Nevermind, an album on major chords(farina00.github.io) Here is a thing.
If you are okay with HTML, you might want to write an article using GitHub pages instead of any blogging platform (e.g. medium.com)
The only constrains then become your skills instead of what your chosen platform has decided to support (typically embedding videos, code snippets, ...) |
It’s neither major or minor, because you need the 3rd to establish that
And nearly every punk and metal band uses predominantly power chords, without any real care in the world as to what the progressions are. It just sounds good to them. There aren’t any rules because punk is a DIY genre. If you told him he was doing a thing, he’d do the opposite just because. And it would still probably slap.
Kurt cobain was a fantastic song writer but you see these types of articles come out now and then propping him up as a genius. His own quote refutes that, and anyone who listens to punk music will agree that trying to analyze it using classical western tonality is silly and pretentious
Also part of what made him so good was how he played vocal melody and rhythm off of chords. So in some songs you might have plain power chords but the melody hits important major or minor notes.
I don’t know what your definition for genius is but the guy wrote some of the best songs in human history and did so without a primary collaborator or big production crew of cowriters and collaborators. I think we can call him a genius.
I do hate how he (and the whole generation, and some of the punks before him + no wave crowd as well) pretended that they didn't know any music theory or practice at all. That was quite destructive for so many of us who aspired to play music in our teens, especially if you weren't exposed to music theory and practice in childhood through other means.
I'm not sure if this notion of "genius" helps people appreciate music or if it just worsens the idolising/othering aspect of it. If we are going to use the word, though, can we not attempt to reserve it for the uncontroversial candidates, like Art Tatum, for example.
Somewhat true for punk, mostly incorrect for metal. A lot of metal is very analytical, deeper in musical theory than most popular genres (rock, pop, rnb…), they care _a lot_ about it. Metal is often very technical, it bred some of the top musicians in the world, it’s no surprise they give a shit about it: it’s their craft and a hard one.
In fact I remember the singer of Gojira in a French interview, saying (iirc, surely not quite remembering his point) that metal is in many ways closer to classical than rock, as it values composition so much more where rock is all about interpretation (closer to punk)
Here's a video with some analysis of "Smells like teen spirit": https://youtu.be/Xambk1JkWrE?si=aV-kCj1JsbMdM_AV&t=137
I find it really weird that people claim these are power chord even though they sound really different. In my view they are important to the vibe of "Smells like teens spirit" as they bring some dreamy characteristic as they make it a lot brighter compared to what it would be if it was played with only two lowest notes.
Power chords were quite heavily used by some of the bands Kurt liked and were easy to play, hence the stuff that sounded good when he was noodling used a lot of that. Nirvana weren't innovators in tonality, but they had great crunchy guitar tone, catchy hooks and a singer with a raspy voice - exactly what you'd expect a band that didn't care about music theory to potentially excel at, and exactly what was needed to breaking the trend in layered reverbs and guitar hero solos of the 80s ...
Also, there's nothing particularly unusual about not having any minor chords. In fact, here's a thing that may surprise some people: most African music for example has no minor chords of any kind, and we're not talking about power chords etc just only major and no minor triads. In African music it's really common to have the first inversion of the 4th degree triad function as the relative minor (so in the key of C that would be A-C-F instead of A-C-E).
R 5 R - the intervals are far enough apart that in this powerchord that they don’t clash harmonically.
R 3 5 R - the third is too close to the root and fifth, so the sound would be indistinct.
If you play the usual cowboy chords with a high gain tone, it turns to mush.
Of course, you can get around this with inversions to produce different voicings. I like R 5 3 with distortion to push the third up an octave, and keep it clear of it’s neighbours.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But also, it was just a (counter-) cultural thing to feign lack of music theory knowledge or practice at the time. Quite a destructive one, I might add.
A nice video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWY4YYmSTWg
I’d go through all of the chord progressions and make sure they actually match what is being played. There are quite a few errors. Happens to everyone.
Also, you and everyone else should remember that while the band is mostly playing power chords and omitting the fifths, what Cobain sings is part of the chord as it’s heard. This means that, for example, a lot of songs do sound major, Smells like teen spirit is probably in F minor.
I find determining key in popular music to be tricky. Most progressions consist of something like 4 chords, and there isn’t the teleology you see in something like Tin Pan Alley or Chopin to give the sense of where one is to arrive. Even the Axis of Awesome progression can be heard a major or minor depending on how you end the song.
