Detecting Click Tracks

jamie found a blog entry by Paul Lamere, working for audio company Echo Nest, in which he experiments with detecting which songs use a click track. Lamere gives this background: "Sometime in the last 10 or 20 years, rock drumming has changed. Many drummers will now don headphones in the studio (and sometimes even for live performances) and synchronize their playing to an electronic metronome — the click track. ...some say that songs recorded against a click track sound sterile, that the missing tempo deviations added life to a song." Lamere's experiments can't be called "scientific," but he does manage to tease out some interesting conclusions about songs and artists past and present using Echo Nest's developer API.

Comments

It's pretty standard these days

[spliffington]

It's required to make use of drum editing and multitrack syncing. If I were to record garage rock album i would throw everyone in the same room and just play the songs. However to leverage much of the flexibility and power of a digital recording you need a click.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[Technician]

If I were to record garage rock album i would throw everyone in the same room and just play the songs. However to leverage much of the flexibility and power of a digital recording you need a click.

I record garage bands. You don't need a click track for multi-track recording. Take a demo tape and use it to get the drummer to play his track. Use the drummer as the click track for the rest of the sessions. A click track is not needed for multi-track digital recording. I add the wet tracks last after recording all the dry tracks for final mixdown.

The only click track used for this is just a tempo 1 measure lead in to get the drummer started on a new tempo.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[Artifice_Eternity]

Because you're not throwing everyone in a room together. You're likely recording different parts separately, and doing multiple takes, then taking the best takes of each part -- or the ones that go together best -- and mixing them after the recording's done. You can also go back and add new parts if you decide they're needed, or change a part, without re-recording the whole thing. And you can even rearrange portions of the song -- cutting a verse or chorus, moving sections around, etc.

In order to do all of this, you have to have all musicians performing to an absolutely constant tempo.

Also, much music now explicitly incorporates electronic sounds that are sequenced -- synth arpeggios, drum machine patterns, etc. These are always precisely timed. Everyone else needs to be able to match them.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[lkeagle]

I'll have to respectfully disagree. The only reason most bands use a click track is if your drummer can't hold a tempo. There's nothing about digital recording that requires a click track, as evidenced by the enormous number of bands that popularized click tracks in the 70s and 80s.

All a click track does is remove the need for band to practice with metronomes, which unfortunately is one of the most important thing that any musician can do to improve their playing.

I'll admit, there is a case where using a click track is important, and that's if you have a sampler synchronized to it to play pre-recorded material that has to line up. You could consider this a form of 'multitrack syncing', if that's what you were referring to. This is quite common in live pop and hip hop concerts. Even more distressing is the number of 'live' acts where everything is prerecorded except for the vocals.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[MrMista_B]

Much music now is explicitly shit, and I'm not even 30.

I think you've just explained why.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Much music has always been explicitly shit, regardless of when it was made. Go back and take a look at the charts for any year you care to name, and probably 95% of the artists will be people you've never heard of...because they were shit, had their fifteen minutes, and are now long-forgotten.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[lkeagle]

I also forgot one other reason click tracks are popular in today's live pop and hip-hop concerts. Turns out it screws up the choreography if you have even minor tempo fluctuations. A slight shift in tempo can make already difficult dance moves even more so.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[jrumney]

I guess you missed the article a month ago on Auto-Tune software, or you'd have already had an idea why most music today is bland shit.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[clickety6]

Even more distressing is the number of 'live' acts where everything is prerecorded except for the vocals.

More distressing is the number of 'live' acts where everything is pre-recorded INCLUDING the vocals!

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[HonIsCool]

If you start with the drum track then everybody can play along with that recording and there's no need for any click track to keep everything in synch. It can even be the same individual playing all the instruments...

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[cgenman]

Lots of bands that play poorly live sound great on their CD's, and vice-versa. I'd go as far as to say that *most* of the bands that I've liked listening to live have sounded terrible when laid down, and vice-versa.

It's the musician's dillema. Focus on the tricks that make a recording sound good, or focus on the aspects that make a live performance sound good. They're very different sounds.

