How to be better at theory ?
- Rad Grandad
- 38044 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine
2 reports on the 1st page from 2 different members, I know some time has passed but let's keep it civil please.
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
That's your version of from 'many sides... from many sides.', what. Way late to come in like that, I don't see the point. Sorry, I don't know what action was taken.
But there is a huge difference between focusing on problems with someone's statements and creating a story about a person seeking to smear them because you can't take the heat (or even make the argument you pretended you have, 'stratology'). You start in cherry-picking a statement distorting it to top somebody, and continued on distorting statements...
But there is a huge difference between focusing on problems with someone's statements and creating a story about a person seeking to smear them because you can't take the heat (or even make the argument you pretended you have, 'stratology'). You start in cherry-picking a statement distorting it to top somebody, and continued on distorting statements...
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Any time you apply something from your experience where you understand how it works, you've done 'music theory'. It isn't theory, it's an examination of known practices.
Paul McCartney knew nothing of the terms, but examine his music and it's just very knowledgable.
Paul McCartney knew nothing of the terms, but examine his music and it's just very knowledgable.
-
- KVRian
- 1003 posts since 1 Apr, 2002 from Spain
First time I see this. Where do you see that a post has been reported?Hink wrote:2 reports on the 1st page from 2 different members, I know some time has passed but let's keep it civil please.
Sorry to be off topic.
Best Regards
Roman Empire
Roman Empire
-
- KVRian
- 1003 posts since 1 Apr, 2002 from Spain
Ah, got it - thanks!jancivil wrote:He's the moderator, he saw them in the reports box or whatever.
Best Regards
Roman Empire
Roman Empire
- KVRist
- 149 posts since 28 Sep, 2006
If you start applying musical theory to Trance music it will stop being Trance. just one man's opinion:)
- KVRAF
- 4881 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki
With all respect - one of the funniest comment I´ve read for a long time. Thank you.Atza wrote:If you start applying musical theory to Trance music it will stop being Trance. just one man's opinion:)
You "apply" music theory, whatever music you write or anylyze, intentionally or un-.
Its a bit same if you said "you don´t apply grammar in your speech".
-
- KVRAF
- 2565 posts since 2 Jul, 2010
Trance music is a case where a little bit of formal music theory would go a long way, actually. You need to be able to construct a nice chord progression to do those epic buildups and you don't generally want to modulate the key. All you need to know is basic counterpoint and cadences and you can knock out as many trance buildups as you like, far more quickly and easily than by simple trial-and-error.
By comparison, it's probably less rewarding for something like dubstep where there is more dissonance and chord progressions are less clear. But I'd love to hear the dubstep that a skilled traditional composer could arrange. (James Blake has serious classical chops and it doesn't exactly hurt his music!)
By comparison, it's probably less rewarding for something like dubstep where there is more dissonance and chord progressions are less clear. But I'd love to hear the dubstep that a skilled traditional composer could arrange. (James Blake has serious classical chops and it doesn't exactly hurt his music!)
-
- KVRist
- 164 posts since 4 Dec, 2006
While jancivil's responses are almost always rather rude and inflammatory, she is not wrong in criticizing this statement of yours.stratology wrote:Music theory used to understand music in the era of Bach is completely different to the theory used to understand Beethoven…
To say that the theory needed to understand Baroque-era and Common Practice/Romantic-era music is "completely different" is at least an overstatement.
There are certainly differences, but they mostly come down to evolutions in style and the expansion of harmonic syntax. But the "words" are all the same. As jan stated, a Roman Numeral analysis works just as well (or just as poorly, depending on the piece) for Bach as it does for Beethoven. Schenkerian analysis reveals the same underlying structural principles of the tonal system whether applied to Bach or Beethoven (or Schubert, or Brahms).
The real paradigm shifts occur on the chronological ends of the Baroque–>CPP–>Romantic continuum: the gradual development of the tonal system from the polyphonic styles of the Franco-Flemish composers of the 15th–16th Centuries and the previously mentioned move away from the tonal system in the early 20th Century. In the case of the latter the shift was an exponential one, while the former move toward tonality was a long crawl that truly started with the Greeks and moved on through Gregorian chant in the Medieval period, the emergence of polyphony and the development of notation systems in the 13th and 14th Centuries, on up to the 17th Century.
tl;dr Bach and Beethoven were using the same basic musical materials even though they used them in often vastly different ways.
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
while 'almost always' evades definition, statistically that's not even true in this threadstringtapper wrote: jancivil's responses are almost always rather rude and inflammatory
kind of a rude thing to start with, I'd say.
how ya been?
-
- KVRist
- 164 posts since 4 Dec, 2006
But what about the part where I agreed with you??jancivil wrote:while 'almost always' evades definition, statistically that's not even true in this thread
kind of a rude thing to start with, I'd say.
I've been spending too much money on Eurorack modular madness lately!jancivil wrote:how ya been?
-
- KVRer
- 6 posts since 2 May, 2009
I think that in music and especially in harmony there is no real theory anymore which are useful .
You can use any type of chords as long as the voice leading is good it will sound good .
Patrick Mimran
You can use any type of chords as long as the voice leading is good it will sound good .
Patrick Mimran