Downloaded at the Following Link

Home , California Nights, I Cried a Tear, La Musique, Love Came to Me, Refrain, Three Hearts in a Tangle

Three Empirical Studies on the Evolution of Musical Syntax in Popular Music from the 1960s

HUBERT LÉVEILLÉ GAUVIN

Music Theory Area Department of Music Research Schulich School of Music

McGill University Montréal • Québec • Canada

July 2015

A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Masters of Arts.

Contents

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

List of Examples vii

Abstract ix

Résumé x

Acknowledgments xi

Introduction 1 Database-Driven Research on Popular Music • Overview of the Present Research

1 Parsing the Database 7 Introducing the SUPERMAn tool • User Interface • Accessing the SUPERMAn Tool

2 Studies 1 & 2: On Modulation and Harmonic Practices 17 2.1 Hypotheses 18 2.2 Method 19 2.3 Results 20 Study 1: Evaluating Modulation Frequency • Study 2: Evaluating Chord Frequency 2.4 Discussion 23 Investigating Chord Patterns

iii 2.5 Conclusion 31

3 Study 3: On Formal Organization 33 3.1 Hypotheses 36 3.2 Method 37 Identifying Functional Structures of Formal Organization 3.3 Results 39 Inter-Rater Agreement • Study 3: On Formal Organization 3.4 Discussion 42 3.5 Conclusion 53

4 Summary and Future Work 55 Summary of Results • Summary of Contributions • Aborted Study on Blues-Based Harmonic Patterns • Future Directions Appendix 63 A Billboard Parser Script 63 B Songs Featured in the 1958-1971 Sub-Corpus 89 C Annotating Instructions for Studies on Formal Organization and Blues-Based Harmonic Patterns 97

Bibliography 103

iv List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Sampling algorithm for the Billboard DataSet (reproduced from 8 Burgoyne et al., 2011, Figure 1)

Fig. 1.2 A screenshot of the SUPERMAn tool 11

Fig. 1.3 Examples of regex queries (reproduced from Robbins 1999, p. 299) 11

Fig. 1.4a An excerpt of a transcription as presented originally in the 13 Billboard DataSet.

Fig. 1.4b The same transcription, converted to a tonic-neutral format and 13 cleaned of all non-essential information

Fig. 2.1 Distribution of single- and multi-tonic songs 20

Fig. 2.2 Detailed distribution of multi-tonic songs 21

Fig. 2.3 Distribution of 31 multi-tonic songs between 1958-1971 24

Fig. 3.1 Inter-rater agreement on formal organization, percentage per year 40

Fig. 3.2 Distribution of songs according to formal organization (1958-71) 40

Fig. 3.3 Distribution of formal organization 41

Fig. 3.4 Formal organization, per year 42

Fig. 4.1 Blues-based harmonic patterns, per year 59

v List of Tables

Table 1.1 Distribution of songs in the Billboard DataSet for 1958-1971 9

Table 2.1 Distribution of songs featuring specific chords (in percentages) 22

Table 2.2 Harmonic trigrams ending but not beginning on tonic, in 26 descending order of frequency (reproduced from de Clercq and Temperley, 2011, Table 7)

Table 2.3 Harmonic trigrams ending but not beginning on the tonic, and 27 featuring at least one flat-side harmony, in descending order of frequency. Table 4.1 Summary of results 55

vi List of Examples

Ex. 2.1 “Make Me Smile” by Chicago, 1970 29

Ex. 2.2 “In My Room” by The Beach Boys, 1963 30

Ex. 3.1 “These Boots Are Made for Walking” by Nancy Sinatra, 1966 44

Ex. 3.2 “Evil” by Howlin’ Wolf, 1954 (reprinted from de Clercq, 2012, 45 p.136, Ex. 4.2.18)

Ex. 3.3 “I Don’t Blame You at All” by Smokey Robinson, 1971 47

Ex. 3.4a-c Typical realizations of the AABA reverse-period bridge 50

Ex. 3.5 “I Got You (I Feel Good)” by James Brown, 1965 50

Ex. 3.6 “The Ways of a Woman in Love” by Johnny Cash, 1958 50

Ex. 3.7 “He’s So Fine” by The Chiffons, 1963 52

Ex. 3.8 “Jimmy’s Girl” by Johnny Tillotson, 1961 52

Ex. 4.1 Simple Blues Pattern (0) 60

vii

Abstract

The goal of this research is to investigate the evolution of musical practices in popular music in the

1960s through a large corpus study in order to identify any consistent changes in harmonic, tonal, and formal syntax. The discussion is twofold. First, I discuss the technical challenges associated with corpus studies, and I introduce the SUPERMan tool, a UNIX script I developed to overcome those challenges. Second, I present the results of three studies based on the Billboard DataSet

(Burgoyne et al., 2011; Burgoyne, 2011), a new corpus presenting transcriptions for more than 700 songs.

The first study looks at the incidence of multi-tonic songs throughout the decade, the second focuses on the incidence of flat-side harmonies (e.g. III, VI, and VII) over the same period of time, and finally the third investigates formal organization. While no difference was observed in the frequency of multi-tonic songs, the studies showed a significant increase in the incidence of flat-side harmonies during the second half of the decade, accompanied by an equally significant paradigmatic change in formal organization.

This project features original academic research intended to contribute to a better understanding of popular music. In Studying Popular Music, Richard Middleton has noted that “the so- called progressive rock of the mid and late 1960s” was “regarded as widely associated with, indeed as the music of, the ‘counterculture,’” yet “how, theoretically, this connection could be said to work was rarely explained” (Middleton, 1990, p. 27). Mapping the evolution of musical tendencies through time will not only allow the community a better understanding of how musical syntax gets transformed through the years, but could also serve as a bridge for future interdisciplinary research involving the social sciences, as urged by Middleton almost a quarter-century ago.

ix Résumé

Le but de cette recherche est d’examiner les structures sonores de la musique populaire des années

60 par l’entremise d’une large étude empirique ayant pour but d’identifier des changements sur le plan de l’harmonie, de la syntaxe tonale et de la forme. La discussion se fera en deux temps. D’abord, je discuterai des défis techniques liés à l’utilisation de bases de données et présenterai le logiciel

SUPERMAn, un script UNIX que j’ai développé pour surmonter ces défis. Par la suite, je présenterai les résultats de trois études basées sur le Billboard DataSet (Burgoyne et al., 2011; Burgoyne, 2011), un nouveau corpus regroupant des transcriptions harmoniques de plus de 700 chansons.

La première étude se concentre sur la fréquence de pièces multi-toniques au courant de la décennie, la deuxième traite du taux d’accords dont la fondamentale est abaissée (e.g. III, VI et

VII) durant la même période et la troisième analyse l’évolution de l’organisation formelle. Bien qu’aucune différence n’ait été constatée dans l’incidence de pièces multi-toniques, les études montrent une utilisation plus importante d’harmonies dont la fondamentale est abaissée, accompagnée d’un changement tout aussi significatif des paradigmes formels.

Ce projet de recherche a pour but de contribuer à une meilleure compréhension de la musique populaire. Dans Studying Popular Music, Richard Middleton proposait que « la soi-disant musique de rock progressif du milieu et de la fin des années 60 » était « largement associée avec, ou même considérée comme étant la musique de, la ‘contreculture’ » bien que « la façon dont ce lien est

établi sur le plan musical a rarement démontrée. » (Middleton, 1990, p. 27, traduction libre).

Retracer l’évolution des tendances musicales à travers le temps permet une meilleure compréhension de l’évolution de la syntaxe musicale et facilite la recherche interdisciplinaire à travers les sciences sociales, tel que recommandé par Middleton il y à près d’un quart de siècle.

x Acknowledgments

I would like to thank numerous parties for the help and support with this research project. In no particular order:

Nicole Biamonte, co-advisor on this project, for constantly giving me generous feedback and comments, as well as for her endless knowledge of popular music. Jonathan Wild, co-advisor on this project, for his invaluable help with the funding process, the technical aspect of the database, and the research methodology. David Brackett, for agreeing to recommend me to both funding agencies, and for sparking my interest in popular music as an undergraduate student. David Huron, for his amazing workshop on empirical research methods. I don’t think I could have done this research without it. My office mates, Sarah Gates, Toru Momii, Michèle Duguay, Lydia Huang, Ben Duinker, and Rebecca Flore, for making our work space such an inspiring environment. Special thanks to

Rebecca for her help with the annotation process. I would also like to thank the many members of the Schulich School of Music and the CIRMMT community that offered useful ideas and suggestions.

This research project has been made possible in part by the financial support of the Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Fonds de recherche du Québec -

Société et culture.

Finally, a special thank to my wife Vanessa Ayotte for the continuous encouragement and support. I could not have done it without you.

Introduction

The 1960s were a time of great political, sociological, and cultural changes, accompanied by equally important developments in popular culture. Musically, the decade marked history, with the Brill

Building, the British Invasion and Beatlemania, just to cite a few cultural phenomena. Many scholars have addressed the shifting musical paradigms of this period, noting that “[r]ock musicians no longer aspire[d] so much to be professionals and craftspeople” but “artists” (Covach, 2006, p. 38) and that the “later 1960s brought a respect for popular music and a popularity for complex artistic experimentation that had not been matched in any previous era” (Wald, 2009, p. 246). While writers have commented on this attitudinal shift and its impact on musical form (Spicer, 2004; Covach,

2005, 2006; Summach, 2011; de Clercq, 2012), it remains to be demonstrated that a correspondingly profound shift can be located in the harmonic progressions.

The 1960s are an interesting period for the development of popular music, not only due to socio-political changes, but also because of major transformations in the music industry itself during this period. The 1960 Congressional hearings on the payola scandal, a pay-to-play practice common during the 1950s, had consequences for the role of DJs and TV hosts in the diffusion of popular music, leading to official blame placed on high-profile personalities such as Alan Freed and Dick

Clark. The decade was also marked by a transformation of the recorded medium itself. The 45 rpm singles associated with the jukebox culture of the 1950s and early 60s slowly declined in favour of the

LP disc, which rose in popularity by the end of the decade and became the main means of music consumption.

1 Database-Driven Research on Popular Music

Empirically oriented surveys of popular music have become more and more popular. Topics such as syncopation (Huron & Ommen, 2006), metric dissonance (Biamonte, 2014), DJ culture (Greasley,

Prior, 2013), audio features and metadata (Bertin-Mahieux et al., 2011), and timbre and loudness levels (Serrà et al., 2012), have all lent themselves to this type of systematic approach. However, as is the case with more traditional analytic research, studies on harmony, melody, and voice leading still occupy the core of the research that has been published in the last decade (Everett, 2004; Mauch et al., 2007; de Clercq & Temperley, 2011 & 2013; Burgoyne, 2011; Burgoyne et al., 2011).

Everett (2004) compares harmony and voice leading in songs from a pair of two-year periods

(1957-1958 and 1999-2000). By establishing “six criteria that concern both surface and structural events designated for each of these two tonal domains [i.e. harmony and voice-leading]” (para. 27, comments in brackets mine), Everett designed a twelve-point grading scale to objectively judge each corpus. Though he acknowledges the possible flaws of such a grading system, the results presented suggest that the 1999-2000 corpus is significantly more diversified than the 1957-1958 one, leading to the conclusion that “there is no single monolithic style of rock harmony, that blues is not the basis of all modern popular music, and that there are gradations between and among approaches based on the interrelated roles of harmony and counterpoint” (para. 37).

A different approach was used by Mauch et al., (2007). Focusing on chord idioms, their research was conducted on two different corpora consisting of chord transcriptions for the 180

Beatles songs and 244 jazz standards from the Real Book, respectively. They identified the most frequent 4-chord sequences in each corpus. Among other things, their study showed that the most frequent chord progression in the Beatles corpus is major chords alternating by fifths or fourths (e.g.

I-IV-I-IV, V-I-V-I), and that chord sequences featuring major chords only are far more popular, the

2 first sequence featuring a minor chord (e.g. ii-V-I-IV) ranking only at position 15. Conversely, the most popular chord sequence in the Real Book corpus was the diatonic circle of fifths.

Perhaps the most important study for the field in recent years is the one conducted by de

Clercq and Temperley (2011, 2013). They presented a 200-song corpus derived from the Rolling Stone

Magazine’s “500 Greatest Songs of All Time,” compiled in 2004. Their study focused primarily on chord frequency, frequency of root motions, patterns of co-occurrence between chords, and melodic organization. Their findings include a dramatic shift between chords used during the 1950s and those used between the 1960s and 2000s, the 1950s being “completely dominated” (2011, p. 63) by I, IV, and V. Conversely, the authors discussed how, from the 1960s onward, flat-side harmonies VII, III, and VI “emerge as a group in which all three pairs are highly correlated” (2011, p. 66), and that there is a “strong presence of the ‘pentatonic union’ scale, 1−2−3−3−4−5−6−7, in the melodic data” (2013, p. 202).

The Billboard DataSet (Burgoyne et al., 2011; Burgoyne, 2011) provides a collection of 743 transcriptions of music popular in the United States between 1958 and 1991.1 The content of the corpus is multigenre, primarily consisting of rock n’ roll, pop/rock, R&B/soul, country & western, vocal pop and jazz, and folk songs. Since Billboard is an American standard record chart, most of the songs come from the U.S.A, the U.K., and Canada, though other countries are represented as well.

Although the Billboard DataSet focuses on popular music from the same time period as the Rolling

Stone corpus, it differs on some critical points: its size is significantly larger and it focuses on songs

1 Burgoyne explains the basis of the chronological span of this corpus as follows: “The date of the first chart, 4 August 1958, is a natural starting date for selecting songs, but choosing an end date is less straightforward. Hip-hop music does not lend itself readily to harmonic analysis as traditionally understood, and because hip- hop became more popular in the 1990s and 2000s, a larger portion of the music on the “Hot 100” chart from these periods falls out of the scope of the data set. Furthermore, there have been several changes to the formula for computing the “Hot 100” over time, including a particularly significant shift in December 1991…” (Burgoyne et al., 2011, p. 634).

3 that were considered popular in their respective time, instead of songs that were considered highly significant in retrospect. For those reasons, it seemed to be the best available tool for the present research.

Overview of the Present Research

In recent years, theorists have highlighted specific musical paradigms associated with rock music.

Their observations include an increasing use of modal harmonies and modally-derived chord progressions (Moore, 1992, 1995; Biamonte, 2010), of plagal cadences (Temperley, 2011) and an increasing use of one-chord changes, chord shuttles and chord loops (Tagg, 2009). While these authors seem to agree, at least partially, on some harmonic tendencies that characterize rock music, it is difficult to relate these new idioms to the early pop and rock’n’roll music that predate the aforementioned shift in chord syntax. Even though attempts have been made in the past to map these progressions onto a specific timeline (Everett, 2004; de Clercq and Temperley, 2011), no previous research has focused on change within a specific decade.

The goal of this research is to investigate musical tendencies in this repertoire throughout the

1960s through large corpus studies in order to identify any consistent changes in harmonic and tonal syntax. Three different studies are presented in this thesis, focusing on modulation, harmonic practices, and formal organization. All three studies were conducted using data from the Billboard

Dataset. Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the SUPERMAn tool, a custom UNIX script created to parse the Billboard DataSet. Studies 1 and 2: On Modulation and Harmonic Practices were conducted concurrently and are presented in Chapter 2. Study 1 examines the occurrence of multi-tonic songs over the studied time period. The proposed theory is that the incidence of songs featuring modulations increases through the decade. Study 2 focuses on the incidence of diatonic and chromatic progressions. The proposed theories are that, as we go further into the decade, chords

4 with diatonic roots will decrease in frequency, and, conversely, chords with chromatic roots (e.g. flat- side harmonies such as III, VI, and VII) will increase in frequency. After compiling the data and analyzing the results, different conjectures were proposed to explain some of the findings. Some of those conjectures were then properly hypothesized and became the basis for Study 3. Presented in

Chapter 3, Study 3: On Formal Organization investigates formal tendencies throughout the 60s, hypothesizing the take-over of the verse-chorus form from the AABA form. Finally, Chapter 4 offers a summary of the present contribution to the field, as well as a discussion of possible avenues for future research.

1 Parsing the Database

The present studies use data from the Billboard DataSet (Burgoyne et al., 2011; Burgoyne, 2011), a new corpus presenting transcriptions for more than 700 songs, and rely on a custom UNIX tool I created. The corpus was originally created to “enable significant advances in the quality of training for audio-chord-recognition algorithms” as well as to engage in “computational musicology”

(Burgoyne et al., 2011, p. 633). It consists of a random sampling from all the songs that made the weekly Billboard 100 charts throughout between 1958 and 1991. The sampling procedure used by the Billboard DataSet team is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The corpus was first divided into three eras, each subdivided into five categories representing quintiles on the chart. Single slots equally distributed within each quintile were then randomly sampled. For every song that was not freely available in the Montréal area, the closest song on the chart (either up or down for that week) was selected. If those songs could not be found, the algorithm moved to the next closest on the chart.

Finally, if those songs could not be retrieved, the slot was left empty.

Since the primary focus of this research is the evolution of harmonic syntax throughout the

1960s, the time period under consideration is 1958 to 1971. These 14 years constitute a sub-corpus of 292 songs. This selection has been made to take into consideration any trends occurring either very early or very late in the decade. The chronological distribution of the 292 songs is presented in

Table 1.1, and a detailed list of the songs in this sub-corpus can be found in Appendix B.

Fig. 1.1. Sampling algorithm for the Billboard DataSet (reproduced from Burgoyne et al., 2011, Figure 1).

8 Table 1.1: Distribution of songs in the Billboard DataSet for 1958-1971 Year Number of Transcribed Songs 1958 7 1959 14 1960 9 1961 20 1962 27 1963 20 1964 25 1965 20 1966 18 1967 28 1968 26 1969 24 1970 22 1971 32

The transcribing team gathered more than two dozen people, all university-trained jazz musicians.

Each selected song was annotated separately by two different transcribers, then the analyses were reconciled by a third one. The transcriptions were created in plain-text format. Each file starts with a header that includes meta-information related to each song: title, artist, meter, and key. Those lines are preceded by the comment character hash ( # ) to distinguish them from the actual annotation.

The notational system used is based on a standardized approach (Harte et al., 2005), with vertical slashes ( | ) used to represent barlines. Each individual line of annotation is preceded by the timestamp of the beginning of the phrase, expressed in seconds. Annotators could freely add other information before or after the vertical slashes, such as indications regarding form, instrumentation, etc, although such information was not systematically reconciled. Note that these comments were

9 not preceded by the character hash ( # ).

