Opeth's song writing... naive???

[dorian gray]

well, i dont think its so black and white. i think it can be in between. i feel one can have little "music theory" knowledge...but simply know a lot of chord possibilities simply through trial and error, or just practice and repetition.

thats what i was saying. yay! we agree! the first but hopefully not the last time.
***
on music theory: i'm not in a band but i would think it necessary to know what key one is playing in and all that. how could anyone ever get ideas across to the other members of the band? am i right?

 

[Botfly]

Alot of very good points, personally I lean more towards the creativity side of things.

My point is, though, that it is way more cooler to deliberately break rules of conventianality rather than breakthem because you don't know any better. I'm only asking because I was in a debate with a classically trained musician who couldn't get into Opeth because their song structure seemed "naive." I'll love Opeth until I die, for sure, but when trying to introduce good music to people like this, I'd like a heavy load of arsenal to justify the greatness of this band, and it is a hurtle when things like this are thrown at you.

Oh well, I know what it basically comes down to is if you like the sound these talented musicians produce in their guitars. If you don't like it fuck off.

Oh, I don't think too much into knowing what songs have major chords, I just know what a major chord sounds like .

Well, another idea, if they were bent on using major chords in a composition then I'm sure as hell they would have done it. Major chords are a basic knowledge in music, simple to play and everything. On top of that, they are used cunningly in Drapery Falls, and come to think, I don't think I've ever heard a more effective use of them in a song.

lol, I'm fickeled.

 

[deliverance]

The words "dissonance" and "atonal" are often taboo, but should they always be? Try telling that to Robert Fripp or Frank Zappa or Jimi Hendrix.

tell one old dude and 2 dead guys? haha

 

[NFU]

tell one old dude and 2 dead guys? haha

alright, tell tom yorke, devin townsend, jeff loomis or bjork that.

 

[JoeVice]

My point is, though, that it is way more cooler to deliberately break rules of conventianality rather than breakthem because you don't know any better. I'm only asking because I was in a debate with a classically trained musician who couldn't get into Opeth because their song structure seemed "naive."

what is the difference between breaking rules on purpose or accident? The rules are being broken no matter what.

as far as your friend's opinion of opeth's music, like any other opinion, it is subjective. you can't really know where your friend is coming from. in my opinion, a lot of beethoven's music is naive, it is so predictable. In fact, i think a lot of classical music is that way. That doesn't make me any more right than your friend.

 

[Kottke]

I think music theory's getting a bad rap here.

For one thing, it's not a set of rules. You learn all the rules that baroque and classical composers followed. Are you a baroque or classical composer? Are you living in the 17th century, composing for a king? No? Then there are no rules to follow! Unless you're in a class, in which case you do have to follow the rules when writing out musical exercises.

All's music theory really teaches you is how music works, all the different ways it fits together. Some people like learning it, and some people have no interest in it. It's obviously not a necessary tool for writing good songs, but it's not the nail in the coffin of creativity, either.

So give it a shot before you thumb your nose at it, you might like it.

 

[nosferatuX]

Well, I´ve been writing (or at least trying really hard to) music for some time now and at moment the most important thing to me is to be able to hear what you want to play without actually playing it. So the music you play is all in your head (mostly at least). Of course you have to experiment on some new chord progressions and stuff but when you write a song you should have an overall idea you want to develop. If standard harmony serves your purposes, good for you, if it does´nt fuck it and keep using atonal melodies, etc.
I think Mikael does have a consistent music concept, that can be heard in his solos and on some songs. On the other hand i feel there are some songs, that are nothing more than cool riffs played one after the other that relate in some way, but not so hard you could not leave some of them out of the song. I think Mikael gives a fuck about this, because it sounds cool anyways.When he gives a fuck you get songs like the ones on damnation and other too, that are very coherent.

greets

 

[nosferatuX]

cool thread, by the way

 

[Botfly]

what is the difference between breaking rules on purpose or accident? The rules are being broken no matter what.

as far as your friend's opinion of opeth's music, like any other opinion, it is subjective. you can't really know where your friend is coming from. in my opinion, a lot of beethoven's music is naive, it is so predictable. In fact, i think a lot of classical music is that way. That doesn't make me any more right than your friend.

Well, look at it like this. If you are spoon fed conventional music theory and cast it aside to rot, it shows you have conquered something. The fact that you can be like, "Ya, I can do that shit ya fuck, but I'm tired of following these universal standards and gonna go do my own thing."

It's like painting. Here, you have one guy who can do classic, realistic and grandeur paintings that takes lots of effort, but prefers to splatter paint randomly or paint surreal images for the emotion factor. You have another guy that paints with just splatters and surreal images, because that is the most he is capable of, because he never took the time to learn alot of important techniques to master realism. That is where you can be naive, under-developed, ignorant, etc...

