Do I need to know any more theory or do I know enough?
-
- KVRist
- 342 posts since 8 Sep, 2005 from Seattle
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I listened long enough for the gist of the thesis: keep fumbling along. He's "not sure" how essentiallly enjoying knowing from observation of replicated TESTED results is going to help "anyone" in their musical endeavors. So his not-even-half-assed anecdotal (description of what will be a lack for any child, all things being +/- equal, being conversant with reading music) account is advice?
But understanding physical reality, of the components of a machine is self-evidently utilitarian and laudable. NB: acoustics is physical reality; concords etc are easily measurable.
it's idiotic. Dunning-Kruger rules OK.
But understanding physical reality, of the components of a machine is self-evidently utilitarian and laudable. NB: acoustics is physical reality; concords etc are easily measurable.
it's idiotic. Dunning-Kruger rules OK.
-
- KVRAF
- 15279 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_st ... competence
What he anecdotally described with his job interview as a camera man, can be seen as being in phase "Unconscious competence". He does a reasonable good job, but since he cannot explain how / why it could also be "Unconscious incompetence". Is it "incompetence" if the results are good?
Dunning Kruger sufferers are plain incompetent. They heard something but it is irrelevant.
Anecdotal: this is not. Lots of people get by fine with not much theoretical baggage.
Who are we to judge how much is "needed"? We all have different needs.
What he anecdotally described with his job interview as a camera man, can be seen as being in phase "Unconscious competence". He does a reasonable good job, but since he cannot explain how / why it could also be "Unconscious incompetence". Is it "incompetence" if the results are good?
Dunning Kruger sufferers are plain incompetent. They heard something but it is irrelevant.
Anecdotal: this is not. Lots of people get by fine with not much theoretical baggage.
Who are we to judge how much is "needed"? We all have different needs.
Last edited by BertKoor on Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. 
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
-
- KVRAF
- 6427 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
I read Shoebridge as
"don't hold back on music making because you are not highly educated!"
That's the way photography worked for him and apply to music too.
OP has a title of this thread suggest that you might need to know more theory.
And did some name dropping over things he thought he knew well enough.
- but how did this affect the music he made?
I bought a book long ago if name was "Composing for guitar player" or something like that.
But annoyed that everything was in notation, I was not comfortable with that. I emailed author and this book would be great if it had tabs instead.
- he meant that it is good to know notation
I thought, of course it is, but why have it as pre-requisite for composing?
- if you already do sight-reading is the book of any value?
In my view this is purely someone that have a hard time to see things in the students perspective. I would call him a poor teacher.
I have another example working as a teacher myself in the 80's at a correspondence school for electronics. So head master at school told this anecdote as he constantly hunt for writers to write courses for the school.
Somebody that applied to write usually had to write a lessons and head master would read it through how they write and if a student could understand etc. After all this is not classes with teachers around, other than over phone or similar.
There were one professor that did an attempt to write for a course but head master told him he must make it simple to understand so anybody could follow. This was way too complicated and high level, head master meant.
He replied:
- but what will my colleagues think of me then?
He liked expressing things above the understanding of the listeners. To show how much he knew, compared to actually raise the level of the students understanding.
More interested in his ego, one could say. And a poor teacher IMO.
"don't hold back on music making because you are not highly educated!"
That's the way photography worked for him and apply to music too.
OP has a title of this thread suggest that you might need to know more theory.
And did some name dropping over things he thought he knew well enough.
- but how did this affect the music he made?
I bought a book long ago if name was "Composing for guitar player" or something like that.
But annoyed that everything was in notation, I was not comfortable with that. I emailed author and this book would be great if it had tabs instead.
- he meant that it is good to know notation
I thought, of course it is, but why have it as pre-requisite for composing?
- if you already do sight-reading is the book of any value?
In my view this is purely someone that have a hard time to see things in the students perspective. I would call him a poor teacher.
I have another example working as a teacher myself in the 80's at a correspondence school for electronics. So head master at school told this anecdote as he constantly hunt for writers to write courses for the school.
Somebody that applied to write usually had to write a lessons and head master would read it through how they write and if a student could understand etc. After all this is not classes with teachers around, other than over phone or similar.
There were one professor that did an attempt to write for a course but head master told him he must make it simple to understand so anybody could follow. This was way too complicated and high level, head master meant.
He replied:
- but what will my colleagues think of me then?
He liked expressing things above the understanding of the listeners. To show how much he knew, compared to actually raise the level of the students understanding.
More interested in his ego, one could say. And a poor teacher IMO.
