Society for Music Theory

Using Drumbeats to Theorize Meter in Quintuple and Septuple Grooves

Author(s): SCOTT J. HANENBERG
Source: Music Theory Spectrum , FALL 2020, Vol. 42, No. 2 (FALL 2020), pp. 227-246
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Music Theory

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27141599

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press and Society for Music Theory are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Music Theory Spectrum

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Using Drumbeats to Theorize Meter in Quintuple and Septuple Grooves
scott j. hanenberg

This article explores common approaches taken by drummers when playing music with a quintuple
or septuple groove. Based on original analysis from a corpus of 350 songs released during the half-
century between 1967 and 2017, I show that these grooves fall into three categories: undifferentiated,
in which the drum/s and/or cymbal/s that mark each attack do not change in the course of the
groove; backbeat variants, based on the alternation of kick and snare attacks, as in the common-time
backbeat; and polymetric grooves comprising two distinct metric cues, often pitting the drums
against the rest of the band.

Keywords: drums, rhythm, meter, rock music, corpus, analysis, undifferentiated, backbeat,
polymeter, polymetric grooves.

I
rregular-meter grooves define the sonic palettes of much
rock music. While recent scholarship has demonstrated
the analytical value of studying metrically irregular rock
music, common subdivision patterns and the instrumental
cues that express them remain undertheorized. Irregular
grooves may create relatively unfamiliar metric structures, com-
plicating widely held assumptions about meter. To better un-
derstand irregular rock grooves, I examine drumbeat
articulations, which project recurring rhythmic patterns.
However, the resulting groupings and sub-groupings can be
metrically ambiguous. Thus, a central concern in this article is
theorizing how to interpret drumbeat practice. I focus this
work by restricting my analysis to the two most common irreg-
ular cardinalities—quintuple and septuple. After outlining my
research method and defining a corpus of 350 songs released
during the half-century between 1967 and 2017, I discuss the
broadest trends within the corpus and explain which drumbeat
features I prioritize in my analysis. The main part of this article
explores three strategies for drumbeat patterns—undifferenti-
ated articulations, backbeat variants, and polymetric interac-
tions. Before considering the makeup of the corpus, some
explication of each strategy and relevant terminology is in
order; but first, I share my conception of meter and groove in
this article.
assumptions and definitions
Recent scholarship and popular-press transcriptions alike
evince a high degree of intersubjective agreement on the basics
of how meter works in rock music, but in the context of less
conventional grooves this agreement quickly evaporates. One
uncontroversial point is the pervasiveness of the standard rock
backbeat—defined by snare-drum articulations on beats 2 and
4—which occurs in an overwhelming majority of rock songs
(readers who are unfamiliar with this archetypal drumbeat may
wish to look ahead to Ex. 5).1 Even though most rock songs
are not written down during their composition or production,
musically literate performers and listeners almost uniformly
represent the beat level using quarter notes, and I agree that
the identification of a salient tactus with a quarter-note beat
level is useful in representing rock meter.2 As such, I employ
time signatures as descriptive tools, acknowledging that meter
is always more complex than the information conveyed by a
time signature.3 When I identify or transcribe a groove in, for
example, 54 time, I mean to say two things. First, that there is a
salient cyclic repetition with a cardinality of five. Second, that
when I count along with the five-pulse cardinality of this cycle,
I am counting the quarter-note beat that corresponds to the
tactus level at which, in a 44 groove, I would expect to find a
snare backbeat.
There are often several plausible transcriptions of a groove,
and one aspect that differentiates these interpretations is the
choice of meter. Consider, for instance, two transcriptions of
the same groove, one in 74 , the other alternating measures of 44
and 34 . For my purposes, there is no difference between these
situations; both represent the same cardinality (a seven-beat
cycle) and the same beat level (the quarter note). In this article,
I often represent the internal structure of a cyclic pattern using
integers enclosed within parentheses rather than a time signa-
ture. For example, the 74 case just described is represented as
(4,3) (whole note followed by a dotted-half note) or (2,2,3)
(two half notes followed by a dotted-half note). Likewise, to
draw attention to rhythmic cues at a lower level, I might make
a distinction between (2,2,2,1) (three half notes followed by a
quarter note) and (4,4,3,3) (at the eighth-note level, two half
1 See Tamlyn (1998, 54–60), Mauch and Dixon (2012, 1 and 4–5), and
Biamonte (2014 [6.1]).
2 The prevalence of the quarter note as the standard measure of a beat in
rock grooves is supported by countless published transcriptions, e.g., The
Beatles Complete Scores (1993). In general, when I speak of hierarchical lev-
els, I follow Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983, 18ff.).
3 On the independence of meter and time signature, see Hasty (1997, 5–6)
and Cohn (2019).

