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

[talynidm]

Because it's interesting, and you could spend a lifetime exploring it. Any process that is something that holds your attention, gives you enjoyment, and basically does not have any limit to the amount you can explore it is an amazing gift to "humans".

It helps with the process of making music, it is a tool, and not only is it a tool, but it's one that can evolve as much as you choose to explore it.

I don't think people who "poke" midi notes until they sound "right" to them are doing anything less valid in terms of making a piece of music that sounds good, I'm not that judgemental, but I do think that those same people, if they spent the time to learn chord structure, scales, key modulation, etc. etc. would actually start enjoying what they do even more.

Honestly it gets to a point when you think about it enough, you can hear the music by numbers(intervals), you can literally "THINK" of what a piece of music could sound like before you write it down.

I think alot of people are actually offended by it, but quite frankly, I think those same people would enjoy music in a new way that could create a whole new avenue and way of enjoying music.

To me it is a "Science". And it is a "Scientific tool" that lets you organize your thoughts, and help sculpt the ideas in your head.

I mean it's not like once you learn some of the basic principles you become "less" creative, it usually from my experience when I have taught people(ESPECIALLY YOUNG GUITAR PLAYERS THAT DON'T PLAY IN KEY), they love music even more.

I will never ever learn all there is to know about it. The basics work well for me, but just yesterday, there was a post about scales and timbre, where you can actually predict the type of timbre that will sound good with non traditional scales.

I have an idea of the general idea behind it, but no I don't have my head completely wrapped around it, but honestly:

It was the most interesting thing I have EVER read on KVR, and it will be usefull to me eventually.

I was a biology major, and sometimes I feel like due to "STUDENT LOANS" and practical money reasons, it is too late to really alter my profession, but if I could do it ALL OVER again, I would probably end up studying music technology. To me uniting theory with programming, and hardware technology, is probably the most interesting thing I could do. I dunno maybe I'll have the guts to ship myself off to Portland.

Really it can only augment your creative abilities, and it is a "SCIENCE" and it does have alot to do with math(not as complex as some math, but, anything to do with numbers, and creativity is a gift that simply is an endless exploration).

I don't see how it could be a bad thing, and once you start to learn basic scales, and chord structure, I've found alot of people become rather addicted to learning more about it.

I've also found alot of people that don't know at least some basics of how to even PLAY IN KEY, kind of lose interest in music in general. I'm not berating anyone, it's just personal observations I've made over the years, with people I've known.

[Hink]

why not argue over learning the alphabet or maths? the main issue would not change a bit ie. my cock is bigger than yours.

Nope. That's not what's going on here. Is that what you thought about school too? Just a bunch of teachers trying to prove they were cleverer than you?

actually I think to an extent that is exactly what's happening here. In school you had teachers and students who are by necessity on different levels, a teacher should not need to prove himself to the students by arguing every point with the kind of "passion" we see here. Here everyone wishes to believe we are all on the same level or a "better" (using better quite loosely) level then the rest, falling from that pedestal is perceived as fatal.

What happens here is egos come in to play and people are afraid of being wrong, perhaps because they believe it might mean going back to square one and everything they've done has been wrong, of course that's not the case, but like any other irrational fear it's real to that person.

Here in forums like this validation is a key personal issue and I think we are all guilty of arguing to prove how much we know. Some people post only for the sake of showing the whole world how much they know and making them more comfortable with themselves feeling superior.

The problem lies in the fact that the only thing being right does for the individual is stroke the ego, they learn nothing. Where as (as I have said many times) when you're wrong you do in fact learn something new and often being wrong drives the lesson home, it's not something you quickly forget.

People argue with passion quite often because of fear, they are afraid they are not as good as they want to be, but the key is that it doesn't matter quite as much where you are as it does how much you grow. Personal growth as an artist and self validation requires accepting what you don't know and focusing on you weak areas...which means being wrong sometimes. Sadly some people are so insecure they can't except that...

[nuffink]

The trouble is, Hink, that the "you're all just dick waving" type comments are so destructive. It stops those with something to say from putting their heads above the parapet. If the price for actually learning something on here is having to watch a bit of testosterone fuelled bullshit, it's a small price.

And I was surprised to hear it from Michael who's (rightly) not scared of sharing his technical knowledge.

[Kingston]

Well I saw the original 'fallacy' thread and how badly it went in the end, and then started reading this one with interest and got as far as this:

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?

...and I lost all hope. I now have a 'fighting the windmills' type attitude towards these types of discussions.

