bonsaijodelfisch

am i the only one that isn't exactly blown away by this? I mean it's an okay song and all, but i probably wouldn't listen to it a second time. maybe it'll bloom in the full album context, i still have some hope for this band/album

*sound of glass shattering*

and another one. Post-Black-Indie-Alternative or sth. #AmIHipYet? sounds exactly like all the other shit

i have to say, i'm a bit hype i'm a sucker for these ambient-glitch-noise kind of fillers and intros

I'm not sure, should we ask a mod to move this discussion into another thread like "modern chord voicings and their connection/distinction from classical progressions"? I think we might have derailed the topic a bit too far from alternative guitar tunings, but i'd love to continue the discussion, it's a pleasure "discussing music on a music board" so lets get to it. first of all i think that i never implied that any of the music we discussed here wasn't tonal. not by any stretch of the term. I wouldn't be able to mention anything like chords or progressions in the first place, if we'd be talking about atonal music in the sense of the wiener schule and schönberg. secondly I do agree with you more than you seem to see. You're probably right about me overbloating the "fogging" aspect quite a bit in my later responses, so let me quote myself from one of the earlier ones all of your examples are of course correct and do feature some of the most basic chords and progressions, but as you state yourself, "all about that bass" and plenty of other examples still arguably "pretty juvenile as a whole". Now i'm obviously not saying that this would make it any better, but changing that A, Bm, E to A5, B5, E5 wouldn't be any more "lazy" than the original. It would be a variation of the basic tonality in the same tradition as adding laddernotes or suspending the 3rd to a 2/4 (I do know that it is a particularly bad example here, as you'd have to heavily alter the vocal melody to somehow dance around the 3rds if you want to do it properly, but I think you know what I mean ). maybe we'll find some common ground here when noting that an A5 would be a reduction, an Asus4 a variation and an A11 an extension of a chord, all three going for a different goal in sound. Simply not liking one of these variations due to it's "hollow" sound of course is all fine and dandy. I have to (slightly) disagree here. Choosing the sus chord as an example was probably a bad choice, as it at least most of the times does resolve into the 'proper' chord afterwards indeed (and pulling herbie hancock as a contrasting example for super mainstream pop music might be a bit of an asspull). What you describe as "harmonic tension" probably is what i mean with all the "fog/cloud" nonsense i'm talking about and yes of course that has been around since forever (i probably just don't like the term "tension", because for example i would attribute more tension to a diminished chord than to sth like a G9 or an Fmaj7, which isn't the point of discussion). The main difference is however, the emphasis is on said tension and not on any way of a release. The 9 or the 13 of an A13 chord don't have to progress towards their respective 8/3 or 5, as none of these voicings count as a 'melody' they don't really have to follow any melodic line as well. The very fact that these additions are noted in the first place should be an indication as to the heightened emphasis on them, if they'd be just in some side instruments melodic line, they wouldn't be mentioned at all. you call it "flavor" which i agree, "going to the tonic" i don't necessarily do. I have no idea what you want to point out with the example about the (not) modulation of the prelude C, but well obviously it's secondary dominants don't change the key, otherwise they wouldn't be secondary dominants. Of course secondary dominants, particularly in their dual-dominant-diminished (and b5 in the basso) variant are probably the farthest you can push the dominant-tonic model. none the less of course, the name already implies it, it's focused on it's tonic. As a chord, the dual dominant in C still however is just D. (If that D would be tensed up a bit with diminishing it's root and adding a 7 for example, it would quickly be released to either a G, or possibly a Trugschluss to Em) I feel like my addition of a single simple example pushed the discussion way too much into the progression of chords and their numerals, which was never my intention, but as the major part of your answer focuses on that let me elaborate a bit. I wrote this being an example of a progression I of course showed a full circle, starting and ending on the tonic. Of course the defining aspect of this is the V-I, in front of it could've been anything, it was just the most basic numeral i came up with, to complete the example. The V-I is at the very core of the diatonic model, the dominant and tonic, that every other numeral is just referencing. By the way, this cadence is in no way founded by the mannheim school, they might have named it and written down its core properties, but the cadence, and in extension the whole diatonic model, goes way back to the clausolas of somewhere between 12th-14th hundred choral music. the diskant clausola: a semitone up to the root, the tenor clausola: two semitones down to the root, and the bass clausola: a fifth down (fourth up) to the root. (in the 16hundreds extended by the alto clausola: fifth to fifth) So this step hasn't just been in the very beginning of progressions, but of polyphone music and tonality in general. The notion that "V-I exists everywhere in western music to this day" doesn't change, that it (i probably have to add "to me", it all being subjective and such) still sounds extremely classical in most cases. (yes, also the "all about that bass" example, even if that nowadays might be the posterchild popsong) so about that supercell example. I think you once more missed my point, so forgive me if i repeat myself. this was focusing a different part of the argument. the point that you made an my point being eloquent bonsai is eloquent this isn't about fogging or tension or anything else. It is that, the simple act of not pressing down the middle finger to add the thirds to the chords does not make this any more "lazy" than it would be with it. It is a conscious choice to get a certain type of sound, sonically as well has harmonically, that you can totally describe as flat or hollow if you want. sometimes it just might fit or not. but that hasn't anything to do with lazy. ironically, despite not having been planned as an example of harmonic fluidity, it now somehow became one. technically, with the first chord being a B5 and the vocal melody only hitting the 8 and 9, it could very much be either a Bm or a B. Playing it on guitar i was going for an all parallels solution, but going by the scale itself and the vocal melody following after, the more logical conclusion is indeed Bm/G/E instead of B/G/E, you're right about that. I went ahead and recorded both versions for the heck of it. powerchords - B/G/E - Bm/G/E turns out, i would find both 3rd-containing options perfectly viable solutions (my guess is: you don't ^^ ), although subjectively speaking none of them superior to the reduced one, but as we both now stated numerous times, thats a matter of taste. sidenote, although it might be correct in this case, googling chord sheets or even worse guitar tabs on the internet is a terrible idea when it comes to determining the chords of a piece, in particular the more complex ones. also what you did there, i see it EDIT: phew, these post sure take a while

hehe, it is a pleasure discussing music theory, it's been a rough ride so far, but i guess most of it is clear now, apart from the big one, which i do think i still need to adress full disclosure and (honestly) without wanting to sound grandiose, but i studied classical music and instrumental education for four years at university cologne, music and media production/media-composition for another five at robert-schumann-musikhochschule in düsseldorf, played a classical instrument for now twenty years, about 10 of those professionally. I don't mean that in a "my point more valid than yours" kind of way, more in a way that you don't really have to go the nitty bits of harmonielehre, like you would have to with your average metal guitarist so about this: that last paragraph is actually THE key point. of course all the leading notes or practically every melody over a chord in general does for some amount of time create tons of chords that would look like B/Dmaj7#9add13 and whatnot, but this "leading" is the core aspect of them. they are all just a "vorhalt" (apparently: grace note) to the regular ones. if in pop there is a Dsus4 chord, then that IS the chord, it's not just the flavoring a D minor to follow, because there is no D minor following. Of course there's nothing in any of major-minor based music that's actually new since probably bach, but as you said it is "how they are used". this focus on genderlessness and constant fogging of the same is a very different emphasis of jazz/pop/rock compared to classical (to distinguish a bit between those, generally speaking it's more on the side off jazz to use the addition of all the numbered notes and complex chords in general, and more to the pop side of things to suspend chords/use reduced slash chords). And as such yes i am "assuming that diatonic chords within the major and minor keys "tend to sound way too 'classical'"" (triple quotation marks ftw!) it is very hard to not make a tonica-subdominant-dominant-tonica progression (I-IV-V-I) sound like your stereotypical classic cadenza. lionel richie would be an example, who is a very frequent and able user of the suspended chords (which are more or less a core symptom of this understanding of harmonics). of course not exclusively, but it is a very obvious element in his songs. also lots of the more jazzy/funky sounding kpop (I think SHINee maybe?) nowadays has tons of these if my ears aren't failing me. basically i think it's been like that since somewhere in the 80s. and my point is, it isn't take this track by supercell as an example the composers clearly know their game around the harmonic table as is apparent from the intro and other parts from the song. At about 1min or so the main riff of the song starts. it is apparent in the context of it that these are basically all major chords, they are only voiced however as powerchords. Parallel shifted powerchords even. now these aren't voiced lazy, they are in fact voiced in the best way possible. no amount of clever voicing, additional notes, thirds and avoiding parallels would make this part any better (well, of course it's all subjective, but you know what i mean). in this case the powerchords where just the correct solution to the able producer to achieve the assumed goal to have the most powerfull sounding guitar entry to their album. but i guess that's what you already adress with i just somehow got giddy with having "lazy" associated with my guitarstuff^^ now that's just beautiful <3 ^^ #poetic

EDIT: sorry, wall of text incoming ok, some of my points i probably phrased wrong, some others i just disagree, but let me answer to some of those to my best extend. 
 your statement regarding the thirds in harmonic structure are sound and i mostly agree, apart from the minor note about "profoundness" in these progressions. In a classical context of course the third is more or less the most important part of the harmonic system (in german harmonics itself is even called "Dur/moll-tonales system" approx. major/minor-based system) Now obviously this is also true for a huge portion of pop, jazz and rock music, but one of the key differences in pop/jazz voicings is, that most of it's efforts have the goal to strain away from this exact definition of a chords "gender", fogging this definition either by the addition of laddernotes like the 7/9/11/13's or even ones alien to the roots ladder like the diminished and augmented (#/b) notes. Another particularly telling example of these distinct pop harmonics are the very often used suspended chords (sus2/sus4) in popular music that get their flavor from exactly replacing the third with a 2 or 4 (9 or 11 respectively), as well as the so called slash-chords, which in their most common usage are just a root with numbered notes on top of it, that just so happen to form another kind of chord (e.g. A/G, G over A is basicaly just a genderless A suspended, with 7/9/11 in the upper harmonics, although depending on context you could also call it a Gmajor with a 9 in the bass. it's all very open to interpretation, but that's part of the thing, it strives away from themajor and minor chords, because very often these tend to sound way too "classical". Again, the overwhelming part of poprockjazz-music and the parts in it itself are probably major minor chords, very likely without any additions to them (hell, most of the powerchord-only tracks with their powerchord progression give you a very clear understanding which traditional key the are actually in, just because they don't play the 3 doesn't mean it isn't there ) Now I know i'm speaking very broadly here, so i hope it somehow comes around what i mean with that passage, but i guess what i'm basically meaning is, thirds (and 9/13/25s,suspended-slashs-diminished) don't make music more profound, just different. it depends on what you're going for, and crafting a great riff/line in a root-based or powerchord-based context without spelling out the chord itself is, in my opinion, not less appreciable than doing the same on something like an Am, Fm, D9, Edim basis. here you get me wrong, i'm not saying skill/talent and effort don't make a difference. trust me i know. what i'm saying is that this is not necessarily a good thing. At the very least it is not a bad thing to make something easier, achieving the same goal (for the record mentioning that it also can be a concious aesthetic choice to have the one-finger-powerchord, as a riff played on a scale using nothing but powerchords does sound different when sliding with regular vs. drop tuning in tracks like high on fire - madness of an architect. the difference is subtle, but everything in music is, isn't it? ) also, i see your diagram and i raise you a new one i think you also understood me wrong here. For starters i meant that in a context, where the foundation of the powerchord is a key element to the sonic footprint of the sound (read that as "rock", but it is also not uncommonly used in funk and pop music too, in fact i have, i even primarily do so, and it works terrific^^ (in funk, rock and pop that is) so, now going from this setting i have painted the diagram with, what options regular vs. drop tuning gives you with voicing over a powerchord. i know, i was just assuming by your general statement about more or less "music consisting of powerchords" you meant something that is probably very heavy distorted. in clean sounds you can absolutely have a very low third still be pretty listenable. But distorted, particularly a minor third in the low registers will turn the whole tower of sound that the powerchord is into a rambling pile of nonesense, due to the physical nature of the overtones in the distortion. (fun fact, any distorted powerchord essentially already is a major chord of its root. the major third is already the 4th harmonic, which is very prominent even with moderate levels of distortion, the 7 and 9 are also still fairly close, but the minor third is just too far away in the overtonal spectrum to play any role in the harmonics, which is why it doesn't work in the low registers with added distortion, because neither does the b3 itself, nor subsequently any of its own harmonic line up with the root-note. This in itself is pretty ironic, because by nature i would claim that most of the powerchords that are played, should be actually minor chords in their context of scale ^^) well, it's a matter of viewpoint i guess. I would phrase it like: You have everything there like you did with a 6-string. because it is (the baritone). just the number of steps dropped lower that you intended to in the first place -- all without having to worry about additional strings and mammoth-fretboards sorry for wall of text. i hope i wasn't talking too nonsensical this time. as i said it's actually just two cases of where i probably didn't get my case across and one where i would like to extend on your notion of what is profound or appreciable in music. but i think i have a fairly clear idea now what you mean

ok, excuse me that i feel the need to interfere here a bit^^ first of all, i don't see exactly how it's a bad thing to have a pretty effortless powerchord (the beautiful thing about electric guitar in my opinion exactly is the fact, that as opposed to any classical instruments for example you don't have to put in ridiculous amounts of effort, simply to have a trumpet or violin note that doesn't sound utter shit, and instead you can focus your effort towards WHAT to do with you note, but that's a whole other discussion...) as a matter of fact i would argue that in powerchord-based music it gives you even more freedom with your voicings, as you don't have to waste three fingers on the powerchord itself, so you have three left to throw in all kinds of 7s, 9s, 11s or just octaves of the powerchord on the top three strings, whereas with standard tuning you're pretty much stuck with the 3rd on your middle finger. Particularly with low tunings the argument about the "weird voicings" doesn't really hold up aswell, because due to the physical nature of lower frequencies and their behaviour with distortion you typically wouldn't really want to play any "standard" chord involving the bottom string in the first place, so you'd only be utilizing the chords second string up in the first place anyways. depending on what kind of music you want to play i also wouldn't really second the suggestion of a 7/8string guitar over a baritone. personally i'd say a 7/8 is exactly less intuitive and practical as a baritone, without any advantages in tuning stability. personally, as someone whose guitarworks are mainly focused somewhere in the stoner/doom/blackmetal area i'd take a baritone over a seven any given day, but that's probably more of an aesthetic decision, the extra 'top'-string probably also wouldn't hurt much, even tho i don't have much use for it. sooo then to my guitars and tunings. as a self taught guitarist i most of the time start with the regular string intervals, but i have no qualm changing strings in whatever direction, if it fits a song or passage better, or just to have a certain passage be actually playable e.g. sth involving flageolets etc. most of my guitars are in C#-Regular/Drop-B depending on whats better fitting, the baritone in Bb-Regular/Drop-G#. As you can see all of these are tuned down some steps, simply because, speaking of overall scale, i find the "contrast in timbre" that i get from the extra steps down a much bigger advantage than the steps that i lose on the top. (these contrasts in timbre have arguably created whole new genres and guitar-writing-techniques, so they are somehow important) My basses are a 5-string in regular (again, changing the bottom string to whatever fits the song) and a four string, tuned like the lower four strings of a five (BEAD, the reasoning behind that tuning beeing the same as with the guitars^^) On the more freakish tunings there are a few I don't remember, but for one track i tuned the baritone to E↓ E↑ B D F# B, so i had a variation of a powerchord in the bottom three strings, with a sort of "bass+guitar in one"-effect, and the option to have an open minor chord on the top for strings for some dark bottlenecking (which i then didn't utilise unfortunately). To match with the guitar, the bass as well had to be tuned to a stupid E↓↓ E↓ A D, which is pretty pointless in almost all scenarios, but leads to some very interesting sonic effects at places (string snare becomes glorious with these flabby cables ^^) the song in question would be this one. nothing to freakish in the chord-structure department, most is very E-root-based or focused on parallel minor chords, but it was more envisioned as an experiment in sonics anyways. whoever wants to hear a glorious bass-fart, skip to somewhere around 4:15 in the spoiler so in essence, i don't see why tunings are such a religion for many in the first place. As with pretty much everything the most appropriate answer to tunings is an earth shattering "it depends" anyways, and with guitars as cheap as they are there's nothing preventing anybody to have one in regular and one in whatever

thanks i'm kind of in a productive mood nowadays, new track here. This time it's a more game-themed sorta 8bit-ish Chiptune track with a hint of a powermetal feel to it

http://myanimelist.net/profile/bonsaijodelfisch i practicly never check it tho... created it some months back on a whim ^^

i made something new^^ it's obviously very much "inspired" by some danc-y kpop, tried a bit to learn pop production with that. mad stallion wrote somewhere he tried to make a song in a day. so i tried to do the same here it is, have fun with it

really? i mean, you don't have to agree with it, but is a pretty hate-able trait

yes, they are essentially the same band, just that kill my.. had only one drummer I think ages ago i read on their myspace (!) that they in retrospect just sort of really didn't like their bandname ^^ hence the change, which also came along with a slight shift from the more post-rock approach to a more doomy setting with, i don't know, slight progressive and math touches *ducksforcover* ? that's probably the reason for your preference of the older stuff but i agree, in total their kill my.. album is superior, just a thing of beaty from start to finish

some Hendrix stuff is downright unlistenable, especially on headphones, because back in the day producers still tried to figure out what they could do with that new and fresh stereo, which lead to some very irritating experiences if you have the opportunity to listen to it on speakers, or to switch the playback to mono it could become much more enjoyable

don't really know much of korean indie, but these guys peaked my interest... they are in general more on the ballad-y side of things and thus often sound like an indie-rocked version of kpop, which is a beautiful thing these on the other hand have a slightly mor rock/quirky/experimental vibe to them and thus remind very much of japanese indie, which obviously is nice aswell ^^

sooooo new SHINee is out, any thoughts? after the first initial listen i only really like "romance" maybe it'll grow on me whole album playlist https://youtu.be/ALXDmyPiUW4?list=PLgIqF-gjplXYHDTx2YnkPkI_1HrmlHpzt

funny you should say that, there was this other band, also called Mucc, that i really enjoyed. but they somehow vanished 2009-ish^^

nice one. i almost lost faith

soooo, is it just me or was the last episode (s5e05) pretty lame? nothing happened anywhere plus daenerys back and forth and totally uncomprehensible decisionmaking seems very uncalled for and out of character. hoping the next ones are better, i enjoyed episodes 1-4 so far tho, so i'm confident with that^^

this is fairly recent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mri5QNqCxS8 original and it slays

a while ago swiss post/black/doom/noise/drone ensemble RORCAL released a 30min anniversary mini-album that you can get for free here: https://rorcal.bandcamp.com/album/la-femme-sans-t-te pretty cool stuff