Metal music theory[views:15107][posts:125]____________________________________________________________________________ [Nov 24,2009 11:42pm - martins the sleeping parachute malfunction agent ""] lol gauyz come on there's too many lol haha fake wanna be hi gauyz martins trolls haha YOUR RUINING IT lol |
| _________________________________________________________________________________ [Nov 24,2009 11:45pm - Martins the all singing all dancing crap of the world ""] oh hai guyz, am i making myself appear as a sexually confused youngster again? |
| _________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:22am - Snowden ""] ShadowSD said:Vastly vastly different from any bands before them, and if you can provide some counterexamples from blues or even hard rock from the 60's that go along the same lines as the Sabbath songs I cited, go ahead. Sir Lord Baltimore, Iron Butterfly, Blue Cheer, Mountain, even Cream here and there. Not saying they were just like Sabbath, but close enough that I wouldn't say Sabbath was some radical totally new thing. |
| ________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:37am - aril ""] Bah. Too tired to indulge in this conversation. |
| ______________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:42am - swamplorddvm ""] aril said:Bah. Too tired to indulge in this conversation. Fuck it. There are better things to waste your time on. Like making fun of hipsters. Perhaps tomorrow. |
| ________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:53am - aril ""] [QUOTE="sever:1008729]Stop pretending you're Einsteins kid and that you have a dick the size a woolly mammoths. lol'd |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 8:33am - ShadowSD ""] Snowden said: ShadowSD said:Vastly vastly different from any bands before them, and if you can provide some counterexamples from blues or even hard rock from the 60's that go along the same lines as the Sabbath songs I cited, go ahead. Sir Lord Baltimore, Iron Butterfly, Blue Cheer, Mountain, even Cream here and there. Not saying they were just like Sabbath, but close enough that I wouldn't say Sabbath was some radical totally new thing. Are there songs by those bands where they're doing the kind of chord progressions in Paranoid (like say i VI VII i) or using the tritone in the pronounced and sustained way the song Black Sabbath does, which is completely foreign to rock and blues? Those are two examples of staples of metal that have been echoed countless times since by countless bands, but really didn't exist among the bands you listed, at least in the examples I can think of. If you can think of individual songs that do these things, I am willing to be corrected. Cream from time to time is the only possible exception I would concede thus far (White Room would qualify as a metal composition in my view), but my point is that part of what set apart Sabbath from other bands of the same era is while there where tons of bands in the early to mid 70's who played mostly hard rock but would also play a metal song from time to time, Sabbath played metal the vast majority of the time - and could therefore correctly be called the first metal band. With the exception of "Fluff" and parts of "The Wizard" I can't think of anything Sabbath does that isn't metal. However, when people talk about Led Zepplin or Cream or others being the first metal band, I cringe, because metal was only a fraction of what they did; the same could be said for Aerosmith and Kiss for that matter, they played their rock songs and they played their metal songs, but neither could credibly be called a metal band only. Sabbath played metal songs almost exclusively, and that's one thing that really set them apart - both in terms of focusing on the genre before anyone else did, and the contributions to the genre that resulted. |
| _________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 8:57am - Martins ""] Martins trolls are really letting the ball drop lately. |
| ________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 9:48am - aril ""] Yes man. They are a little overdone now. Much like arguments that sabbath was the first metal band, no if ands or buts about it. Sorry Shadow, no offense bud. |
| _____________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 10:01am - Martins en el eye ""] I took a theory class last year at school and I was really surprised about all the things that were taboo in Classical music. They're commonplace now. It's interesting but I don't think RttP is the place to post your dissertation LOL |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 10:43am - Snowden ""] ShadowSD said:Sabbath played metal songs almost exclusively, and that's one thing that really set them apart - both in terms of focusing on the genre before anyone else did, and the contributions to the genre that resulted. Okay, but I was just pointing out that their "metal" stuff wasn't that far off from what some other bands were doing around the same time. If you're saying they were the first ones to ONLY play stuff in that style, sure but that's not really a music theory thing. |
| ______________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 10:50am - ouchdrummer ""] we in Boarcorpse don't use "theory" we only play from feel. sm:9 |
| ___________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 10:54am - ShadowSD ""] I talk about this shit all the time when I teach guitar lessons and music theory lessons, it's way more interesting and relevant than the stock lesson plan of starting out on the first day with OK, here's a staff and the C major scale. The concepts have to come before the notation, just like in learning any language; theory in this respect is generally taught ass backwards. |
| _______________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:05pm - goatcatalyst ""] This thread sucks. Smoke weed and listen to Ritchie Blackmore, fags. |
