So why DO people get so emotional about music theory topics?

[Lunatique]

I'm not making any case for music theory so you don't need to hear my music (which if you're so heavily reliant on others' tired old music theory tricks would almost certainly lie outside your safety zone anyway, so I don't think you would understand it). If I get the time I'll listen to your stuff - and considering what you've been saying then it had better be good, to live up to all your hype. If it's all boring soundscapes and stringy pads I'm going to be disappointed but not very surprised.

Hehe I just visited your website and on the front page:

I scored high (91.7, if I remember correctly), and that's no surprise since I'm a musician/composer.

You're so full of yourself Mr Chang. I got 94.4% on the same test. What have you got to say to that? And don't you know that if you're doing "serious" music then you're supposed to let the music speak for itself? Perhaps you should go on Pop Idol if you think your own persona might be a useful crutch for your music.

Edit: I went to your website but when choosing which stuff to listen/download I got utterly sick of reading your lame sci-fi bollocks about whores and futuristic elevator shafts and drinking Vitamin-B, and so now I can't be bothered to waste time listening to your stuff. Ever heard of good taste, modesty and reserve? I'm unimpressed and this conversation is concluded.

1) Go back and read my posts again--I never once claimed anything about my own level of musicianship. I in particular said that there are certainly people out there who can do things I can't, and at the same time, I probably can do certain things that others can't. What exactly is egotistical about that?

2) Why is the fact me saying I got a high score and that it seemed to make sense to me because I'm a musician a negative thing? Go read that website's information about what the average person's score should be--it totally makes sense that people who make music should score pretty high (for example, my non-musician friends all scored much lower, while the musician friends all scored fairly high). So what if you got one more question correct? It just means you're a musician too. Did anyone at any given time said you were not one? In fact, I keep stating that we all have our comfort zones, and some have the need/desire to go beyond their comfort zone, and some don't. At no time did I say if you don't then you're not a musician.

3) What's so wrong with me providing some information about each track avaialbe for people to download/listen to? Go look at other websites like mp3.com, soundclick..etc. Most people give description about their tracks, what the inspiration was, what instruments/methods they used..etc.

No I noticed the vids, but they just reinforced my opinion that he's too full of his own egotistical self to even consider that visitors might visit him for music's own sake. I did actually listen to his clip "What you don't know", but it just seemed like a scales exercise for Grade 3 piano, with harmonic fudge from string accompaniment. I could reproduce it inside a tracker, without any difficulty. But it says absolutely nothing musically (emotionally barren) and that's why he needs to use his wife's looks and his oh-look-at-me-I'm-so-funky sci-fi stories. He's no Takeshi Kitano that's for sure! Good luck to him and hope he finds the winning formula one day.

My website is not for music only. Take a closer look--it's simply a personal website with a blog that doubles as a portfolio website for my paintings, photography, writings, music..etc, and contains tutorials, interviews, resume..etc. My site is also not created with you in mind, so whether you find the things I talk about interesting or not is really irrelevant. I don't know you, and you don't know me. You probably don't give a rat's ass about getting to know me (and if you did, you'd see that I'm a pretty nice guy), but I am interested in getting to know other kindred spirits (passionate musicians).

What vids are you talking about? I think you need to read more carefully because you're getting things mixed up (You're probably talking about the youtube videos--look carefully, they are of Olivia Lufkin). There are no vids of my wife on my site, only my photography--which she is often a subject of. If you think there's something wrong with a photographer that likes to shoot his favorite subject (his wife), then seriously, you're the one with some kind of baggage, not me. Go to any photography forum and you'll see other photographers shooting their spouses, friends, children, pets..etc on top of other subjects.

And as far as your comment about my music goes--that's your personal opinion. Many others have expressed the exact opposite.

I'm done with this conversation too, because it is obvious you have an axe to grind, and you will pick anything you see as a target to attack. It's one of those cases where if you have already decided you don't like something, then no matter what you learn later about it, you'll simply look at it all in a negative light. I have no problem continuing a conversation in a calm, polite, and mature manner, but when you start calling others names, get angry, or make personal attacks, then it's a conversation that's no longer worth carrying on.