I don't know why the article claims this was a Nirvana discovery. It started in the 70s. Discharge, Wire then Fugazi, Minor Threat. These people are smart, just raw, and they like blunt aesthetics.
The Ramones were pretty standard with tonality. There's a good chance that Colin Newman knows what a chromatic mediant is, but probably nobody else in punk did.
They aren't major chords, they're mostly power chords, which are neither major nor minor (no third and the third provides the major/minor tonality). They often function as minor chords because of the melody or other parts, or just because of how the progression fits together. They aren't unique or new with Cobain, he was part of a long history of punk and rock and roll.
Cobain was a good songwriter in the rock and roll tradition. He was not particularly innovative or doing something technically unheard of, and he wouldn't have claimed to be. He wanted to be a good songwriter, and he succeeded. That's it, don't make up bullshit about it.
He wasn't even that. He was a pretty bad songwriter. His music was by and large mopey, plodding monotonous work that is dreary to listen to. Apart from Smells Like Teen Spirit, I don't think he wrote a single song worth listening to.
Thank you, bigstrat2003, I'm going to throw out all my Nirvana CDs based on your authoritative statement.
What, pray tell, should I be listening to instead?
short answer: it sounds good
long answer: extra notes are added.
At some point during guitar history, some metal head was like "I wonder what happens if I turn this tube amplifier up ALL THE WAY to 11?" and... it sounded "good". Nobody really knew why at the time, but this distorted electric guitar was like, pleasing to the ear.
Sometime later, we figured out the science of why, after many many models of tube amplifiers had been designed and tinkered with.
It turns out that since electrons, are in fact waves, they can interfere with each other. As they blast across the space/time in a vacuum tube, they can interfere with each other... and if they are modulated in such way, let's say by a musical input, they happen to produce "interference bands" in a certain predictable manner as a function of the input signal.
What does that interference banding look like? Extra notes! Yep, when you slam a powerchord root-fifth at max distortion on a single-ended amplifier (the input stage to a Marshall), you produce "even order harmonics"!
If you rip A+E you'll get:
* Original A (root) * Original E (fifth) * Octave A (very forward, usually -1.5db) * Octave E (very forward, usually -1.5db) * 12th above the root (Another "5th"!) (Not as forward, but audible, -2.5dbish) * C# two octaves up (3rd) (Making this a major chord!) (Not as forward, but audible, -2.5dbish) * G two octaves up (Minor 7th) (Not as forward, but audible, -2.5dbish)
Whoah!? And the pattern continues but at some point amps filter out the series.
And guitar amplifier dudes also figured out how to make all kinds of distortion sound crazy! A 5150 produces "odd order" harmonics and makes adds totally different content. The pre-amp and the power amp sections interfere with each other, making the output function deterministic, but super complicated!
I used to think people were just being snob-ish about tube amps until I really dove into making my own guitar amp design. It's a crazy clash of music theory, functional harmony, and analog electrical engineering!
It's also worth mentioning the way Kurt often played power chords, using his index for the bass note and barring the rest with his ring finger. This often leads to major chords when the root is on the A string and non-major ambiguous-sounding chords with the root is on the E string. It's obvious as early as the 3rd chord in the intro to Teen Spirit; it has the notes Ab Eb Ab Db (NOTE: Db, not C). It's inconsistent in Kurt's playing (edit: whether or not his strumming makes that 4th string, 4th interval sound come out), but the subtlety is a signature part of Kurt's guitar sound.
Also some of the chord analysis in the site (ex. In Bloom verse) is just flat out wrong.
The Kindle version is $3 right now.
there seems to be a minor chord every 5 seconds or so which doesn't really fit the title?
> Careful music analysis was left for other bands.
I'm sorry... but lol what.
> And it's fascinating to think that Kurt Cobain was unaware of any musical composition's rule he was following, but just trusting his musical instict (sic).
This doesn't come as much of a surprise. A good deal of my friends who are musicians (particularly those who could sing) found themselves writing music at a pretty young age before they had any real understanding of music theory.
What is the point of the thread. Github page HTML or music theory.
https://www.musictheoryacademy.com/how-to-read-sheet-music/c...
For some reason, people who don't know music theory say things like this about the Beatles because they think because they haven't heard something before it must be new.
If so, let's see what happens with Kurt's grandson.
cool! That'd be via a mechanical means!
