0:01

A hemiola is not, in fact, a

0:03

rare celestial event. It's a polyrhythmic figure

0:05

featuring a three count superimposed over two

0:07

or four. Hemiolas

0:10

aren't super common in popular music, but it's always nice

0:12

to see them, so they are sort of like the

0:14

Aurora Borealis of music. Welcome

0:23

to Strong Songs, a podcast about music.

0:25

I'm your host, Kirk Hamilton, and I'm

0:27

so glad that you've joined me to

0:29

talk about hemiolas on a 4-4 chorus,

0:31

just a three beat chorale under the

0:33

Aurora Borealis. That

0:37

didn't make any sense, but you know what does? Listener

0:39

support! Strong Songs is entirely listener

0:41

supported, which means I am able to make

0:43

this show, which I love so much, thanks

0:45

to all of you out there who have

0:47

become patrons. If you like Strong Songs and

0:49

want to chip in, go to patreon.com/strong songs

0:52

and you can. On

0:54

this episode, we're opening the mailbag for

0:56

some questions on newly invented instruments, evanescence

0:58

piano, fish and kashibashi counting, what it

1:00

means to be a musician's musician, and

1:03

what to do when the concert you're

1:05

attending is way too loud. There's

1:07

plenty more too, so let's get into it. No

1:29

need for lengthy preamble, we got a lot

1:31

of questions to get through and I want

1:33

to fit as many as I can into

1:35

this episode. As always, you can send your

1:37

questions to listeners at strongsongspodcast.com. I

1:39

read every email I get, even if I don't have a

1:41

chance to include your question on the show, I will

1:44

definitely check it out. So yeah, listeners at

1:46

strongsongspodcast.com, don't be a stranger. Our first question

1:49

comes from Phil, who writes, back when it

1:51

was on the radio more often, my wife

1:53

and I would play a game with Kelly's

1:55

Milkshake where we would dramatically point in the

1:58

air every time the door chimed. sound

2:00

would play trying to predict when

2:02

the cue would come in. We

2:07

did this with irregular sounds in other songs

2:09

as well and often got very good at

2:12

predicting when those sounds would come in, but

2:14

to this very day we can never quite

2:16

pick when the door chime sound is going

2:18

to play in milkshake. Can you please help?

2:25

Okay, so this is milkshake by Kelis, and

2:28

just in case you missed it, this is the first one and this

2:30

is the bell sound that Phil is wondering about. So

2:36

this is a pretty cool tune, it was a hit back in 2003

2:38

produced by Neptunes, which I remember

2:41

when everything on the radio was produced by

2:44

Neptunes. Maybe you don't remember that because I

2:46

am a lot older than you are, but it's

2:49

a real snapshot of a moment in time for

2:51

me. And yeah, this chime, it sounds like a

2:53

glockenspiel or a sample of a glockenspiel or something,

2:55

some kind of a mallet instrument. It does follow

2:58

a set pattern, but it's a kind of irregular

3:00

pattern, so I can see why you might have

3:02

trouble predicting when it's going to happen. Fortunately it's

3:04

pretty easy to nail it down once you

3:06

know what to do, because it is according to

3:09

a regular pattern. So this song

3:11

is arranged in 8-bar phrases, the verse is

3:13

8-bars, the chorus is 8-bars, and you can

3:15

think of each of those phrases as a

3:17

pair of 4-bars, so there's 4-bars, then another

3:19

4-bars, which gets you 8. And

3:21

the thing you want to get your head around

3:23

is that the chime plays once every 4-bars, but

3:25

it plays at a different point depending on whether

3:27

you're in the first group of 4-bars or the

3:30

second group of 4-bars. So in the

3:32

first group of 4-bars, it plays on the fourth beat

3:34

of the second bar. Let's count it. 2,

3:37

3, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4. So

3:47

that's half of the 8-bar chorus. In the

3:50

second 4-bars of the chorus, that chime triggers

3:52

at the end of the third bar instead

3:54

of the second bar, so now let's count

3:56

that. And 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2,

3:58

3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, Four, two, three,

4:00

four, three, two, three, four, two, three, four. And

4:07

that's the pattern for the song. First, the second

4:09

bar. And

4:11

then in the second group of four bars, it plays at

4:13

the end of the third bar. It's

4:15

a regular, irregular pattern. Because of that, it

4:18

keeps you off balance even though it is

4:20

repeating a cycle. So

4:22

let's count the whole thing. One,

4:24

two, three, four, two,

4:26

two, three, three,

4:28

two, three, four, four,

4:30

two, three, four. One, two,

4:33

three, four, two, three, four,

4:35

three, two, three, four, two,

4:37

three, four. So

4:41

that's what you have to do. Split the eight-bar phrase

4:43

into a pair of four-bar phrases, and then the bell

4:45

alternates between the fourth beat of the second bar and

4:47

the fourth beat of the third bar. I hope that

4:49

gives you what you need to nail it down, and

4:51

I gotta say, this game sounds pretty fun. But I'm

4:53

gonna have to start playing. I'm gonna

4:55

take you, but I have to try to hold

4:58

it. Elijah writes, I have a

5:00

question about a song called Going Under, which

5:02

is on Evanescence's debut album, Fallen. I'm wondering

5:04

about the piano part. It seems to be

5:06

playing almost random notes at one point. They

5:08

might be in the same key as the

5:10

rest of the song, but maybe it goes

5:12

in and out of the key. Anyway, the

5:15

notes sound like they shouldn't work, but somehow

5:17

they do. I was hoping you could break

5:19

down what's happening there. Thanks. Okay, Elijah, I'm

5:21

happy to do that. Let's listen to a

5:23

little bit of Evanescence's song, Going Under. And

5:25

yeah, put your ears on and listen to

5:27

that piano and see what you hear. Always

5:32

using the pop in my

5:35

head I

5:38

can't touch my death I

5:40

can't even... I... So

5:45

yeah, that's a cool piano part, and it's

5:47

crucial to this part of the arrangement because

5:49

without the piano, you'd kind of just be

5:51

getting this really straightforward power chord thing, but

5:53

the piano adds some nice harmonic interest to

5:55

what's going on. It also lines up with

5:57

the backup vocals and the cool way midway

5:59

through. the phrase. So this song is

6:01

in B. It's driven primarily by electric guitar,

6:04

which sound tuned way down to B.

6:06

That's very low for the electric guitar, and it

6:08

gives it that crunchy from the depths of the

6:10

ocean sound. They're just crunching along on a power

6:12

chord in B. On the piano,

6:15

that would sound like this. Then

6:18

the actual piano part plays much higher. It

6:20

starts on a B and then immediately moves

6:22

outside of the key. So you're correct, Elijah,

6:24

that this does move outside of the key,

6:27

though it is anything but random. The piano

6:29

part sounds like this. In

6:37

the context of the song, with that B power chord

6:39

going, you can hear a little more clearly what they're

6:41

doing. This is what that sounds like. So

7:05

the piano part starts on a B, which

7:07

is the tonic in B minor, and then

7:09

it immediately goes up a half step and

7:12

an octave. So it jumps up to a

7:14

C natural, which is called a flat ninth.

