jamesg1213


They seem to be doing it as a straight 12 bar shuffle here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0RXGDcXa0E

Maybe they focus-grouped it 

sharke

jamesg1213


They seem to be doing it as a straight 12 bar shuffle here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0RXGDcXa0E

Maybe they focus-grouped it 

That's funny ... I just listened to this one and you are probably right.  The extra two beats were probably deemed too cerebral for the modern listener.
 
In this version they just shifted the response to beat 1 instead of beat 3 ... and just let the call and response step on each other.  Again, I suspect somebody gave the vocal arrangement a lot of thought in the original version.

I'm not saying its not "planned". I'm saying that that's just the way they want to perform it...for whatever reason. And so they do. 

It doesn't make musical sense...but no one cares. It's how they feel it.

This is so ubiquitous in modern folk, blues and gospel music as to be entirely mundane.  

But it is not some sort of calculated, musically pedagogical variance.  This is just basic "feel" writ large.  Nothing more.

Interesting song pick, Sharke. Definitely get ones attention.
 
My $.02, I go with Yorolpal in this. Performance is simple. Lead vocal track, backup vocals, hand-claps, piano player (playing bass and chords). I think the lead vocalist just went with it, and might have a poor sense of song structure/timing(?). The piano player just followed behind (or played catchup) in some spots. The handclaps are not an issue because they just follow the steady beat. The backup singers aren't an issue. They also come in based on the lead vocal line. Everything is keyed off the lead vocalist. I wouldn't doubt if this was a one-shot recording. It worked well enough, so they kept it.
 
And as the link Jamesg1213 posted, this shows a more recent performance and it is straightforward with the timing.
 
I do like the song (odd timing and all).