The ignorance is bliss fallacy

[Toxikator]

No, it's not parallel 5ths because it's not contrapuntal. It's monophonic, the 5ths are purely timbral and have nothing to do with harmony.

You see this sort of monophonic imitation in 5ths all the time.

[VicDiesel]

No, it's not parallel 5ths because it's not contrapuntal. It's monophonic, the 5ths are purely timbral and have nothing to do with harmony.

You see this sort of monophonic imitation in 5ths all the time.

I have no idea who you're responsing to here, but I think you're a mile off the mark. The baroque was obsessed with writing monophonic music that implied polyphony.

So that way even in monophonic writing you can have parallel fifths, and I'm sure they avoided them as much as in true polyphonic writing.

I'd like to see some f your "all the time" examples.

Victor.

[Topiness]

It's monophonic, the 5ths are purely timbral

Where are you drawing the distinction? In the absence of the distortion, any musician can tell the difference between a sounded fifth and a single note, unless the single note has been harmonically constructed to sound like a fifth (quite easy to do on an additive synthesizer).

And if you mean it's because of the distortion - then that was my point exactly.

Fair enough if you don't like the example, but I'm sure you can think of many other new instruments/sounds you've played where the first thing you had to do was take it as you find it, and not try to force it into some previous paradigm. Modern synths, for example, can respond to the player's touch in a way entirely differently to any acoustic instrument.

Listen to Global Communication's 76 14, and tell me that it's not more moving and just less silly than switched on bach.

And then imagine the tracks from 76 14 played by a string quartet - they'd be rubbish. But with the modulation and effects they put onto the synths, it's perfectly balanced.

[Toxikator]

No, what you're doing is saying "Rock music uses power chords so that discounts theory", while it doesn't.

The reality of it is lines moving in imitation are perfectly valid in theory, they just break the rules of COUNTERPOINT. Since powerchord riffs are not contrapuntal it doesn't matter.

And it's not just distortion and guitars, either; many pipe organ stops (including the Prinzipal stops most frequrently associated with "huge" sounds like the ones used in Toccata and Fugue in G Minor) are built on "powerchords", or stacked fifths, rather than just the harmonic series.

[Topiness]

No, what you're doing is saying "Rock music uses power chords so that discounts theory", while it doesn't.

On page 2 of the thread I said that theory is 'incredibly valuable'. So that's a slight misrepresentation.

The reality of it is lines moving in imitation are perfectly valid in theory

OK... but a minute ago you called this 'monophonic'. 'Lines moving in imitation' clearly refers to perceivably separate lines. But anyway, this was only my example, not my point.

now can you give me an example of something that's NOT valid in theory?

[Toxikator]

No. There is no such thing as "not valid in theory". Studying theory is designed to give you a perspective on various modes of composition.

For example, it is "valid in theory" to play all 12 notes of the chromatic scale. This is most often represented as a form of Serialism. It's valid within the limits of theory, but you'd do well to know the kinds of sounds it produces, the guidelines for using it, and that when writing a 3-chord, 4-bar progression in C minor employing a serialist melody is probably not the best idea (unless you want a disjunct sound).

Theory is not so much a set of rules as it is just a way of associating the actions you take with the sounds that result. It's up to you to determine what sounds you want; studying theory just makes it (much) easier to reach your goals.

that said, the "theory" I was referring to was traditional classical theory, it really IS acceptable and common practice to employ imitation (it's considered a form of monophonic texture). I wasn't being pedantic or making ridiculous leaps or anything. I was serious.

[Amberience]

Funny.. most music students take a look at my course, Sonic Arts, and they discount it. Their theory cannot account for it, so they are disinterested. You see that quite a lot in music too, how many times I've had to defend ambient or glitch music because it didn't fit into someone preconcieved notions of what music is and isn't.

Theory aids those who have preconcieved notions of what music should be, and I don't like that element of it.

[Toxikator]

Only certain aspects of theory. Your course is just another aspect of theory, a largely underdeveloped aspect, which is timbral interaction. Though HIGHLY relevant in music, it has never been readily explored, and only recieves so much attention today when audio can be processed and handled to such a degree that "music" and "sound" are indistinguishable, where timbres can be rhythms and percussions can be oscillations and complex articulations can just be part of the tonal nature of the sound.

