Page 1 of 2
#1
This seems pretty intense actually. I figured maybe one of you would like to learn it for yourself and tab it out for giggles for me.. Lol

#2
This would be nice to learn but you're going to be hard pressed to find someone who gets his jollies by tabbing shit out.
#4
Quote by Lelvolution
This would be nice to learn but you're going to be hard pressed to find someone who gets his jollies by tabbing shit out.
This, and the fact is that it's not fun having to reduce the range in the song because the guitar is neither low nor high enough to reach the piano range.

The high part starting at 1:07 goes to G, which would be 27th fret on high E, not to mention the high F# at 1:33 which would be fret 38. The low A at 0:13 is lower than a normal-tuned 5-string bass.

If you want to learn the song, learn how to play piano. Otherwise, I'd suggest learning about chords, harmony, and especially arpeggios (broken chords, which this uses extensively with passing non-chord tones).
#5
Quote by NeoMvsEu
This, and the fact is that it's not fun having to reduce the range in the song because the guitar is neither low nor high enough to reach the piano range.

The high part starting at 1:07 goes to G, which would be 27th fret on high E, not to mention the high F# at 1:33 which would be fret 38. The low A at 0:13 is lower than a normal-tuned 5-string bass.

If you want to learn the song, learn how to play piano. Otherwise, I'd suggest learning about chords, harmony, and especially arpeggios (broken chords, which this uses extensively with passing non-chord tones).


I actually started learning and you can play the whole intro on an 8 string guitar in standard tuning. But as you mentioned, it isn't going to be possible to do the whole piece. I can probably do it using an octave pedal though.
#7
I really like a lot of piano music lately and I've been playing more finger style classical guitar. I wish piano wasn't so hard to tab out. I should have just learned piano instead. It's a beautiful instrument
#9
Quote by NSpen1
How about this? No really low A, and you can't really play the bass notes at the same time, but at least you can play the melody.
If this is helpful, I can try tabbing some more of it.

http://i.imgur.com/oz8pNvQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vyrTCLN.jpg
This looks good, but I'm going to assume a good bit of two-handed tapping is required. Also not sure about the presence of key signatures where you put them.
#10
No, it's to be picked normally. But you can't play the bass notes at the same time as the melody (maybe only the open strings). Think of it as being arranged for two guitars if you prefer, but most of it can be played on one. I'm not going to attempt to arrange the whole thing to be played on one guitar.

ok, well it's more a series of chords than anything in a set key or keys, I mean it alternates between Am and G (fine), then it goes to Gm so we've obviously moved from the key of A minor, then F with a Bb in the bass so that still fits in the key of G minor, then it changes to Fm. How else would you do it?
(Um next part alternates between G and Eb arpeggios within the same bar so maybe I'd better abandon trying to put key signatures.)
Last edited by NSpen1 at Jul 16, 2016,
#11
More power to you; piano is my main instrument so I wouldn't bother capturing the idea on guitar.

I hear the song as
( "|" separates sections)
Am | Gm | Am

and the chromatic chords would be some kind of transition, but still notated in the original key:
(Em) Ebmaj7 - Bbmaj9 - Dbmaj7 (G - Eb - G - Eb - G)

G minor is two flats. Start at 1:07, ends at 1:58.
#12
Wow man. You guys are on another level than me in figuring this stuff out. I really need to learn more music theory and playing by ear instead of just tabs.
#13
I just started at the G minor section, with that high G (27th fret!)
So you think all the section before that should be in A minor, even though there are all those out of key notes/chords?

I do think this - (Ebmaj7 - Bbmaj9 - Dbmaj7) - is overcomplicating things a bit when it's clearly based off of G minor, F major and F minor shapes (albeit with different bass notes). Gm6/Eb, Fadd4/Bb, Fm6/Db maybe. Just a different way of looking at it I guess.
#14
Quote by NSpen1
I just started at the G minor section, with that high G (27th fret!)
So you think all the section before that should be in A minor, even though there are all those out of key notes/chords?
It's a transition, so those out-of-key chords aren't really in either section. Best to leave the notation alone.

See 1:51 here:



Written in Db major (and flats), but enharmonically notes in C# minor.



1:14 - Gb chord enharmonically equivalent to F#, which is the dominant of the B minor section. However, as transition, written in convention with previous section.
2:36-2:48 - back to flats, but the key signature says sharps! It has thematic material from the B minor section transposed and then retransitions to the dominant of the first section. The key signature does not change until the section returns.

I do think this - (Ebmaj7 - Bbmaj9 - Dbmaj7) - is overcomplicating things a bit when it's clearly based off of G minor, F major and F minor shapes (albeit with different bass notes). Gm6/Eb, Fadd4/Bb, Fm6/Db maybe. Just a different way of looking at it I guess.
But this obfuscates the fact that the chords are in fact Eb, Bb, and Db chords with extensions. Regardless of how you play it on guitar, the notes are

Clear Ebmaj7 outline
G-Bb-D-G(-A)-Bb
Eb

Bbmaj9 outline (without the third, but implied)
F-A-C-F(-G)-A
Bb

Clear Dbmaj7 outline
F-Ab-C-F(-G)-Ab
Db

It's near-sighted to disregard the bass notes just because they're not within the reach of the guitar. Harmony, particularly tonal harmony, is dictated by the sum of chord tones interacting with non-chord tones, not just by what's played by one instrument.

Also, Gm6 is the notes G - Bb (- D ) - E, which I don't think you want. The same goes for Fm6. (minor flat six is not a functional chord, so let's not go there.)
#15
ok, now that I can see it goes back round to G at the end so it's "in key" again, it makes sense that it's a transition and it's all in A minor. Hadn't got that far before. No problem with that.

Yeah, you're right, I want a G minor with a flat six and I don't care if I'm not allowed it!
Well, I can remember a song with a chord x2403x (B, F#, G, D) and I'd thought that was Bm6, obviously not, I wish I could remember what they called it. If you absolutely had to name it with the B as the root, what would you call it?

I'm sure you're right theoretically, but I still prefer to think of it as those minor and major shapes with an alternate bass note. When the guy was composing it do you think he thought "I have these Am and G(maj6) patterns with three notes going up from the root, what shall I add next? I know, I'll go to Ebmaj7, Bbmaj9, Dbmaj7". Or did he say, "I'll just continue the same pattern with Gm, F and Fm"?
Plus you want to have Bbmaj9 but you don't even have a third, when my suggestion, Fadd4/Bb fits perfectly!
#16
Quote by NSpen1
ok, now that I can see it goes back round to G at the end so it's "in key" again, it makes sense that it's a transition and it's all in A minor. Hadn't got that far before. No problem with that.
to be fair, it's in neither, but prevailing key rules.

Yeah, you're right, I want a G minor with a flat six and I don't care if I'm not allowed it!
...And we'll discuss it then.
Well, I can remember a song with a chord x2403x (B, F#, G, D) and I'd thought that was Bm6, obviously not, I wish I could remember what they called it. If you absolutely had to name it with the B as the root, what would you call it?
If the main tone were actually B, then Bm. G is a non-functional tone. I'd be willing to hear whatever song it comes from, but otherwise I'm pretty sure it's actually a Gmaj7 with B bass.

I'm sure you're right theoretically, but I still prefer to think of it as those minor and major shapes with an alternate bass note. When the guy was composing it do you think he thought "I have these Am and G(maj6) patterns with three notes going up from the root, what shall I add next? I know, I'll go to Ebmaj7, Bbmaj9, Dbmaj7". Or did he say, "I'll just continue the same pattern with Gm, F and Fm"?
Good voice leading and your scale patterns may look similar; however, I can assure you that the bass note still dictates the harmony. It's easier to separate octaves on piano by virtue of all 88 keys being really accessible (within human limits and reach, of course). If we're going to continue discussion on this, I'll make a limited arrangement of the transition and its surroundings.

The fact that I have had a similar discussion with many guitarists suggests that pianists and guitarists do not think alike.
Plus you want to have Bbmaj9 but you don't even have a third, when my suggestion, Fadd4/Bbfits perfectly!
You know, I could have written Bbmaj7sus2 as well, but even suspensions imply major/minor harmony, of which major is strongly suggested by maj7 conventions.

I strongly suggest looking beyond the musical lines given by one instrument and instead look at the bigger picture once in a while. It's nice to understand the fullness of context once the mind is opened thus.
#17
Quote by NeoMvsEu
...And we'll discuss it then.
If the main tone were actually B, then Bm. G is a non-functional tone. I'd be willing to hear whatever song it comes from, but otherwise I'm pretty sure it's actually a Gmaj7 with B bass.

I think it was a Joe Satriani song but I don't remember which one. But definitely the B was the root note, and the G was 'functional', its function was to provide tension or dissonance with the open G string ringing out against the fretted F# note. ok, you're using functional in a different sense I guess, strictly from a music theory point of view. But it's kind of arbitrary which notes you're 'allowed' to include to form a 'proper' chord.
Anyway, I looked in my tab books and didn't find this chord, but did find the corresponding one in A minor in Lords of Karma. He also uses the same one in Tears in the Rain. It's xx7968 (A E F C) and it's called Am(b6) in the tab book. So as you said, it's basically a minor chord but they put the flat sixth in brackets to show it's there even though it's not part of a 'proper' chord construction.

Then that's what I want to call the chords in this piano song - Gm(b6) and Fm(b6), it's just that the b6 is in the bass. Absolutely the maj7 chords make sense there also, but it's the Bb I have more of a problem with (yeah, if you'd written it with a sus2, I wouldn't have picked you up on it not having a third).
I still maintain that it makes more sense in the context of the song to think of them as minor and major triads with an added tone which is used in the bass. And you of course don't have to figure out or "spell" the chord from the bass note always, as your Gmaj7/B example shows.

