Talk:Back beat

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Back beat redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Words

Replace the word "second" with the word "third" in the falowing:

"the tension between the normally much stronger first and second beats and the backbeats creates interest."

should read

"the tension between the normally much stronger first and third beats and the backbeats creates interest."

"Just let me hear some of that Rock 'n' Roll music, any old way you choose it, it's got a back beat you can't lose it, any old time you use it, gotta be Rock 'n' Roll music, if you wanna dance with me, if you wanna dance with me." The Beatles simply rock.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.5.239.161 (talk • contribs) 18:50, February 4, 2005 (UTC)

Off-beat

Is "off beat" synonymous with "back beat"? I've always thought of the off beat as the beats between the down and back beats (or as the odd eight notes).

If you read the article "Back beat (or "the off-beat") refers to any of the even beats in music" regardless of metric level, so that both the odd quarter and eighth notes are off/back beats on the beat level and the first division level, respectively. Hyacinth 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beat between down and back

This question is sort of along the same lines as the unsigned "Off-beat" q above. I used to think the sequence went "DOWN-up-BACK-up" but this article refutes that. I'm thinking of a simple rock beat where the sequence is kick drum & hi-hat, hi-hat, snare drum & hi-hat, hi-hat.... What do you call the times when only the hi-hat is played? Boris B 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My degree is in music, and when musicians refer to the off-beat, they usually mean the beats that occur between the four main beats in 4/4 time (usually counted 1&2&3&4&). I have never heard back beats refered to as off-beats. I think it's wrong, so I will change it in a few days, if no one objects. --Wikidan81 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nobody objects if you source your information using text books. The article really needs text book refs. My research indicates that the offbeat is probably any of the even eighth notes (2,4, 6 & 8). I think it's a note that doesn't start on a quarter beat 1 2 3 or 4, but more rsrch is needed.--I'll bring the food 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash?

Why single out thrash metal? Yes, it usually has a strong back beat, but it's not unique in that regard.

Ccrrccrr 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

Did it really start in the 1940s? There are Jelly Roll Morton recordings (like Shreveport) which I'd say have a pretty definite backbeat. Kisch 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys were using a 2-4 back beat as early as their first recording session in 1935. Listen to songs like "Get with It."

I listened to some of Bob Wills early recordings (not "Get With It", though) and I can't find any backbeat, but a considerable offbeat, maybe you are mistaking these two? Imho, the boogie-woogie origins seem absolutely correct. Don't take it too serious, but listen to the Andrews Sisters' "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" from the 1941 Movie 'Buck Privates'. The funny ‘plot’ evolves around a guy with the boogie style who's audience “clap their hands […] because they know how he plays when someone gives him a beat” and then an explicit back beat handclapping starts for the rest of the song! --Feinmotoriker (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back beat sure seems to be a Boogie thing, I just found this eponymous song on youtube: Harry James "Back Beat Boogie" (1939). The back beat evolves over the song and becomes apparent at about two minutes until the end. LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVLgP4s_7TU. --Feinmotoriker (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a source. Hyacinth (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if this is a source or not, it contributes to the discussion, gives some new insights and even gives some freely available examples for those who want to listen to one (somebody asked for at the end of this discussion). Btw, what could be a better source for the development of music, if not music itself? The books you want me to quote (if there are any) would just talk about the very same music, so why make a detour in this discussion? --Feinmotoriker (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. But, more immediately, songs are often named for what makes them unique, not what makes them generic. The existence of one song using a technique is not proof regarding a genre. The title is not proof that the title itself means "boogie" or "back beat" in the same sense that we are discussing. Hyacinth (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't want to prove anything. If I had a proof, I would drop the facts into the main article, not the discussion. Got it? Besides, why are you resisting so heavily against this boogie theory? Do you have any eligible idea? Think of Occam's razor... and even if boogie is not the real origin of the back beat, it could be the source of back beat in the history of popular music. There is one more thing: I know very well what citing is all about. Don't care about that and don't waste your time instructing somebody who doesn't need to be instructed. --Feinmotoriker (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we where talking about the article. Hyacinth (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, but in this paragraph we are talking about the origins of back beat. --Feinmotoriker (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the claim that the backbeat "started" in the 40s? Common sense says that the odd beats existed before then. Hyacinth (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can absolutely imagine that it existed before then, but you can't rely on common sense, you have to find some proof! ;-) --Feinmotoriker (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock beats and their definitions

Two topics I'd like to see addressed in the back beat article (or elsewhere), but don't feel competent to tackle myself:

First question: When a back beat is routinely defined as putting the emphasis on the 2nd and 4th beats in a 4/4 measure, what keeps these beats from being considered the new strong beats, i.e., beats 1 and 3, instead of 2, and 4? The Wikipedia article on time signatures (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Time_signatures) for instance, points out that most of the time, the downbeat (beat 1) receives the most emphasis, and in 4/4 meter, commonly the 3rd beat also receives emphasis, albeit to a lesser degree. So when the back beats (2 & 4) are emphasized, what keeps them from becoming beats 1 and 3, just offsetting the location of the beats in a piece? That the casual listener feels the beat in this way is demonstrated by crowds that begin clapping to the beat in rock concerts. Invariably they clap on the so called back beats, beats 2 & 4, not on 1 & 3. So what is it about the music that keeps these back beats as beats 2 & 4, instead of them simply becoming beats 1 & 3 by default?

