Great analysis! Mikael Akerfeldt thinks outside the box. Im sure he wasnt even aware of theoretical implications of what he composed which is even cooler and proves his great music intuition (and Peter Lindgren's too as he was co-writer for the song).
What an awesome video, this deserves way more attention and views! Would love to see more Opeth here! It's an interesting case because Mikael himself doesn't really know music theory (according to himself) so it's very interesting to see how it still could get analyzed.
It seems pretty common for metal musicians to not know music theory. I guess it makes sense, since conventional music theory is bad at explaining metal. Why would you learn something that doesn't help you? I'd definitely like to do more Opeth, even though this video was more work than I expected.
@@ThePopDescriptivist To be fair I think the "metal musicians generally not knowing music theory" is a bit of mythos or at least a thing that gets exaggerated because there are people like Mikael which then get chosen as an example of "see, you don't need music theory". But there are also bands like Symphony X or Fleshgod Apocalypse where at least some band members are very knowledgable in what they actually do. (sure, my two examples here also draw heavily from classical music, so maybe that's where the interest came from but I'm sure there are more than those)
Yeah, there are probably a good number of metal musicians who DO know theory, but there's not a culture of it in the genre like there is with jazz or classical. I think the interesting thing is that you see an alternative culture where people semi-intuitively learn riffs from listening to other musicians. It's kind of like folk music, in a way... 'transgressive folk music of the modern headbanger'.
There's a ton of good stuff to analyze on that album. The riff structure on 'Ghosts of Perdition' probably deserves a deep dive. Or for a shorter video, 'Atonement' has a concise but interesting use of scales.
Oh yes,,, .... heh heh.... that's the stuff. Love the "wandering between scales" interpretation for the first riff. Crazy how deeply ingrained Opeth is for me that I had always just vaguely assumed that they were mostly playing in minor / melodic minor, this music got into my brain a long time before I learned much theory.
@@MartinaHorvat-g3g I'm gonna be real with you, I've never heard anyone who knows musical theory ever say that. It's only ever people who don't know music theory and think music theory is prescriptivist as opposed to descriptivist. But I don't know maybe you do know theory and it did ruin your creativity? If so can you explain why?
@@placeholder6517 I said that because 3/4 of my extended family is highly educated in music, including my daughter, and before finishing school they all loved to play, to be creative in the moment and to improvise, today it's just their job - to play notes or to convey theory to students and that's it. I'm not saying that it's always like that with everyone, but that's how it is with me.
@MartinaHorvat-g3g have they told you that learning theory somehow robbed them of the ability to be creative or improvise? If so, how exactly? Lots of jazz players are extremely proficient at improvising and they tend to know a lot more theory than the average musician.
@placeholder6517 Of course, theory did not take away their ability to be creative, I believe that in jazz it is much easier with theory (who would remember such complex music without notes?) but my daughter told me that after so much theory, she no longer has as much will to play spontaneously. And how much I see, neither do the rest of the family.
great analysis, in-depth and understandable. yt doesn't have much content on analyzing death and black metal harmonies in such depth, so i'm really grateful for your work. some ihsahn analysis maybe in the future? i would also sell my soul for some deep insights on alkaloid.
I got a lot of videos on my to-do list, but fwiw Alkaloid is a great pick, a lot of interesting riffs. Don't know if you know the yt channel 'Metal Music Theory', but he's got some similar content, though usually more focused on rhythm over harmony.
Great video. I love this song, and your explanation of the musical theory make it a good connecting point for me to learn about the theory aspect. Thanks much!
Damn, first Domi&JD Beck and now Opeth? Literally 2 of my favourite artists in a row! Your analysis is absolutely amazing, and I'm honestly surprised your channel doesn't have more subscribers.
You've done a great job here, theory- and transcription-wise, and I have absolutely nothing to add. Good work! :) However, there are a couple of notation/engraving issues: #1) Section I has two dotted 4th notes in a row, which breaks the rule of the middle of the bar being visible (a rule to which there are a few exceptions, but this isn't one of those). The second note should instead be an 8th note tied to a 4th. #2) Section II has a double dotted half note tied to a group of two 16ths. This is the wrong type of "middle ground" where it becomes harder to read than either of the other two better options; either go full on with the dots and do a triple dot so that there's only the final 16th alone, or go with the standard dotted half tied to a dotted 8th (which is then grouped with the final 16th). #3) Section III (and other sections further on) has the rhythmic combination of two 16th notes, a 16th rest and a 16th note, which are all part of the same beat (the fourth beat in this case). Written as is, it's a bit hard to quickly sight-read and understand that it's all on the same beat. It's almost always better to use beamlets (letting the beam connect to or cross a rest) in situations like these, and I don't understand why MuseScore (which I'm guessing that you're using?) doesn't have this set as the default beaming behavior for this rhythm. #4) Section III also has another "illegal" rhythmic notation with the four sequential dotted 8th notes, which heavily obscures the beat(s) when reading. There's really only one correct way to write that rhythm, and it's like this: dotted 8th, 16th tied to 8th, 8th tied to 16th, dotted 8th - all of which are to be beamed to each beat. #5) Section IV is more of a preference thing, but it's generally easier to read two 16ths + dotted 4th as two 16ths + 8th tied to 4th, as it more clearly shows the beat. #6) Section VII is related to the issue in section III, regarding the combination of 16th notes and 16th note rests; in the instance of rest + note + rest + note (on a beat) it is also preferable to use beamlets, as it clearly shows the note grouping within the beat. #7) Section VIII is also another preference thing, but I definitely prefer reading 6-tuplets instead of 2-grouped 16th note triplets, as it's easier to parse.