7:16

And that's basically the most dissonant interval that

7:18

there is. It then drops down to a

7:20

C right above the B where it started.

7:22

Then it goes up to an A, then

7:24

down to a D, then up to a

7:26

G, and then right down to an F

7:28

sharp. It has a nice shape to it.

7:30

It forms a sort of triangle on its

7:32

side. It jumps up to its largest interval

7:34

at the start, and then it alternates

7:36

between going down and up on ever

7:39

smaller intervals, drawing closer and closer together

7:41

until the final two notes are just

7:43

a half step apart, and they're located

7:45

right between the two starting notes. So

7:48

with C natural is definitely outside of the

7:50

key of B minor, but a flat two

7:52

has its own distinct identity and function that

7:54

just kind of works, especially in a song

7:56

like this, where there isn't that much harmony

7:58

to begin with. just power chords

8:01

one and five, and then Amy Lee's

8:03

melody notes on top. So while they're

8:05

technically outside of the key on that

8:07

C natural, a flat two is so

8:09

self-consciously outside of the key that it

8:11

actually doesn't really sound like they're doing

8:13

something atonal or anything all that unusual.

8:15

I think they just wanted something that

8:17

sounded a bit off, a bit unsettling,

8:19

and a flat two will definitely do

8:21

that. I'd say the flat two and

8:23

the tritone are kind of the first

8:25

two places that most songwriters will go

8:27

when they want that effect. I

8:37

actually like that part there when the piano

8:39

part goes from G to F sharp. The

8:41

backup vocals sing that line with them, and

8:44

it's a nice little bit of synergy between

8:46

those two parts. So

8:53

yeah, that's what's going on. It is not

8:55

completely random. It's a nice little counter melody

8:57

that to my ear adds a really important

9:00

bit of harmonic and sonic flavor to what

9:02

would otherwise be a very straightforward rock verse.

9:04

Cool stuff. Tyler

9:08

writes, my question stems from an obsession

9:11

I have with odd time signatures and

9:13

odd time feels which are the most

9:15

delicious ear candy. And just

9:17

as an aside, I've never thought about ear

9:19

candy as being delicious, which makes me think

9:21

about actually eating candy with your ears. So

9:23

you need like teeth in your ears. It

9:25

starts to get kind of weird for me

9:27

when I think about the term ear candy

9:29

now, like you're eating with your ears. Anyway,

9:35

back to Tyler's question. He

9:37

writes, in the song, The Sky

9:39

Was Pink by Vessels, I'm not sure what's

9:41

going on with the keys. Is it a

9:43

polyrhythm? Maybe the keys are late or maybe

9:46

I'm overthinking it. Well,

9:53

this is The Sky Was Pink by Vessels, a song

9:56

I hadn't heard of by a band I hadn't heard

9:58

of. Really cool song was released as a.

10:00

single about 10 years ago. And yeah,

10:02

let's listen to the keys and see what's

10:04

going on. Okay,

10:15

this is one of those questions where I gave

10:17

the song a listen and I thought I had

10:19

a simple answer. I got ready to record that

10:21

answer and then I realized it's a little bit

10:23

more complicated than I realized at first. And that

10:26

little extra bit of complication is the sort of

10:28

thing that makes it harder to properly explain without

10:30

going down a bunch of rabbit holes. So let's

10:32

see if I can do it as straightforwardly as

10:34

possible. For starters, the song is moving between two

10:37

chords. It's an E flat major and then it

10:39

goes to A flat minor, the four minor, and

10:41

then it goes back to E flat major. That's

10:43

a very simple kind of drone sort

10:45

of a thing. The keyboard part, it's really an

10:47

organ here, but that organ part is playing in

10:50

second inversion. So it has the fifth on the

10:52

bottom and the B flat on the bottom, E

10:54

flat over B flat, and then it goes up

10:56

to an A flat minor over B. So the

10:58

bass note is just moving in half steps. That

11:00

fifth going to the minor third. It's a nice

11:03

sound going from one to four minor. This

11:05

keyboard part rhythmically is doing what's known

11:07

as a hemiola, which as I mentioned

11:09

in the intro is a rhythmic pattern

11:11

where there is a three figure placed

11:13

over a two figure or a four

11:16

figure. A lot of times two and four

11:18

are kind of interchangeable since they subdivide into

11:20

one another. And instead of calling this a

11:22

hemiola, a lot of times people will just

11:25

call this three over four. They're kind of

11:27

playing three over four here is how you'll

11:29

hear this described. In this case, there's a

11:31

new note every three 16th notes. There are

11:34

four 16th notes in a beat. So by

11:36

accenting every third one, it creates this layered

11:38

rhythm that's displaced from the primary pulse and

11:40

creates this kind of circling, spiraling effect. So

11:43

here are some 16th notes on the high hat

11:45

with the kick drum just playing downbeat. So

11:50

if you count the 16th notes, it's one E

11:52

and a two E and a three E and a four E and a. All

11:56

right, straightforward 16th notes. So now I'll play

11:58

the snare drum every four. sixteenth notes,

12:00

which turns out to be every beat.

12:07

Not very exciting, but now let's put that

12:09

snare drum on a hemiola and have it

12:11

play every third sixteenth note. It'll have a

12:13

pretty different rhythm. You

12:17

hear it? Like one,

12:19

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

12:21

three, one, two. It's the kind

12:24

of thing that's hard to get your head around at first, but

12:26

once you get used to it, you can make some pretty cool

12:28

grooves out of it. So

12:31

it can be a bit of a tricky thing to get your head around

12:45

in part because of the sequencing of the

12:47

keyboard part. It goes between a few different

12:49

voicings for each chord. On the E flat,

12:51

there's the first voicing, which has a B

12:54

flat on top, so that happens twice. And

12:57

then the second one with a G on top

12:59

happens three times. Then

13:01

on A flat minor, the first one with a

13:03

B on top happens 12, and

13:06

the next one with an A flat on top happens

13:08

three times, but then it goes back

13:11

to the first one three more times, and

13:13

then it plays a new one with a D flat

13:15

on top three more times. And

13:18

then here's the tricky part, it goes over the

13:20

bar line into the start of the next cycle.

13:22

So it goes two, then three, then

13:24

two, then two, then

13:30

three, then two, and then

13:32

back to the start. So

13:51

if you can memorize those five different chord

13:53

shapes and then just get that sequence of

13:55

counting in your head, two, three, two, three,

13:57

three, three, and then back again. Then

14:00

you've got it, but here's the other tricky thing

14:02

about this, the keyboard player doesn't always play it

14:04

the same way. So sometimes they

14:06

really commit to the hemiola and they

14:08

keep that 3 over 4 going through

14:11

the entire chord sequence, but sometimes they

14:13

break the hemiola at the chord change

14:15

like they do here in the intro.