Introducing the SUPERMAn tool

This transcription format proved to be polyvalent yet created some obstacles. In order to rapidly and automatically parse through the large number of transcriptions, a UNIX tool was created. The

Simple Unix Parser for Empirical Research on Musical Annotation—or SUPERMAn—is a UNIX based software designed to efficiently parse through a large number of text files, using regular expressions to establish proper, custom-designed queries (see Figure 1.2).2 A regular expression, or regex, is a pattern of characters matching one or many strings of text, widely popular amongst researchers in computer and information retrieval sciences. The strength of regex is that it relies on metacharacters to customize queries, making it a very powerful string-matching tool. Figure 1.3 reprints a figure from Robbins 1999, demonstrating only a few of the many ways metacharacters can be used to customize queries.

2 A complete copy of the script can be found in Appendix A of this document.

10 Fig. 1.2. A screenshot of the SUPERMAn tool.

Fig. 1.3. Examples of regex queries (reproduced from Robbins 1999, p. 299).

11 Regex-based queries are designed to match specific strings of characters. However, since the original

Billboard DataSet files feature extra information such as audio timing and annotators’ comments (see

Figure 1.4a below), reading a file as a long single line would fail to have the different progressions adjacent to one another. Therefore, the files were processed to remove all inessential information: every line that started with a # character as well as every blank line was kept exactly the same, while in all other lines any characters not enclosed by vertical slashes were removed.

Other small problems were linked to the use of the original transcription files. Since the command searches for specific strings of characters, it was impossible in this transcription format to search for a single progression across songs in different keys. Indeed, when dealing with strings of characters, “D:min7 G:7” in C appears different from “C:min7 F:7” in B, even though most musicians would recognize the two as the same ii7 – V7 progression. One way to overcome this problem is to convert the original transcriptions into a tonic-neutral format, where the root of each chord is replaced with integer notation (where t and e stand for 10 and 11, respectively). The conversion was done automatically with a second script that relied on custom dictionaries for every possible tonic, including enharmonic equivalence. The script would read the tonic of each song as notated in the header, decide which dictionary to use, and then convert every root to its neutral equivalent. Songs featuring more than one tonal center (69 in total) were dealt with manually— separated into single-tonic sections, converted using the same procedure, and then reassembled. The newly formatted files were then saved using the same names as their original counterparts, but with a different extension. The new files kept the information in the same order as the original files, allowing the user to easily go back and forth between this format and the original transcriptions.

Figures 1.4a and 1.4b show an original transcription and a reformatted one for comparison.

Fig. 1.4a. An excerpt of a transcription as presented originally in the Billboard DataSet.

Fig. 1.4b. The same transcription converted to a tonic-neutral format and cleaned of all non- essential information.

13 User Interface

The SUPERMAn script is run from a UNIX terminal. Upon invoking the script, the user is asked to prompt a regex query. This query can be aimed at retrieving specific information regarding harmonic progressions, but also more general questions dealing with metadata information. For example, the user could type “2:min7” to search for retrieve every song featuring at least one ii7 chord, or type

“artist: The Beatles” to retrieve every song in the database by this specific group. Once the query is sent, results are printed on the screen in three different tables; the first table displays results by decade, the second by year, and the third displays total number of matches. Following those tables, a user prompt offers the option to see detailed information about the results. This option can display a list of all the files matching the query, along with their specific locations within the main database directory. Finally, a third user prompt is displayed on the screen, offering the possibility to export the results. If this option is chosen, the results are saved as tab-separated values text file (TSV), which can then easily be converted to a standard spreadsheet format (e.g. .xls, .xlsx).

Accessing the SUPERMAn tool

The SUPERMAn script can be downloaded at the following link: http://www.cirmmt.org/research/tools

The archive file contains the following components:

• The shell script (.sh) of the SUPERMAn tool.

• A README file featuring an installation guide and a user guide.

14 • The Billboard DataSet: Adapted transcriptions for 743 songs, classified by year, and

converted to a tonic-neutral format using integer notation.

2 Studies 1 & 2: On Modulation and Harmonic Practices

In this chapter, I present the results of two different studies on modulation and on harmonic syntax.

The first study focuses on the incidence of modulation in the 1960s. Different scholars have discussed modulatory devices in popular music, especially in rock. Everett has observed how the

‘truck driver’s’ modulation by semitone—or tone—can be motivated by various reasons, such as

“signaling transcendence in a story line,” “portray[ing] […] the passage of time,” or “provid[ing] a change of colour for the ‘big finish’” (1997, p. 151). Similarly, Osborn discussed how “experimental rock artists regularly end songs with completely new material designed to be more memorable than anything previously presented—the terminal climax” and how these “dramatic endings come about through any combination of amplitudinal climax, harmonic modulation, and changing meter” (2013, p. 23). Alternatively, Tagg noted how modulations to the dominant are so “indicative of European art music that they can be inserted as genre synecdoches in a context of non-classical harmony (e.g. pop and rock) to connote, seriously or humorously, high art rather than low-brow entertainment, deep feelings and the transcendent rather than the superficial and ephemeral” (2009, p. 111)

Considering the premise introduced earlier that songwriters tried to move from considering themselves as craftspeople to considering themselves as artists during this time period, it is reasonable to think that different devices might have been experimented with to achieve this goal, including modulation. As such, the proposed theory for this first study is that the incidence of songs featuring modulations increased throughout the decade.

The second study focuses on the frequency of chords III, VI, and VII, the so-called “flat-

17 side” harmonies. 3 As Everett explains, “[f]lat-side scale degrees appear primarily within the minor key […] and through mode mixture in the major key” (2001, p. 53). In their 2011 study, de Clercq and Temperley investigated chord syntax in popular music. Their findings include an important difference between chords used during the 1950s and the later half of the century: the 1960s and onwards were dominated by the rise of the flat-side harmonies VII, III, and VI. These findings support the modal characteristics associated with rock (Moore, 1992, 1995; Everett, 2004; Biamonte,

2010), a genre that became very popular during the late 1960s. Taking into consideration this shift between the 1950s and the later decades, the proposed hypothesis for this second study is that, as we go further into the decade, chords III, VI and VII should increase in frequency.

2.1 HYPOTHESES

Formally, the hypothesis for the first study is:

H1 The frequency of songs featuring more than one tonal center will increase over the

studied time period of 1958-1971.

For the second study, the formal hypothesis is:

H2 The frequency of songs featuring flat-side harmonies (i.e. III, VI, and VII) will

increase over the studied time period of 1958-1971.

To anticipate the conclusions, it will be seen that the results were inconsistent with the first

Throughout this thesis, Roman numerals are shown in relation to diatonic major, an approach used by Biamonte (2010), Temperley (2011), de Clercq (2012), and Nobile (2014), among many others.

18 hypothesis, but consistent with the second.

2.2 METHOD

In order to identify any significant changes in harmonic syntax throughout the studied time period, the 14-year time span was divided into two subspans of seven years each: the early 60s (1958-64) and the late 60s (1965-71). Those two subspans contain 122 and 170 songs, respectively. This significant difference between the two subspans is due to two main factors. First, the Billboard Hot 100 charts

(and thus the database) started in August 1958, whereas all the other years start in January. This explains why the year 1958 features only 7 songs. Second, the random sampling procedure used by

Burgoyne et al. created a discrepancy between the different years. Figure 1.1 (preceding chapter, p.

8) reprints Figure 1 from Burgoyne et al. (2011, p. 634) and explains in detail the sampling algorithm used to create the database. While most years in the 14-year period under study feature between 20 and 30 songs, 1959 and 1960 are outliers with 14 and 9 songs, respectively. Conversely, 1971 features

32 songs, which is a bit higher than average (see Table 1.1, preceding chapter).

This important discrepancy between the two subspans had an impact on the methodology used to analyze the data. The original approach was to look for gradual linear changes across the whole 14-year period. However, considering that the number of songs available for each year varies substantially, the results ended up being distorted by this approach. Instead, the methodology used compares the early 60s with the late 60s, avoiding oversampling any single year due to a larger number of songs in the database for that year by considering broader changes between the beginning and the end of the decade.

19 2.3 RESULTS

Study 1 : Evaluating Modulation Frequency

The first study focused on modulation. In order to find the number of modulating songs, every file featuring the character string “tonic:” more than once was counted. For example, Jan & Dean’s 1964 hit “Sidewalk Surfin,’” previously presented in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, features two tonics, D and E, and, as such, qualifies as a modulating song. Out of the 292 songs searched, 31 multi-tonic songs were found. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 present the distribution of the results.

Fig. 2.1. Distribution of single- and multi-tonic songs.

Fig. 2.2. Detailed distribution of multi-tonic songs.

Using a chi-squared test at a confidence level established at 99%, the difference between the number of multi-tonic songs found in 1958-64 and 1965-71 was not statistically significant (2= 3.78; df=1; p=.05). As such, there appears to be no significant change in the frequency of multi-tonic songs over time.

Study 2: Evaluating Chord Frequency

The second study focused on the frequency of flat-side harmonies over time. For the sake of comparison, the frequency of 24 different chords was considered: 12 chromatic roots, with either major or minor triads. The data collected in Table 2.1 shows the overall proportion of songs featuring those chords in each subcategory (i.e. 1958-64 and 1965-71). The results for each subcategory were then compared with one another, again using a chi-squared test with a confidence level of 99%. Note that no significance test was done on chords occurring in less than 5% of the corpus (i.e. ii, iii, IV, iv, vi, vii, VII, vii), as the data collected for those chords was deemed to

21 small to be representative. Due to the way truck-driver’s modulations were notated in the Billboard

DataSet, many chords immediately preceding a new tonic were originally notated as VI in the original key, but acted as a dominant in the new key. To address this notational problem, multi-tonic songs featuring at least one VI chord were manually verified. The ones where the only VI chord present in the song was right before a truck-driver modulation were not taken into account in the following table. Admittedly, this creates some sort of bias in the data. However, considering that there is no significant difference in the distribution of multi-tonic songs between the early and late

60s, the bias created appears to be less intrusive than the one created by the original notational process.

The results are summarized in the third column of Table 2.1 using the following pictograms:

() = results are statistically significant and show an increase in chord frequency; () = results are statistically significant and show a decrease in chord frequency; (×) = results are not statistically significant and show no difference in frequency between the two time periods.

Table 2.1: Distribution of songs featuring specific chords (in percentages) Early 60s Late 60s Statistical Significance (1958-64) (1965-71) I 98.36% 85.29% ( 2=14.45; df=1; p<.01) i 5.06% 22.36% ( 2=15.04; df=1; p<.01)

II 8.2% 5.88% × ( 2<.01; df=1; p=.96) ii 0% 0.59% N/A II 37.71% 29.41% × ( 2=2.21; df=1; p=.14) ii 33.61% 35.29% × (2=0.09; df=1; p=.77)

III 10.66% 28.24% ( 2=13.28; df=1; p<.01) iii 2.46% 4.92% N/A III 19.67% 18.82% × ( 2=.03; df=1; p=.86)

22 iii 19.67% 20.59% × (2=.04; df=1; p=.85) IV 89.34% 83.52% × ( 2=1.99; df=1; p=.16) iv 13.14% 21.18% × (2=2.51; df=1; p=.11) IV 4.91% 2.36% N/A iv 1.64% 0% N/A

V 96.72% 80.59% ( 2=16.71; df=1; p<.01) v 5.74% 15.88% (2=7.11; df=1; p=.01)

VI 9.84% 21.77% ( 2=7.24; df=1; p<.01) vi 0% 1.18% N/A VI 17.21% 18.24% × ( 2=.05; df=1; p=.82) vi 47.54% 39.41% × (2=1.92; df=1; p=.17)

VII 13.93% 39.41% (2=22.5; df=1; p<.01) vii 0.82% 2.35% N/A VII 4.92% 3.52% N/A vii 0.82% 2.29% N/A

The results presented above are consistent with the proposed hypothesis that songs featuring flat- side harmonies (i.e. III, VI, VII) increase in frequency over the studied time period.

2.4 DISCUSSION

The hypothesis for the first study arose from a simple premise: as songwriters tried to move from conceiving of themselves as craftspeople to conceiving of themselves as artists, different devices might have been experimented with. As such, it appeared reasonable to question whether

23 modulation was one such device. However, as has been demonstrated, no significant change occurs between the early 60s and the late 60s.

Looking at the results in more detail, three different types of modulations can be distinguished.

The first type is the “truck driver’s’ modulation:” “a sudden shift from one tonal center to another— usually a half step [but sometimes a full step]—that is not functionally related to the first.” (Everett,

1997, p. 118, comments in brackets mine). A second type of modulation can be described as a sectional modulation, where a specific section of a song is in a different key from the rest of the piece.4 With this type of modulation, a song begins and ends in the same tonality. A third type occurs when a song changes key “permanently,” but with a modulation that is not by semitone or tone. The distribution of these three types of modulation over the 31 multi-tonic songs found between 1958 and 1971 is presented in Figure 2.3.

Fig. 2.3. Distribution of 31 multi-tonic songs between 1958-1971: Truck Driver’s Modulation (28/31 songs); Sectional Modulation (2/31); Other (1/31 songs).

As shown in Figure 2.3, the truck driver’s modulation is the most frequently used modulation

4 For a more thorough discussion on sectional tonality and sectional centricity in rock music, see Capuzzo, 2009.

24 technique between 1958 and 1971. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the songs (23 out of 28) featuring this type of modulations only modulate once, while songs modulating two (3 out of 28) or three times (2 out of 28) are far less frequent. It also appears to be very infrequent for multi-tonic songs with truck driver’s modulations to feature modulation both by semitone and by tone (1 out of 28).

Further studies could explore the relationships between keys, modulatory techniques, and formal positions of the modulations in this corpus in more detail.

As noted earlier, the second study examined chord frequency. Although the hypothesis for the second study focused only on flat-side harmonies, the frequency of 24 different chords were analyzed, 16 of which were statistically tested. As hypothesized, III, VI, and VII occurred in a significantly larger number of songs in the second half of the decade. Other interesting results include a decrease of roughly 15 % in songs featuring major tonic chords (i.e. I), matched by a similar increase in songs featuring minor tonic chords (i.e. i). Moreover, minor dominant chords (i.e. v) also increase in frequency in the later 60s. Although it is not possible at this point to conclude that there is a correlation between the increase of minor tonic chords and minor dominant chords, it would be worthwhile to follow this lead in future work and investigate whether minor songs become statistically more frequent in the second half of the decade.

Investigating Chord Patterns

Considering that III, VI, and VII became more prominent during the second half of the decade, it would be interesting to identify the most frequent chord patterns that feature those chords. In their study using the Rolling Stone corpus, de Clercq and Temperley investigated the “frequency of relative-root ‘trigrams,’” using this term to describe “groups of three adjacent chords” (2011, p. 63).

25 Table 2.2 reprints Table 7 from their 2011 article and presents the most frequent harmonic trigrams ending with a tonic chord for the 1950s through the 1990s.

Table 2.2: Harmonic trigrams ending but not beginning on tonic, in descending order of frequency (reproduced from de Clercq and Temperley, 2011, Table 7) Trigram Instances IV V I 352 V IV I 292 VII IV I 146 VI IV I 126 VII VI I 103 III VI I 66 II V I 63 VI VII I 60 V VI I 42 IV VII I 39

A similar approach was taken to observe the harmonic syntax involving flat-side harmonies. Using the chords presented in Table 2.1, every possible permutation featuring at least one flat-side harmony

(III, VI, or VII) and ending with a tonic chord was used to parse the database. However, the methodology differed from the one used by de Clercq and Temperley in two ways: chord mode

(major or minor) was taken into account instead of only relative root motion, and the number of songs featuring a specific progression was calculated, instead of the number of instances of said progression. Chords could occur as simple triads or ornamented with extensions (e.g. maj6, maj7, add9, or in the case of dominant chords, 7ths or 9ths). Open-fifth chords (‘power chords’) were not taken into consideration. Because the parser was designed to look for continuous strings of characters, the search mechanism avoided progressions spanning modulations, as the two tonalities in the transcription file were separated by a comment line indicating the new key, as shown in

26 Figures 1.4a-b (e.g. #tonic: E). For this reason, the line preceding the comment line may display some nonsyntactic progressions, as the last chord of this line is usually used to modulate to the new key. However, since the number of songs featuring a specific progression was taken into account, and not the specific instances of a progression, this potential distortion did not affect the parsing process. The results for 1958-72 are presented in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Harmonic trigrams ending but not beginning on the tonic, and featuring at least one flat- side harmony, in descending order of frequency Trigram Early 60s Late 60s Total (1958-64) (1965-71) VII IV I 0 14 14 VII V I 4 8 12 III IV I 1 4 5 VI V i 0 5 5 III V I 1 3 4 VI V I 3 1 4

The table presented above gives us a more detailed account of how flat-side harmonies were used during the decade. Although it has been established previously that all three flat-side chords (i.e. III,

VI, VII) increased significantly in frequency throughout the decade, the results presented in Table

2.3 show a clear preference for the VII-IV-I trigram. This progression is often referred to as a double-plagal progression, as the movement from VII to IV is analogous to the plagal movement from IV to I, as Everett explains:

In the double-plagal progression a chain of descending fourth emerges, with a major

IV of IV created by lowering the root of a vii° chord to 7, creating the VII-IV-I

motion. […] In this chord succession, VII resolves to IV with a transposed version

of the same descending neighbor motions (here 2-1 and 7-6) used by IV in

27 resolving to I (6-5 and 4-3). Originally appearing in 1957-60 as an ornamental guitar

figure […], this function emerged in broader rhythms in the soul music of late 1964

[…] and early 1965 […] to become a rock mainstay (2009, p. 274).

Everett’s comments on the emergence of the double-plagal progression during the late 60s match the results of this study very closely. His description also exemplifies the modal aspect of the rock genre, suggesting a mixolydian inflection created through the flattening of scale degree 7. The plagal direction of this progression also concurs with Stephenson’s theory that, “[w]ith regard to harmonic succession, as with cadence placement, rock has, from its beginning, used a style opposed to that of common practice, a style that became increasingly standard during the late 1950s and the 1960s”

(2001, p. 103).

