SONG ANALYSIS ESSAY by Andrew Kennedy Topic: Comparison of Teardrop by Massive Attack and Teardrop by Jose Gonzalez Word length total: 1900 words aprox World length excluding intro: 1300 words approx Two teardrops It’s always interesting when an artist chooses to reinterpret a song in their own way. Often it’s a train wreck but sometimes the cover has the potential to transcend the original. Such was the case with Jeff Buckley’s version of Hallelujah, Gary Jules version of Mad World or Matt Corby’s version of Lonely Boy. To cover a song like Teardrop by Massive attack, widely regarded as a 90’s trip hop classic, would be a daunting prospect, especially considering the number of covers that have already been done. However, in 2007, Jose Gonzalez gave it the indie folk treatment, squeezing it through the filter of his own unique sound. What emerged was both entirely recognizable and boldly distinct, as I will discuss shortly. Perhaps the most obvious difference from the original was the animated music video which accompanied the song. Featuring a visual retelling of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah tale combined with unsettling pagan imagery, the video turns the tables on the traditional story by depicting God as the bad guy and the cities inhabitants as innocent victims. At first glance, this might seem to be completely unrelated to Massive Attack’s music video which features an animatronic baby singing inside the womb. But in fact, I think there’s a profound link. While the meaning behind Massive Attack’s lyrics and music video have never been made fully clear, fans have speculated that underlying theme relates to abortion. Lyrics love love is a verb sung by the fetus boldly declaring it’s love for it’s mother followed later in the clip by dramatic lightning effects outside the womb and the lyrics stumbling into the dark imply an unhappy ending. This theme of being betrayed and/or destroyed by ones parent flows through Jose Gonzalez music video as well. In his video, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, God’s children, are also destroyed by their parent. In both cases, the music videos lull the viewer into a sympathetic bond with the subject, making the eventual ending more dramatic. What I’m interested in is how each artist has used musical techniques to communicate these complex narrative and emotional concepts. -------------------------------------------------- The idea of a singing baby floating in the womb sounds comical, but in this clip, it’s darkly fascinating. The muted colours, murky lighting and graceful camera movements make it hard to look away for the almost five minute length of the song. Likewise, the music underneath contributes to this effect in it’s own way. From the first moment, we’re introduced to a slow 16 beat on the drums that’s been dulled and lightly distorted. More importantly, the beat represents a musical version of a human heartbeat which pumps throughout the song. Also interesting is the vinyl crackling and background noise which, to me, compliments the tiny particles floating in amniotic fluid which we see on screen. Next, (0:11) a thin twangy harpsichord riff fades in for four bars and is joined by the third important part in the song, a distant lush piano playing double octave bass notes (0:29). These three core instruments (drums, harpsichord & piano) are the most significant in creating the gentle floating feeling that we hear in the track. I believe it’s done in several ways. Firstly, the arpeggiated harpsichord pedal riff (Fig 1) does not shift with the piano’s bass notes (Fig 2), instead, it floats unchanged over the top, combining with each bass note to imply different chords. Figure 1 – Arpeggiated harpsichord Pedal Riff Notes Riff Notes - | A E A D A D E| A E A D A D E| A E A D A D E| A E A D A D E| Bass Notes - |A |G |D |A | Technically , the chords that result from this collision are Asus4, G6/9 (no third), Dadd9 (no third), and Asus4 again. However, as these sounds are being created by a moving melody and not sustained notes, I think it’s probably simpler to refer to them as A, Gadd9, Dadd9, A. Suffice to say, there is enough harmonic tension within these sounds to contribute to the floating and slightly unresolved feeling that I’ve identified. Secondly, the composers have manipulated the structure of the song to include uneven numbers of bars in certain sections; Piano instrumental (Fig 2), Break 1, Chorus 3 & Tag. By doing this, the listener is never quite permitted to “lock in” to the structure and know what’s coming, also reflecting the visual mystery unfolding in the music video (see appendix for full