Do You Notice When Songs Are Played At The Wrong Tempo?

This started out as a silly argument about beatmatching on another messageboard. My complaint being, that if I have anything more than a passing acquaintance with a song, it sounds almost jarringly... *wrong* when played at a different tempo. (The example there was a version of Bizarre Love Triangle sped up so much as to sound ridiculous.)

I'm not talking about covers or reworks which deliberately take a song into a different place or different mood.

I was searching for a piece of music I know from my childhood. This is approximately the correct speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyWOIKCtjiw

However, when searching, this was the first version that I found:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__lCZeePG48

Played at that tempo, it just sounds schmaltzy and overly sentimental, and strips the majesty and pomp from the piece.

Obviously, that's an extreme example because the instrumentation is quite different (strings instead of brass) but the principle remains.

You can talk about any genre, really. I just thought it was obviously a *thing* since noticeable in genres as diverse as classical and dance music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0AKC3wZdw4

Even this genre? I think I notice a tempo difference between the two tunes here.

I was searching for a piece of music I know from my childhood.

Bach? Your childhood was in the 18th century? :)

Anyway, I would say I do. In classical music, there are sometimes recording that I feel are just downright wrong because the tempo isn't what it should. For instance, for a long time, Naxos used a version of Mozart's 40th Symphony that was way faster than it was supposed to, and I think the first movement lasted for 30-40 seconds shorter in that version than in the more typical versions of it.

Yes, I am 1000 years old.

No, I spent my childhood in churches where a lot of Bach got played.

This doesn't have to just be about classical music, BTW.

I guess I was just trying to say that I find tempo so important in a song, in terms of setting a mood, a groove, or whatever. I find it quite noticable when tempos get f*cked about with in order to facilitate beatmatching, but lots of people don't seem to even notice the change.

The original example you chose wasn't entirely helpful because, as you mentioned yourself, it's such a different arrangement; therefore it's not clear to what extent one's response to it is due to the substitution of strings for horns rather than any difference in tempo.

Anything containing vocals that's sped up/slowed down, even subtly, becomes noticeable because of the change in the sound of the voice/s. I guess it's less obvious with a purely instrumental dance track taken up or down by 5-10 bpm, unless you are very familiar with the original and have the way that sounds imprinted on your brain. I think beatmatching DJs just like the dominion it gives them over the music and are pleased that it's all in sync. It's the same as sampling something and pitch-shifting it to make it loop at a different tempo - there's a tendency to feel pleased with yourself because you've bent something into a different shape and made it work; at that moment you don't really care about what's changed (possibly for the worse), so you may tend to blot it out.

Well, I've been mucking about with CDJs and electronic DJing equipment which seems to be able to change the tempo of a song without mucking about with the pitch (always the problem with doing it on vinyl) - however, it never sounds perfect, especially on a good sound system. So you've got this double problem of something being at the wrong tempo *and* sounding slightly weird and... tinny and crystalised. (I think you might have to be a music geek to notice the sound quality.)

I guess the question is, when you "know" a song, what bit gets imprinted on your brain? Just the melody and general sense? Or the arrangement and the tempo and the pitch and everything? I don't have perfect pitch by any stretch, though I know people who do, and they claim that things played in a different key sound different or "wrong". I wonder if tempo would be a more common thing or less common thing to notice.

Classical scores very rarely nail down a "correct" tempo too strictly in my experience. As for beat-matching, I wouldn't draw a hard or fast rule. The DJ is really making new music out of existing tunes: sometimes it sounds good, sometimes it doesn't. As a general rule of thumb I like the sound of fucking about with existing music, but most DJing doesn't come into that territory I don't think.

I think both parts of 'Strawberry Fields Forever' are played at the wrong tempo to get them to match, but I don't notice it at all even though the feel is totally different. I can hear the difference in the snare, but only because I read about it so I knew where to look

But that was during the recording process - which is a different matter.

(Was it Strawberry Fields? I thought it was Yesterday where the band bit and the orchestral bits were in slightly different keys and tempos, so they slowed down/sped up to get them to match)

But thing is, none of us are familiar with the originally recorded versions to be able to tell.

It's more about familiarity with a bit of music.

I know I've said this elsewhere but I had a tape of the Cocteaus' Victorialand recorded at 33 instead of 45 for about 18 months before I realised my mistake. But it didn't take long for my brain to unlearn the slow version once I'd found out.

when you "know" a song, what bit gets imprinted on your brain?

It may well be both tempo and pitch (and some individuals will be more sensitive to one than the other). But not just pitch in the sense of the broad key, but how it subtly affects timbre (by shifting the frequencies up and down, eg making a hihat that bit more crisp and fizzy if it's sped up, or taking the edge off things if they are slowed down).

I take your point about modern equipment that can speed up or slow down without pitch-shifting. But, as you say, then you're into the area of other artefacts in the processed sound, despite the pitch not having changed.