Thanks for your detailed input on the notation stuff! It's definitely one of my weaker suits musically (still can't sight read for beans), though I also have some heterodox ideas about the way things should be notated. For instance, I personally find it easier to parse multiple dotted notes in a row, rather than the typical 'style guide' notation which reinforces metric subdivisions, especially in a simple meter like 4/4. The examples of this in my video are mostly double tresillos, which are a pretty well-established musical idiom, and the minimalistic dotted note pattern makes more sense to me than cluttering the measure with extra note heads and ties. That said, it would probably be better for me to stick to more standard interpretations in the future. I'm definitely going to look into how to get beamlets working in MuseScore - I hadn't really considered the concept much before, but you're right that they would improve readability for those sections. I really don't know what you'll think about my next video, which will be on the polymeters used in King Gizzard's 'Crumbling Castle'. As far as I know, there's no standard Western music notation for polymeters that adequately captures each component meter without 'privileging' one in the form of the time signature. I'm sorely tempted to use separate time signatures for each instrument, resulting in non-matching barlines between the instruments. It's probably not great for the performance aspect of the music, but might be better at portraying the conceptual aspect.
@@ThePopDescriptivist There are a few ways to go about notating true polymeters. One is to have separate time signatures for each different part (as you've mentioned) but that involves a shitload of f*ckery in MuseScore (or any other notation software for that matter). Another is to keep everything in what you consider to be the "overall time signature" and then use bracket-lines to show the rhythmic structures of the other parts (putting the start of the bracket over the top of the first note in the part's would-be time signature, and the end of the bracket on top of the last note before the "next bar" in the would-be time signature starts). A third option is the one I like the most, but it has the prerequisite that the different parts come in one at the time instead of being introduced all at once - write the first part in what is its own time signature, then change the time signature when the next part with a differing time signature comes in, etc. For extra clarity (which I prefer) you can combine this with the bracket-lines to show what happens to the "older" parts when a new part/time signature is introduced.
Words cannot fathom how much I appreciate this video. I have long been working on music in the style of Opeth and have instinctively known how difficult it was to lock down what they did. I am really happy to hear your breakdown, and I find it especially exciting how you identify repetitions of certain musical concepts across the different sections that tie them together, something which I find super interesting as prog can often become a meandering mashup of unrelated ideas. The way that scales, modes, and key centers are continuosly subverted is one of the reasons why death metal is so fascinating. Having it put in words is greatly helpful to me. I will definitely revisit this videos from time to time when I am stuck. Lastly, do you offer personal consultation on tracks? Is it possible that I could send over some of my work to try and get feedback on some things that I can stuck on? I feel like you could probably turn around some things pretty quickly. Best.
Thanks for the compliments, and I'm very glad you got so much out of this video. If you want to send me some of your tracks, you can find my e-mail in the 'channel details' section of my channel.
Holy cow, that was great. You answered one of the biggest things I didn't understand about music theory. I was wondering if there are songs out there that use more than one scale or one mode. But I guess now I have another question lol. So if a song changes key is it usually the same mode? So like in While My Guitar Gently Weeps by the Beatles, does the mode change when the key changes? I'm assuming the mode usually stays the same unless you're a prog band like opeth or king Gizzard and you change it on purpose? I just subscribed to your channel, I'm so excited to watch your King Gizzard and Domi/JD Beck videos. Most of this goes way over my head but I love learning about it. I would love to see a video on Frame by Frame by King Crimson, it would make me incredibly satisfied to learn about all of the little musical secrets in that song
A change in key may occur with or without a change in mode. 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' is a good example of the key AND mode change - the song starts in A minor, but the chorus is in A major, a different mode which uses the same root note. This particular relationship is usually described as the 'parallel minor/major', and the transition between them in this song is accomplished largely due to the V chord (E major) being suitable in either key (it's a diatonic chord in the major key, and tied the harmonic minor aspect of the parallel minor key). Contrast this with the Beatles' song 'Something', which starts in C major and modulates to A major. This is a key change but the mode being used is the same in both sections. There are also songs which change modes without changing keys, though people are more likely to ignore this feature because there's no strictly objective way to define it. To keep all these examples Beatle-y, their song 'When I'm 64' is in C major, but the bridge is in A minor - a change in mode, but not a change in key since these two scales have all the same notes (this relationship is called the 'relative major/minor'). However it would arguably be just as accurate to say the song is entirely in C major, and that the bridge just stays on the vi minor chord for a bit longer than usual. You'd be surprised at how many pop songs have key AND mode changes. You might be more likely to hear it in progressive rock, but it's not like that's the idea's exclusive domain. Also, King Crimson is a good suggestion, but if I were to cover them I'd probably be more inclined to look at something between 'Larks' Tongues in Aspic' and 'Red'.