Tube based guitar amplifiers make harmonics via miniature particle accelerators (and the supporting circuitry) ;) Multiple ways to produce the same effect!
> There is absolutely nothing special or mysterious about a distorted electric guitar except that it sounds cool.
That's not correct at all in fact! Even a simple google search reveals this :) How about this? Type "what harmonics does a 5150 amplifier produce vs a single ended EL34 amplifier?" into chatgpt
I suggest reading the following:
* https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Tube-Preamps-Guitar-Bass/dp...
* https://www.amazon.com/dp/0750656948
Edit: I linked the wrong morgan book
I suspect this is true of many great songwriters, maybe even most of them. I would even argue that studying music theory may even make you a worse songwriter, because the most innovative songwriters don't seem to follow some clearly established rulebook, but rather they bend/break the "rules" unknowingly because their focus is on what they are feeling/hearing rather than something more analytical.
For example, McCartney tells a fun story about The Beatles traveling across Liverpool to learn a single B7 chord in their early days: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_r5B1AhP1Fo
I was referring more to being well read in music theory in the academic sense. I am doubtful McCartney ever picked up a book on the subject. Traveling to meet someone so they can show you how to position your fingers so you can play a B7 chord is a bit different than that in my opinion.
Music - rhythm, harmony and melody - has patterns. Those patterns can be described / named. There are systems to also write them down.
When you mention reading / writing music and music theory, western notation and western music theory are what first comes to mind for most of us here. They are obviously not the only ways. Any one of us can trivially make our own systems, or adopt tiny portions of the western system. I have no doubts that people have done that.
From my personal experience, back we were teens, my friend group and I knew a tiny bit of theory (5ths, major, minor, 7th chords + pentatonic / blues scales) so we could use that in communication. The other thing we'd do is refer to motifs by citing them from songs, like "drum beat like When the Levee Breaks" or "strumming pattern like Where is My Mind). Or "for the brigde, turn it around like in Goddamn Lonely Love". Your group knows the same songs, and then you just cite that + show someone something on a guitar.
If you play with a wider group of musicians, a language likely starts to appear, and things get called fixed names more often. No doubt that all the blues people did it, the Beatles and that whole scene did it, ...
Now, if you're into music enough, and want to communicate with other musicians from different backgrounds and genres, it makes sense to just learn the regular western notation (because it's convenient for noticing harmony) and theory (because it has names for all the concepts). It's a bit infuriating that such fancy names ("dominant", "leading tone") are given to such seemingly simple things, but this is true of any jargon.
I've seen the equivalent with self-taught programmers, where they understand some CS concept, but can't name it properly. Maybe in your local demoscene, it got called something else, because nobody has formal CS knowledge. That was quite frequent before the internet, but still is possible when people do something as a hobby.
But for western music theory and notation, you can use it strictly descriptively and not prescriptively. Learn some, then transcribe your favorite songs, write down the progressions in roman-numeral-notation or something, figure out which scales are used, figure out how melodies fit over chord changes, ... Shame music education is closely tied to a classical (and / or jazz) repertoire in most places, it doesn't need to be.
But in any case, both playing well and writing songs obviously takes a lot of practice and effort, and you use whatever you have at your disposal to help. The "we don't practice, we don't care, this just comes out of our soul on its own" is plainly disingenuous, that's the most toxic part of it. But you can't write music without theory, at least your own pidgin theory.
there is a wall, on one side is everything that has been done.....and can be learned/replicated. If someone is compeled to see the other side the best way through, ha!, is with very little baggage/knowledge or theory
some few talk about the experience of crossing that divide, but in no way are they responsible for anyone else considering there museing, instructional
if you want a gentler discorse on the process, then there is no one better than keef, and his various atempts to explain why 5 strings are all he can handle, does alright with them as well
Theory can explain it after the fact, and can extend your options (or at least save you time knowing what you want). I know a lot of "untrained" musicians had a fair bit of theory, but I don't know about Cobain.
For the minor blues scale working over a major blues progression - I think the dissonance is okay because the flat third and fifth are often passing tones. If you loiter on them, they are more jarring.
But if you listen to a lot of blues, play a lot of it, play with other blues players, etc. You will notice there's a vocabulary, idioms, etc. You can learn them by ear. You can call them by names of songs or players (Bo Diddley beat), or by the number of bars, ... Well, all of that is kind of - theory. Also, knowing which things you wouldn't play because they don't fit the style, that's also theory.