Of course, I'd guess that the major impetus for getting a click track to the drummer has not been the relentless march of soulless digitization, but simply ticked off guitarists. Sure, we might call it the natural ebb and flow of music, but on stage it is called the drummer screwing everyone else up.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[rivaldufus]

It's not just bands now, either. Modern film scores use a click track. Some of my friends play film scores as freelancers (they are professional, classically trained musicians) - and they've all reported having to use a click track.

The "conductor" is mostly used to notify them which section to play... as most of the music doesn't merit actual rehearsal time. The conductor does get to watch the film during the session, however.

It's pure torture for the musicians... to make it worse, the "conductors" will sometimes say, "Wow! I wish you guys could have seen that scene!"

With all the attention to digital synchronization, some people seem to have forgotten to write and play decent music on occasion. Most film scores these days seem to rip-offs of other film scores or semi-quotes from classical works (John Williams, I'm looking at you.) As great as the radio and recorded music has been, I sometimes feel that it has killed music.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[dotancohen]

I guess you missed the article a month ago on Auto-Tune software, or you'd have already had an idea why most music today is bland shit.

That is because the money is not in the music, it is in the music video, accessories, and other bullshit. Just find some beautiful woman to sync to a click track, the alter her voice to actually _sound_good_ and you've got a winner, with no accusations of lip syncing or whatnot.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[Phroggy]

It's not just dance choreography. A lot of concerts have some sort of video display, which is synchronized to the music. Depending on the nature of the show, there may be some pre-recorded parts as well, mixed in with the live performance. Here's an example of both: the lead vocal, keyboard and bass are live, but the drums aren't, the background vocals aren't, and there's a video on the screen.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[Anonymous Coward]

The human ear is very quick to spot repetition resulting in a sound which can quickly become robotic sounding.

Even if a drum track sounds the same for say one section of a song there will be small variations in rhythm and volume over time that to human ears just sounds more natural.

It would also be not much fun for the drummer as he would just be laying down loops instead of an entire track.

Of course sometimes this is the effect which is desired so you might end up with a more processed sounding drum track. Think Fat Boy Slim et al.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[Hurricane78]

I think the click track is an abomination, symptomatic of the general micro-managing, nit-picking, perfectionist trend that's been going around in business...

There's your problem. (Emphasis mine.)
It's not "having fun, making music" anymore. It' "cold hard business". When I even hear stuff like "music managers" selecting "target groups" to "monetize" their "product/resource", I'm starting to feel sick. Not that It's not Ok to earn money with your music. But it should not be your dominating factor. By far. Luckily I'm pretty sure, this will not survive P2P file sharing. ;)

it's not about doing it right (the organic flow of an unclicked drum track is "right"), it's about doing it how you're "supposed" to do it.

I know what you wanted to mean, but there is no "right" in arts. If you think the sound that your $5000 synth makes when it crashes on the floor after falling from a high-rise is the perfect sound, then so be it. ;) If you want to have a perfect, maybe even mechanical timing, then that is (well, at least it should be) a artist decision. Where you're definitely right (and what I think you wanted to say), is that it's not an artist decision, but a business one.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[dougisfunny]

I thought it was because of songsmith.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's the musician's dillema. Focus on the tricks that make a recording sound good, or focus on the aspects that make a live performance sound good. They're very different sounds."

Rubbish.

The reason a band that sounds good live might fail in a studio recording are...

1: The studio they used does not have the facilities to record live music. Most studios don't nowadays and it is rare to have the big good sounding live room you need for this kind of thing. One room, home or basement studios will not do! Bands try to economize on recording and then it sounds bad.

If a studio does not have the facilities, then they will often lay it down part by part, which loses all the feel.

2: The material is weak. It's exiting live, but does not cut it without that live presence.

There are not really any studio tricks you *have* to do. A good sounding band is a good sounding band, live or recorded.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[daem0n1x]

Been there, done that. Recording a band without multitrack is a nightmare (call it direct take). The slightest mistake that any musician may make, and there will be many, will force to re-record everything again. Small live mistakes are acceptable, in a record, they're not.