Mikael Akerfeldt doesn't really know music theory but he owns thousands albums on vinyl. Music theory is in his subconscious already. He probably doesn't even think about technicality. He just play and music happens.
I think the fact that we can analyze songs like this more explicitly shows that when it comes to songwriting, music theory can be (and perhaps usually is) unconscious. It is a bit magical but also scientifically interesting.
Been a while since I listened to At the Gates but something off of Slaughter of the Soul could be interesting. Less harmonically complicated than Opeth, but there's a lot of interesting use of melodic motifs and tempo/rhythm shifts. I have a long to-do list of other videos, but I'll consider this.
@@ThePopDescriptivist Oh I'm talking about their first two records. much more twisting and weird imo. Any analysis about these three would make me a happy pappy man
@@profanepropane Lol sorry, by 'early' I thought you just meant pre-reunion. I'm actually not super familiar with their first two albums - I'll have to give them a spin.
@@ThePopDescriptivistif you do plan to listen to the second album, please check out the remasters by Peaceville. It fixes the original's weirdly treble-heavy guitars and allows you to fully take in the beauty and aggression of it all.
Care to elaborate? I didn't notice too much transposition, unless you count the multiple non-diatonic minor chords, though that doesn't feel extensive enough to merit using set theory. Likewise with inversion or other operations. But I wasn't exactly looking for these features, so it's entirely possible I missed something.
@ThePopDescriptivist what a thoughtful answer. I would love to dive into this more but with that comment I'm just speculating from listening to Opeth and hearing a coherence in themes from the intervals, possibly inverted or not. I wonder if you get a set of intervals emerge that reappear in other riffs throughout any of their pieces and noticing them be more than standard guitaristic patterns that fall under the fingers. I sometimes speculate to myself that this becomes the harmonic function if it seems like kind of a quagmire with all the different modes and ambiguous tonal centers. The cohesion is in the intervals and the tension release becomes the function itself beyond what seems almost unintelligible to common practice and very extended common practice. My question is what are we feeling? Are we feeling chords move or feeling skeletal interval patterns. I've wondered about this with them for awhile. You did the work, I'm just inspired to daydream about what holds this together because clearly Opeth can hold it together. Sometimes I even hear them as the whole tone band. Anyway I could be wrong and I would admit it if so. This is shooting from the hip concerning how it sounds and feels and I've always wondered how you would analyze their stuff so I applaud your work and I look forward to spending more time than watching it once and speculating.
@ThePopDescriptivist actually, let me dumb down my dumb thoughts even more and I will just ask you, because you are very accomplished in this analysis... why does it always sound like Opeth but have such a complicated collection of modes that are hard to make heads or tales of? Do you think he's going by straight feel or do you think he's got some secret rulebook on function. I haven't talked analysis forever, I'm in over my head, obviously.
Wow, a lot of questions, but I'm happy to answer as best I can. To start off with, one thing a lot of people have told me, in relation to this video, is that Mikael Åkerfeldt 'does not know music theory'. Well, that may not be entirely true - after over 35 years as a musician, I'm sure he's picked up a few of the basics. But I see the point of this claim, especially after learning (and re-learning) a whole bunch of Opeth songs. A lot of them seem like a semi-random grab bag of modes, chords, melodic shapes, which are best navigated by feel, and don't seem to represent a deep conceptual understanding of these terms qua music theory. I think I mentioned in the video that I have another video on the Vertebra Atlantis song 'Altopiano Celeste' - you should check this out if you want to see what deeply conceptual metal harmony looks like this. This song is the product of someone who verifiably went to music school. So if Mikael is not using music theory per se, how does he write such good music? I think he just has highly attentive sense of the most accessible elements of music - tension and release, darkness and brightness, use of repetition, and melodic shape. You stated that a sufficiently abstract way of looking at these things probably becomes 'unintelligible to common practice', but I'm not sure that's true. I think a lot of common practice ideas reflect an underlying human tendency towards having these perceptions specifically. At least in 12 tone equal temperament, I think there is a compelling reason to believe that dominant/tonic movements, chord tensions, and modal relationships are not only abstractions but an attempt to describe what a layperson hears when listening to music. So I think they are also well suited to describe what a 'layperson songwriter' like Mikael thinks when writing music. Even if Opeth's music doesn't adhere strictly to common practice, you are bound to hear 'snatches' of these concepts woven throughout their music. Of course, this doesn't mean there aren't atonal, 'set theory' aspects to Opeth's music. I think it's possible for a layperson songwriter to hit upon this kind of thinking and include it. In fact, one aspect of set theory, namely transposition, is definitely something a layperson listener can perceive. A lot of songs (Opeth and otherwise) make use of moving the same melodic shape into different positions. I imagine that Opeth's use of guitar incentivizes this technique, since on guitar, transposition is as easy as starting a fingering shape on a different fret. In fact, I'd wager that a lot of 'symmetry-based' songwriting in metal starts with a sort of naive but clever use of fretboard symmetries. However, something like inversion, or more complicated functions, is not immediately perceptible to the layperson listener. Maybe if you have a really seasoned listener, who is specifically looking out for these things, but ultimately there is a degree of intellectualization that you need to pick up on it - far from the immediate, visceral sense with which people perceive tension and release, darkness and brightness, etc. I'm not sure this really fits the naturalistic aspect of Opeth's style of songwriting. Of course, there are some places where inversion becomes accidentally possible - scales like the whole tone scale, the Dorian mode, and the Mixolydian b6 scale are symmetrical over inversion. But that still leaves us with the question of how to explain Opeth's style from a music theory standpoint, which is, I guess, partly what I was trying to accomplish with this video. I think a lot of the 'quagmire of different scales and ambiguous tonal centers' is taking those 'layperson perceptions', the 'impressionistic approach' I talk about, and applying it without regard to the more formalized common practice framework, where you're expected to stay in one tonal center and only move through other tonal centers thoughtfully and intentionally; where you're expected to use mostly diatonic scales, etc. You could probably create a new 'rulebook on function' to codify Opeth's style, but my personal opinion is that is largely the descendant of writing by feel. That's just what I think anyway, and of course I always invite other opinions, provided there is sufficient evidence to support them. There's usually more than one way to conceptualize any piece of music.