> Have you any idea
> What a ridiculous statement
Can you please make your substantive points thoughtfully and edit out swipes, as the site guidelines ask?
In fact, the ability to tap into mass media only makes the impact of a song greater. Access to electric instruments and effects only gave them more ability to create interesting music.
I’m a fan of all kinds of music old and new. But anyone saying German leders or old timey civil war ditties are better than Smells Like Teen spirit are high on their own supply.
Most of history humans expressed an extraordinarily limited range of emotion in song, in rigid form. Kurt Cobain wrote more than one song that you could play for a toddler and they’d love it. He wrote more than one song that hundreds of millions of people are listening to 30 years later. I’m sorry but your favorite Gregorian Chant is just not very good in comparison.
Even the first sentence makes no cogent sense, especially when read alongside your original comment:
> When it comes to cultural significance and catchiness the fact that people have been doing it for a long time doesn’t matter.
You've apparently changed your argument. "Best in human history" does not mean "most culturally significant and catchiest."
If "the fact that people have been doing it for a long time doesn't matter," then why did you mention all of human history?
If what you mean instead is that you care only about contemporary, present-day cultural impact, then, again, why did you mention all of human history? You've already decided that no time period other than the present matters.
To be fair, "best" has no correct definition.
What's yours?
Ideally, the measure of timelessness of a tune is how many people will still go to the effort to play it or reference it once all people who were alive at its release (the people who "liked it before it was cool") are dead. By that measure, the one-hit-wonder of Pachelbel's Canon in D is probably top of the list.
Schoenberg has entered the chat.
I suspect something similar about bitonality. We hear one of the keys and then try and interpret the other notes in relation to that.
(warning. I am neither a music theorist or an expert in the psychology of music perception. But this is HN so yolo...)
Is it the case that much of this is influenced by individuals having grown up listening in an environment with music already structured around a central key and modulation around that? With the same idea also applying to an understanding (or feeling) of rhythm?
I think, and as this post suggests, it's much more the case that "Kurt Cobain had very good instincts for someone completely untutored" which is a different thing altogether.
I'm remembering a scene in Hampton Hawes's autobiography where a well known piano teacher was telling him his students were starting to ask how to play like Hampton. He tells him he wants to give him lessons to help his technique, which he thinks will help his natural talent even more, but Hampton finds it boring and never goes back. The teacher framed Hampton's check he used to pay for the lesson and put it on his wall. All that's to say having great ears can bring you a long way.
But yeah, feel, instinct, and having good ears can carry you a long way especially for solo artists. I'm still glad I can read music and wouldn't trade that for (almost) anything, though.
I am very clear though, that "genius" and "intelligence" are unrelated but sometimes coincident.
1. Where Did You Sleep Last Night Unplugged
2. Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle (or, interchangeably, "Rape Me", though the "blanket of ash" line gets me every time with Frances Farmer).
3. Lithium
4. Heart Shaped Box
5. Dumb (unplugged).
It's not fair to make the #1 song a cover, but that performance merits it.
Source: https://youtu.be/dZCrdSC2-1I
I think this was the statement he/she was disagreeing with. No doubt a genius, but when you phrase it like that it's more than genius.
When I hear people call Cobain a genius I feel the way I do when I'm hear someone say they've never seen The Wire. Listen to Surfer Rosa and Rid of Me!
None of this is to say Nevermind and In Utero aren't good; they're very, very good, I listen to them all the time 30 years later. But like, I still listen to Soundgarden every once in awhile too. They're not geniuses!
Agree that of course there are blues songs with definitely minor harmony, but I still think the really distinctive and innovative characteristic of blues is "minor melody over major harmony"--the minor pentatonic scale was already ubiquitous in African-American music in e.g. spirituals. That's just incredibly weird and I can't imagine how it must have sounded to white audiences hearing it for the first time.
Of course a minor third is important to a minor scale. But if the underlying harmony happens to be a major chord, then the minor third is dissonant relative to the harmony.
I referred to this dissonance as a passing tone because you said “ There’s no way that combination can possibly work—but it does!”.
Just not whatever that guy's is.
Less cheekily, I agree with you that, in the case of something like music, the concept of "best" has no correct meaning. It's literal nonsense.
Most definitions of genius are more liberal than a 1 and a million talent and he was at least that.
Actually try a definition and see what happens.
Rolling stone made a best list. SLTS was number 5.