-
- Banned
- 580 posts since 27 May, 2023
Music theory is a thing in and of itself - and there are many aspects to theory and many traditions. There are also many excellent musicians who (consciously) know lots of theory and many who dont just as there are many great writers who know lots of linguistics and/or grammar (they are different) and many who do not.
There should be no problem being a theoretician if that is your major interest just as there should be no problem being a practitioner who has little interest. Here are two practitioners with little or no 'theory' within the western tradition - and in the case of Oum Kalthoum within the Arabic tradition.
https://youtu.be/OvxNs4GyeUg
https://youtu.be/b_piL8W0UKM
and here is someone who knew her shit
https://youtu.be/wUTKqcPTstA
all are astonishing musicians. Just follow your interests and dont feel guilty about it. It's music, not weapons design or fossil fuel extraction
There should be no problem being a theoretician if that is your major interest just as there should be no problem being a practitioner who has little interest. Here are two practitioners with little or no 'theory' within the western tradition - and in the case of Oum Kalthoum within the Arabic tradition.
https://youtu.be/OvxNs4GyeUg
https://youtu.be/b_piL8W0UKM
and here is someone who knew her shit
https://youtu.be/wUTKqcPTstA
all are astonishing musicians. Just follow your interests and dont feel guilty about it. It's music, not weapons design or fossil fuel extraction
Last edited by neverbefore on Sun Jun 18, 2023 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 15279 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
They are "just fumbling along" and as long as they are happy with it that's fine
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
No. not even close to my meaning. your construct has ''the best" just a' fumbling along, which is nonsense.
Why is WHAT THEY KNOW/HAVE EXPERIENCED vanished there?
this whole tack is pointless, the gormless need for validation
Why is WHAT THEY KNOW/HAVE EXPERIENCED vanished there?
this whole tack is pointless, the gormless need for validation
-
- KVRAF
- 15279 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
The OP has a track record of pointless threads that attract us like moths to fire:
* What genre should I produce?
* What producer name should I use?
* Do I know enough theory?
Insecurity... it's killing.
* What genre should I produce?
* What producer name should I use?
* Do I know enough theory?
Insecurity... it's killing.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
-
- KVRist
- 342 posts since 8 Sep, 2005 from Seattle
To me there seems to be a miscommunication: Those not interested in formal theory perceive intellectual big dick energy from those who are and embrace self deprecating language like "fumbling along" or "naivety". Formal theory enthusiasts in turn interpret this reaction as a kind of anti intellectual domination. In fact, neither camp is the underdog here, we all agree chops are a must and whichever way you get there, the product speaks for itself. If the product is good, usually the musician has the wherewithal to talk about music abstractly with other musicians regardless of which camp they come from.
On the video, apart from the debate we're having, I sense some insecure energy from the dude and of course he's only telling one side of the story. For all we know the big cheese interviewing him would've been perfectly happy for dude to describe his theoretical contstruct in his own, informal terms. It's a bit of a stereotype that formal theory enthusiasts are such hardasses all the time.
On the video, apart from the debate we're having, I sense some insecure energy from the dude and of course he's only telling one side of the story. For all we know the big cheese interviewing him would've been perfectly happy for dude to describe his theoretical contstruct in his own, informal terms. It's a bit of a stereotype that formal theory enthusiasts are such hardasses all the time.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I care not one whit if dashed-photog-dreams dude et al may only ever "fumble along" or ever gets conversant with notated music. tossing that vid in the mix here sans comment (& as though the glaring basic fallacies aren't immediately clear) is just impertinent. I'm also confident I have done no interpretation or projected anything. Nor do I, except to point out the mistake, consider there to be debate points therein.
The only thing that resembles this "theoretician" I know from will be a researcher under the auspices of a university, and this is about big ideas and contribution to extant thinking on a subject. It has to mean something musically.
The only thing that resembles this "theoretician" I know from will be a researcher under the auspices of a university, and this is about big ideas and contribution to extant thinking on a subject. It has to mean something musically.
-
- KVRist
- 275 posts since 26 Mar, 2017
Regarding that video by Tim Shoebridge, here's what I think:
The "compositional device" type of knowledge is what (may) allow a learner to go beyond initial personal comfort zones, and work towards results which would have been inconceivable from just fumbling around.
Conversely, just fumbling around - that is, being unconsciously guided by one's tools, inspirations and expectations - can lead to discoveries which might have been inconceivable from pre-existing theoretical perspectives.
So the approaches are not exclusive; rather, they complement eachother.