The fact that I have had a similar discussion with many guitarists suggests that pianists and guitarists do not think alike.

Well, you don't need much theory to play rock or metal guitar, and we're not likely to play the same type of chords as pianists, not easily being able to play the same range of low and high notes so it makes sense ...
btw "looking beyond the musical lines given by one instrument" doesn't apply here since we only have one instrument And I wasn't disregarding the bass notes, I'm just looking at the whole piece in a different way from you. Also if I'm transcribing a song with orchestration, I always try to look at what the orchestration is doing in relation to the guitar parts and how the whole thing fits together, so ... it's interesting.
#18
ok, the tab is finished!
With correct key signatures , correct accidentals, separated into lead and bass voices, 8va where appropriate ...
For the really high part in bar 31 I used artificial harmonics to get the notes, though it's not intended for anyone to actually play it like that.

You really can't play too much of it all at once on guitar, but I've arranged it so that all the melodies which are within a normal guitar's range are playable. You might try to play both parts in bars 19 & 20 together for instance, but once you get further into the song you're only going to be able to play one voice at a time.
Still this tab should be useful for anyone who wants to learn it on piano also.

Here are all the pages
http://i.imgur.com/QBzgrYc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Soyb67Z.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UH3jo8g.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/IDp9mTe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/tHhT4mV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/D8HKzGv.jpg

and I've also uploaded the Guitar Pro 5 file
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/contribution/submit/approval?id=1861092
It's a new artist so hopefully that'll go through ok ...
#19
Quote by NSpen1
I think it was a Joe Satriani song but I don't remember which one. But definitely the B was the root note, and the G was 'functional', its function was to provide tension or dissonance with the open G string ringing out against the fretted F# note. ok, you're using functional in a different sense I guess, strictly from a music theory point of view. But it's kind of arbitrary which notes you're 'allowed' to include to form a 'proper' chord.
Anyway, I looked in my tab books and didn't find this chord, but did find the corresponding one in A minor in Lords of Karma. He also uses the same one in Tears in the Rain. It's xx7968 (A E F C) and it's called Am(b6) in the tab book. So as you said, it's basically a minor chord but they put the flat sixth in brackets to show it's there even though it's not part of a 'proper' chord construction.
Transcribers can also be wrong; look at this site
But even outside that, professional transcriptions have been wrong. I've looked at a lot of sheet music and some of the chord symbols aren't indicative of what's there (the published chords on the piano sheet music for "My Heart Will Go On" is wrong, for example).

Lords of Karma
Are you talking about the E minor part around 1:33? B - C - C# - D? Those are just chromatic steps, it doesn't mean that the harmony has changed from Em. Those are passing notes. That is not an "Em(b6)". That's Em through all those notes.

Tears in the Rain is plain Fmaj7/A - Am. VI - i is a common idiom (akin to constant IV - I, like "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star") that can be macro-observed as simply i.
Outside the pedal A:
E-F-C
C-E-A

A clear F chord on top
A clear Am chord on the bottom

These again don't mean much in the macro-harmony, but that's what they are in the middle.

Regarding the song, try this and tell me they're not Eb, Bb, and Db:
e|-------3-5-6-|-----------5-|---------3-4-|
B|-----3-------|-------6-8---|-------6-----|
G|---3---------|-----5-------|-----5-------|
D|-5-----------|---7---------|-3-6---------|
A|-6-----------|-8-----------|-4-----------|
E|-------------|-6-----------|-------------|

Well, you don't need much theory to play rock or metal guitar, and we're not likely to play the same type of chords as pianists, not easily being able to play the same range of low and high notes so it makes sense ...
True, but piano is allowed a wider amount of voicings for the same chord and seven octaves to play with. Open voicings are easy on piano. They make it hard for guitarists to see the chords in closed voicings (or at least more closed voicings).

btw "looking beyond the musical lines given by one instrument" doesn't apply here since we only have one instrument And I wasn't disregarding the bass notes, I'm just looking at the whole piece in a different way from you. Also if I'm transcribing a song with orchestration, I always try to look at what the orchestration is doing in relation to the guitar parts and how the whole thing fits together, so ... it's interesting.
You have a bias to look at the octaves and ignore large octaves so you can name chords and arpeggios that fit what you can play on the guitar while leaving the rest of the work that makes the entire chord for the rest of the band. That might make the scale pattern look like one chord, but it's the entire context that gives the chord definition.

1:35 in this video:


Also, the root of confusion (no pun intended) in this thread.


BTW -
1: https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/i/isaac_shepard/letting_go_guitar_pro.htm
2: I usually transcribe piano (if I have to do it on GP) with LH/RH split. Two tracks.
3: really should be in 12/8 or at least 6/8.
Last edited by NeoMvsEu at Jul 17, 2016,
#20
Quote by NSpen1
ok, the tab is finished!
With correct key signatures , correct accidentals, separated into lead and bass voices, 8va where appropriate ...
For the really high part in bar 31 I used artificial harmonics to get the notes, though it's not intended for anyone to actually play it like that.

You really can't play too much of it all at once on guitar, but I've arranged it so that all the melodies which are within a normal guitar's range are playable. You might try to play both parts in bars 19 & 20 together for instance, but once you get further into the song you're only going to be able to play one voice at a time.
Still this tab should be useful for anyone who wants to learn it on piano also.

Here are all the pages
http://i.imgur.com/QBzgrYc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Soyb67Z.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UH3jo8g.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/IDp9mTe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/tHhT4mV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/D8HKzGv.jpg

and I've also uploaded the Guitar Pro 5 file
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/contribution/submit/approval?id=1861092
It's a new artist so hopefully that'll go through ok ...


Thanks man!
#21
Quote by NeoMvsEu
Lords of Karma
Are you talking about the E minor part around 1:33? B - C - C# - D? Those are just chromatic steps, it doesn't mean that the harmony has changed from Em. Those are passing notes. That is not an "Em(b6)". That's Em through all those notes.

Tears in the Rain is plain Fmaj7/A - Am. VI - i is a common idiom (akin to constant IV - I, like "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star") that can be macro-observed as simply i.

No, not that part in Lords of Karma. It's the interlude part with the (electric) sitar. There are lots of quite exotic chords there, the one I'm talking about is the third one and it's exactly the same notes as in Tears in the Rain. There's a synth playing the A an octave lower so they call it Am(b13), for the live version it was called Am(b6).
Honestly I don't think it matters whether you think of it as Fmaj7 with the A in the bass, or Am with an added flat 6th. Maybe we should ask Satriani which he was thinking of, or how he feels about the people doing his tab books getting it wrong
btw in Tears in the Rain there's another chord which they call Fm6(maj7), how do you feel about that one?

Regarding the song, try this and tell me they're not Eb, Bb, and Db:
e|-------3-5-6-|-----------5-|---------3-4-|
B|-----3-------|-------6-8---|-------6-----|
G|---3---------|-----5-------|-----5-------|
D|-5-----------|---7---------|-3-6---------|
A|-6-----------|-8-----------|-4-----------|
E|-------------|-6-----------|-------------|


Sure, absolutely agree about the Ebmaj7 and Dbmaj7 (though that's better with 1 1 1 on the top three strings). The second chord still doesn't look like a Bb to me, it's an F shape with a Bb in the bass. You can't say there's anything wrong with calling it Fadd4/Bb, unlike with the m(b6) on the technicality of not being 'allowed' to add a minor sixth to a minor chord.
ok, I accept that you're correct following strict music theory rules, but isn't one of the main purposes of music theory to allow you to describe to someone what's happening musically? So if I say the song follows the same pattern established in the first bar (Am triad followed by first three notes of A minor scale), but shifting to Gm, F, Fm (with those pesky altered bass notes of course) anyone can easily see what's happening and then they can analyse it for the correct chord forms if they want. Is that so bad a way of looking at it? Probably easier than saying "play Bbmaj7sus2" and having the response be "what the hell's that?"

I take the other point you're making about the whole chord not being defined by what just one instrument is playing, but it's not always going to be the case that the bass note is the starting point for the chord. In the Devin Townsend example some chords will be Cxx and some will be y/C so you can't use it as a hard and fast rule.


BTW -
1: https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/i/isaac_shepard/letting_go_guitar_pro.htm
2: I usually transcribe piano (if I have to do it on GP) with LH/RH split. Two tracks.
3: really should be in 12/8 or at least 6/8.

1. Thanks!
2. Yes, I usually do it that way as well, with two tracks, unless I'm specifically arranging something to be played on one guitar. And this 'project' started off with that thought, so that's why. I guess if I arranged the two voices I have into two tracks the LH/RH split wouldn't be correct anyway. Still it's kinda nice to have it all together, that way you can see what the proper chords and harmony are!
3. Disagree. I really hate when people put something in 6/8 or 12/8 unnecessarily (not so much a song like this, but e.g. a metal song where it's very clear where the beat is and that it's played with triplets). Looks like the composer of the song disagrees with you as well http://www.isaacshepard.com/music/Deep%20Joy/Letting%20Go%20-%20Sample.pdf
#22
Quote by NSpen1
No, not that part in Lords of Karma. It's the interlude part with the (electric) sitar. There are lots of quite exotic chords there, the one I'm talking about is the third one and it's exactly the same notes as in Tears in the Rain. There's a synth playing the A an octave lower so they call it Am(b13), for the live version it was called Am(b6).
Satch does a lot of modal things. Modes technically predate chordal harmony.

