The ignorance is bliss fallacy

[fanfarecircuit]

time for a chordspace groupbuy...

[Freeform]

It's called music theory because it's theory, not fact. Nothing too hard about that. Getting factual with theory is like trying to give a math formula a phone call, and who the heck is going to do that?

[Amberience]

Any debate around this stuff generally turns to mush.

[Freeform]

Any debate around this stuff generally turns to mush.

[Topiness]

This is the logical extension of Tox's post about the caveman studying newtonian physics which is why it, too, is not a historically correct image, or necessarily a very good metaphor. If you want to talk physics, talk to Tox. If I want to learn about it, I'll look on wikipedia.

Firstly Tox's post used analogy, not metaphor. Although I would agree with you that this particular analogy has become somewhat stretched. Interestingly you did nothing to stop this line of argument, instead you continued it for several pages and ended it by making an even weaker analogy.

I grew up in household where pedantry is recreational sport, so forgive me on this one. Sometimes my sister and I can argue for hours over something we essentially agree on, because of very minor differences in interpretation.

And it's tedious becaus few people can come up with absolutely bullet-proof language in the time they spend writing KVR posts - presumably while also doing other things. How would you feel if i had gone through your posts pointing out all the spelling and grammatical mistakes?

Generally, I'm wary of using analogy in argument. It wasn't my choice to have the discussion on these terms, and I can't remember continuing it for more than a few posts. It's like if you were criticising me for being a Yankees fan for going to a Yankees/Cowboys game - when in fact, I was a Cowboys fan (that's a similie )

The point I was trying to make in general was that theories exist as tools, with which to analyse and understand systems of knowledge. As such they have a utility which allows you to understand, and appreciate whatever pursuit you are involved in on at a deeper level. This applies to all theories (at least in their intention),be it theories of physics, music or the political system we live in. Music is'nt a theory, it is organized sound ,that, (if all goes right), should elicit positive emotional responses in the listener. Theory merely makes the tricks of the trade more transparent, and easier to subvert.

All highly uncontroversial. Glad you feel you're progressing.

Patronise much?

I was'nt aware that my purpose here was to be controversial. Next time I'll fill my posts with the usual insults and snide comments, that seem to substitute for meaningful debate around these parts. Perhaps that will make you happy. At least in theory.

your first line in reply to me:

Firstly, quantumn physics in the 1850's? What the f**k are on about their mate?

Just not a good first impression, that's all.

And yes, sorry for being patronising. I am geninely pleased if someone, somewhere in this world is finding that music is coming together for them.
And I'm not surprised if you feel theory is helping you, becasue your attitude to it, and music in general, seems pretty balanced and healthy.

As Freeform just said (kind of), music theory is people's ideas about how music works, and not to be taken as fact.

Unlike theories in other fields - maths, chemistry, physics - I don't think you can consider any theory in music - at least that i've read - to have been refined and tested so much over the years that it is incontrovertible and universal, even within a particular context.

But in the big bad world outside of kvr, you will find people, books, and other malevolent forces talking up one particular idea and saying, 'This is the truth'.
I've met them. They're not nice.

So it's forgivable if a a given individual at a given time wants to say, 'I'll leave all that aside for now'. It sounds like that's what you did at the beginning, and then learned some theory later - is that right?

[Freeform]

As Freeform just said (kind of), music theory is people's ideas about how music works, and not to be taken as fact.

[Deric]

[quote="Freeform"][/quote]

[Watto]

Can we have an hpc for music theory as well?

Gave up reading, but just wanted to give this some applause:

[Watto]

Oh, and I'll put my toe into the water far enough to say something which has probably already been said - in my humble opinion, it all comes down to talent. There are highly educated but bad musicians out there, and there are highly uneducated but bad musicians out there. What makes your music music is talent, full stop.

Therefore, I probably agree with whoever said it can be helpful, but is certainly not necessary. Of course, if you're asking someone to write for orchestra or something, you need the education to do so, but whether what you write is good or not depends on your talent.

For the record, I never finished my degree

[OverDose]

I don't think that it's actually possible to do music without theory, even if you don't know the note's name, or scales or whatever, we seemed to be programmed to understand music, and instictively know when something is just "wrong" and we're certainly able to understand and connect with sound on a deep emotional level regardless of our theoretical knowledge, so it's safe to assume that you can make music without reading a single book and without teachers and all that, it'll take you some time, but with enough practice you'll eventually learn your way around, and you'll make "new findings" and "happy accidents" along the way, but you'll find out that all that stuff has been well documented for a couple of centuries, and it took you 2 years to learn something that you could have learn in a couple of months by reading and practicing.

In the end you will be applying stuff that is covered by theory, so theory is not something that you can avoid just by not wanting to know about it, when people say that "you have to learn and then forget what you've learn" i think that they are missleading people by using calendar-like sentences, i don't think there's any need to forget theory once you master it, and i don't see how it could be possible anyway, not without some head injury or by not doing music for years, you'll get rusty, but you never quite forget, theory is just a logical description of how music works, anybody aspiring to be a musician should make use of all the available tools, not only music theory, but neuroscience, psychoacoustics and so on, i think that a lot of people make the mistake of being too soft with themselves, and lack discipline to pursue their goals, any art should be approached with passion and curiosity, the learning process is essential but the ultimate goal is to dominate the damn thing, to own it and throw yourself into it, to come out transformed, and ready to share yourself with the world.

