The ignorance is bliss fallacy

[Toxikator]

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.

Don't be fooled: It has nothing to do with Theory

[metrosechual]

umm, im totally serious, i just think he is a bitch. And i do believe that emotion is more important than theory. But i dont feel theory is unimportant. I feel its very important actually. But i have seen plenty of people know plenty of music theory and not write a single piece. No inspiration, no emotion. Is that SO hard to understand?

[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.

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?

Pointless. You'd simply say "well that is not truly a great piece" and we'd be back to square one.

Greatness is subjective. Most classical composers bore the f**k out of me. That is to say, if I listened to a classical piece by Beethoven for example.. I'd probably lose the ability to f**k for a good hour or two.

Point being: My idea of great might not be your idea of great. There is nothing to say that one of us is wrong apart from our own egos. Thus subjectivity.

[metrosechual]

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.

Don't be fooled: It has nothing to do with Theory

o we know that by now.

[Toxikator]

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.

Classical Theory is just one part of Music Theory, just like Romantic Theory and Serialist Theory and Atonal Theory and Pre-classical Theory and Postmodern Theory.

Try not to think in such restrictive terms, or you argument becomes a legitimate one

[Amberience]

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.

Classical Theory is just one part of Music Theory, just like Romantic Theory and Serialist Theory and Atonal Theory and Pre-classical Theory and Postmodern Theory.

Try not to think in such restrictive terms, or you argument becomes a legitimate one

Maybe I should've said traditional or orthodox. That was how I was using the word classical.

[Toxikator]

Pointless. You'd simply say "well that is not truly a great piece" and we'd be back to square one.

Greatness is subjective. Most classical composers bore the f**k out of me. That is to say, if I listened to a classical piece by Beethoven for example.. I'd probably lose the ability to f**k for a good hour or two.

Point being: My idea of great might not be your idea of great. There is nothing to say that one of us is wrong apart from our own egos. Thus subjectivity.

Okay, if you think I'd take cheap shots, ANY song.

ANY song that employs elements beyond the current range of the study of Music Theory.

[Toxikator]

Maybe I should've said traditional or orthodox. That was how I was using the word classical.

Okay, but then to take it a step further what makes it "traditional"?

Is John Cage traditional? Is Schoenberg traditional? Is Philip Glass traditional?

For that matter, what about Muddy Waters? What about the Blues, or Jazz, or Country? what about Asian or Indian music? What about Stone-age or primitive music?

All subjects addressed in most wide-ranging discussions of Theory, none traditional in most senses.

[Amberience]

Pointless. You'd simply say "well that is not truly a great piece" and we'd be back to square one.

Greatness is subjective. Most classical composers bore the f**k out of me. That is to say, if I listened to a classical piece by Beethoven for example.. I'd probably lose the ability to f**k for a good hour or two.

Point being: My idea of great might not be your idea of great. There is nothing to say that one of us is wrong apart from our own egos. Thus subjectivity.

Okay, if you think I'd take cheap shots, ANY song.

ANY song that employs elements beyond the current range of the study of Music Theory.

In that case go listen to Draft 7.30 by Autechre or even Kesto by Pan Sonic. Not only will you hear sounds that don't fit into the current range of music theory. But you'll hear sounds that DO fit into that range.

This is important to point out. Music isn't "one thing and not another thing" rather it is a blur/blend of things.

If you think those albums fit perfectly well into the current range of music theory, then fine, that is your perogative. I'm not trying to change minds, just put my own point of view across.

[Toxikator]

you got links? I can do a search, but...

Anyway, it's not my prerogative. It's the nature of music.

The misconception that everyone seems to have (and I know, you don't have misconceptions, you're all perfectly well-versed and I'm a troll) is that "Music Theory" is a term exclusively reserved for the principles employed by 17th/18th century Western European Composers.

[Amberience]

Maybe I should've said traditional or orthodox. That was how I was using the word classical.

Okay, but then to take it a step further what makes it "traditional"?

Is John Cage traditional? Is Schoenberg traditional? Is Philip Glass traditional?

For that matter, what about Muddy Waters? What about the Blues, or Jazz, or Country? what about Asian or Indian music? What about Stone-age or primitive music?

All subjects addressed in most wide-ranging discussions of Theory, none traditional in most senses.

Traditional? Well.. my view..

Cage: No
Schoenberg: I couldn't say
Glass: Sometimes
Muddy Waters: Definitely
Blues: Yup
Jazz: Some of it
Country: Yep
Asian Music: Not to me. Why? My locale. My culture. Those things make Asian music quite unorthodox.
Indian Music: Same thing.
Stone Age music: We don't have any way of knowing what it would've sounded like. In the same way we don't actually know what Bach would've sounded like. This notion introduces a lot of other concepts though.

I need a rest now.

[Amberience]

you got links? I can do a search, but...

Anyway, it's not my prerogative. It's the nature of music.

The misconception that everyone seems to have (and I know, you don't have misconceptions, you're all perfectly well-versed and I'm a troll) is that "Music Theory" is a term exclusively reserved for the principles employed by 17th/18th century Western European Composers.

Well it isn't that either. It is mostly reserved for equal temperment instrumentation. Anything that is outside of that field can be seperated and treated differently. If I'm wrong though, I'd like to be educated, not called an idiot.

[Amberience]

Ah f**k it. Everything I've said is elitist bollocks. Music theory encompasses everything.

[Toxikator]

Listening to (audio examples from) Draft 7.30

Primarily employed techniques seem to be a shift between simple meters and meterlessness, nonharmonicism (excuse the coined term, but the lack of tones based on definable pitch or harmonic relation), prominence of percussion, that horrible word "atmospherics" or perhaps "drones", sounds which exist primarily as single backing notes or tonal underlays without importance of motion, some simple tonal melodies in terraced dynamic form (instruments appear and disapper for the sake of dynamic tension/release), complicated use of synthetic timbres and a lack of real-world sounds, a heavy emphasis on rhythmic syncopation.

The rhythms, as in several nonharmonic/atonal pieces (though these aren't really atonal) act as the "lead", or the changing element, while simple minimal melodic ideas tend to provide a stable element (whereas the assumption would be that the percussion would be rhythmic and the melody the lead, the opposite is true here).

Some tracks (I've got demos so I'm skipping around) employ nonfunctional harmony/chromatic harmony, (think Tristan Chord), chosen for its internal dissonance/consonance rather than the motion and function of "traditional" European harmonies.

Polymetric forms seem to be employed, though sometimes the piece is nonmetric or without a steady pulse (tempo Rubato/ritardando), relying heavily on dissonant tonal development. The wide use of frequency range and thick textures lend an air of chaos to certain tracks, which have a low atonal drone or evolving sound coupled with jitterning high-frequency content. The instability of the rhythms and harmonies is not cadentially resolved and the music is phraseless.

The melody and percussion are timbrally blended such that the notes may become so low they sound as a series of percussive sounds (and the percussion moves so fast it becomes tonal).

The harmonies of the later tracks are typically dissonant, and built on very simple chordal progressions, with properly diatonic melodies with strange overtonal relationships (the dialtone sound in Reniform Plus, for example). The music is very minor in nature in most respects, and features strange articulations and phrasings which make even simple rhythms and melodies sound disjunct and unnatural.

Very good record, by the way, and I certainly wouldn't call it "bad music".

But see? that was a perfectly valid and theoretical analysis of some samples of that record.

Where does theory stop applying? When it breaks the "classical" mold?

[Amberience]

Ah f**k it. Everything I've said is elitist bollocks. Music theory encompasses everything.