227

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 228 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM
notes followed by two dotted-quarter notes).4 A second source
of ambiguity concerns grooves that can be represented by ei-
ther a 74 or a 78 time signature. The issue here arises from the
imprecise distinction between a fast groove and a “double-
time” groove, or between a slow groove and a “half-time”
groove.5 My assessments of tactus level are principally influ-
enced by two factors. First, tempo is always a guiding factor,
indicated in each transcription. In this article, most grooves
have a tactus in the range of 80–200 beats per minute, and this
accords with extant scholarship on rock meter.6 Second, trends
in drumbeat patterns are often decisive in my assessments of
tactus level, especially in the context of backbeat variants,
where comparisons to the standard rock backbeat shape my lis-
tening habits. I offer further discussion of the role of drum
articulations below.
We can now turn to the term groove as I employ it in this
article. For inclusion in the corpus, I require that a groove con-
tains at least two consecutive measures that can be parsed in
the same quintuple or septuple meter.7 This limitation
excludes isolated irregular measures (e.g., a 74 measure arising
from a deleted beat at the end of a 44 passage), in which the
drum pattern is more likely to modify the surrounding meter
than to represent a conventional approach to playing in the ir-
regular meter. Most grooves in the corpus maintain their
meters for more than two measures, but even those with only
two consecutive measures can establish the stability (or poten-
tial stability) of a groove.8 Within longer passages in an irregu-
lar meter, the meter is often articulated in two or more related
ways. I count such cases as comprising multiple distinct
grooves, provided that each groove spans at least two measures.
One unfortunate consequence of the requirement for consecu-
tive measures is the omission of many irregular grooves based
on alternating meters (e.g., 68 þ 58 or 44 þ 78 ). While such exam-
ples do form grooves, they are not properly quintuple or septu-
ple for the purposes of this study.
In view of the considerable amount of extant metric theory
relevant to this article, I offer a brief glossary of relevant terms,
4 This and related types of Arabic-numeral and parenthesis notation are
discussed in Gotham (2015, [2.5–2.6]).
5 A typical 44 half-time groove in rock is most often indicated by a drumbeat
with a single snare-drum articulation on beat 3. Double-time grooves in 44
time involve snare articulations on the second halves of all four beats. For
more on analyzing half- and double-time grooves, see de Clercq (2016).
6 See Biamonte’s (2014, [6.1]) depiction of the standard backbeat in the
range of 80–160 bpm; Attas (2015), with examples in the range of 104–
163 bpm; and Capuzzo (2018), with 80–160 bpm indications for the
quarter note and dotted-quarter note. For a more general discussion of
tempo and tactus, see London (2012, 25–47).
7 I use “irregular groove” to refer to the quintuple and septuple examples
under consideration and, on occasion, to a broader collection of grooves
with uncommon cardinalities.
8 A well-known example is The Beatles’ “All You Need Is Love” (1967,
0:08), in which two measures of 74 give way to 44 . The two 74 measures are
sufficient to establish the irregular groove, which I can imagine continuing
further.
This content downloaded from
123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 (2020)
closing with definitions for the three drumbeat strategies at the
heart of this study.
Isochrony: Isochrony describes the spacing in time of suc-
cessive rhythmic articulations. When attacks are evenly spaced,
the resulting succession is isochronous. When attacks are un-
evenly spaced, the succession is non-isochronous. Because the
beat is the most salient metric level in a listener’s embodied
connection to a meter, isochronous beats require less
“metering” than their non-isochronous counterparts and thus
afford more immediate, automatic entrainment.9
Platonic Successions: Scott Murphy describes two catego-
ries of “temporally ordered succession[s] of contiguous
durations” that “either [begin] with a series of one or more
threes and [end] with a series of one or more twos, or vice
versa.”10 In Platonic-trochaic successions, the duration of the
initial series (the “run”) exceeds that of the second series (the
“comma”), whereas Platonic-iambic successions invert this re-
lationship.11 Murphy demonstrates that Platonic-trochaic suc-
cessions are more common than Platonic-iambic ones across a
variety of meters and rhythmic categories.
Continuation: Christopher Hasty employs this term (in
tandem with its counterpart, “beginning”) to denote “a feeling
that [a given] articulation continues a process initiated with
the beginning of the [prior] sound, [which] is still present, ac-
tive, and expanding.”12 The feeling Hasty describes aligns with
my own experience of listening to snare-drum backbeats. I ex-
tend Hasty’s terminology, identifying double continuations—
the second and third articulations within three-part groups,
typically marked by the snare drum. Double continuations
should not be confused with Hasty’s “deferred continuation”:
in the former, the feeling of continuation is established imme-
diately by the first snare hit, then extended or repeated by the
second; in the latter, the first continuation is retrospectively
undermined by the second.
Undifferentiated Articulations: Here, the drum/s and/or
cymbal/s that mark each attack do not change in the course of
the groove. There are two types of undifferentiated articula-
tions. In isochronous undifferentiated articulations, the
attacks are evenly spaced (e.g., attacks on beats 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5 of each measure in 54 ). In non-isochronous undifferentiated
articulations, the attacks are unevenly spaced (e.g., attacks on
9 Edward Large has written extensively on entrainment. See Large and
Jones (1999), Large (2001, 174), Large and Palmer (2002), and Large
(2008, 192–94).
10 Murphy (2016, [1.3]).
11 Murphy’s work builds on Cohn (2016). Cohn focuses on commas of two-
pulse units, which reconcile runs of three-pulse units with an underlying
duple framework. Murphy generalizes the logic of such successions by ad-
mitting cases in which the two- and three-pulse aspects of comma and
run are inverted. Below I analyze many successions that contain durations
of four pulses at the same level as durations of three (e.g., [3,3,4]), whereas
Murphy deals only with twos and threes. Because four-pulse groups nec-
essarily divide as (2,2) under Murphy’s system, our analyses do not
conflict.
12 Hasty (1997, 105).
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves
beats 1 and 4 of each measure in 54 ).13 “Undifferentiated” refers
to the instrument/s that articulate the pattern, not to the
resulting metric interpretation (i.e., a 58 groove with a hi-hat at-
tack on every eighth note does not imply a metric subdivision
of [1,1,1,1,1]).
Backbeat Variants: These patterns are based on the alterna-
tion of kick and snare articulations, as observed in the common-
time backbeat.14 In irregular meters, the resulting patterns are
either non-isochronous (e.g., [3,3,2,2]) or include double-
continuation structures in the snare drum (i.e., kick–snare–
snare). The presence of a double continuation may form part of
a larger pattern (e.g., the first three beats in a measure of 74 ) or
may itself fill the entire repeating pattern through non-
isochrony (e.g., as a [3,3,4] expression of a quintuple meter).
Polymetric Grooves: Most often, backbeat variants and
undifferentiated articulations express the same subdivisional
structure as the rest of the band, or the two correspond closely
enough that any discrepancies are heard as syncopations.
Sometimes, however, we encounter situations in which one or
more instrumental parts suggest a meter entirely distinct from
that of the drum kit; hence my identification of this third cate-
gory.15 The grooves in this category exhibit various degrees of
metric conflict—some listeners may feel a strong preference for
a particular metric interpretation of a given example. For my
purposes it is sufficient that a groove affords entrainment to two
interpretations, regardless of the relative strength of each.
methodological considerations
This article is a corpus study. The grooves considered here
share several features and are bounded by certain restrictions.
Necessarily, each song in the corpus contains at least one
groove that involves both a repeating pattern on the drums
and a quintuple or septuple meter; in most cases, these two
elements support one another.16 My analysis focuses on
grooves in which at least one instrumental layer can be tran-
scribed in 54 , 58 , 165 , 74 , 78 , or 167 . Passages with a quintuple or sep-
tuple cycle at the half-note level (or higher) were generally not
considered because of drum parts that employ the familiar
backbeat, but there are some exceptions. For example, I in-
clude passages with an ambiguous tactus (i.e., a groove that
affords either a slow irregular quarter-note cycle or a half-time
interpretation with the irregular cardinality at the half-note
level) and those that involve a polymeter (e.g., a five-beat osti-
nato and/or harmonic rhythm against a two-and-a-half-
measure 44 drumbeat). I found no examples in either cardinality
that implied a thirty-second-note pulse level. Another consid-
eration in selecting examples concerns the issue of genre.
13 I use the term “undifferentiated” in Hanenberg (2018, 108).
14 The term “backbeat variant” is synonymous with Osborn’s (2017, 57)
“backbeat deformation.”
15 My use of “polymeter” and “polymetric” follows London (2012, 66–67).
16 I make no distinction between the acoustic drum kit and electronic drums.
Given the role of technology in recent record production, any such dis-
tinction is difficult to draw.
This content downloaded from
123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
229
I have focused here on rock, broadly conceived.17 The songs
collected for this article come from various sources and include
several additions not found in the literature I consulted.18
broad trends in the corpus
The 350 songs of the corpus represent the work of 157 bands
and artists and include 638 distinct quintuple or septuple
grooves. Well over half of the songs analyzed (206 of 350)
contain only a single quintuple or septuple groove; about an-
other fifth (seventy-one) contain two. Songs by metal and pro-
gressive rock bands like Dream Theater, Genesis, and Tool
contain more distinct grooves on average. In one case, I ana-
lyzed twelve quintuple or septuple grooves in a single song—
Tool’s “The Grudge.” The analysis that follows primarily con-
cerns the individual grooves and not entire songs. In this sec-
tion, I comment on some general aspects of the corpus,
considering chronological trends and the prevalence of differ-
ent meters and drumbeat archetypes. It should be borne in
mind that the figures that follow are not necessarily representa-
tive of all rock music.
Example 1 shows the chronology of grooves in the corpus,
from 1967 to 2017.19 The late 1970s and the 2000s are best
represented in the corpus, whereas I found relatively few
examples from the late 1980s. It is also worth considering
which bands and artists are most represented in the corpus;
Example 2 lists those with ten or more distinct grooves.
The two most robust parameters I employ to uncover
trends in drumbeat patterns are metric interpretation
(expressed by time signatures) and drumbeat archetype—
undifferentiated articulations, backbeat variants, and polymet-
ric grooves. Example 3 shows the percentage breakdown of the
corpus according to each parameter. The chart in Example
3(a) groups quintuple meters on the right-hand side and sep-
tuple on the left. In the broadest sense, the two cardinalities
receive nearly even representation, but significant distinctions
emerge when we consider hierarchical levels.20 Grooves
17 My understanding of rock follows Gracyk (1996) and aligns with much
music-theoretical writing on the subject—e.g., Moore (2001, 3–4),
Stephenson (2002, xiv), Biamonte (2010, 95), Temperley (2011, [1.5]),
and Attas (2015, 275). For further discussion, see Fabbri (1982), Negus
(1999), McLeod (2001), and Holt (2007).
18 My sources include Rosenberg (2011), Biamonte (2014), Hanenberg
(2018), Temperley (2018), several Billboard magazine lists, the Rolling
Stone “500 Greatest Songs of All Time,” the Wikipedia pages on
“Quintuple Meter” and “Septuple Meter,” and several informal online lists
and discussion boards. Due to the large number of songs considered, a full
listing in this article is impractical. Interested readers are invited to contact
the author for the details of the corpus.
19 I use a rolling three-year average in representing this data for ease of
legibility.
20 In some grooves the tactus level is ambiguous. My judgments of tactus are
based on tempo, harmonic rhythm, and standards of drumbeat practice in
regular meters. In Ex. 3, ambiguous entries count as a half point toward
each potential category, so as not to skew the data by overrepresenting
these examples.
 230 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 42 (2020)

25

20

15

10

0
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
example 1. Chronology of irregular grooves in the corpus; three-year rolling average

is

ad
pa

K
d
h

l
r

e
oo
te

re

ea
us

es

U
he
ap
ea

T
T

D
en
R
Z

io
Th

ne

ul

ad
k

ef
i
an

up
am

R
t
Fr

ra
rc
re

G
Po
D

Grooves Songs

example 2. Bands and artists with ten or more grooves in the corpus

analyzed in 54 account for over two thirds of all quintuple
examples, and nearly one third of the entire corpus. Example
3(b) shows the prevalence of each archetype. Backbeat variants
are the most common by a substantial margin, followed by
undifferentiated patterns.21
By cross-referencing meter and drumbeat archetype, we
find further connections between the two modes of categoriza-
tion. Example 4 shows the correlations as a 100 percent
stacked bar graph with quintuple meters on the left and
21 As with examples with an ambiguous tactus, complex patterns are some-
times counted in more than one category.
septuple on the right. Within this corpus, drummers prefer
backbeat-variant patterns for septuple-meter grooves, whereas
undifferentiated drumbeats are nearly as common as backbeat
variants in quintuple meters.
a concise model of drum-kit functions
Before detailing the prevalence of different drumbeat patterns,
I offer thoughts of a more general nature on the functions of
the drum kit and the roles typically played in rock grooves by
each drum, cymbal, or group thereof.

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves 231

35%
Undifferentiated
Polymetric
55% Backbeat

10%

example 3. Breakdown of grooves in the corpus according to meter and drumbeat archetype. (a) quintuple and septuple meters.
(b) prevalence of each archetype

100% of the drum kit is expressed in virtuosic drum solos, in which

meter can be highly destabilized and even abandoned alto-
90%
gether. At a deeper level than the meter, the third function of
80% the drums is to articulate musical form. Two essential strate-
gies are changes of groove (whether subtle, as in the variation
70%
of a kick-drum pattern, or striking, as in a shift from straight
60% to swung time) and drum fills; both techniques typically align
with the boundaries of formal sections or phrases. The fourth
50%
function of the drum kit is to highlight the rhythm of another
40% part of the ensemble. For instance, big-band jazz drummers
often play along with horn shots on the snare drum and cym-
30%
bals, while rock and pop drummers frequently support the bass
20% part of a groove with the kick drum.
Within the first function—meter articulation—different
10% drums, cymbals, and groups thereof function at particular hier-
0%
archical levels.24 The standard organization of these elements
5/4 5/8 5/16 7/4 7/8 7/16 varies between genres. For example, the articulation of the
Undifferentiated Polymetric Backbeat
backbeat by the snare drum is a defining feature of rock music,
whereas in jazz the same role is traditionally assigned to the
example 4. Correlation of each drumbeat archetype with each closing of the hi-hat cymbals with the foot pedal. My remarks
meter within the corpus in what follows primarily concern rock, in keeping with the
corpus at hand. Furthermore, these remarks concern multi-
The drum kit has at least four distinct rhythmic-metric drum textures. Any element of the drum kit can articulate an
undifferentiated pattern.
functions, each of which directs listener attention in a particu-
If the snare backbeat in 44 is understood to occupy the half-
lar way.22 The first of these functions, and the most relevant
measure level, lower hierarchical levels are typically articulated
for our purposes, is to convey the meter. This function is in-
by the hi-hats or ride cymbal (whether in quarter notes, eighth
voked when one speaks of the drums as a “timekeeper.”
notes, or sixteenth notes).25 Occasionally, the toms can assume
Within an established meter, the second function is to articu-
late a rhythmic paradigm (tresillo, bossa nova, etc.) or to stimu-
and Toussaint (2013, 146). On the interactions of syncopated rhythms
late rhythmic interest, such as through syncopated against an underlying meter in rock, see Temperley (1999).
embellishments.23 At its most extreme, this rhythmic function 24 The discussion that follows is informed by Iyer (2002), Osborn (2010),
and Biamonte (2014).
22 This is to say nothing of the extensive timbral functions of the drum kit, 25 As a marker of hierarchical structure, the backbeat is unusual for marking
its potential to contribute to the pitch content of a song via tuned drums, the midpoint of each cycle of its particular level (that of the half note).
and hermeneutic uses such as musical onomatopoeia or referencing the The backbeat thus not only articulates half-note regularity but also
drum part of another song. expresses the underlying quarter-note beat. It is perhaps because of this
23 On rhythmic paradigms, including the tresillo, see Biamonte (2014, [3.3– dual function that the backbeat has come to be so central to 44 grooves in
3.4] and [6.4]), Chor (2010, 37–39), Cohn (2016, [0.3]), Traut (2005), rock and other genres.

