Anybody play "Iris" by the Google Dolls?

[Oci-One Kanubi]

How would you chart it? It seems almost arbitrary the way it sticks
the occasional two-beat phrase into the 3/4 feel. It looks like you
could give it a 3/4 time signature with the occasional 2/4 bar thrown
in, but my impulse is to chart it in 6/8 with the occasional 8/8 bar
thrown in to collect those two odd beats when they occur.

It isn't really an issue for me, because I've got my mind wrapped
around it and have memorized the way every single interlude is
slightly different from every other interlude, and how there are
really no repeating patterns to the bridge beyond the first few bars.
Problem is, I've got to get it through to the guitar players who
expect to listen to a tune and then just play it from a lyric sheet
with chord symbols, without ever counting it out, so I need to come up
with the easiest notation to 'splain the rhythmic compexities to 'em.

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty

[Gregory Rochford]

Google Dolls ???

lol

[Derek Tearne]

Gregory Rochford <gregory_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Google Dolls ???

A quick google(heh) reveals that this is a common belief...

--- Derek


--
Derek Tearne - de...@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
d'Groove: 12 piece party/covers band http://www.dGroove.co.nz/

[RichL]

"Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1kfx9mz.1i3tp1qb7asi9N%de...@url.co.nz...

> Gregory Rochford <gregory_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Google Dolls ???
>
> A quick google(heh) reveals that this is a common belief...

Hmmm, never heard or read that one before. And I actually took my daughter
to see the "Goo-Goo Dolls" about 15 years ago.

[*e#c]

" Google Dolls"....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Oci-One Kanubi]

On Feb 23, 4:01 am, JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote:

> The intro is in straight 4/4, the verse and chorus are 6/8, the
> interlude between the first vse/ch and second vse/ch is 4/4 for 3 bars
> going back into 6/8 on the bar before the vocals, the bridge is 4/4,
> then back to 6/8 for the last chorus.  Don't bother using 8/8.  You
> could use it, but nobody ever does because 4/4 does the job better.
> And you could call it 3/4 in the verse and chorus but since the drums
> are operating in a 6-beat pattern, I'd call it 6/8

Thanks, Jimmy; that matches the way I have parsed it out*. I just
wonder if, since the bulk of the song is in 6/8, it wouldn't be less
confusing to stick with the 8th-note as the basic unit of time where
it goes into square time. I guess the signature doesn't matter much
since I would actually be transcribing 8th-notes anyway, if I ever
penned it out for them.

I will follow your advice if you think it will be easier for me to
communicate it to them by using 6/8 and 4/4. They're smart enough to
figure it out for themselves, but they and the drummer have wives and
families at home, whereas I now live alone, so I have a lot more time
to prepare the material. I'm not quite "music director" but I usually
have a big head start on working our new selections.

I never much cared for this song when it came on the radio, but it is
a lot of fun to play because it is much more complex rhythmically than
most pop songs.

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty

* except, in the intro and interlude I hear an eight-beat pattern
rather than 4, and I count it as 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2 and play only four
notes per measure:
| B-2-3 C#-2-3 D D | G-2-3 F#-2-3 E E |

[Oci-One Kanubi]

On Feb 22, 7:22 pm, Gregory Rochford <gregory_rochf...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Google Dolls ???
>
> lol

Wups. I can only grin sheepishly and "lol" right back atcha!

It is a true Freudian slip though (but without the sexual connotations
of Freudianism). It genuinly reveals which holds a much larger place
in my consciousness. If someone in the band hadn't suggested adding
this one to fill out a weakness in our coverage of the '90s (we're
pretty good about including material from every decade from '60s to
'00s) I would hardly remember the Goo-Goo Dolls at all, yet I use
Google dozens of times during a typical workday, and not infrequently
at home.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

[Oci-One Kanubi]

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-" I can only agree!

Yep I goofed. And unlike some of my bass-playing brethren, I can
laugh at myself when I screw up.

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty

[geoff]

Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:22 pm, Gregory Rochford <gregory_rochf...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Google Dolls ???
>>
>> lol
>
> Wups. I can only grin sheepishly and "lol" right back atcha!
>
> It is a true Freudian slip though (but without the sexual connotations
> of Freudianism).

