books for everything.

[Equilibrium]

Give dreammaka a break. He poorly expressed a alright idea. That certain people think that you learn everything out a book and don't actually get your hands dirty making music.

I know a 15 year old kid who freaks the shit out of me, he can compose Baroque music perfectly. If you played one of his tracks against one of Bach's you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, really. This kid has never studied composition however. He is good cello, and so so at piano. He just does it.

Now, that's not how everyone goes about things, I've probably got 12 books on music making and have learned a lot from them. But, where I truely learned was smashing about on drums, pinking about on pianos and twating about on Cubase.

Some people have to be told what to think, believe, do... everything. You can't be told how to do a lot of stuff in music, I think that is fair to say.

[nuffink]

I've never heard anybody, not one person in my whole life, suggest you can learn everything about music from a book.

I constantly hear, however, variations on the theme of "you can learn theory yes - but it won't give you ability, a good ear or interesting ideas". Usually followed up by protestations of how they have studied it themselves.

You're talking rubbish.

The logical conclusion of the "you dont need no theory" argument is "if you aren't born with it, don't bother".

That's a depressingly negative philosophy.

Is there any other area where normally rational people think learning is a bad idea?

Learn the theory. It's not hard and if you're already good it'll make you better. If you're rubbish, how else do you think you're going to get good?

And one final point...

I've never heard anybody who knows their stuff express a wish to revert to a state of ignorance. It's only the ignorant who express a desire to stay that way.

[dreammaka]

Some people have to be told what to think, believe, do... everything. You can't be told how to do a lot of stuff in music, I think that is fair to say.

you condensed all of my thoughts into a few lines.

as I wrote before as a non-native English speaker
sometimes it's hard for me to express idea clearly in English.

I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say.

[Jbravo]

I constantly hear, however, variations on the theme of "you can learn theory yes - but it won't give you ability, a good ear or interesting ideas". Usually followed up by protestations of how they have studied it themselves.

You're talking rubbish.

well interesting ideas require creativity - plenty of people are not the slightest bit creative though they still like the idea of being a "cool" musician. Being able to carry a tune or tap out a rhythm does require innate ability which some people just don't have and never will have no matter how much they study the subject. I'm crap at sport but reading books about sports science are not going to help. But good luck to them, I wouldn't argue they shouldn't try, it just seems kind of futile.

[nuffink]

I constantly hear, however, variations on the theme of "you can learn theory yes - but it won't give you ability, a good ear or interesting ideas". Usually followed up by protestations of how they have studied it themselves.

You're talking rubbish.

well interesting ideas require creativity - plenty of people are not the slightest bit creative though they still like the idea of being a "cool" musician. Being able to carry a tune or tap out a rhythm does require innate ability which some people just don't have and never will have no matter how much they study the subject. I'm crap at sport but reading books about sports science are not going to help. But good luck to them, I wouldn't argue they shouldn't try, it just seems kind of futile.

Your whole idea of music seems to be built around some romantic idea of the artist as a god-given channel for genius. It aint like that.
Every decent artist I've ever met in any field, works hard at it. If they didn't I probably wouldn't be interested. I want to see or hear a bit of sweat in my art.

[Jbravo]

well yes they say it's 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration, but with no inspiration at all you won't achieve very much

[nuffink]

well yes they say it's 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration, but with no inspiration at all you won't achieve very much

So far your argument is...

If you aint born with it don't bother.
If you are, you don't need to learn anything.

Sorry, that may work for you, I'm human.

[Jbravo]

Nope I'm not saying that at all, but not everyone can be good at everything - it would be deluded to think so. We don't get to pick what talents we want, though I do think we all have different ones, it's just a matter of finding what they are. I'm sure the artists you admire have natural ability or they would never have managed to become artists in the first place, but that doesn't mean that all their work was achieved without effort and self-discipline.

[dreammaka]

I constantly hear, however, variations on the theme of "you can learn theory yes - but it won't give you ability, a good ear or interesting ideas". Usually followed up by protestations of how they have studied it themselves.

You're talking rubbish.

well interesting ideas require creativity - plenty of people are not the slightest bit creative though they still like the idea of being a "cool" musician. Being able to carry a tune or tap out a rhythm does require innate ability which some people just don't have and never will have no matter how much they study the subject. I'm crap at sport but reading books about sports science are not going to help. But good luck to them, I wouldn't argue they shouldn't try, it just seems kind of futile.

Your whole idea of music seems to be built around some romantic idea of the artist as a god-given channel for genius. It aint like that.
Every decent artist I've ever met in any field, works hard at it. If they didn't I probably wouldn't be interested. I want to see or hear a bit of sweat in my art.

I agree with you that
without working hard, you wont' be good.

maybe the whole thread is going different way but
my initial thoughts were, I think some people had to be
taught in everyway and they don't think for themself.

yes you can learn from books but
you create music from your mind not from book.
book won't write a hit song for you.
it'll help you make a hit song but it won't write for you.
and many people around me believe that
only way to get better is just read a lot of book without
trying out for themself or interpellate the book to your music.