Other theorists have seen tonal processes in rock, despite its modal characteristics. For example, Biamonte has described how VII-IV-I, along with the Aeolian progression VI-VII-I, tends to behave tonally: “Although their pitch syntax is not diatonically tonal, in many cases these two characteristic chord patterns express traditional tonal functions such as tonic prolongation and dominant preparation, both of which are often accomplished through elaboration of the tonic by subdominant harmony and cadential resolution” (2010, p. 98).5 The chorus of Chicago’s “Make Me

Smile,” presented in Example 2.1, is a good example of a double-plagal progression expressing a tonic prolongation function. In this example, measures 1-8 feature a looped I-VII-IV prolonging tonic harmony, and leading to a cadential progression in measures 9-12. Notice that in these last four measures, B (V) is the structural dominant, with the following chord A (IV) acting as an intermediate step towards the tonic chord at the beginning of the following verse (not shown in the example), just like in a standard 12-bar blues (see Example 4.1). The dual nature of the double-

5 For a more thorough discussion of double-plagal progressions, see Everett, 2001, 2004; Carter, 2005; Spicer, 2005; Biamonte, 2010.

28 E¨(“4) E¨ D¨ A¨ E¨(“4) E¨ D¨ A¨ b œ œ œ œ œ™ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ™ ˙ &b b Ó J J J Ó J J J

I'm so happy That you love me

E¨(“4) E¨ D¨ A¨ E¨(“4) E¨ D¨ A¨ 5 b œ œ œ œ œ™ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ™ ˙ &b b Ó J J J Ó J J J

Life is love - ly When you're near me

E¨ C‹ B¨(“4) B¨ A¨(“4) A¨ 9 b œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ w &b b J J J J ∑

Tell me will you stay Make me smile

Ex. 2.1. “Make Me Smile” by Chicago, 1970. Tonality: E.6 plagal progression—a modal sound behaving tonally—may explain, at least partially, why this specific pattern was significantly favored over other progressions featuring flat-side harmonies, as it serves as a bridge between the established common practice in rock and the new one. The second most frequent trigram, VII-V-I, is a modally-mixed progression particularly noticeable for its cross- relation between the flat and natural forms of scale degree 7. This type of cross-relation is very frequent in progressions using flat-side harmonies, and mostly results from guitar-oriented gestures, using parallel barre chords up and down the fretboard. The Beach Boys’ “In My Room,” shown in

Example 2.2, is a good example of a guitar-based song that creates cross-relations through parallel barre chords. In measures 5-8, an interpolated VII chord has been inserted into what would otherwise have been a standard ii-V-I progression in B major. As shown by the chord diagrams included in this example, the shift from VII (A) to V (F) is idiomatic for the instrument. In an article discussing the topography of the guitar and its impact on pop-rock music, Timothy Koozin showed how “physical constraints inherent in guitar playing may shape musical material” (Koozin,

2011, par. 23). Indeed, the same phenomenon happens with III-IV-I, III-V-I, and VI-V-I. This 6 Unless otherwise noted, all transcriptions are mine.

29 B

# # 12 œ™ œ™ œ™ œ™ & # ## 8 œ™ œ™ œ™ œ™

There's a world where I can goand A B 5fr 3 # # œ™ œ™ œ™ œ™ ˙™ œ œ œ & # ## ‰‰J J

tell my se - crets to In my

C©‹7 A F© 4fr 5fr 5 # ## œ œ œ & # # w™ ˙™ ‰‰J J

room In my B A B 5fr 7 # # & # ## ˙™ n˙™ ˙™ œ™ Œ™

room Ex. 2.2. “In My Room” by The Beach Boys, 1963. Tonality: B. reflects the idea that throughout the 1960s, music shifted from being primarily composed on the keyboard to being primarily composed on the guitar. This new plagal progression—a modal sound behaving tonally—may explain, at least partially, why this specific practice became heavily associated with rock, so much so that by the late 1970s, “pop” referred to keyboard-based music while “rock” referred to guitar-based music (Nobile, 2014, p. 8).

30 2.5 CONCLUSION

The goal of these studies was to test whether significant changes in harmonic practices during the

1960s matched the attitudinal shift discussed by popular-music scholars. Two studies were conducted, the first focusing on modulating songs, the second focusing on flat-side harmonies.

Although the results showed no significant difference between the use of modulation in the first and second halves of the decade, there was a significant increase in the frequency of flat-side harmonies in the later half of the decade, as hypothesized. However, it would be misleading to assume that this new genre, rock, and its new harmonic practices took over the entire popular-music world. Though a new harmonic practice seems to be emerging during the studied period, it does not appear to replace more traditional diatonic harmony, but rather coexists with it. For example, the results presented in

Table 2.3 show VII-IV-I as the most frequent progression using a flat-side harmony, but the frequency of this progression is still relatively marginal, with only 14 songs out of 170 (8.24%) featuring this progression. By comparison, IV-V-I and V-IV-I, the two most popular diatonic trigrams identified by de Clercq and Temperley in Table 2.2, were featured in 91 (53.53%) and 50

(29.41%) songs, respectively. Furthermore, although flat-side harmonies increased in frequency through the decade, they did not do so through clearly established idiomatic progressions, with VII-

IV-I and, to a lesser extent, VII-V-I being exceptions. What may be misleading, then, is the tendency to consider harmonic progressions or songs that were historically significant as representing the norm of a certain time period. Lists such as Rolling Stone’s “500 Greatest Songs of All Time,” used by de Clercq and Temperley (2011; 2013), are useful for studying the characteristic tendencies of a specific genre, but potentially fail to give a clear image of a time period as they present songs that were considered historically important a posteriori, and as such, are biased towards innovative or

31 long-lasting, successful songs. When looking at the results presented here, based on a corpus of songs deemed popular in their own time, the attitudinal shift discussed by some scholars appears to be matched with new harmonic practices. However, those new practices established themselves over time, not overnight.

The two studies presented here focused on very specific aspects of harmonic syntax: modulation and flat-side harmonies. Yet, in order to have a better understanding of the evolution of musical tendencies, other aspects would benefit from a similar empirical approach. Broadening the queries to include progressions that do not necessarily feature tonic chords would help to provide a clearer image of harmonic practices. Similarly, form7 and secondary parameters such as hypermeter, rhythm, and timbre would be worth taking into consideration. Although some scholars have looked empirically at those parameters,8 they still remain largely under-researched.

7 Although the annotators working on the Billboard DataSet were encouraged to “use free comments in particular to denote major structural features such as verses, bridges, and choruses” (Burgoyne, 2011, p. 194), those formal labels were not properly curated, which make their use problematic for anything other than informal discussion. See Huron & Ommen, 2006 (syncopation); Serrà et al., 2012 (timbre); Biamonte, 2014 (metric dissonance).

32 3 Study 3: On Formal Organization

Formal organization in popular music is a deceptively complex issue. On one hand, it is one of the most—if not the most—accessible features of popular music; conceptual formal sections such as

“verse” or “chorus” are known to untrained listeners, and have generally understood and accepted meanings. Yet, on the other hand, properly defining those terms is problematic; it may be easy to identify, say, the verse section in a given song, but no precise definition of a verse can be universally applied. Though the different formal sections may be thought to be understood and internalized, the actual boundaries of said sections can be ambiguous. And although some musical parameters, such as harmony and, to a lesser extent, texture, tend to play an important role in this segmentation process, there are no easy ways to unambiguously identify formal sections. This problem has a direct impact when trying to define overall forms, as overall formal organization schemes are often described in terms of formal sections (e.g. verse-chorus form). As such, the problems of properly defining formal sections and overall formal organization are intimately linked with one another.

The following study, the third presented in this thesis, focuses on the development of formal organization in popular music of the 1960s. Different scholars have discussed this topic; de Clercq

(2012) offers a broad overview of section types and formal organisational schemes, spanning roughly

60 years of music (1950-2010), Summach (2012) focuses on formal sections, and Spicer (2004) and

Osborn (2013) both deal with unconventional or new formal types. However, the present study relies primarily on the work of Covach (2005, 2006, 2010), as a large portion of his research focuses on artists from the 50s and 60s, offering a concise typology of forms and sections that can be efficiently applied to an empirical methodology.

33 Covach’s 2005 survey of form in popular music focuses on five types of formal organization:

AABA, simple verse, simple verse-chorus, contrasting verse-chorus, and compound form. The

AABA form consists of two main sections, a verse (A) and a bridge (B). Although the 32-bar version of the song, typically associated with the Tin Pan Alley tradition of the first half of the twentieth century, is the most common realization of this form, other realizations are also possible. Popular variants include lengthening of one or more of the 8-bar sections to 12 or 16 bars, and omitting one of the A sections (e.g. ABA).9 A-section verses often, though not always, end with a refrain, a recurring line of text (often the title of the piece) usually supported by a cadential progression.

Furthermore, in some Tin Pan Alley songs, a large-scale period structure is formed by the first two A sections. It should also be noted that, although the whole Tin Pan Alley AABA pattern is sometimes referred to as a chorus, traditionally in opposition to a slow, introductory verse10, I will refrain from using this terminology, using the word “chorus” in a more traditional, rock-oriented way. The simple verse form, or strophic form, consists of a single section with changing lyrics. Just as in the AABA form, the simple verse can feature a recurring refrain. Verse-chorus forms (both simple and contrasting) are built of two main sections, verses and choruses. While the focus of the AABA form is mostly on the verse, the verse-chorus emphasizes the chorus. Just like the refrain in the AABA and simple verse forms, the chorus features a recurring text, often including the title of the piece.

However, whereas the refrain is embedded inside the verse, the chorus is an independent section.

While the simple verse-chorus form features the same harmonic progression for the verse and the chorus, the contrasting verse-chorus form, as its name implies, features sections supported by different harmonic progressions. Finally, the compound form can be understood as a hybrid version of the above-mentioned forms, featuring characteristics associated with more than one category, the 9 For examples of irregular AABA forms in pop-rock music, see Covach 2005, p. 40-45; Covach 2006, p. 69- 71; de Clercq, p.178-210. 10 Examples of the introductory verse can be found in most of the songs in Ella Fitzgerald’s composer songbooks, including her famous 1959 recording of George Gerswhin’s “I Got Rhythm.”

34 most common version being the verse-chorus with bridge.

In “From ‘Craft’ to ‘Art’: Formal Structure in the Music of the Beatles” (2006), Covach focuses on formal organization in the band’s music, between 1963 to 1969, demonstrating a balance between “increasingly innovative formal designs and the use of a range of standard pop-song forms”

(p. 51). In this text, Covach uses the same formal categories previously mentioned, but omits the compound forms, as these do not become prominent until the 1970s11. Instead, songs that would have been associated with this category are analyzed as non-conventional AABA, simple verse, simple verse-chorus, or contrasting verse-chorus, depending upon the internal structures of each song. However, as will be discussed later, this is not necessarily an easy process, as issues may arise when trying to label specific sections of a piece.

Regarding the evolution of formal organization throughout the 60s, Covach notes:

In the period before the mid-1960s, contrasting verse-chorus patterns are in the

minority, although not rare. In the period after the mid-1960s or so, contrasting

verse-chorus forms become the norm and AABA forms tend to disappear from rock.

To generalize somewhat loosely, we find a constant presence of simple verse and

simple verse-chorus tunes in rock throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s owing to

its clear association with electric blues. We find, however, a marked move from

AABA type forms to contrasting verse chorus structures that occur in the mid-1960s.

(2006, p. 40)

De Clercq offers a similar interpretation:

11 Although Covach notes that compound forms became standard in 1970’s rock music, he does mention some examples in the music of the Beatles, mainly “A Day in a Life” (compound ABA), and “Here Comes the Sun” (compound AABA). I have adopted a similar set of categories since I am considering music from an overlapping time period.

35 [F]ull-fledged verse-chorus-bridge form (to use Stephenson’s term [2002]) or

compound AABA form (to use Covach’s term [2006]) was not as pervasive during

this early era as it is today (see Covach 2005, 75). Consequently, many songs around

the 1960s appear to be waypoints between older and newer approaches to song form.

We could even say that – within the music of these early years – we see the evolution

(or “genesis” as Summach 2011 puts it) toward modern song forms. (de Clercq, 2012,

p.123)

Considering how closely related to the present research both Covach’s and de Clercq’s observations are, they have been used as the basis for this study’s hypotheses.

3.1 HYPOTHESES

Formally, the hypotheses for the third study are:

H3.1 The frequency of songs featuring AABA formal organization will decrease over the

studied time period of 1958-1971.

H3.2 The frequency of songs featuring simple verse-chorus formal organization will stay

unchanged over the studied time period of 1958-1971.

H3.3 The frequency of songs featuring contrasting verse-chorus formal organization will

increase over the studied time period of 1958-1971.

H3.4 The frequency of songs featuring simple verse formal organization will stay unchanged

over the studied time period of 1958-1971.

36 The results will be shown to be consistent with the four proposed hypotheses.

3.2 METHOD

While there is great variety of possible analytical approaches to music, not all of these are suitable for use with a database. Bimbot et al. (2012, p. 235) establish three main approaches that can be used to describe musical structures for database annotations: the acoustic approach, “which consists in describing the course and turns of active sources and/or timbral textures within the piece;” the semiotic approach, “which aims at representing, by a limited set of arbitrary symbols (called labels), the similarities (and interrelations) of structural segments within the piece;” and the functional approach, “which is based on usual designations of the different parts in terms of their role in the music piece, for instance : intro – verse – chorus – bridge – etc…”. This third approach12 will be favoured for the following study, as it seems to represent the most common approach used by both musicians and scholars.

Identifying Functional Structures of Formal Organization

Although a significant number of scholars have proposed analytical methods to identify and discuss form in popular music,13 a definitive methodology has yet to be established. The terminology used in the literature is often not consistent from one author to another, with authors often defining sections using different criteria. Furthermore, many of those criteria tend to be “non-essential properties” (de

Clercq, 2012, p. 3), making it difficult to establish a systematic methodology.

12 In my ordering; this is not the ordering used in Bimbot et al. 2012. 13 For examples, see Covach, 2005, 2006, 2010; de Clercq, 2012; Everett, 2009; Moore, 2001, 2012; Nobile, 2011; Osborn, 2013; Spicer, 2004; Stephenson, 2002; Summach, 2011.

37 Different attempts have been made in computational musicology and music information retrieval to develop a technology that would evaluate internal segmentation using algorithms based exclusively on objective criteria, such as audio features (for examples, see Peiszer, 2007; Bimbot et al., 2012). Though these research projects are promising, they also highlight the complexity of such tasks, and how perception of local boundaries or broader formal organization is highly subjective. A particularly striking example of such complexity has been demonstrated by Nieto et al. (2014), where both machines and humans tried to identify such boundaries with different levels of success. Their concluding comments noted how subjectivity is a significant problem in music segmentation that can be alleviated by merging annotations.

Though it is beyond the scope of this research to elaborate a definitive way to resolve this problem, defining and identifying different possible formal structures is a necessary step. For this specific study, four possible formal structures have been identified, inspired by the categories proposed by Covach (2005, 2006): AABA, simple verse-chorus, contrasting verse-chorus, and simple verse. Because the Billboard DataSet does not feature any formal indications, such metadata was added to the sub-corpus by a team of two annotators (including myself), who assigned one of the four formal labels to the 292 songs following the instructions included in Appendix C.

Certainly, this methodological approach has the drawback of depending on the annotators’ judgment, and therefore, may lead to a subjective labelling. To alleviate this problem, we followed the recommendation proposed above by Nieto et al. (2014) by having both annotators work independently. For a song to be assigned a definitive formal label, its structure had to be identically identified by both annotators. In cases where the two annotations differed, or where one or both annotators couldn’t satisfactorily identify the form structure as one of the four formal patterns, the expression “N/A”, standing for “Not Applicable,” was inscribed instead of the actual formal label.

Although this approach has the drawback of reducing the size of the corpus, it allows us to focus on

38 songs that are formally unproblematic, in order to reduce the subjectivity of the process.

One exception was added to the above-mentioned methodology: when both annotators satisfactorily identified a song as being verse-chorus, but had different interpretations regarding the type of verse-chorus (i.e. simple or contrasting), I relied on the transcriptions from the Billboard

DataSet as a tiebreaker. Considering the already small size of the corpus, that the only difference between the two types of verse-chorus forms is the change in harmonic pattern in contrasting verse- chorus, and because such information could objectively be verified using the transcriptions, I considered this approach a valid way to maximize the results without compromising the objectivity of the process.

Once the formal annotations were collected and compiled, the proper label was added to the metadata header of each song file (e.g. # form: simple verse-chorus).

3.3 RESULTS

Inter-Rater Agreement

Of the 292 songs in the 1958-71 sub-corpus, 209 were identified identically by both annotators, representing an overall inter-rater agreement percentage of 70.7%. This percentage was more or less consistent regardless of the year being annotated, with no significant variation throughout the 14- year period (χ2=0.37; df=1; p=.54). A detailed account of the inter-rater agreement percentage per year can be found in Figure 3.1.

Fig. 3.1. Inter-rater agreement on formal organization, percentage per year.

Study 3: On Formal Organization

The 292 songs were parsed using the same UNIX tool described in chapter 1 and used in the previous study. The distribution of the results for the 12-year time period is presented in Figure 3.2.

Fig. 3.2. Distribution of songs according to formal organization (1958-71).

40 The hypotheses were then tested with a chi-squared test. Using a methodology similar to the one used in the previous studies, the early 60s (1958-64) were compared to the later 60s (1965-71).

Individual results for AABA, simple verse, simple verse-chorus, and contrasting verse-chorus are represented in Figure 3.3, while the detailed distribution per year can be found in Figure 3.4. The data presented in these figures give us a better idea of the evolution of formal organization over the studied time period. The most evident phenomenon is the decline of the AABA form in favour of the contrasting verse-chorus. This shift seems to occur roughly around 1964-65, with a drastic and quasi-steady decline of the AABA form over the second half of the decade, from being present in roughly 40% of the songs in 1964 to being almost nonexistent four years later in 1967.

" ! ! " Fig. 3.3. Distribution of formal organization.

Contrasting Verse-Chorus

N/A

Fig. 3.4. Formal organization, per year.

The results were consistent with the four proposed hypotheses: the AABA form decreased in frequency over the studied time period (χ2=20.40; df=1; p<.01), the contrasting verse-chorus form increased in frequency over the studied time period (χ2=26.31; df=1; p<.01), the simple verse form showed no significant change in frequency during the studied time period (χ2=0.33; df=1; p=.57), and the simple verse-chorus form showed no significant change in frequency during the studied time period (χ2=1.05; df=1; p=.31).

