Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 23 2008 at 08:04 |
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21817
|
Posted: June 23 2008 at 04:58 |
^ Call it what you will - D# and Eb may hint to different usage but are the same note on the keyboard - but I think the note is resolved. The final notes of the lick are E Eb B. Now if you put this in the context of the Db min chord that follows and extend the lick with an imaginary Db note, you get this:
E Eb B Db
Those notes are all from the Db natural minor mode. So in essence, if you take the wrong note Eb as an hint of the upcoming Db minor chord, it all makes sense.
BTW: This may sound a bit too theoretical, but if you play the lick along with the record, extending it with a Db feels very natural.
|
|
 |
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 23 2008 at 04:42 |
D# is the second note of the C# scale.
It's a tentative relationship, as II is one of the weakest chords, and typically used to imply that a cadence is on its way (if you add a 7th to chord II and invert it such that the 7th becomes the bottom of the chord, or II7d, it's a powerful tool for momentum in a cadential passage).
D5 isn't a "proper" chord - this is a term made up by guitarists to describe the power chord, which has neither major nor minor implications. Major and minor are established by the 3rd and implied by both the 6th and context. The 7th is only ever flattened in the melodic minor scale - D# is present in both E major and E minor - there is nothing esoteric about its' use with an E chord.
D# is not a flattened 9th in a D chord - that would be Eb, which exists in neither key - incidentally, of the two, only D can boast both sharps and flats in common usage.
D# and Eb are not the same note, as proven by Bach in the 48. This kinda underlines my feeling of a "wrong" note, since Eb does not belong in either scale - it would have to be treated as an accidental, which would need to be resolved somehow.
At the end of the day, analysis only backs up stuff you want to say about music - it doesn't really prove anything about the character of it.
You like it or you don't.
Guess where I stand on this?
Edited by Certif1ed - June 23 2008 at 04:49
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
Reverie
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 14 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 626
|
Posted: June 23 2008 at 04:30 |
I can't say it ever bothered me, at all. Mind you, i'm really not that picky about stuff like that. It never even stuck out to me. I mean, sure, you can hear he's played a different note when you listen to it, but it doesn't throw you off guard or anything, and it doesn't sound like it shouldn't be there. Obviously, being art, it can't be a "wrong" note. To my ears at least, it's not inappropriate or out of place in the least. It just is.
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21817
|
Posted: June 23 2008 at 04:13 |
btw: I just noticed that I was off by one guitar string ... of course the offending note is not G#, but D#. Sorry for this, it's been a while since I've written down music, normally I think in guitar tabulature.  So D# over the chord played by the acoustic guitar ... I've listened to it again and actually it doesn't even play a full D major chord but only D5. The added note results in a dissonance: D5b9, which isn't all too horrible, considering that the D# is also the melodic/harmonic minor 7th position in respect to the following E minor. And the next part (after the E min / D5 change is repeated) is indeed in C# min, to which the D# is a diatonic note.
|
|
 |
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 23 2008 at 03:33 |
^Indeed - all this stuff about modal and Hendrix chords is just misleading.
The implication of simple diatonic harmony is very strong.
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21817
|
Posted: June 23 2008 at 03:31 |
^ Of course in Avant-Prog there are many "wrong notes" ... I guess what irritated Certif1ed was that the part which this note occurred in was very "orderly" - only diatonic notes were used, notes which belong to the correct scale - except for this one note.
|
|
 |
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 23 2008 at 03:30 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Let me quote the relevant bit of Certif1ed's recent review of Opeth - Watershed. It's about the track Hessian Peel. My comments in blue:
Certif1ed wrote:
There's more of that acoustic guitar to kick off Hessian Peel , which seems to reference a number of famous songs - Icarus Dream Suite is the first that springs to mind Come on ... just from the first three notes that the acoustic guitar plays, and because it's a twelve string with reverb? , |
|
I was reminded of the track - that's enough!!!
I don't see any problem with this - I'm not saying "It sounds exactly like", I'm saying it "seems to reference", which is kinda saying that there may or may not be a little influence, that's all.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
followed soon after by Voodoo Child (Slight Return) , I'm not getting that at all - it's simply a blues lick which ventures from minor to major ... I fail to see how this could remind one of that particular Hendrix tune
|
|
YOU fail to see it, I don't. That's what it reminded me of - similarly to above, what on earth are you arguing about this for?
You cannot argue that my opinion is wrong - it's just MY opinion. You don't have to share it if you don't want to. 