Pedal point notes are not necessarily chord tones. Also, it would have been a lot nicer to get timestamps. I don't listen to Satch normally.
If you're talking about 2:43-ish, F isn't even a chord tone.
Honestly I don't think it matters whether you think of it as Fmaj7 with the A in the bass, or Am with an added flat 6th. Maybe we should ask Satriani which he was thinking of, or how he feels about the people doing his tab books getting it wrong
Haha.
btw in Tears in the Rain there's another chord which they call Fm6(maj7), how do you feel about that one?
1. Timestamps, please.
2. If it's the second arpeggio, that's xx3430, a B dim chord, F bass, E pedal point.
Sure, absolutely agree about the Ebmaj7 and Dbmaj7 (though that's better with 1 1 1 on the top three strings). The second chord still doesn't look like a Bb to me, it's an F shape with a Bb in the bass. You can't say there's anything wrong with calling it Fadd4/Bb, unlike with the m(b6) on the technicality of not being 'allowed' to add a minor sixth to a minor chord.
Yes I can. Next section.
ok, I accept that you're correct following strict music theory rules, but isn't one of the main purposes of music theory to allow you to describe to someone what's happening musically? So if I say the song follows the same pattern established in the first bar (Am triad followed by first three notes of A minor scale), but shifting to Gm, F, Fm (with those pesky altered bass notes of course) anyone can easily see what's happening and then they can analyse it for the correct chord forms if they want. Is that so bad a way of looking at it? Probably easier than saying "play Bbmaj7sus2" and having the response be "what the hell's that?"
This is a transition section and as such should have chords with some relation, some FUNCTIONAL relation, to the following section (unless it's an unprepared modulation like 2:24-2:31 [url="(Invalid video video code)]here).

Bb major is the relative major of G minor, which happens to be the governing key of the next section. Ebmaj7 is VImaj7/Gm. Dbmaj7 is bV (enharmonically and more commonly #IV)maj7/Gm; HOWEVER, it shares a note with D7 (the C), which is the dominant of G (major and minor). So it's a sort of substitute dominant chord.

They all have functions relative to the next section. There is no such function in the chords you pose. Plus, the bass isn't even the same note so as to qualify as a pedal; you can't just disregard it so.

Again, just because one hand plays a fraction of the notes doesn't mean "oh, we're playing this scale/chord right now". I did say Bbmaj9 because the C ("sus2") by definition is a non-chord tone (technically a neighbor, moves from the D in the Ebmaj7 and connects to the C in Dbmaj7) that implies movement to a chord tone. 2-3 is a common movement, more so than 9-8. Attached a GP5; see if it makes more sense in this context. (Yes, I kept my notation. It fits the previous measure's fingerings more closely.)
I take the other point you're making about the whole chord not being defined by what just one instrument is playing, but it's not always going to be the case that the bass note is the starting point for the chord. In the Devin Townsend example some chords will be Cxx and some will be y/C so you can't use it as a hard and fast rule.
And still you hold that y/C isn't a thing in this one case?

C is the governing note; even pedal tensions and other chords will point strongly back to C in this case.

However, yes, there can be other chord roots. It's just that the bass pedal will strongly encourage an eventual return. That's a point I've been trying to make.
----


Anyways I was thinking about this yesterday night after more discussion and came to a realization:

E-C-D-G-B (0 7 10 7 8 7)

(tell me if I'm wrong in this hypothesis. This is assuming your position.)
You hear the E as the lowest note. You look for a perfect fifth and find it (B).
You look for a third. You find it (G). -> Em.
You see more notes. A D makes a minor 7th over E. -> Em7.
Since you have Em7, C over that is Em7(b13). 1-b3-5-b7-b13.
/hypothesis

However, I disagree with this analysis. E-C is a wide interval (a minor 6th is 8 half-steps, after all). Inverting it will make it smaller.

-> C-E.
This is a major third. This is one of the fundamental intervals in creating tertian chords (which is the basis of functional harmony; the other is the minor 3rd).

Then:
G as fifth
B as seventh
D as ninth

-> C-E-G-B-D is a major 9th (1-3-5-7-9). In the voicing above, E is in the bass.

Notice that (1-3-5-7-9) is much more compact and common than the other proposed option, even in first inversion (with the third as the bass).

Music hasn't looked at bass as root unwaveringly for a while. Inversions exist everywhere and should be interpreted as such unless the context suggests otherwise (as is the case for maj/min6 chords, which look like inverted m7/m7b5 chords, respectively, as well as add9/9sus4 chords (eg Cadd9 vs. D9sus4 without a written A), where one implies C root, the other implies D root).

1. Thanks!
2. Yes, I usually do it that way as well, with two tracks, unless I'm specifically arranging something to be played on one guitar. And this 'project' started off with that thought, so that's why. I guess if I arranged the two voices I have into two tracks the LH/RH split wouldn't be correct anyway. Still it's kinda nice to have it all together, that way you can see what the proper chords and harmony are!
3. Disagree. I really hate when people put something in 6/8 or 12/8 unnecessarily (not so much a song like this, but e.g. a metal song where it's very clear where the beat is and that it's played with triplets). Looks like the composer of the song disagrees with you as well http://www.isaacshepard.com/music/Deep%20Joy/Letting%20Go%20-%20Sample.pdf
1. Np. You have timing errors in the end, however.
2. Do you know about the different viewing modes on GP5? Multitrack?
3. 4/4 with constant triplets should be notated as 12/8. This is author ignorance and yet another example of poor transcription. Having an idea and writing it down are two different things.

Good reading on time signatures: https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1702926
Attachments:
letting go.gp5
#23
Quote by NeoMvsEu
Pedal point notes are not necessarily chord tones. Also, it would have been a lot nicer to get timestamps. I don't listen to Satch normally.
If you're talking about 2:43-ish, F isn't even a chord tone.

The interlude starts at 2:35, and the chord in question at 2:42, so yes you're in the right area. Why do you say "F isn't even a chord tone", wouldn't you be calling it Fmaj7/A as in the Tears in the Rain example?
Pedal point notes are not necessarily chord tones? hmm, ok. I could see that applying to a low bass note pedal, I've seen notations like D/E or B/A, but I never thought about the case of a high pedal point. Which is what we're gonna have next ...

1. Timestamps, please.
2. If it's the second arpeggio, that's xx3430, a B dim chord, F bass, E pedal point.

1. 'Fm6(maj7)' is from 0:19 to 0:21. x8675x, F, Ab, D, E
2. They call that 'F6maj7b5'. I understand exactly why they do, they're working from F being the root and including all notes; and why you do it the way you do, Bdim being the simpler chord construction. I think I'd prefer to include the E note in the chord, as it certainly contributes to the sound of the chord, even more so with the following chord xx6760 with the F and E in close proximity.

ok, I don't really have anything to say about the next part, except maybe "I give up"

And still you hold that y/C isn't a thing in this one case?

C is the governing note; even pedal tensions and other chords will point strongly back to C in this case.

However, yes, there can be other chord roots. It's just that the bass pedal will strongly encourage an eventual return. That's a point I've been trying to make.

No, I've never said that. I have no problem with you calling it Fmaj7/A. I just don't see that it's so wrong to use Am(b6) as an alternative.
ok, I didn't get exactly the point you were making, I thought you were perhaps arguing for naming the chords from the bass pedal, in the same way as using the Eb, Bb, and Db as root in our song example.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is the bass pedal encouraging a return to the root related to the songs we've been discussing?

Anyways I was thinking about this yesterday night after more discussion and came to a realization:

E-C-D-G-B (0 7 10 7 8 7)

(tell me if I'm wrong in this hypothesis. This is assuming your position.)
You hear the E as the lowest note. You look for a perfect fifth and find it (B).
You look for a third. You find it (G). -> Em.
You see more notes. A D makes a minor 7th over E. -> Em7.
Since you have Em7, C over that is Em7(b13). 1-b3-5-b7-b13.
/hypothesis

However, I disagree with this analysis. E-C is a wide interval (a minor 6th is 8 half-steps, after all). Inverting it will make it smaller.

-> C-E.
This is a major third. This is one of the fundamental intervals in creating tertian chords (which is the basis of functional harmony; the other is the minor 3rd).

Then:
G as fifth
B as seventh
D as ninth

-> C-E-G-B-D is a major 9th (1-3-5-7-9). In the voicing above, E is in the bass.

Notice that (1-3-5-7-9) is much more compact and common than the other proposed option, even in first inversion (with the third as the bass).

I would be unlikely to play or analyse that chord. But if I did ...
ok, I would probably skip some steps and see that it looks like an Em7 which is a pretty common chord, but with, yes, the addition of the minor sixth (or 13th). However now you've told me that a minor sixth isn't added to a root, minor third and fifth to form any generally recognised chord, I might look for something different ...
I know there are rules for constructing chords using the intervals as you describe (it's just not something I often work with or would remember exactly), so your analysis makes total sense
However Cmaj9/E doesn't seem _much_ more compact than Em7(b13), there's only one essential difference, the 'allowed' ninth versus the 'not allowed' minor sixth. If someone wanted to use the latter form, I wouldn't care, it gives you all the information needed to describe what notes are being played

1. Np. You have timing errors in the end, however.
2. Do you know about the different viewing modes on GP5? Multitrack?
3. 4/4 with constant triplets should be notated as 12/8. This is author ignorance and yet another example of poor transcription. Having an idea and writing it down are two different things.