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 232 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM
example 5. A characteristic backbeat, showing the articulation of
different hierarchical levels by distinct elements of the drum kit
the role of beat or pulse articulation. Example 5 shows a typi-
cal snare-drum backbeat alongside eighth notes on the hi-hat.
In rock music, the kick drum can articulate any number of lev-
els. Several depictions of the backbeat pattern in music-
theoretical literature identify a kick articulation on beats 1 and
3, implying that the kick drum works with the snare at the
half-measure level.26 Likewise, examples of “four-to-the-floor”
kick-drum patterns are common in rock, with the kick drum
articulating the beat level. Less clear, from a functional per-
spective, is what to make of grooves in which the kick drum
marks each downbeat but supplies a syncopated rhythm in the
intervening beats (as in Ex. 5). I propose that only the initial
downbeat of such patterns should be associated with meter ar-
ticulation, whereas the majority of the work performed by the
kick drum expresses a rhythmic function.27 Thus, in grooves
of this type, the meter-articulating role of the kick drum is to
reinforce the measure level. As we will see, kick-drum synco-
pation is a common strategy among irregular grooves. Finally,
note that the crash cymbal on the first downbeat in Example 5
is not repeated in the second measure. Crash, splash, and
china cymbals often designate larger spans of music (e.g., one,
two, or four measures, etc.), or occur at irregular intervals
through the course of a song, marking select formal boundaries
(e.g., the start of each chorus).
three drumbeat archetypes and their metric
interpretations
Each drumbeat archetype can accommodate a variety of metric
structures. I begin by discussing the undifferentiated and
backbeat-variant types, followed by the rarer and more com-
plex polymetric category.
Undifferentiated Grooves
Of the 638 grooves in the corpus, 303 exhibit undifferentiated
drumbeat patterns. My analysis focused on three questions:
(1) what meter (or meters) best fits the groove? (2) what
26 Examples include Butterfield (2006, 40–42), Hennessy (2008, 146 [Ex.
5-2] and 161 [Ex. 5-4]), and Biamonte (2014, [6.1]).
27 The distinction between meter and rhythm implied here follows London
(2012, 4): rhythmic durations are determined based “on the interonset in-
terval . . . between the attack points of successive events,” whereas meter is
contingent on “our perception and cognition of such stimuli,” on our cul-
tural upbringing, and on our musical education (italics in original).
This content downloaded from
123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 (2020)
rhythmic succession is articulated? and (3) what drum, cymbal,
or combination thereof is responsible for this articulation?
Study of the different successions (question 2) proved the most
fruitful; I found no meaningful correlation between meter and
instrument, but each parameter correlates with specific succes-
sions. The most significant division categorizes successions as
isochronous or non-isochronous. Different meters show a
preference for one type or the other based on measure length:
meters with more beats (and sub-beats) per measure often con-
tain isochronous successions, while meters with fewer beats of-
ten contain non-isochronous patterns. To be more specific,
isochronous successions are more common in 74 grooves by a
factor of 5:3; both types receive about equal representation in
5 7 5 7 5
4 ; and non-isochronous successions dominate 8 , 8 , 16 , and 16
by a factor of at least 2:1.
Example 6 summarizes the various isochronous undifferen-
tiated successions, cross-listed according to meter.28 The
entries highlighted in dark gray indicate the most common
successions among the best represented meters, all of which
show a strong preference for articulating the metric level that
houses the irregular cardinality (e.g., the quarter note in 74 ).
While it is not surprising that many drumbeats articulate this
level, it is not necessarily intuitive that the articulation of met-
ric levels below the irregular cardinality should not be more
common (e.g., the eighth-note level is articulated in only two
of twenty-five 74 grooves). One reason might be that drummers
feel the need to draw attention to the irregular level, either to
solidify their own counting or to aid other band members in
navigating the groove. Not shown in the example are the
drums and cymbals most commonly associated with each pat-
tern. In keeping with their typical roles within metrically regu-
lar grooves, the snare drum more often articulates deeper levels
(the quarter note in particular), while cymbals or toms are
common at shallower levels (eighths and sixteenths, though
quarters are by no means rare). A few well-known examples of
isochronous undifferentiated drumbeats include the following:
The Beatles, “All You Need Is Love” (0:08): snare-drum
quarter notes in 74 time.
Peter Gabriel, “Solsbury Hill” (0:00): kick-drum quarter
notes in 74 time.
Radiohead, “Everything in Its Right Place” (1:14): kick-
drum quarter notes in 54 time.
Radiohead, “2 þ 2 ¼ 5” (0:14): processed or electronic per-
cussion eighth notes in 78 time.
Led Zeppelin, “Four Sticks” (0:00): hi-hat and floor-tom
eighth notes in 58 time.29
28 Not included here are passages in which a backbeat-variant drumbeat
employs an undifferentiated articulation in one part of the drum kit (usu-
ally the hi-hat or ride cymbal). I comment on the potential intra-
drumbeat polyrhythms that result from such situations below.
29 Some of these examples are ambiguous with regard to tactus level. Osborn
(2017) transcribes “2 þ 2 ¼ 5” in 74 (43), 78 (55), and 78 with a “non-metrical
beat layer” (58) and discusses the issue at length, also referencing “15
Step” (56–58). Rosenberg (2011, 68) analyzes “Four Sticks” in 54 with a
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves 233

Quarter Notes Eighth Notes Sixteenth Notes Downbeat Only Other

Tally Pct. Tally Pct. Tally Pct. Tally Pct. Tally Pct.
7/4 20 80% 2 8% 0 0% 2 8% 1 4%
5/4 27 69% 3 8% 0 0% 5 13% 4 10%
7/8 1 5% 11 52% 3 14% 3 14% 3 14%
5/8 0 0% 9 69% 0 0% 4 31% 0 0%
7/16 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –
5/16 0 0% 0 0% 2 33% 4 67% 0 0%

example 6. Prevalence of isochronous undifferentiated successions within each meter in the corpus

Example 6 also reveals which isochronous undifferentiated

possibilities are never employed and draws attention to several
rarities. Given the small number of sixteenth-note grooves in
the corpus, it is to be expected that some possibilities are not
represented; nevertheless, the absence of even a single isochro-
nous undifferentiated example in 167 is striking, especially in
light of the six grooves in 165 . Among these six, two articulate
every sixteenth note while four mark only the downbeat of
each cycle. The additional two pulses in 167 seem to encourage
drummers to employ non-isochronous patterns with greater
frequency. Indeed, such patterns may be necessary to clarify
the metric structure within the larger cardinality.
example 7. Two unusual non-isochronous undifferentiated
As for rarities, two examples are unique for their articula-
drumbeats. (a) King Crimson, “ Red” (1974), 5:37. (b) Pete
tion of a particular succession within a given meter: Example 7
Townshend, “ Jools and Jim” (1980), 0:16
offers transcriptions of the relevant grooves from King
Crimson’s “Red” and Pete Townshend’s “Jools and Jim.” The
7 is what places this groove in my “Other” category in Example
8 passage in “Red” occurs several times, underpinned by a
6 (the groove is also listed under “Quarter Notes” to account
straightforward sixteenth-note pulse on the china cymbal
for the kick part). Here the snare drum clarifies the (3,4) sub-
(transcribed in the example where the ride is normally shown
division of the 74 groove—a Platonic-iambic structure. Similar
because of its contextual use). Later in the song, this groove is
incomplete undifferentiated articulations account for several
sometimes complicated by a second isochronous undifferenti-
entries in the “Other” column. Eighth-note triplets are another
ated pulse stream—a regular snare-drum quarter note. Because
option seen exceedingly rarely.
the listener is accustomed to hearing this passage in 78 , led pri-
Unlike isochronous undifferentiated grooves, non-
marily by the guitar riff, the snare hits are likely heard as shift-
isochronous patterns are difficult to classify across meters be-
ing across the bar line from on-beat to off-beat, but the
cause each pattern is unique to its parent meter. Moreover,
emphatic quarter-note articulation also affords entrainment to
trends toward Platonic-trochaic successions or toward begin-
a 74 meter. The three layers of the groove (sixteenth-note china
ning with a run of twos or threes are mixed among the meters.
cymbal, quarter-note snare drum, and 78 guitar riff) thus create
However, for each meter, one succession or class of successions
a polymeter. Without the other elements of the groove, and
stands apart as a clear first choice. Example 8 summarizes the
without the context offered by earlier instances of the same
most common patterns in each meter and the prevalence of
riff, the snare-drum pattern would likely not convey a 78 meter. each option as a percentage of all non-isochronous undifferen-
Naturally, undifferentiated quarter notes seldom supply the tiated grooves in that meter. In 74 , nine of fifteen grooves ex-
only drum articulation among meters with an eighth-note tac- hibit a (3,4) division at the quarter-note level and subdivide
tus because of their destabilizing effect.30 the initial three beats as (3,3), sometimes suggesting a 68 mea-
A recurring passage in Townshend’s “Jools and Jim” like- sure, sometimes sounding more like a syncopation against 34 .
wise combines undifferentiated elements at two levels with a In 54 , successions of (3,3,2,2) at the eighth-note level predomi-
consistent quarter-note kick drum and snare-drum eighth nate (eighteen out of forty-eight). Although they are less prev-
notes in the first half of the cycle. The intermittent snare part alent than the dominant successions in other meters, several
related patterns imply the same metric subdivision without ar-
shift to 34 , whereas I hear the quintuple groove as an abbreviated 68 , alter-
ticulating it overtly. For example, five grooves incorporate
nating with sections in that more common meter.
30 Less rare are quarter-note pulse streams that complement a 58 or 78 backbeat sixteenth-note subdivisions below the same overriding pattern.
variant, where the meter is articulated more securely. See the discussion of The prevalence among quarter-note meters of successions that
backbeat-variant patterns below. begin with a pair of threes (even, as in 74 , if this promotes

