go to a dramatic

45:02

B major and then the third chord

45:04

is the four chord, A flat seven, also

45:07

very dramatic. This is a pretty

45:10

intense chord progression and this whole

45:12

outro just goes from

45:13

E flat

45:15

to B major to

45:18

A flat seven. Building and

45:21

building and building. So

45:32

yeah, the groove is different here. They're digging

45:34

in a little bit more. The guitar and keys are

45:36

doing that almost reggae skanking thing

45:38

over on the right. But

45:45

a lot of it comes down to this new chord progression

45:48

or is it a new chord progression? Because

45:51

while you might associate this sound, these

45:53

chords with the end of the song, this chord

45:55

progression is actually the very first thing that

45:57

plays at the start of the recording.

46:05

The

46:05

whole groove is right there, that same chord

46:07

progression, those same three dramatic

46:09

chords, that same guitar groove

46:12

over on the right.

46:14

They just transition out of it pretty quickly

46:17

and into the major keyed verse.

46:24

So yet another cool thing about an incredibly

46:26

cool song, the outro to Sludge Hammer

46:28

is just a fleshed out version of the intro

46:31

and however you think of it, it rocks.

46:35

And yes, yes, I know I've said it before but I'll say

46:38

it again, I am definitely going to do a whole

46:40

episode on Peter Gabriel at some point

46:42

here.

46:55

Our final question comes from Jamie

46:57

and it's about a subject that's near and dear to my heart,

46:59

one that I always try to return to at least once on

47:02

most of my Q&A episodes, namely learning

47:04

a new instrument and developing good practice

47:06

habits on that instrument. Jamie writes, 100%

47:09

inspired by strong songs, I recently started

47:12

taking clarinet lessons at a local music

47:14

school. My progress is slow but I'm loving every

47:16

second of it. The lessons actually serve a double

47:19

purpose for me. I'm learning the clarinet

47:21

and I'm finally learning how to read music.

47:24

I had guitar lessons as a teen

47:25

but I never had any kind of discipline and

47:27

I quickly plateaued. It's wild

47:29

to approach music lessons with an adult brain

47:31

and an adult attention span and a much

47:34

clearer idea of what I want to get

47:36

from learning the instrument. One thing that I'm finding

47:38

is that I've become a little bit manic about

47:40

practicing quote unquote effectively.

47:43

I've been reading too much, watching too many YouTube

47:45

videos about proper form and as a result

47:48

I forget to simply play the pieces and

47:50

listen to myself and enjoy it. So

47:52

I guess my questions for you are, what

47:54

advice would

47:55

you give for practicing effectively and

47:57

how would you recommend improving my sight

47:59

reading?

47:59

reading.

48:00

So I definitely resonate with this question and I

48:02

think you've really articulated the good and

48:05

the bad of learning a new musical instrument as an

48:07

adult. As an adult, you often have

48:09

spent a lot of time in your life learning how

48:11

to manage your schedule, how to tackle

48:13

a project and work methodically. You have more patience

48:16

with yourself. You tend to take things a little bit more seriously.

48:19

That can be great since it can make you a more efficient

48:21

or to use Jamie's word effective practitioner.

48:25

But that can also be a double-edged sword because

48:27

it's easy to become overly focused

48:29

on that effectiveness and to lose sight of why

48:31

you're playing music in the first place. YouTube

48:34

tutorials can really contribute to this I've

48:37

found. For me, it's guitar YouTube, but it's

48:39

the same difference, whatever instrument that you're playing.

48:41

If you spend enough time watching the most popular

48:44

instructional videos for a given instrument

48:46

on YouTube, you start to get this like homogenized,

48:50

generalized view of the instrument and the

48:52

techniques required to master it that

48:54

don't really have that much to do with your

48:56

actual personal relationship with the instrument,

48:59

which is the thing that you're actually developing.

49:01

And that may sound like a fine distinction, but it's actually

49:04

kind of a significant one and one

49:06

that you'll notice more and more over time. I

49:08

think the reason for that is that YouTube videos are

49:10

all aimed at a general audience, so they

49:12

provide a kind of general advice. The

49:15

whole thing starts to feel kind of generalized.

49:17

When you zoom out and you look at the accumulated instructional

49:20

knowledge on YouTube, learning a musical instrument

49:22

looks about the same as learning to dismantle a

49:24

car engine or properly assemble an IKEA

49:27

desk or any of the other many things that

49:29

YouTube shows people how to do.

49:30

And all the people making these videos,

49:33

especially the most popular ones, they're great musicians,

49:35

they're really good teachers, and they're giving helpful

49:37

instruction and advice. It's just the

49:39

nature of that kind of generalized advice.