Even worse, you may record a song with the perfect groove because the band is full of feeling, and it's so perfect it hurts. But the vocalist got one note wrong. Then you stop and start over again and the groove is gone, because of a very subtle feeling of discomfort in the musicians. Maybe they're fed up with all the takes, etc. It's a lot easier to record multitracked and then ask the vocalist to correct only that note. Then you can use beautiful, great recording you couldn't repeat if you tried.

If you have a shitload of money you can simply hire the best musicians in the world and spend lots and lots of studio time to get the direct recording just perfect. But that is not viable for the most situations.

Multitracking is not only about error-correction. It's also about processing each instrument differently and keep the balance. A vocal phrase may be too loud and muffle the band, just drop the volume a little on that part or compress the vocal track. If the guitar solo is not standing out of the mix, equalise only that segment and raise the guitar track level only for the solo, etc. Also, you need to space the instruments across the whole stereo space and equalise them so they don't clutter together.

Great jazz recordings were performed direct in the studio. But that's collective improvisation, it depends heavily in the group dynamics. You can't record a jazz band instrument by instrument, it won't sound right. You can listen to "Kind Of Blue" of Miles Davis. There are small imperfections perfectly audible throughout the whole record. But it's an irrepeatable, beautiful piece of music. Would you throw it away because one sax spilled into the other sax's microphone or you can hear the musicians whisper in the studio? But we're talking about the best of the best musicians possible. And even jazz recordings are multitracked anyway, because the tracks need to be at the very least individually panned, equalised and compressed.

Don't get me wrong, I hate over-produced music. I think the role of production is to serve the music, not the other way around. I like recordings that sound a bit dirty and spontaneous, but you'd be surprised to know the amount of hard work the producer and technicians have to make it sound that way.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[cayenne8]

I pine for the days back when we had drummers like Keith Moon....just beat the hell out of everything, fast. No click track needed there. Man, I've seen films of him when he was young and really had his chops, those stick were a blurrrrrr.

I think I heard an interview with Pete, saying someone was asking him after listening to some recordings of a session or two of the Who, asking about overdubs, etc on the drumming, and when told it was just Keith, he said it was impossible for someone to hit the drums that fast.

Personally...I'd rather hear things a little more 'raw' than to have everything so 'perfect' so that the digital tools of today can work better.

I think in some ways, the modern recording tools, have helped kill good music in many ways, it can really mask the lack of talent in todays musicians. Some of those old classic albums were recorded practically live. There is very little in the way of overdubs on the studio version of "Since I've Been Loving You". That track was mostly recorded live in one take. Why can't the groups of today play together as a band live like that?

Regardless....I've rather FEEL the emotion in an imperfectly played tune, rather than hear a lifeless perfect rendition of a tune.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[El Torico]

And I miss the days when we had cowbell players like Gene Frenkle. No click track needed there either, not that it would have done any good.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[plover]

There's your problem. (Emphasis mine.) It's not "having fun, making music" anymore. It' "cold hard business". When I even hear stuff like "music managers" selecting "target groups" to "monetize" their "product/resource", I'm starting to feel sick. Not that It's not Ok to earn money with your music. But it should not be your dominating factor. By far. Luckily I'm pretty sure, this will not survive P2P file sharing. ;)

But it is a business. Music is as designed, packaged and sold as cosmetics are.

At the one end of the spectrum, you've got Muzak -- people who are specifically recording background music to achieve a physiologic response: calm, desire to buy, etc. They are under no pretense as to what they are doing. Artistic freedom is almost non-existent.

At the next level, you've got the Hannah Montanas. She was hired to perform exactly to specifications. She is doing a job, more like an actor playing a rock star. She is under no delusion that what she does is a business. She also has no freedoms.

At the next step it gets more interesting. You've got the Britney Spears type. She may think of herself as an "artist", but she was really just "sorted to the top". Lets say ten thousand artists sent in their music. The label says "I have a contract to deliver a band that will sell hair-care products. She fits best." So they hire the "artist," who is perfectly free to delude herself into thinking she's hot stuff, but in reality she just happened to be the best match to the goal of the label. It's no coincidence that pop stars sound similar. And despite her delusions, she really has very few freedoms.

Further along, you've got the smaller and independent labels. They're only listening for a particular "sound" that fits with their other sounds - electronica, ska, house, whatever. Their promotions, concerts, and all that other stuff align, which makes it easier to promote more of the same. But it's still business.