Good reading on time signatures: https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1702926

1. hmm, the Synthesia youtube video posted above had a couple of timing errors at the end but I thought I corrected them. Alright, it must be the fast run at the end, the best I can do is to change it to groups of 4, 3 and 2 per eighth note (triplet), then the last note, G at 15, is just ahead of the next bar. If it's anything different you'd better tell me.
2. Yes, I do know about multitrack. I don't tend to use it because it's not very helpful if I'm working on a file with 10 - 16 tracks including all the orchestral stuff! But it would work for this song, true.
3. Alright, I had a more negative reaction to this initally but I've thought about it and done some reading and I see what you mean. I wouldn't mind if this piano piece was transcribed in 12/8 and I know there's a lot of Opeth stuff in 6/8 which is fine as I hear a lot of that as strumming 6 note patterns rather than triplets. However, I've seen enough people say 12/8 and 4/4 with triplets can be used interchangeably, and I really dislike 12/8 for the type of metal songs I mentioned so I'm not going to be changing how I transcribe those. I really want to see the notes as triplets and have the beat be four quarter notes per bar. Also another reason is that Guitar Pro 5 doesn't allow for the tempo to be set in terms of a dotted quarter (Tab Pro is the same). I'm happy with my tab of Letting Go, I find it easily readable and if transcribing it with triplets is good enough for the composer it's good enough for me.
#24
"Lords of Karma" has a different rhythm pattern that stresses A, E, and C. That's why there's a different analysis.
---
"Tears in the Rain"
It's F-G#-D-E. E7b9/F shell voicing. V 6/4-5/3 (A/E - E or Am/E - E in A major/minor, respectively) is common cadential movement. xx3130 precedes this. Ab is not going to suddenly shift to G#; a diminished second is a dissonant interval.

So overall E7b9/F Am/E E7 just functions as an embellishment of E.

Pedal point outside of bass: "Keep Me Hangin' On", Supremes. It's not as common as its bass counterpart, but it does happen.

Music theory isn't rules, it's systematic description of happenstance.
---
The question is: is F or A the root of the whole chord xx7968?

The pedal bass is relevant because I argue that it's an F-type chord driven by the pedal back to A minor, not a continual A minor-type chord.
---
"Hangar 18", Megadeth.
Are you going to tell me the chords at ~0:12 (second chord playthrough) are different than at ~0:24 (guitar, other instruments play pretty much once every 8 beats)?
Same thing here. If I played 0 7 10 7 8 7 then 022202 in one section, then played x30000 then 022202 in the next, would they be different?

It doesn't look that much more complicated, but an added 13th is 2 thirds' less compact than a full ninth chord. Also, I still don't know a context where I would ever necessarily call a chord "minor with flat 6".

The inherent dissonance between 5 and b6/b13 discourages the existence of b13/b6 as an actual chord tone if it is a b6 from the root. (Exception, V7b13 masquerading as 7#5 resolving to minor (ex. 3x344x to x3534x), but that's a dominant chord, not minor.)
---
1. Check m. 53, 55. Based on your meter, you only need 3 9-tuplets.
2. Piano music is made for two staves (sometimes more). You can always put them on the same channel to save space, but bass/treble split is pretty essential for anyone trying to read piano music. Plus it makes playing each part easier, what with not having to consider the other voice and instead writing for smoothest hand movements for one hand.
3. The thing is, there are no places where the rhythm is 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +, it's invariably 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 4 + a, which makes it the compound rhythm 12/8 much more readily than 4/4 with triplets everywhere.
#25
Quote by NeoMvsEu
1. Check m. 53, 55. Based on your meter, you only need 3 9-tuplets.
2. Piano music is made for two staves (sometimes more). You can always put them on the same channel to save space, but bass/treble split is pretty essential for anyone trying to read piano music. Plus it makes playing each part easier, what with not having to consider the other voice and instead writing for smoothest hand movements for one hand.
3. The thing is, there are no places where the rhythm is 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +, it's invariably 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 4 + a, which makes it the compound rhythm 12/8 much more readily than 4/4 with triplets everywhere.

Hey, just a quick one on the song, then I'll get back to the theory later, assuming my brain is still functioning.

1. You're not saying bar 53 is wrong (the 9 not showing over the first note of the tuplet is a Guitar Pro glitch), but rather that that is the timing to use for bar 55? ok, that fits in nicely and GP even manages to not screw up the display, but actually I think it's not all the same speed, the last couple of notes at least sound slower. I would think of it as his timing being slightly off or playing it a bit freely maybe. What I was thinking of (yeah, it looks messier) sounds closer to the song to me.





2. ok, I see. I'm sure I'm splitting them more as a guitarist would do than a piano player. But it seems like for some parts, especially the B and C sections, the bass/treble split I have would match left hand/right hand.
3. Alright, I can see that. I read someone say it's a trade off between having to put a load of triplets versus dotted quarters instead of quarters on the slower parts.
I know I have heard something where the rhythm is 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +, i.e. straight eighths within a song with mostly triplets, but that comes off more as making an odd accent, and is very rare, true. This is not quite the same thing, but look at this part in 6/8 at 4:36



Imagine if you transcribed it in 2/4 or 4/4 with triplets, then the notes the melody guitar is playing would be eighths, 1 + 2 +
One last example, a song I'm tidying up the tab of at the moment, the intro is all triplets, then it shifts to half-time with a 16th note feel = eighths at the original tempo (in fact previously tabbed versions have kept the same tempo throughout).



Would you really transcribe the first part in 12/8 and then switch to 4/4?
Last edited by NSpen1 at Jul 24, 2016,
#26
1. No, fix measures 53 and 55. You only needed 3 9-tuplets total for the entire piece based on his performance.

Free timing is no excuse for lack of timing between hands.

Hint: the final G hits on the next measure.

2. But would you really play the melody on (predominantly) two strings? This is why two tracks was useful - so you can play both hands separately, regardless of instrument, and so it plays more naturally on one instrument instead of jumping 7 frets in the course of one 32nd note.

3. Opeth - you are transcribing for time signature, not what's convenient for one instrument.
Epica - yes, and unlike what the idiot GP program allows, I would say quarter in new time = dotted quarter in old time.
#27
Quote by NeoMvsEu
"Lords of Karma" has a different rhythm pattern that stresses A, E, and C. That's why there's a different analysis.
---
"Tears in the Rain"
It's F-G#-D-E. E7b9/F shell voicing.
---
The question is: is F or A the root of the whole chord xx7968?

The pedal bass is relevant because I argue that it's an F-type chord driven by the pedal back to A minor, not a continual A minor-type chord.
---
"Hangar 18", Megadeth.
Are you going to tell me the chords at ~0:12 (second chord playthrough) are different than at ~0:24 (guitar, other instruments play pretty much once every 8 beats)?
Same thing here. If I played 0 7 10 7 8 7 then 022202 in one section, then played x30000 then 022202 in the next, would they be different?

The inherent dissonance between 5 and b6/b13 discourages the existence of b13/b6 as an actual chord tone if it is a b6 from the root.
---

Lords of Karma:
That's a really weak reason for there to be a different analysis. The F appears in just the same positions as the E rhythmically. Listen to it, no one tone is more prominent than another, perhaps the A in the bass. So you want to call it Am and just ignore the F I suppose?
I thought the reasoning for a different analysis might have been something to do with the chord progression, the chromatic movement of the bass G, Ab (G#?) in the two preceding chords, or maybe Fmaj7/A doesn't seem right with the following chord being Fmaj7/13 (assuming that's correctly named).
Anyway, Am(b13) as in the tab book isn't much different from what you're saying, probably putting the b13 in a bracket is just a way of showing the note is there, even though it's not a 'chord tone'.

Tears in the Rain:
ok, E7b9/F instead of Fm6(maj7) makes sense, thanks. It also seems right for it to be G# rather than Ab in the key of A minor, in addition to your reasoning.
hmm, that works out to be almost the same as the third chord in the song. So I guess it can't be that bad to call that one E7b9/G#.
I'm not 100% convinced about the bass pedal argument, it's not much of a pedal across only two chords, but alright, things may become clearer ...

Hangar 18:
So the difference is that there's a D bass pedal, and then the bass moves chromatically from A to C.
Then it's essentially the same chords - Dm, Bb/D, Bdim/D, C/D > Dm/A, Bb, Bdim, C (ignoring the variant on the C chord on the latter playthrough, xxx535 - funny that two transcriptions I have of the song don't agree exactly on what to call the chords, this one either D(m)7 or C6/9 with the 6 & 9 in that kinda superscript/subscript thing.)
Is that what you're saying? But it is a slightly different situation, there is no 5th as well as the flat 6th in the potential m(b6) chord.
I take your point on the other example, x30000 is an inversion of the original chord, and it would seem strange to call it Em7(b6)/C.

I don't really get the inherent dissonance between 5 and b6/b13 discouraging it as a chord tone thing, as you have dissonance in a madd2 chord, or maj7, but I'll take your word for it. Seems like another one of those 'rules'.
Anyway I found some stuff that explains it better from the point of view of constructing chords using intervals of thirds (another 'rule'!)
including here https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=463045
so it's making more sense to me.
Still, those type of chords are all over the internet, e.g.
http://yourguitarchords.com/amb6/
Though not the nice Satriani voicing.


Then
1. The G on the next bar was how I had it originally. So it must be groupings of 3, 3, 2 - two 9-tuplets, and two 24th notes.
I don't know why you're saying fix measure 53, I cannot hear that as anything different than a 9-tuplet. Your maths seems wrong, if there are three 9-tuplets in total then there needs to be one in bar 53, otherwise there are only two in total.
(with Guitar Pro glitch on the 3)



2. No, I wouldn't play it like that. I wouldn't really play those parts at all, considering the notes go out of range for a guitar. I arranged the parts it was possible to play on guitar appropriately, e.g. the 2nd half of the B section. Plus I already explained why I transcribed it in one track, and that I would usually use two tracks for piano parts so I don't think we need to discuss this point any further.

3. What's convenient for one instrument has nothing to do with what I'm saying. The point I was trying to make is that the relation between the 6/8 time signature and the timing of the notes the guitar plays (dotted eighths in that time signature), is the same as if you were to have 4/4 with triplets and then eighth notes played over it. Therefore it's possible to imagine a situation in which you may prefer to transcribe a song in 4/4 where there are lots of triplets but also eighths, rather than 12/8.
So you'd put dotted quarter = 196, and then quarter = 196 from the verse onwards? Even though verse, chorus sections, etc are clearly at a slowish tempo and all phrases/chord changes fit into one bar at that tempo? That's really horrible (not the 12/8 even though, as you know, I'm not a fan, but then transcribing it all at double time).
#28
Satch Songs
Lords of Karma
Counting (strong beats underline, primary strong beat bold, secondary strong beat italics)
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +

Writing (b13) asserts its existence as a chord tone, albeit an added one. I disagree with it.

