What are some examples of non functional harmony in metal?

What are some examples of non functional harmony in metal?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=J67nkzoJ_2M
youtube.com/watch?v=NWcrJc2-xOU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

expecting metal nerds to know theory?

hahahahahaha

everything that's modal is non functional, so I think there's a lot of examples in metal. Riffs are mostly non functional

doesn't a lot of popular music use non-functional harmony? I very rarely hear TPDT progressions anyway

Like, all of it

Depends on the subgenre.

Sorry, what? I thought nonfunctional meant not diatonic. Shouldn't most pop music, all written in one key with four chords, be diatonic?

How are modes nonfunctional?

Fairly sure Type O Negative makes heavy use of non-functional harmony. Getting out of metal, there are more than a few bands that make use of non-functional harmony, one in particular being The Beatles.

nope. as the other user pointed out it depends on whether the chords have functions or if they are mere sound. I know that other people may define it differently, but I have the opinion that you can speak of non functional music if you're not treating certain tones as leading tones. In the end leading tones are responsible of the function a sound is given

So it's music that can't be categorized. It doesn't follow a distint key/progression and isn't like a borrowed chord. Correct?

I'm not sure if you get what I mean. Besides my take on this topic is highly debatable and I had numerous fights here on Sup Forums because others have different terminology, although I'm pretty sure that my definition is valid.

I try to illustrate it with two tracks I just listened two which are symptomatic for today's [pop]music

youtube.com/watch?v=J67nkzoJ_2M

youtube.com/watch?v=NWcrJc2-xOU

can you here, how the chord pattern loops many times? It's not one function everything is aiming to, it's more like one progression of about four chords is the tonality. You don't have so much a feeling for a tonic/dominant, your ear wants to rehear this loop all over again. It's very difficult to determin a tonic in this kind of music.

The reason for this is the lack of leading tones. The chords aren't neetly intertwined but have a value of their own. This is in my opinion an amalgam of modal harmonic from the middle ages and functional music from the classic period, maybe catalysed by impressionism and jazz.

I'd like to discuss on this topic, if people took some patience to think about this

I mean I think I get what your saying, since learning theory I started using theory for everything, but prior to that I didn't nessicarly use chords that were for any function outside of I liked the sound. Do you think they reason we're leaving behind theory is because you don't need to know theory to write pop music. It helps, but really people don't understand music. Like I doubt 90% of the musicans/songwriters who make hits know theory outside of this is a key and key signature. Like theory 1 stuff.

I think I get what your saying but I've never heard someone talk about functional harmony before, usually just is this tonal/atonal or the terms I mentioned in that post I replied to you in.

I also know though I think your teacher is important to how your brain works in terms of theory and what not

and come to think of it you mentioned impressionism. I really enjoy it from time to time but an albums worh is very grating and hard for me to focus all the way though, that's another problem I have with a lot of pop albums when I listen to them. Now it could just be the style or performance doesn't appeal to me, but it could also be my brain pushing away non functioning things?

But I also do like free improvisation (on occasion as well) and other things that throw away function, but they intentionally do it so it's kind of the purpose. I don't know, but it makes you think.

you need theory to write pop songs the same as you need theory to write functional music, it just focusses on different issues. Mostly on sound. A Beethoven sonata lives from the architecture that is built by the relationship between the sounds, the sound itself can just be a single piano, or, like in a Bach sonata, even a single violin. A sound itself isn't functional or non functional, it's the way you hear it and the expectation you get from the music. Obviously, normally we get it pretty fast what the music wants from us. On the other hand, some complex music needs some time until we get it. Because its the space between the sounds, we need to listen to functional music more than one time, so that we already know what is going to happen next in order to enjoy it then. So, only the listener decides whether music is functional or not. Modern popmusic just doesn't satisfy the expectation of functionality. The theory of crafting sounds, mixing, finding synthie sounds, compression etc. is of much more importance than voice leading.
I read a good book once by Ernst Kurth once on the topic what makes music interesting in the first place, because obviously it is not the sound only. It seems like it's the psychological processes the writer absolved in writing the piece that are traced back by the listener. That's responsible for the phenomenon that you like to know about the biography of an artist after listening to his work, or the other way round, that you like to listen to stuff of artists you admire. That's also the difference between 'romantic' and 'classic', but that's another topic

think about that: if you deal with functional music, every chord consists of voices that have to be treated the right way, that can't just pop up and disappear without reason. So if you put chords together on piano or guitar without thinking about that, your music tends to become mere sound and thus non functional. The more effort you put into it the more functional becomes the music. If you listen to Ariana Grande and then with the same background immediately after try to listen to a Bach invention you'll have a hard time to understand the music, because your ears are not ready to hear voices instead of sounds. Some aborigines from outside of the Western world wouldn't understand a Beethoven symphony at all, because they don't have the background to decipher the symbols. It's like showing someone from 150 years ago a David Lynch movie. They would see the pictures, but they just wouldn't get it

I meant in depth theory vs base level theory. Like while it may pertain to theory you can follow it and not realize it. I doubt everyone knows theory or are aware they know it.

Also the definition I got from your description of functional isn't really subjective

and I know, which is why the stuff I'm doing now is much more intentional. I agree with what your saying, all though I do think Book two is weaker than Book 1 of the Well Tempered Clavier IMO

>The more effort you put into it the more functional becomes the music.
There's a lot of music that was very well thought out yet not functional on purpose. You can't just generalize like that.

the more you think about the voice leading, read carefully. true voice leading would be incredibly dull outside a functional context

besides, there are of course millions of levels between functional music and non functional music, I guess you can't put a piece (maybe besides Schoenberg's Zwoelftonmusik) entirely in one of the two categories. Pieces can change their habit in themselves as well

Metal is based on riffs, not chord progressions
You can't apply harmonic analysis

I somewhat disagree, while I haven't tried to I'm sure you could formulate some theory logic behind the riffs/progressions.

did you guys even read the discussion above adressing exactly this?