14:25

So it's a subtle shift, but they add

14:27

a 16th note in the left hand right

14:29

before the chord change which breaks the hemiola

14:31

and actually makes it easier to keep track

14:33

of the grooves. So instead of this unbroken

14:35

chain of 3 16th note groups,

14:44

which can be pretty disorienting the longer it

14:46

goes along, there's a break right at the

14:48

key change. Listen for it. Here

14:53

we go. It

14:56

makes it almost sound like a mon to know

14:58

and makes it a lot easier to hear the

15:00

downbeat because the bass in the left hand of

15:02

the piano switches and hits that downbeat. After

15:09

that initial time, the keyboard player stops

15:12

doing that so the hemiola remains intact

15:14

through the whole cycle, which is a

15:16

lot more disorienting sounding. But

15:24

then a little bit later in the tune, they

15:26

go back and break the hemiola one time through.

15:29

So it's just inconsistent. See? It's

15:31

not a bad thing, that inconsistency.

15:34

It just

15:37

makes it a bit tricky to lay out all

15:39

the different things going on and it's extra tricky

15:41

because it's so granular that I'm sure some of

15:43

you are out there listening like, what? How

15:45

could anyone care about this? Anyway,

15:48

I hope that answers your question, Tyler. This is

15:50

one of those deceptively complex parts, in part just

15:52

because I think it was recorded in the studio

15:54

by a player who liked changing up their approach

15:57

to the rhythmic figure from time to time depending

15:59

on the time. So

18:01

yeah, it's a pretty wild sounding instrument,

18:03

and it's a good example of a

18:05

new instrument that expands on an existing

18:07

instrument design and thus introduces new possibilities.

18:09

So it's not a brand new thing,

18:11

it's just like two soprano saxophones turned

18:13

into a single instrument. Another

18:15

instrument of that type that comes to mind is the Picasso

18:17

42 string guitar made famous by

18:20

Pat Metheny. The Picasso was designed by Luthier

18:22

Linda Manzier, and you really gotta see it

18:24

to understand how wild it is. It has

18:26

strings tuned in almost every possible direction. It

18:29

looks like a cross between a lyre,

18:31

a lute, a mandolin, a 12-string

18:33

guitar, a 6-string guitar. I

18:36

guess that's kind of what it is, actually. Nashville

18:48

musician Matt Glassmeyer invented another one

18:50

of my favorites, a percussion instrument

18:52

that's going to let me kind

18:54

of get around my policy of

18:56

not swearing on this show because

18:58

it's called the Chitar, but that's

19:00

guitar, G-U-I-T-A-R, with an S-H. It's

19:02

been popularized by a few different musicians. The

19:04

person I've seen play at most is the

19:07

brilliant drummer John O'Ricks, who incidentally is a

19:09

fellow University of Miami Jazz alum. He was

19:11

at school a few years ahead of me,

19:13

and we all basically worshiped him because he's

19:15

one of the greatest drummers alive. He

19:18

often plays the Chitar with the Wood Brothers,

19:20

the amazing band that he plays with.

19:22

It's basically an acoustic guitar body that's been

19:24

jury-rigged with a bunch of cymbals and metal

19:27

bars and different kinds of

19:29

textures and varied surfaces that will

19:31

allow a creative drummer, especially someone

19:33

wearing various rings on their fingers,

19:35

to build some really cool grooves

19:37

while standing up and being very

19:39

mobile on stage. This

19:44

is from a video of Glassmeyer and Ricks

19:46

demonstrating the instrument and getting some pretty cool

19:48

grooves. You

19:57

can think of that kind of like, fleck-tone string.

20:00

Future Man's Synthax Drum-A-Tar but acoustic,

20:02

and for that matter, surely the

20:04

Synthax Drum-A-Tar counts as a newly

20:07

invented musical instrument. The

20:16

Synthax Drum-A-Tar is an electronic drum set that's

20:18

been reworked into a different shape and it

20:20

allows you to play with your fingers, more

20:22

like a series of finger drums set on

20:24

a box with a neck that looks basically

20:26

like a guitar. It's actually based

20:29

on the Synthax, which itself is an

20:31

instrument that was invented by three English

20:33

musicians in the 1980s. It's

20:35

a familiar sound, it mostly sounds like

20:38

drums when Future Man plays it, but

20:40

the interface itself is what's innovative and

20:42

it allows for interesting new musical ideas.

20:44

And a similar new musical instrument that

20:46

I actually play and really love is

20:49

the Wind Synth, which I definitely count

20:51

as a new type of instrument that's

20:53

still being refined and iterated upon. Wind

20:59

Synths are electronic instruments that have

21:01

breath and bite sensors to allow

21:03

wind players to expressively control electronic

21:06

sounds like synthesizers or different kinds

21:08

of synths and also samples, really

21:10

anything that follows MIDI input data.

21:13

Examples like the Akai-Iwi, the electronic wind

21:15

instrument, have been around for decades, but

21:17

my current Wind Synth, which I love,

21:19

is the Roland Aerophone that's only been

21:21

out for a couple of years. Playing

21:24

it feels to me like playing an entirely

21:26

new kind of instrument. It's so cool. I

21:29

love playing this thing. I can apply all of

21:31

my sax chops to any sound that I can

21:33

think of. I wish this had been around

21:35

when I was in music school. I would have had so

21:37

much fun with it. So

21:45

yeah, that's just a few examples of instruments that I

21:47

can think of off the top of my head that

21:49

have been invented in the last few decades. And of

21:51

course, there are a lot that I don't know about

21:53

if you've invented an instrument or

21:55

come across an interesting musical invention. I hope

21:57

you'll write in and tell me about it.

21:59

because I love to hear about new things

22:02

that people are trying. So yeah, feel free

22:04

to reach out, especially if you're an inventor yourself.

22:06

I'd love to hear from you and see what

22:09

you want to do. Ana

22:15

writes, what do you think of the

22:17

terms musicians, musician, or bands, band? What

22:20

qualifies an artist to gain this badge

22:22

of honor? I've always thought this was

22:24

kind of a silly concept, but there

22:26

are definitely artists and musicians that you'll

22:28

see out there who are praised as

22:31

gods in the smaller music nerd world,

22:33

but did not see serious commercial success

22:35

or public notoriety. So yeah, this is

22:37

a funny term and a funny concept.

22:39

It's something you'll see across other types

22:42

of media. Someone will call a director,

22:44

a filmmaker's filmmaker, or an author,

22:46

an author's author. It can seem

22:48

sort of like a backhanded compliment since

22:50

it implies technical expertise and technical innovation

22:52

over broad commercial appeal, though I do

22:54

think that most musicians that I've seen

22:57

called a musician's musician are pretty successful.

22:59

They just aren't, you know, Taylor Swift

23:01

or whatever. It's a real thing anyways.