And at the other end, you have the self-produced or independent music. It can be any sound of any quality. Nobody promotes them, nobody works for them, and they do as they please. That doesn't mean they don't want to perform or to get paid for performing, just that they are on their own. But even they have limits. Picture some garage band at a local show deciding to play a bunch of Spice Girls covers -- they'd either get thrown off the stage, or they'd "readjust" their style back to the show. It's not total freedom at this level, either -- they have to play to their audience.

So I don't know why you "feel sick" about "music managers targeting groups to monetize their products." That's what they do at every level. Its just that some of these people have done it for a long time and are very good at it.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[sleigher]

I played in a band and put out 6 albums. We did exactly what you said instead of using a click track. We isolated all instruments in sound proof chambers and just recorded the drums. The drum tracks became that reference. The advantage of this was that the whole band played the song together and the drum tracks reflected that. Then the other instruments laid their parts over top after the fact. We could do punch ins and make good use of digital editing equipment and software. Worked out rather well in my opinion.

Re:It's pretty standard these days

[Yewbert]

The only time I use a metronome is when I'm drumming on my own, to improve my own performance, but I could never play a whole song with the invariable click in my ears (actually that's not true, there is one song where I used a metronome, but only because I had a continuous snare drum pattern and was (am?) just not good enough to keep the rythm).

I've toyed with the idea of creating a "whoosh" track, a less fucking annoying and more forgiving version of a click-track, to help my own occasionally shaky rhythm-keeping. Dig, with something like a white-noise swell whooshing in time instead of the click. I truly don't mind playing with headphones on, even if usually just to give me a mix of everyone else's monitors that can compete with my own volume, but, man, that unforgiving click is worse than having Roger Waters glaring at you balefully.

The Crickets

[Techman83]

Around here... I wonder if they are using a click track?

On a serious note, I do like the warmth of older music, and my listening tastes tend to meander around the times between 5 + 30 years before I was born. (Child of the 80's).

As much as a tech nut I am, I still believe there are certain area's in life where it should be left at the door.

Re:Sterile? As if it made a difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

the drummer from linkin park spent 8hrs a day for 3 months practiciing to click track before the recording sessions started...and this was for their 2nd album...not the 1st...

what is making things sound sterile is simply crap pop music that is also waaaaay over produced. not being rhythmically correct.

Generalizing is usually bad

[atraintocry]

Sometimes there's an obvious speed up or slow down on a song, and in those cases you don't need software to figure out if there's a click track. A quick way to check is to compare the very end of the song and the very beginning. It's similar to acapella singing, sometimes there's a slight change in pitch. If it's not so much that you notice in the middle of the song, then it's not worth worrying about.

There are great albums that used click tracks, and great albums that didn't. Obviously a metronomic sense of tempo is a good asset for a drummer to have, especially if they're looking for session work. But a sense of dynamics and texture is, in my opinion, more important. I'd take an interesting drummer over one that just subdivides everything any day.

Then again, some songs benefit from the drum machine sound. It's all about the vision.

I don't consider a click track on a studio album to be cheating any more than a photographer using a light meter. In a live setting, however, it's a different matter. Not that I've seen anyone actually use a click track live (except for people attempting to sync up with some other prerecorded track and did it out of sheer necessity).

Re:Sterile? As if it made a difference...

[IANAAC]

Don't worry about click tracks, real musicians with real talent probably don't have any need for them.

Actually, yes, most musicians need some sort of "click track" if they're playing in any sort of ensemble. It's just that in an orchestra or band setting, they're called conductors. In modern rock/pop bands, they're called drummers.

You can also randomize a few %

[Anonymous Coward]

I do some recording/mixing and have had the privilege of working under a Grammy winning recording engineer (and phenominal musician in his own right).

Great comments here- yes, click-tracks have been around since the 70s (maybe 60s). Tempo throughout a song can change too much without some kind of metronome. It doesn't have to be an actual click track, just something to guide the musician laying down the first tracks. Just because a drummer or other musician listens to a perfect tempo click track doesn't mean the timing will be "sterile". We're still human! However I know some drummers who are scarily close to perfect timing- without metronome.

