The idea of metal-specific music theory seems silly because all music theory is basically the same. What differs is method of composition, types of modes, scales, harmonies and melodies used -- and these differences give each musical genre its unique sound and meaning.



This is a good place to start: we can't look at metal in terms of rock music, or a fixed song structure with a single harmony and varied modes, but as a song structure defined by its phrases and from that, selecting modes and harmonizing them.



That leads us to a study of melody and phrase, which is where metal is similar to free jazz, in that how phrases fit together determines "meaning" in a song, in contrast to other genres where coming back to a tone signifies a meaning in terms of harmony.



As that quotation points out, it's a lot like classical music: structure through melody. And riffing heavy riffs!

yes.

and no. There is so much metal that is nonsensical chromatic bullshit.

Otherwise, yes.

i do hear a lot of classical-esque rythms and melodies in metal and in rock(classic rock)

ONLY SIK BRAEKDOWNZ ARE REAL

melody > complexity. Always.

I've been saying for years that a lot of metal has more in common with classical than rock. I agree with a lot of the statements in the first post.

Metal is far too often conflated with rock erroneously.

However, key differences between metal theory and classical theory include:

-Metal recognizes the fifth as the core element of a chord along with the root, more essential to its identity than the third; this goes against the linear view of classical music in this respect, which relies on incrementally going up by thirds (owing itself to its inception around the piano family of instruments, which has led to a number of limitations in the long term, not the least of which is the redundancy of sharps and flats in key signatures).

-One common consequence of the fifth being more central identity than the third is the vii chord in major keys (or the the ii chord in minor keys) ending up NOT being diminished as it is in classical theory. For example, in the riff from I Don't Know by Ozzy in the key of Am (A B C D E F G), Rhoads plays a B power chord even though it has an F# instead of playing a B with a diminished fifth (F) just for the sake of staying in key, because it would actually be MORE dissonant to do so, despite conventional assumptions; in the second half of Fade To Black (in the key of Em), the same scenario occurs, as the F# is accompanied by it's fifth, a C#, instead of going with the diminished fifth (C) just to stay in key. Anyone who wants to get a feel for this principle, try playing those riffs the correct way and then the "in key" way, and watch the latter sound worse.

-An even more common consequence is that guitar harmonies in metal often at times involve a fourth (the natural inverse of the fifth) at times INSTEAD of the third in order to being consistent with the overriding chord at the moment (for example, if rhythm guitar is playing an E power chord and lead guitar one is playing an E in the solo, the lower harmony lead would be a B, not a C).

-Classical (and jazz for that matter) view complexity as an expansion outward, more and more chords, key changes, adding and expanding out. Metal is unique in that unlike being a simple kind of music (folk/blues) or complex (classical/jazz), it is best described as complexity from within simplicity - the use of structure and boundaries to pardoxically offer the most and best possibilities without meandering. One thing metal cannot be accused of - and we're talking about almost any genre of metal, so this is quite the statement- is meandering; either a key change is jarring because it's supposed to be, or it's so smooth and well-placed it fits right in. There is no meandering middle ground between the two in metal; in metal, either a note is perfect, or its dissonant because it's supposed to be angry and twisted. While it's true that the earlier baroque music was in manyh ways similarly focused and unmeandering when it came to structure and melody (Bach's Fugues and Spanish guitar/piano compositions from later in that era are the genuine prototypes for metal), the classical and romantic eras became essentially a self-topping exercise for composers where more became better. It's never about more notes of course, it's about the right notes.

-Fine arts academia generally views genres of music in one of two overriding sociological categories: "art" music or "folk" music (in this use of the term folk, it is far broader reaching than the more common use of the term). As the definition goes, art music is done by elites based on quality even if there is no popular support, and folk music is the simpler music of the masses; classical and jazz are commonly viewed in the first category, with rock, blues, country, and many other styles falling into the latter. Metal, however, truly defies the dichotomy; it actually transcends it completely. It is on one hand available and open to anyone who wants to listen to it, learn to play it, and go to shows, with no barriers of class or wealth or any other exclusionary factors; on the other hand, metal generally requires "art music" levels talent both technically and in terms of composition, and cannot be mastered as a musician or even as a truly knowledgable fan without years of devotion.

