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

[Botfly]

Excellent points you guys

Well, thanks for all the constructive responses, this is what this place needed. Anyways...

I find L0bster's and Lurox's responses to be most helpful. I dunno, as far as I know, alot of you guys probably were trying to make this point, but l0bster was short and to the point, lol.

You're right, it is amazing the fact someone who has no Musical Theory, can write such beautiful compositions that are very creative. I suppose I should have realized that if it is CREATIVE period, then why must respect have to pertain to knowledge? Besides, I can empathize, I've always been alot more creative than logical.

These are no doubt, excellent points, but hey, you're gonna get that one-sided response from alot of Opeth fan boys

 

[Jokke]

Interesting thread, and also my first post here.

I think just about any person who has listened to a fair amount of music, is able to separate what sounds good from what sounds bad. And as far as I understand, music theory is based on exactly that. Therefore, I don't really think one need to know music theory to write music.

I consider myself, or at least I try to be a musician. I'm in the process of learning music theory. I don't know nearly as much as I want, but at least the basics+a little more.

After seeing that "The Drapery Falls-lesson", I was surprised that Mikael knew so little theory. And after learning a lot of Opeth's songs and seeing how they are built up, I've also seen how the songs tend to "break the rules". What does that matter as long as the music sounds great?
I guess Mikael just has the music in himself.

Though, I'm wondering what Opeth would sound like if Mikael knew all the theory ever written. It could be worse, but used cleverly it might be a whole different thing.

 

[Mr Samsara]

Doesn't Opeth have 2 guitar players? Where does Peter rank in the Opeth formula? Doesn't he have anything to do but listen to the Ålmighty tell him, "Here.... Play this!" Maybe I'm out of my mind.. it would not be the first time that's for sure. Don't get me wrong, I know Mike writes most of the music, but I said most.. I just was thinking if I was Peter, was involved in the creation of the music and considered myself a pretty f'n good guitar player...my ego may get a dent in it reading this thread. Wow, I'm in a weird mood today.. I need to eat before I start to halucinate or something..

Out.

 

[JoeVice]

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

i see what you mean, but you can't judge the outcome of art based on that. what if that random splatterist made something that was in your opinion better than the classicaly trained artist who decided to deviate and try the same thing? would you still like the classicaly trained artist's art better because of his background? i would hope not, and i'm not assuming you do...

and, the first person who ever played a guitar had no knowledge of it, was that naive? the first person who ever did anything had no knowledge of it. that doesn't make it naive. in my opinion, when it comes to art, being naive means not being true to yourself...not the lack of knowledge in your field.

 

[JoeVice]

oh yah, and a cool minor/major chord thing that opeth does is at the end of a funeral portrait....if i can remember right, the outro riff is based on a melodic minor chord...which is (from the bottom) whwwwwh....it is a scale that begins like a minor chord scale, but ends with the major seventh, like a major scale...

a major scale is wwhwwwh, and a minor scale is whwwhww...

 

[Dreadful]

I stand with the argument that you shouldn't worry if it's naive...you should worry if it actually sounds bad. Music theory is definitely a useful tool and it's great if you can be a great music enthusiast/historian yet still break the rules and do what you want...I however think that someone who has perfect pitch like mikael, or a great ear, can still write music naturally. He just may not know all these conventional chord progression rules...and to me that's fine because the music is more creative and dosen't sound bad. People just think it sounds bad because it breaks the rules they were taught. I honestly don't think they're cringing as if it were nails on a chalk board. Music is played from the soul. Everyone who thinks their songs are good are naive somewhat at least.

 

[atilla000]

The real deal is: Mikael knows absolutely NO THEORY (just watch the drapery lesson vid where he can't name the chords) which leads to the songs being written simply by ear, fooling around if you wish. To me this removes unneeded limits. If you love correct theory, take a listen to Dream Theater or so, where even the most complex part is built around common theory.

He pretends not knowing theory, but he does know some theory, I'm pretty sure about that. If you've ever learned some Opeth songs it should be clear that he knows his minor scale very well. I'm not saying he really learned the scale by heart, but he might have learned/discovered it by playing guitar. And once you know that scale, you know (imo) some theory.
I never took lessons and I know at least as much theory as the other guitar player in our band, who took lessons... Anyway, I just don't think that all Mike's riffs are purely based on feeling and other non-theory things (listen to Deliverance...).

 

[atilla000]

mikael knows hardly any theory at all. knowing the minor scale is not knowing theory. my left nut knows the minor scale

Conclusion: your left nut knows some theory.