It's not exactly functional harmony as the other songs are. It's mostly modal.

Not to mention that Satch was trying to impose Western harmonies onto Hindustani instruments. (it works better than with the Beatles, however.)

Tears in the Rain
Counting (strong beats underline, primary strong beat bold)
1 + 2 + 3 +
gives A F F | A E E in the part where you were concerned first. In compact thirds, that's F-A, A-E (a fifth is simply two thirds). F root, A root gives Fmaj7/A, Am.

Third chord could either be G#dim7 or E7b9/G#, the difference being the E. The E only appears once, in a non-accented position and can be seen as anticipating the return to Am, therefore acting as a neighboring non-chord tone in G#dim7 context.
-
Hangar 18: Again, transcriptionists are not always well-versed in music theory (nor do they always have accurate transcriptions, bless their egos). (I left out added tones, however, for simplicity. The main thing is the chord invariance despite the bass.)

Re: b6 sans 5 - Are you going to call G-B-E an Em/G invariably instead of a G6 in contexts where the G is actually the root? Of course having the 5 is more popular, but it /is/ optional.
---
maj9 inversion vs m7b13

x30000 is root position. The root is the bass note.
Having E in the bass makes it first inversion (third in the bass).

I tried explaining the thirds stack, but clearly it didn't register the first time. :\

Tertian harmony (the majority of pop music) is based on thirds. This is not a "rule" for all of music, but a defining feature.

And next you're going to tell me that the Internet never lies or gives bad information?

---

Numbered discussion

1. I'm going to transcribe in 12/8 for piano because I can't be bothered with so many tuplets or tab. Attached.

This is what the artist played. That it's not exactly what he wrote on his sheet music is on him.

2. There are guitars with more frets. If you wanted to play a piece on such an instrument, you would make those changes.

3. Yes it does. The rhythm guitar is playing double-time relative to everything else: there's an L S L S pattern (2:1) which shows a smaller breakdown of 6/8. The drums are playing a clear 6/8 pattern, and bass is following. Just for the lead guitar, is the time signature going to change? Does the time signature change when the solo kicks in at 5:12? No.

I wonder what you would make of this.



Polyrhythms exist, whether you like it or not.

Half-time feel: you have to realize that the tempo stays the same, it's just the notes are stretched through a longer time. Also, the drums alternate between two patterns in the verses - half-time and common time.
Attachments:
Letting Go ending.pdf
#29
Lords of Karma
The E is on the + of 2 in the first bar, and the + of 3 in the second bar.
The F is on the + of 3 in the first bar, and the + of 2 in the second bar.
You said the A, C and E are stressed. The E isn't. ok, that's nitpicking, but I don't think using this strict rhythm pattern analysis is particularly helpful in deciding which note is stressed.
No matter, I'm not really trying to argue against the A being the root, just trying to understand why you'd say it is rather than the F.

Tears in the Rain
We must be hearing this piece differently. It doesn't matter what you put with your 1 + 2 + 3 + thing, not every song is the same.
The first note of the chord is not stressed, it's played rather softly. The note that is emphasised is the 4th note (for the most part, there are variations in how he plays it), so the C and A in the um, ok, Fmaj7/A to Am bit, and the open E at the beginning.
Anyway, why would you count 1 + 2 + 3 + instead of 1 and a, 2 and a, as in the example here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature
I can see it as Fmaj7/A now, but from the chord construction point of view, not anything to do with which notes are stressed.
Continuing on from that, as the E is stressed in the beginning section, I would rather think of that chord as E7b9/G#.

Well, the guy who did the Hangar 18 transcription in Guitar for the Practising Musician and the Surfing with the Alien tab book, Andy Aledort, is one of the most well known transcribers around (and has also written stuff on music theory), so you'd think he'd know what he was talking about.

Quote by NeoMvsEu
Re: b6 sans 5 - Are you going to call G-B-E an Em/G invariably instead of a G6 in contexts where the G is actually the root? Of course having the 5 is more popular, but it /is/ optional.

No, because if we go back to the song that started all this, obviously I was thinking of the second chord as being a G type, so that would be a G6 (no fifth). Though I got the idea that you were thinking of it as an Em/G.
ok, it doesn't really make a difference whether you have the fifth or not, except it tends to lead you towards the root being e.g. G instead of E where the note would be a minor seventh, the difference is that you can have a chord with a third (major or minor) + major sixth but not with a minor third + minor sixth.

Quote by NeoMvsEu
maj9 inversion vs m7b13

x30000 is root position. The root is the bass note.
Having E in the bass makes it first inversion (third in the bass).

I tried explaining the thirds stack, but clearly it didn't register the first time. :\

And next you're going to tell me that the Internet never lies or gives bad information?

Yeah, sorry, I should have put that the other way round, having established it's a Cmaj9, then the 'original' chord is the inversion (I do know that!). I am on board now with it being maj9 rather than m7(b13) and maj7 rather than m(b13), despite what I may have lead you to believe. And with a possible exception in cases where the root suggests m rather than maj7 as we've discussed.
Alright, I see where you talked about thirds, but the other stuff I read made it clearer.

No, I was joking/being sarcastic about finding m(b6) chords on the internet.


1. Ugh, I was thinking you meant three 9-tuplet groupings instead of only three notes. (The terminology's not clear, e.g. if you say three triplets it's natural to think 3 x 3, not only 3 notes.)
ok, thanks for that. But sorry, I just can't hear bar 53 as two 32nds plus a 16th. Bar 55 I could see, it's a subtle difference though. I don't know what he wrote on his sheet music for that part, there was only a sample on his website, not the whole song. Do you think he meant to play that or should it have been triplets and his timing was off?
If I wanted to play it on guitar, I guess I'd put it an octave down and play with two triplets :

. sweep --| p
--------12-17-12---------
-----13----------13------
--14---------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------


2. Yeah, I know, you want me to redo the tab in 12/8, with two tracks, and arranged for a 30 fret guitar with an extra high string (Who has one of those? Even Uli Roth's Sky Guitar wouldn't reach the highest notes in this piece). I'll get right on that.

3. No, that's not the point I was trying to make, I'm not arguing for a time signature change in that song. But forget it, it's not worth going over.
(rhythm guitar playing double-time? It goes along with the melody, mostly an L S L S pattern (2:1) - you lost me there)
Don't make me listen to that Noel thing Alright, I would hear that as 4/4 with quarter note triplets sung over the top of it. Here's where you tell me I'm wrong.
I have nothing against polyrhythms!

I understand a half-time feel, I use it when I have to. To be honest, I'm using it in this song, in the sections after the bridge, when it would be too cumbersome to repeatedly switch between normal and double time. But I just cannot see using it for the main sections of the song, it would be like this guy did transcribing AC/DC's Rock or Bust at 195bpm, instead of 98, just wrong (to me).
https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/a/acdc/rock_or_bust_guitar_pro.htm
As far as I can see, common time is just 4/4, so what you mean when you use it here is just 4/4 at 196bpm. But the snare is added on beat 3 (and partially on beat 1) at 98bpm, that makes it on beats 1 and 3 at 196bpm, that's the opposite of what would imply that tempo.
(Actually if anything, the chorus has a half-time feel at 98bpm, but you don't want to say it's a quarter-time feel at 196 surely!)
#30
TIME
Signatures

I see where your problem lies with time signatures now.

3/4 (ONE and Two and Three and) vs. 6/8 (ONE and a Two and a)


Same with OP's song. 4/4 with constant triplet counting is not simple meter. It's compound meter, 12/8.

Now with that established...

Tears in the Rain
1, 2, and 3 are the primary divisions. On those beats, the guitar plays A-F-F-A-E-E. A-F outlines a third starting on F. A-E outlines a fifth starting on A. (E-A is a fourth, but that's not the most compact combination of thirds.)

Noel
The sheet music is in 6/8. You probably would have had a problem with the polyrhythmic cowbell hitting dotted eighths; however, the pulse is in compound duple, 6/8.

Sheet music: http://www.jwpepper.com/10291471.item#.V5qpT5OAOko

Opeth

Lead
X     /     x     /
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +

X   / x   / X   / x   /
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rhythm (double-time)

X = primary accent
x = secondary accent
/ = non-accented note

There's a 2:1 ratio for rhythm notes, the first note is twice as long as the second.

Epica
Double-time and half-time are FEELS. The tempo never changes; the notes are simply just drawn out or sped up.
Check: http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/7360/what-does-doubletime-feel-mean

Basically, you can either write the entire song at 98bpm or 196bpm, but it's one or the other, not both. It's your choice, but I find myself counting at 196bpm going into the verse and it persists for at least a few measures.

HOWEVER, the AC/DC is exclusively pretty mid-tempo. The drums play, according to the bpm's youve given, at 98. There is no double-time anything. Syncopation is not double-time.

Letting Go
You can find the sheet music if you look hard enough.

pickup to m.54: slowed down 75%. They are not even-length triplets. The D is actually a bit over twice as long as the B and C combined. http://vocaroo.com/i/s0291w7EokL5

m.55: The guy wanted to play triplets like



but clearly failed to align notes.

MODAL VS TONAL MUSIC
This is a revision of what I wanted to say. Ignore about the timing just now.

All of the above songs are tonal.

"Lords of Karma" is not tonal for the most part. The A-G-F-E thing ends on the dominant 7 chord (V7) of A (major/minor), so the ending isn't modal; however, modality predates chords the way we know them, so having chords is an anachronistic analysis. Also the A-E-F C-F-E idea is basically a motif (repeating idea) that doesn't really function with relation to chords. It's more fulfilling to note the bass movement: G-G#-A-F-G-Bb-AG-FE. This basically shows a section in A Phrygian (normal and dominant).