Goo Goo Dolls wouldn't want to be a sexual Freudian slip either ;-0

geoff

[Mark Bluemel]

On Feb 22, 6:35 pm, Oci-One Kanubi <rhop...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> How would you chart it?  It seems almost arbitrary the way it sticks
> the occasional two-beat phrase into the 3/4 feel.  It looks like you
> could give it a 3/4 time signature with the occasional 2/4 bar thrown
> in, but my impulse is to chart it in 6/8 with the occasional 8/8 bar
> thrown in to collect those two odd beats when they occur.

If you go to "Live from Daryl's House" and find the show where Jon
Rzeznik guests, they (Jon, Daryl and Daryl's House band) do "Iris".
<http://www.livefromdarylshouse.com/currentep.html?ep_id=57>

There's a little preamble (see "Iris Banter") where Paul Pesco,
guitarist and MD for the program, runs through his interpretation of
the rhythm structure. Like you he regards the "4/4" bars as 6/8 with
two extra beats. I think 8/8 is actually a more appropriate way of
representing this.

[Les Cargill]

Those are usually just phrasing and there's no time signature change.
If the guitar players can't come up with a plan, drop the song. At
some point it just gets to be not worth it. For that song, you could
simply cut back to bass and drums for the bridge...

As to iris - I believe it still counts six all the way through that
little bridgelet. It's just that the foot is not always on the one &
four...

What I mean is that if you'll close your eyes and count six all
the way through, the next verse starts on the beginning of the sixth
measure of 6/8 - it's five measures of 6/8, IOW.

It's 1:09 through ?? here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdYWuo9OFAw

very clever bridge. But how it gets notated is, again... copyists's
choice...

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

"6/8 with two extra beats" does not mean the time sig changes... the
whole point is to have the foot differ from the staff notation...

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

JimmyM wrote:

> Les, there isn't a copyist alive who wouldn't chart the intro and
> bridge sections in 4/4 and the verses and choruses in 6/8. It is most
> definitely a time change, and sorry but that can't be argued.

Copyists can be sadistic ( like Ottoman harem guards ) , so....

That's a problem because 4/4 does not represent 30 or 15 beats
easily... it'd have to be 3 measures of (halftime) 4/4 and one
of 3/4.... and *RrrrrrREALLY*, it's 8/8 and 3/8 for the
denominators to count out...

See what I mean? Music people say "fractions, how do those work?*"... :)

*see also "magnets"

--
Les Cargill

[Pt]

Next thing you'll say is that Take 5 is 3/4 and 2/4.

Pt

[JD]

On 2/25/2012 12:55 PM, Pt wrote:
> Next thing you'll say is that Take 5 is 3/4 and 2/4.
>
> Pt

It isn't? I always counted it 1, 2, 3, 1, 2 with
the accent on the 1.

[Les Cargill]

The foot is not necessarily the time sig....

(this is not a pipe...)

--
Les Cargill

[Oci-One Kanubi]

On Feb 25, 3:55 pm, Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Next thing you'll say is that Take 5 is 3/4 and 2/4.
>
> Pt

Why in Earth would you suggest I should say such a stupid thing, Pat?

Have you, seriously, never played a song that changes time sig? Lotsa
Pink Floyd springs to mind as a ubiquitous pop/rock example of that
phenomenon.

And all over the country repertoire you see little 2/4 bars inserted
in 4/4 tunes. Two that we play are "Chattahoochie" (Alan Jackson) and
"Papa Loved Mama" (Garth Brooks). Just a little extra two beats to
keep you on your toes.

Have you ever actually listened to "Iris"? There is clearly a change
of time, and, because I am asking other (maybe more experienced or
better trained) musicians about the best way to transcribe it, for you
to suggest that I cannot hear the 5/4 in "Take 5" is just rude and
insulting.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

[Oci-One Kanubi]

Well, it's not just the bridge. The verses, chorus, final interlude,
and outro are all clearly in 6/8, but the intro is 32 beats, phrased
(3, 3, 2) (3, 3, 2) (3, 3, 2) (3, 3, 2), and the interlude after the
first chorus is 30 beats, phrased as a repeat of the intro without the
final 2 beats, so I think of it as (3, 3, 2) (3, 3, 2) (3, 3, 2) (3,
3). You could transcribe this intro as 5 bars of 6/8, but it makes a
lot more sense to transcribe it as a truncation of the intro, I think.

Then I hear the bridge as beginning with 7 repetitions of the (3, 3,
2) phrasing before lapsing into 6/8.

Was it you, or Jimmy, who said that choosing how to transcribe
something like this is generall at the option of the copyist, because
there are a number of ways to notate it that, if played carefully,
will reproduce the song correctly?