3.4 DISCUSSION

During the debriefing that followed the annotation process, the second annotator and I discussed the different issues we faced when labelling the songs. One constant difficulty was to determine whether recurring material should be considered as a refrain that is structurally part of a larger section (such as a verse in a simple verse or AABA form) or as a stand-alone, fully functional chorus section. As the instructions I provided beforehand did not specifically refer to such a situation, we had to rely on

42 our personal judgement. When discussing the criteria we used to choose one or the other, we realized that we were both focusing on two similar characteristics: unity and length. Many of the problematic sections featured chorus-like characteristics as discussed in Temperley’s “loose- verse/tight-chorus” or LVTC model (2007), such as unified melody and harmony, supported by unified texture. In such cases, identifying a section unambiguously as an independent chorus or as a refrain embedded at the end of a verse proved to be challenging. These kinds of situations have been referred to as “chorus blends,”14 where there is a “blend between the chorus role and some other section role” (de Clercq, 2012, p. 238). As de Clercq mentions, tail refrains (i.e. refrains closing a section) tend to be supported by the cadential motion closing the section, while choruses tend to be harmonically closed and hypermetrically self-contained. Ambiguous situations arise when the problematic section features characteristics common to both sections.

A good example of such an ambiguous structure is Nancy Sinatra’s 1966 hit “These Boots Are

Made for Walking,” shown in Example 3.1. One annotator labelled it as simple verse, implying that measures 9-16 of the example is a refrain embedded within the verse, while the other called it a contrasting verse-chorus, reading mm. 9-16 as a chorus. This dual analysis is perhaps reinforced by the slightly unconventional structure of the song. “These Boots Are Made for Walking” features a blues progression that can be internally divided into a standard three-phrase pattern (AAB), but where the B phrase has been extended in relation to the conventional 12-bar format, thus creating ambiguity regarding the function of these measures. On the one hand, the blues-based chord pattern and consistent vocal register in the first eight measures followed by a four-bar cadential gesture and a four-bar post-cadential tonic prolongation support a simple-verse interpretation.15 On the other hand, the faster harmonic rhythm, shorter melodic phrases and longer notes in the bass, as well as a shift towards the flat-side scale-degrees and harmonies starting in m. 9, support a verse- 14 For a more thorough discussion of chorus blends, see de Clercq 2012, 238-44. 15 This is also Walter Everett’s interpretation (2009, p. 142).

43 F &b ‰ ŒÓ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ You keep say - in' you got some- thin' for me,

3 b ŒÓ & œ œ™ œ œ™ œ œ œ œ some- thin' you call love but con- fess.

5 B¨ b ‰ ≈ ŒŒ≈ & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ You've been mess-in' where you should - n't been mess- in' and now

7 F b ŒŒ‰j & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ some one else is get- tin' all your best. These

9 A¨ F A¨ F &b ‰ j ‰‰™ r Œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ™ œ boots are made for walkin', and that's just what they'll do.

11 A¨ F μ 2 4 &bbœ œ œ œ œ œ 4 4 œ œ œ™ œ œ™ bœ œ™ One of these days these boots are gon - na walk all o - ver

13 F 4 &b4 ŒÓ ∑∑∑ œ you. Ex. 3.1. “These Boots Are Made for Walking” by Nancy Sinatra, 1966. Tonality: F.

chorus interpretation.

I previously mentioned that the 16-measure unit of “These Boots Are Made for Walking” can be understood as an AAB form, yet other interpretations may also be possible. De Clercq (2012) discusses what he calls hybrid blues, where songs consistently show a blues-based chord pattern, but

44 where the internal divisions of said songs do not clearly conform to the question-question-answer or

AAB phrase model. The author gives the example of “Evil,” a 1954 Howlin’ Wolf song (Example

3.2) that more closely resembles an ABC form than the traditional AAB, with a four-bar statement, a four-bar departure, and a four-bar cadence.

Ex. 3.2. “Evil” by Howlin’ Wolf, 1954 (reprinted from de Clercq, 2012, p.136, Ex. 4.2.18).

Keeping this in mind, it is possible to analyze the first eight measures of “These Boots Are Made for

Walking” as a self-contained section following the SRDC (statement, response, departure, conclusion) scheme. This reading favours the idea of two self-sufficient sections rather than one embedded into the other.

In other instances, what originally appeared to be a refrain gets reinterpreted as a chorus as we progress through the song. Example 3.3, “I Don’t Blame You at All’ by Smokey Robinson and the

Miracles, shows such a phenomenon. After a 2-measure instrumental introduction, the song starts with what appears to be an 8-measure refrain embedded in the verse, sung by a solo voice with minimal accompaniment. Although refrains more characteristically close verses, it is not unconventional to see them used as an opening device, as in Percy Sledge’s “When a Man Loves a

45 Woman” (1966) or The Beach Boys’ “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” (1966). Such a device has been described as a “head refrain” by de Clercq (2012), as opposed to the more usual “tail refrain” that closes a section. In “I Don’t Blame You at All” (Ex. 3.3) when those eight measures are heard for the second time after the repeat (m. 3, second time), the thicker texture and harmonised melody could lead listeners to reconsider their initial interpretations, and maybe analyse it as a chorus. The following verse features (m. 11, second time) the extensive use of backing vocals, strings and brass instruments, climatically leading to the third refrain/chorus. Yet, the first four measures of this new section (mm. 25-32) are orchestrated very minimally, the voice now being accompanied by a thin texture of glockenspiel, bass and drums. Only when the section is repeated again with full orchestral support can the listener confidently understand this section as a chorus rather than a refrain. This reading is confirmed as the song ends with a looped fade-out of this section, which often happens with the chorus of a song.16

16 Although this type of fade-out ending is typically over the chorus progression, it can happen over other sections as well, or even over new material. Samarotto (2012) has discussed a particular type of ending over repeated new material, referring to the phenomenon as a “trope of expectancy/infinity.”

46 Refrain? A¨ D¨ A¨ G¨ b b ™ œ &b b ∑∑™ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

I don't blame you at all 'cause you played it cool

A¨ A¨ 5 b b b ‰ ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ & b œ™ < j œ œ œ œ > œ œ œ bœ œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

(I should-'ve did it my self) You don't owe me a thing

G¨ A¨ 8 j j j b b j œ œ œ œ &b b œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ Œ‰œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ Jœ J J œ 'cause I played the fool Oh no no no no I'm on - ly I think it's

11 A¨ E¨‹ D¨ A¨ b b j j &b b œ œ œ œ œ œ™ ‰ bœ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ Œ

pay-ing the price For a trip I took to par - a- dise pret - ty plain Hold- in'you would take a ball and chain

14 E¨‹ D¨ G¨ bbbb ‰ j & bœ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ 'cause I looked in - to a pair of eyes and what I Ev' - ry bet I made was all in vain 'cause what I

16 D¨ D¨ Dº A¨/E¨ A¨ b b j j j &b b œ œ œ œ œ œ w ˙ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ thought was the look of love Was on-ly hurt in dis guise thought was an ocean of love Was just a wee drop of rain μ A¨ A¨ 20 b (BREAK) b bb Œ Œ‰j & œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ

too bad I did-n't re - a - lize Oh, but don't a - too bad that it could-dn't rain Oh, but you don't

23 D¨/A¨ A¨ bb b Œ‰j j ™ & b œ <>œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ™ ™

po - lo - gize No 'cause have to ex - plain Ex. 3.3. “I Don’t Blame You at All” by Smokey Robinson, 1971. Tonality: A.

47 Refrain => Chorus 25 A¨ G¨ A¨ b b ™< œ j &b b ™ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ ‰ œ™ > ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ

I don't blame you at all 'cause you played it cool I should-'ve

28 A¨ G¨ A¨ b b œ j œ &b b œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œbœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ Œ‰œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Jœ

did it my self You don't owe me a thing 'cause I played the fool Oh no no (INSTRUMENTAL) A¨ E¨‹ D¨ A¨ E¨‹ D¨ A¨ 32 b j j b bb œ œ œ œ œ Œ ™ ™ ∑∑∑ÓÓ ∑ & J J no no no 38 E¨‹ D¨ A¨ G¨ D¨ D¨ b b &b b ∑ÓŒ∑ œ œ ˙™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

Isaid What I thought was sure to last 43 D¨ Dº A¨/E¨ A¨ μ (BREAK) b b j j &b b ˙ ‰ œ œnœ ˙‰œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ Sure to last Was just a mi-nute instead Too bad that I A¨ A¨ D¨/A¨ A¨ 47 b &b bb ‰ j Œ‰ j j œ™ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ got mis led Ah, but you don't have to hang your head No 'cause Chorus 51 A¨ G¨ A¨ bb b ™ œ ‰ ‰ j & b ™ œ œ œ œ œbœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ™

I don't blame you at all 'cause you played it cool I should-'ve 54 A¨ b b &b b œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ

did it myself You don't owe me a thing G¨ A¨ 56 j j b b j œ œ œ œ œ œ ™ &b b œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ Œ‰œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ ™ œ œ Jœ J J 'cause I played the fool Oh no no no no no Ex. 3.3. Cont’d.

48 The other difficulty we faced as annotators had to do with bridge sections. Of the four categories proposed by Covach (2006) and used in this study (i.e. simple verse, AABA, simple verse-chorus, and contrasting verse-chorus), only the AABA features a distinct bridge section, which made it an essential property for this category, just like the chorus is an essential property of the verse-chorus form. However, many of the songs we analysed featured both choruses and bridges. While this is by no means an unusual characteristic, it was one for which no explicit instructions were given.

Although in those situations both annotators tended to favour one of the verse-chorus forms over the AABA form, this methodological ambiguity may have resulted in some songs with choruses and bridges being assigned no specific labels.

Aside from observing the development of formal organization throughout the decade, assigning formal labels to the present corpus permits close examination of the different formal sections, possibly enabling the identification of illustrative patterns. One such pattern, which I call the “reverse-period bridge,” occurs in the B section of the AABA form.17 Analogous to the classical period but with the goal harmonies in reverse order, the reverse-period bridge typically consists of two phrases of four measures each, where the first phrase is closed, ending on tonic, and the second phrase is open, ending on the dominant.Since the goal harmonies of the phrases have been reversed in relation to the traditional period, the antecedent phrase of a reverse-period bridge follows the consequent instead of preceding it. Although other alternatives are possible, the most common harmonic realization for this schema features a tonicization of the subdominant region, returning to the tonic in the second half of the antecedent (Ex. 3.4a). Examples of this type of bridge can be found in Etta James’s “Would It Make Any Difference To You” (1963) and James Brown’s “I Got

You (I Feel Good)” (1965) (Ex. 3.5)18. A common variation of the schema is to prolong the final

17 This terminology was inspired by Caplin’s “reversed period.” See Caplin 1998, 129. 18 Some of the examples presented in this paragraph have slightly different chord patterns than the one presented in example 3.4a-c, but the overall sense of reverse-period remains the same.

Ex. 3.4a-c. Typical realizations of the AABA reverse-period bridge.

G7 D7 # j 3 3 # ™ œ ™ Œ œ œ ˙ Œ‰ j ˙ Œ‰ j & nœ œ œ nœ œ nœ œ œ œnœ œ œ When I hold you in my arms I know that I can't dono wrong And 5 # G7 j A7 μ j # œ nœ œ œ j j ‰ j œ œ œ œ œ Œ‰j œ œ™ & J œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ when I hold you in my arms My love won't do you no harm And I feel Ex. 3.5. “I Got You (I Feel Good)” by James Brown, 1965. Tonality: D.

E¨ B¨ bb j ˙™ Ó & œ œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ Ma-ny is the night I stayed awake- andcried E¨ B¨ F7 5 b j &b œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ œ Ó ∑ œ œ œ œ ˙ Now you'll never know how much you've hurt my foo- lish pride Ex. 3.6. “The Ways of a Woman in Love” by Johnny Cash, 1958. Tonality: B.

50 dominant by one measure, creating an asymmetrical 9-measure bridge, with a 4-measure consequent and a 5-measure antecedent, as in Johnny Cash’s “The Ways Of A Woman In Love” (1958) (Ex. 3.6) and Bobbi Martin’s “I Love You So” (1965). Sometimes the bridge is doubled in length, creating a

16-measure unit. When such is the case, the internal division of the reverse period remains unchanged, the consequent and antecedent simply being longer (Ex 3.4b). This type of bridge can be heard in The Chiffon’s “He’s So Fine” (1963) (Ex. 3.7) and Elvis Presley’s “Guitar Man” (1968).

However, in other situations, the internal organization of the reverse-period bridge resembles that of the compound period, where two 8-measure phrases are juxtaposed with one another. In such cases, the compound antecedent starts with a return of the initiating material (Ex 3.4c), as in Johnny

Tillotson’s “Jimmy's Girl” (1961) (Ex. 3.8) and Bertha Tillman’s “Oh My Angel” (1962). Of the 44

AABA songs studied in the present research, 22 of the bridge sections (50%) were reverse periods

(either 8-measure, 16-measure, or 16-measure compound periods). Furthermore, 19 of those 22 reverse-period bridges started with a tonicization of the subdominant region through an applied dominant (i.e. V7/IV going to IV), the other three tonicizing either the submediant or the dominant.

Although the shift to the submediant appears to be a clear signpost announcing the bridge section, there seems to be no equivalent harmonic shift announcing the chorus section. 19

Furthermore, upon close examination of the different simple and contrasting verse-chorus forms present in the database, no clear organizational pattern emerges, although groupings of 4, 8 or 16 measures are more frequent than other types.

19 Although there seems to be no typical harmonic shift signalling their beginning of a chorus section, Summach has mentioned how the “primary formal status of [the chorus] also tends to be reinforced by some combination of intensifying features: for example, a more dense or active instrumental texture; prominent background vocals; and/or a higher register melody” (2012, p. 106). Other scholars have identified this textural shift in choruses ; see Temperley 2007 and Osborn 2013.

51 C # j j & œ œ ˙ ÓŒ‰œ œ œ œ ˙ ÓŒ‰œ He's so fine Got- ta be mine Soo 5 # G ÓŒ‰j ∑ & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ner or later I hope it's not later

9 C # ∑ ÓŒ‰j & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ We got- ta get to-ge-ther The soo- ner the better I 13 # D7 j j & œ œ œ ‰ j œ œ œ Œ‰ j œ j j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ just can't wait I just can't wait To be held in his arms If I were a queen Ex. 3.7. “He’s So Fine” by The Chiffons, 1963. Tonality: G.

G¨Œ„Š7 A¨7 D¨Œ„Š7 B¨‹ bb b œ œ œ œ ˙ Œ œ œ ˙Œ & b b œ œ œ œ œ He says her lips are warm Each time they kiss good night And 6 E¨‹7 j A¨13 D¨ D¨7 bb b ‰ ÓŒ & b b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ just as sweet as any- lips can be And

10 G¨Œ„Š7 A¨7 D¨Œ„Š7 B¨‹ b b œ œ ˙ &b b b œ œ œ ˙ Œ œ œ œ œ Ó

then I close my eyes And though it's make believe

14 E¨9 A¨7 b b œ &b b b ˙ ˙ Œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ Œ

I pre- tend she's in love with me

Ex. 3.8. “Jimmy’s Girl” by Johnny Tillotson, 1961. Tonality: D.

52 3.5 CONCLUSION

The goal of this third study was to investigate any consistent changes in formal organization during the 1960s. The proposed hypotheses, based on Covach’s and de Clercq’s observations, were the following: the AABA form will decrease in frequency, the contrasting verse-chorus form will increase in frequency, while both simple verse and simple verse-chorus will remain unchanged. The results, previously presented in Figure 3.3, were consistent with the proposed hypotheses and showed that the contrasting-verse-chorus gained popularity in the second half of the decade to become the most common formal structure, representing more than 40% of the corpus. Conversely, AABA songs drastically dropped in popularity in during throughout the decade, going from roughly 25% in the first half of the decade to 7% in the second half. Closer analysis of the results also showed that

AABA bridges tended to be schematic, often appearing as reverse-period bridges and tonicizing the subdominant region. We can imagine this formulaic pattern emerging earlier in the 20th century, as most Tin Pan Alley composers were primarily interested in publishing sheet music that could easily be sung by amateur singers. Though this is simply a conjecture, in such a context, formal and harmonic predictability might have been desirable. However, considering the initial premise behind the present research project—that musicians in the 1960s went from self-identifying as professionals to artists—it is perhaps not surprising that the formulaic AABA form decreased in popularity in favour of freer form types.

4 Summary and Future Work

After presenting an overview of the current state of the empirical research being conducted on popular music (Introduction), this thesis first introduced a new UNIX parser—the SUPERMAn tool—designed to facilitate corpus-based studies of popular music (Chapter 1). Using this new tool, three different studies focusing on the same time period (i.e. 1958-1971) but investigating different aspects of popular music theory were conducted. Studies 1 and 2, On Modulation and Harmonic Practices

(Chapter 2), were conducted concurrently and focused on multi-tonic songs and chord frequency, respectively. Study 3, On Formal Organization (Chapter 3), investigated the development of formal organization in popular music of the 1960s.

Summary of Results

For all three studies, six hypotheses were proposed a priori. The data were then analyzed and tested for significance using a chi-squared test and a 99% confidence level, where the early 1960s (i.e. 1958-

1964) was compared to the late 1960s (i.e. 1965-1971). The results are summarized in Table 4.1 below, where √ represents results that were statistically consistent with the proposed hypotheses and where, conversely, × represents results that were not consistent with the hypotheses.

Table 4.1: Summary of results H1 The frequency of songs featuring more than one tonal center will increase over the × studied time period of 1958-1971. H2 The frequency of songs featuring flat-side harmonies (i.e. III, VI, and VII) will √ increase over the studied time period of 1958-1971.

55 H3.1 The frequency of songs featuring AABA formal organization will decrease over the √ studied time period of 1958-1971. H3.2 The frequency of songs featuring simple verse-chorus formal organization will stay √ unchanged over the studied time period of 1958-1971. H3.3 The frequency of songs featuring contrasting verse-chorus formal organization will √ increase over the studied time period of 1958-1971. H4.4 The frequency of songs featuring simple verse formal organization will stay √ unchanged over the studied time period of 1958-1971.

With the exception of H1 on multi-tonic songs, the results were generally in line with the claims made in the existing literature and showed a statistically significant shift in musical practices between the beginning of the 1960s and the end of the 1960s.

