@@MichaelWashingtonAE when I was in high school our indoor drumline played an arrangement of Feediop as part of the program one winter. Super groovy, but a lot of it had to be taught to us without a metronome lol. Avishai Cohen is dope.
It was plain to see how ridiculous the mash-up of the 5/5/5/5/5 and 4/4/5/4/4/4 would be, but no matter how much I tried to prepare for it, 9:52 just made me break out in laughter at how hopelessly far over my head it flew XD
Well you're absolutely right. I originally had that in the script, but after looking at everything it felt too long so I cut it because the beat count stays the same. Maybe I should have mentioned it hahaha good catch!
Even though I'm familiar with most of the prog and metal featured on this channel, it's really cool to be introduced to stuff like this that's out of my usual listening zone. The chaabi video especially was really cool in that regard, and I hope you keep showing off all kinds of diverse music! Would love to see you cover some IQ songs sometime, lots of neat rhythm stuff in there :) Congrats on 50k!
Great analysis of this master piece. Thank you. I’d love to hear more about your experience playing with Tigran, and how his method of working is, does he has charts or how does he explain all this crazy changes?, did you have to figure out all by yourself?. A kind of behind the scenes video, explaining and exploring his way of rehearse, comunícate and transmit his ideas to other musicians wold be really welcomed. Love your channel, and congrats on the 50k.
Congrats on 50k subscriber, great to see your channel get the recognition it deserves! Tigran gives me the impression he is coming up with notes and rythmic subdivisions unheard by the common mortals that we are. He is such a brilliant musician, able to combine beauty and complexity in such an usual package. I don't why, but I would not be surprised if he was able to feel synesthesia...
Oh, I didn't really think I needed this song explained, but this video proves that I did, a lot =) So, thanks for posting it, and congrats on the 50k. P.S.: yep, a video detailing rehearsals with Tigran would be quite welcome.
This is so great that we have Musicians that are taking music to a very high level of mathematical possibilities and making it work . When we have somebody this you that can really dive into how it all comes together it really helps us grow as musicians also . It's a blueprint to help us understand any music that is out there . Ty Yogev Gabay
My dude I've been following this channel for a while and I love it. Have you ever considered doing a video on an Intronaut song? They've done a ton of wild things with timing and rhythm -- my favorite moment from them is the intro to "Killing Birds with Stones".
Yogev I watched this video like a thousand times!!! Is priceless!!! You spend 8 minutes dissecting a 30 seconds section of the song! When you are grasping and beginning to understand it is already gone! Hoping for any video from animals as leaders's new album! If I'm not wrong "Monomyth" showcase this same concept of changing the internal rhythmic cells. Anyways thanks Yogev!
5:58 - Actually the B-Section (445444) IS a bit shorter than the A-Section (557555). Reason: Tigran didn't make the whole sections have the same length (in terms of "duration/time") - actually he only matched the lengths of the "short"-bars! So for creating a 4-bar with the same duration as a bar of 5 notes, the notes in the 4-bar have to be played at 80% of the speed of the original notes (5 * 0.8 = 4). That means we've got a 0.8 factor, which applys to all notes of the section. And noooow, there comes the third bar in the section - the 7-bar that needs to be transformed into a 5-bar with the same length for our two sections to have the same length. So is 7 * 0.8 = 5? Sadly not. It equals 5.6. What does that number exactly mean? Well... If we wanted the two sections to have the same length, we would need to construct the B-Section as following: (4 notes, 4 notes, 5.6 notes, 4 notes, 4 notes, 4 notes). But we only got (4 4 5 4 4 4). So if the "optimal B-section" (4+4+5.6+4+4+4 = 25.6) equals 100% of the length of the A-section, then the "real B-section" (which is 25, not 25.6) is only 96% the duration of the A-section. Voila. :D
Great analysis. Maybe this is why the song is called "Out of the Grid", because it doesn't completely adhere to the underlying 4/4 all the way through the way that "The Grid" does? Alternative 'optimal B-section': turn the 7-bar into a bar of 5 notes with a total duration equal to the original bar, in other words slightly slowing the tempo each time you reach that bar...
Well yeah that's true, but that's where music and math go separate ways. The difference is so slight that our ears compensate for that "loss" and smooth it out.
@@YogevGabay True. And this is exactly what I love here! Because normally math and music (in terms of "the feel") DO go parallel ways. And here they slightly don't because either tigran cleverly tricked us or otherwise he just didn't give a shit - and each reason is awesome because both led to what we got now. :D Fo me, things like these are just "little secrets" hidden inside tunes, that make my nerdy heart happy. But of course they don't make tunes "better" or "worse". :)
Another great video Yogev, Tigran's ideas are brilliant, and for sure difficult to analyse and explain so well! Sooo jealous of you for getting to play with him!