It's murky stuff, but it's coming to light through communities like this (which, when you think about it, is pretty exciting stuff. That this kind of community, this modern electronic style, could define a whole new chapter in the basics of music is nifty stuff)

I had hoped that "Theory is not so much a set of rules as it is just a way of associating the actions you take with the sounds that result" would explain it, but I guess it doesn't quite have the necessary 'ring' to it.

I suppose a catchy one-liner is in order:

"Music theory is not about telling you what to do; it's about understanding what you're doing."

Whatchathink?

[stk]

Theory aids those who have preconcieved notions of what music should be, and I don't like that element of it.

well said.

to give theory its due, though, it's also incredibly useful for someone who wants to compose music, in the traditional sense, that others will play.

sk

[Shane Sanders]

It is very difficult to become quiet enough inside to make music. Then, one night in the presence of a sound, the heart and mind align and you act. Like an extension of your being, your tools, methods, history, goals, they all intermingle. My theory is that it is always worth the effort at least for the individual. Sometimes others agree.

[Topiness]

No. There is no such thing as "not valid in theory"...

but the fact you earlier implied that there might be (by saying that one particular thing WAS valid) is, I think, one reason why some are suspicious of theory.

Theory is not so much a set of rules as it is just a way of associating the actions you take with the sounds that result.

agreed.

It's up to you to determine what sounds you want; studying theory just makes it (much) easier to reach your goals.

But how can you define a goal in terms of an unknown - e.g., when working with a totally new instrument, where you don't know what sounds it can make, how can you KNOW what sounds you want? Theory can't help you there, because composing for an instrument requires that you take its characteristics into account.

In which case the implication that you can successfully start with goals and use your previous knowledge to reach them successfully is misleading. You are going to have to start with a much more open mind, and learn along the way.

Starting with zero knowledge may be in itself a disadvantage - but depending on the person, it may well help with the 'open mind' bit. Which is why, for a given individual, the initially 'ignorant' state could well work, as long as the desire to learn was there.

My own take on all this is that at the moment we're infatuated with the new stuff, so the valuable knowledge of the last gazillion years of music making is being shoved to one side a bit.

It's not that we don't like the old stuff. You conly have to see how many records include samples of intricately arranged and orchestrated music to see this.

I think that once we're really comfortable with all this new technology, and we have tired of some of the more facile effects, a few of the old music theory books may be dusted off. Or loaded up on google books...


This is, of course, assuming that a whole raft of new technologies don't appear...

that said, the "theory" I was referring to was traditional classical theory, it really IS acceptable and common practice to employ imitation (it's considered a form of monophonic texture). I wasn't being pedantic or making ridiculous leaps or anything. I was serious.

I wish you'd been there to stand up for me when my music teacher was slagging off my compositions for doing precisely this.

[Topiness]

"Music theory is not about telling you what to do; it's about understanding what you're doing."

Whatchathink?

Sure. But just as doing can come from understanding, understanding can also come from doing... That's all I'm saying

[stk]

It is very difficult to become quiet enough inside to make music.

[Toxikator]

Sure. But just as doing can come from understanding, understanding can also come from doing... That's all I'm saying

Well yes.

And in my defense, I never suggested that you could study theory for a dozen years and then write a masterpiece on your first try.

The only way to get good at ANYTHING is practice.

I think a good parallel is drawing. There are no "rules" to drawing; there are theories and practices for shading and perspective, but you don't have to actually employ them. The only way to get good at drawing is to DO it... you can't just look at picasso and take classes and then hammer out a masterpiece.

BUT that doesn't mean that studying the techniques behind drawing isn't important.

"Oh, but Anime doesn't employ those techniques, they're only for one style of drawing!"

But "anime" is just another form to be mastered.

Music is the same. You'll never get good at music w/o practice, but you stand to do nothing but gain from studying your craft.

After all, which is better: learning from your own experience? Or learning from your experience plus the experiences of every other musician since the dawn of written communication?

[Topiness]

the experiences of every other musician since the dawn of written communication

Santa: I want that book!