23:03

It's a way of describing the kind

23:05

of art that is particularly impressive to

23:07

other people who also make that art,

23:09

which I guess means that it's sophisticated

23:11

enough that the people who most appreciate

23:13

it are the people who deeply understand

23:15

how sophisticated it is. A lot of

23:17

advanced and progressive jazz are really progressive

23:19

improvised music, which maybe feels like a

23:22

broader and more inclusive term to call

23:24

it, feels this way to me. Snarky

23:26

Puppy, the band, is a good example

23:28

of this. I'm sure a lot of

23:30

people like Snarky Puppy who are musicians,

23:32

but their music has always felt a

23:34

little to me, and I

23:36

don't mean this at all as an insult or anything,

23:38

but it feels a little like music aimed at people

23:40

who majored in jazz performance. And I mean, I'm one

23:42

of those people. So I am the target audience of

23:45

Snarky Puppy. The

23:58

more I think about it though, maybe it's about more than just technical

24:00

skill. There's also a sort of cool

24:02

factor associated with this. Anna mentioned a

24:04

few artists that she thinks of as

24:06

musicians, musicians, and she mentions Nels Klein

24:09

as an example of one, and I'd

24:11

say that's right. Nels is an incredible

24:13

guitarist. He's also just such a creative

24:15

artist. It's not just that he's a

24:17

technically impressive guitar player, he's kind of

24:19

a sonic painter, and I

24:21

don't know, he's just the kind of guitarist

24:23

that a nerd like me would call a

24:25

sonic painter, and maybe that makes him a

24:28

musician's musician. Similarly,

24:37

I've always seen the band Sparks called your

24:39

favorite band's favorite band, which I think implies

24:41

some of the same sort of underground cool

24:44

factor, the idea that normies like you might

24:46

like some famous band, but that famous band,

24:48

they yearn to be as cool as this

24:50

even hip or less well-known band. And

25:04

I mean a lot of that is marketing.

25:06

Sparks is a really good band. I'm definitely

25:08

going to talk about them at some point

25:11

on the show. They've been requested quite a

25:13

bit since Edgar Wright made that movie about

25:15

them, but you know, they're a great band.

25:17

I think that whole your favorite band's favorite

25:19

band thing just sounds like marketing copy to

25:22

me, and a lot of this is just

25:24

sort of scene stir kind of stuff, you

25:26

know, musicians, musician. It's all different ways of

25:28

categorizing art and telling people subtly

25:30

or not so subtly what it is

25:32

they're allowed to like and not like,

25:34

so a lot of this stuff kind of

25:36

ties in with some elements of

25:39

music criticism and the music culture

25:41

in general that I don't really

25:43

love, but it can still kind

25:45

of be a fun shorthand sometimes. So anyways,

25:47

those are a few thoughts on that concept, which

25:50

I agree with you, Anna, is kind of a

25:52

silly concept, even though it does have some meaning.

26:03

Ian writes, Hi Kirk, I've got another

26:05

counting slash groove question for a Q&A

26:07

episode. If you're not sick of them

26:09

yet, no I'm not sick of them.

26:11

I will never get sick of counting

26:13

slash groove questions. Ian continues, the Kishi

26:15

Bashi song Ha Ha Ha Part 2

26:18

starts out with a pretty standard 4-4

26:20

acoustic guitar and then layers in additional parts

26:23

for the first minute or so of the

26:25

track. So I'll just interrupt Ian and

26:27

we can hear the opening part of that

26:29

track. This is Ha Ha Ha Part 2

26:31

from Kishi Bashi's 2014 record Lai Yai. And

26:46

yeah, to just explain what Ian is counting,

26:48

this is very straightforward 4-4 times. Here's

26:51

the groove. It's 1, 2, 3, 4. Extremely

26:59

cool, don't worry, we'll talk about this a little

27:01

bit later. I'd never heard Kishi Bashi before this

27:03

opening. Very cool stuff. So

27:09

here comes the change Ian is asking about.

27:22

So Ian continues, to my untrained ear this sounds like a

27:24

shift into a 6-8 groove but I've

27:26

been racking my brain and I can't seem to think of

27:28

another example like this where the snare is on 2 and

27:30

5 in a 6-beat bar. Am

27:33

I counting it wrong and if not,

27:35

can you think of any other tunes

27:37

with similar thump pop configuration? And Ian

27:39

adds shout out to TripleClick Discord Mod

27:41

Trent for introducing me to this album

27:43

via the TripleClick Discord Album of the

27:46

Week Club. Thanks Kirk, love the show.

27:48

So for starters, I'll add a shout

27:50

out to Trent, a very cool mod

27:52

of the Discord for TripleClick, my video game podcast,

27:54

a very lively Discord over there. They have a

27:56

lot of fun and they do a weekly listening

27:58

club that I'm not always able to keep up

28:00

with, but they have a lot of really

28:02

cool picks, including this one. I'd never heard

28:04

this album and it's really cool. I've gone

28:07

and listened to the whole thing. This is

28:09

Lai'ite, or at least I suppose that's how

28:11

you pronounce it, by Kishi Bashi, who is

28:13

not a musician I was familiar with. He's

28:15

a songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, who played with Of Montreal,

28:18

which once I learned that, it all kind

28:20

of came into focus a little bit, because

28:22

this album reminds me of some ways of

28:24

that band, Of Montreal. A similar sound and

28:26

a similarly pseudonymous kind of setup where Kevin

28:29

Barnes really is of Montreal, and it's

28:31

a similar deal here with Kishi Bashi. Let's

28:35

listen to that transition again. You know

28:39

what I'm

28:47

doing is I call this 3-4. It's

28:49

a pretty straightforward 3-4 groove with the

28:51

snare on two of each bar. Like

28:54

this. 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3,

28:56

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13,

28:58

13, 14, 15, 15, 16, 16, 17, 17, 18, 19, 19,

29:00

19, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. It's

29:03

really a backbeat of sorts, and I would say it's

29:05

not that uncommon in 3-4 songs. This

29:11

is a really inventive song like the rest of

29:13

this album, timbrel-y and rhythmically, though it is steadily

29:16

in 3-4 through to the end. One

29:22

thing I do want to point out since we're talking

29:24

about hemiolas in this episode is there's a reverse hemiola

29:26

4 over 3 if you listen

29:28

to some of the other parts going on

29:31

on top of the groove. I

29:35

think it's a guitar that's giving us this

29:37

bum-bum. That's like a

29:40

hemiola turned on its

29:42

head. 4

29:50

over 3. So

29:54

cool, and even this hahaha he's about to

29:56

sing. Uh,

30:00

that's happening every third success note, it's

30:02

just it becomes four over three because

30:04

the song is in three. So

30:09

that's really the answer. This is just a

30:11

new section of the song. This isn't the

30:13

first pop song to just completely change grooves

30:15

halfway through. They do a kind of a

30:17

ritardando where it slows down and then just

30:20

boom, we're into a new time signature and

30:22

actually a new tempo. So it's really just

30:24

a second section of the song that like

30:26

I said plays through to the end. So

30:28

the song just sort of transforms halfway through.

