PT wrote:Using theory to make art is doing it backwards.
McLilith
--
Rant on music theory ignorance.
-
- KVRAF
- 2548 posts since 7 Jul, 2003 from Huntington, WV
McLilith
--
-
- KVRAF
- 2844 posts since 1 Jan, 2003
"People then tried to analyze the better works to find what it was that made it better and appealing to many people."
I'm not sure you can compare visual art to music. I think the point of music theory was to be able to communicate your musical ideas to other musicians, and to make concrete a form of art that was ephemeral. Visual art has always (mostly) been in a fixed format.
"Using theory to make art is doing it backwards."
I generally agree, although some great music has been made with a theoretical idea in mind from the start.
Some of the best music I've composed has come out of an initial drive to solve or explore a theoretical problem, something as simple as, "how long can I hold a listener's interest while remaining on one chord".
Leonard Cohen certainly understood what he was doing theoretically when he composed "Hallelujah". "It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, the major lift..." And still, it's a beautiful, heartfelt song.
I'm not sure you can compare visual art to music. I think the point of music theory was to be able to communicate your musical ideas to other musicians, and to make concrete a form of art that was ephemeral. Visual art has always (mostly) been in a fixed format.
"Using theory to make art is doing it backwards."
I generally agree, although some great music has been made with a theoretical idea in mind from the start.
Some of the best music I've composed has come out of an initial drive to solve or explore a theoretical problem, something as simple as, "how long can I hold a listener's interest while remaining on one chord".
Leonard Cohen certainly understood what he was doing theoretically when he composed "Hallelujah". "It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, the major lift..." And still, it's a beautiful, heartfelt song.
-
- Banned
- 12367 posts since 30 Apr, 2002 from i might peeramid
to apply an extreme interpretation, "doing it backwards" is an application of consciousness exploring an object.. it's still an exploration, even if the region is limited.
if a moron does art that's piss undifferentiated, it's still art, it's still real and genuine. instead of devalidating it, we should recognise it's validity as a statement of the utterly abhorrent condition of human culture.
of course, we all have lots of software and knowledge, so none of *us* really believe that it's an abhorrent culture, or we'd have issues with our priveleged conditions.
if a moron does art that's piss undifferentiated, it's still art, it's still real and genuine. instead of devalidating it, we should recognise it's validity as a statement of the utterly abhorrent condition of human culture.
of course, we all have lots of software and knowledge, so none of *us* really believe that it's an abhorrent culture, or we'd have issues with our priveleged conditions.
you come and go, you come and go. amitabha neither a follower nor a leader be tagore "where roads are made i lose my way" where there is certainty, consideration is absent.
-
- KVRian
- 1411 posts since 25 Sep, 2003 from The Dirty South, USA
I heard your track. It sounds like an intro for a horror flick. Pretty good.McLilith wrote:But you said yourself, that anyone who didn't know at least those scales was only creating "f***ing noise". The horrible truth is, I don't any blues scales. According to your statement, I am doomed to creating only "f***ing noise". You have effectively judged me and my music without even listening to my music.TVD wrote:BTW, I never heard one f***ing note off of any of your songs yet. So I can't past judgement.
That's what I didn't like about the "absolute" nature of your comments. You have some good points deep down, but you miss the mark when you phrase them in this "absolute" style of yours. There are going to be all sorts of exceptions to the "absolute rules" you seem to be handing out. I just hope you realize that.
I also hope you understand that I'm not upset with you. I was having a bit of fun with your phrase, and I didn't intend to say anything to upset you. (I hope I haven't.)
Also, if you want to properly disparage my music, at least click on that link I posted a bit earlier in this thread, and comment on the details of the actual music itself.If you want some perspective, I don't consider the piece finished, and I don't think it's anything in the way of a technical masterpiece by any means, but I do think it's interesting so far. I also don't think it's just "f***ing noise", as you insisted that someone who didn't know blues scales would be doomed to create.
Carnival Of Fates
take care,
McLilith
BTW, the pipe organ (a classical instrument
, sorry I couldn't help it!) sounds low-tech. Why you didn't like it?-
- KVRAF
- 2844 posts since 1 Jan, 2003
McLilith,
I apologise if you thought I was referring to you in my post, I wasn't at all. I thought you made some excellent points, and I completely understand and respect your opinion.