[Adaerus]

Few considerations:

-People made, make and will make music with or without theory.
-Music came first than somebody thought about disecting it to see what are the laws and improve upon it by making it a science.

There are types of musicians:
A: people who know theory, feel they need to know more, and have true talent are geniuses.
B: people who have true talent and don't require theory to output their inspiration.
C: people who know some theory, have some music talent so sometimes by the struck of luck they do something amazing (most of us)
D: people who don't learn theory and don't have talent and don't care but they want to make music so they imitate category A.

And there are those that bash theory as well as those that bash category B but they can't be clasified as types of musicians.

[mmichalski59]

Theory is an emotional thing because some people feel intimidated, threatened, or validated by it, and it's something that not everyone has the brain power to learn, thus creating personal baggages and chips on shoulders between those who can and those who can't.

Gotta take issue with this. There are very few people who can't learn music theory. These people have trouble learning almost anything. However, like almost any other subject, some people learn it quicker than others.

Unfortunately, most people have a very small capacity for admitting their own mistakes or inadequacies. Just part of the human condition. Then there are others who are willing to for a time but then give up when confronted with those who refuse. Viscious circle.

It starts in the early years of school. Those who excel are ridiculed because smart isn't cool and those who don't excel are ridiculed because stupid isn't smart.

And it all comes down to lack of tolerance.

[Lunatique]

Theory is an emotional thing because some people feel intimidated, threatened, or validated by it, and it's something that not everyone has the brain power to learn, thus creating personal baggages and chips on shoulders between those who can and those who can't.

Gotta take issue with this. There are very few people who can't learn music theory. These people have trouble learning almost anything. However, like almost any other subject, some people learn it quicker than others.

Unfortunately, most people have a very small capacity for admitting their own mistakes or inadequacies. Just part of the human condition. Then there are others who are willing to for a time but then give up when confronted with those who refuse. Viscious circle.

It starts in the early years of school. Those who excel are ridiculed because smart isn't cool and those who don't excel are ridiculed because stupid isn't smart.

And it all comes down to lack of tolerance.

That's very true.

I should elaborate on the "can or can't" part. It's really more about how much work someone is willing to put into learning. As we've seen recently in the case of one member, he has problems even spending ten minutes on learning basic theory and gets impatient and gives up. Would he be able to do it if a gun was pointed at him? I bet so. But on his own, he'd have to conjure up a lot of energy and patience to take even a small step forward.

I think people tend to get really bent out of shape over this topic because music means so much to all of us, but if we take a step back, some people might be very talented and skilled at something else other than music--something most others would never be able to do even if they tried. But because they might not take pride in that other skill/talent, they tend to concentrate on their accomplishments in music only, and invest all their emotions into it. In cases like that, if someone makes a comment that makes them feel like their "musical worth" is being questioned or invalidated or criticized or its value lowered, then it certainly can't be a good feeling.

One misconception I see a lot here at KVR is that some automatically assume that if a member is talking about theory or advocating learning it, this person is by default passing judgment on others or has to have mastered all aspects of music theory himself. Why is that? Why can't we advocate learning it simply because we see the benefit and hope to pass that insight onto others in hopes that it might be helpful to fellow musicians? Why is that good will being perceived as malice? Is it because musicians are just too way too sensitive and take things too personally?

I personally try to always state that you learn as much as you need to for the kind of music you want to make, and I see nothing wrong with making simpler music if that's what you really enjoy. I listen to all kinds of music and I would never say that a piece of music is better simply because it's more complex. There are plenty of simple songs I love.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

just....

Gotta love KVR.

mmmmmmm, must dash....foods ready

this is definately popcorn-worthy!

[laputa_sync]

page 4 grouphug...

[The Chase]

it's the two people who are the extremes of the opposite sides that get so emotional...you've got the chaps who are insecure about their lack of music theory and are afraid to learn it, and then the ones who took 7 years of dedicated education of theory and now are entitled to look down upon the mere cretens that live around them. Both of such extremes that freak out over this stuff don't make much music in my experience...

[liqih]

Music Theory is (like all theories) dangerous,
as it happens to put bounds where there are none just to explain something in non musical terms,

so I'm glad that people still get emotional about that!