30:40

So yeah, it's as simple as that. This is

30:42

probably the most straightforward of the rhythmic questions that

30:44

I've gotten on this episode. The next one we're

30:47

about to do is a little bit more complicated

30:49

or at least a little more mind melting. But

30:51

I mostly just wanted to include this because this

30:53

album is so cool. I hope that some of

30:55

you will go check it out. Laiite by Kishi

30:58

Bashi from 2014. Uh,

31:00

just a great album, a real pleasure

31:02

to listen to all the way through.

31:04

One of those albums that's overflowing with

31:06

fun ideas. You can just really feel

31:08

how much fun he had putting this whole

31:10

thing together. So I recommend the record and think some

31:13

of you out there will probably really like it. Our

31:19

next rhythmic counting question comes from Mike who

31:21

writes, hi Kirk, what exactly is going on

31:23

in the 30 second drum intro to the

31:26

fish song Mound? It presents

31:28

itself as a basic mid tempo shuffle

31:30

beat, but there's some serious rhythmic displacement

31:32

going on to the point that the

31:34

steady clapping that accompanies the drumming fails

31:36

to line up past the beginning

31:38

couple of bars or so. Is the drummer

31:40

just moving from common time to odd meters

31:43

or is something else going on?

31:45

P.S. It was always fun to see this one

31:47

played live and to watch the audience attempt and

31:49

usually fail to clap along with the

31:51

intro themselves. All right, so this is an intro

31:53

I've been familiar with for a long time. I

31:55

remember the first time I heard this when I

31:58

was a wee lad learning jazz and cracked

32:00

me up. This is the intro to Fish's song

32:02

Mound, which is a track off of their 1993

32:04

album Rift, which

32:06

may be my favorite fish album. Not sure.

32:08

I haven't thought about it too much, but

32:11

Rift, good record. Not

32:15

pretty straightforward, Groovy, right? Sure. So

32:32

if you've kept track of the groove by now, what's

32:35

good for you? So

32:48

my advice here is basically focus on

32:50

the eighth notes and hold on for

32:52

dear life. Fish drummer John Fishman is

32:54

deliberately trying to throw the listener off,

32:56

and he's doing it not by changing

32:58

the time signature just by breaking and

33:01

scrambling his groove to trip you up

33:03

at every opportunity. As it happens, the

33:05

clapping is actually in the same place

33:07

throughout, so if you do focus really

33:09

hard and count, you can clap consistently

33:11

through the whole thing. You just have

33:13

to really focus on your own internal

33:15

counting and not get thrown off by

33:17

what Fishman is doing on the drums.

33:19

So this is a classic 6-8 shuffle groove.

33:21

That's where it starts. You've heard this in

33:24

a million songs. That's

33:28

one, two, three, four, five, six. One,

33:30

two, three, four, five, six. So there

33:32

are three eighth notes in each beat.

33:35

That's what 6-8 means, and the clapping

33:37

comes every other downbeat. So it's basically

33:39

a backbeat. One, two, three, four, five,

33:41

six. One, two, three, four, five, six.

33:44

One, two, three, four, five, six. Clapping

33:46

on the four every time, and

33:48

the clapping is on the four throughout this

33:50

whole thing. It's just the drums change it

33:52

up. So at first, it's just a really

33:54

straightforward 6-8 shuffle. One,

34:00

two, three, four, five, six. One, two, three,

34:02

four, five, six. Now this is

34:05

where things get weird, but remember that clapping

34:07

stays in the same place throughout. So the

34:09

clapping is always on that fourth eighth note.

34:11

Listen to the next couple of bars. Two,

34:14

three, four. Now

34:23

I'm betting that sounds crazy to you, but I

34:25

promise it's really just still 6'8". It's

34:27

still the same number of eighth notes, and the clapping is

34:29

still happening in the same place. It's

34:32

just really hard to focus because the drums

34:34

are so disjointed. So let me play those

34:36

four bars again, and this time I'll count

34:38

along with it. Two, three,

34:41

four. One, two, three,

34:43

four, five, six. One, two, three,

34:45

four, six. One, two, three, four,

34:47

six. One, two, three, four. So

34:50

it sounds weird, but that clap can really anchor

34:52

you, and if you can make it through that

34:54

second set of four bars and still be hitting

34:56

the clap in the right place, you're

34:58

probably golden. I'm guessing that that's where 98% of

35:00

people lose the thread. So

35:03

let's go through the first eight bars starting at

35:06

the beginning, and then going through that first change

35:08

up, and I'll count and clap along, and just

35:10

try to stay focused on that clap and on

35:12

my counting, which remember is

35:14

consistent, and that clap is always going to

35:16

be on the fourth eighth note of every

35:18

bar. Here we go. And

35:22

one, two, three,

35:24

four, five, six. One, two,

35:26

three, four, six.

35:29

One, two, three, four, six. So

35:36

that's the trick. You don't have to

35:38

trust that the claps are always in

35:41

the same place, and then really resolutely

35:43

count in your head, focusing more on

35:45

the pulse and less on the individual

35:47

elements of the drum set, kick drum,

35:49

snare drum, and hi-hat, that fishman is

35:52

hitting, since too much focus on that

35:54

can confuse your ear, because he's playing

35:56

with your innate expectations of a thump-pop

35:58

sizzle shuffle groove in order to trip

36:00

you up, like someone put a- words

36:03

of a familiar sentence into a random

36:05

order. Same words, same sentence length, different

36:07

order becomes words order, same different same

36:09

length sentence. Okay

36:24

so let's count this whole sucker down starting

36:26

from the top all the way up until

36:28

the band comes in and one last thing

36:30

to keep in mind is that the band

36:33

enters halfway through a phrase which works rhythmically

36:35

but it can make you second-guess yourself at

36:37

the very end. Okay, ears on, lock your

36:39

internal pulse, here we go. And

36:58

there you have it, it's

37:00

a very funny musical

37:03

joke and this whole

37:05

song is kind of

37:20

a joke, a bit of a goof

37:22

on this very familiar groove like right

37:24

here. As

37:31

you can hear with Trey's guitar over on

37:33

the left this whole song is moving pretty

37:35

far away from this kind of a groove

37:37

and the majority of Mound has nothing to

37:40

do with a standard swampy blue shuffle. So

37:55

anyway there's your answer Mike, this is actually a

37:58

really good test of your internal count. So

38:00

I hope everyone out there will track down this

38:02

song and see if you can get to the

38:05

point where you can count it confidently despite all

38:07

the ways that John Fishman is trying to throw

38:09

you off. And then I mean maybe if you're

38:11

lucky you'll get into an audience that can do

38:14

it all together, but that's asking a lot of

38:16

a big group of people. ["It's Time to

38:20

Start the World." by John

38:22

Fishman plays in the background.]