About motifs: this song's chorus starts at 1:09. How would you write the chords, and why?

#31
On the transcriber

I looked and he posts mostly on:
- style/genre
- how to play X song
- different tunings
- form (theme and development)
- modes (as they relate to chord-scale theory and not actual modes)
- scales
(Xiaoxi, a Musician Talk poster, has a signature I agree with, which is pretty much "modes and scales are useless".)

This has almost nothing to do with actual harmonic analysis. People can transcribe without taking hundreds of years of analytical background into account, but their analyses lack coherence in terms of function and fundamentals.
#32
No, I don't have a problem distinguishing between 3/4 and 6/8, or knowing how to count in each. I didn't need your video, thank you.
So you're saying Tears in the Rain is in 3/4 then.
I'm not thinking that, I'm thinking it's 6/8 which is how the tab book has it (of course every tab book in existence is wrong according to you).
Anyway, it doesn't really matter what time signature you consider it to be in - as I said before the stress is on the fourth note. It is not on the notes you say it is. Still I don't know why you would want to count it as 3 groups of 2, rather than 2 groups of 3. Surely it's the latter?
btw this tab is almost identical to the one in the tab book for The Extremist, and you don't need to move chord shapes down to xx3210 or xx3130.
http://guitaralliance.com/instant-song-library-download/Instant%20Song%20Library%20PDF/S-Z/S/Joe%20Satriani%20-%20Tears%20In%20The%20Rain.pdf

Noel
The cowbell is the pulse of the song, makes it 4/4
Well, the sheet music looks a bit messy with all those unbeamed eighth notes. I see why it's been put in 6/8, as there are more 'triplets' than not, but it's not a constant pattern.
I think it would actually work quite well in 4/4 with a mix of quarter and eighth note triplets.

Opeth
Your rhythm analysis isn't totally correct, as per the tab book (there are not as many 16ths) which I would agree with. It still goes along with the lead gtr more than not. But sure, it's still 6/8, that's just a polyrhythm over it.
That seems a strange usage of the term double-time. And I don't know how I was supposed to understand what you meant from this code: L S L S pattern (2:1) ... long, short I guess?

Epica
The example you give is not the best because nowhere in the Epica song does the melody stay the same while the feel changes. Double-time and half-time as feels I understand. But I've never seen anywhere where it says once you have established a tempo you have to stick with it, and you can't move back and forward between a 'slow' and a 'fast' tempo.
I would not count at 196bpm once it reaches the verse, I'd go immediately to 98. I have no idea why you would continue to count at that fast tempo, honestly. (The riff right before the verse is at the fast tempo, if that's what you mean.)
I would not want to transcribe it at 196 and then have one snare per bar on beat 3, rather than two on beats 2 and 4. And then at 98bpm the notes are 16ths in relation to the beat, as they should be!

Yeah, I was certainly not trying to say any part of the AC/DC song was double-time, just that the guy transcribed it at the wrong tempo. The connection to the Epica song is that it's the same in terms of where the snare should be and that the guitar is playing (syncopated ) 16ths there, not eighths.

Letting Go
Ha, ok I found the sheet music on some dodgy Russian site. (And someone else's sheet music with even less accurate timing.)
Actually the timing he was going for, both in bars 53 & 55, was all 32nds, it's just hard to see because of the funny way he's written it. Bar 55, there is (all triplets in 4/4) an eighth followed by 8 32nds - he should have grouped them [A, C, E, A], [E, C, B, A], 4 per note of the left hand part.
Personally I would have thought it was nicest to play two triplet groupings + two 16ths, I would have guessed that was what he was going for, but apparently not.

But yeah, you're right, I have to admit it! Alright, I will update the tab with the correct timing at the end, and what the hell, I've put it in 12/8 too.


ok, I have a little idea about the modal thing, it's obviously described in the analysis for the tabs of Satriani's music.
So basically we shouldn't have been trying to analyse/name that chord at all in the first place Though I suppose they feel they have to put something for the chord names, hence some kind of odd / non-standard things appearing.
I'm most familiar with the Phrygian-Dominant (the so-called arabic scale), it's in a lot of Epica songs for example, and I see the normal Phrygian mode is the same but with a minor third instead of a major third. Hmm, I can't see how you get A Phrygian (normal and dominant) from the bass there. Or did you mean E Phrygian? because the E, F, G, G# would fit that ...
I'll pass on looking at the chords of that song for now, I might come back to it later.
#33
Tears in the Rain
On 6/8: Really? :\ And they're counting every note as an eighth note?

I'd accept 6/8 if every note were a sixteenth note.

Attached gp5 example, "diff time sigs". Note the different beaming between the two time signatures and placement of the accents.

I don't agree with the tab you've linked; he's clearly playing open high E as a pedal.

Noel
There are two strong beats:
No-|EL (hold) (hold) (rest) (rest) No-|
=> duple.

These beats are divided into triplets => compound meter.
Therefore, compound duple: 6/8

Vocal lines are notated with different beaming (or non-beaming) than instrumental lines. Check this out. (TL;DR - beaming on syllables, not counting.)

Letting Go
That's ridiculous and unreadable, what he transcribed! I'm just disappointed. It seems like he's trying to obfuscate his transcriptions to make his abilities look better than they are. :\

Even this is more readable, and it's not beamed exactly like I like or in a logical time signature:




Opeth
I'd like to see this transcription. How are you feeling the pulse in the guitar solo starting at 5:12? I think there's something with either a delay or a slow attack, but either way, it implies a long-short pattern, as shown in mm. 2-3 in "double half.gp5", attached in next message.

Epica
Figured something out

There's a difference between double-time feel and double-time. In the Epica song, from the intro into the verse, it's half-time, not a feel.

Feel: same tempo, different note pulse.
Time: different tempo.

However, it's still 12/8 to 4/4, 196 bpm (dotted quarters) to 98 bpm (quarters), respectively. The parenthetical time values are how the pulse is felt for each time signature.

Lords of Karma
Yeah, E Phrygian/Dominant.

Phrygian: 1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7
Phrygian Dominant: 1 b2 3 4 5 b6 b7

A lot of people use the P.D. over the dominant (V) chord in minor (e.g. E in A minor, and minor because of all the accidentals); however, it's just harmonic minor's scale formula starting on 5.

I'm amused you've never mentioned After Forever (Mark Jansen's old band), because up until "Invisible Circles", AF's music had a lot more modal influences:




Looking at chords is an exercise in futility. Modality came first, then counterpoint, then chords as we know it.
Attachments:
diff time sigs.gp5
#35
Tears in the Rain
Yeah, it's done in 6/8 with every note being an eighth note. It makes sense to me, like I said, two groups of three; think of the picking pattern, three going up, three coming down.

The beaming didn't come out right in your attachment. Are you using a different program like TuxGuitar, rather than Guitar Pro 5? Yup, it displays correctly in TuxGuitar. ok, I get exactly the difference in the beaming and accents between the two time signatures.
All I would say is that I don't hear any accent on the 1st note of the chord (or 3rd or 5th), it's the 4th note which seems to me to be accented pretty much throughout the song. And in fact the 2nd note more than the 1st.
But wait, you're saying all the chords with the E at the 5th fret on the 2nd string, should be played lower down with the open E? I really don't think so, it's not logical to change position like that at those points, unfortunately I can't find any video of Satriani playing it himself to prove definitively one way or the other, however see next paragraph ...

Well, check this http://www.justinguitar.com/en/ST-201-TearsInTheRain.php
As it says, it was in a Guitar Player mag article, as a study in the chords from the A harmonic minor scale. So then he probably would be thinking of the third chord as a G#dim type.
But the guy there plays it exactly how I'd always thought it was (positionwise), and if he learned it from Satch's original column, it must be right.

Noel
Yes, two strong beats that also = the 1 and 3 on the cowbell. And if you were going to tap your foot to the song, or clap along, what would you clap on? Well, don't worry about me, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
How about something like this?



ok, I see about the different beaming for vocal lines, didn't know that, the vocal lines in my tabs are certainly beamed as instruments usually are. I would agree with what's written there: "I like the instrumental practice even for vocal music". But the Noel sheet music doesn't all follow the no beaming pattern, right? Not on the 16ths.
I use the 4 eighth notes beamed together pattern in 4/4 as in that example, that looks good.

Letting Go
mmm, don't know if it's that or if it was a case of him not knowing how to transcribe what he was playing ...
At least mine looks better now :



Opeth
Here's the start of that section. (Capo on 2nd fret of rhythm guitar.) So it's a dotted eighth, eighth, 16th pattern basically. I don't find the 16th to be too significant, the main point is that the rhythm guitar plays on the same accents as the lead guitar, making the polyrhythm over the 6/8 time sig.
The guitar solo at 5:12 has the same rhythm part continuing under it - the dotted eighth polyrhythm is only played in the first bar by the lead guitar before it goes to more 'normal' phrasing, sixteenths, etc. You've got a partial long-short pattern I guess



I don't actually know where they're hearing those extra 16ths in the second bar, that seems like a mistake. This is a little arrangement I made for what you could play for the rhythm part, without the capo :



Epica
That's good, we're more on the same page then. I do like to differentiate between e.g. the 196 and 98, most of the time those type of things feel to me as though they are two different tempos, not feels, yes

Yep, I've noticed that about the P.D./harmonic minor similarity, I had a blog on myspace with a tab for Epica's Burn to a Cinder where I wrote about C phrygian dominant being the same as F harmonic minor, then someone took that tab and made a bodged Guitar Pro version which they posted on this site, before I got a corrected version here later.
But here's one thing I've always been a bit confused about, if you're using the Phrygian Dominant scale, say we're in E, is the key signature E major because of the presence of the G#, despite also having the flat/minor sixth and seventh?

