the theory is everything phallus see?

[Kingston]

are you suggesting that NO useful information was able to surface from this thread?

did I not state that clearly enough already? what did you personally contribute here, except needless argumentation over theoretical know-it-all-ism that you pollute all over this forum? It ticks me the wrong way to see that attitude penetrate this place, and your particular way of trying to get converts to something you seem to think is the "correct" way to see and understand theory.

[Toxikator]

Again, you're being belligerent here. I didn't start this thread, I just joined in and was having a fine discussion with people who seemed not to mind too much.

I'm not trying to win converts to my point of view, asshole, I'm trying to clear up what I consider to be a misconception. Don't think it's a misconception? feel free to disagree, that's the whole point of threads like these. Instead, you'd rather start something personal with me.

BTW, Know-it-all-ism? I'm trying to offer a wider, more open perspective on Music Theory so that intelligent, insightful people who have given up on it or rejected it might see their way clear to reembracing it and populating this forum with their knowledge.

Or would that be presumptuous of me and my knowitallism? Frankly, I think the health of this forum depends entirely on the majority of KvR NOT espousing the belief that theory is narrow and doesn't apply to the music they write, because that will suffocate this forum in its infancy... but what would you suggest?

And what did YOU personally contribute? I had an enlightening (for me, anyway) discussion on John Cage and his impact on modern music. All you did was try to tear me down.

And anyway, I thought you said you were leaving?

[Kingston]

I will admit that this forum is so far a bit less....scientific than I might like.

But do you actually think that the "My cock is bigger than yours" mentality is more prevalent in this forum than elsewhere in the music world?

To me that sort of thing is much, MUCH more prevalent in the 'My hosts digital summing is the best' threads and the like.

What is gearslutz other than that sort of thing?

funny/sad as it seems, but you're right. I just never expected this type of thing in a theory forum, and sort of refused to acknowledge it. Was hoping it would be similar in attitude to the DSP forum, which has turned rather gentlemanly and informative as of late.

I'm not trying to win converts to my point of view, asshole, I'm trying to clear up what I consider to be a misconception.

[snip]

I'm trying to offer a wider, more open perspective on Music Theory so that intelligent, insightful people who have given up on it or rejected it might see their way clear to reembracing it and populating this forum with their knowledge.

Or would that be presumptuous of me and my knowitallism?

Hi djdorian. long time no see.

[BenJammin]

Shouldn't you guys be cipherin' up a masterpiece or something? Letting the slide rules cool off or what?

*yawn*

[zuijlen]

Reading this discussion took me exactly 4'33" and provided me with as much entertainment.

I assisted in performing several pieces by Cage and composers surrounding him (such as Christian Wolff and Morton Feldman) and found it quite enjoyable. That was a long time ago, but I don't remember our aim to be unpleasant or boring... Nobody around anymore to ask...

The bottom line in these discussions seems to be that people confuse theory with aesthetics, something that Schoenberg warned against in his writings (I just started reading "Theory of Harmony", where he brings this up).

The point of 4'33" (from one perspective) is that a performance is a ritual with certain expectations from the audience. Now you may not like Cage's sense of humor, but in a sense it is funny what happens. There is a point where the theatrical aspect of the performance begins to play a role (I'm thinking of Mauricio Kagel), so that a video becomes a better reprensentation of a work than an audio recording without the visual.

I've never studied music theory so I don't know how useful it is. I followed classes in electronic music, read about music, and listented to a large variety of it. In the end, my ears are the primary judge. I'll conclude with a quote from Cage:

Instantaneous and unpredictable, nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music. Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music. Nothing is accomplished by playing a piece of music. Our ears are now in excellent condition.

[Toxikator]

lol, oh boy.

I just reread this thread from 1-6, I don't think it was that bad. Fux v Fauxbordon, the difference (if any) between live performance and recordings and whether it's musical, a discussion of experimentalism's validity as a means to an end or as a means in and of itself, John Cage's impact on the modern world and it's view of music, etc... followed by a back-and-forth disagreement over what technically constituted 4'33'', and somewhere along the line the discussion of the number of human senses... and then you claim I've added/achieved nothing but to pick fights.

Did you even READ the thread?

(btw who's dorian?)

[herodotus]

I will admit that this forum is so far a bit less....scientific than I might like.

But do you actually think that the "My cock is bigger than yours" mentality is more prevalent in this forum than elsewhere in the music world?

To me that sort of thing is much, MUCH more prevalent in the 'My hosts digital summing is the best' threads and the like.

What is gearslutz other than that sort of thing?

funny/sad as it seems, but you're right. I just never expected this type of thing in a theory forum, and sort of refused to acknowledge it. Was hoping it would be similar in attitude to the DSP forum, which has turned rather gentlemanly and informative as of late.

I had similar hopes.

But look, just 2 posts later:

Reading this discussion took me exactly 4'33" and provided me with as much entertainment.

I assisted in performing several pieces by Cage and composers surrounding him (such as Christian Wolff and Morton Feldman) and found it quite enjoyable. That was a long time ago, but I don't remember our aim to be unpleasant or boring... Nobody around anymore to ask...

The bottom line in these discussions seems to be that people confuse theory with aesthetics, something that Schoenberg warned against in his writings (I just started reading "Theory of Harmony", where he brings this up).

The point of 4'33" (from one perspective) is that a performance is a ritual with certain expectations from the audience. Now you may not like Cage's sense of humor, but in a sense it is funny what happens. There is a point where the theatrical aspect of the performance begins to play a role (I'm thinking of Mauricio Kagel), so that a video becomes a better reprensentation of a work than an audio recording without the visual.