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty

[Les Cargill]

I hadn't carefully listened to that, but it sounds like 4/4 to me. the
(3,3,2) division ( where to put those commas ) is about emphasis ( IMO
).

> and the interlude after the
> first chorus is 30 beats, phrased as a repeat of the intro without the
> final 2 beats, so I think of it as (3, 3, 2) (3, 3, 2) (3, 3, 2) (3,
> 3). You could transcribe this intro as 5 bars of 6/8, but it makes a
> lot more sense to transcribe it as a truncation of the intro, I think.
>

That well could be. 7 bars of 4 with a 2/4 makes pretty good sense there.

> Then I hear the bridge as beginning with 7 repetitions of the (3, 3,
> 2) phrasing before lapsing into 6/8.
>
> Was it you, or Jimmy, who said that choosing how to transcribe
> something like this is generall at the option of the copyist,

I said it, maybe somebody else did too.

> because
> there are a number of ways to notate it that, if played carefully,
> will reproduce the song correctly?
>

I believe there are, but one will probably be easiest. Since you
mentioned the intro, I'd use a mix of 4/4:2/4 and 6/8 if that helps
people find the foot.

> -Richard, His Bassic Travesty
>

--
Les Cargill

[Oci-One Kanubi]

Thanks.

You'd think my brand-new (30-day old) Dell Inspiron, with an Intel
Core i5 and 6 gigs of RAM, running Windows 7, would be able to play
this with the installed software, but IE flubs up totally and Foxfire
keeps yielding a Flash player failure.

I'll see if I can watch this from my office computer tomorrow.

-Richard

[Derek Tearne]

Oci-One Kanubi <rho...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Was it you, or Jimmy, who said that choosing how to transcribe
> something like this is generall at the option of the copyist, because
> there are a number of ways to notate it that, if played carefully,
> will reproduce the song correctly?

There are a number of ways to transcribe it correctly, but it seems you
have a slightly different problem.

You are looking for a solution involving lyric sheet and chord charts
and not having to ever count it out - but lyric sheets and chord charts
do not handle indicating changes in meter particularly well.

There are a number of ways to transcribe the tune into notation, and
some will be easier to read than others, or allow the tune to fit onto
the printed page better. They can all be 'correct', and even the least
easy to read will be easier to follow than anything involving lyrics
sheets with chords over the top.

I also think it's odd that someone else in the band suggested the tune
(presumably one of the people with wives and families), but it's up to
you to find not only a solution, but one that will fit with their
inability to read or transcribe.

Not that there's anything wrong with an inability to read.

But if they need it written out, and are relying on someone else to
write it out for them, I think that's a problem - and if they only read
chord charts and need the time written out for them I think that's also
a problem as chord charts don't really make that easy.

The horn players in our band need the stuff written out, one of the horn
players (not necessarily the same one) writes it out. I'm sure they'd
be pleased if someone else wrote it out and handed it too them, but they
wouldn't expect that.

As for bars of 8/8 - although I can see how that would be one way of
transcribing it - I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone transcribe more
than one bar that way even in show tunes. Although that could just be
that I don't read enough.

[Derek Tearne]

Derek Tearne <de...@url.co.nz> wrote:
> As for bars of 8/8 - although I can see how that would be one way of
> transcribing it - I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone transcribe more
> than one bar that way even in show tunes. Although that could just be
> that I don't read enough.

Intruigingly, the wikipedia page on unusual time signatures suggests
only two pieces, both from Bela Bartok's 'six dances in Bulgarian
Rhythm' - one of which has 3,3,2 phrasing.

[Les Cargill]

Derek Tearne wrote:
> Oci-One Kanubi<rho...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>

>
> As for bars of 8/8 - although I can see how that would be one way of
> transcribing it - I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone transcribe more
> than one bar that way even in show tunes. Although that could just be
> that I don't read enough.
>

8/8 pretty much degenerates to 4/4 - there's no real difference. The
note values are the same.