Whenever the 557555 turned to the subdivisions of 445444 it honestly made me think of a tango feel. While the former made me think in the more prog sense. Really amazing how a simple change of divisions can do that xD
Thank you Yogev 🙏 I always find your videos fun, educational and most importantly, accessible. Musically and logically. Just absolutely LOVE Tigran’s work too. I must say, I loved the little drum stick trick done on the Berklee - Drip video 😂 you’re a BEAST of a drummer. Hope you’re well and safe ✌️ 🥁 💚
Cheers for another great video man! There's a jazzy, drum and bass track called The Hidden Camera by Photek that has always confused me. I am pretty sure it's in 4/4 but it sounds weird and i figure you're the man to tell me why...
Hey Yogev, I know you enjoy polyrhythms, so I thought I would ask if you've heard of the band Intronaut, and specifically ask if you've heard the song "The Welding," in which the drums, guitar, and bass are all playing different rhythms for the intro riff, and there's some odd time signatures as well. I think you'd like it a lot!
That song really reminds me of some Mouse on the Keys,, for some reason. Great breakdown as always Yogev, and congrats on the subs. Damn, that went fast.
@@YogevGabay haha, that might have been me before to, maybe. As for rec’s, there’s three you might like: Saigo no Bansan (think that’s how most people get into them? Used to be, anyway), Spectres de Mouse, and Leviathan. Curious to see what you think of them!
Man, that transition (back to the "regular tempo") totally makes since now the problem is I was looking at the measures as the 5 5 7 5 5 and not in 4 lol!!
This was an awesome video, and I'm so glad you covered this song. Just a super nitpicky thing, at 6:00 you mention that the section length doesn't change when going from 557555 to 445444, but at 12:06 you say the groups of 4 used to fit 5 notes in the same amount of time. I'm pretty sure these are conflicting statements, since the ratios of short to long must change (5/7)≠(4/5). For the entire section to stay the same amount of time when going from 32 to 25, the duration of the short beat would have to become shorter. Alternatively, the short beat could stay the same length, but the length of the total section would then change. I'm also not sure which happens here though.
Well, you're technically right yes. The ratios between 5 to 7 and 4 to 5 aren't mathematically similar, but they are close enough for our ears to compensate. So I chose to "ignore" that small mathematical discrepancy, but that been said, you're right.
@@YogevGabay Ah that makes sense. Thanks again for all the hard work on these videos! They've super helpful for me to begin learning how to understand these types of songs. Also your taste in music consistently rocks 🤘
Ok, so this metric modulation is not quite as simple as one would think. Playing in 4/4 in 16th note quintuplets and going to straight 16th notes does in fact not change the length of the pattern or sequence. While I completely agree with the premise, whenever you have different, and non-divisible, length patterns within the sequence - This it what happens. I'll be using the first swap in Out of the grid from 5-5-7-5-5-5 to 4-4-5-4-4-4. This modulation is based around switching from playing five evenly spaced notes in the short pattern to playing four evenly spaced. This leads to 20% fewer notes in the pattern. But that pattern of seven turns into a five, which reduces the length of the pattern by about 29%. Meaning the entire sequence of 4-4-5-4-4-4 is actually *shorter* than the 5-5-7-5-5-5, eventhough every 5 and 4 are the same length. The difference is pretty minimal, and certainly not audible unless you're a wizard (Harry), but you'll definitely hear if if you play the entire song to a click track.
Great video! I also love your cover of this song with Yoel and Guy! How do you make the transition? Do you switch the click track from a 4 subdivision to a 5 subdivision vice versa?
Hey, great video. I really like Tigran and your rythmic analysis and the way you present them visually. I have one question though: In regards to the 5-5-7-5-5-5 sections, do you think there's an objective reason to count and feel the tune in a 4/4 pulse or would you say that's up to the player/listener? Because I'm much more comfortable counting it as if it was a series of time signature changing measures or just odd groupings (like, for example, how I think you'd count Aritmophobia by Animals as Leaders) and I feel counting to 4 is unintuitive and there's no reason to do it besides the fact that the whole cycle fits in the duration of two 4/4 bars (I refer to the parts where there's no backbeat or no clear marking of the beat in quarter notes). Thank you.