I've never studied music theory so I don't know how useful it is. I followed classes in electronic music, read about music, and listented to a large variety of it. In the end, my ears are the primary judge. I'll conclude with a quote from Cage:

Instantaneous and unpredictable, nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music. Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music. Nothing is accomplished by playing a piece of music. Our ears are now in excellent condition.

This is exactly the sort of thing that I was hoping would be brought forth by this forum.

Welcome to kvr, zuijlen.

But you see, Kingston? It isn't all bad.

We just need a noise filter.

A really....extreme noise filter.

[Toxikator]

I hardly think it's fair to discount the entire board over a few threads. There's plenty of information flying around this forum in several forms, albiet mostly entry-level stuff about chords, harmonies, etc.

[liqih]

Hello,

I read about Cage here, and by coincidence I was writing things about him,
so I'd like to add some thoughts, but I also put a hook to the main subject.

One thing I didn't read in this posts about Cage (or I missed it) and it's the
"conceptual" term, which roughly means to me "how much brain is required to enjoy it".

Also I think it's hard to understand Cage and most "experimental" music of those years
if you don't understand figurative art as well, mostly (thinking of Cage) the previous american
abstract expressionism of Mark Rothko and Willem de Kooning, the action painting, Pollok,
and the later reaction of conceptual art and minimalism.

Here is a definition of conceptual art:
"the idea or ideas that a work expresses are considered its essential point,
with its visual appearance being of secondary (often negligible) importance"

maybe if you subtitute "visual" with "audition" and you have something that
could fit some Cage's works.

Actually I think that Cage compositions cover all the transition
from abstract expressionism to conceptual art, using both "action"
and brain requirements.

As that, hardly you can fit the Cage music in a recording,
as Greg wrote, 4'33" can deliver energy in a live concert as it requires
"action" and "brain" in that collective experience. I must add that's
ironic and funny too, as when the conductor takes the clock and set the start
to the silence and all musicians in the orchestra must be carefull to not
produce any noise! And later on when again the conductor says that
time is over, all the musicians relax and breath again.

One may argue that it's not music. Well, conceptual art has a branch
of pure "performances", where the art work is consumed within the time frame
of the action.

Both Cage works (not anyone of course) and conceptual performances
needs a context, a living time and space where to express them, so you can't
rock on with a CD of those.

Anyway a mistake I commonly saw in the eighties was to consider
conceptual music superior to pop music,
as "how much brain is required to enjoy it" became a rule,
and tagged pop music as "no big brain required".

This last note could be related also to the question
herdotus poses "So why DO people get so emotional about music theory topics?"
translating in "how much brain is needed for music understanding?"
which is obviously a question with no answer since it's too generic in its terms.

herdotus wrote:
"This thread reached eight pages, and we never did figure out why people get so emotional about this stuff."
Well I guess that you meant "I never did figure..." if you feel like that, as I find it interesting and
full of clever answers which actually explain why the subject generates this much controversy.

Part of a music theory is a personal choice, like you personally choose which music to make,
you also personally choose which and how much music theory to apply in your work.
And beeing music an emotional topic so music theory is too.

As usually in Nature, the contrast genereates diversities, which are what we enjoy.

[Amberience]

I decided I'm a shit musician. People who "feel" the music and don't think about what it is they are doing in an active way, they are shit musicians. I don't think about what it is I'm doing. I just stumble along until I get something that sounds pleasing. I don't really know what I'm doing. I'm a shit musician.

KvR is also full of other shit musicians. And we suffocate each other by not learning from our work. Probably because most of us aren't wanting to do anything serious with our music.

But I am. And I will fail. Because of the reasons outlined above.

[rp314]

Part of a music theory is a personal choice, like you personally choose which music to make,
you also personally choose which and how much music theory to apply in your work.

True and along those lines, it's generally more effective if the seriousness and creative energy we see in the work of Cage manifest themselves in our music rather than just in these diatribes. I recall that in an interview Anthony Braxton was once asked something about how much influence modern music (presumably not of the Jazz variety) had on him and in his response he expressed that he did not want to make music as if Cage had not existed.

That said I find these debates rather healthy. Whether we'll continue to "perform" his music IMO is like asking whether anyone still recites Tristan Tzara's poetry. The effect and influence have been real, time will tell about the rest.

[Toxikator]

I decided I'm a shit musician. People who "feel" the music and don't think about what it is they are doing in an active way, they are shit musicians. I don't think about what it is I'm doing. I just stumble along until I get something that sounds pleasing. I don't really know what I'm doing. I'm a shit musician.

"feeling" out music is just subconciously or inadvertently applying an inherent knowledge.

I don't bust out the slide rules whenever writing a piece, what I've learned comes through in a nonacademic form.

I don't think (or at least hope) that anyone is suggesting that the only way to write music is from an intellectually active POV. I think the proponents of theory are just suggesting that there's something to be said for understanding the choices you make, and not relegating the ideas you "stumble" across to the realm of the inexplicable, the intuitive, or any other voodoo magic.

Not to revive an old argument (that thread was done to death a while ago), but if you play in A minor, whether you know it or decide it or not, you're still playing in A minor.

As to Cage, I think it's perfectly valid to evaluate a piece like 4'33'' as a stunning and evocative piece of concept art. Just not a stunning and evocative piece of music.

[Barf]

Hi djdorian. long time no see.