Oh, that's true about After Forever, again it's what I'd call an Eastern or Arabic sound, so it should be the phrygian dominant again.
I'm sure I have a bit of tab for those two songs lying around somewhere. Ha, I do have some for My Pledge of Allegiance done on the old Finale 97 software. Now you want this to be in 12/8, don't you?
Well, I think we have here E harmonic minor = B phrygian dominant.





btw if you've heard the new Epica song, what do you think about the time signatures / tempos in it?

In particular, how the intro relates to the rest of the song.
#36
P.S. re Laura Tesoro song, the first thing I notice is the bassline, so I guess that's the motif you're talking about. Then in the absence of any guitar part to focus on, overall it just seems like major chords - A, B, F# (2) ... but of course those don't really go together, the F# feels like the root but either there shouldn't be an A chord if it's major, or it should be an F#m but it's not.
It's like an AC/DC thing, they'll play an A major chord but then they'll play C and D, or else the chord will be A major and everything else in the song will point to minor, single notes on the guitar or vocal lines. So I've always thought that was ambiguous.
btw nice almost Queen bassline on the verse
#37
Tears in the Rain
It's easiest to use TG on my side, otherwise I'm using both MuseScore and Sibelius.

Chord -
G#dim is a clear substitution for E7 without the bass. E7 is the V7 chord, resolves readily to i/I (tonic, the chord with root on the main note in the song section). G#-D-E-F -> E-G#-D-F = E7b9/G#, but a shell voicing (fifth omitted). In this case, it's actually problematic to call it G#dim because there is no third played, so it's easier to analyze as E7b9/G#.
-----
Um, there's a problem with using picking patterns for comparison when it's fingerpicking. :\

I only hear ONE and Two and Three and (3/4), not ONE and two And three and (6/8).

Here's a song with both 3/4 and 6/8 (and 9/8), try to figure out where they happen without looking at the music first (which is available on the composer's site. Lol, actually, there's some dead giveaway in this video if you're used to the system):


Another video, only in 3/4, though:


In the same way, I hear the cadence (A-B-C-E-G#-B-A at ~0:25) in 3/4 and never in a 6/8 pattern.

Noel
1 and 4, which are the strong beats of 6/8 (4 is secondary) are analogous to 1 and 3 in 4/4. But if something is in compound time, it should be 6/8 or 12/8, not 4/4.

However:

No-|EL (hold) (hold) (rest) (rest) No-|EL (hold) (hold) (rest) (rest) (rest)|
The EL's are as strong as each other. They are primary accents, and there are 2 accents per measure. 2 accents per measure in compound time = 6/8.

Using triplets of different values is confusing. If you needed to, just like the transcription alteration on "Letting Go":

The tie is there because the note continues over the normal beat division (on 6) and also to preserve the uniform pattern within the second half of the measure (and I differ from the composer on this thought).

Re: vocal beaming - more contentious discussion here
http://forums.cpdl.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=5375
cpdl = choral public domain library. Good source of vocal music
I think the choice about 16th notes has to do with the beat being eighth notes and 16th notes being smaller than the beat. But you'd have to ask the composer to ascertain that reasoning.

(I'd be curious to hear from you about another song, but this is enough songs for one post.)

Letting Go
Possibly both, which is a shame. It is a pretty song, if really simple (when transcribed correctly and maybe with the challenging part at the end).

Looks nice! It might be clearest to make dotted quarter note rests above the eighth notes on beats 4 and 7. (not a dotted half note rest, though. The secondary accent is on 7, and that nothing is there over beat 7 might be confusing.)

Opeth
Breaking the rhythm guitar down, the small divisions I hear, followed by the overall macro-division:


The guitar solo starts off with the same 2-on-3 polyrhythm, but it hardly stays that way. What about the second part of the solo at 5:31? I don't think you can continue counting 1 + 2 + (as on the polyrhythmic part); you have to yield to the overriding rhythm of the whole.

Epica
"Burn to a Cinder" starts off in F Phrygian. The verses are clear C Phrygian Dominant, though. The choruses are simply F minor, though (it's functional, tonal harmony, not modal harmony). Not gonna listen to the whole thing, that's mostly just halfway.

"Universal Death Squad"
Fun fact: I actually suck at counting. But it just seems like a basic tempo change from the strings into full band.

The 4/4 to and from 6/8 is eighth note equivalent, however.

Keys/modes/scales/AF
Key signature of E Phrygian Dominant: I'd just leave it without accidentals. It's basically the same scale collection as A minor but starting on E and with the harmonic adjustment.

But for plain modes, two ways of thinking:
Conventional: X minor mode gets X minor key signature. E Dorian, Phrygian, Aeolian (and Locrian - kinda but not really.) get 1 sharp.
Looking within just one instrument's line: X mode gets the key signature that perfectly fits the accidentals that are played in the mode. E Dorian would get two sharps, E Phrygian would get 0.

Even though E Harmonic Minor and B Phrygian Dominant have the same notes, the key note (aka the tonic) is what's important in this context. The main note in "My Pledge of Allegiance" is E minor generally (and yes, most definitely 12/8).

It'd end up like this:


----
RE: Laura Tesoro:
A-B-F#, yeah, I was wondering if you wanted to analyze more specifically than that, but guess not. Good
It's a heavy case of borrowing chords. Hoobastank, among other bands, does this often:

#38
ok, I've heard of Sibelius, I wondered if you might be using that.
But when using TuxGuitar, not everything will work correctly in Guitar Pro, just something to be aware of.

Tears In The Rain
ok, got you about there being no third there, though I think I'm going round in circles! As I had previously said about it being E7b9/G# and liking that as the E note was also included, so that's all cool. (The other possibility would be a Ddim type chord, in the same way you were thinking of the preceding chord as being a Bdim).
About the time signature, I think it's best to say we hear this differently and agree to disagree. (The cadence is a bit different but I can still hear that as 2 groups of 3 with a different accent, and that one bar wouldn't override the pattern in the whole of the rest of the song.)

Yeah, the Bach is easy enough to follow in 3/4, maybe only apart from where he slows down and speeds up too much
The other one, this took me long enough but I think I finally got it, it changes from 3/4 to 6/8 at 1:07 but it confused me because the piano is still "high low high low high low", and then the vocals sing a polyrhythm over it (4 notes over 6), but at 1:16 it becomes clearer. And back to 3/4 at 1:30?
Edit: actually maybe at 1:07 it's still 3/4 (for 5 bars), then it changes at 1:16. Don't know where the 9/8 is though.

Letting Go
Yep, I would ideally like to use dotted quarter note rests there (and in fact I think the first note at 17 should probably be a dotted half, so only one dotted quarter rest is needed at the middle of the bar), but you can probably guess the reason I didn't ... try putting that in Guitar Pro and see how it screws up the formatting! I know, another reason I should have transcribed it in two tracks!

Noel
Well, yeah, if you look at the vocal lines only, you get 2 accents per measure. If you look at the cowbell you can hear 4
hmm, I don't find triplets of different values confusing (I even like triplets within triplets sometimes ), the little bit that I tabbed looks clear enough to me. And I think what you've done is put it in 4/4 but still applied beaming rules from 6/8 to it, which is why it looks weird. If (big if) it was in 4/4, there isn't any need to beam all those six notes together and tie the quarter note triplet. 2nd bar just put a half note rest.
(you can have the alto part, I have the soprano )

I sort of see why they've beamed it like that, only 'complete' eighths stand on their own, i.e either one eighth or two sixteenths but they have to be on the beat - if you have a 16th followed by an eighth then it's split across the beat so has to be beamed together. Still it looks a bit strange to have three separate eighths, followed by eighths plus 16ths beamed together, I'd prefer if the three eighths in half a bar were beamed together.
Yeah, I'm definitely on the side of the thread starter on the cpdl.

Opeth
Yes, I think the rhythmic subdivisions are clear enough, we can see the 1, 4, 6 pattern.
I think I said the same thing about the solo in slightly different words, at least talking about the lead guitar. The rhythm guitar continues the same pattern. Just to be 100% clear it's an 8 bar pattern, the first 4 bars are as shown in the tab, the second 4 bars generally have longer note lengths with only a small part of the polyrhythm played. This whole part is repeated 4 times, twice under the melody and twice under the solo. It's all the same so you can actually count the polyrhythm throughout, including at 5:31, if you want.
But sure, the 6/8 is clearly established by the drums and the song obviously begins in 6/8 - there is some 4/4 in it but at the same tempo / with eighth notes having equal value.

What's interesting is that Windowpane (Opeth) and Noel are kind of the opposite in that one has 6/8 from the drums with a polyrhythm from the guitar, and the other 6/8 from the vocals with polyrhythm from the cowbell.

Epica
Burn to a Cinder
I wonder is there enough information to say the intro is F Phrygian, just from F5 & F#5?
But sure, chorus and couple of other sections are straight F minor (there's also a nice change to F major at the end of the song) ... verses in C Phrygian Dominant, then following what you said about the key signature for E Phrygian Dominant, here it should be F minor.
So I was actually right to put the key signature as F minor throughout, even if there might have been some luck involved.

Universal Death Squad
Yes, most of the song is at 86bpm in either 6/8 or 4/4 with the eighth note equivalence. (I'm gonna double the tempo for the choruses though!)
And there are a couple of bars of 9/8 later on.
But what I thought for the intro was, the piano feels like it's playing triplets, the C# and F# notes feel like they're on the beat. So make the notes the cello is playing quarter note triplets, then there is no tempo change, it stays exactly the same. I think that's quite clever. (Uh-oh, I can see 12/8 rearing its ugly head.) One reason not to have a tempo change is that it would make the tempo 64.5bpm ...