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 234 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 42 (2020)

unarticulated eighth notes. The result is an uninterrupted (iso-

Most Common Succession Pct. of Same
7/4 (3,3 3,3,2) or (3,3 2,2,2,2)
5/4 (3,3 2,2)
7/8 (2,2,3)
5/8 (2,3)
7/16 (2,2,3)
5/16 (2,3)
example 8. The most prevalent non-isochronous undifferenti-
ated successions for each meter in the corpus
Platonic-iambic successions) may be related to the abundance
of tresillo (3,3,2) patterns in the work of several of the artists
analyzed here and in rock music generally.31
Patterns at sub-tactus levels are more consistent within
each cardinality. For septuple meters, twenty-four out of forty
7 Over sixty percent of the grooves in the corpus (389 of 638)
8 instances express a (2,2,3) subdivision at the eighth-note
level; an additional two articulate the simplified (4,3) at the
eighth-note level and six embellish the pattern with sporadic
sixteenth notes. The analogous (2,2,3) and (4,3) sixteenth-
note successions account for all eight 167 grooves. In 58 , succes-
sions of (2,3) are more than twice as common as (3,2)
(eighteen and eight instances of each, respectively, out of
twenty-nine). This is somewhat surprising, given the general
prevalence of Platonic-trochaic successions among irregular
meters. The Platonic-iambic option is even more pervasive
among 165 passages, with nine of ten employing the succession.
The prevalence below the quarter-note level of successions that
begin with twos (in both quintuple and septuple meters) sug-
gests that the articulation of a clear eighth- or quarter-note
pulse helps listeners and performers to stabilize both the non-
isochronous beats and the starting point of each new cycle.
Four representative passages are transcribed in Example 9.
In Genesis’s “The Battle of Epping Forest,” the kick drum
and ride cymbal articulate the same initial syncopation that
characterizes many undifferentiated 74 grooves. The looser
rhythmic relationship between the two elements in the second
half of the measure combines the two most common options;
however, because the rivets in the ride cymbal somewhat mask
the cymbal articulations, the kick-drum pattern comes forth as
the more prominent succession. The same initial syncopation
characterizes certain 54 measures in Queen’s “Innuendo,” with
the snare drum articulating the common (3,3,2,2) succession.
The kick drum is subordinate to the snare, filling in the
31 Tool is especially fond of tresillo and double-tresillo patterns as well as lon-
ger Platonic-trochaic successions. On Tool’s use of the tresillo, see
Hanenberg (2018, 96–99 and 159–61). On Tool’s use of metric disso-
nance, see Biamonte (2014, [8.7]). On the prevalence of tresillo patterns
in rock and pop more broadly, see Biamonte (2014, [3.3]–[3.4] and
[6.4]).
chronous) articulation of the eighth-note background, within
60.0% which a non-isochronous succession is foregrounded by the
37.5% snare drum. A similar situation occurs in Dream Theater’s “In
the Presence of Enemies,” in which isochronous eighth notes
60.0%
in the toms establish a background and the subdivisional struc-
62.1% ture is foregrounded through dynamic accents and use of flams
62.5% (notated as grace notes in the transcription). This passage
demonstrates a similar treatment of 58 and 78 meters, ending
90.0%
each measure with a three-pulse unit. The last example, Traci
Lords’s “Good-N-Evil,” also establishes a foreground-
background relationship between the kick drum and hi-hat
cymbals. Because these two elements function here as they
might in a standard backbeat, this undifferentiated pattern
approximates a common 78 backbeat variant. Indeed, such a
groove is soon realized in this song with the addition of the
snare drum.
Backbeat Variants
modify the 44 backbeat by articulating the subdivisional struc-
ture of a meter with the snare drum (usually alternating with
the kick drum). Common irregular-meter variants of the back-
beat can be modeled through the expansion or contraction of
beats or sub-tactus pulses in the cycle. Two common strategies
distance themselves from the traditional backbeat further by
eschewing strict alternations between kick and snare articula-
tions. The first strategy involves omitting a mid-measure kick-
drum articulation. Antecedents for this pattern occur in 44
grooves, where the mid-measure kick-drum attack may be sup-
planted by a syncopated kick-drum pattern (marking the “and”
of beats 2 and 3, for instance). In irregular grooves, it is more
difficult to distinguish between structural and syncopated kick
articulations. The second strategy involves a double continua-
tion (kick–snare–snare). Models for this pattern include triple
meters and tresillo grooves. In irregular meters, single and dou-
ble continuations are often juxtaposed within larger repeating
cycles. As with non-isochronous undifferentiated patterns,
each meter gives rise to characteristic grooves. In reviewing
trends within each meter, several notable distinctions between
undifferentiated and backbeat-variant grooves emerge. Most
meters exhibit different subdivisional structures for each type
of articulation. The clearest trend across all meters is that
backbeat variants correlate with Platonic-trochaic successions
more consistently than do non-isochronous undifferentiated
grooves. I begin with septuple meters—which are more consis-
tent than quintuple—working from the shortest, most con-
strained cycles (i.e., sixteenth-note level) to the longest, most
flexible (i.e., quarter-note level).
Among septuple backbeat variants, the potential discrep-
ancy between meter and drumbeat may be felt most acutely.
Listeners who follow traditional models in parsing irregular
meters only in twos and threes may feel that many drum-kit
articulations deviate from their metric intuitions. Meanwhile,

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves 235

example 9. Archetypal examples of non-isochronous undifferentiated grooves. (a) Genesis, “ The Battle of Epping Forest” (1973), 5:05.
(b) Queen, “ Innuendo” (1991) 4:49. (c) Dream Theater, “ In the Presence of Enemies” (2007), 2:05. (d) Traci Lords, “ Good-N-Evil”
(1995), 0:45

listeners who prioritize the drums in making sense of a
groove’s structure will often have to contend with striking met-
ric deletions. In longer passages, the cyclical nature of groove-
based music mitigates these difficulties by encouraging en-
trainment through familiarity.32
Backbeat grooves in 167 time, while underrepresented due to
the general rarity of irregular sixteenth-note cardinalities, are
consistent. Of sixteen instances, all but one exhibit a (4,3) or
(2,2,3) Platonic-trochaic succession (the lone exception is
complicated by polymeter; see Ex. 20[c] below). Eleven of
these exhibit the (4,3) approach, where we usually find strict
alternations between downbeat kick and backbeat snare articu-
lations. This groove thus imitates the 44 backbeat as closely as
possible within a 167 cycle: through the omission of the final six-
teenth note of every two-beat span, the (4,4,4,4) sixteenth-
note level of a 44 backbeat becomes two measures of 167 , articu-
lating a (4,3,4,3) pattern with alternating kick and snare hits.
Less common 167 possibilities feature a snare articulation on the
“and” of beat 1, either through a double-time imitation of the
most common 78 pattern or as the first of two continuations in
a (2,2,3) structure. Example 10 illustrates a straightforward
(4,3) option in Dreadnought’s “To Luminous Scale” and the
double-continuation (2,2,3) pattern in Dream Theater’s “This
32 My assertion that such entrainment occurs is based on my own listening
experience. Large (2008, 222) suggests that neural resonance explains the
cognitive work through which we entrain to regular meters, but notes that
“the relationship between complex (nonperiodic) musical rhythms, pulse,
and meter remains a mystery.”
Dying Soul.” In the latter, the final sixteenth-note articulation
in the snare drum is not structural—the snare attack is a softer
“ghost note” and the absence of the hi-hat further detracts
from its salience.
As we consider other septuple meters, the same features
that typify 167 grooves remain significant. The strategy of metric
deletion toward the end of the cycle is common at all hierar-
chical levels. Note also that, throughout my discussion of 167 ,
the pairing of fours and threes has generally been more com-
mon than the pairing of twos and threes (the more common
case in many discussions of metric subdivision). Prioritizing
the snare drum as a marker of metric continuation yields anal-
yses in which structures that are ill modeled by twos and threes
are common in all septuple meters.
In particular, the predominance of cycle-ending deletion is
as evident among 78 grooves as it is in 167 . Example 11 lists the
various patterns encountered according to the placement of
structural snare-drum articulations, and the prevalence of each
pattern. The bracketed numbers under the heading
“Subdivision” show the metric structure of each category at the
lowest isochronous pulse level (eighth notes in all but one case;
sixteenth notes are required for the third entry). The
“Articulation” column shows the placement of structural kick-
and snare-drum attacks, following the pattern given in the
“Subdivision” column. “K” denotes a kick-drum articulation
consistent across all grooves sharing a particular snare pattern;
“S” indicates the structural snare articulations; “—” does not
imply that a beat is empty, but that a variety of articulations
occur across different grooves. In the most represented

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 236 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 42 (2020)

example 10. Two backbeat-variant possibilities in 167 time. (a) Dreadnought, “ To Luminous Scale” (2017), 2:42. (b) Dream Theater,
“ This Dying Soul” (2003), 10:39

Category Subdivision Articulation Tally Pct. Group Pct.

(K,S)(—,S) 39 36.4%
(2,2,2,1)
Variant of above* 18 16.8%
Quadruple Division (4,4,3,3) (K,S)(—,S) 14 13.1% 72.9%
(2,2,1,2) (K,S)(—,S) 4 3.7%
(2,1,2,2) (K,S)(K,S) 3 2.8%
(4,3) (K,S) 14 13.1%
Half-time groove 14.0%
(3,4) (K,S) 1 0.9%
(K,S,S) 2 1.9%
(3,2,2)
Triple Division (K,—,S) 2 1.9% 5.6%
(2,3,2) (K,S,S) 2 1.9%
Other — — 8 7.5% 7.5%

example 11. Backbeat-variant 78 grooves in the corpus, categorized by subdivisional structure