> --- Derek
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Oci-One Kanubi]

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

-Kanubi

[Oci-One Kanubi]

On Feb 26, 4:04 pm, de...@url.co.nz (Derek Tearne) wrote:

> Oci-One Kanubi <rhop...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Was it you, or Jimmy, who said that choosing how to transcribe
> > something like this is generall at the option of the copyist, because
> > there are a number of ways to notate it that, if played carefully,
> > will reproduce the song correctly?
>
> There are a number of ways to transcribe it correctly, but it seems you
> have a slightly different problem.
>
> You are looking for a solution involving lyric sheet and chord charts
> and not having to ever count it out - but lyric sheets and chord charts
> do not handle indicating changes in meter particularly well.
>
> There are a number of ways to transcribe the tune into notation, and
> some will be easier to read than others, or allow the tune to fit onto
> the printed page better.  They can all be 'correct', and even the least
> easy to read will be easier to follow than anything involving lyrics
> sheets with chords over the top.
>
> I also think it's odd that someone else in the band suggested the tune
> (presumably one of the people with wives and families), but it's up to
> you to find not only a solution, but one that will fit with their
> inability to read or transcribe.

My guess is that the guy who suggested it chose it because he likes it
as a casual listener, but had not examined it to discover that it is
non-trivial in its meter.

The one time we got together after we picked a dozen new tunes to try,
they had looked at lyric sheets with chords superposed but had not
really tried to play it.

I think I will go with Les' and Jimmy's suggestion to recommend they
just think of these bits as 4/4.

Generally we'll pick a batch of tunes, all learn 'em, get together and
run through them a few times, and keep the ones we think we do well.
I hate this, because after we've taken the trouble to learn a tune,
the only reasons I would agree with dropping it are if (a) it has a
signature riff that the respective person cannot execute convincingly
(our keyboard player is actually our second guitar player, whe began
doubling on keys when we could not recruit an adequatd keyboardist,
and I'm a competent bar-band bassist, but hardly a virtuoso) or (b) it
strains the singers range or his voice.

Meanwhile, I nail "Iris" when I play along with the record, and I
don't want my investment of time to be partly wasted (figuring out and
learning a new song is rarely a total waste, even if I *never* play it
outside of my house) so I don't mind taking the time to help them get
a handle on it. It's kinda fun to play because is is a little more
challenging than a lot of rock tunes, so I don't want to lose it.

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty

>
> Not that there's anything wrong with an inability to read.
>
> But if they need it written out, and are relying on someone else to
> write it out for them, I think that's a problem - and if they only read
> chord charts and need the time written out for them I think that's also
> a problem as chord charts don't really make that easy.
>
> The horn players in our band need the stuff written out, one of the horn
> players (not necessarily the same one) writes it out.  I'm sure they'd
> be pleased if someone else wrote it out and handed it too them, but they
> wouldn't expect that.
>
> As for bars of 8/8 - although I can see how that would be one way of
> transcribing it - I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone transcribe more
> than one bar that way even in show tunes.  Although that could just be
> that I don't read enough.
>
> --- Derek
>
> --
> Derek Tearne - de...@url.co.nz

> Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealandhttp://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/

[Derek Tearne]

Oci-One Kanubi <rho...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> My guess is that the guy who suggested it chose it because he likes it
> as a casual listener, but had not examined it to discover that it is
> non-trivial in its meter.

Well, that certainly happens. Song sounds cool and simple until you
actually try and play it. Like most of the songs by 'The Police'.

> The one time we got together after we picked a dozen new tunes to try,
> they had looked at lyric sheets with chords superposed but had not
> really tried to play it.

I don't really get this, even though it is a common mindset. If we've
picked tunes to play, I'll have generally tried playing them through a
couple of times even if I haven't had enough time to learn them
properly. But to turn up to a rehearsal/jam without even trying to play
the tunes seems to me such a waste of time. I suppose nowadays it is so
easy to download lyrics/chords off the internet that a lot of people
think that's all you need to play a tune - and I suppose for a lot of
tunes it is - but still - is trying to play through the tune once too
much to ask?

> Generally we'll pick a batch of tunes, all learn 'em, get together and
> run through them a few times, and keep the ones we think we do well.
> I hate this, because after we've taken the trouble to learn a tune,
> the only reasons I would agree with dropping it are if (a) it has a
> signature riff that the respective person cannot execute convincingly
> (our keyboard player is actually our second guitar player, whe began
> doubling on keys when we could not recruit an adequatd keyboardist,
> and I'm a competent bar-band bassist, but hardly a virtuoso) or (b) it
> strains the singers range or his voice.

Also, if most of your band is time poor as you suggest, if you've
already learned the song, unless everyone hates it, there's less time
investment in working out why you're not playing it well and sorting
that out than there is in learning a different tune. Also, if you shy
away from any tune that doesn't come together well first time, you'll
only end up playing fairly simple tunes.

