The ignorance is bliss fallacy

[Topiness]

'Ignorance is very often bliss. It is amazing how often relative beginners can be captivated and put into a creative frame of mind by the beauty of a simple idea which might be written off as not technically special enough by a more accomplished player.'

"Accomplished" means next to nothing.

However, if your claim is that NOT knowing theory lets you appreciate simplicity in a way that KNOWING theory will never let you, my response is that a musician who would dismiss an idea for ANY reason other than "it sounds bad" is not a very good one, no matter how much "theory" they think they know.

Well, not my claim - I was just struck by the similarity to the thread title! the book is, i think, http://www.backbeatbooks.com/?p=0879308621. It's is a (basic) theory book. So presumably that's not what the author is saying, either. He's saying... well... what he's saying. It's pretty clear...

And it rang true with me because I sometimes think I WAS better at starting writing when I knew a lot less. Although when the pieces then didn't develop in the way i wanted, I could have done with some of the knowledge I had now.

Having said that, I actually FINISHED some half decent tunes even then. And I worried a lot less about the best path to take along the way.

You seem to imply that the human brain is like some kind of chess computer, evaluating each creative possibility and ranking it in order, pursuing the best x% of them.

I don't think the creative process is like that for most people. Last time you made a commitment to a certain direction in a tune, didn't you consider that you were dismissing 1000 other directions in which that tune could go? And some of them would have been interesting. Does that make you a bad musician? I don't think so.

We're always doing one thing at the cost of not doing another. Each bit of knowledge we amass influences our decision on what we do. hopefully, this increases our ability to choose interesting paths. But I've met a few people who took their theory books too literally and got led up the garden path.

At the moment im writing in this thread at the expense of doing music...

[metrosechual]

i think the only issue here tox, is that you seem to think we disregard theory, when no one said this.

that is the only fact i dispute, so it doesnt take many intelligent words to show otherwise. Just pointing people to your ignorance is enough

[Amberience]

The fact that you assume that theory is somehow incapable of grasping the "far out" concepts introduced by ambient music is just plain silly.

I also said nothing about ambient music. What, did you take one look at my username and decide that by "atomspherics" I meant "ambient" music?

I did not mean ambient music. I also never said that things were too "far out" to be grasped either.

How is the broadest definition available for "Music Theory" in any way narrow-minded?

"The way things work in music" is not the broadest definition available for music. The word "music" already contains connotations that put a schism between sounds. If theory really had the ability to grasp all elements of sound, it would be called "sonic theory" not music theory.

The reason, again, that you're all (or at least many of you) are thick as pigshit is your continual insistence that studying theory somehow detracts from your musical ability.

Once again, I never said this.

btw: the phrase "ignorance is bliss" is usually used when a person doesn't wish to deal with a path of thought. All of us here are dealing with that path of thought, so I don't think its fair to label the people who think theory is secondary as ignorant.

[Toxikator]

"The reason, again, that you're all (or at least many of you) are thick as pigshit is your continual insistence that studying theory somehow detracts from your musical ability."

Tox. I never said that, so learn to read. Please.

I dont recall ANYONE really saying this in this thread -- he's simply insane.

It's a question of: do I benefit if others attribute subjective notions of value to received doctrine?

how about emotion in general will outlast any "theory" whatsoever. And people will make up their own theories.

] theory =

'Ignorance is very often bliss. It is amazing how often relative beginners can be captivated and put into a creative frame of mind by the beauty of a simple idea which might be written off as not technically special enough by a more accomplished player.'

You're right! Nothing there to indicate that people in this thread think that studying Theory is a fruitless waste of time.

[metrosechual]

sure, take a couple quick quotes out of context, keep trying to prove your point. Anyone who's actually READ The thread knows otherwise.

"how about emotion in general will outlast any "theory" whatsoever. And people will make up their own theories."

i still stand behind this quote, read it in context -- you are completely and laughably insane!

and the theory = vagina (or carrotgina) thing was a joke man, get over yourself.

[Amberience]

Yes, he is right. There is nothing there to suggest people in this thread think studying theory is fruitless. You're reading too much into those quotes.

Rather it is that people think theory is SECONDARY to the creative endeavour.

[metrosechual]

well, i think some people take it too far, like anything, they use it as a language no one else understands to sound superior -- but knowing theory myself, i think it is definetly useful, but emotion and soul need to always come first (cue the umpteenth wanking guitarist that knows everything)

bump for the tox

[Toxikator]

I also said nothing about ambient music. What, did you take one look at my username and decide that by "atomspherics" I meant "ambient" music?

No, I came up with the first "atmospheric" genre I could think of.

"The way things work in music" is not the broadest definition available for music. The word "music" already contains connotations that put a schism between sounds. If theory really had the ability to grasp all elements of sound, it would be called "sonic theory" not music theory.