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
But what's happening next? A clear wrong note - but played deliberately. Hmm. Without resolution or precedent, that note stands out like a sore thumb, and to my relatively untutored ears at least, suggests poor musicianship in a way that the rest of the album has only hinted at. The problem is, it sounds played for - to me, it sounds like a failed experiment that should have been edited out.
I guess you're talking about the G#.
|
|
Perhaps...
I could get all smartass and show off my perfect pitch or other legendary, near-mystical talents if you like.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
However, it sits right on the crest of a cadence, in a passage that has a decidedly traditional feel, so such a non-traditional note really has no place at that point being as far out of the harmony as it is - unless the cadence was artfully modified to cope with it. 51 seconds is the exact point, according to my media player - yours may vary. The cadence is re-approached, or repeated, to be exact, and the offending note corrected - but then, mysteriously, the wrong-note version is also repeated, as if somehow repeating it is going to make it sound right.
It's actually a very simple thing: The electric guitar plays a simple, one bar long lick which alternatingly plays G and G# at that point. The accompanying acoustic guitar alternates between E minor and D major, which doesn't indicate a particular mode (could be E aeolian or E dorian), the lick indicates E aeolian (natural minor). Now, the G# in that context doesn't offend me at all. It could be seen as E melodic minor, however in conjunction with the D major chord played by the acoustic guitar it could be seen as Dmajor with an diminished 5th (Dmajb5), which is a really dissonant chord but in the lick the G# is two octaves above the chord. I see nothing wrong with that, and if you're a Hendrix fan you shouldn't either, considering the famous "Hendrix Chord" (E7#9).
|
|
I hear the alteration, and it doesn't work for me - it draws attention to itself like an ink blot in an excercise book. Maybe it's an inkblot that the band and fans like, but I do not like it. You might have noticed.
I'm not going to listen to it again - I'll take your word about the modes - but don't take the acoustic guitar's notes literally - there is always implied melody, harmony or mode other than the mode you see on the page (or hear).
That passage implies pretty standard stuff to me, I get no "feel" of modality.
There is no G# in either D major, or E minor - and the note does not imply the Hendrix chord - G# is not a sharpened 9th, it's a sharpened 10th in E, and 11th in D.
If it's a G#, then it's not a diminished 5th in D or E, is it.
Please note the absence of a question mark 
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
I've heard Opeth (and other metal bands) do this - repeat something bad often enough and it begins to sound right - intent being stronger than the basic underlying rules.
All of which is gibberish, of course.
No insult intended, but to me it's your reasoning about this note which sounds like gibberish. It certainly doesn't prove to me that this note is "officially" wrong.
|
|
That's like saying "I don't mean to insult you, but you are a complete t**t". 
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
So ... what are your thoughts, is this note wrong or right - or at least "acceptable" to your ears?
|
I think I've made that clear... 
And I think your analysis needs work - 3/10. 
Edited by Certif1ed - June 23 2008 at 03:47
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 22 2008 at 19:16 |
I thought of this recently. There is no such thing as a wrong note, IMO. Just because it doesn't conform to general theory doesn't mean it's wrong. I guess a f**king lot of avant garde music would be wrong then too.
|
|
 |
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
Posted: June 22 2008 at 10:36 |
salmacis wrote:
Am I the only one who hasn't noticed this at all? I'm really loving this album, BTW... |
No, havnt a clue what this lot are on about either.
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
 |
Zitro
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 11 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1321
|
Posted: June 22 2008 at 10:13 |
I didn't find anything wrong with that note. I sometimes write music that might have a bit of dissonance, but from your detailed technical viewpoint, I don't see it as a 'bad' note and less like an example of bad musicianship.
|
 |
Dominic
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 02 2008
Location: Liberation Land
Status: Offline
Points: 651
|
Posted: June 22 2008 at 06:56 |
WinterLight wrote:
How is a note "wrong" if an artist decides to use it? |
Silly, don't you now that there are rules in any art form.... if artist's just went all willy-nilly; shared their music based on their foolhardy and bias opinion of what they think sounded good, we'd never be graced with such great classics as Green Day's "American Idiot", to name just one. I actually hadn't noticed the error till i read Certif1ed's review, then i immediately threw my disc away. I mean, what would my musician friends think if they heard me listening to such chaos? It seems that some folks are so audacious that they believe it's ok to turn away from proper training/derivative ideas and think for themselves.