A band that hardly knew some theory is something like the sex pistols.

 

[the_drip]

It is naive to a certain point. Mike has said before..he doesn' tknow music theory, he just plays what sounds good to him.

 

[atilla000]

the sex pistols knew the minor scale

Any references?
Mike's songwriting techniques are still better than those of the SP. And these techniques are also a part of music theory.

 

[FRUGiHOYi]

They use plenty of major chords, I don't know what you are smoking.

 

[Dreadful]

who said mikael had perfect pitch? one in 10,000 people has perfect pitch, it's unlikely. a lot of times, if somebody thinks they have perfect pitch, what they really have is relative pitch, which is a lot more common (but still notable)

1 in every 10,000? you gotta be kidding me...that's not what I heard...I thought it was at least maybe 1 in every 10 people. I may be wrong...but that's fucking rare if it's 1 in every 10,000.

 

[Jokke]

yes, it is "fucking rare". you have to be born with it -- it is impossible to learn, and most people who think they have it really don't

Heh.. I guess having perfect pitch can be a pain in the arse from time to time, though..

..just imagine cringing at each and every out of key note.

 

[JoeVice]

what red is to an apple, an E is to the low and high string on a guitar...that is what perfect pitch is like...people that have it (from what i have heard) explain it as if they literally assign a letter to a tone as if it is a color...it is that easy to them...that is insane! i have pretty trustworthy relative pitch...i have been playing guitar for a while, so i have ebgda pretty much engrained in my head, but i have to go through somewhat of a conscious mental process to recognize them without hearing a reference note.

 

[BrandonS]

I don't know how to read music, or know the names of chords or notes, but that doesn't mean I can't be creative or change the way I play in my music.... :/ I'm programming drums and synth on the laptop now but you could check out a cover I did of bloodbath - buried by the dead..... on the bloodbath forums.... http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=297

 

[BurningSky]

My guess is that Mike does know some decent music theory. You can tell from his solos and such, especially something like that solo in Blackwater Park. You don't whip out solos like that just from trial and error, and if you do, you'll be playing for a while with alot of errors. And people keep bringing up the fact that he didn't know what the chord was called in Drapery falls. I know some music theory, but if i played that chord and someone asked me what it was, I wouldn't have a clue, but if i actually wanted to know i would find it its an Am9 chord. My guess is that he has bits and pieces of theory he's learned along the way, just like a lot of guitarists really. I can't imagine him saying to the guys when hes teaching them a song "yeah, it starts out on 7 on the A string, then goes 9 to 9 to 8 to 7 on down the strings" He would definitely know enough to communicate key sigs and stuff like that (probably).

As for their music being naive, what kind of statement is that? You don't need to have some huge understand of music theory to be able to write great music. That said, if you have a great understanding of theory, I don't think that disallows you to be able to write great music either. Composition is an art of its own, and all the knowledge in the world can only help you so much. The point of theory anyhow is to organize all we've learned about music so that it is easily accessible. It can save you some time if you know it, but you play for how things sound, not how they are written.

 

[JoeVice]

the perfect pitch is roger clemens' sinker. i mean, you can't hit it for shit. incredible

i disagree, the perfect pitch must have happened last time i went camping. the wind was probably blowing 40 mph, and it rained...our tent didn't even budge.

 

[Sanzen]

LOL! I love puns!

the perfect pitch is roger clemens' sinker. i mean, you can't hit it for shit. incredible

i disagree, the perfect pitch must have happened last time i went camping. the wind was probably blowing 40 mph, and it rained...our tent didn't even budge.

actually though, the perfect pitch happened when i went to the car dealership last week. the salesman made the car seem so great, i just had to buy it!

Ive got one: OK, so back when I was born, my dad played a lot of classical music. Around 6th grade, I started taking piano lessons and discovered that I could name any note my teacher played at random, and in fact had perfect pitch.

hey guys??? am i right? haha!

 

[Kottke]

Clemens throws a splitter, not a sinker, if I could be so bold as to nitpick.

 

[Slynt]

I used to play in a band where I was the rhythm guitarist. While I love to write music, I have limited theoretical competence compared to the lead guitarist. Sometimes we had huge fights in the rehearsal room because I had made something and he said "you can't *do* that", and I said, "but I'm doing it!"

In the end, I wrote 80% of the music - our difference being me good at writing material and he good at understanding music and using his theoretical knowledge to create things.