[eduardo_b]

it's the two people who are the extremes of the opposite sides that get so emotional...you've got the chaps who are insecure about their lack of music theory and then the ones who took 7 years of dedication education of theory despite not making much music. Both of such extremes that freak out over this stuff don't make much music in my experience...

In many fields of endeavor there's theory and there's application. People are often drawn to one or the other for reasons that are not about which matters more. I'm guessing that when it comes to music, there are far more people who have little or no music theory knowledge because they either don't care or have found no compelling reason to acquire it.

I suppose it would be like a race car driver knowing or not knowing various laws of physics (acceleration, friction and so on). Talent, ambition and practice can result in success despite not knowing anything about the forces at work. Application over theory.

Some people become defensive about this. I really don't understand why, but it could be that those who know theory give the impression that those who don't aren't really serious about (in this case) music and won't be able to accomplish much without this knowledge. Those who don't have it may feel compelled to defend this lack of knowledge as being much ado about nothing that really matters.

Ultimately, I think talent is more important than theory for creating many kinds of music. Without talent, music theory is not going to make up for it's absence.

[mmichalski59]

Music Theory is (like all theories) dangerous,
as it happens to put bounds where there are none just to explain something in non musical terms,

This is just wrong.

Music theory attempts to explain why some sounds work better than others. It explains different systems of notation, harmony, rhythm, etc. so that it can be better understood.

Only a person can place bounds on their musical expression.

Charles Ives' father told him to learn the rules so he could then break them. This is good advice. Know why you are doing something and you are more likely to succeed at doing it. Trial and error can be fun, but understanding how to get a certain sound or knowing which sonorities are likely to work is quite valuable.

If you find that music theory is restrictive, then it is more about how you choose to apply it than it is about the subject. Certainly learning math does not restrict my use of numbers. More on topic, learning writing styles of other authors does not restrict my writing unless I choose to let it do so.

If you don't want to learn theory, fine. It doesn't make you any better any more than learning it would. I find that knowing and understanding theory helps me get to my musical goal sooner. But in the end, it is all about whether what you have created satisfies you and your audience.

[Toxikator]

Music Theory is (like all theories) dangerous,
as it happens to put bounds where there are none just to explain something in non musical terms,

This is just wrong.

Music theory attempts to explain why some sounds work better than others. It explains different systems of notation, harmony, rhythm, etc. so that it can be better understood.

Only a person can place bounds on their musical expression.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

For the jillionth time: Music theory is not about telling you what to do, but rather telling you what you're doing.

[Barf]

Btw music theories change over time

[liqih]

Music theory attempts to explain why some sounds work better than others. It explains different systems of notation, harmony, rhythm, etc. so that it can be better understood.

right, I agree on that "attempts to explain" but still I mean it is dangerous,
dangerous means "handle with care".

As Barf wrote

Btw music theories change over time

why they change? for the have bounds! huge limitations!

For the jillionth time: Music theory is not about telling you what to do, but rather telling you what you're doing.

that's a good approach but ofter is was written to tell you what to do, how to solve problems and what you must avoid to accomplish a specific musical genere.

Charles Ives' father told him to learn the rules so he could then break them. This is good advice.

Yes and no, if your goal is to go beyond tradition like
many classical composers of the last century tried to do,
that's ok. But today? Putting yoursef too much into one Music Theory CAN be restrictive to your creativity

if you are not very talented

[liqih]

Certainly learning math does not restrict my use of numbers. More on topic, learning writing styles of other authors does not restrict my writing unless I choose to let it do so.

learning writing styles is not learning a Writing Theory,

learning many music styles is not learning a Music Theory,

no?

[Toxikator]

learning many music styles is not learning a Music Theory,

no?

No.

Studying various styles and the musical qualities which make them what they are/make them function is EXACTLY what Music Theory is.

Before this turns nasty, let me sort of recap the argument that's been made before:

You seem to be under the impression that "Music Theory" is a set of rules for writing stuffy 17th-century court classical pieces.

This is not true, that is a very SMALL aspect of the grand world of Music Theory but one that is given more than it's due because it is usually the easiest to learn and chronologically a nice place to start, and so features in most introductory texts and lessons.