38:24

Let's do one more counting

38:26

question. This one is a little bit more

38:28

straightforward so we'll sort of wind things down with

38:31

the counting with a more straightforward one that doesn't

38:33

require quite as much mental gymnastics. This comes from

38:35

Jonathan who writes, why do I find it so

38:37

hard to count the guitar intro to I'd love

38:39

to change the world by 10 years after? The

38:42

timing seems to make sense when the drums come

38:44

in, but then the drums drop out and I

38:46

lose the thread. All right, well, let's listen to

38:48

the guitar intro to I'd love to change the

38:50

world by 10 years after. ["It's Time

38:53

to

38:55

Start

38:57

the

38:59

World."

39:01

by

39:03

John

39:07

Fishman plays in

39:09

the background.] All right, so we're in four

39:12

here, one, two, three, four, but it is

39:14

a little deceptive what's going on with the

39:16

guitar. Listen again. ["It's Time to Start the

39:18

World." by John

39:25

Fishman plays in the background.] So this song is actually

39:27

very straightforward, but a couple of the

39:29

chord changes are anticipated, so they happen

39:31

an eighth note before the downbeat, and

39:33

I think that's what's throwing you off,

39:35

especially once it's taken and broken down

39:38

into a guitar part. So the first

39:40

chord is E minor and the second

39:42

chord is G major, really standard chord

39:44

progression. If you go from E minor

39:46

to G major and change chords on

39:48

the downbeat, you get this. One,

39:51

two, three, four, one, two,

39:53

three, four. That's not what's

39:55

happening, though. They anticipate that first chord change,

39:57

that G major, so it actually happens. on

40:00

the and of four, the upbeat of the

40:02

fourth beat. So it sounds like this. One,

40:05

two, three, four. One, two, three,

40:07

four. Here's the difference. So

40:19

the same thing happens on the next two chords.

40:21

It goes from A minor up to C. It

40:23

does the same thing.

40:25

One, two, three, four. One, two, three,

40:27

four. So when you play the first

40:30

four chords, every other chord is anticipated.

40:32

It comes on the and of four

40:34

instead of the downbeat. Now

40:44

that's kind of easy to follow, but that's because I'm

40:46

playing the chords all at once on piano. What's going

40:48

on on the guitar is actually this more

40:50

complex guitar figure. So let me play piano

40:53

along with the recording, along with that guitar

40:55

part, and I think it'll make it easier

40:57

to count what's going on and hear those

40:59

anticipated chords. There actually is a piano doing

41:01

that on the recording, but this will foreground

41:04

it a little bit more so you can

41:06

really hear where the chord is changing in

41:08

the bar. I'll count along with

41:10

it as well, just so you can notice

41:12

how every other chord starts on the and

41:14

of four instead of on the downbeat. And

41:19

one, two, three, four. One,

41:21

two, three, four. One, two,

41:24

three, four. One, two, three,

41:27

four. Now crucially, once

41:29

the drums come in, that anticipated chord

41:31

change stops happening. All the chords change

41:33

on the downbeat. And I think,

41:35

Jonathan, that's one of the reasons that you have a

41:37

harder time counting the guitar part when it's by itself,

41:40

because when the drums aren't in, it is actually a

41:42

subtly different figure. So

41:46

really, you've just got to work on it, get it

41:49

in your ear, and practice counting along with it. One,

41:52

two, three, four. One, two,

41:54

three, four. One, two,

41:56

three, four. One, two, three,

41:58

four. This

42:02

is a cool song also, I wasn't really familiar with

42:04

it, so thanks for sending it in. Our

42:17

next question comes from Adam. Adam writes, I'm

42:19

hoping you can settle a minor disagreement I'm

42:21

having with a friend over the opening chorus

42:23

of Bad Blood by Taylor Swift. And as

42:25

a side note, this is very exciting for

42:27

me, I love it when people write in

42:29

with musical disagreements that they're having and ask

42:31

me to weigh in. Listeners at

42:34

strongsongspodcast.com, let me weigh in. I love doing

42:36

it. Okay, back to Adam. Adam writes, this

42:38

is a tough one because my argument, or

42:40

at least the way that I hear this

42:42

is based on something that isn't there. Okay,

42:45

so the song starts with only vocals, but

42:47

I hear it implied that those vocals are

42:49

over an E minor chord, while my friend

42:51

thinks that it's implied that it's over the

42:54

only chord progression in the song, which is

42:56

C major, G major, D to E minor.

42:58

So let's listen to what Adam is talking

43:00

about. This is the beginning of Bad Blood,

43:02

and I'm going to go with the recently

43:04

released Taylor's version off the Taylor's version of

43:07

1989, since I listened to

43:09

both that and the original, and they're pretty

43:11

similar, at least for our intents and purposes.

43:13

So here's the beginning of Bad Blood that

43:15

Adam is asking about. Okay,

43:29

so Adam's question is, what chords do I

43:31

think are being implied there by that melody?

43:33

And his friend thinks that it is the

43:36

only other chord progression that plays during that

43:38

section later in the song. So

43:50

back to Adam, who writes, logically, I understand my

43:52

friend, and I more or less agree with him,

43:54

but when the C chord does come in for

43:56

the second chorus, it sounds like a different chord

43:58

progression to me than the... Admittedly imagined

44:00

first half of the progression. So this

44:03

is a fun question since yeah It's

44:05

all about pinning down an imagined harmony

44:07

that is only possibly implied and regardless

44:09

exists only in the ear of the

44:11

listener Or is that the only place

44:14

that it exists? Well, let's not get ahead of

44:16

ourselves So let's go back

44:18

and listen to that opening verse first Adam

44:34

says that he hears this as being an E

44:36

minor So I'll play along with it on piano

44:38

now just with an E minor chord and we'll

44:40

get a sense of what that sounds like What

44:42

it is that Adam hears in his mind when

44:44

he listens to this Okay,

44:59

so Adam's friend hears the chords that happen

45:02

later in the song over this part because

45:04

well that kind of makes sense If you

45:06

hear it later, you're gonna probably start hearing

45:08

those chords anytime they sing their refrain from

45:10

the song So

45:24

that sounds right, but I do have to

45:26

say it doesn't quite sound right there at

45:28

the beginning of the song Just in a

45:30

vacuum I get what Adam's saying the vocals

45:32

only refrain at the beginning just has a

45:34

pretty different energy from the one later after

45:37

the chords come in There's

45:40

just a feeling of completion to this like

45:43

it's the second half of an equation Not

45:45

like it's a complete version of what we

45:47

had already heard acapella. It's a fine distinction

45:49

I know but I do kind of hear

45:51

it and I get what Adam is talking

45:53

about That said I couldn't shape

45:56

the feeling that I'd actually heard this with some

45:58

sort of an E pulse going on underneath

46:00

it during that acapella refrain. And

46:03

then I remembered there were actually two

46:05

versions of this song released and I don't

46:07

mean Taylor's version and the original. In

46:09

addition to the version that we just

46:11

heard, there's also a single edit of

46:13

this song featuring Kendrick Lamar. I

46:16

can't take it back, don't wear a mask. We

46:18

want no T-shirt like the O.C. And

46:21

on that version, there's something new added

46:23

to the second acapella refrain.