Keys/modes/scales/AF
Alright, this makes sense. There are a couple of other songs in the Opeth tab book where there is a note "key signature denotes E Phrygian Dominant", and there are no accidentals, so I was thinking, what, it's not E major or minor?! But what you've said explains that.

Yes, that's what I've always thought, minor modes like those get a minor key signature and major modes (Lydian, Mixolydian) get a major key signature. 2nd part is interesting, but then you might end up confusing E Dorian and B minor (yes, I read that other thread )
Slayer songs based on E Locrian get an E minor key signature ...

Absolutely, My Pledge of Allegiance is clearly based off the E, so I put it in E minor. I see I had a little error, it is an F in the kybd/strings on the last beat of bars 2, 6. But I think it is a high E at the start of bar 5.
Ah, that doesn't look so bad, you might be winning me over to 12/8, aaarrghh.
btw verse has E5, F5, G5, G#5, a mixture of E Phrygian and E Phrygian Dominant?

Laura Tesoro - So the F# is the tonic and the A is borrowed from the parallel minor, is that how it works? Or is the F# major borrowed?
Certainly I've seen songs with a whole load of major chords that don't necessarily "go together". Or minor chords all a minor 3rd apart, like Cm, Ebm, F#m.

P.S. sorry for slight delay in replying, computer trouble. And give me that other song example if you like.
Last edited by NSpen1 at Aug 19, 2016,
#39
Finally found time X_X sorry again, the next response may be a while away too.

It's more likely that things in TG will work in GP than the other way around, but anyways

"Tears in the Rain"
The upper structure of E7b9 is G#-B-D-F, which is a fully diminished seventh. Remove any of the tones and you get a diminished chord. However, it's resolving to A minor, so the only options in this case are E7b9/G# or G#dim7 (if someone argues that the E doesn't count), which both function as a dominant there.

Bach
Time isn't meant to be strictly metronomical, though.



"I Will Be Earth" is 3/4 until ~1:07. Begins alternating between 6/8 and 3/4 ~1:30 (not precise).

"Letting Go" - measure 17? What do you mean? @.@

"Noel"
Just because the cowbell plays doesn't mean it's accented. :\

The triplet values being different and it not annoying you has something to do with you still feeling it in 4, despite the lack of 4 accents per measure. Sight-reading sheet music would be much harder with the different triplet values.

Also, be careful with terminology. The only actual tie is between the 4th and 5th eighth notes. The beaming groups notes together, but ties are something different. 2/4 and 6/8 are analogous, not 4/4 and 6/8.

I'm a bit on the fence with beaming myself.

Opeth
Again, 2/4, not 4/4, with the 2-on-3 polyrhythm, but since the overall rhythm overrides, it's 6/8, all things considered.

Yeah, polyrhythms can happen on any instrument ^^

Epica
"Burn to a Cinder"
F and Gb, technically. Vamping I bII (without regard to major/minor) gives a Phrygian flavor. it's near the top of this post about modes.
Ooh, Picardy third at the end into full F-major o.o

"Universal Death Squad"
GP is very limiting; it's a lot more easier to write rhythm this way:



(~1:33-1:52, vocal or keyboard line)

In the intro, the piano is only subdividing the cello into two, not three. I don't hear it as triplets, although I think I've gathered that your ear likes hearing accents based on high notes in a line as well.

On your interpretation, I'd write eighth note equivalence, but since I don't hear it as triplets, I'd write dotted quarter = dotted quarter plus eighth note.

Keys/modes/scales/AF
Yeah, it's easier to understand no accidentals if only playing one instrument, but when the tonal center is somewhere else, it can get really confusing :\

When was Slayer in Locrian anything, though?

You're right about bar 5, thanks

As for the verses, if you listen to the choir vs. the riff before the vocals, they're playing two different things:

Chor: Em Gm Em Fm    Em Gm     Gm Ab Fm
Guit: Em (Em/F ) x2  Em (Em F) Gm Ab Fm


The tonal center is clearly E minor, but otherwise, it's vaguely Phrygian and then the ending three chords are just a non-functional transition back to Em. (but it's worth noting that Ab and Fm are related to each other)

Tesoro
Yeah, F# tonic, A borrowed from par minor. You can't exactly borrow the tonic, that basically defeats the purpose of having one tonic chord.

Basically, the past two songs' discussion has led to a good point: not everything is functional :')

This song is probably going to drive you a little nuts, particularly if you're not the Eurovision kind lol

#40
No worries, I didn't intend to take so long to reply this time either.

Tears in the Rain
Someone arguing that the E doesn't count would be you, ha. But yes, ok for that chord I think. The previous chord however you had as a Bdim ignoring the E (problematic to call it Fdim because there is no third played, same as next chord with G#). It's just a bit confusing as you move the same shape up three frets, but change which note you think of as being the root - regardless of whether you include the E or not - I suppose you'd say it's because G#dim7 resolves to Am but Ddim doesn't?

Bach
Well, time isn't meant to be strictly metronomical - unless you're practising to a metronome, or recording to a click track, or listening to any music that was recorded to a click or programmed on a computer
But sure, I get it in this particular case, it was just a question of personal taste with that example. Actually, Tears in the Rain is a good example of something that's definitely not metronomic which 'works' for me, the Bach I just wasn't feeling it in a couple of places but no big deal. And it's true that generally I tend to listen to music that is mostly in strict time, rather than not, so that may be a factor.
That video is interesting and quite funny in places.

I Will Be Earth - hmm, ok we're in the right area, now I think I can make more sense of it looking at what the conductor is doing -
from 1:07 [2 bars 6/8, 3 bars 3/4, 2 bars 6/8, 1 bar 3/4, 2 bars 6/8, 1 bar 3/4, 2 bars 6/8] maybe, then back to 3/4 at 1:30. But it could be 8 bars all of 6/8 from 1:16, and I don't really like thinking of the notes (B, G#, B, G#, B, G#) as 6/8 rather than 3/4.

Letting Go - oh, I meant the note (A) at the 17th fret at the beginning of bar 55!

Noel
Alright, 4 beats, not accents. 2/4 and 6/8 are analogous, but if I'm thinking of this as 4/4 then I'm subdividing it so that doesn't matter.
I had to check what I wrote - "If (big if) it was in 4/4, there isn't any need to beam all those six notes together and tie the quarter note triplet." I think that's fairly clear, I was only talking about one tie - what I had as a quarter note triplet you made two eighth note triplets tied.
Anyway, I'm not maintaining it should be in 4/4, just think of it as an academic exercise.
I don't think this



is any harder to read than this



and certainly easier than this




Opeth
Oh no, in this case I was talking about totally 'straight' 4/4 in other parts of the song, at the same tempo with eighth note equivalence. 6/8 with 2-on-3 polyrhythm in the part we've been discussing, absolutely

Epica
Burn to a Cinder - oh yes, of course, it's just habit to refer to that note as F# rather than Gb, like C# rather than Db, or Bb and Eb rather than A# or D#. But in context, it's Gb here, and I'll try to remember that. ok, thanks for the link, if I think b2 = Phrygian and it only becomes Dominant if the major 3rd is added, then that works.
"Ooh, Picardy third at the end into full F-major o.o"
Haha, I like your enthusiasm.

Universal Death Squad
ok, here is what I had. (I hadn't put in key signatures yet, which is something I'd got out of the habit of doing for various reasons, which I know is bad, but I'll try to put them in in future).
choir



guitar



strings



lead vocal



I don't see the need to change that part to 3/4, especially as I'm hearing it in groups of 6 16th notes. The compound time signature bar - yeah, you can't do compound time sigs in Guitar Pro, could also be 3+3+2/8, I guess I put it as 4/4 to lead into the verse in the same time sig, but maybe I could make it 8/8 and group it 3 + 3 + 2?
Key signatures: C# minor for the choir section, but also with the b5 and b2, so kind of a Locrian thing going on? You don't want to change back to C# minor after E minor when that same line is played a minor 3rd lower?

You really hear the piano in groupings of six (or 3 x 2), rather than three? I just can't do it! It's not only that those notes are higher, but they seem louder / accented as well.
I'd actually have no problem putting it in 12/8 if I could keep the tempo the same, 86 in terms of dotted quarters for the intro, then a normal quarter note = 86bpm after that, but I can't so ...
um, I can't really see eighth note equivalence working here, with 12/8 is that what you're saying? And dotted quarter = dotted quarter plus eighth note (in 6/8), ok, but I think you'd still have to start it off at 64.5bpm.
Just got an amazing drum track from somebody so almost done with the tab for this song!


Slayer in Locrian - War Ensemble is an example. Opening riff is
3p1p0-0-0-0-3p1p0-0-0-0- etc on E string, plus Bb5 and A5 chord accents. There are some extra chromatic notes in the riff ending but it's largely E Locrian. Thrash stuff in general leans heavily on the b5 and b2, usually played against the open E. The new Metallica song for instance, almost all the notes in it are from E Locrian, just with the B used as well as the Bb.

After Forever - well, the guitar is just playing root-fifth chords, but yeah I see about the choir, interesting, alternating Gm & Fm over the F5! So alright, very vaguely Phrygian, as there's Ab and Bb in the Fm and Gm choir chords. I'm not entirely clear about this word 'functional', obviously it's tied up with tonal vs modal music and functional harmony, there's more than enough stuff in that other thread to make my head spin. Seems like you use non-functional whenever there's something happening that doesn't fit neatly with your tonal centre

Tesoro
Ok, got it re chord borrowing. I still kind of think of a song like that as being somewhat ambiguous between F# major and minor, what with the bass line using the notes (as far as I remember) F#, E, A, B.

Yeah, I think the only Eurovision song I like is the Nightwish one, Sleepwalker, which didn't even make it through to the real competition
Well, I just wanted to get this done at least, I'll try to have a look at that song tomorrow.
Page 1 of 2