I don't get it to be honest. I thought theory was just an extension to the way we read music and a useful mathlike toolset.

[nuffink]

Fair enough. But have you read his other posts? He's not exactly well.
Most of the other theory threads are doing ok.

[Hink]

The trouble is, Hink, that the "you're all just dick waving" type comments are so destructive. It stops those with something to say from putting their heads above the parapet. If the price for actually learning something on here is having to watch a bit of testosterone fuelled bullshit, it's a small price.

And I was surprised to hear it from Michael who's (rightly) not scared of sharing his technical knowledge.

you're absolutely right, I think that's exactly what I'm saying. A civil debate can resolve issues and be a fantastic source of information and learning for both those participating and those observing. But everyone can't be right, in civil debates that's a given. However when someone can't accept they might be wrong and are blind to the value of being wrong they have no other place to turn besides mudslinging

[eduardo_b]

Here in forums like this validation is a key personal issue and I think we are all guilty of arguing to prove how much we know. Some people post only for the sake of showing the whole world how much they know and making them more comfortable with themselves feeling superior.

I think you have pointed out an essential issue on KVR. The range of talent, experience and knowledge among those who participate here is immense: from totally new to highly knowledgeable. And it's obvious who the "experts" are -- although some have the credentials whereas others simply have an opinion on everything. Music theory plays right into this division of "classes" of knowledge.

Music theory is just that. It can help explain certain phenomenon and why certain things such as chord progressions work better one way than another, but a lot of it is beyond necessary to be good in music. I know this for the same reasons that one can be a good photographer by knowing enough technical information to understand issues such as depth-of-field and contrast ranges, but not bothering with the even greater detail behind these and other technical issues.

Which is to say, an intimate understanding of background theory might or might not be interesting to someone, but it's value is highly dependent on goals and circumstances. My philosophy is that you add to your knowledge base as needed unless there's a compelling interest in the subject beyond what is needed.

[Hink]

Here in forums like this validation is a key personal issue and I think we are all guilty of arguing to prove how much we know. Some people post only for the sake of showing the whole world how much they know and making them more comfortable with themselves feeling superior.

I think you have pointed out an essential issue on KVR. The range of talent, experience and knowledge among those who participate here is immense: from totally new to highly knowledgeable. And it's obvious who the "experts" are -- although some have the credentials whereas others simply have an opinion on everything. Music theory plays right into this division of "classes" of knowledge.

Music theory is just that. It can help explain certain phenomenon and why certain things such as chord progressions work better one way than another, but a lot of it is beyond necessary to be good in music. I know this for the same reasons that one can be a good photographer by knowing enough technical information to understand issues such as depth-of-field and contrast ranges, but not bothering with the even greater detail behind these and other technical issues.

Which is to say, an intimate understanding of background theory might or might not be interesting to someone, but it's value is highly dependent on goals and circumstances. My philosophy is that you add to your knowledge base as needed unless there's a compelling interest in the subject beyond what is needed.

you're right, and I think I should add "or fit in" to "feel superior"

[Toxikator]

Music theory is just that. It can help explain certain phenomenon and why certain things such as chord progressions work better one way than another, but a lot of it is beyond necessary to be good in music. I know this for the same reasons that one can be a good photographer by knowing enough technical information to understand issues such as depth-of-field and contrast ranges, but not bothering with the even greater detail behind these and other technical issues.

Which is to say, an intimate understanding of background theory might or might not be interesting to someone, but it's value is highly dependent on goals and circumstances. My philosophy is that you add to your knowledge base as needed unless there's a compelling interest in the subject beyond what is needed.

But isn't that just the same thing as complacency? "What I've got is good enough", and all that?

IMO it's a sad state for an artist to be in to assume that learning more about their art is a waste of time.

I think what it boils down to is the fact that you will NEVER learn everything there is to learn about music. For some, this provides an insurmountable obstacle that they know they'll never overcome and therefore don't want to waste their time. For me (and many others, I'm sure), it presents instead an infinite reserve of knowledge, from which to grab as much as you can possibly carry, however far it is from enough.

I guess some loathe the concept of a task they can never truly complete and others welcome it.

[metrosechual]

i think some of it has to do with the investment factor. many have invested alot of time into learning it, so it HAS to be worth it! Just like those who spend tons of money on the highest quality gear, and diss plugins or DAWs, because of the investment they put into it.