He’s written some of the best songs ever by many definitions. That makes him a genius. Both terms are ambiguous, debating that is boring.
Are there Nevermind demos circulating? (Maybe an official release even, I've never looked)...
They were good songs, maybe even great songs. But I think I could name a dozen bands from the same period who had equally-good songs.
Butch Vig turned those good-great songs into anthemic stadium crashers. I'm not a huge fan of Butch Vig, I think he has a very heavy touch! But he met (or predicted) the moment on that record. The industry/audience moment at least, I don't think the band entirely wanted what they got!
Most people would never have heard those songs without Butch Vig. They would not be on any RS Top X lists.
Kurt might still have been a genius, but he'd have been sharing a tour bus with others. I wonder if he'd still be alive.
> The point is that the guy was a genius.
Is that the point? Are we discussing the man himself, or are we discussing his work? Both, I guess, according to the following:
> He’s written some of the best songs ever by many definitions. That makes him a genius.
It doesn't. Genius is a capacity, not an accomplishment. One can be a genius without accomplishing anything, and one who isn't a genius can do high-level, history-making work.
But also... what's John Lee Hooker's secret of the guitar??? Don't hold out on us!
But the gist of that method actually sounds a lot like how my music teacher approaches things, he won't let you move on in your improvisations on a new tune until you can get a feeling from playing just half and whole notes on the changes. His teacher was Lennie Tristano so he's very driven by developing that ear instinct.
I think of Kurt Cobain like an accidental Elvis Presley. Perfect for the moment, and (unlike Elvis) mostly organically grown, but with very clear antecedents.
I cannot point to strong antecedents of Pixies, Sonic Youth, Throwing Muses, PJ Harvey, Cocteau Twins, Bauhaus, Einstürzende Neubauten, The Slits, Bongwater, Kate Bush, The Cure, etc. In a couple of these cases, I suspect my own ignorance. In others, I could (and might) argue all night! :)
But I cannot assemble a case for not recognizing David Bowie as a (musical|performance) genius. I don't even enjoy his recordings very much, but he was artistically sui generis and enormously influential.
Influence might not be a requirement of genius (I'm not sure), but surely a novel creativity is at the root of it?
Sonic Youth was the Velvets and The Fall; I found a list of setlists from '70s CBGB and made a playlist, and you can hear Sonic Youth all over it.
Throwing Muses (a favorite of mine) a little harder to pinpoint, feels to me like the product of a scene more than a direct evolution of clear antecedents, rather than an act like Dinosaur Jr. was a perversion of Neil Young. A good contrast to Nirvana.
PJ Harvey is the Pixies antecedents plus Patti Smith. People say Beefheart; I don't know Beefheart well enough to say and have a deep suspicion of people who bring up Beefheart.
Kate Bush is prog rock.
Einsturzende is Can (or like a violent response to Can).
The Cure is radio-friendly post-punk; their early stuff, which is the only stuff that comes close to holding up, is basically Wire.
For Halloween, I duct-taped a banana to a tee-shirt, intending to go as Comedian[1], which had been in the news recently. My manager, when seeing me dressed this way immediately asked "Oh, are you The Velvet Underground and Nico? I love that album!" I countered with "Did you start a band?" and he said "Yes! How did you know?"
But Sonic Youth also brought something new, more than most bands do. I've listened, as professional obligation, to the entire catalog of Velvet Underground, The Fall, New York Dolls, Iggy Pop. The Fall were the most inventive but Sonic Youth still exceeded them. I recognize that these are the giants upon whose shoulders so many other artists stand, though.
As with The Cure, there are (at least) two Sonic Youths. I see The Top and Daydream Nation as the final recordings of their respective original incarnations.
Interesting that you hear Throwing Muses as a product of a scene. I'd agree for the later records (post-House Tornado), but there was definitely no contemporary scene that the first few records fit into.
I thought about including Lush in my previous list, but did not because, although they had a unique sound, they are a clear extension of the scene they emerged from. Again thinking of the first few releases (EPs) primarily -- after 1993 or so all Brit pop sounds alike for several years.
Re: Kate Bush -- aside from the Fairlight (as successor to Moog) synth, and concept albums, I don't hear much prog rock in there. I think I may prefer to remain ignorant here!
I also left out Siouxsie & The Banshees (again, ~1980-~1990), which was an inexcusable oversight!
There's no shame in that!