How I Add Tempo Changes to Make Songs "Breathe"

[Anderton]

The post-click track world has meant that tempos never breathe and move, but that was common in the days before the click became prevalent. Even James Brown's rhythm section, probably considered one of the tightest rhythm sections of all time, had major tempo variations. But the key was that these were very deliberate - i.e., in "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" there's a tempo run-up just before even time Brown signs "papa's got a brand-new bag," and then drops back down again. But there's also a slight, linear speed up throughout the entire song.

 

I found out a way to add tempo changes to a finished mix in Studio One - trick SO into thinking the mix has a tempo, then varying the tempo map. Here's a recent tempo map for my cover of "Walking on the Moon":

 

 

And here's the song. Even though the tempo changes are fairly significant, the effect is more subliminal than anything else...but I think these tempo changes make a major difference in the "feel."

 

[video:youtube]

 

The more I experiment with tempo changes, the more important I think they are.

 

 

[Anderton]

And of course, this begs the question...do tempo changes make a difference, and are they important? If so, why have they basically been kicked to the curb?

[GovernorSilver]

Appreciate the lesson! I didn't notice the tempo changes the first time I heard your cover, but that's part of the point, isn't it?

 

Got me thinking about what pop songs use tempo changes and there don't seem to be much outside of the Beatles and Beach Boys stuff. I thought there might be some in "Aja" and "Money" but I think they might actually be time signature changes rather than intentional tempo changes. Easier to find examples in classical, prog rock, etc.

 

You've inspired me to try experimenting with them in Nanostudio 2, which i just purchased. It supports tempo and time signature changes.

[Anderton]

Appreciate the lesson! I didn't notice the tempo changes the first time I heard your cover, but that's part of the point, isn't it?

 

Exactly! It's something you feel. People react to the rushing in the chorus and solo, and the drop afterward.

 

I play a variety of songs to illustrate techniques at my seminars. At both the Between the Waves conference and GearFest, I played "My Butterfly," which makes extensive use of tempo changes. That was the first time the people burst into spontaneous applause after hearing a song. Maybe it's just that they liked the song, but maybe the tempo changes caused them to be affected on a deeper level.

 

Got me thinking about what pop songs use tempo changes and there don't seem to be much outside of the Beatles and Beach Boys stuff. I thought there might be some in "Aja" and "Money" but I think they might actually be time signature changes rather than intentional tempo changes. Easier to find examples in classical, prog rock, etc.

 

Try finding a song in the pre-click era without tempo changes! Check out this link, which analyzes multiple songs - I think you'll find it to be a real eye-opener. For example, I always thought of James Brown's rhythm as the definition of "tight," yet there are a ton of tempo changes in his music. But if you look closely, you'll see they are consistent and premeditated.

 

[Doerfler]

Check out this link, which analyzes multiple songs - I think you'll find it to be a real eye-opener.

 

Hey, the guy that wrote that article has the same name as you.

[J. Dan]

Does studio one time-stretch the audio to follow the tempo track? I used to do this quite a bit with MIDI tracks but never tried it with audio. I don't think any of my software will actually do that. I always laid out the tempo track first, then recorded audio to that.

[Notes_Norton]

And of course, this begs the question...do tempo changes make a difference, and are they important? If so, why have they basically been kicked to the curb?

1) Yes, tempo changes make a difference

2) Yes they are important

3) They have been kicked to the curb because it's easier when building a song with modern technology than just playing it

 

Tempo changes, grooves, dynamics, and nuances all have their place in turning the notes into music.

 

I remember my first band director in school telling me that when playing melody, it's often appropriate to drag the first part of the phrase and rush the end or vice versa over the steady rhythm section.

 

I've played in a lot of good bands with great drummers, and they knew when to be metronomes and when to rush or drag.

 

I think if you play in the studio "live" with a good drummer the tempo changes and the groove will just happen without thinking about it. But when you have this click track grid in front of you, or when you are recording one instrument at a time, it's much more difficult to get that organic feel.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Anderton]

Does studio one time-stretch the audio to follow the tempo track?

 

Yes, and because it uses the elastique time-stretch algorithm (also used in Ableton Live, Cakewalk by BandLab, Acid Pro, and others), the sound quality is excellent as long as you're not trying to change tempo by 20% or something like that. Studio One also has a preference that allows for higher-quality time-stretching on playback. I've also done this technique with Ableton Live, and it works very well there too.

 

[Anderton]

I think if you play in the studio "live" with a good drummer the tempo changes and the groove will just happen without thinking about it.

 

Yes, but what surprises me is the precision with which drummers apply these changes.

 

But when you have this click track grid in front of you, or when you are recording one instrument at a time, it's much more difficult to get that organic feel.