Also an addendum to your first note about the fifths, is that parallel fifths abound in metal whereas they were strictly forbidden in classical music.

I like to make boom boom noises, with a little bit of plunka plunka bowp.

YOURE THE FUCKING MAN!

as much as this thread is great to come out of the chaos that is RTTP, clutch comment.

let's not forget the blues. I don'r care much for the blues but I can't ignore what it has spawned.

Not all...mainly the Baroque period.

I probably should have clarified and said Classical or pre-Romantic.

I love music snobbery.

Music is so gay. Who would read any of this shit?

differences between most metal as compared to classical, regardless of period. dynamics. classical often covers everything from ppp to fff. most metal is all fff. there are exceptions, but there still isn't much in the way of dynamics in metal.

Wow, I could not disagree with you more.

Metal is the most dynamic genre of all, far more than classical, because it can get just as soft and slow in its softest moments (slower in fact), but also has a higher top speed and heaviness/loudness. The best metal songs (in my opinion) run the range, and build in between; I think the kind of "metal" you're talking about is really just one small subcategory of metal.

Shadow, I have to disagree with you about loudness. A performance of Mahler's 2nd Symphony totally changed my perspective on this. A large full orchestra can (unamplified) get just as loud as most metal bands with big amps and a decent PA, not to mention having an overall more powerful sound than most metal bands.

I'd advance the opinion that metal is unique in how much is accomplished by simultaneously learning/using really obscure and advanced theory in nontraditional ways and completely ignoring it when it's appropriate.

This thread has no slams. WTF?!

this is one of the reasons i always cringe at harmonized fifths

Haha yeah, no shit.

Actually, the examples I cited are situations where a fifth is BETTER than the tritone despite the fact that the tritone is in the key and the fifth is not - but I'm guessing when you said harmonized fifths you actually mean not a single guitarist playing a power chord but harmonized fifths as in two guitarists harmonizing a melody, and there I agree with you completely; guitar harmonies are meant to be a blend of thirds and sometimes fourths, but not exclusively either one. If someone is just harmonizing a solo using fourths exclusively (or their inverse, fifths exclusively), it sounds retarded: a well-known example of this would be the Zombie solo from The Cranberries. Conversely, as earlier noted, doing a third (or its inverse, for the matter, a sixth) can't be done ALL the time either, as it sounds bad when it violates the overriding chord.

yeah exactly. especially if the guitars are panned left and right that note just sticks out like a sore thumb

Well, I don't intend to downplay classical, it's certainly quite dynamic.

I just think that metal has something special that allows it to reach higher levels of intensity than anything else. Part of it is the existence of a small tight band; a full orchestra can never be as truly tight as a few people in my opinion. Part of it is the way the drumkit can tie everything together, playing full beats and tempos in a way that classical did not achieve (although there are certainly plenty of fast/ripping classical pieces, none of of those are held together the same way by percussive instruments and thus do not have the same ceiling of speed, heaviness, and intensity). Part of it is because the guitar can also be percussive with the palm mute and lack thereof, and the two can bounce off of each other with complex rhythms you don't really see as much in classical. Part of it is the diversity of guitar tones and the nature of distortion; extending the dynamic potential of the instrument extends the dynamic potential of the band. Part of it is that metal bands write their own music, and that contributes to tightness as well.

For me personally, I can hear Misanthrope from Death or Halloween by Helloween or Dyers Eve/Battery/Whiplash by Metallica - just to scoop up some random and diverse examples - and there's an energy, speed, and heaviness level reached beyond I think what the classical masters were able to compose with what they had available; they just didn't have the technology and the medium to work with. I say that with all due respect for classical music, for which I have plenty. Nothing they do gives me an adrenaline rush or makes me want to bang my head like some kick ass metal.

Conservationist, do you have any music theory degrees?

"THIS IS WHAT I WISH METAL ACTUALLY WAS AND EVERYTHING THAT DOESN'T FIT MY STRICT MUSICAL WORLDVIEW SUCKS"

What's up with trashing music that isn't TR00? Music is music. Metal is only an attitude applied to western rock and blues influenced music (with black metal being an exception). If you have fun playing it, if people have fun listening to it, that's all that should matter. Stop pretending you're Einsteins kid and that you have a dick the size a woolly mammoths.