(Was it Strawberry Fields? I thought it was Yesterday where the band bit and the orchestral bits were in slightly different keys and tempos, so they slowed down/sped up to get them to match)

hmm, I can't say for positive that Yesterday wasn't done like this, but I don't remember it as such.

StrawbFields certainly was: The first half was sped up to fit, and it bugged Lennon forever afterwards.

But thing is, none of us are familiar with the originally recorded versions to be able to tell.

They are out there (I have good versions of both), and it's not impossible for there to be more people now that heard these before the single version proper.

I remember a friend of mine had some completely instrumental electronic record on vinyl, and he never knew at what RPM it was supposed to play. With 33 1/3 it sounded like some pretty cool but rather slow instrumental hip-hop, whereas with 45 it sounded like overtly fast drill'n'bass.

tldr, but I know when I'm mixing I find it a lot easier to start slow and speed up to the next track rather than start fast and slow down. It just sounds wrong beatmatching to something that's slower.

When I used to listen to music radio in the morning the songs sounded faster than normal, I figured this was because my sleep-addled brain was operating slower.

It used to bug me when the versions on the radio were sped up to make the programme more 'frisky', then when you bought it the 7" was plodding by comparison.

"Feel the Need in me" Detroit Emeralds was like that.

When I used to listen to music radio in the morning the songs sounded faster than normal, I figured this was because my sleep-addled brain was operating slower.

I used to notice that, except in my case it was late at night the songs seemed faster, but similarly I attributed it to something related to tiredness affecting perception of the passage of time (and intervals of time, I guess, ie spaces between rhythmic events).

I don't necessarily mind when songs that are mid-paced are sped up, but Bizarre Love Triangle is pretty fast anyway and would sound ridiculous any faster.

It really, really annoys me when DJs actually SLOW THINGS DOWN so they can fit them into a set.

it always drives me nuts when a song's tempo is changed to a really small but perceptible degree. but then, i'm a drummer so maybe it's easier for me to notice, i dunno.

I'm always irritating my friends by pointing out sped up songs in films. Why does this happen so frequently? Is there some royalty arrangement whereby you pay more for the longer you use music?

I don't know about that, but the most obvious reason for doing it is to make the music fit the exact length of the scene.

I've *never* noticed this on radio, films or indeed anywhere, and to be honest am a bit shocked. (I guess this makes my answer to the original question 'no')

It used to bug me when the versions on the radio were sped up to make the programme more 'frisky', then when you bought it the 7" was plodding by comparison.

"Feel the Need in me" Detroit Emeralds was like that.

Weren't there two different recordings of that song - from '72 & '77 - and maybe that explains the variation?

I have some records I only play on 45, and think they sound dumb on 33. A TRZTN or whatever his name is 7" for instance. And also I only play Eddy Grant's "Electric Avenue" on 45.

My friend plays a couple of 45s exclusively on 33. Um. A Joe Tex song that sounds monstrous. And . . . what's the other one? Some country song, maybe. Tom T. Hall or something.

And then some records I consistently pitch up, even for mixtapes. I do that for a Beat Happening 7". Obviously one does this to dance records. I don't usually think they sound weird.

And Zimmmerman's Scott Joplin goes faster if I've gotta listen to it.

I can often notice if something is pitched up, but I won't necessarily care.

better at the 'wrong' speed

more deejay ramblings but yeah.

Classical scores very rarely nail down a "correct" tempo too strictly in my experience.

iirc contemporary performances of Beethoven pieces use different tempos than Beethoven indicated. So for instance the way we're used to hearing the 5th is different from what he had wanted, the fast bits were to be not as fast, and the slow bits not as slow.

There is no 100% 'right' speed to play any piece of classical music unless it's explicitly indicated. I mean obviously they are guidelines but being able to dictate the speed and momentum of a piece is a key part of a conductor's interpretation in many cases.

My friend plays a couple of 45s exclusively on 33. Um. A Joe Tex song that sounds monstrous. And . . . what's the other one? Some country song, maybe. Tom T. Hall or something.

lol canned heat "going to the country"

Holy shit, you're right! He's nuts about slowin that down.

I just love him.

In answer to the thread Q, yeah, I notice. I notice that the pitch is different.

that the pitches are

That's some Gordon Lish shit right there:

"In answer to the thread Q, yeah, I notice. I notice that the pitch is different. That the pitches are."

all our secrets are the same, to be fair

Wait. What are our secrets? I mean, you don't have to air them out, but I don't understand.

Are you a horrible chronic depressive?

its the title of a gordon lish novel bryce

http://www.texasvirtualschool.org/image%20library/AA039576-teacher%20copy.jpg

Oh, I'm not that up on his bibliography. It's just some list at the beginning of a book you're about to read.

But this board! Are you telling me to go to school! DID YOU JUST SCHOOL ME! Goddamn.

Lish should've added the "to be fair."

i was making fun of myself for acting like a teacher by saying "bryce"