@ThePopDescriptivist thank you very much for this response. It answers all my questions and its been a pleasure to happen upon your channel. I'm a lifelong musician who has both played in metal bands and been to music school... so it's rare to have a conversation that includes everything from that background. I look forward to your other videos and you earned a subscriber and a fan.
It's all the more impressive that our musical intuition can take such stupidly complicated patterns as input and somehow, almost like magic, give us a nuanced but immediately enjoyable sensory and emotional experiences.
I've only recently started getting into Opeth, and in this video you refer to Blackwater Park as "middle era Opeth". Can anyone tell me what the eras of Opeth are?
At least the way I conceive of it, Opeth's 'early era' is their first four albums (Orchid through Still Life), which were more or less solidly death metal, with the first couple even having a touch of black metal to them. Their 'middle era' started in Blackwater Park, where they began working with Steve Wilson of Porcupine Tree - so the production values are a little better on this album forward, and they also started to utilize more elements of prog rock/metal (though you could argue Still Life has some of these elements, and really there's no exact dividing line). The 'middle era' continues up through Watershed - after that, their five most recent albums, starting with Heritage, comprise their 'late era'. Mikael stopped doing harsh vocals on these albums, and they lean much more heavily into the progressive rock style, with less overt metal riffs. Personally the 'middle era' is my favorite, and certainly these are the albums I'm most familiar with, but each of the eras has their own charm. Hope this helps.
@@ThePopDescriptivist Their new album seems like it is going to be a bit of a return to form for progressive metal. Of the two singles that released both are pretty heavy and one has some of the best distortion vocals Akerfeldt has ever done. Great video btw, i've played a lot of prog metal and you really hit the nail on the head with how you describe the way bands like to modulate to borrowed chords to get a sort of destabilized feeling to the music, then quickly return to common metal music structures with a cymbal cue that is usually in a polyrhythm which establishes 4/4. You should check out Gorod, I think the songs Inexorable and Transcendence would be pretty interesting to you.
Conclusion is: it's borderline pointless trying to analyse the theory behind Opeth's songs because Mikael didn't know anything about theory when he wrote all of these 😂
It's only pointless if you think that music theory is only prescriptive. In contrast, if music theory is *descriptive* then you can apply it to anything. Saying it's pointless to analyze Opeth because Mikael doesn't know music theory is like saying it's pointless to study medicine because human DNA doesn't encode a biology textbook.
Me watching this in entirety, not understanding a single thing being explained: Yes that is exactly how Mikael does it
Great analysis! Mikael Akerfeldt thinks outside the box. Im sure he wasnt even aware of theoretical implications of what he composed which is even cooler and proves his great music intuition (and Peter Lindgren's too as he was co-writer for the song).
What an awesome video, this deserves way more attention and views!
Would love to see more Opeth here! It's an interesting case because Mikael himself doesn't really know music theory (according to himself) so it's very interesting to see how it still could get analyzed.
It seems pretty common for metal musicians to not know music theory. I guess it makes sense, since conventional music theory is bad at explaining metal. Why would you learn something that doesn't help you?
I'd definitely like to do more Opeth, even though this video was more work than I expected.
@@ThePopDescriptivist To be fair I think the "metal musicians generally not knowing music theory" is a bit of mythos or at least a thing that gets exaggerated because there are people like Mikael which then get chosen as an example of "see, you don't need music theory". But there are also bands like Symphony X or Fleshgod Apocalypse where at least some band members are very knowledgable in what they actually do. (sure, my two examples here also draw heavily from classical music, so maybe that's where the interest came from but I'm sure there are more than those)
Yeah, there are probably a good number of metal musicians who DO know theory, but there's not a culture of it in the genre like there is with jazz or classical. I think the interesting thing is that you see an alternative culture where people semi-intuitively learn riffs from listening to other musicians. It's kind of like folk music, in a way... 'transgressive folk music of the modern headbanger'.