I think my point of view here is skewed by my recent frustrating experience wasting hours trying to record a pianist who refuses to learn even the basics, a trust fund arteest. It was like trying to talk with someone who will only use arm pit farts to communicate with because they believe it's a purer form of speech.
I apologise if you thought I was referring to you in my post, I wasn't at all. I thought you made some excellent points, and I completely understand and respect your opinion.
I think my point of view here is skewed by my recent frustrating experience wasting hours trying to record a pianist who refuses to learn even the basics, a trust fund arteest. It was like trying to talk with someone who will only use arm pit farts to communicate with because they believe it's a purer form of speech.
-
- KVRAF
- 2548 posts since 7 Jul, 2003 from Huntington, WV
Thanks for the kind words. So, are you now willing to retract your earlier statement that effectively said anyone trying to create music without knowing a blues scale is simply creating "f***ing noise"?TVD wrote:I heard your track. It sounds like an intro for a horror flick. Pretty good.
...or maybe you're now going to tell me you have decided "f***ing noise" actually sounds pretty good?
I'm sorry. I don't understand that question. Are you saying that I claimed to have not liked that particular organ sound? (I certainly don't remember saying that.)TVD wrote:BTW, the pipe organ (a classical instrument
For the record, I do like the organ sound I have on that piece. I think it has a certain character which is very appropriate for the intended mood.
If you think that perhaps I don't like pipe organs, that would be wrong. I do like pipe organs. I've installed and maintained a few pipe organs and I do happen to know them in ways that most "true musicians" would never be exposed to.
If you somehow got the idea that I don't like classical music, that would also be wrong.
I'm just not sure what it is that you are referring to, when you asked: "Why you didn't like it?"
Why didn't I like what?
take care,
McLilith
-
- KVRAF
- 2548 posts since 7 Jul, 2003 from Huntington, WV
I wasn't sure, but I thought you were lumping me into the same category as your pianist. Some of the statements in this thread have been a bit too all-encompassing for my taste, and it has probably made me a little extra defensive. I just want people to know that just because some people might not place a high value on mastering music theory, that doesn't mean that none of them will ever be able to compose or play any worthwhile music, or that they aren't "real" musicians.Cordelia wrote:McLilith,
I apologise if you thought I was referring to you in my post, I wasn't at all. I thought you made some excellent points, and I completely understand and respect your opinion.
I think my point of view here is skewed by my recent frustrating experience wasting hours trying to record a pianist who refuses to learn even the basics, a trust fund arteest. It was like trying to talk with someone who will only use arm pit farts to communicate with because they believe it's a purer form of speech.
I can certainly understand your awkward situation with the pianist.
For whatever it's worth, I consider myself more of a composer than an instrumentalist. I also don't claim to be extremely gifted or skilled, but I do claim to create actual music.
Maybe one day, I'll actually be considered a "real" musician.
take care,
McLilith
-
- KVRian
- 1411 posts since 25 Sep, 2003 from The Dirty South, USA
How would you know that you could ever play in a C Major or A minor scale if you didn't know how to find it on a keyboard (BTW, C Major & A Minor are all white keys)?McLilith wrote:Thanks for the kind words. So, are you now willing to retract your earlier statement that effectively said anyone trying to create music without knowing a blues scale is simply creating "f***ing noise"?TVD wrote:I heard your track. It sounds like an intro for a horror flick. Pretty good.
...or maybe you're now going to tell me you have decided "f***ing noise" actually sounds pretty good?
THAT was the real point that I was make to begin with. Without any knowledges of scales, how could you find you way?
Without any knowledge of chords, how could you find a C Major chord on a keyboard?
Yes, with your ears, you will hear. But can you see it or feel it on THAT keyboard (C E G)?
Having some kind of music theory does matter!
And BTW, at least you're not playing noise.
-
- KVRAF
- 2844 posts since 1 Jan, 2003
McLilith,
I can see why you might have gotten that impression, I wasn't very clear. I used the word "scoff" on purpose. That was meant to exclude you from my rant.
Most "real" musicians around the world don't know a thing about western music theory.
I guess, if I examine my position more closely, I am really complaining about a very specific mind set that is prevalant where I live.