Valid, depending on what you consider "music". I go by the defenition "Music is any sound meant to be perceived as music". Even the most basic theory texbooks will have a discussion of timbre and how it relates to the physics of sound, why do you assume that Music Theory is incompatible with or distinct from "Sonic Theory" to begin with?

btw: the phrase "ignorance is bliss" is usually used when a person doesn't wish to deal with a path of thought. All of us here are dealing with that path of thought, so I don't think its fair to label the people who think theory is secondary as ignorant.

Ignorant means that you do not know. Most of the people in this thread are truly ignorant of music theory or what it truly constitutes. You, of course, are not one of those people (at least as near as I can tell) but that certainly does not make you the majority.

I mean, just look at metro.

[metrosechual]

Kurt Cobain.

End of story.

Hardly.

actually i think it says alot. That someone could know nothing of music theory and yet write some very cool stuff -- but at the same time, the opposite can be true. It really depends on each person. Just dont let personal feelings, pride, or preconceptions get in your way.

another bump for the bitch...


tox, you are interspersed thru the whole thread, have you even been readin it? I thought you just showed up late or something, but you are truly an ignant bitch!

[metrosechual]

All the people moaning about 'theory' are almost certainly unacomplished in playing an instrument (like me), if they were anything else thay would stop talking about 'theory' like it was an insult to their lack of ability!

Flipper.

Not once through these 7 pages and the 26 pages of the other thread where this discussion kicked off have I read anything to indicate that people moaning about theory (moaning? Really?) thought it were an insult to their lack of ability (lack of? Really?)

You're clutching at straws, or should I said hairs. The hairs of a gnats balls to be precise.

exactly. Its kind of like some weird PARADOX. the people that are theory heads love to believe that just because someone doesnt think theory is a god/porn/vagina that they are just insecure they have no ability when in reality they just are trying to balance theory with emotion and feeling.

hahaahah

[Toxikator]

"how about emotion in general will outlast any "theory" whatsoever. And people will make up their own theories."

i still stand behind this quote, read it in context

I did. you suggest that there is an incompatibility, that theory pales in the face of the emotional aspects of music. My response to this was (and remains) that the two are not at all distinct, and that it is possible (and if you ever tried, likely favorable) to employ your knowledge of theory IN ORDER TO express your emotion, rather than IN SPITE OF your emotion.

In fact, most of what I take from your perspective comes less from quotables and more from the general vibe you seem to work from.

Correct me if I'm wrong: You feel that Theory should function as a tool in your music creation kit, but that it is far less important than the ability to write music without theory.

My response: Whether you know the theory you're employing or not, you're still employing it. You can refuse to accept that your song is built on a major scale, hitting all the keys chromatically until you stumble upon the ones that are diatonic. But you're still in a major scale.

[Hovmod]

You're a lousy poster boy for learning theory, toxicbator. Now all us ignoramuses think that learning theory makes us obnoxious, annoying idiots with no social skills.

[metrosechual]

"how about emotion in general will outlast any "theory" whatsoever. And people will make up their own theories."

i still stand behind this quote, read it in context

I did. you suggest that there is an incompatibility, that theory pales in the face of the emotional aspects of music. My response to this was (and remains) that the two are not at all distinct, and that it is possible (and if you ever tried, likely favorable) to employ your knowledge of theory IN ORDER TO express your emotion, rather than IN SPITE OF your emotion.

In fact, most of what I take from your perspective comes less from quotables and more from the general vibe you seem to work from.

Correct me if I'm wrong: You feel that Theory should function as a tool in your music creation kit, but that it is far less important than the ability to write music without theory.

My response: Whether you know the theory you're employing or not, you're still employing it. You can refuse to accept that your song is built on a major scale, hitting all the keys chromatically until you stumble upon the ones that are diatonic. But you're still in a major scale.

1.think
2.formulate ideas
3.preview
4.proofread
5.think about it
6.post again

[Toxikator]

Yes, he is right. There is nothing there to suggest people in this thread think studying theory is fruitless. You're reading too much into those quotes.

Rather it is that people think theory is SECONDARY to the creative endeavour.

It's not distinct from the creative endeavor in any way. I defy you to show me a truly great piece which does not employ any aspects of music definable by the concepts studied and observed in an in-depth study of Music Theory.

Or would it be easier to employ a few more "idiot" smilies and not learn anything?

[Amberience]

why do you assume that Music Theory is incompatible with or distinct from "Sonic Theory" to begin with?

I don't. I think they're seperate schools of thought, but compatible in so far as you can use both schools to create. Many of my pieces make use of scales, modes, chord progressions. But they also have a noise element, or a glitch element. If you investigate noise and glitch, they're probably the two genres that fit in with classical theory the least. Doesn't mean I don't utilise them at the same time as utilising classical theory though.

Ignorant means that you do not know. Most of the people in this thread are truly ignorant of music theory or what it truly constitutes. You, of course, are not one of those people (at least as near as I can tell) but that certainly does not make you the majority.

I mean, just look at metro.

Well the route of ignorant is ignore. To ignore something isn't to "not know" but rather to discount, put out of ones mind, to turn the other cheek so to speak.

As for metrodudewhateverhisnameis .. well, I think he's a KvR regular having a bit of a laugh with an alternative username. I could be wrong on that though.