chart). Figure 2 – even and uneven bar groupings Intro Even bars Sound effects |Drums |Drums |Drums |Drums | |Asus (pedal) | | | | Piano instrumental |A |Gadd9 |Dadd9 | |A |Gadd9 |Dadd9 | Uneven bars In his cover version of Teardrop, Jose Gonzalez was aiming for a different target, an ancient tale from another part of the world. Perhaps the first musical feature that draws the listeners ear in that direction is his choice of guitar tuning, and even the choice of a nylon guitar itself. Instead of the usual E, A, D, G, B, E, he has chosen D, A, D, A, B, E which gives us two D’s and two A’s (a perfect 5th) droning below the melody in a similar way to many eastern and middle eastern styles of music. Normally this would be done on Sitar or Sarangi but the effect of using a classical guitar on western ears is enough to transport one to a different mindset. To the untrained ear, the rest of his version may sound very similar to the original version. Indeed, the melody and lyrics are almost identical, however, there are some subtle and important differences that contribute Jose’s unique version. Structurally, Jose has employed both even and uneven numbers of bars for various sections (as in the original), but he has used them in totally different places (see appendix), which perhaps helps shift the listener away from their familiarity with the original version. Jose also introduces the arpeggiated pedal riff on the top three strings of the guitar (fig 3) constructed from the same three notes as the original; A, D & E. However, there are two significant differences; he has changed the specific pattern of these notes and he’s used them on top of different chords in a different key. By superimposing a new key on existing notes he has created a recognizable link from the original but with a different effect on the ear. The combination of D, E, & A in bars 1, 2 & 4 of the verse (fig 4) could be interpreted as Dadd9(no third), however, I believe it’s simpler to interpret it as D5 because the E note doesn’t contribute strongly to the arpeggiated chord sound. Likewise, the notes G, A, D, E in the third bar of the verse could be interpreted as G6/9(no third) but for the same reasons I believe it’s simpler to call it D5/G. Interpreting the chords from a D5 “point of view” is also a nod to the 5th drone sound that dominates Jose’s arrangement. Figure 3 – Verse guitar tab, Jose Gonzalez Teardrop D D A D D D A D D D A D E D A D D D A D D D A D D D A D E D A D E|-------------------------0-------|-------------------------0-------| B|-3-------3-------3---------------|-3-------3-------3---------------| A|-----0-------0-------0-------0---|-----0-------0-------0-------0---| D|---0---0---0---0---0---0---0---0-|---0---0---0---0---0---0---0---0-| A|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| E|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| D G A G D G A G D G A G E G A G D D A D D D A D D D A D E D A D E|-------------------------0-------|-------------------------0-------| B|-3-------3-------3---------------|-3-------3-------3---------------| A|-----0-------0-------0-------0---|-----0-------0-------0-------0---| D|---5---5---5---5---5---5---5---5-|---0---0---0---0---0---0---0---0-| A|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| E|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| Figure 4 – chord chart excerpt, Jose Gonzalez Teardrop Intro |D5 |D5 |D5 |D5 | Figure 4 Verse 1 represents |D5 |D5 |D5/G |D5 | this line |D5 |D5 |D5/G |D5 | Chorus 1 |D5/F |D5/G |D |D | Another subtle trick that Jose Gonzalez has employed in his version is in bar 3 (0:19) of the verse. Here, the G bass notes don’t fall directly on the beat, rather they fall a semiquaver later which softens the chord transition. By doing this, the listener’s is not distracted by the harmonic structure and can focus easily on vocal melody instead. Even Jose’s foreign accent and unusual pronunciation of the word fearless help draw the listener to another time and place. In the music video up to this point we see a sunrise over the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah which morphs into the angry face of God at 0:51 (Break 1). To reflect this dramatic visual, the guitar playing becomes more aggressive making use of the lower strings and sharper attack. It is also joined by a muffled kick/snare percussion sound which helps support the guitar. As the narrative in the music video continues to unfold, the music changes in intensity to suit each scene. At 1:36 (Break 2) as the animals begin to flee the cities in the face of impending doom, the suspended dominant chords higher up the neck of the guitar help to build tension into Verse 3.