categories, further sub-categorization could be based on differ-
ent patterns of kick-drum articulation.
The most common pattern by far is a quadruple division of
the measure with snare articulations on the third and seventh
eighth notes of each cycle—mimicking the articulation we find
in the 44 backbeat up to the final eighth note, which is deleted.
Over one third of the grooves in the corpus do this, as for ex-
ample in Sting’s “Love Is Stronger than Justice,” transcribed in
Example 12(a), which employs two sub-variants of the pat-
tern.33 Note the differences in cymbal accompaniment (abbre-
viated quarters on the ride cymbal in the first drumbeat and
hi-hat eighths in the second) and the different patterns in the
kick drum. The kick-drum syncopation in the second groove
is the most common pattern among 78 backbeat variants, per-
haps because the resulting bisection of the measure affords en-
trainment to (or at least flirts with) 167 time. Sting and
drummer Vinnie Colaiuta are especially fond of this variant,
which also occurs in “St. Augustine in Hell” (0:07), “Like a
33 The tempo of this example (171 bpm) leads to ambiguity concerning the
tactus level. John Covach teaches the groove in 74 , with a quick quarter-
note tactus and a half-time drumbeat (Whirty 2007). Because this groove
affords entrainment in a comfortable range (with a quarter note equal to
about 86 bpm), I prefer to hear a slow groove with a recurring half-beat
metric deletion.
Beautiful Smile” (0:03), and “I Was Brought to My Senses”
(2:51; at a tempo slow enough to suggest a half-time feel).34 If
we add to this category instances that vary the two-snare-hits-
per-measure archetype, for instance by articulating the back-
beat with toms or hi-hats, by embellishing the basic drumbeat
with fills, by omitting the second snare articulation, or by dis-
placing the backbeat by a sixteenth note, the share of grooves
represented by a (2,2,2,1) structure is over half of all 78 backbeat
variants.
There are still other ways that rock drummers articulate a
quadruple structure in 78 time, and all are clear variants of the
quadruple backbeat. The next most common option (account-
ing for about one eighth of all cases) closes the cycle with two
dotted-eighth notes, suggesting an alternation of 24 and 166
measures. Examples include Alice in Chains’ “Them Bones”
(0:00) and Yes’ “Changes”; the latter groove is transcribed in
Example 12(b).35 Less common are patterns built on
34 Colaiuta discusses Sting’s involvement in determining the drumbeats of
his songs in O’Shea (2016). Other well-known examples of the (2,2,2,1)
structure include the synth and guitar solos in Rush’s “Tom Sawyer”
(1:33) and the main groove of The National’s “Demons” (0:00).
35 “Changes” satisfies my definition of groove only minimally, as the tran-
scribed measure of 78 is extended to 10
8 upon repetition (i.e., the full cycle
has a cardinality of seventeen). However, the internal consistency of the

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves
example 12. Common drumbeats in 87 time. (a) Sting, “ Love Is Stronger than Justice” (1993), 0:01, 0:22. (b) Yes, “ Changes” (1983),
0:30
isochronous eighth-note structures in which the single-eighth-
note member of the quadruple structure is not in the final po-
sition. Radiohead’s “Paranoid Android” (2:52), for example,
exhibits a kick-snare alternation of (4,3,3,4) in sixteenth notes. If
the mid-measure kick articulation is understood as syncopated,
anticipating the third quarter-note beat, we find a (2,2,1,2) subdi-
visional structure at the eighth-note level. Another common op-
tion is the half-time groove, with only a single snare attack near
the midpoint of each cycle.36 In such grooves, as with 167 patterns,
we see that drummers favor Platonic-trochaic (4,3) structures. I
found only a single example of a Platonic-iambic (3,4) subdivi-
sion—Tori Amos’s “Barons of Suburbia” (0:40), which is more
an expansion of a 68 groove than a compressed half-time 44 .
The most striking trend among 78 backbeat variants is the
scarcity of triple subdivisions, especially given that much writ-
ing about 78 time identifies (3,2,2) and (2,2,3) as the default
structures for this meter.37 Backbeat variants that support tri-
ple divisions of the 78 measure are found in only six grooves in
the corpus: four with a (3,2,2) structure and two that suggest
(2,3,2).38 The absence of (2,2,3) structures is explained by the
fact that the most common drum articulation of that subdivi-
sion is kick–kick–snare, suggesting a half-time interpretation
of the groove. Other potential instances of this subdivisional
pattern are counted in the quadruple category since, given the
prevalence of quadruple 78 grooves, this may be the more likely
association when a listener encounters an ambiguous pattern.
The absence of (2,2,3) patterns is therefore specifically an ab-
sence of kick–snare–snare articulations, which would convey
the triple nature of the subdivision unambiguously.39
drumbeat through each potential pair of 78 measures is sufficient to estab-
lish the groove.
36 A typical tempo for the half-time grooves I identify falls in the range of
120–52 bpm. Faster examples require strong contextual cues, such as a
shift from a more normative backbeat variant to the half-time groove in
question.
37 See Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983, 69), Hasty (1997, 130–47), Temperley
(2001, 37), and Gotham (2015, [2.5]).
38 The latter two grooves come from Kate Bush’s “Egypt” (2:13) and could
also be analyzed as (4,3,3,4) at the sixteenth-note level, given the strong
ride-cymbal articulations that bisect each measure.
39 Coldplay’s “Glass of Water” (1:07) contains measures that follow this pat-
tern, but they are subsumed within a four-measure cycle involving other
articulations. I count the song in my “Other” category and not as a (2,2,3)
groove.
This content downloaded from
123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
237
In 74 meters we continue to observe a prevalence of
Platonic-trochaic successions. However, the absence of struc-
tures of twos and threes that I noted for 167 and 78 grooves is
complicated by the attenuation of our metric intuitions at
deeper hierarchical levels.40 On the one hand, almost every
groove in the corpus can be transcribed as a measure of 44 plus
one of 34 (in either order), and rock listeners have learned to
equate the 44 measure with the standard unit of time at that
level of the metric hierarchy.41 The alternation of the expected
4 3
4 with 4 may thus lead one to interpret a recurring metric dele-
tion within those triple measures. On the other hand, the
drumbeats through many triple measures follow a double-
continuation pattern, supporting an interpretation based on
expansion and marking the triple group as being on par with a
half-measure of 44 (a duple group). At a high level, then, the
same 74 groove may sound duple (i.e., [4,3]) to a listener who
prioritizes the measure level and triple (i.e., [2,2,3]) to one
who attends to the snare drum.
Example 13 shows the prevalence of different options
alongside potential subdivisional interpretations. Example 14
illustrates some of the most common patterns. No single
drumbeat pattern is as pervasive among 74 grooves as what we
saw in 78 and 167 , but well over half of the grooves begin with
four beats of standard backbeat. The three most common pat-
terns all begin this way, one continuing with a single snare at-
tack on beat 6, one with a double continuation marking beats
6 and 7, and one with two snare articulations marking beat 6
and the “and” of beat 7. The former two patterns evoke the
subdivisional ambiguity described above and together consti-
tute the most common backbeat-variant approach to 74 time.
Examples of the single-snare option include Pink Floyd’s
“Money” (Ex. 14[a]) and Heart’s “Barracuda” (2:23).
Examples of the double-continuation pattern occur in three
Rush singles—“The Spirit of Radio” (2:52), “Limelight”
(0:12), and “Time Stand Still” (3:07)—and in Foo Fighters’
“Times Like These” (0:13). Example 14(b) shows Blondie’s
40 On the attenuation of listeners’ metrical acuity, see Cone (1968, 26),
Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983, 99), and Hasty (1997, 175–82).
Although London (2012, 24) holds that “there is no substantive distinc-
tion between meters and so-called hypermeters,” his discussion of entrain-
ment limitations (e.g., 1–47) suggests the same phenomenon of metric
attenuation.
41 The relevance of the measure as a span of musical time is affirmed by Iyer
(1998), London (2012), and de Clercq (2016).
238 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 42 (2020)

Category Subdivision Articulation Tally Pct. Group Pct.

(K,S,—,S)(—,S,—) 16 16.0%
(K,S,—,S)(—,S,S) 14 14.0%
Begins with (2,2,3) or (4,3) (K,S,—,S)(—,—,S) 6 6.0%
standard 4/4 59.0%
measure (K,S,—,S)(fill) 2 2.0%
Other 6 6.0%
(4,4,4,2) (K–,S–,—,S–)(K–,S–,K,S) 15 15.0%
(3,4) or (3,2,2) (K,S,—)(—,S,—,S) 9 9.0%
Ends with 4/4
(3,3,3,3,2) (K-k,S--)(K-k,S--,S-) 4 4.0% 16.0%
measure
(3,3,2,2,2,2) (K-k,S--)(K-,S-,—,S-) 3 3.0%
(4,3) (K,—,S,—)(—,—,S) 9 9.0%
Half-time groove 11.0%
(3,4) (K,—,S)(K,—,S,—) 2 2.0%
half- (K,—,S,—)(—,S,—) 5 5.0%
(4,3) 8.0%
time groove (K,—,S,—)(—,–s,—) 3 3.0%
Other — — 6 6.0% 6.0%

example 13. Backbeat-variant 47 grooves in the corpus, categorized by subdivisional structure

example 14. Common drumbeats in 47 time. (a) Pink Floyd, “ Money” (1973), 0:26. (b) Blondie, “ Heart of Glass” (1979), 2:14. (c)
Tori Amos, “ God” (1994), 0:21. (d) Grateful Dead, “ Estimated Prophet” (1977), 0:00

“Heart of Glass,” an example of the third related beat, which
raises a structural question. Many may argue that the final
snare articulation should not be understood as structural since
it destabilizes the otherwise steady quarter-note beat, and the
interpretations of the two 74 drumbeats just discussed remain
available here. However, it is worth acknowledging a less con-
ventional possibility: that the final kick-snare alternation repre-
sents the final two beats of a 44 backbeat model, compressed to
accommodate a 74 meter (hence my subdivisional interpretation
of [4,4,4,2] in Ex. 13). This interpretation follows the trend
among septuple meters toward cycle-ending deletion.
Moreover, at least one other interpretation, in which the final
snare attack is understood as a recurring fill, seems dubious in
light of the rarity of other such patterns (only two in the cor-
pus). The “Heart of Glass” groove is a far more robust option:
examples range from David Bowie’s “Soul Love” (0:13) to
Soundgarden’s “Spoonman” (0:34) to Motion City
Soundtrack’s “Boxelder” (0:14), and more than one in seven 74
backbeat variants in the corpus adopt this drumbeat.
Outside of the pervasive (4,3) category, 74 grooves are likely
to follow one of two approaches: a (3,4) structure, or a half-
time (or partially half-time) groove. About half of the (3,4)
grooves simply reorder the double-continuation (4,3) pattern,
leading with a 34 measure in alternation with a standard back-
beat. Example 14(c), a transcription of Tori Amos’s “God,”
exemplifies this pattern. Other (3,4) options begin with dotted
rhythms, denoting either syncopation or an initial 68 feel. In
several passages, the dotted rhythm persists into the second
half of the measure rather than yielding to the 44 backbeat.
These grooves relate to non-isochronous undifferentiated pat-
terns, among which (3,3,3,3,2) was one of the more common
successions.