| ______________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:06pm - ouchdrummer ""] right? |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:19pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] Martins said:Melodic minor isn't really a scale in terms of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 etc. It was a chordal application in minor. The 7 always had to be sharp if it was moving from 7 to 1. (Which is where the harmonic minor comes from.) On the way down, you play the natural 7 and move to 6. In Classical music. Technically speaking this is the traditional application of melodic minor, but in actual composition the 7th can be played in either (or both) positions going up or down the scale and still be considered melodic minor. Passing tones FTW. martins%20the%20metal%20enthusiast said:hey gauyz i like metal too like hatbread so cool right gauyz Hatbread reference F T double W. |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:33pm - Martins ""] Are you sure? I had always heard that if used as a scale, it had to be #7 on the up and natural7 on the way down. If I'm wrong, shit. |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:34pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] In classical music if your band teacher wields a ruler, sure. It's how it's traditionally used, but there are other applications. |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:34pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] Only if you're on the Warrior Diet, though. |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:34pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] LOL |
| ________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:34pm - aril ""] how about who cares about terimnology and just do it all by ear? |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:35pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] Then GTFO thread and go implus tarker. |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:35pm - Martins ""] Well yeah, I mean. I learned that part from my old guitar teacher like 8 or 9 years ago. He was probably classically trained. What a douchebag. |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:36pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] I just consider it license to throw little chromatic bits in towards the top of the scale. That and the flatted/natural 5th. |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:37pm - Martins ""] DIMINISHED |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:37pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] YOU'RE DIMUNISHED |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:38pm - Martins ""] I can feel my soul hurting. |
| ________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:39pm - aril ""] I still don't see any sense in arguing over theory when music comes from within, first and foremost. It's much easier not having to worry about modes and scales. That should always come 2nd. |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:40pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] I don't have to worry about them, I know them. OH, SICC BURN. |
| ________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:44pm - aril ""] :( could have used your extravagant knowledge in theory and melodic composition in herugrim :( |
| ____________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:45pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] dis thread haz 2 many words yo |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:47pm - Martins ""] lol I agree with aril. I never think oh shit I'm gonna jump to the V by means of the ii or something stupid but after the fact, I love reveling in how something turned out. OH SHIT I DID THAT? Music theory is a great way to feel good about yourself. Or terrible. Don't try to AUGMENT the truth. |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:50pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] OH SHIT HE SAID AUGMENT THAT'S A THEORY JOKE |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:50pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] UP IN HE-AH |
| ________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:51pm - aril ""] Well I'm not knocking people that use theory to write. That's the orthodox way. I know theory somewhat, but never really cared to delve deep into it because I enjoy using my ear more than what's "technically" write. I guess it's because Ive never taken lessons, nor have the desire to. |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:51pm - Martins ""] there's some MAJOR theory joking going on |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:55pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] WHY DON'T YOU MINOR OWN BUSINESS |
| ________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:57pm - aril ""] lol. I need to trem my beard. |
| ___________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:58pm - ShadowSD ""] aril said:how about who cares about terimnology and just do it all by ear? I prefer playing by ear to reading sheet music by a million to one, and will always feel that way. I hate sightreading, as playing by ear always has more potential by inherant design. At the same time, combining a really good ear with an intellectual understanding of theory (not terminology or notation - that's ridiculously overrrated - but the concepts of what notes tend to go together) can make a person virtually infallible in real time - able to improvise anything at any given moment with anything and just about always be right. What it really comes down to is that all theory really does is eliminate the notes you don't want, giving your ear a statisically higher percentage probability of finding the note on the guitar you're hearing in your head. So it's absolutely true that it can't tell you what to do, it can just eliminate more of the incorrect possibilities and give you a higher chance of success; the only propeller of forward motion, the only engine of creation is reliant on the human ear. We forge our own paths as guitar players based on what we hear; theory is only a map that shows us where the landmines are, not which direction to go. So, I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, if not the letter of it. The one principle I stress above all when I teach is that music theory is simply "what sounds good and why". Anything beyond that is useless blather that academics repeat to make themselves sound smart, and a waste of fucking time. For instance, if you're not dealing with sheet music, flats are a pointless redundancy and a waste of time. So are modes - COMPLETE REDUNDANCY. There's a surprising amount of bullshit one can filter out when it comes to music theory. If it has no practical application, it's useless. |