Second question: the definition of back beat is not enough to really define what it is that makes rock music rock music. Instead, it's the combination of sounds that are used on those beats. The sound pattern that I would call BOOM CHICK BOOM CHICK BOOM CHICK etc. I assume this is the sound that is referred to in the section titled "Beat between down and back" above as "kick drum, snare drum" (the hi-hat parts don't matter so much for this point). Is this drum pattern analyzed, described, or defined anywhere? It seems to be the universal rhythmic underpinning of most popular music since the 1950's when rock 'n' roll took off, and yet I rarely see any "scholarly" or serious discussion of it anywhere. Will.s 04:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to first question: I can't provide a sourced explanation, but with a back beat the stress in the melody is still on the 1 and 3, while the stress in the rhythm section is on 2 and 4.

This has to do with the larger structure of a song, which is associated with harmonic progression. --Feinmotoriker (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to second question: It doesn't matter which sounds you use, it's about the position of those sounds in a bar. If every event of your pattern is put onto one beat of a 4/4-beat (beat level), then it's a back beat. If every ‘BOOM’ stands for one beat and the ‘CHICK’ is played between two consecutive beats, then you have an offbeat. As you can see, “beat between down and back” makes no sense at all, as the first beat is the downbeat and the second belongs to the backbeat. --Feinmotoriker (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boom-chick is a verbal representation, you may not be familiar with, of a common style of country guitar, you may be familiar with. Boom does indeed stand for the odd beats and chick for the even ("chick-a" if subdivided). Hyacinth (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't use any conventions someone could not be familiar with, my explanation above is understandable for everybody. Does it really matter, if BOOM-CHICK refers to a common style of country guitar or to bass (BOOM) and snare drum (CHICK)? You really want to have the final say even if it has no value, don't you? --Feinmotoriker (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood both my intention and my meaning ("you may not be familiar with" was a polite way of saying "you're obviously not though many people are"). A quick look at our discussion above shows who likes to have the final say. If you have a problem with me see User talk:Hyacinth. Otherwise, don't talk about me. Hyacinth (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hi. I'm wondering why this page was reverted to a version that, in my opinion, contains much information that is unclear or impertinent to the topic (4/3/2007). Given that the subject is 'Back Beat', I believe the reverts give far too much weight to other things. Specific issues:

1. In a 12/8 measure, the Back Beat is NOT counted on beats 2 and 4, but rather 4 and 10 (which would provide a 2, 4 macrobeat).

2. The topic of Afterbeat is not directly related to the Back Beat. Perhaps it would be better suited to a page on Musical Beats or Percussion Styles.

3. In a 4/4 measure, beat 4 ALWAYS precedes a new musical bar.

4. Back Beat emphasis is certainly NOT "used in virtually all contemporary popular music." This POV disregards almost all music made outside of North America and Western Europe.

5. The paragraph regarding Reggae and James Brown is focused entirely on the Downbeat. This information takes up 1/3 of the article and is unneccessary to this page as the Back Beat is emphatically distinct from the Downbeat.

These issues aside, there is some good information to work with and I believe that the edits preceding the revert helped clarify and focus the subject. If you feel otherwise, please help the rest of us to understand why.

Benerickson1 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were attributed to other sources in the way they were rewritten. Could you delete some information, rather than rewrite? Or be more aware of the problem of inadvertantly in-line sourcing information that did not come from edits made? Also, what are your sources for the information YOU state? All edits to the article should be based on ATTRIBUTABLE, WP:VERIFIABLE WP:SOURCES, not facts (not trying to shout, just linking - don't assume hostility there's none here ;).--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put all the Grove in you want, but have it make sense

Someone removed this:

The effect can be easily simulated by repeatedly counting to four while alternating strong and weak beats:

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 - the stress is on the "expected" beat

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 - the stress is on the "unexpected" or syncopation beat

which is clear and illustrates what a back beat is. It was replaced by a mish-mosh of impossible-to-follow stuff claiming to quote Grove's Dictionary of Music:

The effect can be easily simulated by repeatedly counting to four while alternating strong and weak beats:

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 -- backbeat emphasis (and in 4/4 if beat 4 immediately precedes a new musical bar then beat 4 is also an upbeat<ref name=Groveupbeat/>)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 -- downbeat emphasis (and in 4/4 if beat 4 immediately precedes a new musical bar then beat 4 is also an upbeat<ref name=Groveupbeat/>)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 -- Afterbeat emphasis (and in 4/4 if beat 4 immediately precedes a new musical bar then beat 4 is also an upbeat<ref name=Groveupbeat/>)

If you must have Grove, have it, but put it in some technical details section that no one will read or understand.

You know, something without a footnote that makes sense is worth at least three times as much as something with a footnote that Leonard Bernstein couldn't follow (and certainly wouldn't say in a children's concert explaining the back beat). Ortolan88 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the typographic use of bold and italic numbers relates to the musical sound ! I don't suppose someone could come up with a trivial MIDI file ? --195.137.93.171 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well 195.137.93.171, put on your thinking cap: If you count from one to four, emphasizing the odd numbers, it doesn't rock, but if you countt from one to four emphasizing the even numbers, it does. The bold numbers show the emphasized beat, while the italic numbers show the unemphasized beat. No harm in a midi file, but it just isn't that hard, if you actually try, to understand the point this simple example is making. Ortolan88 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

If someone knows of a good example that's freely available online (for a listen)... please link to it. Philipolson (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good example of what? Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the weird beat in I'm Not Going Out Like That in Tougher Than Leather by Run-D.M.C.? Jidanni (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WE NEED A SHORT AUDIO CLIP DEMONSTRATING THIS. "1 2 3 4" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. TechnoFaye Kane 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in all caps doesn't make you louder or easier to understand. Ironically, "this" isn't too specific or meaningful either. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested audio

I added an audio example to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]