KVR Audio

robogone · Post by **robogone** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:12 pm

OK, maybe I'm throwing gas on the fire here considering how the 'educating your esthetic', etc. threads went, but as there was a lot of interest in discussing it, how about we do it again but stay broad minded and discuss it like adults?

This time, no one being patronizing or getting a superior attitude, no homophobic insults, and if we disagree about something let's just discuss it and if there's no agreement, just agree to disagree.

How about these for starters:

1. Does a formal musical education help or hinder? Is it only useful for certain genres of music, and are there genres of music where a lack of musical education is an advantage?

2. Could we all benefit from having a broader taste in music? What would anyone gain by refusing to listen to any music within a certain genre because they think they hate everything in that particular genre?

3. If there are any good books that anyone would recommend, what are they and why? Not just books on musical theory, etc., but books that might make you think differently about how music is played (what about someone's biography for example?)?

No hitting below the belt, and let's have a good clean fight!

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:19 pm

I think the answer is so simple you might call me corny...it's as useful as you want it to be...

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:23 pm

1. Personally I reckon soe formal training/knowledge ca only be usweful really - as long as one doesn't allow oneself to become bound by & possibly a slave to convention.
I've realised that I really should sit down & take time out to study chords & other theory bits & bobs at least a bit - would make it easier for me to translate the ideas I have in my head into actual music & help me finish things instead of just aimlessly meandering (which can be fun anyway).
2. It's good to keep an open mind musically as in any other area of life.
I often hear 'commercial' tunes which I completely loath, yet they may have a certain element in them - production, a particular sound or way of doing something that I find interesting.
Religiously listening to (& then producing according to those conventions)one genre only could lead to (& I reckon does lead to) bland, formulaic stultifying pap.
3. The tao of poo & the te of piglet are good books - dunno if they're relevant

What do I know anyway?

WoJ · Post by **WoJ** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:27 pm

robojam wrote:How useful is theory, and musical education?

Yes.

agincourtdb · Post by **agincourtdb** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:31 pm

Theory opens doors, for a very simple reason: knowledge is power.

The only way theory can get in the way is if the artist gets trapped in formalism, forgetting that the rules of theory are a point of departure, a bag of tricks, and not a prison.

original flipper · Post by **original flipper** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:43 pm

HI

These threads kill me - if you know where middle C is on a keyboard you have some knowledge of theory, don't you.

By default anyone using a keyboard is at a minimum going to self teach themselves some basic note and possibly chord structure.

If that wasn't the case you would have someone applying chaos theory (get it?) to their meanderings on the keyboard - in such a case the results would be pretty, well - an, aquired taste, you might say.

When people ask this question they always seem to suggest a keyboard - show me anyone who plays an acoustic instrument with any degree of recognisable ability who don't have theory knowledge of some degree.

Invariably people who can't be bothered to understand and learn an instrument come up with the anti-theory shpill - for many, everything should come with little or no effort!

BTW; that wasn't intended to put down the poster; but rather the thought that you get something for nothing attitude - you wanna make TONAL music, better go learn something about notes, tones, where middle C is.

Flipper.

DWb · Post by **DWb** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:44 pm

agincourtdb wrote:Theory opens doors, for a very simple reason: knowledge is power.

The only way theory can get in the way is if the artist gets trapped in formalism, forgetting that the rules of theory are a point of departure, a bag of tricks, and not a prison.

Yeah. Saying that learning theory would stifle your creativity is like saying that being given a hammer would stop you doing up screws.

Ildon · Post by **Ildon** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:57 pm

robojam wrote:1. Does a formal musical education help or hinder? Is it only useful for certain genres of music, and are there genres of music where a lack of musical education is an advantage?

If you make music or play an instrument, you'll learn some kind of theory to some degree. "Formal" training works for some and others... not so much, but I think any serious or even half-way serious musician understands music in a way that works for them.

Reverse Engineer and NOVAkILL are good examples of people who haven't had "formal" training, but understand music their own way just because they have experience with it.

2. Could we all benefit from having a broader taste in music? What would anyone gain by refusing to listen to any music within a certain genre because they think they hate everything in that particular genre?

Yup! I don't think there's anything to gain by saying "such and such genre sucks." But I can definitely understand why some people avoid certain genres of music. Sometimes a certain style doesn't do anything for someone.

3. If there are any good books that anyone would recommend, what are they and why? Not just books on musical theory, etc., but books that might make you think differently about how music is played (what about someone's biography for example?)?

Ebenezer Prout's works are wonderful. His "Instrumentation" and "Orchestration" books are great. A little hard to read at first, though.

Really the best way to learn for me was to just go out and do it and listen to all kinds of music and think, "can I do this?" and try to do it.

robogone · Post by **robogone** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:13 pm

I'm really for taking the middle ground on the theory thing - it's about where I am personally. Knowing the theory is really advantageous and can open your eyes to a lot of how to's and what makes something sound good without having to hear it first. On the other hand, most of my really inventive stuff comes from just playing it, and making mistakes that probably wouldn't be so easy to work out from theory.

Not only that, no one's offered to ass rape me yet, so I assume the thread is going well...

Ildon · Post by **Ildon** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:21 pm

robojam wrote:I'm really for taking the middle ground on the theory thing - it's about where I am personally. Knowing the theory is really advantageous and can open your eyes to a lot of how to's and what makes something sound good without having to hear it first. On the other hand, most of my really inventive stuff comes from just playing it, and making mistakes that probably wouldn't be so easy to work out from theory.

Yep. I know exactly what you're talking about. I just have this to add: some of my best work came from "earballing" it and I thought the same way you did, but then I really sat down and wondered, "why does this sound good?" Then I found out why after studying my work. I found out many of my "mistakes" weren't mistakes at all.

Not only that, no one's offered to ass rape me yet, so I assume the thread is going well...

Where's arke when you need him?

agincourtdb · Post by **agincourtdb** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:23 pm

robojam wrote: On the other hand, most of my really inventive stuff comes from just playing it, and making mistakes that probably wouldn't be so easy to work out from theory.

Ultimately knowledge of theory makes those "happy accidents" occur more often, makes them reproduceable, and lets you understand why they sound good. I.E., less fishing, more catching.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:27 pm

not the last time I'll do this

reading all the posts it still boils down to

Hink wrote:I think the answer is so simple you might call me corny...it's as useful as you want it to be...

robenestobenz · Post by **robenestobenz** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:35 pm

Hink wrote:not the last time I'll do this

reading all the posts it still boils down to

Hink wrote:I think the answer is so simple you might call me corny...it's as useful as you want it to be...

But never anywhere near as useful as I've wanted it to be.

kevvvvv · Post by **kevvvvv** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:46 pm

I think a musical education is a great thing - almost any sort of musical education.

It adds structure to talent.

Which doesn't mean talent can't devise its own structure.

But whatever talent you have, a musical education will make more of it.

...

As a by-the-way to this, I've seen music wannabees shrug off any formal learning method (Hendrix didn't take lessons, man), only to end up on their arses after a few years, and regretting not taking a more disciplined approach earlier on.

OTOH I've seen music colleges crush the musicality out of students.

And for sure I've heard some crap sounds on kvr that would most definitely have benefited from a musical education.

Funny old world.

Git an edication

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:53 pm

robenestobenz wrote:
Hink wrote:not the last time I'll do this

reading all the posts it still boils down to

Hink wrote:I think the answer is so simple you might call me corny...it's as useful as you want it to be...
But never anywhere near as useful as I've wanted it to be.

are you sure about that?