Equivocalism, regarding music?

[DJ_Schoolcraft]

Hello,

Merriam-Webster defines the word "equivocal" as subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse. I don't know if its a term that's meant for music, but the part that says "subject to two or more interpretations" interests me.

Certain songs have elements that make me misinterpret where measures begin and end. I don't know what to call it, so I decided to call it "equivocalism" for now (until someone can explain this for me, and if this is something new, i totally call 1st dibs on researching it. the credit is MINE )



Here's an example: (Maybe Uppermost titled it as so because he knows about it...?)

The first two beats of the 9th measure of the clip you hear is supposed to be the beginning of another set of 8 measures. However, I always hear it as 2 random beats (it probably has to do with the highpass on the bass and the crash on the 3rd beat), which makes me hear the following measures 2 beats behind, until the following breakdown. The entire song still makes sense- I just hear a different rhythm. However, it's annoying to hear the song incorrectly, and to arrive at the breakdown 2 beats early.

Another track that has this effect is David K's track . Beginning at 1:31 or so in the track, there's a bit of a "woo" pad sound on every 3rd beat. The problem is that I interpret that as occuring on the first beat. I hear it correctly for about a measure, and then my perception shifts to hearing it incorrectly. I think it has something to do with the synth chord pluck that occurs on the final 16th note of every measure. It's a lovely track, but it's almost impossible to listen to it when I can't listen to it correctly.



Other tracks that I have this problem with are:
It has something to do with the weird crashes, sweeps, and scratchy sound effects. They occur at erratic times.

Junkie XL - Today (the full version isnt on youtube, sorry.) The guitar riff at the beginning confuses me for the next minute or so. The first two 16th notes are supposed to be pickup notes, but I hear it as the first two 16th notes of a measure. From then on I interpret the rest of the introduction incorrectly, until the bass and chords come in.

I'm pretty sure Beyonce's "Single Ladies" has an 'equivocal' property as well. I don't think I've heard it correctly yet.

(edit: I should start finding some more songs that contain the property im trying to talk about in a moment.)





The reason I started this topic is because I'd like to get this explained. Can anybody help me out?
Thanks

Regards,
-Schoolcraft

[llatham]

Hello,

Certain songs have elements that make me misinterpret where measures begin and end. I don't know what to call it, so I decided to call it "equivocalism" for now (until someone can explain this for me, and if this is something new, i totally call 1st dibs on researching it. the credit is MINE )

I don't know where you are, but I very rarely hear the word "equivocal" used in conversation, or even in academic or technical articles (which I come across, being an educator at a university).

The most familiar use is when someone says something is "unequivocally" - meaning there is but one correct answer, not multiple interpretations.

Everyone who's remotely familiar with music realizes there are multiple interpretations on many, many, many levels. The usual term is "ambiguity".

For example, the beginning of The Beatle's "She's a Woman" in unequivocally in 4/4, but it is ambiguous as to where the beat is until the band enters. At the top, with the guitar - the guitar is actually on the after-beats, but since it's the only thing you hear at the top, your ear tells you at first it is on the beat. A smiliar thing happens with The Cars' "Since You're Gone" with the "taps" at the beginning (which again sound like they begin on 1, but are really upbeats) and The Police's "Spirits in the Material World" where the synth part again sounds like it's on the beats, but turns out to be on the after beats. In fact, even when the band enters, which is the beat and which is the down beat is still hard to figure out - only the vocal parts have a strong "on the beat" feel - but everything else is not.

Another interesting example is Rush's "Jacob's Ladder" where the Vocal part is obviously in 4/4, and the musical accompaniment is in alternating 5 and 6 (or could be 6 and 7 - memory is failing me now).

But even with the simplest things - is it one measure of 4/4, or two measures of 2/4? Heck, you never even really know if someone is playing 8th notes or 16th notes until you know what unit *they* are counting, or until you see the sheet music.

There's a lot of ambiguity in music. Composers use it all the time. It's one of the things that keeps us interested in it. So unfortunately, I think your term might come off to many as a "duh" thing, and it won't be given much other thought.

But you're always free to make up terms about music and hope they stick.

Best,
Steve