I know a lot of people here resent this, but melody is only a facet of musical composition. Just like rhythm, meter and timbre. Melodic complexity is easier on the ears but it is the same as rhythmic and metric complexity. Ideally all facets of composition should be sought after as a tool to express the Metal-lic ideal of musical aggression; melodic, metric and rhythmic alike. But what matters most is that in the end of everything, music is an art, and as an art, is simply a tool for the artist to communicate something. If you don't like certain routes of musical communication, so be it, but don't act like you're all high and mighty by proclaiming that the elders are always better.

I long for the day when the statement "metal = rock" regarded with the same sentiment as "The Earth is flat".

Metal's roots go far beyond and before American music like blues, country, and rock, and can be found in European compositions from centuries ago such as those I referred to above. While it is true that the instruments common to a metal band evolved through jazz and then blues and then rock, resulting in common techniques on those instruments being forged in those genres, technique and arrangment of instruments are NOT paramount in music; note choice and mood are.

A Bach Fugue in a minor key has a lot more in common with metal than "I wanna hold your hand..."

Metal is its own genre, and the misconception that it's merely a subgenre of rock has been disproven time and time again by the music itself.

Touche, but I know of few metal songs that are composed in such a way that the melodies parade around a tonic and slowly evolve into other tone sets and key signatures. The comparison that I'm making between metal in rock is in the "riffing," songs are usually structured in terms of repetitive guitar and drum phrases rather than a constantly evolving melodic line. Though I'm not saying there aren't exceptions.

ITT: people talking about metal that don't even understand the concept, let alone listen to actual metal. carry on guys. carry on.

hahaahaha

I agree.

Riffing is a means to an end, however; it's a technique, and what it is used to accomplish is what matters.

There are also certain chord progressions that pop up commonly in both metal and its Baroque ancestry, most commonly involving some combination of chords with a i and a VI. This simply is not nearly as common in blues or rock.

But even with notes and chords, a better indicator of musical identity than tone and instrumental arrangement, it nonetheless all comes down to what end is being achieved by those notes, moreso than just the means to do it. For instance, you occasionally CAN have a blues song where the solo might use a M2 or m6 despite the fact that its unconventional, or have a blues song or even a techno song with a i - VI progression, it's certainly not impossible; none of these rules are ironclad in differentiating genre. However, certain tendencies CAN push us in the right direction the vast majority of the time.

In the end, though, it's as much what you hear as what can be put neatly into boxes; that's not to imply it's merely subjective, but rather that there are certain things in music that while existing in an objective fashion are impossible to herd in perfectly with a few rules, and requires the big picture forest for the trees analysis that only a human ear in real time can provide; rules on paper get us circling the right answers, but sometimes we have to make the last bit of the leap ourselves. My favorite example to put all this abstract theoretical gobbledegook in perspective is Sweating Bullets by Megadeth, as blues and metal both use the tritone commonly, but both do so entirely in different ways. Consider the verse of the song, a purposefully composed straight blues riff by any measure (despite metal distortion AND use of power chords), and then the chorus, a riff that also uses the tritone but is undisputably metal (and especially so due an additional overriding i-V-VII-IV chord progression being implied by the chromatic descent from the lead guitar and vocal harmony, offering a complexity you would never see in blues or rock: a chord progression within a chord progression).

hey gauy, lol, well gauyz I guess haha stop talking nonsence you troll fag haha BUT YOU TRY SO HARD Lol these ppl know wuts up khed hahaah!

POWER CHORDS AND MELODIC MINOR SCALES
there. i just saved you 30 boob free minutes

Uh?

I had my face buried in boobs the whole time I was typing.

And melodic minor is actually pretty rare; natural minor is the most common by far, with harmonic minor popping up a lot more often than melodic minor.

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.

Well yeah, but that's not really surprising - jazz was influenced by earlier European classical music as were some styles of minstrel banjo and ragtime guitar playing, both of which made their way into country and the blues along with folk influences from hundreds and hundreds of years ago, etc. etc. etc.