>
> Meanwhile, I nail "Iris" when I play along with the record, and I
> don't want my investment of time to be partly wasted (figuring out and
> learning a new song is rarely a total waste, even if I *never* play it
> outside of my house) so I don't mind taking the time to help them get
> a handle on it. It's kinda fun to play because is is a little more
> challenging than a lot of rock tunes, so I don't want to lose it.

Having listened through it a couple of times now I'd suggest the most
important thing at this stage is making sure the drummer is happy with
it. If the drummer is likely to struggle with it, or not take the time
to get the right feel on the intro/bridge parts it will never work. The
guitarists can just pretty much keep strumming rapidly on the same chord
until it all resolves if they get lost.

--- Derek


--
Derek Tearne - de...@url.co.nz

Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/

[Nil]

On 25 Feb 2012, JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote in alt.guitar.bass:

> Les, there isn't a copyist alive who wouldn't chart the intro and
> bridge sections in 4/4 and the verses and choruses in 6/8. It is
> most definitely a time change, and sorry but that can't be argued.

I feel this and would notate it as 4/4 for the intro and middle
section, and 6/4 for the verse. The quarter note value stays the same
throughout. To notate the verse with an 8th-note denominator would
imply doubling the tempo, which obviously doesn't happen.

[Derek Tearne]

That makes so much sense.

I feel the main part as a waltz, rather than as 6/8, which to me is a
different feel. 4/4 + 6/4 would work better for both sections.

I do think, though, that sometimes one can overthink these things,
particularly odd meters. Usually, if the tune works at all, you can
feel through it better than counting it.

[Mark Bluemel]

You can also see it in YouTube -
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-8ciLUjrRc>

[Sam Wilson]

In article <qr8ik71e85oq8nona...@4ax.com>,

JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote:

> Les, there isn't a copyist alive who wouldn't chart the intro and
> bridge sections in 4/4 and the verses and choruses in 6/8. It is most
> definitely a time change, and sorry but that can't be argued.

That's probably right - 4/4 with the accents on two dotted and one
straight crotchet (quarter note), but you could also think of it as 8/8
- think of the rhythm as actually moving between 6/8 and
9/8-with-a-dropped-quaver (eighth).

Sam

[Sam Wilson]

In article <jieaib$9tb$2...@dont-email.me>,

Unless you think of 8/8 as being 9/8 with a beat missing.

Sam

[Pt]

When Paul Desmond wrote Take 5 he had problems with the 5/4 time so he
played it as 3/4 and 2/4.
I think this is acceptable.

Pt

[Pt]

> -Richard-

Update your flash player.

Pt

[Les Cargill]

JimmyM wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:16:52 -0600, Les Cargill

> There is no such thing as a common denominator in music. There are
> only time signatures, and once it changes in the course of a song, the
> old time signature is irrelevant to the new one. Nobody uses 8/8 as a
> time sig because it's making a simple thing hard.
>

Nah. It's traditional not to.

>> See what I mean? Music people say "fractions, how do those work?*"... :)
>>
>> *see also "magnets"
>

> Yes, there are many folks who like to make simple things hard ;) But
> those people have had just enough theory to be dangerous. Those of us
> who have a lot of experience with it

Tradition! :)

> look for ways of making it
> simpler for the reader to understand, not more difficult.

I understand ( and even agree ) since that reduces the number of time
signatures the reader is likely to encounter. it just makes
time signatures *de*scriptive instead of *pro*scriptive.

> That's why
> you'll see a lot of swing charts that should be written in 12/8
> written in 4/4...because it's a lot easier to write and read in 4/4
> and add the caption "swing" than it is to write them in 12/8.

Yep.

--
Les Cargill

[Mark Bluemel]

On 02/27/2012 06:53 PM, Pt wrote:
>
> When Paul Desmond wrote Take 5 he had problems with the 5/4 time so he
> played it as 3/4 and 2/4.
> I think this is acceptable.

When I sang the main riff from "Living In The Past" to a well-trained
classical musician, he reckoned it was in 10/8. Take 5 has pretty much
the same rhythm...

I think I've mentioned here before that I attended a workshop on Eastern
European music some years back. Some really weird time signatures come
up in Romania, the former Yugoslavia and so on.

The trick is to realise that there are usually two different beat
lengths - a short beat and a longer one, half as long again. The
complex rhythms can then usually be broken down into patterns of long
and short beats.

Take 5 (and Living In The Past, and the Mission Impossible theme) are
long, long, short, short for example.

I must have a listen to "Iris" with my Eastern European ears in...