Edited by Dominic - June 22 2008 at 07:15
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21817
|
Posted: June 22 2008 at 03:57 |
^ of course you're right!
|
|
 |
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: June 22 2008 at 02:00 |
Don't know the tune, but am interested to hear it now.
Also the "Hendrix" chord was an E7#9, not b9. Both are good chords though.
|
 |
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 21 2008 at 19:46 |
As I said in my review... I don't like it. Period. It's an experiment didn't quite work. Nothing "wrong" about it per se. Akerfeldt tried to dazzle us, and he failed. But I don't think is "poor musicianship" or something like that as Certif1ed said...It's just a bad idea.
|
|
 |
salmacis
Forum Senior Member
Content Addition
Joined: April 10 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3928
|
Posted: June 21 2008 at 15:14 |
Am I the only one who hasn't noticed this at all?  I'm really loving this album, BTW...
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21817
|
Posted: June 21 2008 at 14:43 |
Well, in fact it is resolved by the following passage. It's in C# minor, to which G# is the 5th position.
|
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 21 2008 at 13:46 |
As someone famous (Miles Davis?) once said ~ there are no bad notes, just badly resolved ones - I'd take that one stage further and say a wrong note is one the composer never wrote or intended.The rules of music composition are not cast in stone.
Mark says the note is unresolved and the repetition is a clumsy attempt to force a resolution - perhaps that is true for him, but for me it doesn't stand out like a sore-thumb (since my ears are far less tutored) as its effect is so minor - it doesn't even qualify as a passing note because it isn't part of a modulation - it just isn't going anywhere to need resolving.
|
What?
|
 |
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
Posted: June 21 2008 at 11:18 |
His reasoning sounds like the rationalization of personal prejudice. How is a note "wrong" if an artist decides to use it? Many baroque and classical composers used incidentals in their music (almost random examples: some of JS Bach's mirror canons or the fast motif in the 2nd Movement of Beethoven's 9th).
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21817
|
Posted: June 21 2008 at 09:20 |
Let me quote the relevant bit of Certif1ed's recent review of Opeth - Watershed. It's about the track Hessian Peel. My comments in blue:
Certif1ed wrote:
There's more of that acoustic guitar to kick off Hessian Peel , which seems to reference a number
of famous songs - Icarus Dream Suite is the first that springs to mind Come on ... just from the first three notes that the acoustic guitar plays, and because it's a twelve string with reverb? , followed soon after by
Voodoo Child (Slight Return) , I'm not getting that at all - it's simply a blues lick which ventures from minor to major ... I fail to see how this could remind one of that particular Hendrix tune but without the emotion of either Hendrix or
Malmsteen .
But what's happening next? A clear wrong note - but played deliberately. Hmm. Without resolution or
precedent, that note stands out like a sore thumb, and to my relatively untutored ears at least, suggests
poor musicianship in a way that the rest of the album has only hinted at. The problem is, it sounds played
for - to me, it sounds like a failed experiment that should have been edited out.
I guess you're talking about the G#.
However, it sits right on the crest of a cadence, in a passage that has a decidedly traditional feel, so such
a non-traditional note really has no place at that point being as far out of the harmony as it is - unless the
cadence was artfully modified to cope with it. 51 seconds is the exact point, according to my media player -
yours may vary. The cadence is re-approached, or repeated, to be exact, and the offending note
corrected - but then, mysteriously, the wrong-note version is also repeated, as if somehow repeating it is
going to make it sound right. It's actually a very simple thing: The electric guitar plays a simple, one bar long lick which alternatingly plays G and G# at that point. The accompanying acoustic guitar alternates between E minor and D major, which doesn't indicate a particular mode (could be E aeolian or E dorian), the lick indicates E aeolian (natural minor). Now, the G# in that context doesn't offend me at all. It could be seen as E melodic minor, however in conjunction with the D major chord played by the acoustic guitar it could be seen as Dmajor with an diminished 5th (Dmajb5), which is a really dissonant chord but in the lick the G# is two octaves above the chord. I see nothing wrong with that, and if you're a Hendrix fan you shouldn't either, considering the famous "Hendrix Chord" (E7#9).
I've heard Opeth (and other metal bands) do this - repeat something bad often enough and it begins to
sound right - intent being stronger than the basic underlying rules. All of which is gibberish, of course. No insult intended, but to me it's your reasoning about this note which sounds like gibberish. It certainly doesn't prove to me that this note is "officially" wrong.
|
So ... what are your thoughts, is this note wrong or right - or at least "acceptable" to your ears?
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 22 2008 at 03:56
|
|
 |