Do you see where the greater lies? It took MORE to break the habit of a trained technique, to liberate yourself from the logic which is forced upon you early on, and develop creativity and emotion after years of being shown one side of things. You can't get any more awesome than that. To pursue something with out knowledge of it is naive by default.

Honestly though, I cannot say Mikael is neither, as I'm currently oblivious, and will be until Mikael actually says something about the matter. Currently, I'd say though that he in a whole 'nuther league of his own, and I have the utmost respect for that, though

 

[Sanzen]

This thread proves that the Opeth forum is capable of carrying on an intelligent Opeth-related discussion without dissolving into a flamewar. cheers all around.

fags.

 

[saut]

As nosferatu said, I think Mike's grasp on music theory comes out in his solos. Just listen to Windowpane, Harvest, or Arriving Somewhere But Not Here (from Deadwing) to see our point.

 

[NFU]

This thread proves that the Opeth forum is capable of carrying on an intelligent Opeth-related discussion without dissolving into a flamewar. cheers all around.

fags.

you lousy fucking cock gobbling, stupid, ignorant, dim witted, useles, sack of lying, crotch crab, man doing, degenerate pile of monkey dung!!! ME > YOU

FuCk YoUuUuUuU!!!!111111



PEAC EOUT!

 

[Botfly]

@Botfly:

fags.

I assign you to the task of building thousands of monuments of me crushing minute depictions of the forum members, whilst valiantly waving an Opeth flag with Akerfeldt's face. I will settle for nothing less than pure gold.

 

[Sfarog]

Its all subjective and I personally don't have a problem with anyone who writes good music while not being brainwashed by what is commonly believed to be the "proper way".

make your own rules as you go. Trust your ear not someone's written account of when to hit C#7

 

[Botfly]

As nosferatu said, I think Mike's grasp on music theory comes out in his solos. Just listen to Windowpane, Harvest, or Arriving Somewhere But Not Here (from Deadwing) to see our point.

Useless, because I've addressed the fact that he is a phenominal soloist composer, and the case at hand is actually chord structures.

 

[Starwind85]

Whatever the case may be... it's working nicely for them.

 

[Botfly]

Its all subjective and I personally don't have a problem with anyone who writes good music while not being brainwashed by what is commonly believed to be the "proper way".

make your own rules as you go. Trust your ear not someone's written account of when to hit C#7

What I'm reffering to is the fact that Mike USUALLY leaves major chords out of a chord progression. Major chords are used to complete a chord progression, as is punctuation is used to complete sentences (when playing melodically, anyways). Somewhat of a "standard thing."

The fact that major chords are not used, especially on damnation, where melodic music needs it most, either signifies naive or innovative composing. Whether the intended effect is to leave the listener with an uneasy, or an unresolved feeling in the music with innovative and unconventinal ideas about chord progression, or he doesn't use the major chord because he doesn't know how to use it to still maintain an intended mood of "sadness" in a song is what I'm try to get everyone to speculate about.

The initial criteria of when to hit a major chord is solely referring the melodic aspect of music. This leaves the listener with a content feeling and adds to the beauty, which is most likely why songs like Harvest and The Drapery Falls are favorites of the n00bs, because this note accent seems to subconciously give the listener a feeling of contentment. This is nothing official, just an observation I've made that seems to hold up true.

The fact that practically most of their songs play only in minor, it can either be considered a redundant fluke, or something done to create that unique Opeth sound we've all come to love. Right now, I'm approaching the situation as whether or not Mike has the knowledge of how to compose chord structures in an "orthodox" way, but chooses not to, or can't because he doesn't know how to and strings together chords the only way he knows how, by his unarguably unusual ear. Personally, either way I'll love Opeth, because the fact that they are unique in every way, but this is just a question of his knowledge in musical theory.

Because as we all know... knowledge is POWER!!!

 

[waz416c]

well everythign that needed to be said is told..............though I think Mike is one of those ppl who just go with feeling, not caring for theory or any rules at all............he plays Octaves and thrown in 2 note dissonent sounds all for teh sake of creating a Drama out of his music...........yeah its nice to be able to knwo ure theory but remember HENDRIX.....???.......so yeah Mike is above all that stuff.....he has mastered teh art of creating a mini-movie if u will from his limited but adequte knowledge of music........I beleive all the epic opeth pieces have a this Drama/tension adn tehn resolve ..back to CHaos and disharomey structure...that to me shows teh man knows his way arouidn songwriting....!!!!!..PEAC EOUT

 

[OGM]

I guess we won't know until Mikael posts....and tells the truth....but he's Jesus so he won't lie.

 

[Commence Destruction]

so to you hes playing minor chords when he SHOULD be playing major chords?

whats the point in nitpicking every chord progression in Opeths music? it sounds good,doesnt sound wrong or bad in any sense to me,didnt you ever consider maybe he just molds out whatever he hears in his head instead of referring to some well studied theory map?