I am referring to, of course, the autopsy. Obviously.
This fascinating by which I mean abominable study has been brought to my attention, scientifically examining the “micro timing” of Charlie Watts’s drumming in the context of a popular music performing group of elderly gentlemen, called The Rolling Stones, and it arouses a number of questions and rude ejaculations, in me, because I hate it.
It begins:
In this article, we empirically examine microtiming and tempo variability in the drumming of the Rolling Stones’ Charlie Watts. We present a new method for microtiming analysis and use it to examine 81 Rolling Stones recordings and 59 songs by other artists. Our study finds that Watts delayed backbeats more consistently than his contemporaries, particularly in releases dating from 1967 to 1973. We also analyze tempo variability in 133 Rolling Stones studio recordings with Watts, finding that tempo variation often reflected song structure and that the band had a general tendency to accelerate in recordings from this same 1967–73 period. After 1973, the music of the Rolling Stones became much steadier, to some extent aligning with trends in mainstream pop. Ultimately, our study provides some evidence for claims commonly made about Watts, but also suggests that much of the discussion may be colored by romanticized notions of authenticity.
The methodology they have chosen to ascertain these facts, in part:
We employed multiple approaches to measuring the significance and potential perceptibility of deviations from expectation. The positive or negative measurements in milliseconds (indicating whether an attack was relatively late or early) were compared with a hypothesized zero deviation via a two-sided one-sample t-test, providing a p-value that indicates whether the mean deviation was statistically significant. We also calculated the percentage of second and fourth beats in each song that were delayed by the 2.5 percent of mean IOI standard of conscious perceptibility (discussed above; hereafter referred to as “the 2.5 percent of mean IOI threshold” or “substantial” delay). While the perception of microtiming deviation likely depends not only on the measurable timing but also on factors such as timbre, duration, amplitude, the listener’s musical training, and the activity of the other instruments in the texture (Danielsen et al. 2019; Frane and Shams 2017; Butterfield 2007, 19), 2.5 percent of mean IOI can be thought of as the lower end of possible conscious recognition by a musically trained listener. We have thus used this threshold as a benchmark in our statistical evaluations.
And then there’s about 40 miles of this level of thing:
On and on, concluding at last:
Questions regarding whether Charlie Watts’s delayed backbeats had patterns of tempo variability or had a special “feel” that made him an outstanding drummer and a key contributor to the Rolling Stones’ sound have broader resonance for the analysis of music and how listeners mythologize musicians. Our findings suggest that there is some truth to the notion that Watts did subtle things in his drumming that had a significant impact on the sound of the band, but the extent to which these elements made him unique may have been exaggerated.
And:
Our research thus contributes to the conversation about “humanity” versus “automation” in music, both in the past and the present. The fact that Rolling Stones fans continue to vigorously debate in online forums whether the band has used click tracks shows the importance of these questions among listeners who view the Stones as icons of spontaneity and rebellion. By using objective methods to measure microtiming and tempo variability, we show that these discussions need not remain an echo chamber of competing rumors. Determining whether microtiming or tempo deviations have occurred will not end the debate over their value, but will allow listeners to better draw their own, more informed conclusions and listen to popular music with increased sensitivity to rhythmic nuance.
So, yeah, they’re just trying to resolve a forum dispute between Rolling Stones fans. Applying this level of rigor to counter what some guys kinda said on a forum is highly strange. Narrowing the question of Watts’s outstandingness as a contributor to the Rolling Stones musical act to the micro-timing of his backbeats is also very, very strange. Who thinks that way.
Normally we are told that theory, and science in general, is all about quantifying what you can quantify. We’re told there is no message, and we are not intended to draw any lesson from it other than this is what can be said with qualified certainty within the terms of our study.
But the authors also say that this was an “approach” Watts “used” sometimes, as if there’s a deliberate musical technique to it, which— they would need to show that he did that by intention. The authors also had to decide it was a topic worthy of study— so even if the results were ideologically neutral, that choice was not. They had to look at the question and say “this is significant, we are needed here, and this is how far we need to take it.”
Apart from being completely misguided, it’s kind of invasive. Why do this to Charlie Watts? He was by all accounts a humble guy, kind of a small player, with a limited catalog. Leave him alone, let his dead bones rest.
I am happy to help you with any of the materials on the site, and with anything else drumming related— contact me for private lessons, online world wide, or in person in Portland, Oregon. All levels of players, and all people, are welcome.
Email Todd | Call or text +1(503)380-9259 | Chat on WhatsApp