Wow! More of Opeth, please!!! 🙌🙌🙌
Ah, that's why this banger sounds like sunch an insane journey. I especially enjoyed the closing remarks.
great video! would love to see this done on Ghost Reveries or any of their alternate-tuning songs
There's a ton of good stuff to analyze on that album. The riff structure on 'Ghosts of Perdition' probably deserves a deep dive. Or for a shorter video, 'Atonement' has a concise but interesting use of scales.
@@ThePopDescriptivist Atonement blew my mind the first time I heard it
Oh yes,,, .... heh heh.... that's the stuff. Love the "wandering between scales" interpretation for the first riff. Crazy how deeply ingrained Opeth is for me that I had always just vaguely assumed that they were mostly playing in minor / melodic minor, this music got into my brain a long time before I learned much theory.
The funny part is (Mikael Akerfeldt at the least) probably didn’t even realize he was doing all this stuff when he wrote this song
Music theory is often the killer of musical creativity, fortunately Mikael does not deal with theory and relies on his phenomenal hearing.
@@MartinaHorvat-g3g I'm gonna be real with you, I've never heard anyone who knows musical theory ever say that. It's only ever people who don't know music theory and think music theory is prescriptivist as opposed to descriptivist. But I don't know maybe you do know theory and it did ruin your creativity? If so can you explain why?
@@placeholder6517
I said that because 3/4 of my extended family is highly educated in music, including my daughter, and before finishing school they all loved to play, to be creative in the moment and to improvise, today it's just their job - to play notes or to convey theory to students and that's it. I'm not saying that it's always like that with everyone, but that's how it is with me.
@MartinaHorvat-g3g have they told you that learning theory somehow robbed them of the ability to be creative or improvise? If so, how exactly? Lots of jazz players are extremely proficient at improvising and they tend to know a lot more theory than the average musician.
@placeholder6517
Of course, theory did not take away their ability to be creative, I believe that in jazz it is much easier with theory (who would remember such complex music without notes?) but my daughter told me that after so much theory, she no longer has as much will to play spontaneously. And how much I see, neither do the rest of the family.
great analysis, in-depth and understandable. yt doesn't have much content on analyzing death and black metal harmonies in such depth, so i'm really grateful for your work. some ihsahn analysis maybe in the future? i would also sell my soul for some deep insights on alkaloid.
I got a lot of videos on my to-do list, but fwiw Alkaloid is a great pick, a lot of interesting riffs. Don't know if you know the yt channel 'Metal Music Theory', but he's got some similar content, though usually more focused on rhythm over harmony.
my fav band
Great video. I love this song, and your explanation of the musical theory make it a good connecting point for me to learn about the theory aspect. Thanks much!
Staggeringly concise breakdown of a track from one of my favourite albums in the genre. Thank you!
Damn, first Domi&JD Beck and now Opeth? Literally 2 of my favourite artists in a row! Your analysis is absolutely amazing, and I'm honestly surprised your channel doesn't have more subscribers.
I love this band in a way no one would understand
Great analysis, especially including your interpretation on the emotional impressionistic overview.
Section 3 of this song might be my favorite riff of all time.
Love this, motivates me to understand music theory
Song revolves around d because of the guitar tuning being drop d
Why is the sky green in Van Gogh's 'The Sower with the Setting Sun'? Because Van Gogh used green paint.
Do more Opeth! I suggest The Leper Affinity
outstanding video!
Absolutely incredible.
Fantastic analysis, of a band I wanted a similar analysis of for a long time! Would love some rhythmic analysis as well
You've done a great job here, theory- and transcription-wise, and I have absolutely nothing to add. Good work! :) However, there are a couple of notation/engraving issues:
#1) Section I has two dotted 4th notes in a row, which breaks the rule of the middle of the bar being visible (a rule to which there are a few exceptions, but this isn't one of those). The second note should instead be an 8th note tied to a 4th.
#2) Section II has a double dotted half note tied to a group of two 16ths. This is the wrong type of "middle ground" where it becomes harder to read than either of the other two better options; either go full on with the dots and do a triple dot so that there's only the final 16th alone, or go with the standard dotted half tied to a dotted 8th (which is then grouped with the final 16th).
#3) Section III (and other sections further on) has the rhythmic combination of two 16th notes, a 16th rest and a 16th note, which are all part of the same beat (the fourth beat in this case). Written as is, it's a bit hard to quickly sight-read and understand that it's all on the same beat. It's almost always better to use beamlets (letting the beam connect to or cross a rest) in situations like these, and I don't understand why MuseScore (which I'm guessing that you're using?) doesn't have this set as the default beaming behavior for this rhythm.