Summary of Contributions

The contributions of this thesis are twofold. The first contribution is the creation of the

SUPERMAn tool. The software, which is available as open source and accessible freely through the website of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology (CIRMMT), 20 is a powerful yet easy-to-use solution for scholars with limited coding background wishing to get started with corpus-based research. The tool comes with an adapted version of the Billboard

DataSet, allowing the user to rapidly experiment with query design, but can also be used to parse any custom corpus. Furthermore, since it is an open-source script, it allows the user to customize the parsing method and interface, making it a polyvalent addition to other music-research-oriented software available.

20 http://www.cirmmt.org/research/tools

56 The second contribution consists of an empirical account of the evolution of different aspects of popular music over a very specific period, the “long” 60s. Rooting my research in the current popular-music literature, I was able to demonstrate that certain aspects of the attitudinal shift that marked the 1960s musical scene—what John Covach (2006) has described as a shift from compositional craft to art—was reflected in specific musical characteristics. Three main aspects of popular music were investigated: modulations, harmonic practices, and formal organization.

The first study showed no statistical difference between the frequency of multi-tonic songs in the first and second half of the decade.

The second study showed a statistical increase of songs featuring the chords III, VI, and

VII in the second half of the decade. Furthermore, an account of the most popular “flat-side” harmonic trigrams throughout the decade showed a clear preference for the “double-plagal” progression VII-IV-I and, to a lesser extent, for the modally-mixed progression VII-V-I, but these

“flat-side” progressions remained far less common than the many popular diatonic progressions (e.g.

IV-V-I, V-IV-I). This indicates that progressions featuring III, VI, and VII, although significantly more popular in the late 60s, are still fairly marginal in comparison to the mostly diatonic common practice.

The third study showed a decrease in frequency of songs featuring AABA formal organization in favour of contrasting verse-chorus forms. Unlike the change in harmonic practices discussed above, the paradigmatic change in formal organization seemed to have happened in a very short period of time. Indeed, the results presented in Figure 3.4 of Chapter 3 indicate a dramatic change around 1964, with a significant drop in popularity of the AABA form, and conversely, a significant increase in popularity of the contrasting verse-chorus form. Indeed, starting in 1965, the contrasting verse-chorus form became the most favoured type of formal organization, usually

57 representing between 40 and 50% of the corpus, far more popular that any other form. Looking at the results more closely, I observed that AABA bridges tended to be schematic and to tonicize the subdominant region, proposing the term “reverse-period bridges” to describe this phenomenon. Of the 44 songs identified as AABA, 22 (50%) featured a reverse-period bridge. Although this percentage seems very high, further research on different corpora would be needed to determine whether this high number is a consistent phenomenon and not simply due to the “luck of the draw.”

Aborted Study on Blues-Based Harmonic Patterns

A fourth study exploring the evolution of blues-based harmonic patterns as used in popular music during the 1960s was initially begun but not completed; I include a brief overview of the planned topic here in order to encourage future research on this issue. The goal of this study was two-fold: first, to identify idiomatic blues-based patterns, and second, to map their development over the studied time period. By extracting idiomatic progressions directly from the database, I was hoping to offer an objective account of the transformation of blues patterns over time by surveying specific examples from the repertoire. Based on the results of Study 2, I anticipated an increase in the complexity of blues-based patterns over time, yet how this might express itself (for example, through greater density of harmonic rhythm or the inclusion of chromatic or altered chords) was unknown.

As such, an exploratory methodology appeared to be the best approach for this specific study.

Part of the problem I faced was that the number of songs labelled as blues-based was quite small. Of the 292 songs analyzed in the 1958-1971 sub-corpus, 27 were labelled as blues-based, 242 as non-blues-based, and 23 were not assigned to any specific category. The distribution of those results is presented in Figure 4.1 below.

Fig 4.1. Blues-based harmonic patterns, per year.

Although the results were not tested for statistical significance, Figure 4.1 seems to suggest, at least informally, that songs featuring blues-based patterns are more or less evenly distributed throughout the decade. Notice that the slight peak in 1958 is due to the fact that only 7 songs are available for this specific year.21

In order to empirically track the evolution of such patterns over time, there needs to be a way to compare or quantify the “complexity level”. An interesting methodology to do so was developed by Walter Everett (2004). In this article, Everett is interested in comparing tonal behaviours in music from 1957-1958 and 1999-2000. More specifically, the author analyzed the role of harmony and voice leading according to twelve different criteria (six for harmony, six for voice leading). Each song was “scored on twelve scales of one-to-ten, in recognition of the degree to which each of the criteria was observed in the song’s tonal composition. A total voice-leading score and a total harmony score were computed for each song, with up to sixty points awarded in each of the two domains” (2004, par. 27). This method allowed Everett to efficiently compare a large number of songs by graphing

21 See Table 1.1 (Chapter 1, p. 9) for a detailed distribution of songs in the Billboard Dataset for the 1958- 1971 period.

59 the results on scatter plots. Adapting this method to the present study, a possible methodology would be to create a weighted scale that would attribute a score of “complexity,” meaning a measurement of deviation from a simple model. For example, the simplest blues pattern is a three- phrase twelve-bar scheme consisting of four measures of tonic, two measures of subdominant, two measures of tonic, two measures of dominant, and two measures of tonic, as shown in Example 4.1.

As indicated in the example’s caption, this pattern could be attributed a score of 0 on the complexity scale. Deviations from this model could then be attributed a score based on their relative complexity, using some measurement tool. For example, an equal-tempered Tonnetz could be used as a way to calculate the distance between a model chord and a real chord: if a progression were identical to the one presented in Example 4.1, but featured a V “turnaround” chord in measure 12, this hypothesized progression could have a complexity score of 2, representing two edge-flips on the

Tonnetz.

I I I I IV IV I I V IV I I Ex. 4.1. Simple Blues-Pattern (0).

Using the equal-tempered Tonnetz as a measurement tool appeared to be quite satisfactory as it allows for very common variations to score a very low number. I have already shown how replacing the final tonic chord by a dominant chord results in a complexity score of 2. Another common variation is for “any one of the tonic chords [to be] adorned with an interpolated subdominant” (Van der

Merwe, 1989, p. 198). Just like the preceding modification, such common variants would also score 2 points.

60 Although using the Tonnetz to compare the level of “complexity” initially appeared to be a good theoretical approach, doing so turned out to be impractical as the possibilities of divergence from a simple model are quasi-infinite. Thus a different methodology was favoured, approaching the problem at hand from another side. Instead of empirically mapping whether progressions become more complex over time (and if so, how such complexification is happening), we can map out the frequency of the simplest progression; since the results are a zero-sum game—assuming that the corpus comprises only songs featuring blues-based progressions—if the simplest pattern decreases in frequency over time, then, de facto, progressions are getting more complex. If such is the case, we can then analyse the results more closely to see how such complexification takes place. A major drawback with this methodology is that it requires a rather large corpus. Considering the low number of blues-based songs in the Billboard DataSet, this specific study has been postponed for future research.

Future Directions

In creating the SUPERMAn script, my aim was to attempt to bridge the gap between music technology and musicology by offering a simple tool that would allow scholars with no coding background to easily conduct corpus studies. This goal was only partially fulfilled. Although

SUPERMAn is free and relatively simple to use, it lacks a user-friendly interface and presently does not easily allow the user to switch back and forth between multiple databases. Furthermore, the use of regular expressions as a string-matching language, although powerful and versatile, involves a learning curve. The easiness of use of the software would be improved by allowing the user to simply decide on the different search parameters through a list of options, and having the internal script convert those choices into a proper regex query. Finally, porting the script as a web app, where users

61 can upload their own data, would also improve its usefulness.

There is also more work to be done regarding empirical studies of popular music.

Considering the present discussion, the creation of a curated corpus dedicated to songs featuring blues-based patterns would be necessary to conduct future research on this topic. Furthermore, with some rare exceptions, the current research primarily deals with audio features and metadata, and harmony, melody, and voice leading. Research on secondary parameters such as rhythm and timbre is still largely underrepresented. This problem is partly due to the fact that we lack an efficient, universal way to encode this type of information into easy-to-parse data. Future research in this direction is necessary if we want to build a complete, empirical image of the evolution of musical practices in popular music.

62 Appendix

A Billboard Parser Script

The following pages contain the script for the SUPERMAn tool presented in Chapter 1. A text version of this file can be downloaded at: http://www.cirmmt.org/research/tools

63 1 #!/bin/sh 2 source ~/.bash_profile 3 alias grep="ggrep" 4 shopt -s expand_aliases 5 clear 6 echo "+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+" 7 echo "|T|H|E| |S|U|P|E|R|M|A|n| |P|R|O||J|E|C|T | (v1.1) |" 8 echo "+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+" 9 echo "\The" 10 echo " \Simple" 11 echo " \UNIX " 12 echo " \Parser for " 13 echo " \Empirical " 14 echo " \Research on " 15 echo " \Musical Created by: " 16 echo " \Annotations Hubert Léveillé | © 2014 " 17 echo " ------" 18 echo 19 echo 20 PROGRESSION="p" 21 SEQUENCE="s" 22 YES="y" 23 NO="n" 24 date="$(date)" 25 26 # SEARCHING CHORD … PROGRESSION======… ======27 28 while read -p "Enter your query: " pattern 29 read -p "Would you like to search for multiline patterns ? … (y/n) : " RESPONSE2 ; do 30 # SEARCHING RESULTS SINGLE … LINE======… ======31 if [ "$RESPONSE2" == "$NO" ]; then 32 if 33 result=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" *) 34 then 35 # … FIFTIES======… ======36 if 37 RESULTFITIES=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1950s | wc -l) 38 then 39 FIFTIESTOTAL=$(find 1950s -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l)

64 40 else 41 : 42 fi 43 44 if 45 RESULTFIFTYEIGHT=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1950s/1958 | wc -l) 46 then 47 FIFTYEIGHTTOTAL=$(find 1950s/1958 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 48 else 49 : 50 fi 51 52 if 53 RESULTFIFTYNINE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1950s/1959 | wc -l) 54 then 55 FIFTYNINETOTAL=$(find 1950s/1959 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 56 else 57 : 58 fi 59 # … SIXTIES======… ======60 if 61 RESULTSIXTIES=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s | wc -l) 62 then 63 SIXTIESTOTAL=$(find 1960s -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 64 else 65 : 66 fi 67 68 if 69 RESULTSIXTY=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1960 | wc -l) 70 then 71 SIXTYTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1960 -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 72 else 73 : 74 fi 75 76 if 77 RESULTSIXTYONE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern"

65 77… 1960s/1961 | wc -l) 78 then 79 SIXTYONETOTAL=$(find 1960s/1961 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 80 else 81 : 82 fi 83 84 if 85 RESULTSIXTYTWO=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1962 | wc -l) 86 then 87 SIXTYTWOTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1962 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 88 else 89 : 90 fi 91 92 if 93 RESULTSIXTYTHREE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1963 | wc -l) 94 then 95 SIXTYTHREETOTAL=$(find 1960s/1963 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 96 else 97 : 98 fi 99 100 if 101 RESULTSIXTYFOUR=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1964 | wc -l) 102 then 103 SIXTYFOURTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1964 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 104 else 105 : 106 fi 107 108 if 109 RESULTSIXTYFIVE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1965 | wc -l) 110 then 111 SIXTYFIVETOTAL=$(find 1960s/1965 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 112 else 113 : 114 fi 115

66 116 if 117 RESULTSIXTYSIX=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1966 | wc -l) 118 then 119 SIXTYSIXTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1966 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 120 else 121 : 122 fi 123 124 if 125 RESULTSIXTYSEVEN=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1967 | wc -l) 126 then 127 SIXTYSEVENTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1967 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 128 else 129 : 130 fi 131 132 if 133 RESULTSIXTYEIGHT=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1968 | wc -l) 134 then 135 SIXTYEIGHTTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1968 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 136 else 137 : 138 fi 139 140 if 141 RESULTSIXTYNINE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1969 | wc -l) 142 then 143 SIXTYNINETOTAL=$(find 1960s/1969 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 144 else 145 : 146 fi 147 # … SEVENTIES======… ======148 149 if 150 RESULTSEVENTIES=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s | wc -l) 151 then 152 SEVENTIESTOTAL=$(find 1970s -type f -name

67 152… "*.hb" | wc -l) 153 else 154 : 155 fi 156 157 if 158 RESULTSEVENTY=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s/1970 | wc -l) 159 then 160 SEVENTYTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1970 -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 161 else 162 : 163 fi 164 165 if 166 RESULTSEVENTYONE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s/1971 | wc -l) 167 then 168 SEVENTYONETOTAL=$(find 1970s/1971 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 169 else 170 : 171 fi 172 173 if 174 RESULTSEVENTYTWO=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s/1972 | wc -l) 175 then 176 SEVENTYTWOTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1972 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 177 else 178 : 179 fi 180 181 if 182 RESULTSEVENTYTHREE=$(grep -E -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1973 | wc -l) 183 then 184 SEVENTYTHREETOTAL=$(find 1970s/1973 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 185 else 186 : 187 fi 188 189 if 190 RESULTSEVENTYFOUR=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s/1974 | wc -l)

68 191 then 192 SEVENTYFOURTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1974 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 193 else 194 : 195 fi 196 197 if 198 RESULTSEVENTYFIVE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s/1975 | wc -l) 199 then 200 SEVENTYFIVETOTAL=$(find 1970s/1975 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 201 else 202 : 203 fi 204 205 if 206 RESULTSEVENTYSIX=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s/1976 | wc -l) 207 then 208 SEVENTYSIXTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1976 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 209 else 210 : 211 fi 212 213 if 214 RESULTSEVENTYSEVEN=$(grep -E -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1977 | wc -l) 215 then 216 SEVENTYSEVENTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1977 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 217 else 218 : 219 fi 220 221 if 222 RESULTSEVENTYEIGHT=$(grep -E -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1978 | wc -l) 223 then 224 SEVENTYEIGHTTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1978 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 225 else 226 : 227 fi 228 229 if

69 230 RESULTSEVENTYNINE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s/1979 | wc -l) 231 then 232 SEVENTYNINETOTAL=$(find 1970s/1979 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 233 else 234 : 235 fi 236 # … EIGHTIES======… ======237 238 if 239 RESULTEIGHTIES=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s | wc -l) 240 then 241 EIGHTIESTOTAL=$(find 1980s -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 242 else 243 : 244 fi 245 246 if 247 RESULTEIGHTY=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1980 | wc -l) 248 then 249 EIGHTYTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1980 -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 250 else 251 : 252 fi 253 254 if 255 RESULTEIGHTYONE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1981 | wc -l) 256 then 257 EIGHTYONETOTAL=$(find 1980s/1981 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 258 else 259 : 260 fi 261 262 if 263 RESULTEIGHTYTWO=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1982 | wc -l) 264 then 265 EIGHTYTWOTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1982 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l)

70 266 else 267 : 268 fi 269 270 if 271 RESULTEIGHTYTHREE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1983 | wc -l) 272 then 273 EIGHTYTHREETOTAL=$(find 1980s/1983 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 274 else 275 : 276 fi 277 278 if 279 RESULTEIGHTYFOUR=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1984 | wc -l) 280 then 281 EIGHTYFOURTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1984 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 282 else 283 : 284 fi 285 286 if 287 RESULTEIGHTYFIVE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1985 | wc -l) 288 then 289 EIGHTYFIVETOTAL=$(find 1980s/1985 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 290 else 291 : 292 fi 293 294 if 295 RESULTEIGHTYSIX=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1986 | wc -l) 296 then 297 EIGHTYSIXTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1986 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 298 else 299 : 300 fi 301 302 if 303 RESULTEIGHTYSEVEN=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1987 | wc -l) 304 then

71 305 EIGHTYSEVENTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1977 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 306 else 307 : 308 fi 309 310 if 311 RESULTEIGHTYEIGHT=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1988 | wc -l) 312 then 313 EIGHTYEIGHTTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1988 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 314 else 315 : 316 fi 317 318 if 319 RESULTEIGHTYNINE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1989 | wc -l) 320 then 321 EIGHTYNINETOTAL=$(find 1980s/1989 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 322 else 323 : 324 fi 325 # … NINETIES======… ======326 327 if 328 RESULTNINETIES=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1990s | wc -l) 329 then 330 NINETIESTOTAL=$(find 1990s -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 331 else 332 : 333 fi 334 335 if 336 RESULTNINETY=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1990s/1990 | wc -l) 337 then 338 NINETYTOTAL=$(find 1990s/1990 -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 339 else 340 : 341 fi

72 342 343 if 344 RESULTNINETYONE=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" … 1990s/1991 | wc -l) 345 then 346 NINETYONETOTAL=$(find 1990s/1991 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 347 else 348 : 349 fi 350 # … TOTAL======… ======351 352 if 353 RESUTLTOTAL=$(grep -E -r -l "$pattern" * | … wc -l) 354 then 355 RESULTTOTALTOTAL=$(find * -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 356 else 357 : 358 fi 359 # DISPLAYING RESULTS CONSIDERING HYPERMETER … (n)======… ======360 echo 361 echo … ======… ======… ======362 echo 1950s: $RESULTFITIES /$FIFTIESTOTAL '\t''\t' 1960s: … $RESULTSIXTIES /$SIXTIESTOTAL '\t''\t' 1970s: $RESULTSEVENTIES … /$SEVENTIESTOTAL '\t''\t' 1980s: $RESULTEIGHTIES /$EIGHTIESTOTAL … '\t''\t' 1990s: $RESULTNINETIES /$NINETIESTOTAL | pr -t -e12 363 echo … ======… ======… ======364 365 366 echo " " 1960\ : $RESULTSIXTY … /$SIXTYTOTAL '\t''\t' 1970\ : $RESULTSEVENTY /$SEVENTYTOTAL '\t''\t' … 1980\ : $RESULTEIGHTY /$EIGHTYTOTAL '\t''\t' 1990\ : $RESULTNINETY … /$NINETYTOTAL | pr -t -e12 367 echo " " 1961\ : $RESULTSIXTYONE … /$SIXTYONETOTAL '\t''\t' 1971\ : $RESULTSEVENTYONE /$SEVENTYONETOTAL … '\t''\t' 1981\ : $RESULTEIGHTYONE /$EIGHTYONETOTAL '\t''\t' 1991\ :