[Kingston]

i think some of it has to do with the investment factor. many have invested alot of time into learning it, so it HAS to be worth it! Just like those who spend tons of money on the highest quality gear, and diss plugins or DAWs, because of the investment they put into it.

..coz owning gear is equal to knowledge, right?

Didn't they ban you quite recently? What are you still doing here?

[eduardo_b]

My philosophy is that you add to your knowledge base as needed unless there's a compelling interest in the subject beyond what is needed.

But isn't that just the same thing as complacency? "What I've got is good enough", and all that?

This, to me, is exactly what the division between those who know music theory and those who don't is about. The term complacency is negative, isn't it? I understand that you're trying to say we should all want more than just good enough, but the way it's said can imply that those who don't are lazy or inferior. I don't think you meant it that way.

Look, I know people for whom nothing is ever good enough, and neither they nor those around them are all that happy. Not everyone need buy into the idea that there's always more to know and we simply should know it because it exists. I think this is where the emotional responses to music theory come from.

[mauseoleum]

What are you still doing here?

Spending quality time?

[Hink]

Music theory is just that. It can help explain certain phenomenon and why certain things such as chord progressions work better one way than another, but a lot of it is beyond necessary to be good in music. I know this for the same reasons that one can be a good photographer by knowing enough technical information to understand issues such as depth-of-field and contrast ranges, but not bothering with the even greater detail behind these and other technical issues.

Which is to say, an intimate understanding of background theory might or might not be interesting to someone, but it's value is highly dependent on goals and circumstances. My philosophy is that you add to your knowledge base as needed unless there's a compelling interest in the subject beyond what is needed.

But isn't that just the same thing as complacency? "What I've got is good enough", and all that?

IMO it's a sad state for an artist to be in to assume that learning more about their art is a waste of time.

I think what it boils down to is the fact that you will NEVER learn everything there is to learn about music. For some, this provides an insurmountable obstacle that they know they'll never overcome and therefore don't want to waste their time. For me (and many others, I'm sure), it presents instead an infinite reserve of knowledge, from which to grab as much as you can possibly carry, however far it is from enough.

I guess some loathe the concept of a task they can never truly complete and others welcome it.

I don't think he was saying stop learning, or don't learn...I think he was saying growth is at a different rate for everyone as is direction. It's amazing how things interweave through life, often you don't actively study something, but you still learn. As you grow often areas that were not important in our youth now are and you actively persue that knowledge. You make it black or white when it's not that simple. But the topic still is about why people get emotional...not the argument of knowing theory. However, far be it for you to judge whether someone's growth is complacent because it's not on the same path as yours.

[Toxikator]

i think some of it has to do with the investment factor. many have invested alot of time into learning it, so it HAS to be worth it! Just like those who spend tons of money on the highest quality gear, and diss plugins or DAWs, because of the investment they put into it.

True.

The counter to that is that, until you HAVE invested a lot of time in it, it won't really seem practical... so those who have invested the most time in it also have the best experience with it and how it works.

I know everyone hates analogies, but it's like anything else in musicl it takes time.

"You only think the piano is a more dynamic and expressive instrument than the Glockenspiel because you spent 15 years studying it. You've invested in it, and you have to convince yourself that it's worthwhile."

"No, it opens up a range of dynamic and timbral control, not to mention sheer range of pitches, that the Glockenspiel doesn't provide. Plus, it helps your musicality to see things from another perspective, especially since so much of music and technology is explained and designed with the piano in mind"

"That's crap, there are plenty of good songs you can play on Glockenspiel. I took a piano class and I couldn't do half of anything that I could on a glockenspiel... the key weights made my notes slower and everything was all elevated and confusing. It just slows me down."

"Again, if you would take the time to actually LEARN it properly your opinion might change"

"You're just full of yourself because you think that piano is a more "legitimate" instrument, different strokes for different folks! My music wouldn't get better from learning anything about piano, you're wasting everyone's time."

"My God you're retarded."

"And now you start flaming, well you misspelled that word back in post 4 and your feet smell and you lack people skills and you just make theory look bad, ner ner ner ner "

I have invested many years in theory and I promise my music has done nothing but improve. On top of that, it's opened my eyes and my mind to musical styles and characteristics I'd have never even HEARD of before. If I approached myself from 4 years ago and said "write a song in 7/8" or "Use a Neapolitan 6th" I'd have laughed and shown myself to the door. But having studied the applications and uses of these concepts I find myself working them into my music and appreciating more music that incorporates them and other once "ugly" musical aspects.