Refreshing to see people who still do Music Theory

[simon.a.billington]

Hey all...

New to the forum, just wanted to say how i think its rurally cool out there that there are some that are still digging into their Music Theory.

Reading and writing music isn't the be all and end all of things, buts just great to see that there are still some that want to dive more deeply into music and not just drop a few loops and mash a few buttons...

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it certainly doesn't push new boundaries.

[flash-trance]

Gotta say, this post reminded me about how guilty I felt about a thought I had recently...

The thought was that maybe I would have been better off withOUT music theory. I know, I know, ridiculous, but the thing is a lot of pros who are now making good money in music are people who actually didn't have classical training in theory and maybe didn't even look at it much at all until later into their careers! Especially for things like EDM, I could see not worrying about something being too simple musically helping make a more appealing, mainstream track.

Still, I like having been classically trained. Probably I should just stop worrying about trying to appeal the masses, none of my music has ever tried to do that anyway Music theory rocks!! \m/

[simon.a.billington]

You make a valid point... It is possible to overcook something with too much theory.

I started off experimenting a lot, not with loops, but with my own arrangements. I only knew a few basics, the rest was trial and error. That can still take you places, but it's not as efficient as learning from other people's experiences.

Essentially that's all music theory is... A collection of thoughts, ideas, and theories put together over time by the experimentalists that came before us. It really is great to take advantage of that knowledge.

At some point, however I studied. Jazz.

It has this great liberating approach to composition, arrangement, improvisation and serves well in both understanding both contemporary music, and a lot about classic.

[tapper mike]

I never understood classic music from learning jazz. The superficial stuff regarding keys yeah I got that from "general knowledge"

I still don't understand much of classical music and I'm not really concerned with that. When I've had to "cover" classical pieces I've found the only thing that survives me is to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" and simply focus on the transcription in front of me.

In as far as jazz and rock I find it enjoyable that there are different theorems rather then one size fits all. The theory behind Basie isn't the theory behind Monk which isn't the theory behind Adderley which isn't the theory behind Davis. Nonetheless sometimes different means can produce similar ends.

More over I'm simply enjoying the experience or reharmonization / arranging these days. Bill Evans isn't George Shearing and I'm neither, I'm a guitarist. However having a knowledge of their methodology /theory which shapes there arrangements has been extremely useful to me in my arrangements. As have various chord/melody, fingerstyle approaches from the guitar world regardless of their genre centric flavorings. Be it Chet Atkins, Lawrence Juber, Tal Farlow, Lenny Breau or the countless others who have gone before. It's actually quite liberating to know and apply these approaches in my own transcriptions arrangements.

Scott Bradleet re imagines popular songs in ways that couldn't be achieved through electronic means due to his artful skill as an arranger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTfz36WArSU

[jancivil]

When I covered this thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWEO9tAg5YA

- not just the prelude, all seven movements -

I figured to present it to jury, which for me was one Henry Meyer. Who played 2nd vln for this group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qGw4WSpivA

For whom this piece was dedicated to.

I didn't know from Henry Meyer except he was in that group, which I certainly did recognize. Mr Meyer was reported to not think much of the guitar! I don't know if that was some bullshit or not, but it seems like I was wanting not to present 'guitar music' now, because doing well for jury as an applied music major (ie., performing on the instrument, rather than some other focus, 'theory' or 'history') seemed crucial; I was actually bucking for scholarship help at the time. But I was going in under the idea this man thought guitar was lightweight. So I had The Fear all kind of ways.

So, here is a substantial chunk of music; my guitar professor finagled an opportunity for me to write a paper for "Form and Analysis" which is from graduate school.
But I thought I really should have my stuff together on this JS Bach suite so I chose to write my paper on it. Because the 'movements' of the suite are related formally.
For example the gigue which is #7, and which is a fugato, deals with the prelude particularly. Motifs reappear and connections made within this structure, this architecture. So I did the thing as best I could. It isn't my forte to be writing papers; I had never written a paper. I was happy to have to present for a grade, to know a critical eye was looking at my little paper. I'm fuzzy on details now, but I know I wanted 'more theory' and this was the answer to my lobbying efforts. To choose to undertake 'formal analysis' of the piece I chose makes a lot of sense. Anyway, the powers-that-be were generous and gave it an A minus, noting that I could have gone into more depth.

I presented that thing for Henry Meyer and he too was very generous, granting an A for my performance.
This was my brush with REAL GRAVITAS, you know. I think taking the whole thing to this extent was the way to go. I was really fortunate to have this kind of opportunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMA9O5XBpdw
^Henry Meyer, who is a survivor of Birkenau concentration camp, narrates.



Man behind the curtain? That is a story about a charlatan. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I didn't encounter that guy in my journeys. I encountered people of substance, my masters, people to pay attention to. If I was in that position today and a young person, I think I would do more research than I could then, and go into more depth.

When I played music by Manuel de Falla, I read up on Spanish music, flamenco culture and duende.

"The duende, then, is a power, not a work. It is a struggle, not a thought. I have heard an old maestro of the guitar say, 'The duende is not in the throat; the duende climbs up inside you, from the soles of the feet.' Meaning this: it is not a question of ability, but of true, living style, of blood, of the most ancient culture, of spontaneous creation." - Federico GarcÍa Lorca

[simon.a.billington]

You don't know everything about classic if you study jazz. In fact it made me coined to run off an learn a lot of Italian!! LOL

That stuff is minimal in Jazz.