 

Well, as technology takes away, it also gives the option to put back in What I've found is that the tempo changes are actually quite predictable, which means that if you introduce these kind of changes after the fact, it still works reasonably well...which is fortunate.

 

[Notes_Norton]

I think if you play in the studio "live" with a good drummer the tempo changes and the groove will just happen without thinking about it.

 

Yes, but what surprises me is the precision with which drummers apply these changes.

 

But when you have this click track grid in front of you, or when you are recording one instrument at a time, it's much more difficult to get that organic feel.

 

Well, as technology takes away, it also gives the option to put back in What I've found is that the tempo changes are actually quite predictable, which means that if you introduce these kind of changes after the fact, it still works reasonably well...which is fortunate.

 

That's why I never call what they call "Humanizing" by that name, I call it Randomizing. No drummer I ever worked with plays like a humanized track. The time shifts and tempo shifts are deliberate and precise.

 

And yes, the technology can help you put in some things a live session can do. Like everything it's a trade-off. The machines can do things a live session can do, and the live can do things the machines cannot.

 

It's a little like when I put my acoustic sax down to play a sax patch on my wind synthesizer. I play the sax patch for the things it will do that the sax cannot because I think it's a better choice for the song.

 

I see situations where it's best to put the musicians and vocalists in the fish bowl and let them all play at once, other situations where a song is built in the studio track at a time, or a hybrid of the two.

 

Keep the tips coming Craig.

 

Notes

 

[Anderton]

That's why I never call what they call "Humanizing" by that name, I call it Randomizing.

 

I call it "number of beers consumed by drummer."

 

I've noticed that Studio One's "humanizing" algorithm seems more effective than average, but it's very subtle. They say it's based on rules modeled on common human performance patterns; I do get the sense it's about more than just randomness. It seems most effective with chord-based keyboard parts.

[Notes_Norton]

That's why I never call what they call "Humanizing" by that name, I call it Randomizing.

 

I call it "number of beers consumed by drummer."

 

I've noticed that Studio One's "humanizing" algorithm seems more effective than average, but it's very subtle. They say it's based on rules modeled on common human performance patterns; I do get the sense it's about more than just randomness. It seems most effective with chord-based keyboard parts.

Interesting. And about time.

 

We've had randomizing since the Commodore and Atari days. Computer power has grown exponentially since then.

 

Notes

[PianoMan51]

For the past 50 years I"ve been badmouthing classical music education because of its reliance on the written note. But good classical players understand in a deep way how to let tempo breathe.

 

For a keyboardist, there are joys to be found in almost any musical setting. Take away the drummer and now I have significant control over the rhythmic pattern. Take away the bass player and add me in the LH bass, and now I have complete control over the harmonic progression. But take away both drums and bass, and now I have, thank God, the ability to let the tempo breathe.

 

I"m not talking about the 'lack" of steady tempo, like a bad church organist, but the deliberate shifting of tempo to improve the song. This is inherent in great European music of the past. Along with diminished chords, this is an aspect of music that"s been abandoned over the past 70 years.

[Notes_Norton]

When I was in school (concert band) the band director taught us about rhythm changes, melodic phrasing, dragging 2 beat triplets a bit, pushing the second beat of a Viennese waltz, and the other nuances of tempo manipulation. In my case classical musical education was great.

 

Also so much depends on the conductor. The conductor plays the orchestra as one instrument made of many different players. There are plenty of tempo change directives in classical music, but the conductor interprets them the way he or she chooses.

 

Decades ago I bought a CD of Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony conducted by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. Tchaikovsky reportedly wept while writing this symphony full of great passion. Ormandy didn't weep, it was dull, boring, and lifeless. To be fair, Ormandy does pre-romantic era music very well, strict tempos, refrain from passion, reduced dynamics, and so on; music in the style of Mozart and Haydn. I bought the CD because I heard Ormandy conducting Prokofiev's 'classical' symphony (#1) which is done in the style of Haydn on the radio and it was superb. The romantic era pieces on the CD were so-so.

 

Later I was driving back from Tampa and the college radio station was playing Tchaikovsky #6 and it was superb, passionate, dynamic, and exciting. Tchaikovsky was weeping on this version. As I started to drive out of range of the radio station, I parked the car and Leilani and I sat in silence until it was over. It was stunning.

 

So I called the station, the DJ said it was Kurt Masur and the New York Philharmonic, and I bought the CD the next day. It's still my favorite version of #6.

 

The two versions are like night and day. Ormandy's is dull and lifeless, Masur's is stunning.

 

For classical, like any other form of music, it depends on who is playing it. And tempo variances play a large part of turning the notes on the page into music with vox humana.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

 

 

 

 

[Anderton]

For classical, like any other form of music, it depends on who is playing it. And tempo variances play a large part of turning the notes on the page into music with vox humana.