Whenever I get into these kinds of discussions I am reminded of a phrase that was carved into the wet cement of a sidewalk, obviously a long time ago, near where I live here in Texas- "Irish poets, learn your craft". I don't know who or why, but I feel their frustration.
I can see why you might have gotten that impression, I wasn't very clear. I used the word "scoff" on purpose. That was meant to exclude you from my rant.
Most "real" musicians around the world don't know a thing about western music theory.
I guess, if I examine my position more closely, I am really complaining about a very specific mind set that is prevalant where I live.
Whenever I get into these kinds of discussions I am reminded of a phrase that was carved into the wet cement of a sidewalk, obviously a long time ago, near where I live here in Texas- "Irish poets, learn your craft". I don't know who or why, but I feel their frustration.
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
OK, there isn't nearly enough chaos here, so....
One thing about this whole "theory" thing is that it is a rather ambiguous term. The stuff taught as "Music Theory" is often a rather shallow distillation of the collected wisdom of many centuries. Much of it is extremely inconsistent, because the component parts are from disparate traditions that are treated as if they were one.
For instance, traditional theory has at its core the notion of consonant intervals. These intervals can be thought of as two pitches whose vibrations can be represented as a ratio between two consecutive natural numbers. An octave is 1:2, a fifth is 2:3, a fourth is 3:4, a major third is 4:5 and a minor third is 5:6.
These consonant intervals (+their 'inversions') are what all chords are made of, and they form the justification for most of the part writing 'rules' that theory students are forced to learn.
And they are a fiction. Historical fiction, to be sure, but fiction just the same. The thing is (and here some actual science comes into it) that there is a thing called the "Pythagorean comma" that creates a great deal of trouble. The short version is that if you use the above mentioned intervals (called 'just' intervals, from just intonation) and you go from c1 to c8 by a series of octaves you get a slightly different c8 than if you go from c1 to c8 by a series of fifths.
This annoying little fact of nature is no biggie if its just a bunch of people singing within the compass of two or three octaves. But if one is going to use (or create!) a piano, you have a major problem on your hands.
The piano (or rather, keyboard instruments considered as a whole) is in fact the means by which (and the cause because of which) the forms of temperament were devised, including the present form: equal temperament, which is employed by just about every instrument (save handmade folk instruments) in the world.
Equal temperament is sort of an open dirty little secret in music theory. The fact is that in equal temperament, none of the consonant intervals are really, well....consonant. They are all, except the octave, dissonant in varying degrees.
Some textbook writers will admit all this, although most of them just skip it (" Oh no, that's advanced stuff, you don't need to know that, now do your exercises like a good boy..." ). But what they won't point out is that it makes nonsense of much of what they will be telling you to do.
This is why Arnold Schoenberg felt a tormented need to invent what became first atonality, and then dodecaphony (sometimes called serialism). He deeply felt that ancient rules based on an out of date theoretical understanding were inadequate to serve as guidance to a composer who wanted to push the envelope. But even he stepped back from the abyss.
Most theorists still don't know that we have all long since fallen into it.
So theory is cool. But don't take it too seriously.
Buying a drum and learning to actually play it well is a much more useful and relevant goal for an aspiring musician in todays world.
One thing about this whole "theory" thing is that it is a rather ambiguous term. The stuff taught as "Music Theory" is often a rather shallow distillation of the collected wisdom of many centuries. Much of it is extremely inconsistent, because the component parts are from disparate traditions that are treated as if they were one.
For instance, traditional theory has at its core the notion of consonant intervals. These intervals can be thought of as two pitches whose vibrations can be represented as a ratio between two consecutive natural numbers. An octave is 1:2, a fifth is 2:3, a fourth is 3:4, a major third is 4:5 and a minor third is 5:6.
These consonant intervals (+their 'inversions') are what all chords are made of, and they form the justification for most of the part writing 'rules' that theory students are forced to learn.
And they are a fiction. Historical fiction, to be sure, but fiction just the same. The thing is (and here some actual science comes into it) that there is a thing called the "Pythagorean comma" that creates a great deal of trouble. The short version is that if you use the above mentioned intervals (called 'just' intervals, from just intonation) and you go from c1 to c8 by a series of octaves you get a slightly different c8 than if you go from c1 to c8 by a series of fifths.
This annoying little fact of nature is no biggie if its just a bunch of people singing within the compass of two or three octaves. But if one is going to use (or create!) a piano, you have a major problem on your hands.