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves
Subdivision Articulation Tally Pct. Group Pct.
(3,2) (K,S) 18 46.2% 46.2%
(K,S) 13 33.3%
(2,3) 41.0%
embelished 3 7.7%
Other — 5 12.8% 12.8%
example 15. Backbeat-variant 85 grooves in the corpus catego-
rized by subdivisional structure
example 16. Illustrations of the two principal 85 drumbeats. (a)
Rush, “ Losing It” (1982), 1:23. (b) Tool, “ Rosetta Stoned”
(2006), 0:34
Half-time patterns largely follow their 78 relatives, especially
in the prevalence of (4,3) structures over (3,4) ones (only two
grooves in nineteen take the latter approach). The most com-
mon option simply mimics the most common 78 drumbeat at a
slower tempo. This is the case in much of Grateful Dead’s
“Estimated Prophet”; an incipit based on the 28 May 1977
live recording from Hartford, Connecticut is shown in
Example 14(d). Also common is a class of grooves where half-
time drum articulations account for part of the cycle: an initial
half-time 44 measure (half-note kick and half-note snare) is fol-
lowed by a triple measure with the snare articulation either on
beat 6, recalling a normative 34 pattern, or the “and” of beat 6,
suggesting 68 . In either case, the listener may experience a sense
of shifting tactus within the groove cycle.
We now turn to quintuple backbeat variants. These gener-
ally modify the 44 model via expansion, rather than deletion,
and such modifications lead to more disparate options. As a
result, the quintuple data do not offer the clear default strate-
gies that characterize septuple meters. Furthermore, the first
category—165 meters—contains only three plausible backbeat
variants (all by Frank Zappa), two of which are so unconven-
tional that their inclusions are debatable.42
Because of the shorter measure-length involved, 58 grooves
admit fewer distinct patterns than those encountered in 78 .
Nevertheless, the relative prevalence of each pattern, summa-
rized in Example 15, makes it clear that there is no single
42 The two debatable grooves are from “Zomby Woof” (0:02 and 1:45),
where loose backbeat relatives are established through the alternation of
the snare drum (or toms) and cymbals. The clearest 165 backbeat candidate
is a (2,3) alternation of kick and snare drums in “The Radio Is Broken”
(1:01). All three grooves are unconventional, even among irregular meters,
because they imply a double-time feel.
This content downloaded from
123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
239
default backbeat-variant for 58 . The two obvious options for
kick-snare alternation—the Platonic-trochaic (3,2) and the
Platonic-iambic (2,3)—are about equally well represented.
Example 16 reproduces one drumbeat of each type. The first
moments of Rush’s “Losing It” pass through several variants
before reaching the transcribed drumbeat. Drummer Neil
Peart enters with a non-isochronous undifferentiated ride-
cymbal articulation (3,2), shifts to the transcribed ride part,
and then adds kick-drum articulations to the initial non-
isochronous pattern. Peart does not settle into the cycle given
in Example 16(a) until over a minute into the song. The sec-
ond drumbeat, from Tool’s “Rosetta Stoned,” is also less con-
sistent than it appears, not because of the sort of buildup
variation seen in “Losing It,” but rather because of variance in
its cycle-to-cycle articulation. The snare drum is sometimes
replaced with a tom; either drum may be echoed on beat 5;
and the kick drum sometimes adds syncopated rhythms be-
tween its downbeat articulations. Despite these local modifica-
tions, the structure of the groove remains unaltered.
I observed many distinct drumbeat patterns among the 54
grooves in the corpus. The tactus-level quintuple meter
describes far more grooves than any other irregular meter con-
sidered, and I found considerable support for various subdivi-
sional structures. The clearest trend among these grooves is a
preference for Platonic-trochaic structures over Platonic-
iambic ones at the beat level: a (3,2) division of the measure is
more than four times as common as (2,3). Beyond this general
subdivisional preference, however, drumbeat practice is far less
consistent across 54 grooves than in other meters. In my over-
views of 78 and 74 meters, I identified eleven and fourteen drum-
beat archetypes, respectively, which were not only specific with
regard to drum articulation, but also consistent for all grooves
of that type. Conversely, Example 17 (showing 54 grooves) lists
twenty distinct possibilities, many of them variants of more
stable patterns. Convincing categorization often proves elusive,
leading to five different categories (at various levels of specific-
ity) that accommodate “Other” possibilities. Together, these
miscellaneous categories account for over a quarter of all
backbeat-variant 54 grooves.
The striking diversity of 54 drumbeats notwithstanding,
many stable patterns of articulation are well represented in the
corpus; Example 18 illustrates seven representative grooves.
Example 18(a), from Jethro Tull’s “Thick as a Brick,” displays
several elements that can thwart easy classification in the first
large category of Example 17. The first snare attack in the cy-
cle consistently falls on beat 2, giving strong support for the
quarter-note beat, but the absence of an articulation on beat 3
creates ambiguity regarding both subdivision at the half-
measure level and syncopation against the presumed quarter-
note beat. The former issue is clarified in this groove by a shift
from hi-hat eighth notes to crash-cymbal quarters (supported
by the kick-drum rhythm and the guitar riff): the measure is
subdivided as (3,2). We will see in other grooves that subdivi-
sion at this level is not always so clear. Moreover, in the
“Thick as a Brick” groove, the dotted rhythm in the kick drum
240 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM
(again coordinated with the guitar riff) encourages a (3,3,2,2)
non-isochronous hearing at the eighth-note level. This possi-
bility is emphasized by the mix, as the kick drum is relatively
prominent and the snare understated. Finally, note that the
snare attack on beat 5 is bracketed, indicating that it is not
consistently articulated in the cycle. This is one of many fea-
tures that can preclude a groove’s status as an archetypal drum-
beat pattern. Several other features of this groove are likewise
varied, though none destabilizes the metric structure.
The same ambiguity encountered in “Thick as a Brick” be-
tween (3,3,2,2) and (2,2,2,2,2) subdivisions at the eighth-note
level is characteristic of many 54 grooves. Example 18(b), from
Radiohead’s “Morning Bell,” gives the clearest possible expres-
sion of (3,3,2,2), articulating the non-isochronous subdivision
with alternating kick and snare hits and minimal embellish-
ment. Continuous eighth notes on the hi-hat fill in the sub-
metric pulse layer and are likely interpreted as supporting the
same non-isochronous pattern articulated by the drums. The 54
chorus of Porcupine Tree’s “The Start of Something
Beautiful,” shown in Example 18(c), presents the same snare-
drum pattern as “Morning Bell” and a similarly unobtrusive
kick-drum part. However, the quarter-note ride cymbal in the
former groove suggests a different interpretation than the hi-
hat eighth notes of the latter. Where the eighth notes assume
a supporting role, the quarter notes challenge the kick-snare
pattern, potentially even imposing the regular quarter as the
dominant tactus and relegating the snare succession to the sta-
tus of a syncopation (especially for a listener who does not en-
train easily to non-isochronous beats). The importance of this
cue in the cymbal part is such that I have subcategorized
grooves with structural dotted-quarter-note elements in
Example 17: “Isochronous (q)” denotes the presence of the
contentious quarter-note pulse; “Non-isochronous” grooves are
those in which the cymbals support the kick-snare structure.
A close relative of the (3,3,2,2) structure with alternating
kick and snare articulations places the second snare attack a
beat earlier. The resulting double snare-drum continuation
implies a triple (3,3,4) structure, though some listeners will
likely subdivide the final four-pulse span. Example 18(d) illus-
trates a clear articulation of this groove in “Spin the Bottle” by
the Juliana Hatfield Three. This triple drumbeat is less com-
mon than its duple (or quadruple at the beat-level) relative, ac-
counting for over one in nine 54 grooves (11.7 percent). Rarer
still is the quarter-note ride pattern of “Spin the Bottle.”
Triple 54 grooves typically involve cymbals that support (or at
least do not contradict) the non-isochronous snare articulation.
This may be related to the already tenuous status of the triple
subdivision. Examples without isochronous cymbal quarter
notes are found in Tool’s “Hooker with a Penis” (3:22) and
Hozier’s “From Eden” (0:08).
Grooves with a Platonic-iambic organization at the half-
measure level (2,3) are about as common as the triple structures
just discussed. Unlike the more common Platonic-trochaic cate-
gory, Platonic-iambic grooves are consistent in their drumbeat
patterns. In order to convey the less familiar subdivision
This content downloaded from
123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 (2020)
unambiguously, most of these grooves consistently articulate
beats 2, 4, and 5 with the snare drum. Shown in Example 18(e),
UK’s “Caesar’s Palace Blues” follows this approach. The slow
tempo of this example encourages drummer Terry Bozzio to
embellish the basic drumbeat often, sometimes overwriting en-
tire measures with fills. Nevertheless, the regular placement of
the three snare articulations maintains a consistent subdivisional
structure through the first minute of the song.
As evidence of the importance of all three snare articulations
in articulating a (2,3) structure, consider the drumbeat given un-
der the “Ambiguous” category in Example 17, with snare hits
only on beats 2 and 4 (not on beat 5). This drumbeat is capable
of supporting the same (2,3) structure, as shown in Example
18(f), PJ Harvey’s “Water.” The first four beats of the groove
follow what we might expect of a square instance of 44 time: a
riff divides the time symmetrically into two two-beat halves,
supported by simple kick-snare alternation and a regular
quarter-note hi-hat (with some eighth-note embellishment).
The final beat is seldom articulated by more than the kick
drum. Indeed, one could interpret the structure as (2,2,1). In ei-
ther interpretation, the first group comprises two beats.
Compare this to the situation midway through Underoath’s
“We Are the Involuntary” (Ex. 18[g]), where the same snare-
and-cymbal pattern occurs alongside a riff that suggests a (3,2)
division of the measure with a recurring vocal entry on beat 4.
This groove follows an unambiguous (3,2) drumbeat with snare
hits on beats 3 and 5. In this context, the (3,2) interpretation is
likely to prevail, with the beat-four snare attack assuming the
role of a half-time backbeat variant and the beat-two articulation
playing a non-structural role (stabilizing the quarter-note pulse).
Although this two-snare drumbeat is relatively common (with
ten instances in the corpus), its structural implications are incon-
sistent, unlike most other patterns studied in this article.
Even among half-time 54 drumbeats, there is no clear default
pattern of articulation. While the straightforward alternation
of kick and snare hits with a (3,2) subdivision is most com-
mon, only three of the seven passages employ this groove.
Other possibilities include the Platonic-iambic (2,3) subdivi-
sion (one instance); a (3,3,4) succession led by two kick-drum
articulations, affording either half-time (3,2) or triple entrain-
ment to the dotted quarter (one instance); and grooves in
which the snare articulation is delayed until beat 5 (two instan-
ces). The designation “(K, S)” under the “Articulation” column
in Example 17 reflects the one commonality among these
grooves, the presence of only one snare articulation following a
downbeat kick-drum attack. But the absence of an entry show-
ing the typical subdivision of such cases reinforces the fact that
they constitute a microcosm of 54 grooves more generally—a di-
verse collection of drumbeats yielding equally diverse subdivi-
sional possibilities.
Polymetric Grooves
Because polymetric approaches to irregular grooves are the
least common (with only sixty-nine instances in the corpus),
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves 241

Category Subdivision Articulation Cymbal accomp. Tally Pct. Group Pct.