46:27

Do you hear

46:30

it? Yes, on

46:36

the version featuring Kendrick, there's a

46:38

synth bass pulse that plays during

46:40

the acapella vocal sections, hitting and

46:42

repeating an E, the very key

46:45

E minor that Adam is hearing.

46:57

So Adam, I don't know if you've heard

46:59

this version at some point and your subconscious

47:01

is remembering it and that's why you've always

47:04

heard those acapella refrains as being in E.

47:06

But either way, I think this demonstrates that

47:08

Taylor thinks of those acapella refrains as having

47:10

their own harmonic identity separate from the later

47:13

section that goes into G major. So there

47:15

you go. I think you have some actual

47:17

evidence for your side of the argument in

47:19

this one. Thanks for writing in with it

47:22

and I hope it doesn't cause any bad

47:24

feelings between you and your friend. Our

47:36

next question comes from Joel who writes,

47:38

I recently traveled with my wife to

47:40

Los Angeles where I attended Elton John's

47:42

Farewell Yellow Brick Road concert at Dodger's

47:44

Stadium. Excited as we were to see

47:46

Elton John and be present for this

47:48

moment in history, we were both stunned

47:50

by the volume of the music, overwhelmed

47:53

by the solid walls of sound which

47:55

we found to be quite literally deafening,

47:57

even with the earplugs that we had brought.

48:00

much of the time our hands over our

48:02

ears, we found it way too loud to

48:04

enjoy, which was really a shame. First

48:12

question. We'd not been to a stadium concert

48:14

in many years. My wife had actually seen

48:17

Elton John and his first appearance at Dodger

48:19

Stadium back in the 1970s. Have these stadium

48:21

concerts gotten louder? We noticed other people without

48:23

earplugs who seemed to have no problem with

48:25

the volume so far as we could tell

48:28

though we weren't inside their heads. Could it

48:30

just be that the two of us in

48:32

our early 60s are super sensitive to the

48:34

volume? Or perhaps my ear sensitivity has grown

48:36

by listening to strong songs? Or are people

48:39

just developing a tolerance for increased volume listening

48:41

to louder and louder music going deaf as

48:43

they do so? So

48:50

Joel has a few more questions but I'll tackle

48:52

this one first. I'm not sure if

48:54

stadium concerts are louder now than they used

48:56

to be, though I know that shows are bigger

48:58

now than they were in the 70s, at

49:00

least on average, so it stands to reason that

49:03

the average stage PA might be putting out

49:05

more wattage just to fill a bigger space, but

49:07

that's not something that I have expertise in,

49:09

so the information might be out

49:11

there, but I am not sure. But it's also different

49:13

for every show, and I'm sad but

49:15

not surprised to hear about your experience overall.

49:17

I personally think that the majority of

49:20

live concerts, particularly big ticket stadium

49:22

shows like this, are pretty

49:24

appallingly loud, even dangerously loud. I don't know

49:26

what there is to be done about it,

49:29

there's just been this kind of sound inflation

49:31

and people sort of expect things to be

49:33

loud because that's become synonymous with excitement, but

49:35

it's just way too loud. It's ludicrously loud

49:38

and you often can't even hear the music,

49:40

so I know I kind of sound like

49:42

an old man yelling at a cloud, but

49:44

that is how I feel. It's rare that

49:47

I'll go to a live show that

49:49

I'll enjoy, and I certainly wear hearing protection

49:51

at every show that I go to. Joel,

49:53

as to the sensitivity that you're describing, you

49:55

definitely can grow more sensitive to sound as

49:58

you get older. For a number of different

50:00

reasons, I'll talk more about that in a

50:02

minute since that's actually something that

50:04

affects me. I don't think that the discomfort

50:06

that you're describing is because of listening to

50:08

strong songs. That's more of an

50:10

intellectual sensitivity that I'm hoping to cultivate with

50:12

this show, but I don't think that it

50:14

should affect how you physically react to different

50:16

volume levels when listening to music. But I'd

50:18

say that however anyone else at the show

50:20

might have been reacting, your best bet is

50:22

to listen to your own comfort level. It's

50:25

possible and even likely that the people around

50:27

you who weren't wearing ear protection were risking

50:29

damaging their hearing just by being there, and

50:32

that's the case any time a person spends

50:34

a prolonged period in a very loud environment,

50:36

say 90, 100, 110 decibels and

50:40

higher. Joel continues with

50:42

the next part of his question, looking at

50:44

Elton, who was very far away from us

50:47

but whose face was huge on the screen,

50:49

he seemed to be wearing no earplugs of

50:51

any sort, any thoughts on how continual exposure

50:53

to loud music can affect performers' hearing. So

50:56

I was actually surprised to hear this from

50:58

Joel, that Elton doesn't perform with in-ear monitors

51:00

because so many musicians these days do, but

51:03

I looked around and actually found a recording

51:05

of maybe this very performance from Elton John's

51:07

YouTube channel Dodger Stadium in 2022, and sure

51:09

enough, he is not wearing in-ear monitors. You're

51:12

actually hearing excerpts from that performance of the

51:14

song Goodbye Yellow Brick Road which I also

51:16

did an episode about, great song and man,

51:19

Elton sounds really good even all these years

51:21

into his career, it's pretty amazing. But anyway,

51:23

Elton is not wearing in-ear monitors, however, his

51:25

entire band do appear to be wearing

51:28

in-ears, well his drummer is wearing headphones

51:30

but the same difference. Anyway, usually when

51:32

a band is wearing in-ears, their onstage

51:34

volume usually isn't actually all that loud,

51:36

and Elton is out front away from

51:38

the band anyway. Particular

51:40

as a side, on a stage that big,

51:42

with a venue that large, it's likely that

51:44

the sound is dramatically different on stage from

51:47

what you're hearing out in the audience. The

51:49

band has many feedback from the PA speakers

51:51

and they're behind the speakers so the bulk

51:53

of the sound is moving out and away

51:56

from them. It's probably still pretty loud, the

51:58

stage monitors which are the speakers. speakers on

52:00

stage that let the musicians hear themselves. Elton

52:02

has three big monitors right down to his

52:05

right. Those have to be loud enough to

52:07

overcome the sound of a huge cheering crowd,

52:09

bounce back from the mains, just a lot

52:11

of sort of general ambient noise. But it's

52:13

doubtless a lot quieter on stage and just

52:16

more under control than it is out in

52:18

front of the business end of those speakers.