#4) Section III also has another "illegal" rhythmic notation with the four sequential dotted 8th notes, which heavily obscures the beat(s) when reading. There's really only one correct way to write that rhythm, and it's like this: dotted 8th, 16th tied to 8th, 8th tied to 16th, dotted 8th - all of which are to be beamed to each beat.
#5) Section IV is more of a preference thing, but it's generally easier to read two 16ths + dotted 4th as two 16ths + 8th tied to 4th, as it more clearly shows the beat.
#6) Section VII is related to the issue in section III, regarding the combination of 16th notes and 16th note rests; in the instance of rest + note + rest + note (on a beat) it is also preferable to use beamlets, as it clearly shows the note grouping within the beat.
#7) Section VIII is also another preference thing, but I definitely prefer reading 6-tuplets instead of 2-grouped 16th note triplets, as it's easier to parse.
Thanks for your detailed input on the notation stuff! It's definitely one of my weaker suits musically (still can't sight read for beans), though I also have some heterodox ideas about the way things should be notated. For instance, I personally find it easier to parse multiple dotted notes in a row, rather than the typical 'style guide' notation which reinforces metric subdivisions, especially in a simple meter like 4/4. The examples of this in my video are mostly double tresillos, which are a pretty well-established musical idiom, and the minimalistic dotted note pattern makes more sense to me than cluttering the measure with extra note heads and ties. That said, it would probably be better for me to stick to more standard interpretations in the future. I'm definitely going to look into how to get beamlets working in MuseScore - I hadn't really considered the concept much before, but you're right that they would improve readability for those sections.
I really don't know what you'll think about my next video, which will be on the polymeters used in King Gizzard's 'Crumbling Castle'. As far as I know, there's no standard Western music notation for polymeters that adequately captures each component meter without 'privileging' one in the form of the time signature. I'm sorely tempted to use separate time signatures for each instrument, resulting in non-matching barlines between the instruments. It's probably not great for the performance aspect of the music, but might be better at portraying the conceptual aspect.
@@ThePopDescriptivist There are a few ways to go about notating true polymeters. One is to have separate time signatures for each different part (as you've mentioned) but that involves a shitload of f*ckery in MuseScore (or any other notation software for that matter). Another is to keep everything in what you consider to be the "overall time signature" and then use bracket-lines to show the rhythmic structures of the other parts (putting the start of the bracket over the top of the first note in the part's would-be time signature, and the end of the bracket on top of the last note before the "next bar" in the would-be time signature starts). A third option is the one I like the most, but it has the prerequisite that the different parts come in one at the time instead of being introduced all at once - write the first part in what is its own time signature, then change the time signature when the next part with a differing time signature comes in, etc. For extra clarity (which I prefer) you can combine this with the bracket-lines to show what happens to the "older" parts when a new part/time signature is introduced.
Words cannot fathom how much I appreciate this video. I have long been working on music in the style of Opeth and have instinctively known how difficult it was to lock down what they did. I am really happy to hear your breakdown, and I find it especially exciting how you identify repetitions of certain musical concepts across the different sections that tie them together, something which I find super interesting as prog can often become a meandering mashup of unrelated ideas.
The way that scales, modes, and key centers are continuosly subverted is one of the reasons why death metal is so fascinating. Having it put in words is greatly helpful to me. I will definitely revisit this videos from time to time when I am stuck.
Lastly, do you offer personal consultation on tracks? Is it possible that I could send over some of my work to try and get feedback on some things that I can stuck on? I feel like you could probably turn around some things pretty quickly. Best.
Thanks for the compliments, and I'm very glad you got so much out of this video. If you want to send me some of your tracks, you can find my e-mail in the 'channel details' section of my channel.
Man Opeth is a goldmine for analysis like this. Have you listened to Sorceress? I'd love to see you analyse that song
Yeah, that song's pretty solid. I wasn't crazy about the album as a whole, but usually Opeth's later albums have a few hidden gems lol.
I suggest Ulcerate, thanks for the analysis ❤ top content
MORE OPETH
awesome sauce
Awesome!
Holy cow, that was great. You answered one of the biggest things I didn't understand about music theory. I was wondering if there are songs out there that use more than one scale or one mode. But I guess now I have another question lol. So if a song changes key is it usually the same mode? So like in While My Guitar Gently Weeps by the Beatles, does the mode change when the key changes? I'm assuming the mode usually stays the same unless you're a prog band like opeth or king Gizzard and you change it on purpose? I just subscribed to your channel, I'm so excited to watch your King Gizzard and Domi/JD Beck videos. Most of this goes way over my head but I love learning about it. I would love to see a video on Frame by Frame by King Crimson, it would make me incredibly satisfied to learn about all of the little musical secrets in that song
A change in key may occur with or without a change in mode. 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' is a good example of the key AND mode change - the song starts in A minor, but the chorus is in A major, a different mode which uses the same root note. This particular relationship is usually described as the 'parallel minor/major', and the transition between them in this song is accomplished largely due to the V chord (E major) being suitable in either key (it's a diatonic chord in the major key, and tied the harmonic minor aspect of the parallel minor key).