***
For what it's worth, in the story Shoebridge told, I would not have hired then-him as a camera operator, either. I'd had sent him off with recommendations to learn basic theory and terminology required for the job - perhaps with a suggestion for a vocational college, or particular subjects to study - and asked to come back later if he still wished to work as a camera operator.
In jobs which involve teamwork (camera operator usually being among them), a set of basic industry-standard things need to be learned, so that when a particular combination of choices and methods is called for, the camera operator can do it right there and then - no fumbling, no looking at manuals etc.
Apprenticeship would've been another choice, if his intuitively-made photos were a sign of talent I'd like to hire for the company. The purpose of apprentice period would've then been the same as vocational training: learning some common concepts and professional vocabulary, before being given a position of responsibility.
Somewhat offtopic, I wonder how much Stanley Kubrick knew about theory of photography when he got his first job. From what I can recall based on documentaries, by "2001: A Space Odyssey", he was well aware about theoretical and technical aspects.
George Lucas is another interesting example - he seemed to know a lot about the medium early on.
***
Which, in turn, brings to mind John Williams.
I wonder what was his level of theoretical knowledge at the time he became a professional film composer - and, in context of KvR, whether jancivil would find flaws in his skills or methods, at any stage of his career
The "compositional device" type of knowledge is what (may) allow a learner to go beyond initial personal comfort zones, and work towards results which would have been inconceivable from just fumbling around.
Conversely, just fumbling around - that is, being unconsciously guided by one's tools, inspirations and expectations - can lead to discoveries which might have been inconceivable from pre-existing theoretical perspectives.
So the approaches are not exclusive; rather, they complement eachother.
***
For what it's worth, in the story Shoebridge told, I would not have hired then-him as a camera operator, either. I'd had sent him off with recommendations to learn basic theory and terminology required for the job - perhaps with a suggestion for a vocational college, or particular subjects to study - and asked to come back later if he still wished to work as a camera operator.
In jobs which involve teamwork (camera operator usually being among them), a set of basic industry-standard things need to be learned, so that when a particular combination of choices and methods is called for, the camera operator can do it right there and then - no fumbling, no looking at manuals etc.
Apprenticeship would've been another choice, if his intuitively-made photos were a sign of talent I'd like to hire for the company. The purpose of apprentice period would've then been the same as vocational training: learning some common concepts and professional vocabulary, before being given a position of responsibility.
Somewhat offtopic, I wonder how much Stanley Kubrick knew about theory of photography when he got his first job. From what I can recall based on documentaries, by "2001: A Space Odyssey", he was well aware about theoretical and technical aspects.
George Lucas is another interesting example - he seemed to know a lot about the medium early on.
***
Which, in turn, brings to mind John Williams.
I wonder what was his level of theoretical knowledge at the time he became a professional film composer - and, in context of KvR, whether jancivil would find flaws in his skills or methods, at any stage of his career
-
- KVRist
- 82 posts since 6 Jun, 2012 from USA
I mean the problem with the premise is
Suppose I said , is this enough math to a theoretical physicist …..
Or even in the audio realm
is this enough mixing knowledge ( volume slider, compression , eq , side chainz )
enough for what ?
Is it enough to further decrease the signal to noise ratio on Spotify , definitely.
What makes people a little cynical, well me , is the arbitrary limit you place because I’m sure the end goal is just to sound like everything else. I would understand that approach if there was a commercial reason behind it 99% of the people asking these questions will never work in music. So why deprive yourself.
The best way to go about it is listen to music you like , and try to understand that music. Hopefully your tastes are broad and you never run out of concepts to learn.
I mean the whole exercise of music theory is just a way to parse relationship to recreate something someone already did. It isn’t a theory.
There are ways to learn it that work and there are other ways that work less.
Suppose I said , is this enough math to a theoretical physicist …..
Or even in the audio realm
is this enough mixing knowledge ( volume slider, compression , eq , side chainz )
enough for what ?
Is it enough to further decrease the signal to noise ratio on Spotify , definitely.
What makes people a little cynical, well me , is the arbitrary limit you place because I’m sure the end goal is just to sound like everything else. I would understand that approach if there was a commercial reason behind it 99% of the people asking these questions will never work in music. So why deprive yourself.
The best way to go about it is listen to music you like , and try to understand that music. Hopefully your tastes are broad and you never run out of concepts to learn.
I mean the whole exercise of music theory is just a way to parse relationship to recreate something someone already did. It isn’t a theory.
There are ways to learn it that work and there are other ways that work less.
-
- KVRian
- 821 posts since 9 Jun, 2020
Minor thing, but the thing about the Dunning-Kruger effect is that no one is immune. Everyone is unwittingly incompetent in some part of their life.