73 367… $RESULTNINETYONE /$NINETYONETOTAL | pr -t -e12 368 echo " " 1962\ : $RESULTSIXTYTWO … /$SIXTYTWOTOTAL '\t''\t' 1972\ : $RESULTSEVENTYTWO /$SEVENTYTWOTOTAL … '\t''\t' 1982\ : $RESULTEIGHTYTWO /$EIGHTYTWOTOTAL | pr -t -e12 369 echo " " 1963\ : … $RESULTSIXTYTHREE /$SIXTYTHREETOTAL '\t''\t' 1973\ : … $RESULTSEVENTYTHREE /$SEVENTYTHREETOTAL '\t''\t' 1983\ : … $RESULTEIGHTYTHREE /$EIGHTYTHREETOTAL | pr -t -e12 370 echo '\t''\t''\t' 1964\ : $RESULTSIXTYFOUR /$SIXTYFOURTOTAL … '\t''\t' 1974\ : $RESULTSEVENTYFOUR /$SEVENTYFOURTOTAL '\t''\t' 1984\ : … $RESULTEIGHTYFOUR /$EIGHTYFOURTOTAL | pr -t -e12 371 echo '\t''\t''\t' 1965\ : $RESULTSIXTYFIVE /$SIXTYFIVETOTAL '\t''\t' … 1975\ : $RESULTSEVENTYFIVE /$SEVENTYFIVETOTAL '\t''\t' 1985\ : … $RESULTEIGHTYFIVE /$EIGHTYFIVETOTAL | pr -t -e12 372 echo '\t''\t''\t' 1966\ : $RESULTSIXTYSIX /$SIXTYSIXTOTAL '\t''\t' … 1976\ : $RESULTSEVENTYSIX /$SEVENTYSIXTOTAL '\t''\t' 1986\ : … $RESULTEIGHTYSIX /$EIGHTYSIXTOTAL | pr -t -e12 373 echo '\t''\t''\t' 1967\ : $RESULTSIXTYSEVEN /$SIXTYSEVENTOTAL … '\t''\t' 1977\ : $RESULTSEVENTYSEVEN /$SEVENTYSEVENTOTAL '\t''\t' 1987\ … : $RESULTEIGHTYSEVEN /$EIGHTYSEVENTOTAL | pr -t -e12 374 echo 1958\ : $RESULTFIFTYEIGHT /$FIFTYEIGHTTOTAL '\t''\t' 1968\ : … $RESULTSIXTYEIGHT /$SIXTYEIGHTTOTAL '\t''\t' 1978\ : $RESULTSEVENTYEIGHT … /$SEVENTYEIGHTTOTAL '\t''\t' 1988\ : $RESULTEIGHTYEIGHT … /$EIGHTYEIGHTTOTAL | pr -t -e12 375 echo 1959\ : $RESULTFIFTYNINE /$FIFTYNINETOTAL '\t''\t' 1969\ : … $RESULTSIXTYNINE /$SIXTYNINETOTAL '\t''\t' 1979\ : $RESULTSEVENTYNINE … /$SEVENTYNINETOTAL '\t''\t' 1989\ : $RESULTEIGHTYNINE /$EIGHTYNINETOTAL … | pr -t -e12 376 echo … ======… ======… ======377 echo Total: $RESUTLTOTAL /$RESULTTOTALTOTAL 378 echo … ======… ======… ======379 echo 380 # DETAILED … INFO?======… ======381 while read -p "Would you like to see more detailed information ? (y/n): … " RESPONSE3; do 382 383 if [ "$RESPONSE3" == "$YES" ]; then 384 echo 385 echo "$result" 386 read -p ""

74 387 break 388 else 389 if [ "$RESPONSE3" == "$NO" ]; then 390 echo 391 break 392 else 393 echo "Invalid input. " 394 read -p "" 395 396 fi 397 fi 398 done 399 # EXPORTING DATA WITH … HYPERMETER======… ======400 while read -p "Would you like to export the results ? (y/n): " … RESPONSE4; do 401 if [ "$RESPONSE4" == "$YES" ]; then 402 403 output=~/Database/Results/"${date}_Pattern=${pattern}_Multiline=${ … RESPONSE2}.txt" 404 405 echo "1958 \t $RESULTFIFTYEIGHT \t $FIFTYEIGHTTOTAL" >>"$output" 406 echo "1959 \t $RESULTFIFTYNINE \t $FIFTYNINETOTAL" >>"$output" 407 echo "1960 \t $RESULTSIXTY \t $SIXTYTOTAL" >>"$output" 408 echo "1961 \t $RESULTSIXTYONE \t $SIXTYONETOTAL" >>"$output" 409 echo "1962 \t $RESULTSIXTYTWO \t $SIXTYTWOTOTAL" >>"$output" 410 echo "1963 \t $RESULTSIXTYTHREE \t $SIXTYTHREETOTAL" >>"$output" 411 echo "1964 \t $RESULTSIXTYFOUR \t $SIXTYFOURTOTAL" >>"$output" 412 echo "1965 \t $RESULTSIXTYFIVE \t $SIXTYFIVETOTAL" >>"$output" 413 echo "1966 \t $RESULTSIXTYSIX \t $SIXTYSIXTOTAL" >>"$output" 414 echo "1967 \t $RESULTSIXTYSEVEN \t $SIXTYSEVENTOTAL" >>"$output" 415 echo "1968 \t $RESULTSIXTYEIGHT \t $SIXTYEIGHTTOTAL" >>"$output" 416 echo "1969 \t $RESULTSIXTYNINE \t $SIXTYNINETOTAL" >>"$output" 417 echo "1970 \t $RESULTSEVENTY \t $SEVENTYTOTAL" >>"$output" 418 echo "1971 \t $RESULTSEVENTYONE \t $SEVENTYONETOTAL" >>"$output" 419 420 echo "Done." 421 read -p "" 422 break 423 else 424 if [ "$RESPONSE4" == "$NO" ]; then 425 echo 426 break 427 else 428 echo "Invalid input. " 429 read -p "" 430 fi

75 431 fi 432 done 433 434 435 else 436 echo 437 echo "No match found." 438 read -p "" 439 read -p "Would you like to export the results ? … (y/n): " RESPONSE4 440 if [ "$RESPONSE4" == "$YES" ]; then 441 442 output=~/Database/Results/"${date}_Pattern=${pattern}_Multiline=${ … RESPONSE2}.txt" 443 444 echo No Match Found.>>"$output" 445 echo "Done." 446 read -p "" 447 else 448 if [ "$RESPONSE4" == "$NO" ]; then 449 echo 450 else 451 echo "Invalid input. " 452 read -p "" 453 fi 454 fi 455 456 fi 457 else 458 # SEARCHING RESULTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING … HYPERMETER======… ======459 if [ "$RESPONSE2" == "$YES" ]; then 460 if 461 result2=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" *) 462 463 #when using this function in a script, the "\n" character that tells … grep to search for multiple lines patterns needs to be written with a … double backslash (e.g. "\\n"). 464 then 465 # … FIFTIES======… ======466 if 467 RESULTFITIES=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1950s | wc -l) 468 then 469 FIFTIESTOTAL=$(find 1950s -type f -name

76 469… "*.hb" | wc -l) 470 else 471 : 472 fi 473 474 if 475 RESULTFIFTYEIGHT=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1950s/1958 | wc -l) 476 then 477 FIFTYEIGHTTOTAL=$(find 1950s/1958 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 478 else 479 : 480 fi 481 482 if 483 RESULTFIFTYNINE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1950s/1959 | wc -l) 484 then 485 FIFTYNINETOTAL=$(find 1950s/1959 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 486 else 487 : 488 fi 489 # … SIXTIES======… ======490 if 491 RESULTSIXTIES=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s | wc -l) 492 then 493 SIXTIESTOTAL=$(find 1960s -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 494 else 495 : 496 fi 497 498 if 499 RESULTSIXTY=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1960 | wc -l) 500 then 501 SIXTYTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1960 -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 502 else 503 : 504 fi 505 506 if

77 507 RESULTSIXTYONE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1961 | wc -l) 508 then 509 SIXTYONETOTAL=$(find 1960s/1961 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 510 else 511 : 512 fi 513 514 if 515 RESULTSIXTYTWO=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1962 | wc -l) 516 then 517 SIXTYTWOTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1962 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 518 else 519 : 520 fi 521 522 if 523 RESULTSIXTYTHREE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1960s/1963 | wc -l) 524 then 525 SIXTYTHREETOTAL=$(find 1960s/1963 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 526 else 527 : 528 fi 529 530 if 531 RESULTSIXTYFOUR=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1964 | wc -l) 532 then 533 SIXTYFOURTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1964 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 534 else 535 : 536 fi 537 538 if 539 RESULTSIXTYFIVE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1965 | wc -l) 540 then 541 SIXTYFIVETOTAL=$(find 1960s/1965 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 542 else 543 : 544 fi

78 545 546 if 547 RESULTSIXTYSIX=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1966 | wc -l) 548 then 549 SIXTYSIXTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1966 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 550 else 551 : 552 fi 553 554 if 555 RESULTSIXTYSEVEN=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1960s/1967 | wc -l) 556 then 557 SIXTYSEVENTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1967 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 558 else 559 : 560 fi 561 562 if 563 RESULTSIXTYEIGHT=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1960s/1968 | wc -l) 564 then 565 SIXTYEIGHTTOTAL=$(find 1960s/1968 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 566 else 567 : 568 fi 569 570 if 571 RESULTSIXTYNINE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1960s/1969 | wc -l) 572 then 573 SIXTYNINETOTAL=$(find 1960s/1969 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 574 else 575 : 576 fi 577 # … SEVENTIES======… ======578 579 if 580 RESULTSEVENTIES=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s | wc -l) 581 then

79 582 SEVENTIESTOTAL=$(find 1970s -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 583 else 584 : 585 fi 586 587 if 588 RESULTSEVENTY=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1970s/1970 | wc -l) 589 then 590 SEVENTYTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1970 -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 591 else 592 : 593 fi 594 595 if 596 RESULTSEVENTYONE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1971 | wc -l) 597 then 598 SEVENTYONETOTAL=$(find 1970s/1971 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 599 else 600 : 601 fi 602 603 if 604 RESULTSEVENTYTWO=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1972 | wc -l) 605 then 606 SEVENTYTWOTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1972 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 607 else 608 : 609 fi 610 611 if 612 RESULTSEVENTYTHREE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1973 | wc -l) 613 then 614 SEVENTYTHREETOTAL=$(find 1970s/1973 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 615 else 616 : 617 fi 618 619 if 620 RESULTSEVENTYFOUR=$(grep -Pzo -r -l

80 620… "$pattern" 1970s/1974 | wc -l) 621 then 622 SEVENTYFOURTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1974 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 623 else 624 : 625 fi 626 627 if 628 RESULTSEVENTYFIVE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1975 | wc -l) 629 then 630 SEVENTYFIVETOTAL=$(find 1970s/1975 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 631 else 632 : 633 fi 634 635 if 636 RESULTSEVENTYSIX=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1976 | wc -l) 637 then 638 SEVENTYSIXTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1976 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 639 else 640 : 641 fi 642 643 if 644 RESULTSEVENTYSEVEN=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1977 | wc -l) 645 then 646 SEVENTYSEVENTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1977 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 647 else 648 : 649 fi 650 651 if 652 RESULTSEVENTYEIGHT=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1978 | wc -l) 653 then 654 SEVENTYEIGHTTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1978 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 655 else 656 : 657 fi 658

81 659 if 660 RESULTSEVENTYNINE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1970s/1979 | wc -l) 661 then 662 SEVENTYNINETOTAL=$(find 1970s/1979 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 663 else 664 : 665 fi 666 # … EIGHTIES======… ======667 668 if 669 RESULTEIGHTIES=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s | wc -l) 670 then 671 EIGHTIESTOTAL=$(find 1980s -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 672 else 673 : 674 fi 675 676 if 677 RESULTEIGHTY=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1980 | wc -l) 678 then 679 EIGHTYTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1980 -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 680 else 681 : 682 fi 683 684 if 685 RESULTEIGHTYONE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1981 | wc -l) 686 then 687 EIGHTYONETOTAL=$(find 1980s/1981 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 688 else 689 : 690 fi 691 692 if 693 RESULTEIGHTYTWO=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1982 | wc -l) 694 then 695 EIGHTYTWOTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1982 -type f

82 695… -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 696 else 697 : 698 fi 699 700 if 701 RESULTEIGHTYTHREE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1980s/1983 | wc -l) 702 then 703 EIGHTYTHREETOTAL=$(find 1980s/1983 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 704 else 705 : 706 fi 707 708 if 709 RESULTEIGHTYFOUR=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1980s/1984 | wc -l) 710 then 711 EIGHTYFOURTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1984 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 712 else 713 : 714 fi 715 716 if 717 RESULTEIGHTYFIVE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1980s/1985 | wc -l) 718 then 719 EIGHTYFIVETOTAL=$(find 1980s/1985 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 720 else 721 : 722 fi 723 724 if 725 RESULTEIGHTYSIX=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1980s/1986 | wc -l) 726 then 727 EIGHTYSIXTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1986 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 728 else 729 : 730 fi 731 732 if 733 RESULTEIGHTYSEVEN=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1980s/1987 | wc -l)

83 734 then 735 EIGHTYSEVENTOTAL=$(find 1970s/1977 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 736 else 737 : 738 fi 739 740 if 741 RESULTEIGHTYEIGHT=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1980s/1988 | wc -l) 742 then 743 EIGHTYEIGHTTOTAL=$(find 1980s/1988 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 744 else 745 : 746 fi 747 748 if 749 RESULTEIGHTYNINE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l … "$pattern" 1980s/1989 | wc -l) 750 then 751 EIGHTYNINETOTAL=$(find 1980s/1989 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 752 else 753 : 754 fi 755 # … NINETIES======… ======756 757 if 758 RESULTNINETIES=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1990s | wc -l) 759 then 760 NINETIESTOTAL=$(find 1990s -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 761 else 762 : 763 fi 764 765 if 766 RESULTNINETY=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1990s/1990 | wc -l) 767 then 768 NINETYTOTAL=$(find 1990s/1990 -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 769 else 770 :

84 771 fi 772 773 if 774 RESULTNINETYONE=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" … 1990s/1991 | wc -l) 775 then 776 NINETYONETOTAL=$(find 1990s/1991 -type f … -name "*.hb" | wc -l) 777 else 778 : 779 fi 780 # … TOTAL======… ======781 782 if 783 RESUTLTOTAL=$(grep -Pzo -r -l "$pattern" * | … wc -l) 784 then 785 RESULTTOTALTOTAL=$(find * -type f -name … "*.hb" | wc -l) 786 else 787 : 788 fi 789 # DISPLAYING RESULTS OVERRIDING HYPERMETER … (y)======… ======790 echo 791 echo … ======… ======… ======792 echo 1950s: $RESULTFITIES /$FIFTIESTOTAL '\t''\t' 1960s: … $RESULTSIXTIES /$SIXTIESTOTAL '\t''\t' 1970s: $RESULTSEVENTIES … /$SEVENTIESTOTAL '\t''\t' 1980s: $RESULTEIGHTIES /$EIGHTIESTOTAL … '\t''\t' 1990s: $RESULTNINETIES /$NINETIESTOTAL | pr -t -e12 793 echo … ======… ======… ======794 795 796 echo " " 1960\ : $RESULTSIXTY … /$SIXTYTOTAL '\t''\t' 1970\ : $RESULTSEVENTY /$SEVENTYTOTAL '\t''\t' … 1980\ : $RESULTEIGHTY /$EIGHTYTOTAL '\t''\t' 1990\ : $RESULTNINETY … /$NINETYTOTAL | pr -t -e12 797 echo " " 1961\ : $RESULTSIXTYONE … /$SIXTYONETOTAL '\t''\t' 1971\ : $RESULTSEVENTYONE /$SEVENTYONETOTAL

85 797… '\t''\t' 1981\ : $RESULTEIGHTYONE /$EIGHTYONETOTAL '\t''\t' 1991\ : … $RESULTNINETYONE /$NINETYONETOTAL | pr -t -e12 798 echo " " 1962\ : $RESULTSIXTYTWO … /$SIXTYTWOTOTAL '\t''\t' 1972\ : $RESULTSEVENTYTWO /$SEVENTYTWOTOTAL … '\t''\t' 1982\ : $RESULTEIGHTYTWO /$EIGHTYTWOTOTAL | pr -t -e12 799 echo " " 1963\ : … $RESULTSIXTYTHREE /$SIXTYTHREETOTAL '\t''\t' 1973\ : … $RESULTSEVENTYTHREE /$SEVENTYTHREETOTAL '\t''\t' 1983\ : … $RESULTEIGHTYTHREE /$EIGHTYTHREETOTAL | pr -t -e12 800 echo '\t''\t''\t' 1964\ : $RESULTSIXTYFOUR /$SIXTYFOURTOTAL … '\t''\t' 1974\ : $RESULTSEVENTYFOUR /$SEVENTYFOURTOTAL '\t''\t' 1984\ : … $RESULTEIGHTYFOUR /$EIGHTYFOURTOTAL | pr -t -e12 801 echo '\t''\t''\t' 1965\ : $RESULTSIXTYFIVE /$SIXTYFIVETOTAL '\t''\t' … 1975\ : $RESULTSEVENTYFIVE /$SEVENTYFIVETOTAL '\t''\t' 1985\ : … $RESULTEIGHTYFIVE /$EIGHTYFIVETOTAL | pr -t -e12 802 echo '\t''\t''\t' 1966\ : $RESULTSIXTYSIX /$SIXTYSIXTOTAL '\t''\t' … 1976\ : $RESULTSEVENTYSIX /$SEVENTYSIXTOTAL '\t''\t' 1986\ : … $RESULTEIGHTYSIX /$EIGHTYSIXTOTAL | pr -t -e12 803 echo '\t''\t''\t' 1967\ : $RESULTSIXTYSEVEN /$SIXTYSEVENTOTAL … '\t''\t' 1977\ : $RESULTSEVENTYSEVEN /$SEVENTYSEVENTOTAL '\t''\t' 1987\ … : $RESULTEIGHTYSEVEN /$EIGHTYSEVENTOTAL | pr -t -e12 804 echo 1958\ : $RESULTFIFTYEIGHT /$FIFTYEIGHTTOTAL '\t''\t' 1968\ : … $RESULTSIXTYEIGHT /$SIXTYEIGHTTOTAL '\t''\t' 1978\ : $RESULTSEVENTYEIGHT … /$SEVENTYEIGHTTOTAL '\t''\t' 1988\ : $RESULTEIGHTYEIGHT … /$EIGHTYEIGHTTOTAL | pr -t -e12 805 echo 1959\ : $RESULTFIFTYNINE /$FIFTYNINETOTAL '\t''\t' 1969\ : … $RESULTSIXTYNINE /$SIXTYNINETOTAL '\t''\t' 1979\ : $RESULTSEVENTYNINE … /$SEVENTYNINETOTAL '\t''\t' 1989\ : $RESULTEIGHTYNINE /$EIGHTYNINETOTAL … | pr -t -e12 806 echo … ======… ======… ======807 echo Total: $RESUTLTOTAL /$RESULTTOTALTOTAL 808 echo … ======… ======… ======809 echo 810 811 # DETAILED … INFO?======… ======812 read -p "Would you like to see more detailed information ? (y/n): " … RESPONSE3 813 814 if [ "$RESPONSE3" == "$YES" ]; then 815 echo