The piano (or rather, keyboard instruments considered as a whole) is in fact the means by which (and the cause because of which) the forms of temperament were devised, including the present form: equal temperament, which is employed by just about every instrument (save handmade folk instruments) in the world.
Equal temperament is sort of an open dirty little secret in music theory. The fact is that in equal temperament, none of the consonant intervals are really, well....consonant. They are all, except the octave, dissonant in varying degrees.
Some textbook writers will admit all this, although most of them just skip it (" Oh no, that's advanced stuff, you don't need to know that, now do your exercises like a good boy..." ). But what they won't point out is that it makes nonsense of much of what they will be telling you to do.
This is why Arnold Schoenberg felt a tormented need to invent what became first atonality, and then dodecaphony (sometimes called serialism). He deeply felt that ancient rules based on an out of date theoretical understanding were inadequate to serve as guidance to a composer who wanted to push the envelope. But even he stepped back from the abyss.
Most theorists still don't know that we have all long since fallen into it.
So theory is cool. But don't take it too seriously.
Buying a drum and learning to actually play it well is a much more useful and relevant goal for an aspiring musician in todays world.
-
- KVRist
- 374 posts since 30 Aug, 2004
i don't think its bollocks at all, actually i want to learn music theory, not sure where to start though.. I guess piano-lessons is a start? or any other (please serious) ideas?
-
- KVRAF
- 13445 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
I can somewhat relate to both sides.
Proper knowledge of theory is actually helping me to make my living. I can read and preoperly interprete lead sheets, according to most styles.
I can also play most tunes in most keys instantly.
And I can arrange things in a somewhat time effective manner.
And it helps with teaching my classes too.
But, all that is getting in my way(s) as well. I would hardly ever come up with, say, a progression that was "theoretically forbidden".
So, my own stuff often might sound standardized.
I've got some things from way back when I knew nothing, and a few of them actually do sound more "fresh" than anything I'm doing these days.
As some sort of a solution I like working with songwriters, only concentrating on the actual "work" part of the progress. That's how I can put some of my knowledge to more or less good use.
Btw, this is also why I love all that VST(i) business. I'm not a synth expert by any means, my keyboard playing is pretty much less than mediocre as well (I'm a guitarist) - so it's still some sort of "fresh/new" feeling.
Proper knowledge of theory is actually helping me to make my living. I can read and preoperly interprete lead sheets, according to most styles.
I can also play most tunes in most keys instantly.
And I can arrange things in a somewhat time effective manner.
And it helps with teaching my classes too.
But, all that is getting in my way(s) as well. I would hardly ever come up with, say, a progression that was "theoretically forbidden".
So, my own stuff often might sound standardized.
I've got some things from way back when I knew nothing, and a few of them actually do sound more "fresh" than anything I'm doing these days.
As some sort of a solution I like working with songwriters, only concentrating on the actual "work" part of the progress. That's how I can put some of my knowledge to more or less good use.
Btw, this is also why I love all that VST(i) business. I'm not a synth expert by any means, my keyboard playing is pretty much less than mediocre as well (I'm a guitarist) - so it's still some sort of "fresh/new" feeling.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- Banned
- 237 posts since 7 Oct, 2004
Taken from Original Thread:
.
.
How much do you need to know about music theory ?the_nihilist wrote:...it just annoys me when people are so steadfastly ignorant when it comes to trying to learn about music.
.
.
-
- KVRian
- 697 posts since 2 Dec, 2002 from northern germany
i haven't read all the thread, i just want to say:
music theory does not suck, but "freestyle" works as well, if not better (but is more "risky").
knowing musc theory helps to write music that just sounds right, doing it without any theoretiocal guidance easily leads to crapmusic, but if you spend some time and tweak and think and work it out, it may end in very good stuff, that may be more interesting than something "traditional".
recently i've read an interview with trent reznor (i still do not like his latest album, but the interview was ok), he said he knew about writing songs on the piano, but his knowledge about the guitar was virtually inexistant, yet he likes to write songs using both, guitar and piano, because it's different.
and i guess that is a good way to go...
i'd STILL like to learn playing keyboards though
music theory does not suck, but "freestyle" works as well, if not better (but is more "risky").