I can see clearly now that I didn't express my thougths clearly on
the first.
that was my mistake.

[RapRogue]

I just read a book on world peace, and now I am watching
Scarface.

There is equanimity in the storms eye, or in this case
the third eye levitating in an arid void as the paradox is the devoid of 'chaotic' movement.

That being said, a book opens a window into another
world, perceived in an unique way, and if you're not
the author...it will challenge your world.

That being said, you can read all about how to handle
pressure, but that in it self is no guarantee that you
will not crack when under pressure.

[Equilibrium]

I constantly hear, however, variations on the theme of "you can learn theory yes - but it won't give you ability, a good ear or interesting ideas". Usually followed up by protestations of how they have studied it themselves.

You're talking rubbish.

well interesting ideas require creativity - plenty of people are not the slightest bit creative though they still like the idea of being a "cool" musician. Being able to carry a tune or tap out a rhythm does require innate ability which some people just don't have and never will have no matter how much they study the subject. I'm crap at sport but reading books about sports science are not going to help. But good luck to them, I wouldn't argue they shouldn't try, it just seems kind of futile.

Your whole idea of music seems to be built around some romantic idea of the artist as a god-given channel for genius. It aint like that.
Every decent artist I've ever met in any field, works hard at it. If they didn't I probably wouldn't be interested. I want to see or hear a bit of sweat in my art.

It's a bit of both. There is a modern day notion of "you can do anything if you try hard enough"... no you can't, it's fair to say "you can do far more than you expect when you believe in yourself" yes but you can't do anything. I'm 5`5", I'm not a very fast runner, I will never be the worlds 100m sprinter no matter how hard I try. Tim Henman won't ever be the worlds greatest tennis player.

Before you say that I'm taking your words out of context nuffink I'll show you where this is going... There is along with this notion a notion that hard work will get you where you want in the end. I'm not saying your saying that either... but hard work isn't everything, Miles Davis didn't work very hard, he just had an immense tallent, the same goes for Mozart he wrote an Opera at age five. He didn't even have time to have worked hard in life, although he did go on to.

First there must be musical tallent, then the hard work creates excellence. It's sour pill for a lot of people who think they can make themselves musical when they actually are not. I've noticed with sucessful artists, their hard work ethic, but also their love of what they do. It's as though they were made to do what they do. And, getting back to the point of the thread, reading a bunch of books won't help you with that.

Peace

(ps I haven't (to my knowledge) listen to any of your music so don't for a second think I'm saying you don't have musical tallent )

[Equilibrium]

Nope I'm not saying that at all, but not everyone can be good at everything - it would be deluded to think so. We don't get to pick what talents we want, though I do think we all have different ones, it's just a matter of finding what they are. I'm sure the artists you admire have natural ability or they would never have managed to become artists in the first place, but that doesn't mean that all their work was achieved without effort and self-discipline.

well said.

[whyterabbyt]

I've read various bits and things of music theory. Unfortunately I was born without the ability to relate any of it to what I actually hear. Whilst I can find a 3rd or a 5th on a keyboard (mostly), I cant actually hear a chord and know there's a 3rd or a 5th in it.

On the other hand I can hear something and know (for myself) whether it 'works' in its context. The theoretical side doesnt really help me with that at all. Spending a lot of my time experimenting, without worrying whether or not it fits with 'theory' or not does, however.

[nuffink]

Nope I'm not saying that at all, but not everyone can be good at everything - it would be deluded to think so. We don't get to pick what talents we want, though I do think we all have different ones, it's just a matter of finding what they are. I'm sure the artists you admire have natural ability or they would never have managed to become artists in the first place, but that doesn't mean that all their work was achieved without effort and self-discipline.

I agree, we can't all be good at everything. But we can all be better at something.

The vast majority of musicians are never going to be great. We all rise to our own level of incompetence.
In order to progress you have to learn. It's the same in any field.

[nuffink]

Before you say that I'm taking your words out of context nuffink I'll show you where this is going... There is along with this notion a notion that hard work will get you where you want in the end. I'm not saying your saying that either... but hard work isn't everything, Miles Davis didn't work very hard, he just had an immense tallent, the same goes for Mozart he wrote an Opera at age five. He didn't even have time to have worked hard in life, although he did go on to.

I'm sorry but thats wrong on so many levels.

I'm a huge Miles fan. I listen to him constanly. I've also read a few books on him. He worked like a bastard. He also knew the theory inside and out. If you want to work in jazz that's the bottom line. No matter how gifted you are, you won't get a look-in unless you know the theory.
Same with Mozart. A genius but also a jobbing musician who cranked out work to order, and in order to do so learned (and taught) the theory.

But what's worse is the assumption that if you can't rise to this level of brilliance, your may as well not bother.
There wouldn't be too much music about if this were the case.