86 816 echo "$result2" 817 read -p "" 818 else 819 if [ "$RESPONSE3" == "$NO" ]; then 820 echo 821 else 822 echo "Invalid input. " 823 read -p "" 824 fi 825 fi 826 # EXPORTING DATA WITH … HYPERMETER======… ======827 while read -p "Would you like to export the results ? (y/n): " … RESPONSE4; do 828 if [ "$RESPONSE4" == "$YES" ]; then 829 830 output=~/Database/Results/"${date}_Pattern=${pattern}_Multiline=${ … RESPONSE2}.txt" 831 832 echo "1958 \t $RESULTFIFTYEIGHT \t $FIFTYEIGHTTOTAL" >>"$output" 833 echo "1959 \t $RESULTFIFTYNINE \t $FIFTYNINETOTAL" >>"$output" 834 echo "1960 \t $RESULTSIXTY \t $SIXTYTOTAL" >>"$output" 835 echo "1961 \t $RESULTSIXTYONE \t $SIXTYONETOTAL" >>"$output" 836 echo "1962 \t $RESULTSIXTYTWO \t $SIXTYTWOTOTAL" >>"$output" 837 echo "1963 \t $RESULTSIXTYTHREE \t $SIXTYTHREETOTAL" >>"$output" 838 echo "1964 \t $RESULTSIXTYFOUR \t $SIXTYFOURTOTAL" >>"$output" 839 echo "1965 \t $RESULTSIXTYFIVE \t $SIXTYFIVETOTAL" >>"$output" 840 echo "1966 \t $RESULTSIXTYSIX \t $SIXTYSIXTOTAL" >>"$output" 841 echo "1967 \t $RESULTSIXTYSEVEN \t $SIXTYSEVENTOTAL" >>"$output" 842 echo "1968 \t $RESULTSIXTYEIGHT \t $SIXTYEIGHTTOTAL" >>"$output" 843 echo "1969 \t $RESULTSIXTYNINE \t $SIXTYNINETOTAL" >>"$output" 844 echo "1970 \t $RESULTSEVENTY \t $SEVENTYTOTAL" >>"$output" 845 echo "1971 \t $RESULTSEVENTYONE \t $SEVENTYONETOTAL" >>"$output" 846 847 echo "Done." 848 read -p "" 849 break 850 else 851 if [ "$RESPONSE4" == "$NO" ]; then 852 echo 853 break 854 else 855 echo "Invalid input. " 856 read -p "" 857 fi 858 fi 859 done

87 816 echo "$result2" 817 read -p "" 818 else 819 if [ "$RESPONSE3" == "$NO" ]; then 820 echo 821 else 822 echo "Invalid input. " 823 read -p "" 824 fi 825 fi 826 # EXPORTING DATA WITH … HYPERMETER======… ======827 while read -p "Would you like to export the results ? (y/n): " … RESPONSE4; do 828 if [ "$RESPONSE4" == "$YES" ]; then 829 830 output=~/Database/Results/"${date}_Pattern=${pattern}_Multiline=${ … RESPONSE2}.txt" 831 832 echo "1958 \t $RESULTFIFTYEIGHT \t $FIFTYEIGHTTOTAL" >>"$output" 833 echo "1959 \t $RESULTFIFTYNINE \t $FIFTYNINETOTAL" >>"$output" 834 echo "1960 \t $RESULTSIXTY \t $SIXTYTOTAL" >>"$output" 835 echo "1961 \t $RESULTSIXTYONE \t $SIXTYONETOTAL" >>"$output" 836 echo "1962 \t $RESULTSIXTYTWO \t $SIXTYTWOTOTAL" >>"$output" 837 echo "1963 \t $RESULTSIXTYTHREE \t $SIXTYTHREETOTAL" >>"$output" 838 echo "1964 \t $RESULTSIXTYFOUR \t $SIXTYFOURTOTAL" >>"$output" 839 echo "1965 \t $RESULTSIXTYFIVE \t $SIXTYFIVETOTAL" >>"$output" 840 echo "1966 \t $RESULTSIXTYSIX \t $SIXTYSIXTOTAL" >>"$output" 841 echo "1967 \t $RESULTSIXTYSEVEN \t $SIXTYSEVENTOTAL" >>"$output" 842 echo "1968 \t $RESULTSIXTYEIGHT \t $SIXTYEIGHTTOTAL" >>"$output" 843 echo "1969 \t $RESULTSIXTYNINE \t $SIXTYNINETOTAL" >>"$output" 844 echo "1970 \t $RESULTSEVENTY \t $SEVENTYTOTAL" >>"$output" 845 echo "1971 \t $RESULTSEVENTYONE \t $SEVENTYONETOTAL" >>"$output" 846 847 echo "Done." 848 read -p "" 849 break 850 else 851 if [ "$RESPONSE4" == "$NO" ]; then 852 echo 853 break 854 else 855 echo "Invalid input. " 856 read -p "" 857 fi 858 fi 859 done

88 B Songs Featured in the 1958-1971 Sub-Corpus

Title Artist Year Bird Song The Everly Brothers 1958 Fever Peggy Lee 1958 Going to Chicago Count Basie 1958 Just A Dream Jimmy Clanton 1958 Sweet Little Rock And Roll Chuck Berry 1958 That Old Black Magic Louis Prima & Keely Smith 1958 The Ways of a Woman Johnny Cash 1958 (Night Time is) The Right Time Ray Charles 1959 Almost Grown Chuck Berry 1959 Be My Guest Fats Domino 1959 I Cried a Tear LaVern Baker 1959 I Got Stripes Johnny Cash 1959 I Want to Walk You Home Fats Domino 1959 Johnny Reb Johnny Horton 1959 Living Doll Cliff Richard 1959 My Wish Came True Elvis Presley 1959 One Night Elvis Presley 1959 Sleep Walk Santo & Johnny 1959 The Battle of New Orleans Johnny Horton 1959 This Should Go On Forever Rod Bernard 1959 Unforgettable Dinah Washington 1959 Baby What You Want Me to Do Jimmy Reed 1960 Big Iron Marty Robins 1960 Handy Man Jimmy Jones 1960 Last Date Floyd Cramer 1960 Lonely Weekends Charlie Rich 1960 Perfidia The Ventures 1960 Silent Night Bing Crosby 1960 Sweet Nothin’s Brenda Lee 1960 Where or When Dion 1960 (Marie is the Name) His Latest Flame Elvis Presley 1961 (There’s No Other) Like My Baby The Crystals 1961 Amor Ben E. King 1961 Baby, You’re Right James Brown 1961 Dum Dum Brenda Lee 1961 Ebony Eyes The Everly Brothers 1961 Fool That I Am Etta James 1961 I Don’t Mind James Brown 1961 It’s Gonna Work Out Fine Ike & Tina Turner 1961 Jimmy’s Girl Johnny Tillotson 1961 Little Sister Elvis Presley 1961 Mighty Good Lovin’ The Miracles 1961 Quarter to Three Gary U.S. Bonds 1961 Runaround Sue Dion 1961 Sea of Heartbreak Don Gibson 1961

89 Three Hearts in a Tangle Roy Drusky 1961 Town Without Pity Gene Pitney 1961 Walk Right Back The Everly Brothers 1961 Wheels The String-A-Longs 1961 Will You Love Me Tomorrow? The Shirelles 1961 (I Was) Born to Cry Dion 1962 All Alone Am I Brenda Lee 1962 Bongo Stomp Little Joey & The Flips 1962 Comin’ Home Baby Mel Torme 1962 Do You Love Me? The Contours 1962 Everybody Loves Me But You Brenda Lee 1962 He’s a Rebel The Crystals 1962 Heart in Hand Brenda Lee 1962 Hey! Baby Bruce Chanel 1962 I Found a Love The Falcons 1962 I’ve Been Everywhere Hank Snow 1962 It Keeps Right On A-Hurtin’ Johnny Tillotson 1962 Jamie Eddie Holland 1962 Letter Full of Tears Gladys Knight & The Pips 1962 Love Came to Me Dion 1962 Love Me Warm and Tender Paul Anka 1962 Lovers Who Wander Dion 1962 Oh My Angel Bertha Tillman 1962 Ramblin’ Rose Nat “King” Cole 1962 Stop the Wedding Etta James 1962 Surfin’ Safari The Beach Boys 1962 That’s Old Fashioned (That’s the Way The Everly Brothers 1962 Love Should Be) The Twist Chubby Checker 1962 Walk on the Wild Side (Part 1) Jimmy Smith 1962 Where Are You? Dinah Washington 1962 White Christmas Bing Crosby 1962 You Can’t Judge a Book by the Cover Bo Diddley 1962 Baby Workout Jackie Wilson 1963 Be My Baby The Ronettes 1963 Detroit City Bobby Bare 1963 He’s So Fine The Chiffons 1963 Hello Stranger Barbara Lewis 1963 If You Need Me Solomon Burke 1963 In My Room The Beach Boys 1963 Land of a 1000 Dances Chris Kenner 1963 Loosing You Brenda Lee 1963 On Broadway The Drifters 1963 Out of My Mind Johnny Tillotson 1963 Ruby Baby Dion 1963 See See Rider LaVern Baker 1963 Six Days on the Road Dave Dudley 1963 Sugar Shack The Fireballs 1963 Talk Back Trembling Lips Johnny Tillotson 1963 This Little Girl Dion 1963

90 Those Lazy-Hazy-Crazy Days of Nat “King” Cole 1963 Summer Walk Right In The Moments 1963 Would It Make Any Difference to Etta James 1963 You? 20-75 Willie Mitchell 1964 A Hard Day’s Night The Beatles 1964 As Usual Brenda Lee 1964 Ask Me Elvis Presley 1964 Chained and Bound Ottis Redding 1964 Do You Want to Know a Secret? The Beatles 1964 Everybody Loves Somebody Dean Martin 1964 Funny Girl Barbara Streisand 1964 Hello Dolly! Louis Armstong 1964 How Blue Can You Get? B.B. King 1964 I Rise, I Fall Johnny Tillotson 1964 I Saw Her Standing There The Beatles 1964 Last Kiss J. Frank Wilson & The Cavaliers 1964 Love Me Do The Beatles 1964 Not Fade Away The Rolling Stones 1964 People Barbara Streisand 1964 She’s a Woman The Beatles 1964 Sidewalk Surfin’ Jan & Dean 1964 The Anaheim, Azusa & Cucamonga Sewing Circle, Book Review And Jan & Dean 1964 Timing Association The Little Old Lady (From Pasadena) Jan & Dean 1964 Time Is On My Side The Rolling Stones 1964 Wendy The Beach Boys 1964 Wish Someone Would Care Irma Thomas 1964 Worried Guy Johnny Tillotson 1964 You Don’t Own Me Lesley Gore 1964 Baby Don’t Go Sonny & Cher 1965 Crying Time Ray Charles 1965 Eight Days a Week The Beatles 1965 Heart Full of Soul The Yardbirds 1965 Help! The Beatles 1965 I Don’t Want to Spoil the Party The Beatles 1965 I Got You (I Feel Good) James Brown 1965 I Love You So Bobbi Martin 1965 I Will Dean Martin 1965 I’ve Been Loving You Too Long (To Otis Redding 1965 Stop Now) I’ve Got a Tiger by the Tail Buck Owens 1965 In the Midnight Hour Wilson Pickett 1965 Liar, Liar The Castaways 1965 Nowhere to Run Martha & The Vandellas 1965 Rescue Me Fontella Bass 1965 The Sounds of Silence Simon & Garfunkel 1965 There But For Fortune Joan Baez 1965

91 Too Many Rivers Brenda Lee 1965 Treat Her Right Roy Head 1965 Unchained Melody The Righteous Brothers 1965 ‘Till the End of the Day The Kinks 1966 (You’re My) Soul and Inspiration The Righteous Brothers 1966 A Hazy Shade of Winter Simon & Garfunkel 1966 Ain’t Too Proud to Beg The Temptations 1966 Coming On Strong Brenda Lee 1966 Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love) Swingin’ Medallions 1966 Eight Miles High The Byrds 1966 Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, The Rolling Stones 1966 Standing In The Shadow? If I Were a Carpenter Bobby Darin 1966 Kicks Paul Revere & The Raiders 1966 Let’s Go Get Stoned Ray Charles 1966 Shape of Things The Yardbirds 1966 Sunshine Superman Donovan 1966 Sweet Talkin’ Guy The Chiffons 1966 Tell It Like It Is Aaron Neville 1966 These Boots Are Made For Walkin’ Nancy Sinatra 1966 Think of Me Buck Owens 1966 You Can’t Roller Skate in a Buffalo Roger Miller 1966 Herd Buy For Me the Rain Nitty Gritty Dirt Band 1967 California Nights Lesley Gore 1967 Carrie-Ann The Hollies 1967 Chain of Fools Aretha Franklin 1967 Cold Sweat – Part 1 James Brown 1967 Cry Softly Lonely One Roy Orbison 1967 Dandelion The Rolling Stones 1967 Fakin’ It Simon & Garfunkel 1967 Go Where You Wanna Go The 5th Dimension 1967 Goin’ Back The Byrds 1967 Happy Jack The Who 1967 Happy Together The Turtles 1967 Hello Hello Sopwith Camel 1967 I Had Too Much to Dream (Last The Electric Prunes 1967 Night) I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Aretha Franklin 1967 Love You) I’m in Love Wilson Pickett 1967 I’ve Passed This Way Before Jimmy Ruffin 1967 If I Could Build My Whole World Marvin Gaye & Tami Terrell 1967 Around You It Takes Two Marvin Gaye & Kim Weston 1967 Judy Elvis Presley 1967 Kind of a Drag The Buckinghams 1967 Little Bit O’ Soul The Music Explosion 1967 My World Fell Sagittarius 1967

92 San Franciscan Nights The Animals 1967 Soul Dance Number Three Wilson Pickett 1967 Standing in the Shadows of Love The Four Tops 1967 Sweet Soul Music Arthur Conley 1967 The People in Me The Music Machine 1967 (Sittin’ On) The Dock of the Bay Otis Redding 1968 Abraham, Martin and John Dion 1968 Born to be Wild Steppenwolf 1968 Cry Like a Baby The Box Tops 1968 Eleanor Rigby Ray Charles 1968 Foggy Mountain Breakdown Flatt & Scruggs 1968 Guitar Man Elvis Presley 1968 Hooked On a Feeling B.J. Thomas 1968 I Found a True Love Wilson Pickett 1968 I Put a Spell on You Creedence Clearwater Revival 1968 I Second That Emotion The Miracles 1968 I Walk Alone Marty Robbins 1968 I Wish It Would Rain The Temptations 1968 If I Can Dream Elvis Presley 1968 In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida Iron Butterfly 1968 Journey to the Center of the Mind The Amboy Dukes 1968 Mony Mony Tommy James 1968 Mr. Bojangles Jerry Jeff Walker 1968 Mrs. Robinson Simon & Garfunkel 1968 On the Road Again Canned Heat 1968 People Got to Be Free The Rascals 1968 Shape of Things to Come Max Frost & The Troopers 1968 Summertime Blues Blue Cheer 1968 Sunshine of Your Love Cream 1968 Too Weak to Fight Clarence Carter 1968 With a Little Help From My Friends Joe Cocker 1968 Baby, Baby Don’t Cry The Miracles 1969 Bad Moon Rising Creedence Clearwater Revival 1969 Bluebirds Over the Mountain The Beach Boys 1969 Come Together The Beatles 1969 Crystal Blue Persuasion Tommy James 1969 Galveston Glen Campbell 1969 Get Together The Youngbloods 1969 Good Morning Starshine Oliver 1969 Hair The Cowsills 1969 Honky Tonk Women The Rolling Stones 1969 Hot Fun In the Summertime Sly & The Family Stone 1969 I Want to Take You Higher Sly & The Family Stone 1969 I Want You Back The Jacksons 1969 Is That All There Is? Peggy Lee 1969 It’s Your Thing The Isley Brothers 1969 Judy Blue Eyes Crosby, Stills & Nash 1969 Kozmic Blues Janis Joplin 1969 Maybe Tomorrow Badfinger 1969 Out of Sight, Out of Mind Little Anthony & The Imperials 1969

93 Pinball Wizard The Who 1969 Silver Threads and Golden Needles The Cowsills 1969 Theme From Electric Surfboard Brother Jack McDuff 1969 Wichita Lineman Glen Campbell 1969 Wonderful World, Beautiful People Jimmy Cliff 1969 25 or 6 to 4 Chicago 1970 Cecilia Simon & Garfunkel 1970 Does Anybody Really Know What Chicago 1970 Time It Is? El Condor Pasa Simon & Garfunkel 1970 Evil Ways Santana 1970 For the Good Times Ray Price 1970 Get Ready Rare Earth 1970 Get Up (I Feel Like a) Sex Machine – James Brown 1970 Part 1 I Really Don’t Want to Know Elvis Presley 1970 I Want to Take You Higher Ike & Tina Turner 1970 Indiana Wants Me R. Dean Taylor 1970 It’s Only Make Believe Glen Campbell 1970 Let’s Work Together Canned Heat 1970 Look-Ka Py Py The Meters 1970 Ma Belle Amie The Tee Set 1970 Make Me Smile Chicago 1970 Patches Clarence Carter 1970 Stand By Me Jimmy & David Ruffin 1970 Stoned Love The Supremes 1970 Teach Your Children Crosby, Stills & Nash 1970 The Thrill Is Gone B.B. King 1970 War Edwin Starr 1970 Absolutely Right Five Man Electric Band 1971 Ain’t No Sunshine Bill Withers 1971 All I Ever Need Is You Sonny & Cher 1971 Chicago Graham Nash 1971 Country Road James Taylor 1971 Don’t Knock My Love – Part 1 Wilson Pickett 1971 Freedom Jimi Hendrix 1971 I Don’t Blame You at All The Miracles 1971 I’d Love to Change the World Ten Years After 1971 If Bread 1971 If I Were Your Woman Gladys Knight & The Pips 1971 If You Really Love Me Stevie Wonder 1971 Ko-Ko Joe Jerry Reed 1971 Levon Elton John 1971 Life Is a Carnival The Band 1971 Loving Her Was Easier Kris Kristofferson 1971 Lucky Man Emerson, Lake & Palmer 1971 Maggie May Rod Stewart 1971 Mercy Mercy me (The Ecology) Marvin Gaye 1971 Never My Love The 5th Dimension 1971 One Bad Apple The Osmonds 1971

94 One Less Bell to Answer The 5th Dimension 1971 Put Your Hand in the Hand Ocean 1971 Riders of the Storm The Doors 1971 She’s a Lady Tom Jones 1971 That’s the Way I Feel About Cha Bobby Womack 1971 The Look of Love Isaac Hayes 1971 The Year That Clayton Delaney Died Tom T. Hall 1971 There Goes My Everything Elvis Presley 1971 Treat Her Like a Lady Cornelius Brothers & Sister Rose 1971 Wild Horses The Rolling Stones 1971 You’ve Got a Friend Roberta Flack & Donny Hathaway 1971

C Annotating Instructions for Studies on Formal Organization and Blues-

Based Harmonic Patterns

The goal of the present research is to investigate the evolution of formal organization in popular music from 1958 to 1971. Your role as an annotator is two-fold. Your first task is to associate each song with one of the four possible formal patterns identified by Covach (2005, 2006). In order to help you with this task, an excerpt from Covach’s original discussion is reprinted below:

In most rock music up to the 1970s, four formal patterns occur (see accompanying list). The AABA form is clearly inherited from the thirty-two- bar AABA structure common to Tin Pan Alley pop of the first half of the twentieth century in which each section tends to be eight bars in length. Tunes such as “Over the Rainbow” or “Misty” are good examples of a frequently used formal pattern. Even in the years before rock ’n’ roll, the AABA pattern had begun to exceed the thirty-two-bar template. Sections can be found that are twelve or sixteen bars in length, rather than the standard eight, making for designs that exceed thirty-two bars but retain the AABA pattern. Playing once through the AABA pattern usually does not result in enough music for most situations, and so the question arises regarding how much of the music needs to be repeated to fill out a given arrangement. If the entire AABA form is repeated, this is termed a full reprise; when only part of the AABA form returns, this is called an abbreviated reprise.