(K,—,S)(—,S) 5 4.2%
7.5%
Variant of ^ 4 3.3%
Consistent (K,S,—)(—,S) 2 1.7%
6.7%
trochaic duple (3+2)
High-level Platonic-

quarter-note (2,2,2,2,2) Variant of ^ — 6 5.0% 29.2%

beat (K,S,S)(—,S) 4 3.3%
4.2%
Variant of ^ 1 0.8% 54.2%
Other 13 10.8% 10.8%
Non-isochronous 13 15.3%
Syncopated first (K,S)(—,S) 28.2%
Isochronous (q) 11 12.9%
three beats (3,3,2,2) 25.0%
("10/8" time) Non-isochronous 4 4.7%
Other 7.1%
Isochronous (q) 2 2.4%
Non-isochronous 11 10.1%
High-level triple (3,3,4) (K,S,S) 11.7% 11.7% 11.7%
Isochronous (q) 3 2.8%
(K,S)(—,S,S) 11 9.2%
High-level Platonic- (2,2,2,2,2) — 10.8% 10.8%
Other 2 1.7% 12.5%
iambic duple (2+3)
(2,2,3,3) (K,S)(—,S) Isochronous (q) 2 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%
(K,S,—,S,—) 10 8.3%
Ambiguous — — 9.2% 9.2% 9.2%
Other 1 0.8%
Half-time — (K,S) — 7 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8%
Other — — — 8 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7%

example 17. Backbeat-variant 45 grooves in the corpus, categorized by subdivisional structure

example 18. Seven 45 drumbeats. (a) Jethro Tull, “ Thick as a Brick” (1972), 3:06. (b) Radiohead, “ Morning Bell” (2000), 0:00. (c)
Porcupine Tree, “ The Start of Something Beautiful” (2005), 2:09. (d) Juliana Hatfield Three, “ Spin the Bottle” (1993), 0:36. (e) UK,
“ Caesar’s Palace Blues” (1979), 0:00. (f) PJ Harvey, “ Water” (1991), 0:00. (g) Underoath, “ We Are the Involuntary” (2008), 1:48

the observations that we can make are not nearly as robust as
those above. Example 19 compares the prevalence of four types
of polymetric interaction in connection with the meters under
consideration. The first three types involve a conflict between
the drumbeat and the rest of the band (or one or more
elements thereof). The most common situation involves a reg-
ular 44 backbeat in the drums against an irregular groove played
by the rest of the band. This strategy accounts for nearly half
of the polymetric grooves in the corpus and five-eighths of
those with a quarter-note tactus (54 or 74 ). The second type

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
242 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 42 (2020)

4/4 backbeat vs. band in Irregular backbeat variant Undifferentiated irreg. Conflicting metric cues
given meter vs. something drums vs. something within the drumbeat
Tally Pct. Tally Pct. Tally Pct. Tally Pct.
7/4 7 58% 3 25% 2 17% 0 0%
5/4 17 65% 3 12% 4 15% 2 8%
7/8 6 35% 2 12% 3 18% 6 35%
5/8 2 18% 5 45% 3 27% 1 9%
7/16 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0%
5/16 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 34 49% 14 20% 12 17% 9 13%

example 19. Four different polymetric situations in the corpus, categorized by meter

inverts this relationship, expressing the irregular meter in the
drums via a backbeat variant against a conflicting cue in the
band (whether metrically regular or, rarely, in a second irregu-
lar meter). This option is most prevalent in 58 , perhaps because
the small cardinality of such cycles (and the relatively quick
tempo range of the quintuple pulse) makes them easier to
maintain when rotating against another meter, but the sample
is too small to be sure. The third type is similar to the second,
differing only in the drum kit’s articulation of the irregular me-
ter—an undifferentiated pattern instead of a backbeat variant.
This approach does not show a strong correlation with any
specific meter. The fourth and final type of polymeter concerns
metric conflict within the drumbeat itself, though it is likely
that one or both meters will be supported by another instru-
ment. Examples of this type are subtle, and it is not surprising
that their numbers are so few. Those that appeared in the cor-
pus were most often in 78 time.
Example 20 gives incipits of three straightforward polymet-
ric grooves, highlighting the drums and a salient melodic ex-
pression of the other metric layer. Example 20(a), the Bee
Gees’ “Jive Talkin’,” shows a melody in 74 with a prominent
dotted-quarter-note (3,3,3,3,2) subdivision against a normative
4 playing in 34 , the bass playing in 34 , the organ playing in 58 , the
4 backbeat. All other pitch elements in the groove, including
the bass part and harmonic rhythm, support the septuple cycle
of the melody. The groove continues beyond the transcribed
music for two more 74 measures, realigning on the following
downbeat in both parts. Example 20(b), “Dance on a Volcano”
by Genesis, demonstrates the third polymetric type in
Example 19, setting a 44 guitar ostinato against an undifferenti-
ated 78 hi-hat pattern that would be isochronous but for a re-
curring syncopation late in the septuple cycle. This minimal
interruption of the otherwise steady quarter-note pulse is likely
sufficient to draw the listener’s attention to the odd-cardinality
pattern. Two cycles of the septuple hi-hat part introduce the
section before the guitar entry establishes the polymeter. The
7:8 ratio between the two layers is fully realized through seven
cycles of the guitar ostinato and eight of the hi-hat pattern.
Example 20(c) shows both an irregular backbeat variant and a
drumbeat with conflicting metric cues in Porcupine Tree’s
“The Sound of Muzak.”43 Though the steady hi-hat quarter
notes make it easy to hear the meter as oriented around a
quarter-note beat—as I have notated it—this layer is under-
mined by a kick- and snare-drum pattern of seven sixteenths
grouped as (3,2,2). It is therefore not difficult to instead hear
the eighth- or sixteenth-note pulse as primary.
Two final examples involve more complex polymetric situa-
tions. The first comes from a live performance by Frank
Zappa’s band, The Mothers of Invention, spliced onto a studio
recording and released as “Toads of the Short Forest” on the
1970 album Weasels Ripped My Flesh. Over the course of
nearly a minute and a half, the band explores several subtle
variations of a multi-layered polymetric texture, growing out of
a full-ensemble 58 , as the drummers articulate conflicting
meters against a continuing organ pulse. The first drummer
performs a quick septuple groove, articulating a non-
isochronous undifferentiated (2,2,3) succession on the snare
drum with the floor tom filling in an eighth-note background.
The second drummer plays an isochronous undifferentiated
quarter note on the ride cymbal, clarified as 34 through a bass
ostinato in the same meter. After a little over a minute, Zappa
provides the following spoken explanation: “At this very mo-
ment on stage we have drummer A playing in 78 , drummer B
tambourine playing in 34 , and the alto sax blowing his nose.”
Example 21 shows the simplest versions of each potentially
metric pattern with their initial downbeats aligned. The effect
of the recording is less clear than my transcription due to var-
iations in the articulation of each groove, the quality of the live
production, and the fact that the alto saxophone solo does not
articulate any meter in particular.44 Indeed, were it not for
Zappa’s explanation, it would be difficult to discern the careful
metric organization of the passage.
43 This groove is counted only once in Ex. 19, as an example of the second
type in 167 . It could also be cataloged in the fourth category, in either 74 or
7
16 . My choice reflects my preference to show the lowest hierarchical level
present and to emphasize the conflict between the plausible backbeat vari-
ant and the rest of the band.
44 Issues involving production may go beyond the expected loss of fidelity
endemic to live recording. The organ is inaudible for much of the passage,
but Zappa describes its contribution in the present tense, raising the possi-
bility of a faulty transmission of sound from stage to recording equipment.

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves 243

example 20. Three irregular polymetric grooves. (a) Bee Gees, “ Jive Talkin’” (1975), 1:17. (b) Genesis, “ Dance on a Volcano” (1976),
2:14. (c) Porcupine Tree, “ The Sound of Muzak” (2002), 0:00

first seven beats (up a perfect fourth at first, then a perfect

example 21. A polymetric groove with three competing metric
possibilities: The Mothers of Invention, “ Toads of the Short
Forest” (1970), 1:32
A cleaner studio production aesthetic makes it easier to
hear the polymetric elements of the verse groove of Battles’
“Ddiamondd,” shown in Example 22. The passage clearly
articulates two irregular meters—74 in the voice, supported by
most of the band, and 58 in the drums. I find it easiest to gravi-
tate to the cues in the vocal part. The grouping of sixteenth
notes in fours, differentiated by changes of pitch, establishes a
clear quarter-note beat. The approximate transposition of the
fifth) suggests two measures of 74 . The septuple pattern gives
way to unclear grouping at the quarter-note level in subsequent
measures, allowing the drumbeat to assume prominence.
However, the same three-measure 58 cycle remains unchanged
throughout the verse (note the subtle variance in snare-drum
and hi-hat placement toward the end of each measure).
Moreover, a hypermetric downbeat in the 58 cycle aligns with
the beginning of the next vocal phrase, whereas the 74 meter
suggested by the opening measures does not. The total repeat-
ing span is thirty quarter notes: four three-measure groups in
5 7
8 , or four measures of 4 with a two-beat comma (or two meas-
ures of 4 and four of 44 ). The drums might therefore express
7
the more appropriate choice of meter for the passage, even
though the vocal grouping initially articulates the more phe-
nomenally salient option through its prominence in the mix
and the comfortable tempo range it occupies.
summary and conclusion
Three parameters have guided my analysis of quintuple and
septuple grooves: (1) the available metric interpretation(s); (2)