Yep fundamentals are the same, classic music prefers to use sharp keys as opposed to flat.

There is an understanding of harmonies, modulation, dynamics and arrangement that carries over, albeit with a different view on it.

Such as understanding harmonies from a Jazz perspective not classical. That might worry purists, but I don't think it should. Both are traditions you have to work extremely hard at with their own approach to the school of discipline.

[flash-trance]

Yah, gotta agree with you there simon...

Same thing applies to any kind of music actually, this would REALLY worry purists, but even rock music can't really be fully understood just because you study jazz. It's a whole different can of worms, to use an over-used cliche. Different melodies, harmonies, arrangements... the vibe is different, you could write a great jazz tune and completely fail at writing a rock tune that resonated with anyone.

That's one of the things I love about music and its many flavors Different genres seem to just "click" with different people, regardless of their simplicity or otherwise.

[Touch The Universe]

too much music theory is valid concern imo, thought same thing quite a few times. Though I don't have too much to begin with. So stuck between not enough to get the total picture, or would I create more 'interesting' melodies without it...

[flash-trance]

too much music theory is valid concern imo, thought same thing quite a few times. Though I don't have too much to begin with. So stuck between not enough to get the total picture, or would I create more 'interesting' melodies without it...

Well, not melodies so much, thanks to theory my melodies have actually been able to be much more interesting than a lot of modern dance music... the problem is, it doesn't help much when it comes to those repetitive, groove-oriented things that everyone seems to like. It also doesn't help with things like sound design, because you tend to be more focused on melodies, harmonies and arrangement and not spend time you should be spending on sound design.

That's just me though, and I've been studying a lot of sound design recently to hopefully up my game. That way I can have theory AND be an accomplished producer *thumbs up*

[MadBrain]

too much music theory is valid concern imo, thought same thing quite a few times. Though I don't have too much to begin with. So stuck between not enough to get the total picture, or would I create more 'interesting' melodies without it...

I don't think you can have too much music theory... you might try to put in too much stuff at the same time and make your melody+harmony confused (the "show off how many chords I know fusion jazz" effect), but that's just not putting in enough structure to make the whole coherent and easy to understand, it's not knowing too much theory.

[jancivil]

'too much music theory' is about the same as 'too much grammar and syntax knowledge' for a wordsmith. Only someone impatient, confused and/or overconfident is going to f**k up through knowing stuff.

[Touch The Universe]

Depends on type of music you make jancivil, for goa trance no chord progressions and working on a blank canvas so to speak is more fitting for the genre than being structured with theoretical rules IMO.

[Touch The Universe]

too much music theory is valid concern imo, thought same thing quite a few times. Though I don't have too much to begin with. So stuck between not enough to get the total picture, or would I create more 'interesting' melodies without it...

I don't think you can have too much music theory... you might try to put in too much stuff at the same time and make your melody+harmony confused (the "show off how many chords I know fusion jazz" effect), but that's just not putting in enough structure to make the whole coherent and easy to understand, it's not knowing too much theory.

Knowing chords, maj, min, though is fun to know, without even that simple knowledge you would focus entirely on sound, not what known intervals work well etc. Just how it sounds and its feel or timbre/structure, etc. Again genre dependent though I know

Just a point of view though that I thought a few times. My older tracks sounded good, different than my newer ones with music theory, in a way more creative sounding 'random' so to speak. Newer tracks are more polished for sure, but the simpler charm has been replaced mostly with theoretical structures, relevant even in 14th century?

[jancivil]

I don't know why 'music theory' would totally not help with 'sound design' unless you have a particular narrow definition of the former.
I think one should have a grasp of spacing and weight of instruments, the harmonic content of your sounds, and have investigated voicings out of orchestral music and so on for 'sound design' chops, if only on an intuitive, internalized 'ear' basis. It's not what you get with a sketchy look at it, or in Music Theory 101 class or something but I call all of it 'music theory', which in itself is an odd term anyway.

[Touch The Universe]

I don't know why 'music theory' would totally not help with 'sound design' unless you have a particular narrow definition of the former.
I think one should have a grasp of spacing and weight of instruments, the harmonic content of your sounds, and have investigated voicings out of orchestral music and so on for 'sound design' chops, if only on an intuitive, internalized 'ear' basis. It's not what you get with a sketchy look at it, or in Music Theory 101 class or something but I call all of it 'music theory', which in itself is an odd term anyway.

nothing experience in itself couldn't accomplish imo. Who's viewing music theory as narrow? These are things you could learn naturally over time. Stacking instruments together etc, gets more polished over time as you go I'd imagine.
I just wanted to throw this viewpoint out there about the 'innocent' charm simple melodies hold without the need or even desire to hold a phd in the field. Both 'paths' are valid and have strengths and weaknesses. What those are would vary greatly from person to person no doubt. Will I learn more music theory in the future to 'enhance' my productions or steer them towards a different 'path' or desired sound. Yes. These are simple hypothetical scenarios of maybe no knowledge is maybe better for some reasons