TABLE 2.1 Formal Patterns in Rock in the 1950s and 1960s 1. AABA: Thirty-two-bar and more, full or abbreviated reprises 2. Simple verse-chorus (harmonic pattern does not contrast between sections) 3. Contrasting verse-chorus (harmonic pattern does contrast) 4. Simple verse (verses only, no chorus)

Standing in stark contrast with the AABA formal type are the two kinds of verse-chorus forms. The focus of an AABA is always on the verses (or A sections), with the bridge (B section or middle eight) offering contrast to prepare listeners for the return of the verses. In a verse-chorus song, the focus is usually on the chorus with the verses being used to separate chorus statements. When the verse and chorus employ the same harmonic pattern,

97 the result is a simple verse-chorus form; when the harmonic pattern between these sections is different, a contrasting verse-chorus results. When no chorus at all occurs—only a repeated verse—this is called a simple verse form. For representative AABA forms drawn from 1950’s rock ’n’ roll, consider Jerry Lee Lewis’s “Great Balls of Fire,” Fats Domino’s “Blueberry Hill,” and the Everly Brothers’ “All I Have to Do Is Dream.” Good examples of simple verse-chorus structures include “Rock Around the Clock,” “Shake, Rattle, and Roll,” and “Johnny B. Goode.” Contrasting verse-chorus patterns can be found in Berry’s “Rock and Roll Music” and in Holly’s “That’ll Be the Day.” Simple verse forms can be found in Elvis’s “Hound Dog,” and “Heartbreak Hotel,” and in Berry’s “School Day.” (Covach, 2006, pp. 39-40)

The examples mentioned in Covach’s discussion have been provided to you to familiarize yourself with the four different formal patterns. Those examples are presented in the following table. During the annotation process, you are encouraged to use the examples to guide your decisions.

AABA - Jerry Lee Lewis - “Great Balls of Fire” - Fats Domino - “Blueberry Hill” - The Everly Brothers - “All I Have to Do Is Dream” Simple verse-chorus - Bill Haley and the Comets - “Rock Around the Clock” - Bill Haley and the Comets - “Shake, Rattle, and Roll” - Chuck Berry - “Johnny B. Goode” Contrasting verse-chorus - Chuck Berry - “Rock and Roll Music” - Buddy Holly and the Crickets - “That’ll Be the Day” Simple verse - Elvis Presley - “Hound Dog” - Elvis Presley - “Heartbreak Hotel” - Chuck Berry - “School Day”

You can report your annotations in the spreadsheet provided. Note that for the AABA pattern, you are not asked to specify if it contains a full reprise or an abbreviated reprise. In the event where you considered that none of the four formal patterns presented above satisfactorily represent the formal organization of a piece, simply inscribe N/A where you would normally report formal labels. Please do not leave any songs unannotated.

In addition to this initial task, you are asked to identify songs featuring blues-based harmonic

98 realizations. Again, to help you with this task, an excerpt from de Clercq’s introduction to the blues

(2012), as well as Covach’s discussion on the subject (2005) have been reprinted below:

Blues-based harmonic patterns are some of the most common harmonic patterns found within rock music, especially during the early years of rock. Interestingly, blues patterns can be found to act in a number of different roles. Sometimes, a blues progression underpins a verse section. In other cases, it underpins a chorus. We also find situations where both the verse and chorus sections of a single song are built over blues-based harmonies. There are also many instances where – despite a clear blues pattern – it is difficult to judge what section role label (or labels) might be most appropriate for a blues passage.

Because blues patterns act in these different capacities, they provide a window into the ways our perception shifts from one section role to another. Within the rock repertoire, of course, we find a number of different blues patterns – such as the 12-bar and 16-bar blues – and each of these blues patterns has its own way (or ways) of interacting with section roles. In fact, it is possible to see – via changes in various domains – how a given blues structure can be converted from the role of one section to another. One important waypoint in this process is the “hybrid blues,” which is a particular phrase organization that presents ambiguous information with regard to section roles. By recognizing the ambiguous nature of the hybrid blues (and blues patterns in general), we can better understand some of the persistent issues we face when analyzing rock songs. (de Clercq, 2012, p. 123)

* * *

In terms of organizational patterns, one clear model for much rock and roll since the 1950s and up to the present day is the twelve-bar blues. This pattern derives mostly from the kinds of blues played by blues and jazz bands in the years before the Second World War; while solo blues artists were sometimes much freer in terms of phrasing and meter, musicians playing together in a group setting were able to play easily by simply following this twelve-bar scheme. Good examples of this pattern may be found in tracks such as Muddy Waters’s “Train Fare Blues” (1948), Howlin’ Wolf’s “Evil” (1954), and many others.

The pattern is made up of three phases, each four measures in length (see example 6.1) [not included]. The first phrase prolongs the tonic harmony.

99 The second phrase moves to the subdominant for two measures and then returns to the tonic for two measures. The lyrics and melody from the first phrase are often (though not always) repeated in the second, making the second phrase a contrasting restatement of the first. The third phrase moves from dominant harmony through a passing subdominant harmony to tonic, while offering contrasting lyrics and melodic material. The musical effect of these three phrases can be understood as analogous to posing a question, reposing the same question, and then providing an answer, and this scheme serves to unify the three phrases into a single twelve-bar unit that then can be repeated as many times as the musicians see fit. Improvised solos tend to respect this question-question-answer scheme as well, frequently withholding the strongest melodically cadential material for the conclusion of the third phrase.

Big Joe Turner’s “Shake, Rattle, and Roll” provides a nice example of the twelve- bar blues in a rock and roll context. In light of the discussion above, it is worth noting that this tune was a rhythm and blues hit for Turner in 1954 but became a pop hit when Bill Haley and the Comets covered it in 1955. A formal diagram of Turner’s version of “Shake, Rattle, and Roll” can be found in example 6.2 [not included]. Note that after a four-measure introduction vamping on the tonic chord, the remainder of the tune consists of eight times through the twelve-bar blues in the key of E. This song follows the practice of repeating the lyrics to the first phrase in the second, with the third phrase offering the completion of the idea that began in the first two. The song differs somewhat from traditional blues by providing a chorus (the catchy “shake, rattle, and roll”) in which the lyrics remain constant each time it sounds. This verse-chorus scheme based on the twelve- bar blues can be found in many other early rock and roll hits, including Bill Haley and the Comets’ “Rock around the Clock” (1955) and Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode, ” though these songs do not repeat the first-phrase lyrics of the verse in the second phrase. A succession of twelve-bar verses without chorus can be found in Elvis Presley’s “Hound Dog” (1956) and Little Richard’s “Lucille” (1957), among many others. Discussion below will focus on larger formal issues concerning these songs. For present purposes, it is enough to point out that despite a certain amount of variation in the handling of the lyrics and melodic material, a formal scheme consisting of repetitions of the twelve-bar harmonic pattern made up of three four-bar phrases remains constant among all these tracks.

The twelve-bar pattern can itself be modified, leading to eight-bar and sixteen-bar schemes. Example 6.3 [not included] shows Elvis Presley’s “Heartbreak Hotel, ” in which two four-bar phrases replace the three phrases

100 discussed above. In this case, the first phrase is consistent with the twelve-bar version while the second is not. This second phrase can be seen as something of a conflation of the second and third phrases found from the twelve-bar arrangement, with mm. 5 and 6 matching the beginning of phrase 2 while mm. 7 and 8 do not strictly correspond to any pair of measures from the twelve-bar pattern. These last two measures serve to drive the eight-bar pattern to harmonic closure, and in this way can be seen to parallel-at least in function-the last four bars in the twelve-bar scheme. Example 6.4 [not included] shows a sixteen-bar scheme, and a comparison with the twelve-bar version in this instance reveals much clearer parallels. The first phrase of Elvis Presley’s “Jailhouse Rock” expands the usual four measures to eight, while the remainder of the pattern duplicates the second and third phrases of the twelve-bar blues. While the harmonic schemes of these tunes have clear links to the twelve-bar pattern, both “Heartbreak Hotel” and “Jailhouse Rock” break with the question-question-answer lyric pattern of the traditional blues. (Covach, 2005, pp. 66-69, comments in brackets mine)

Songs featuring blues- - Muddy Waters - “Train Fare Blues” based harmonic patterns - Howlin’ Wolf - “Evil” - Big Joe Turner / Bill Haley and the Comets - “Shake, Rattle, and Roll” - Bill Haley and the Comets - “Rock around the Clock” - Chuck Berry - “Johnny B. Goode, ” - Elvis Presley- “Hound Dog” - Little Richard - “Lucille” - Elvis Presley - “Heartbreak Hotel, ” - Elvis Presley - “Jailhouse Rock”

You can report your annotations in the spreadsheet provided by simply indicating blues in the column next to the formal labels. If a song does not feature blues-based harmonic patterns, please leave the cell empty.

101

Bibliography

Bertin-Mahieux, T., Ellis, D.P.W., Whitman, B., & Lamere, P. 2011. The Million Song Dataset. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, pp. 591-96. Miami, FL.

Biamonte, N. 2010. Triadic Modal and Pentatonic Patterns in Rock Music. Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 32, No. 2, 95–110. ———. 2014. Formal Functions of Metric Dissonance in Rock Music. Music Theory Online, Vol. 20, No. 2.

Bimbot, F., Deruty, E., Sargent, G., & Vincent, E. 2012. Semiotic Structure Labeling of Music Pieces: Concepts, Methods and Annotation Conventions. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, pp. 235-40. Porto, Portugal.

Brackett, D. 2014. The Pop, Rock, and Soul Reader: Histories and Debates (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Burgoyne, J.A. 2011. Stochastic Processes and Database-Driven Musicology. PhD diss., McGill University, Canada.

Burgoyne, J.A., Wild, J., & Fujinaga, I. 2011. An Expert Ground-Truth Set for Audio Chord Recognition and Music Analysis. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, pp. 633-38. Miami, FL. Carter, P.S. 2005. Retrogressive Harmonic Motion as Structural and Stylistic Characteristic of Pop-Rock Music. PhD diss., University of Cincinnati, OH.

Caplin, W.E. 1998. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: Oxford University Press. Capuzzo, G. 2009. Sectional Tonality and Sectional Centricity in Rock Music. Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 31, No. 1, 157-74.

Covach, J. 2005. Form in Rock Music: A Primer. In D. Stein (Ed.), Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis, pp. 65-76. New York and Oxford : Oxford University Press.

———. 2006. From ‘Craft’ to ‘Art’: Formal Structure in the Music of the Beatles. In K. Womack & T.F. Davis (Eds.), Reading the Beatles: Cultural Studies, Literary Criticism, and the Fab Four, pp. 37-53. Albany: State University of New York Press.

———. 2010. Leiber and Stoller, the Coasters, and the Dramatic AABA Form. In J. Covach & M. Spicer (Eds.), Sounding Out Pop, pp. 1-17. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. de Clercq, T. 2012. Sections and Successions in Successful Songs: A Prototype Approach to Form in Rock Music. PhD diss., Eastman School of Music, New York. de Clercq, T., & Temperley, D. 2011. A Corpus Analysis of Rock Harmony. Popular Music, Vol. 30,

103 No. 1, 47–70.

———. 2013. Statistical Analysis of Harmony and Melody in Rock Music. Journal of New Music Research. Vol. 2, No. 3, 187-204. de Haas, W. Bas. and Burgoyne, J.A. 2012. Parsing the Billboard Chord Transcriptions. Technical report UU-CS-2012-18, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Doll, C. 2011. Rockin’ Out: Expressive Modulation in Verse-Chorus Form. Music Theory Online, Vol. 17, No. 3. Everett, W. 1997. Swallowed by a Song : Paul Simon's Crisis of Chromaticism. In J. Covach & G.M. Boone (Eds.), Understanding Rock: Essays in Musical Analysis, pp. 113-58. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1999. The Beatles as Musicians: Revolver through the Anthology. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2001. The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry Men through Rubber Soul. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2004. Making Sense of Rock's Tonal Systems. Music Theory Online, Vol.10, No. 4.

———. 2009. Foundations of Rock: From ‘Blue Suede Shoes’ to ‘Suite: Judy Blue Eyes.’ New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Greasley, A. E., & Prior, H.M. 2013. Mixtapes and Turntablism : DJs’ Perspectives on Musical Shape. Empirical Musicology Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, 23-43.

Harte, C.A., Sandler, M.B., Abdallah, S.A. & Gómez, E. 2005. Symbolic Representation of Musical Chords : A Proposed Syntax for Text Annotations. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, pp. 66-71. London, England. Hughes, B. 2011. Harmonic Expectation in Twelve-Bar Blues Progressions. PhD diss., Florida State University, FL. Huron, D., & Ommen, A. 2006. An Empirical Study of Syncopation in American Popular Music, 1890–1939. Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 28, No. 2, 211-31.

Koozin, T. 2011. Guitar Voicing in Pop-Rock Music: A Performance-Based Analytical Approach. Music Theory Online, Vol. 17, No. 3.

Mauch, M., Dixon, S., Harte, C.A., Casey, M. & Fields, B. 2007. Discovering Chord Idioms through Beatles and Real Book Songs. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, pp. 255-58. Vienna, Austria.

Middleton, R. 1990. Studying Popular Music. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Moore, A. 1992. Patterns of Harmony. Popular Music, Vol. 11, No. 1, 73-106.

104 ———. 1995. The So-Called ‘Flattened Seventh’ in Rock. Popular Music, Vol. 14, No. 2, 185-201. ———. 1997. The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Cambridge University Press.

———. 2001. Rock: The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock (2nd Ed.) Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

———. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Music. Farnham, Ashgate. Nieto, O., & Farbood, M.M. 2014. Multiple Annotations and Subjectivity in the Identification of Segmentation Boundaries in Music. Unpublished paper presented at the CogMIR Annual Conference, Canada.

Nobile, D. 2011. Form and Voice-Leading in Early Beatles Songs. Music Theory Online, Vol. 17, No. 3. ———. 2014. A Structural Approach to the Analysis of Rock Music. PhD diss., City University of New York, NY.

Osborn, B. 2013. Subverting the Verse/Chorus Paradigm: Terminally Climatic Forms in Recent Rock Music. Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 35, No. 1, 23-47. Peiszer, E. 2007. Automatic Audio Segmentation: Segment Boundary and Structure Detection in Popular Music. Master’s thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Austria.

Robbins, A. 1999. UNIX in a Nutshell (3rd ed.). Farnham: O’Reilly. Samarotto, F. 2012. The Trope of Expectancy/Infinity in the Music of the Beatles and Others. Unpublished paper presented at the American Musicological Soiety, Society for Music Theory, and the Society for Ethnomusicology Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Serrà, J., Corral, Á., Boguñá, M., Haro, M., & Arcos, J.L. 2012. Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music. Scientific Reports, Vol. 2.

Spicer, M. 2004. (Ac)cumulative Form in Pop-Rock Music. Twentieth Century Music, Vol. 1, No. 1, 29- 64. ———. 2004. Review of Everett 2001. Music Theory Online, Vol. 11, No. 4.

Stephenson, K. 2002. What to Listen for in Rock: A Stylistic Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press. Stoia, N. 2013. The Common Stock of Schemes in Early Blues and Country Music. Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 35, No. 2, 194-234.

Summach, J. 2011. The Structure, Function, and Genesis of the Prechorus. Music Theory Online, Vol. 17, No. 3.

———. 2012. Form in Top-20 Rock Music, 1955-89. PhD diss., Yale University, CT.

Tagg, P. 2009. Everyday Tonality: Towards a Tonal Theory of What Most People Hear. New York and Montreal: Mass Media Scholar's Press.

105 Temperley, D. 2007. The Melodic-Harmonic ‘Divorce’ in Rock. Popular Music, Vol. 26, No. 02, 323- 342.

———. 2011. The Cadential IV in Rock. Music Theory Online, Vol.17, No. 1.

Van de Merwe, P. 1989. Origins of the Popular Style: the Antecedents of Twentieth-Century Popular Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wald, E. 2009. How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

106