So I guess I'd totally agree that "metal" (if it even makes sense to talk about it like it's a single thing from a music theory standpoint) isn't just a subset of rock, but I don't think it's particularly unique in drawing influences from old/diverse sources.

hey gauyz i like musical staffs in my butt bye gauyz

The rhythms come from northern africa. and many of the chords made by old black dudes.

So much pride on this site.

troll fail

I have heard old blues. Before sabbath. and sabbath ripped them off.

I'm not kissing the blues' ass because, like I said i don't care for it. But I won't pretend that Metal has it's puuuuree white roots or some shit.

Don't buy it. Look at the song Black Sabbath, look at Paranoid, look at War Pigs, look at NIB, look at the vast majority of their stuff, and try to find a blues song or rock song that uses the same type of chord progressions and melodies, let alone to create a remotely similar mood and style. As much as Sabbath started out in the blues tradition in their pre-Sabbath days, the name change was at the time of a serious stylistic change; they never set out to be the first new metal band, or the first new anything but Black Sabbath, and Iommi demurs credit to this day, but the proof is in the music. 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.

And pure white roots of metal is fucking retarded.

I wouldn't be playing guitar if it wasn't for Slash, one of metal's best and most renowned players, who is half black. He's the entire reason I started.

Never mind the singer/bassist from King's X, the singer from Sevendust, the entire band Living Colour...

This isn't "white pride" for me, I might technically be caucasian, but I'm Iranian and crediting the earliest documented metal to the Germans and Spaniards who have the records to prove it - not exactly my local home team if you consult your nearby globe, so your tribalistic concerns - at least as far as I'm concerned - are way the fuck off.

hey gauyz i like metal too like hatbread so cool right gauyz

I would also note that as someone who was born here in the US, it would be way more satisfying for me from a home team perspective to go with the common refrain that metal's roots are here in America, as opposed to in Europe, to which I have no connection.

However, I'm concerned with facts, and not just what makes me feel good.

yeah, thats why he said classical and not baroque. this is like arguing the fact that an apple is a fruit by pointing out the fact that a carrot is a vegtable.

lol gauyz come on there's too many lol haha fake wanna be hi gauyz martins trolls haha YOUR RUINING IT lol

oh hai guyz, am i making myself appear as a sexually confused youngster again?

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.

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.

lol'd

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.

Martins trolls are really letting the ball drop lately.

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.

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

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.

we in Boarcorpse don't use "theory" we only play from feel.

sm:9

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.

This thread sucks.

Smoke weed and listen to Ritchie Blackmore, fags.

right?

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.



Hatbread reference F T double W.

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.

In classical music if your band teacher wields a ruler, sure. It's how it's traditionally used, but there are other applications.

Only if you're on the Warrior Diet, though.

LOL

how about who cares about terimnology and just do it all by ear?

Then GTFO thread and go implus tarker.

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.

I just consider it license to throw little chromatic bits in towards the top of the scale. That and the flatted/natural 5th.

DIMINISHED

YOU'RE DIMUNISHED

I can feel my soul hurting.

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.

I don't have to worry about them, I know them. OH, SICC BURN.

:( could have used your extravagant knowledge in theory and melodic composition in herugrim :(

dis thread haz 2 many words yo

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.

OH SHIT HE SAID AUGMENT THAT'S A THEORY JOKE

UP IN HE-AH

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.

there's some MAJOR theory joking going on

WHY DON'T YOU MINOR OWN BUSINESS

lol. I need to trem my beard.

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.

I can't get behind this at all.

circle of filths

Couldn't agree more.

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.

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.

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.

I like turtles.

You're out of the band for that comment.

LOL @ drummers posting in music threads

LOL @ drummers

LOL @ LOLing

Yup, exactly.




This is because the concept of applying modes is misguided to begin with.

Square peg in a round hole.

More than that, it's really a shell game to begin with. When you apply a mode and use it in a song, are you really going to play the notes in succession from the correct note to its octave? No? Is it really going to be a straight ascention every time with no variance? No? And if not, then what actually designates what you're doing as staying in that mode, aside from the fact that it's your intention?

Pink elephants have more substance as a plausible concept than modes.

I rest my case.

I like to apply enough distortion that I'm playing all notes simultaneously at all times.