knowing musc theory helps to write music that just sounds right, doing it without any theoretiocal guidance easily leads to crapmusic, but if you spend some time and tweak and think and work it out, it may end in very good stuff, that may be more interesting than something "traditional".
recently i've read an interview with trent reznor (i still do not like his latest album, but the interview was ok
), he said he knew about writing songs on the piano, but his knowledge about the guitar was virtually inexistant, yet he likes to write songs using both, guitar and piano, because it's different.and i guess that is a good way to go...
i'd STILL like to learn playing keyboards though
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 445 posts since 24 Apr, 2005
Wow. I was not expecting this kind of a monster thread stemming from my little rant. First, to deal with things in order:
McLilith, in the context of the thread, and I must stress that point, your song doesn't show any knowledge of music theory. It has no kind of chord progression, its in a really basic time signature, and the notes aren't exactly in any kind of scale. However, judging it as a song, its pretty cool. Good use of STS, some creative timbres, and a really moody dissonant feel to it. I'm going to say something you probably don't want to hear, but learning some music theory would really help you understand how to build up tension and dissonance, which would really turn the style of music you're trying to make into something very intersting.
Second, theory is really good for one major reason: actually talking to people about music. Its nice being able to tell people "hey, lets invert those I-IV-V chords when we bridge to the chorus" and have them actually know what you mean. At the very least, music theory is an established vernacular that every musician can use to easily and clearly communicate musical concepts. Its like math -- you have specialised words like multiply and divide and cosine and sum to make it much easier to communicate problems and solutions. Music theory is less about "rules of composing" and much more about a language of expression. And you don't hear people saying "learning math is just going to make me add and subtract like everyone else!"
Third, I'm a nice person, and I gave all of those people I argued with a link to the raven spiral guide to music, availible at:
http://www.ravenspiral.com/ravenspiralguide.pdf and told them that it wouldn't hurt to try learning some.
Its a perfect entry-level guide to music theory, and shows that its not hard, complex, difficult or frustrating. In fact, its pretty easy, fun, fascinating and enlightening. I have to stress that again -- MUSIC THEORY IS NOT HARD OR MYSTICAL. Give it a bit of a chance, and you'll be waking up at 2:30 am, your mind racing to the comp to get down the song idea you just got from the piece of theory you just learned to grok. I belive that theory is one of the most satisfying things you can do as a musician, the feeling of listening to your favorite songs and suddenly understanding a key bit that you learned from your theory is amazing... it brings you so much closer to the music.
[/url]
McLilith, in the context of the thread, and I must stress that point, your song doesn't show any knowledge of music theory. It has no kind of chord progression, its in a really basic time signature, and the notes aren't exactly in any kind of scale. However, judging it as a song, its pretty cool. Good use of STS, some creative timbres, and a really moody dissonant feel to it. I'm going to say something you probably don't want to hear, but learning some music theory would really help you understand how to build up tension and dissonance, which would really turn the style of music you're trying to make into something very intersting.
Second, theory is really good for one major reason: actually talking to people about music. Its nice being able to tell people "hey, lets invert those I-IV-V chords when we bridge to the chorus" and have them actually know what you mean. At the very least, music theory is an established vernacular that every musician can use to easily and clearly communicate musical concepts. Its like math -- you have specialised words like multiply and divide and cosine and sum to make it much easier to communicate problems and solutions. Music theory is less about "rules of composing" and much more about a language of expression. And you don't hear people saying "learning math is just going to make me add and subtract like everyone else!"
Third, I'm a nice person, and I gave all of those people I argued with a link to the raven spiral guide to music, availible at:
http://www.ravenspiral.com/ravenspiralguide.pdf and told them that it wouldn't hurt to try learning some.
Its a perfect entry-level guide to music theory, and shows that its not hard, complex, difficult or frustrating. In fact, its pretty easy, fun, fascinating and enlightening. I have to stress that again -- MUSIC THEORY IS NOT HARD OR MYSTICAL. Give it a bit of a chance, and you'll be waking up at 2:30 am, your mind racing to the comp to get down the song idea you just got from the piece of theory you just learned to grok. I belive that theory is one of the most satisfying things you can do as a musician, the feeling of listening to your favorite songs and suddenly understanding a key bit that you learned from your theory is amazing... it brings you so much closer to the music.
[/url]