49:42

When you're speaking to potentially millions of people,

49:45

it's going to take on a kind of a generalized

49:47

tone. So in that context, it's easy to

49:49

start just viewing your instrument as another

49:51

widget to be mastered, another series of processes

49:54

to be optimized and digested. And

49:56

while that can be helpful, it's just one part

49:58

of the actual experience of the

49:59

of building an expressive relationship with

50:02

a musical instrument. So that is one

50:04

reason that I always suggest finding a private teacher

50:06

and doing in-person one-on-one lessons, but

50:09

actually Jamie, it sounds like you're already doing that, which is

50:11

fantastic. It's really cool that you found a

50:13

music school to start with

50:15

when you're learning the clarinet. So to your questions,

50:18

both about refocusing and reimagining

50:21

your musical practice and also for improving your

50:23

sight reading, I'll suggest something slightly different.

50:25

If you can, try to find someone else

50:27

to play with. Another student maybe

50:29

at the school that you're attending, someone who's maybe

50:32

around your level, they might play a clarinet

50:34

as well, or maybe they play a different instrument, just

50:36

someone who seems cool, who seems like they'd be down

50:38

to get together and play duets, work

50:40

up some repertoire, or just mess around in your

50:43

instruments, see what happens, see how they work

50:45

together, and do that kind of on

50:47

a regular basis, every week maybe,

50:49

every other week. The best way to improve

50:51

your sight reading is to practice sight reading. And

50:54

I've found that the best way to practice sight reading

50:56

is to do it in an actual ensemble setting.

50:59

That can actually just mean two people. There's just something that happens

51:02

in my brain when I'm actually playing

51:04

a piece of sheet music for the first time with another

51:06

person. When I'm doing that a lot, preferably

51:09

with music, that's pretty easy. That's maybe one

51:11

degree of difficulty below anything that

51:13

I'm working up and taking time to kind of

51:15

go over and perfect. That's a great way to

51:17

just clear out the synapses that my brain uses

51:20

when it's sight reading new music. But more

51:22

broadly, playing music with another person can just

51:24

be a good way to move away from

51:26

the obsessive optimization brain that

51:28

can take over in the practice room when it's just us

51:30

and the instrument, and move more toward

51:33

the silly, fun, joyful, collaborative

51:35

process of actually just making and sharing

51:37

music with another person, which is

51:39

kind of what it's all about, or at least what a

51:41

big part of music is all about. So

51:44

yeah, that's my advice, my generalized

51:46

advice to anyone out there who resonates at

51:48

all with this question. I feel like there probably

51:50

are more than a few of you. Remember that

51:52

musical practice can be a collaborative thing and

51:55

see if you can find someone to play and practice

51:57

with, not because you have to write

51:59

new music.

51:59

or prepare for a big performance,

52:02

but just to play together. Music is

52:04

always better when you share it. The same thing

52:06

goes for the process of learning music.

52:09

Good luck with the clarinet, Jamie. I'm so happy

52:11

to hear that the show has gotten you learning

52:13

a new instrument. There is nothing like the relationship

52:16

that a person can build with a musical instrument.

52:18

And I hope that you continue to build your relationship

52:21

with the clarinet for many, many

52:23

years to

52:24

come.

52:27

And that'll do it for this latest Mailbag episode. Thanks

52:30

so much to everyone who wrote in with a question. And if

52:32

I didn't get to your question, don't worry. I put them all

52:34

in a huge master document and you never know

52:36

when I'll go through and dig up some older

52:39

ones and answer them on the show. I have way more

52:41

good questions than I'll probably ever

52:43

have time to answer. But as always, if

52:45

you have a musical question that you think might be good for the

52:47

show, please do send it along to

52:50

listeners at strongsongspodcast.com.

52:52

I read them all, even if I don't have a chance to read

52:54

them all on the show. And I really love all the

52:57

questions that

52:57

you all send. Thanks so much, as always,

52:59

to everyone who's chipped in to make Strong Songs

53:01

possible. As you know, I am entirely

53:04

listener supported, which means I don't sell ads.

53:06

And that also means that I don't make any money off

53:08

of ads. So I'm very grateful to everyone

53:10

who makes it possible for me not to need that money

53:13

and to make this show without needing to worry

53:15

about ads or sponsorships or anything

53:17

else like that. So if you like Strong Songs,

53:19

if you get something out of it, if you'd like to help me keep

53:21

making it, go to patreon.com slash

53:24

strong songs, or you can find a link for

53:26

one-time donations down

53:27

in the show notes. And again, really thank you so

53:29

much to everyone who supports this show.

53:32

As always, you can find links for many more things down

53:34

in the show notes as well, the Strong Song store,

53:36

social media stuff, playlists for the songs I've

53:38

covered. And there's even a play along for those

53:40

of you who might wanna try recording your own outro

53:43

solo to possibly be featured

53:45

on a future episode of the show. That's

53:47

it for now though. Take care, everyone. Keep

53:50

listening, and I'll see you all in two weeks

53:52

for more Strong Songs.

53:54

♪ Ooh, ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh, ooh-ooh,

53:58

ooh, ooh, ooh-ooh ♪ Music