Angus Young interview, Guitar Player Magazine, 1984

GP: Do you know what you're doing in musical terms?

AY: I haven't a clue.

GP: You don't work on scales.

AY: Nah. That's basically for home use or whatever. If you were teaching music to children and they wished to know it, yeah. I can see it from a teaching point of mind. Some people are very technical minded, and they like to know how everything works to the exact split second. If you're that way, I suppose it's good. But me, I can sit there and play it and I know how to get the sound of what I want.

i follow angus's theory

I would also add that the song in one's head is the only perfection. Getting it to out come out of the amp is the challenge, and everything: theory, one's hands, the instrument itself - is a potential tool OR barrier towards achieving that end.

In otherwords, there's nothing as important as doing what you hear. Everything else is secondary.

No. NO.

If you know a major scale you know all the CHURCH modes. There's still a whole fuck-ton of others out there. Some even change depending if you're ascending/descending.

While I'm here, a few other things:

1) Sabbath didn't invent metal.
2) The idea that knowing theory will alter your ability to write/appreciate good music is like thinking that knowing all the parts in your engine will change the way you drive. Theory is and always will be a means of explanation, NOT discovery.
3) You geeks should invest this much effort into trying to move music forward instead of fighting of such bullshit.
4) When is Ouchdrummer and Aril gonna get me stoned and talk music-geekness with me?

Again, you're talking only about church modes. You're also arguing modality versus tonality, which both exist as separate and useful things. When you take your theory away from guitar and piano and start applying it to full orchestral pieces (which is where the need for theory arose) you'll find these 'rules' to be far more helpful.

In your own example of soloing over dominant chord tones (which is more jazz than classical) by chosing to leave the dominant tonality of the piece to play over the chord tones, that is precisely what modes were created to explain in music. Jazz has it's own ways of dealing with these types of situations, but jazz is another thread for you to jabber in altogether.

Yes, church modes. There are modes pertaining to pentatonic, harmonic minor, etc etc. My point was that if you know one position of it, you essentially know all the rest.

ITT: taking the fun out of writing riffs.

that's only half true... because debussy was just nonsensical chromatic bullshit until some lonely gomer with no means of making friends decided to call that chromatic bullshit "planing".
all music came first, theory came after, with the acception of arnold schoenberg who designed his 12 tone system to destroy tonality (that's fuckin brootal) and wrote the music after.

I'll just say this and I hope someone knows what I'm talking about.

In the end it doesn't matter if you know every scale, mode or any other nonsensical orthodox definition for patterns in music.

What it really boils down to is if one can COMPOSE music - which ultimately comes from within.

There's a line between great musicians that are virtuosos and can play everything on an instrument, and COMPOSERS. A combination of both a great musician and a great composer is hard to come by.
I'm not that great of a guitar player, mostly because I've always focused on composition before what is technically "right" or "wrong" with what I should play next.

ShadowSD said it much nicer in a post above; however, I still hold the belief that music comes from the soul of a person, rather than mathematical calculations on a map of scales and modes.

One can strive to be an excellent player at the end of the day by practicing skills (which, I'm sure you know doesn't hurt), but it really boils down to composing music.

I listen to a lot of prog and love technicality in music, however there are numerous bands that put flashiness over substance. Music is more than scales and modes - music is the audible representation of feelings and emotions.

There are only two things wrong with the above statement.

Souls don't exist.

and



Technique has nothing to do with theory.

Everything else, yes.

Haha well you know what I'm saying.
It separates the artist from the painter.

Yawn.

Smelly breath, dude.

Scientific proof to back this claim of yours?

Black metal or grindcore. Same diff. Same soul.

I don't like black metal, but love grindcore. However, most modern bands people refer to as grind (including my own last project) aren't what I grew up considering as grindcore. I like Napalm Death, Nocturnus, Godflesh, which I always refered to as grindcore. Nowadays, people tell me these band aren't even grind. Most likely my definition is off.

There's no such thing as theory application in metal music. Metal is all about being chromatic and playing by feel.

hell naw mang look at pantera

its all beat like we all back in the tribes in africa yo

add sum gitars mang and u got metal

das it

Oh hai, just had to pop in here and LOLOLOLOLOL

I love that one grindcore song with the lyrics about the church burning.