No kidding. I love the Brandenburgs, for example. A lot of the recordings sound like people either phoning in their parts, or playing way too fast in order to show off. My favorite recording was by some no-name Eastern European orchestra. They were awesome.

 

I was at a concert once where the featured, big violinist played her big solo. Afterward, everyone clapped..."oh, what a great solo!" But it wasn't. It was wooden and frankly, could have been computer-generated.

 

Wasn't it Mick Jagger who said "it's the singer, not the song"?

[RABid]

When I studied classical, tempo changes were common and part of setting the mood. When I started learning pop and rock and got in my first garage band we thought everything had to be a constant tempo. Then I got in my first good working band and the bass player had "the talk" with me. He played the beginning and the end of a Stones song and let me hear how much the tempo was rushing at the end. We listened to Queen, Chicago and other major bands and he hammered in his point. The good bands know how to use varying tempo. I learned that concepts from classical music can transfer to rock.

 

Of course this was the early '80's, as someone said, before everything was locked in on a computer.

[Notes_Norton]

The computer can be a great musical tool in the right hands, but since some things are easier to do on the computer, it allows people who have less training and experience to make music. Some of those people are naturals and do a great job, others do not.

 

In the early days of MIDI there was a nice usenet/newsgroup for MIDI (alt.midi or something like that). One poster put up a number of Steely Dan files. They were obviously step-entered from a "Royal Scam" album sheet music or music book. It was terrible.

 

To start with, Bernard "Pretty" Purdy, the drummer on that album is one of the greatest groove drummers in rock and roll - he doesn't quantize anything. As in the recording studio, the band follows the drummer, and all the other musicians were top-notch folks, they fell into the groove.

 

Then dynamics. Try reading this post with every syllable of every word at the same volume.

 

There is a lot more to making music than putting what the dots represent on a computer grid or matrix.

 

For me, the best way to do it is to record all the parts live. Since I play drums, bass, sax, wind synth, guitar, flute, and can get around on keyboards, it's the best way for me.

 

Playing live without thinking about the grid is the best way to get the music to breathe and to phrase with vox humana. It just happens.

 

Of course that means you have to learn and practice each part first, and it's not instant gratification. But if I'm lucky, I'll get to hear what I recorded thousands of times, and I won't have to listen and think, "I could have done that much better."

 

I record aftermarket styes for Band-in-a-Box and backing tracks for my duo "The Sophisticats". In the first case, my name is on the files, and in my duo, I'm standing in front of an audience. In both cases, personal pride says no matter how much work it takes to make the product as good as I can, it's worth the time and work.

 

Besides, when the music is better, it's just more fun, and isn't fun the reason why the call it PLAYing music???

 

For me that means recording live parts.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Anderton]

The computer can be a great musical tool in the right hands, but since some things are easier to do on the computer, it allows people who have less training and experience to make music. Some of those people are naturals and do a great job, others do not.

 

But it also empowers composers who DO know what they're doing, and can take advantage of the sophistication a computer can offer that goes beyond entering notes on a grid. It's amazing to me that the great composers could hear all those parts in their head, but I wonder what would have happened if they could have heard a draft of their composition without having to hire an orchestra!

 

[KuruPrionz]

Above the Tracks in Waveform (Tracktion) there is an Automation track named Tempo.

I am going to start goofing with it and see what it does. That is probbaly another "after the fact" way of shifting the tempo.

 

It has occured to me that I can create a tempo map prior to recording tracks using audio clips that were generated at various Master Tempos.

 

I know when I play my acoustic guitar solo and sing (open mic night!!!) that my tempo naturally adjusts according to what I am trying to express in the song.

Recordings show that I am on the right track there, it doesn't sound like somebody bumbling about or struggling to play in time.

 

I also know that visual cues are HUGE in recording an ensemble. One glorious time I became the "Music Director/Co-Producer" for a song a friend sold locally. We had a budget and I could approve the checks so I had the ability to make choices. The engineers wanted to put the drummer in an isolation booth while the bassist and I went direct (scratch tracks) and played along.

 

I told them we were both going into the booth with the drummer so we could watch him. There was plenty of space, it was at least 12' x 10'. The engineers said "What if you make a mistake and there is bleed." I said "what if we don't and it's good?" In we went. Nailed it on the 3rd take and the direct tracks sounded good enough to use in the final mix. The drummer held tempo but "pushed" the beat during the chorus with his hi-hats. I just watched his snare hand and locked my strum to that. Would have been much more difficult if I couldn't see his snare hand.

 

In my mind, this is where it could get tricky doing all the tracks myself, that lack of visual feedback when things speed up and slow down.