Conservationist
Offline
Post: 56480841_1 created on Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:51 pmPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:51 pm
|
|
||||||||
|
|
A few thoughts:
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. Quote: If you look at the greatest metal albums, what you'll notice is that often, they are composed of eight to twelve songs that all sound relatively the same, but on repeated listens, each one becomes unique and stands out...Like a collection of baroque pieces or Gregorian chants, it all sounds alike on the outside, but each individual piece varies greatly, at least to a trained ear. Metal, more so than other forms of popular music, is structural music with narrative song forms, meaning that the music is composed of a series of repeated phrases (riffs) that follow each other and interact with each other...It's more complex not only musically, but artistically as well, due to the fact that some form of ideation or ideology often precedes the composition of the actual songs. Zach Zimmerman, L.A. Metal 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. Quote: The approach to riffing in old school metal is designed to make small melodies or phrases complement each other, and have that define structure; in metalcore, like in rock or punk, riffs fit into a pop song structure, even with some modifications. Brett Stevens, Examiner 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. Quote: Nowadays, when people are taught classical theory, they are taught about harmonic progressions. It's a fairly dry and academic pursuit. Back in the era when classical music was actually written, all composers were schooled in renaissance style counterpoint: that is, the way in which melodies fit together. Most people's idea of a melody is an elaboration on a progression of harmonic notes, whereas in reality it is the only spontaneous part of a composition. In my view, melody is a sequence of notes which manifests something the artist wishes to express, and this may be disguised by a harmonic progression, meaning that a melody does not have to be a 'tune'. Every great composition has an underlying melodic structure which is its 'soul'; sometimes this is immediately evident, such as in Gregorian chant, Indian classical music, or even Mozart; in other works, it can be disguised either by polyphony proper, by harmonic notes (romantic music), or through the repetition of small sequences (riffs). For me, the study of counterpoint has been far more engaging than the study of harmony, because the melodic integrity of the music gives birth to its theory. Metal Hall As that quotation points out, it's a lot like classical music: structure through melody. And riffing heavy riffs! |
|
||||||
|
|