| _________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 12:59pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] ShadowSD said:For instance, if you're not dealing with sheet music, flats are a pointless redundancy and a waste of time. So are modes - COMPLETE REDUNDANCY. There's a surprising amount of bullshit one can filter out when it comes to music theory. If it has no practical application, it's useless. I can't get behind this at all. |
| ___________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:00pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] circle of filths |
| _______________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:01pm - aril ""] Couldn't agree more. |
| _______________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:05pm - aril ""] I like the map analogy. I guess I prefer a fog around my map and like moving peons and/scouts into the unknown. Of course you would have to know real time strat games to get that. If I wasn't on my phone i'd type more on this but oh well. |
| _________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:07pm - Martins ""] DestroyYouAlot said: ShadowSD said:For instance, if you're not dealing with sheet music, flats are a pointless redundancy and a waste of time. So are modes - COMPLETE REDUNDANCY. There's a surprising amount of bullshit one can filter out when it comes to music theory. If it has no practical application, it's useless. I can't get behind this at all. I don't know. It's really fucking cool to hear a Lydian tune but it's true that if you know the major scale, you know every other mode. It's the application of modes that is not redundant and also not as easy. |
| __________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:27pm - ShadowSD ""] DestroyYouAlot said: ShadowSD said:For instance, if you're not dealing with sheet music, flats are a pointless redundancy and a waste of time. So are modes - COMPLETE REDUNDANCY. There's a surprising amount of bullshit one can filter out when it comes to music theory. If it has no practical application, it's useless. I can't get behind this at all. I know, I know, blasphemy - but I can explain it. Flats - We are totally fucked in sheet music with an antiquated system based on piano-family instruments tuned to the key of C major. Instead of having the twelve chromatic tones that our ears fully differentiate, all of a sudden, classical theory ends up designed to represent five of the tones with alternate names. This is not efficient, this is not practical; in fact, it's hideously impractical, as it's one extra translation for the mind at every iteration, and it adds up. Now, sheet music is not going to change - but if you're not sightreading (and most of us aren't on a regular basis), go with naturals and sharps when it comes to your instrument, and you'll be amazing at your ability to process at several times the speed in the long term. The cost? Nothing. A# IS Bb - there's no difference. Ever. As far as our ear is concerned, the twelve tones could just as well be A-L. Don't let an antiquated system that anchors our method of notation weigh down your thought process as well. Basically, there's A - G, every letter has a sharp except B and E, and that's it. Modes - This is even more controversial to say, as a lot of guitarists are inexplicably wedded to modal thinking, but modes are a fucking scam. There is one key/scale template - that's it. View it as the minor key or the major key or one of seven modes, depending on where you start - it's all one friggin scale; furthermore when we apply a scale on guitar in a song or play in a given key (same thing, really), the order can be mixed, so therefore drawing arbitrary lines around going from A to A and B to B and so on is seriously retarded, let alone the idea of always going from beginning to end when a scale would never be consistently applied in practice in such a uniform and homogenous manner. What's really going on is much more simple. When you do a solo, it matters what you're doing when the chord change hits versus when the chord is ringing out. When the chord is ringing out, the rules are more open; anything in key is fair game. When the chord change hits, however, the rules are more stringent; the note you hit has to work with the underlying chord as well. For instance, If the note in the solo ends up being the fourth or the sixth or the chord, thereby changing its identity, then there can be a ugly clash unless the identity shift was intended. If I'm in the key of Am and you play a G (VII) chord, the B in my solo at the moment of the chord change can be followed by ANYTHING in the key of Am as the chord rings out, and all that matters is that I played a note that worked with the VII chord at the moment of that change; if some jackass in a classroom wants to talk about how what I really did right was playing Locrian over the VII chord, they can waste time spouting off names in Latin chasing themselves in a fucking circle. Don't waste yours. Modes have no actual meaning, and not a single practical application that even justifies their existence. |
| ________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:28pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] I like turtles. |
| ___________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:32pm - arktouros ""] DestroyYouAlot said:I like turtles. You're out of the band for that comment. |
| ________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:33pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] LOL @ drummers posting in music threads |
| _________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:34pm - Martins ""] LOL @ drummers |
| ________________________________________ [Nov 25,2009 1:35pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] LOL @ LOLing |