I used to get quite frustrated back in film making school, it was filled with confused and lazy people, so much apathy, and the ones that showed some passion were more like mind-wankers, the kind of guy that comes to you and describes a scene that he "has in his mind" and it has to make weird vocal noises and wave his hands to describe certain camera movement, i've seen the same thing with musicians, some times even having to use body language to describe certain effect or specific sound, i wonder how they can go on like that, forcing such limitations upon themselves.

Must be just another symptom of this cynic times, i don't see how you could advise somebody to learn something that is well documented already, all by themselves, it's pointless and a waste of time.

We must understand music, and value the legacy of great musicians, build on top of it, and permanently push forward, taking sound where it has never been before and not rediscovering chord progressions.

[Freeform]

Are theory and appeal the same thing in music? Kind of seem very close if not the same to me.

I mean... what is appealing and sounds good, works.

[OverDose]

Are theory and appeal the same thing in music? Kind of seem very close if not the same to me.

I mean... what is appealing and sounds good, works.

music is wired in our brains i guess, theory is an attempt to dissect that appeal and understand why it works that way.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 12917200&q

This was posted here at kvr a few months ago, i think that it expands a bit on the discussion and those who missed it back then should check it out, it's a really cool vid.

Edit: this is the kind of thing i mentioned in my previous post, i think that music theory goes beyond notes and scales, and it grows into other areas like neuroscience and psychoacoustics, we live in great times for music, we have a lot of tools that can help us in obtaining a deeper understanding on how music works, and why, this will give us fresh and refined ways of interacting with an audience and create an emotional response in them.

[Toxikator]

I don't think that it's actually possible to do music without theory, even if you don't know the note's name, or scales or whatever, we seemed to be programmed to understand music, and instictively know when something is just "wrong" and we're certainly able to understand and connect with sound on a deep emotional level regardless of our theoretical knowledge, so it's safe to assume that you can make music without reading a single book and without teachers and all that, it'll take you some time, but with enough practice you'll eventually learn your way around, and you'll make "new findings" and "happy accidents" along the way, but you'll find out that all that stuff has been well documented for a couple of centuries, and it took you 2 years to learn something that you could have learn in a couple of months by reading and practicing.

In the end you will be applying stuff that is covered by theory, so theory is not something that you can avoid just by not wanting to know about it, when people say that "you have to learn and then forget what you've learn" i think that they are missleading people by using calendar-like sentences, i don't think there's any need to forget theory once you master it, and i don't see how it could be possible anyway, not without some head injury or by not doing music for years, you'll get rusty, but you never quite forget, theory is just a logical description of how music works, anybody aspiring to be a musician should make use of all the available tools, not only music theory, but neuroscience, psychoacoustics and so on, i think that a lot of people make the mistake of being too soft with themselves, and lack discipline to pursue their goals, any art should be approached with passion and curiosity, the learning process is essential but the ultimate goal is to dominate the damn thing, to own it and throw yourself into it, to come out transformed, and ready to share yourself with the world.

I used to get quite frustrated back in film making school, it was filled with confused and lazy people, so much apathy, and the ones that showed some passion were more like mind-wankers, the kind of guy that comes to you and describes a scene that he "has in his mind" and it has to make weird vocal noises and wave his hands to describe certain camera movement, i've seen the same thing with musicians, some times even having to use body language to describe certain effect or specific sound, i wonder how they can go on like that, forcing such limitations upon themselves.

Must be just another symptom of this cynic times, i don't see how you could advise somebody to learn something that is well documented already, all by themselves, it's pointless and a waste of time.

We must understand music, and value the legacy of great musicians, build on top of it, and permanently push forward, taking sound where it has never been before and not rediscovering chord progressions.

This guy's got it!

[Topiness]

I don't think that it's actually possible to do music without theory, even if you don't know the note's name, or scales or whatever, we seemed to be programmed to understand music, and instictively know when something is just "wrong" and we're certainly able to understand and connect with sound on a deep emotional level regardless of our theoretical knowledge, so it's safe to assume that you can make music without reading a single book and without teachers and all that, it'll take you some time, but with enough practice you'll eventually learn your way around, and you'll make "new findings" and "happy accidents" along the way, but you'll find out that all that stuff has been well documented for a couple of centuries, and it took you 2 years to learn something that you could have learn in a couple of months by reading and practicing.

But a lot of established theories of music contradict each other, or at least have different approaches. if you don't spend plenty of time saying 'sod theory' and having a go on your own, how are you going to know which ones your own musical soul is in tune with?

As a tiny teeny example - in many places, you will read that the 7th degree of the scale 'wants to resolve to the tonic'.

I know that for my own 'natural' style, and the way i use chords, that's not true. On the other hand, if i'm trying to imitate more traditional styles, it's a useful thing to bear in mind.

We must understand music, and value the legacy of great musicians, build on top of it, and permanently push forward, taking sound where it has never been before and not rediscovering chord progressions.

Why 'forward', though? Music doesn't move develop just along a single line, with progression in one direction and regression in another. Music is forever moving out in every direction, branching, recombining...

the risk with theory is that you end up learning something that contradicts your instinct - and until you have the experience to say 'no, that's not for me', you can waste a lot of time.

once you have got to the point when you do have that experience, you've got nothing to lose by diving right in.

[Deric]

+1 to OverDose's post.