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
244 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 42 (2020)

example 22. A polymetric groove with two strongly articulated irregular elements: Battles, “ Ddiamondd” (2007), 0:00

the implied subdivisional structure or succession, including
categorization as isochronous or non-isochronous; and (3) the
nature of the drumbeat or other pattern, where undifferenti-
ated successions and backbeat variants form the default
options. These irregular grooves follow the general preference
for Platonic-trochaic successions observed in other metrically
irregular musics, though this tendency is weaker among undif-
ferentiated patterns, where Platonic-iambic successions are
more common in 58 and 165 meters. Backbeat variants are the
most common type of drumbeat, accounting for over half of
the grooves surveyed. Isochronous and non-isochronous
structures are about equally common in undifferentiated
articulations, while a majority of backbeat variants have some
isochronous element (be it a consistent pulse or beat on the
ride or hi-hat cymbals, the deployment of kick and snare
drums, or both). Non-isochronous backbeat variants are often
ambiguous, as they afford interpretations in which the non-
isochrony is felt as metric as well as syncopated interpreta-
tions in which the non-isochrony is felt as a rhythmic layer
that contrasts with an underlying isochronous beat. Finally,
polymetric grooves show the same preference for the 44 back-
beat characteristic of rock music. If the drums do not articu-
late a regular backbeat, they supply the irregular layer, which
will be undifferentiated or a backbeat variant with about
equal frequency.
My research suggests several future avenues of inquiry.
Each feature that delimited the corpus (meter, genre, instru-
ment) could be modified to suit new research. For example,
in considering other irregular meters, one might investigate
whether the patterns I have identified here remain prevalent
in grooves based on alternating meters (e.g., 44 þ 78 ), or
whether subtle differences in metric context correspond to
different drumbeat approaches.45 My findings could also be
extended by comparing the patterns I have attributed to the
rock drum kit to the practices of jazz and metal drummers.
Analogous patterns may even be found in musical traditions
that do not employ the drum kit, as in classical and various
world musics. Further research might consider the roles of
other instruments in shaping irregular grooves as well, fol-
lowing the notion of positional listening.46 Study of bass
parts would likely dovetail most directly with the perspective
I have provided on the drums; moreover, as a typically mono-
phonic instrument, the study of bass parts would pose rela-
tively few methodological hurdles. As we continue to probe
the details of metric irregularity and rock drumbeat conven-
tions, this study offers tools with which such questions might
be more easily answered.
45 Hanenberg (2018, Chapters 5 and 6) addresses drumbeat patterns in
larger irregular cardinalities and isolated irregular measures, within a more
modest corpus than this one.
46 Positional listening and positional analysis (Spicer and Marvin 2016)
study the musical realities of different performing musicians within an en-
semble as distinct from one another and from the audience perspective
that has traditionally served as an analyst’s point of departure.

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 using drumbeats to theorize meter in quintuple and septuple grooves
works cited
Attas, Robin. 2015. “Form as Process: The Buildup
Introduction in Popular Music.” Music Theory Spectrum 37
(2): 275–96.
Beatles Complete Scores, The. 1993. Milwaukee, WI: Hal
Leonard.
Biamonte, Nicole. 2010. “Triadic Modal and Pentatonic
Patterns in Rock Music.” Music Theory Spectrum 32 (2):
95–110.
———. 2014. “Formal Functions of Metric Dissonance in
Rock Music.” Music Theory Online 20 (2). http://www.
mtosmt.org/issues/mto.14.20.2/mto.14.20.2.biamonte.html
(accessed 22 October 2019).
Butterfield, Matthew W. 2006. “The Power of Anacrusis:
Engendered Feeling in Groove-Based Musics.” Music
Theory Online 12 (4). http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.
06.12.4/mto.06.12.4.butterfield.html (accessed 21 October
2019).
Capuzzo, Guy. 2018. “Rhythmic Deviance in the Music of
Meshuggah.” Music Theory Spectrum 40 (1): 121–37.
Chor, Ives. 2010. “Microtiming and Rhythmic Structure in
Clave-Based Music: A Quantitative Study.” In Musical
Rhythm in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Edited by Anne
Danielsen. 37–50. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
Cohn, Richard. 2016. “A Platonic Model of Funky Rhythms.”
Music Theory Online 22 (2). http://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.
16.22.2/mto.16.22.2.cohn.html (accessed 21 October 2019).
———. 2019. “Meter.” In The Oxford Handbook of Critical
Concepts in Music Theory. Edited by Alexander Rehding
and Steven Rings. 207–33. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Cone, Edward T. 1968. Musical Form and Musical
Performance. New York: W. W. Norton.
de Clercq, Trevor. 2016. “Measuring a Measure: Absolute
Time as a Factor for Determining Bar Lengths and Meter
in Pop/Rock Music.” Music Theory Online 22 (3). http://
mtosmt.org/issues/mto.16.22.3/mto.16.22.3.declercq.html
(accessed 21 October 2019).
Fabbri, Franco. 1982. “A Theory of Musical Genres: Two
Applications.” In Popular Music Perspectives: Papers from the
First International Conference on Popular Music Research,
Amsterdam, June 1981. Edited by David Horn and Philip
Tagg. 52–81. Göteborg and Exeter: International
Association for the Study of Popular Music.
Gotham, Mark. 2015. “Meter Metrics: Characterizing
Relationships among (Mixed) Metrical Structures.” Music
Theory Online 21 (2). http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.
15.21.2/mto.15.21.2.gotham.html (accessed 25 October
2019).
Gracyk, Theodore. 1996. Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of
Rock. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hanenberg, Scott. 2018. “Unpopular Meters: Irregular
Grooves and Drumbeats in the Songs of Tori Amos,
Radiohead, and Tool.” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto.
This content downloaded from
123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
245
Hasty, Christopher. 1997. Meter as Rhythm. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hennessy, Jeffrey James. 2008. “Fiddle Grooves: Identity,
Representation, and the Sound of Cape Breton Fiddle
Music in Popular Culture.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Toronto.
Holt, Fabian. 2007. Genre in Popular Music. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Iyer, Vijay. 1998. “Microstructures of Feel, Macrostructures of
Sound: Embodied Cognition in West African and African-
American Musics.” Ph.D. diss., University of California,
Berkeley.
———. 2002. “Embodied Mind, Situated Cognition, and
Expressive Microtiming in African-American Music.”
Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 19 (3):
387–414.
Large, Edward W. 2001. “Periodicity, Pattern Formation, and
Metric Structure.” Journal of New Music Research 30 (2):
173–85.
———. 2008. “Resonating to Musical Rhythm: Theory and
Experiment.” In The Psychology of Time. Edited by Simon
Grondin. 189–231. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Ltd.
Large, Edward W. and Mari Riess Jones. 1999. “The
Dynamics of Attending: How We Track Time-Varying
Events.” Psychological Review 106 (1): 119–59.
Large, Edward W. and Caroline Palmer. 2002. “Perceiving
Temporal Regularity in Music.” Cognitive Science 26 (1):
1–37.
Lerdahl, Fred and Ray Jackendoff. 1983. A Generative Theory
of Tonal Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
London, Justin. 2012. Hearing in Time: Psychological Aspects of
Musical Meter, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mauch, Matthias and Simon Dixon. 2012. “A Corpus-Based
Study of Rhythm Patterns.” 13th International Society for
Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR). 163–68.
Centre for Digital Music, Queen Mary University of
London.
McLeod, Kembrew. 2001. “Genres, Subgenres, Sub-
Subgenres and More: Musical and Social Differentiation
within Electronic/Dance Music Communities.” Journal of
Popular Music Studies 13: 59–75.
Moore, Allan F. 2001. Rock: The Primary Text: Developing a
Musicology of Rock, 2nd ed. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Murphy, Scott. 2016. “Cohn’s Platonic Model and the
Regular Irregularities of Recent Popular Multimedia.”
Music Theory Online 22 (3). http://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.
16.22.3/mto.16.22.3.murphy.html (accessed 21 October
2019).
Negus, Keith. 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. New
York: Routledge.
Osborn, Brad. 2010. “Beats that Commute: Algebraic and
Kinesthetic Models for Math-Rock Grooves.” Gamut 3 (1):
43–68.
246 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 42 (2020)

———. 2017. Everything in Its Right Place: Analyzing
Radiohead. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Shea, Kev. 2016. “Vinnie Colaiuta Explains Sting’s ‘Seven
Days.’” YouTube video, 04:35. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v¼GwmCeon6aPo (accessed 1 September 2018).
Rosenberg, Nancy. 2011. “Popular Music in the College
Music Theory Class: Rhythm and Meter.” In Pop-Culture
Pedagogy in the Music Classroom: Teaching Tools from
American Idol to YouTube. Edited by Nicole Biamonte.
47–71. Toronto: Scarecrow Press.
Spicer, Mark and Elizabeth Marvin. 2016. “Positional
Listening/Positional Analysis.” Special session presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Society for Music Theory, 3–6
November, Vancouver, BC.
Stephenson, Ken. 2002. What to Listen for in Rock. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Tamlyn, Garry. 1998. “The Big Beat: Origins and Development
of Snare Backbeat and Other Accompanimental Rhythms in
Rock’n’Roll.” Ph.D. diss., University of Liverpool.
Temperley, David. 1999. “Syncopation in Rock: A Perceptual
Perspective.” Popular Music 18 (1): 19–40.
———. 2001. The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
———. 2011. “The Cadential IV in Rock.” Music Theory
Online 17 (1). http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.11.17.1/
mto.11.17.1.temperley.php (accessed 21 October 2019).
———. 2018. The Musical Language of Rock. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Toussaint, Godfried T. 2013. The Geometry of Musical
Rhythm: What Makes a “ Good” Rhythm Good? Boca Raton,
FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
Traut, Don. 2005. “‘Simply Irresistible’: Recurring Accent
Patterns as Hooks in Mainstream 1980s Music.” Popular
Music 24 (1): 57–77.
Whirty, Ryan. 2007. “Rock ‘n’ Roll Professor.” Rochester
Review 69 (5). https://www.rochester.edu/pr/Review/
V69N5/feature3.html (accessed 24 October 2019).

Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 227–46, ISSN 0195-6167,
electronic ISSN 1533-8339. V C The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford

University Press on behalf of The Society for Music Theory. All rights
reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
DOI: 10.1093/mts/mtaa005

This content downloaded from

123.113.229.61 on Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:45:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms