Unusual tunings (guitar/bass)

[Pretsy 1343]

Let's see if I manage to ignite some buzz in the section that I rarely visit (not that I expect any responses)

 

Here's something that I'd love to muster with my guitar/bass aficionado colleagues out there: can you guys think of a few instances in VK and/or non-VK stuff (J-music) where odd/unusual tunings were utilized in guitars/bass (seeing as I am getting rather intrigued about freaky tunings lately)?

 

My examples (my sources are from their official song/tab books btw):

 

 

Dir en grey - DOZING GREEN (Die's part - guitar)

Tuning: DADADD + half step down (C#G#C#G#C#C#)  (a variation of Open C# tuning)

 

Most musicians cringe upon this due to stigmas laid down by Creed/Alter Bridge and their unfortunate alt. fame. In this case Die managed to express its folkier side (what you'd normally expect from DADGAD) without eventually resorting to stigmatic Christian rockage, heh

 

the GazettE - songs with dropped tunings (Reita - bass)

Tuning: various variations of BDGC (low B from standard 5-string tuning + DGC strings from one step down tuning)

 

I find composing on such tuning a bit freaky to begin with (at least from theoretical perspective, like adapting to certain scales for instance and so on), so kudos to Reita for being somewhat innovative on that matter, I guess? I have heard that its frequent use would kill strings pretty quickly though :/

 

Feel free to come up with stuff you have

[relentless 254]

Sonic Youth are known to delve in strange tunings: http://www.sonicyouth.com/mustang/tab/tuning.html


Call me "old fashioned"; but I never really took an interest in bizarre tunings for experimentation's sake. Maybe when I first started guitar there was an interest with bands like Sonic Youth doing it, and even some passing interest in drop tunings found in metal -- over time that interest faded because I started to find alternate tunings being used more as a crutch with many bands instead of serving any particular compositional purpose -- especially the groups that go into drop tuning. Drop-tuned power chords are a whole new level of lazy when it comes to guitar performance because it's a way of doing barre chords resulting in the least amount of effort possible. And then, if you ARE doing something other than power chords, you'll find that suddenly you have to shift scales and chord voicings into a bunch of twisted ways that makes the intuitive design of standard tuning into a mess.

One positive note (forgive the pun) could be alternate tunings can help with extended chords outside of basic triads and make those easier (9th, 11th, 13th chords, etc.); but even then everything else suffers if you want to expand your playing. With bands like Sonic Youth, there's not a whole lot technically interesting going on when they tune to ( F# F# F# F# E B ) hold down the the bottom four notes, and throw it through feedback/distortion. In the case of Sonic Youth, I can understand the lack of need for scale movement and chord voicing because there's a conscious effort to derive a unique effect from weird tunings; but anyone else that intends on avoiding that kind of stuff is better off sticking with standard tuning. After all: tuning doesn't do much other than present contrast in timbre vs. standard tuning.

If a band or musician is genuinely interested in changing the tuning of their instrument to go into lower registers, I would recommend getting a 7 or 8 string guitar. In that case you're getting the extended range without sacrificing tuning, everything remains intuitive, and more importantly, everything remains practical.

[bonsaijodelfisch 328]

Drop-tuned power chords are a whole new level of lazy when it comes to guitar performance because it's a way of doing barre chords resulting in the least amount of effort possible. And then, if you ARE doing something other than power chords, you'll find that suddenly you have to shift scales and chord voicings into a bunch of twisted ways that makes the intuitive design of standard tuning into a mess.

 

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

[relentless 254]

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

 

 

I never said it was "bad", only lazy (because there's really no "wrong" approach to music). Using a power chord means you're omitting the third from a chord, which is the most important note for determining its color (major/minor). In context of a piece, you can write a song using parallel fifths and still determine the key (plenty of indie rock does it); but relying on power chords for your progression will always sound more hollow due to the nature of the harmonic series where there is very little distinction between the prime and fifth when played together. It's fine, except there's nothing profound about it and is seen as lazy chord voicing. And when all that exists are power chords, there becomes little to appreciate for me.

 

 

 

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...

 

There I disagree. Holding, picking, strumming, and fingering the guitar all take a degree of of practice similar to fingering and bowing a violin, or proper breathing for a horn instrument. In all cases you're presenting yourself with different challenges that all have the same basis: you have to know how to use it first, even if one's knowledge is very limited. You should listen to someone pick up the guitar for the first time and attempt "Smoke on the Water", or attempt any movement with their hand on the frets. There will be complete disconnect until the muscle memory begins to pick it up -- the same with pretty much any instrument.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I have no idea what kind of guitar you're playing, or how you voice your chords; but the statement that "power chord-based music 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" is completely false which I'll demonstrate with one diagram i sloppily put together.

 

 

 

 

Please tell me how the second diagram (a power chord voicing which "gives you more freedom") is any more efficient than the first voicing? It's not. In fact, the second voicing is damn near impossible unless you have freakishly large hands. Second, you're conflating "chord voicing" with tuning in your last statement. If we are talking about weird tunings, then yes I agree that you can tune to make extended chords easier; but then like I said, everything else suffers because of it. Then within standard tuning (as I showed above), using a power chord as the basis for chord voicing is a terrible idea. I guess you could try it; but good luck.

 

 

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

 

Ok, we're jumping back and forth to different topics so please bear with me. That's where your musical focus is a bit too narrow. Drop tunings, and "weird tunings", are not exclusive to distortion-based music. Even on an 8 string you can voice chords on the lower registers. A pedal may distort the overall sound but I guarantee it will not be completely lost unless the gear a performer is using sucks or they're setting their pedals to completely drown out any nuance of what they're playing. Then maybe there you'd have a point.

 

 

 

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.

 

That's because I never said a 7/8 string was better for "tuning stability", only a better alternative to drop tuning because: A. the extended range, and B. you aren't forced to relearn the fret-board by diving into strange tunings. All the voicings stay the same, you have everything there like you did with a 6 string, only more and far more versatility -- all without having to retune.

 

 

 

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

 

It is

[bonsaijodelfisch 328]

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.

 

It's fine, except there's nothing profound about it and is seen as lazy chord voicing. And when all that exists are power chords, there becomes little to appreciate for me.

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.

 

There I disagree. Holding, picking, strumming, and fingering the guitar all take a degree of of practice similar to fingering and bowing a violin, or proper breathing for a horn instrument. In all cases you're presenting yourself with different challenges that all have the same basis: you have to know how to use it first, even if one's knowledge is very limited. You should listen to someone pick up the guitar for the first time and attempt "Smoke on the Water", or attempt any movement with their hand on the frets. There will be complete disconnect until the muscle memory begins to pick it up -- the same with pretty much any instrument.

 

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 guess you could try it; but good luck.

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.

 

Drop tunings, and "weird tunings", are not exclusive to distortion-based music. Even on an 8 string you can voice chords on the lower registers.

 

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 ^^)

 

you aren't forced to relearn the fret-board by diving into strange tunings. All the voicings stay the same, you have everything there like you did with a 6 string, only more and far more versatility -- all without having to retune.

 

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

[relentless 254]

 

In a classical context of course the third is more or less the most important part of the harmonic system...

 

 

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".

 

 

I want to pause for a moment and make sure we clear up that going about the conversation in this mindset is very misguided. This is one of the few conversations (at least part of it) where going about this in a "classical vs. pop/jazz" mindset doesn't quite work. I appreciate your knowledge of music; but in this regard you're slightly off. It seems like you're assuming that diatonic chords within the major and minor keys "tend to sound way too 'classical'". Not only that; but to draw that paragraph into context yields:

 

 

 

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.

 

Here you're just barely scratching the surface on the bigger picture. This may be because classical isn't your thing, and you aren't entirely familiar with it (which is understandable); but you don't take into consideration that what you described is not unique to "pop/jazz" by any stretch of the imagination -- with the only difference coming from how it's notated. 7th, 9th, 11th, and even 13th chords, suspended chords*, and diminished chords have all been expressed across tons of "genres" of music (to a FAR lesser extent in pop); but how they are used, and how they are read, varies. When reading a Classical work you don't see suspension and go "oh, this is a Dsus4 chord" even though the sound is exactly the same like you would find in other genres. It would (in a classical sense) be considered a leading tone that resolves to a chord (in this case D). Keep in mind that there is definitely jazz (and classical) that does as you say ("Strain away from this exact definition of a chord "gender", fogging this definition either by the addition of laddernotes...or ones alien to the roots..."); but that isn't unique to jazz, and that style is certainly not representative of the whole genre when it's still a very modern understanding of chord structure. It's not even an understanding that is pursued in Pop. If it was, that would be news to me. (Pop as in the genre, not the broad term "Popular Music")

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes, there is my confusion. I thought we were comparing voicing with power chords vs. other ways to play a given chord. I wasn't aware we were strictly discussing power chords. My point was that voicing power chords are lazy (requires little effort) compared to all the ways you can voice chords. Especially when it comes to piano or guitar, I will actively avoid power chords and only use barre chords when absolutely necessary. And I do agree with the matter of viewpoint when it comes to power chords because like I said: there's no "wrong" approach to music, even if I or others criticize it. Your style is ingrained in doom/stoner/black metal and I can dig it; but always keep in mind our interests represent many colors of the same spectrum, and all the different genres/styles we like aren't as far apart as they sometimes seem.

 

 

 

 

as i said it's actually just two cases of where i probably didn't get my case across

 

Just a slight misunderstanding on both of our parts, not a problem. It's been fun discussing music on a music forum.

[bonsaijodelfisch 328]

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

 

 

 

Here you're just barely scratching the surface on the bigger picture. This may be because classical isn't your thing, and you aren't entirely familiar with it (which is understandable)

 

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:

 

 

 

but you don't take into consideration that what you described is not unique to "pop/jazz" by any stretch of the imagination -- with the only difference coming from how it's notated. 7th, 9th, 11th, and even 13th chords, suspended chords*, and diminished chords have all been expressed across tons of "genres" of music (to a FAR lesser extent in pop); but how they are used, and how they are read, varies. When reading a Classical work you don't see suspension and go "oh, this is a Dsus4 chord" even though the sound is exactly the same like you would find in other genres. It would (in a classical sense) be considered a leading tone that resolves to a chord (in this case D)

 

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.

 

 

 

It's not even an understanding that is pursued in Pop. If it was, that would be news to me. (Pop as in the genre, not the broad term "Popular Music")

 

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.

 

 

 

My point was that voicing power chords are lazy (requires little effort) compared to all the ways you can voice chords.

 

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

 

 

there's no "wrong" approach to music, even if I or others criticize it

i just somehow got giddy with having "lazy" associated with my guitarstuff^^

 

 

 

but always keep in mind our interests represent many colors of the same spectrum, and all the different genres/styles we like aren't as far apart as they sometimes seem.

 

now that's just beautiful <3 ^^

#poetic

[Ro plz 1290]

For the stuff that I write, I use drop C# and Drop A (6 string). I like where my mind goes in regards to what I dish out using those tuning's.

 

I hate when things have to be more complicated, tuning wise, then it needs to be. I find it a tad bit ridiculous that Die has such an unnecessarily bizzare tuning for Dozing Green. Hell, i even find the tuning for the single version of Hageshisa to be a lil dumb. Same goes for a lot of the GazettE's older stuff. Its not that hard to drop tune a guitar and come up with more or less of the same output imo. But who knows what goes on in these guys heads. 

[relentless 254]

 

this focus on genderlessness and constant fogging of the same is a very different emphasis of jazz/pop/rock compared to classical

 

You're largely overstating this. Popular Western music is (for the most part) exempt from this. Recently with modern jazz and some very few selections in modern Pop and Rock this is done as a means of harmonic tension; but this isn't new, nor is it indicative of the majority of Pop and Rock music. The majority of Pop and Rock music is still tonal, and in endless cases, rather simple. Modern Jazz is (of course) separate as we can both agree.

 

Aside from a few shining examples, the norm of pop and rock is still centered around I-IV-V; but the means of how it's presented in the harmony has changed. 12 bar blues (consisting of I-IV-V) does not sound the same as a V-I cadence from the classical style, which also doesn't sound the same as a typical I-IV-V power chord progression in punk -- even when all three use the same chords. The means of which these are written are completely separate. 12 Bar blues 99% of the time doesn't use secondary dominants, it doesn't modulate, it doesn't feature contrasts in rhythm as a means to propel the music forward in harmonic motion to the next section -- none of that. It's simply: I - IV - I - V - IV- I. As I have stressed above: same material being pulled from (for the most part) and being composed differently. Modern pop is not exempt from this, as "All About That Bass" and endless amounts of Pop music is centered around the same idea of I-IV-V. "All About That Bass" includes these chords in succession (A, Bm, E, A, Bm, E, A, Bm, E, A, D, A) which is: (I-ii-V-I-ii-V-I-ii-V-I-IV-I). There's no "fogging", there isn't even the presence of extended chords like 7ths or 9ths. It's tonal, and one could say it's pretty juvenile as a whole.

 

 

And then when suspended and extended chords starts showing up in Popular music (Pop/Rock), it's not a means to "fog" chords and harmony, it's always for harmonic tension -- again, nothing different from anything done in the past 500 years. First song that comes to mind is U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name". Again, another song that revolves around I IV and V with: I-IV-vi-IV-V; but when the suspended chords show up, it's in this progression: D, Dsus4, D6, D. Just to be clear, the key of this song is D. Again, a means of tension (very basic and straight forward) with a move to the tonic, without ever "fogging" what is going on in the harmony and its direction. If one chord is enough to "fog" the harmonic direction, then by a matter of principle I have to disagree. At the first sight of new notes being introduced, or different chords entirely, that isn't a means to "fog" or even a way to move to a new key. It's a quick little something thrown into Pop/Rock to add flavor with its direction often going to the tonic. It'd be like saying Bach's famous Prelude in C major has "tons of key changes because its use of secondary dominants, and diminished triads to "fog" the tonic"; but it never leaves the tonic in the first place, and assuming such would show a lack of understanding of the music at hand. As shown above, these are diatonic chords, the music is entirely tonal, and in NO way show movement away from that which was established in the late Renaissance - early Baroque. It's only written differently to meet the tastes of audiences today, and often notated in different ways.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Which leads me to this, which is an incorrect statement. If you think modern use of I-IV-V sounds "way too "classical'", that's on you and I disagree in the fullest because even V-I cadences in the classical style (not "I-IV-V-I cadences", as you phrased it) sound nothing alike -- even when in the same key. The aesthetic and means of writing are very different, with Pop not consisting of any form which propels it forward like a Symphony in the classical style. "I-IV-V" is not the defining quality of writing in the classical style, it's the "V-I" cadence founded in the Mannheim school.. If you meant to say the harmonic weight of V-I sounds very "classical-y" then maybe I would agree with you; but then again "V-I" exists everywhere in Western Music to this day.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Even this is incorrect. The power chords do nothing to "fog" their "gender"  when it's a progression descending in thirds in the key of Bm. The song (despite its sometimes cool chord usage) is tonal and pretty straight forward. I heard it, and instantly recognized the minor sound -- endlessly googling any chord charts to determine if I was right -- and I was:

 

http://gakufu.gakki.me/m2/?p=N02582

 

 

If you want that kind of sound with power chords, all the power to you; but I just don't find anything spectacular about their use and their flat sound.

[bonsaijodelfisch 328]

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
 
 

Again, the overwhelming part of poprockjazz-music and the parts in it itself are major minor chords, very likely without any additions to them [...] but i guess what i'm basically meaning is, thirds [...] don't make music more profound

 
 
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.
 
 

And then when suspended and extended chords starts showing up in Popular music (Pop/Rock), [...] it's always for harmonic tension -- again, nothing different from anything done in the past 500 years

 
 
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
 

it is very hard to not make a tonica-subdominant-dominant-tonica progression (I-IV-V-I) sound like your stereotypical classic cadenza

 
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
 

My point was that voicing power chords are lazy

 
an my point being
 

it isn't

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

If you want that kind of sound with power chords, all the power to you

 
what you did there, i see it
 
 
EDIT: phew, these post sure take a while