52:25

That said, I generally think it's wise for

52:28

professional musicians who perform every night to invest

52:30

in a good pair of veneer monitors and

52:32

to work with sound engineers to get their

52:34

own personal mix that they can control from

52:36

their remote pack. Continual exposure to loud music

52:39

has ruined countless musicians hearing over the years,

52:41

and given that the technology exists today to

52:43

protect ones ears on stage, it's just absolutely

52:45

worth the expense and there's no good reason

52:47

to just take the hit night after night.

52:50

That said, Elton John has been doing this

52:52

for decades, it seems like he knows what

52:54

works for him, so there you go. There's

52:57

a question from Joel on this who says,

52:59

for a situation like we were in, earplugs

53:01

seem an unsatisfactory solution because they muffled the

53:03

sound rather than turning down the volume, which

53:05

is hardly an ideal way to listen to

53:08

music. Do you have any recommendations in this

53:10

realm? And I do actually. I've mentioned before

53:12

on the show that I have custom made

53:14

earplugs that I had made out of mold

53:16

so they fit directly into my ear canal.

53:19

I wear them whenever I go to any

53:21

kind of a live concert anywhere where there's

53:23

going to be amplified music. I can put

53:25

different attenuators on them depending on what

53:27

kind of show it is so they

53:29

can cut 10 decibels or 15 decibels

53:31

or 25 decibels. They're kind of variable,

53:34

they're pretty comfortable and crucial to what

53:36

you mentioned Joel, they do not cut

53:38

high frequencies like the kind of more

53:40

blunt force, just heroes or whatever you

53:42

know, the little foam earplugs that you

53:44

wad up and let expand in your

53:46

ear canal do. Those definitely cut high

53:48

frequencies and they make listening to music

53:50

lose something. Custom fit earplugs use attenuators

53:52

that cut evenly across the frequency spectrum

53:54

so you don't lose highs nearly as

53:57

much. And I'll say custom earplugs are kind

53:59

of pricey. Mine cost a couple hundred dollars.

54:01

Obviously that's a worthwhile investment for me. It might

54:03

not be for you, but there are a lot

54:05

of different brands that make kind of middle of

54:08

the road musicians earplugs that are designed to save

54:10

a lot of the high frequencies without requiring you

54:12

to go to an audiologist and get the custom

54:14

molds and pay all that extra money for custom

54:16

earplugs. They just are kind of better than the

54:19

wadded up foam ones that you shove in your

54:21

ears. So if you look around online, you'll find

54:23

a whole bunch of different brands. I think they're

54:25

all pretty good. I certainly haven't used them all.

54:27

But with a little looking, you can find something

54:30

that's better than just a foam earplug if

54:32

you don't want to go all the way

54:34

to getting custom plugs. Joel wraps up his

54:36

email by writing, Finally, I'm wondering if you

54:38

have any thoughts about listening volume in general.

54:41

I know that my mother went almost deaf

54:43

in later years due to sound exposure in

54:45

her youth. Given the great training you're offering

54:47

for our ears, it seems you might have

54:49

some thoughts about music volume so we can

54:52

appreciate what we hear throughout our whole lives.

54:54

So I do have some final thoughts on

54:56

this. Some of these I have mentioned before

54:58

on this show, but I will just

55:00

say them again because you can never say them

55:02

too many times. I've mentioned before that I've been

55:05

trying to get to the bottom of some hearing

55:07

issues that I've been having for the past year

55:09

and a half that manifest not as hearing loss

55:11

but as hypersensitivity. And it's really

55:13

scary. It's made me have to take hearing

55:15

protection even more seriously than I already took

55:17

it. And I've always taken it pretty seriously.

55:19

I'm still in the diagnostic phase. I don't

55:21

totally know what it is. So I'll talk

55:23

about it more at some point once I

55:25

actually know what's going on. But suffice it

55:27

to say, hearing problems are really bad and

55:29

they're profoundly scary because of how they

55:32

impact your ability to listen to and

55:34

play music. And they don't always manifest

55:36

as gradually lost frequencies in your old

55:38

age. They can get you earlier

55:41

in life than you think and they can

55:43

manifest as much more difficult to deal with

55:45

issues. So I'll just close by urging you

55:48

all to wear hearing protection at concerts, invest

55:50

in some better than entry level earplugs, and

55:52

also to keep an eye on your surroundings

55:54

and keep track of the decibel level wherever

55:56

you are. I know a lot of smartphones

55:58

have added the ability to... to monitor

56:00

how loud the music that you're listening to

56:02

is. I know iPhones do that anyways. Definitely

56:05

turn that on, but also, there's this great

56:07

app that I have right on the home

56:09

screen of my phone. It's made by NIOSH,

56:11

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

56:13

and it can just give you a quick,

56:15

rough estimate of the decibel level wherever you're

56:18

currently standing, and if you start using it,

56:20

you'll definitely be surprised how often you find

56:22

yourself in settings that exceed 90 decibels,

56:24

which is broadly the threshold that you

56:27

want to stay below. So

56:29

yeah, download that app, get some better earplugs, and

56:31

protect your hearing. I know I've talked about this

56:33

before. I don't want to sound like a broken

56:35

record, but it's a serious issue, and I want

56:37

everyone out there to take it seriously. You only

56:39

get one pair of ears. Keep them safe, and

56:41

you'll be listening to music into your old age.

56:47

And that'll do it for this latest Q&A.

56:49

Thanks to everyone who wrote in, and remember,

56:51

you too could have a question featured on

56:53

the show. Just write to listeners at strongsongspodcast.com

56:56

to send it along. We're nearing the end

56:58

of season five. We've got a very cool

57:00

finale coming up, and then I'll be taking

57:02

a break for the holidays, but in the

57:04

meantime, I hope that you'll consider chipping in

57:06

to support this show. Strong Songs is such

57:08

a labor of love for me. This is

57:10

the most I've ever loved working on something,

57:12

and I'm so proud of the fact that

57:14

I make this show with only direct support

57:16

from listeners, so thanks so much to

57:18

all of my patrons who support the

57:21

show, and if you're not yet a

57:23

patron but you think you might want

57:25

to be, go to patreon.com/strongsongs to find

57:27

out how you can do so. And

57:29

I'll actually end this Q&A episode with

57:31

one more question, which comes from listener

57:33

Tom. Tom wants to know, why is

57:35

it that every outro soloist on Strong

57:37

Songs starts and stops their solo in

57:39

the same place? Did I give them

57:41

directions? Are they following the lead of

57:43

the very first soloist, or do jazz

57:45

musicians just instinctively know what they're supposed to

57:47

do? And the answer is, I give

57:50

everyone instructions. But in the spirit of that,

57:52

let's call back to the very first outro

57:54

soloist, Mr. BJ Cord on the trumpet. So

57:56

stick around for BJ, and I'll be back

57:58

in two weeks with more Strong Songs. Wrong

58:00

song. Wrong

58:31

song. Wrong

59:00

song.