There's a great video by the channel, Metal Music Theory, that breaks down three distinct ways to count a Dillinger Escape Plan song. (Or it's the Car Bomb one, I can't remember.) There's the listener's perspective, the performer's, and analyzer's. Each hold value, and the interpretive variance adds up to a sort of musical gestalt (which I use in lieu of the word "groove"). I think it would be perfectly viable to bang your head in 4/4 to this section, or to rehearse it that way. But I think it's important to ask, "what value would counting this all in 4/4 bring?" If that value outweighs the cost of learning it that way, by all means, go for it. Personally, I try to count everything relative to the underlying pulse. But that's just because I'd rather do that than program a tempo map.
I watched that video it's great! So for me, it depends what the context is. Depends if you're playing, listening, recording, there are a lot of factors! No one singular answer for this I think.
When we go from the 557555 riff to the 445444 riff, you said that the 32 beats of the first riff take the same duration as the 25 beats of the second riff. However, you said later that 5 of the beats of the first riff take the same duration as 4 beats of the second riff. These can't both be true since 32/25 != 5/4 (although they are very close), so which is it? I guess I'm interested in what a musician is thinking about when playing this. I reckon they'd make 5 beats of the first the same as 4 beats of the second, as that's much easier to play.
Maybe Yogev can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the rhythm can be approached in two ways with the actual answer probably being somewhere in the middle. First is that you can very directly turn each "block" of the original rhythm into a tuplet, so you're playing 4s in the space of the 5/16s and a quintuplet in the space of the 7/16. Note that this would actually produce two slightly different note rates, the five wouldn't be identical to the fours (I want to say it's slightly slower but that's just from fuzzy 1am head math and it doesn't really matter either way) if you kept the "downbeats" identical with the original 5+5+7+5+5+5 timing. The second method is that you put the entire pattern into a bar of 8/4, create one giant 25-tuplet and then divide that into the new blocks. This means that the 4s and 5 in the new pattern have identical note rates but comes at the cost of the "downbeats" now being slightly out of sync with the original pattern (and thus the new fours don't exactly fit in the same space as the old fives, as you pointed out). However, then you remember that we're talking about flawed human musicians rather than precise computers, which is why the answer is most likely in the middle of these two options. They're turning each block into a perfect new tuplet, but then "smoothing" those new blocks out so that the note rate of the fours and fives are roughly even and thus going closer to the pure 25-tuplet method... but while still keeping the greater accent pattern of the blocks mostly intact. It "doesn't really work," but then you have a bunch of experience musicians lock into the groove and suddenly it works. It might not be perfectly precise, and if you wanted to absolutely map out every single note then it would probably produce a borderline unreadable mess of tuplets nobody would actually write, but it's close enough that nobody other than maybe Jacob Collier can tell. On a related note, Metal Music Theory has some great videos on Car Bomb and Dillinger Escape Plan that provide more examples of this kind of thing. They write a certain complex rhythm, probably start practicing it in a very precise way but then eventually the muscle memory starts to mutate into a rhythm that is "more or less" what was written but when measured turns out to be something far enough outside the grid of music theory that it could only reasonably have been reached by "just feeling it."
@@TheSquareOnes So these two ways of achieving the same goal are slightly different. So in the first way, where the general ratio of the blocks are preserved (ie big and small, big stays big and small stays small) the overall clave of the song stays while the internal ratios may not be the most precise thing. And in the second version, the notes amongst themselves are indeed equal to one another but you lose the clave. And I think the clave plays a bigger role here, which is why this method makes more sense to me ! Is this even remotely clear ?
Ok but hold on: so the initial count (5/5/7/5/5/5) is 32 even beats. If the *spaces* taken up by that “clave” then become 4/4/5/4/4/4, wouldn’t those 25 beats be uneven? Compared to the original 32 16th notes, the new 4’s would be 4:5 and the new 5’s would be 5:7. Those aren’t equal. Or does it just become 25 equal beats, so a 25:32 ratio across the two measures, but the clave no longer exactly matches the old one?
@@YogevGabay yeah, trying to figure out a sensible conversion that doesn't involve the entire 'faster' tempo being in 5-tuples and also doesn't involve making a performer figure out '4/5 time'
@@GryptpypeThynne So to be honest, I can't think of a clean way to do this without it looking horrible. I'm sure someone can do it, I just can think of a simple way. Sorryyyyy
11:23 little mistake: there is a small change, it's not a triple siteenth chunk but 2 sixteenths + pause + 1 sixteen but awesome work as always... the riffs are incredible
Well you're absolutely right. I originally had that in the script, but after looking at everything it felt too long so I cut it because the beat count stays the same. Maybe I should have mentioned it hahaha good catch!