Contrast this with the Beatles' song 'Something', which starts in C major and modulates to A major. This is a key change but the mode being used is the same in both sections. There are also songs which change modes without changing keys, though people are more likely to ignore this feature because there's no strictly objective way to define it. To keep all these examples Beatle-y, their song 'When I'm 64' is in C major, but the bridge is in A minor - a change in mode, but not a change in key since these two scales have all the same notes (this relationship is called the 'relative major/minor'). However it would arguably be just as accurate to say the song is entirely in C major, and that the bridge just stays on the vi minor chord for a bit longer than usual.
You'd be surprised at how many pop songs have key AND mode changes. You might be more likely to hear it in progressive rock, but it's not like that's the idea's exclusive domain.
Also, King Crimson is a good suggestion, but if I were to cover them I'd probably be more inclined to look at something between 'Larks' Tongues in Aspic' and 'Red'.
Do some Death 👍👍👍
Great video
Mikael Akerfeldt doesn't really know music theory but he owns thousands albums on vinyl. Music theory is in his subconscious already. He probably doesn't even think about technicality. He just play and music happens.
And it sounds like it comes to him spontaneously, that's why it's so magical
I think the fact that we can analyze songs like this more explicitly shows that when it comes to songwriting, music theory can be (and perhaps usually is) unconscious. It is a bit magical but also scientifically interesting.
@@ThePopDescriptivist that's right, otherwise I wouldn't be here😊
Do more from Opeth please
I'd love to see you break down a song from early At The Gates, Irae Melanox or The Chasm
Been a while since I listened to At the Gates but something off of Slaughter of the Soul could be interesting. Less harmonically complicated than Opeth, but there's a lot of interesting use of melodic motifs and tempo/rhythm shifts. I have a long to-do list of other videos, but I'll consider this.
@@ThePopDescriptivist Oh I'm talking about their first two records. much more twisting and weird imo. Any analysis about these three would make me a happy pappy man
@@profanepropane Lol sorry, by 'early' I thought you just meant pre-reunion. I'm actually not super familiar with their first two albums - I'll have to give them a spin.
@@ThePopDescriptivistif you do plan to listen to the second album, please check out the remasters by Peaceville. It fixes the original's weirdly treble-heavy guitars and allows you to fully take in the beauty and aggression of it all.
Your profile picture reminds me of Mastodon. Would love some analysis for them too
I love this and I think you did a great job with the pan modal analysis. But you're missing something without including set theory and/or atonalism.
Care to elaborate? I didn't notice too much transposition, unless you count the multiple non-diatonic minor chords, though that doesn't feel extensive enough to merit using set theory. Likewise with inversion or other operations. But I wasn't exactly looking for these features, so it's entirely possible I missed something.
@ThePopDescriptivist what a thoughtful answer. I would love to dive into this more but with that comment I'm just speculating from listening to Opeth and hearing a coherence in themes from the intervals, possibly inverted or not. I wonder if you get a set of intervals emerge that reappear in other riffs throughout any of their pieces and noticing them be more than standard guitaristic patterns that fall under the fingers. I sometimes speculate to myself that this becomes the harmonic function if it seems like kind of a quagmire with all the different modes and ambiguous tonal centers. The cohesion is in the intervals and the tension release becomes the function itself beyond what seems almost unintelligible to common practice and very extended common practice. My question is what are we feeling? Are we feeling chords move or feeling skeletal interval patterns. I've wondered about this with them for awhile. You did the work, I'm just inspired to daydream about what holds this together because clearly Opeth can hold it together. Sometimes I even hear them as the whole tone band. Anyway I could be wrong and I would admit it if so. This is shooting from the hip concerning how it sounds and feels and I've always wondered how you would analyze their stuff so I applaud your work and I look forward to spending more time than watching it once and speculating.
@ThePopDescriptivist actually, let me dumb down my dumb thoughts even more and I will just ask you, because you are very accomplished in this analysis... why does it always sound like Opeth but have such a complicated collection of modes that are hard to make heads or tales of? Do you think he's going by straight feel or do you think he's got some secret rulebook on function. I haven't talked analysis forever, I'm in over my head, obviously.
Wow, a lot of questions, but I'm happy to answer as best I can.
To start off with, one thing a lot of people have told me, in relation to this video, is that Mikael Åkerfeldt 'does not know music theory'. Well, that may not be entirely true - after over 35 years as a musician, I'm sure he's picked up a few of the basics. But I see the point of this claim, especially after learning (and re-learning) a whole bunch of Opeth songs. A lot of them seem like a semi-random grab bag of modes, chords, melodic shapes, which are best navigated by feel, and don't seem to represent a deep conceptual understanding of these terms qua music theory. I think I mentioned in the video that I have another video on the Vertebra Atlantis song 'Altopiano Celeste' - you should check this out if you want to see what deeply conceptual metal harmony looks like this. This song is the product of someone who verifiably went to music school.