Most better click track generators have the ability to randomize the timing a few percent (adjustable). One major midi-based recording program that I use (MOTU Digital Performer) calls it "humanize". You can "quantize" a track to get timing, then "humanize" it.

Re:You can also randomize a few %

[localman]

Yeah, but "randomizing" is not really "humanizing". A good drummer doesn't vary the tempo randomly, tiny tempo changes would go with what feels right for the song. There are many reasons why a particular section of a song might feel better with a slight tempo change. There may be some randomizing going on as well, but that is certainly not the whole picture, or in my estimation the most important part.

Even if you program in slight tempo changes for different sections of the song (which I've done on occasion) there's still an interplay between the different performers trying to stay in sync that causes slight leads and hesitations between different instrument that add to the depth of the music. If everything is quantized that is lost too, and randomizing doesn't bring it back.

I've recorded with and without click tracks for various reasons, and quantized or not for various reasons. Neither is right or wrong, it just depends on what you're trying to create. But there is a lot of depth that comes out of having people playing live together that is nearly impossible to replicate when the recording is highly controlled.

Cheers.

Timing doesn't equal "feel"

[whichpaul]

I'm an experienced drummer and I play regularly with, and without, click tracks; I can tell you that the assumption that "feel" or "groove" is only present when a drummer's time varies is not accurate.

There are at least two types of variation that matter in a drummer's performance: the overall sense of time and the moment by moment variations. The ability of a drummer to play a complete number and keep to a set tempo is really important, particularly in this day and age of digital editing. But it is a common feature of "click track performances" for the drummer to sway ahead of and fall behind of the beat (faster and slower). If done correctly this variance in tempo will add significant life to a performance and such a skill takes a lot of practice to perfect.

The subtle qualities of a drummer's performance go far beyond whether or not they stick to a given tempo for the duration of a number; this is just one variable that effects the quality of a performance. Some genres require a rigid sense (metal/electronica) of time whilst others benefit greatly from its absence (fusion/jazz).

Interesting software however ... I'm tempted to have a play with it.

Consistent Tempo != Click Track

[Nate4D]

I play keyboards for two different worship bands at my church, and I discovered a pretty amazing trait that our drummer/leader in the morning service has:

He doesn't change tempo unless he wants to.

At all.

To elaborate, as that sounds sketchy unless you know how I learned it:

I'm a pretty rhythmic keyboard player, and one of my favored techniques (especially if I need to fill in empty space from, say, a missing electric guitarist in addition to the other textural stuff I was doing) is to use multi-tap delay and really accurate timing to build rhythms and and evolving chords. It can be a really fun effect.

I don't use it much, though, because even with a tap-tempo delay, which I have in my rig, it's really awkward to stay synced up with the rest of the band. My delay is pretty accurate (built-in effect on the Nord Stage, which is rather high-end. I'm pretty confident it's got sub-millisecond accuracy), and I can stay tight with it, but even decent drummers can have a hard time with that (let's hear it for teachers that make you practice with metronomes, eh?), so I usually have to adjust the tempo a few times throughout a song, and that can make things get ugly fast. A less-than-decent drummer, which is all too common, can't stay consistent enough for me to even try it. Thus, I don't (or didn't, I should say) do this much at all, despite my fondness for it.

But, when I first tried it with Bob (the aforementioned drummer), I was shocked, because it just worked. I tapped in a tempo on his first measure or two, and it stayed tight the whole way through. I really hadn't expected that result - hadn't occurred to me humans could be that accurate.

Naturally, I started trying this in various places where it fit, and so far, I can't remember a single attempt where it didn't stay synced. Granted, I haven't tried it with really dragged out delay times (nothing above about two beats of delay at maybe 100 BPM), but even so...

This is the best of both worlds, because when you need him to be rock-solid, he is, but when the situation calls for it, he can (and does) manipulate tempo intentionally.

I've told him (and others) that playing with him is like having an expressive human metronome, and I mean it. It is amazingly blissful - I can wander out into strange netherworlds of syncopation and/or ethereal tempolessness (yay for pads!) and the foundation never wavers.