So if Mikael is not using music theory per se, how does he write such good music? I think he just has highly attentive sense of the most accessible elements of music - tension and release, darkness and brightness, use of repetition, and melodic shape. You stated that a sufficiently abstract way of looking at these things probably becomes 'unintelligible to common practice', but I'm not sure that's true. I think a lot of common practice ideas reflect an underlying human tendency towards having these perceptions specifically. At least in 12 tone equal temperament, I think there is a compelling reason to believe that dominant/tonic movements, chord tensions, and modal relationships are not only abstractions but an attempt to describe what a layperson hears when listening to music. So I think they are also well suited to describe what a 'layperson songwriter' like Mikael thinks when writing music. Even if Opeth's music doesn't adhere strictly to common practice, you are bound to hear 'snatches' of these concepts woven throughout their music.
Of course, this doesn't mean there aren't atonal, 'set theory' aspects to Opeth's music. I think it's possible for a layperson songwriter to hit upon this kind of thinking and include it. In fact, one aspect of set theory, namely transposition, is definitely something a layperson listener can perceive. A lot of songs (Opeth and otherwise) make use of moving the same melodic shape into different positions. I imagine that Opeth's use of guitar incentivizes this technique, since on guitar, transposition is as easy as starting a fingering shape on a different fret. In fact, I'd wager that a lot of 'symmetry-based' songwriting in metal starts with a sort of naive but clever use of fretboard symmetries.
However, something like inversion, or more complicated functions, is not immediately perceptible to the layperson listener. Maybe if you have a really seasoned listener, who is specifically looking out for these things, but ultimately there is a degree of intellectualization that you need to pick up on it - far from the immediate, visceral sense with which people perceive tension and release, darkness and brightness, etc. I'm not sure this really fits the naturalistic aspect of Opeth's style of songwriting. Of course, there are some places where inversion becomes accidentally possible - scales like the whole tone scale, the Dorian mode, and the Mixolydian b6 scale are symmetrical over inversion.
But that still leaves us with the question of how to explain Opeth's style from a music theory standpoint, which is, I guess, partly what I was trying to accomplish with this video. I think a lot of the 'quagmire of different scales and ambiguous tonal centers' is taking those 'layperson perceptions', the 'impressionistic approach' I talk about, and applying it without regard to the more formalized common practice framework, where you're expected to stay in one tonal center and only move through other tonal centers thoughtfully and intentionally; where you're expected to use mostly diatonic scales, etc. You could probably create a new 'rulebook on function' to codify Opeth's style, but my personal opinion is that is largely the descendant of writing by feel.
That's just what I think anyway, and of course I always invite other opinions, provided there is sufficient evidence to support them. There's usually more than one way to conceptualize any piece of music.
@ThePopDescriptivist thank you very much for this response. It answers all my questions and its been a pleasure to happen upon your channel. I'm a lifelong musician who has both played in metal bands and been to music school... so it's rare to have a conversation that includes everything from that background. I look forward to your other videos and you earned a subscriber and a fan.
This is somehow hilarious to me. It all looks stupidly complicated when viewed through this lense
It's all the more impressive that our musical intuition can take such stupidly complicated patterns as input and somehow, almost like magic, give us a nuanced but immediately enjoyable sensory and emotional experiences.
I've only recently started getting into Opeth, and in this video you refer to Blackwater Park as "middle era Opeth". Can anyone tell me what the eras of Opeth are?
At least the way I conceive of it, Opeth's 'early era' is their first four albums (Orchid through Still Life), which were more or less solidly death metal, with the first couple even having a touch of black metal to them. Their 'middle era' started in Blackwater Park, where they began working with Steve Wilson of Porcupine Tree - so the production values are a little better on this album forward, and they also started to utilize more elements of prog rock/metal (though you could argue Still Life has some of these elements, and really there's no exact dividing line). The 'middle era' continues up through Watershed - after that, their five most recent albums, starting with Heritage, comprise their 'late era'. Mikael stopped doing harsh vocals on these albums, and they lean much more heavily into the progressive rock style, with less overt metal riffs. Personally the 'middle era' is my favorite, and certainly these are the albums I'm most familiar with, but each of the eras has their own charm. Hope this helps.
@ Sweet, thanks a lot!
@@ThePopDescriptivist Their new album seems like it is going to be a bit of a return to form for progressive metal. Of the two singles that released both are pretty heavy and one has some of the best distortion vocals Akerfeldt has ever done.
Great video btw, i've played a lot of prog metal and you really hit the nail on the head with how you describe the way bands like to modulate to borrowed chords to get a sort of destabilized feeling to the music, then quickly return to common metal music structures with a cymbal cue that is usually in a polyrhythm which establishes 4/4. You should check out Gorod, I think the songs Inexorable and Transcendence would be pretty interesting to you.
Conclusion is: it's borderline pointless trying to analyse the theory behind Opeth's songs because Mikael didn't know anything about theory when he wrote all of these 😂
It's only pointless if you think that music theory is only prescriptive. In contrast, if music theory is *descriptive* then you can apply it to anything. Saying it's pointless to analyze Opeth because Mikael doesn't know music theory is like saying it's pointless to study medicine because human DNA doesn't encode a biology textbook.