I'm sure that at times, he has small amounts of drift, but given that my delay stays tightly synced with him for whole songs at a single tempo, it can't get as large as even a single beat per minute very often.

We haven't tried it yet, but someday I'd like to try him out against some sequenced stuff - I'm pretty sure that if I could handle it (which I don't think I can, yet), he'd be unphased by it, even if it got pretty thick. Live band + sequenced riffs/textures/effects could result in some pretty cool stuff.

So, all that to say:

The guy who wrote TFA is actually just providing a measurement of how consistent the drummers for these bands are. Maybe they used a click track to achieve that consistency, but as a semi-pro living in central PA (not exactly renowned for its music scene), I've found one who doesn't need the click.

Re:Consistent Tempo != Click Track

[Paul Lamere]

Nate4D - I'd love to run the analysis on your church band to see if we tell the difference from your drummer and a click track. Send me a URL to a recording and I'll generate the plot. Paul at echonest.com.

"can't do with a click track"

[Atario]

From TFA:

One final plot ... the venerable stairway to heaven is noted for its gradual increase in intensity - part of that is from the volume and part comes from in increase in tempo. Jimmy Page stated that the song "speeds up like an adrenaline flow". Let's see if we can see this:

[graph]

The steady downward slope shows shorter beat durations over the course of the song (meaning a faster song). That's something you just can't do with a click track.

Um...really? You can't make a click track gradually change rate over time? Or follow whatever kind of variation you program it to? That's news to me. I thought computers wuz like all smart 'n' stuff.

Re:It's just like pitch

[slash.duncan]

People do indeed have different skills... or are sensitive to different torture, that being a different way to put it. Like many thousands or tens of thousands of folks, I volunteer to run soundboards for various local organizations, but don't claim to be anywhere near pro, but perhaps because of the substandard equipment and layouts I've worked with over the years, I've apparently a rather developed sensitivity to overdrive/clipping, threshold feedback loops, and "tape on the dashboard" effect.

One that gets me regularly is overdriven/clipping distortion. The other nite, someone at work was playing "music" on their cellphone. "It's pretty loud for a cellphone" she said, while it was about all I could do to stop from running away yelling with my fingers in my ears. The poor 1/2 watt or whatever speaker was distorting so much it was worse than fingernails on a chalkboard! Momentarily I had the opportunity to reach for the thing and turn it down perhaps 30 percent or so, without much loss in volume, but a HUGE improvement in quality due to the fact that it wasn't over-driving/clip-distorting any more! MUCH better!

I used to work across from a church, with speakers shaped like bells hung in the "bell" tower. They'd play recorded bells. I guess they finally upgraded to CDs, but before that... Have you ever heard the effect of stretched tape on a bell recording? It was actually funny sometimes, watching people smile and turn to listen to the "bells"... then hear the draaagg and pitch-bend, and realize it was only a (very streeeaaaatttched) recording... or worse yet, not realize it, commenting how nice the bells were, while I and others stood there gritting our teeth.

Sitting in the audience at anything "live" can be most discomforting on occasion too, hearing the threshold telltales that say the system's /this/ close from going into the dreaded feedback squeal, yet being bound by politeness from jumping dozens of rows of chairs and half way across the hall to turn the thing down a notch NOW, then notch the resonating frequency out of the EQ after the immediate threat is passed. I end up just sitting there, ready for the fingers in the ears if the squeal actually does hit, but otherwise outwardly calm and of proper decorum, whatever internal struggle to resist that leap might be going on.

Yet most folks don't notice a thing. What's especially "interesting" is when the guys with the "phat" car stereos or the like ask what I think about their system... yeah, it's loud enough, but the bass is all rattling (apparently to some, this is the mark of "good bass" ) or the tweeters are whining in your ears.

But, like I said, I don't claim to be pro. I do like to think I at least know enough about it to recognize a decent one tho. I've always held that a great audio engineer can often make a bad performance at least tolerable, but one stroke of a fat finger at the sound board can well ruin the performance of the best, and a sound guy that doesn't know what to do to stop the squeal (or rolllingg bbooom), or knows what to do but has such underpowered equipment (and/or poor positioning) he must choose between lack of volume and constantly running at feedback threshold (maybe not even an EQ to notch out)... forget it.