KVR Audio

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:05 pm

2 months later and the question still needs an answer.

Toxikator · Post by **Toxikator** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:07 pm

oh lawd

I forgot about this one.

EDIT: It's so wild to see me on the same side as Nuffink.

ah, the good ol days.

experimental.crow · Post by **experimental.crow** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:32 pm

herodotus wrote:2 months later and the question still needs an answer.

can't help myself ...
my girl was stolen from me by a music theorist ...

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:48 pm

its because they spend 4 years learning classical theory and still end up producing lifeless turgid shite, which whilst being technically perfect in every way is actually painfully embaressing to listen to.

VicDiesel · Post by **VicDiesel** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:50 pm

I thought this thread was dead and buried.

liqih wrote: I totally disagree that Music Theory has "laws", it's not at all like Physics
where you have theorems and proofs of them,
you can proof nothing in Music,

You would be right if your ears were spectrum analizers. Since they are not, the situation isn't quite so all-or-nothing.

Pick up a copy of Helmholtz for some fascinating reading.

Victor.

Km7 · Post by **Km7** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:11 pm

Indeed. Or other books that deal with the acoustical foundations of music and properties of sound, as well as books and encyclopedias on acoustics, musical acoustics, psycho acoustics, etc. Since music is sound and sound is a physical phenomenon that depends on the physical laws of this Universe and possesses certain properties, music is connected to and works thanks to these physical laws. How one exploits them is another topic.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:03 pm

herodotus wrote:2 months later and the question still needs an answer.

maybe they should just change the name of this forum to "testostezone".

The Chase · Post by **The Chase** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:16 pm

vurt wrote:its because they spend 4 years learning classical theory and still end up producing lifeless turgid shite, which whilst being technically perfect in every way is actually painfully embaressing to listen to.

Hit the nail on the f**king head...

JumpingJackFlash · Post by **JumpingJackFlash** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:41 pm

The Chase wrote:
vurt wrote:its because they spend 4 years learning classical theory and still end up producing lifeless turgid shite, which whilst being technically perfect in every way is actually painfully embaressing to listen to.
Hit the nail on the f**king head...

Speak for yourself!

VicDiesel · Post by **VicDiesel** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:01 pm

The Chase wrote:
vurt wrote:its because they spend 4 years learning classical theory and still end up producing lifeless turgid shite, which whilst being technically perfect in every way is actually painfully embaressing to listen to.
Hit the nail on the f**king head...

Oh? Care to give some examples?

Victor.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:51 pm

you want an example of a musician who creates painful to hear music even after many years of study?
i give you chris de burgh.

cyanogen · Post by **cyanogen** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:09 am

vurt wrote:you want an example of a musician who creates painful to hear music even after many years of study?
i give you chris de burgh.

He needed years of music theory to write The Lady in Red?!

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:27 am

I feel privileged in that the names of most if not all of these people are unknown to me.

So much evil can be averted just by not listening to the radio.

Of course, I have had day jobs where the radio was just there. Right next to my head. All day. 14 hour shifts.

Now THAT is f**king evil.

The Chase · Post by **The Chase** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:58 am

VicDiesel wrote:
The Chase wrote:
vurt wrote:its because they spend 4 years learning classical theory and still end up producing lifeless turgid shite, which whilst being technically perfect in every way is actually painfully embaressing to listen to.
Hit the nail on the f**king head...
Oh? Care to give some examples?

Victor.

Well that would be a bit malicious if I were to point out members here.

Obviously it doesn't apply to ALL theory heads as not ALL people get super emotional over this. In my experience though, if someone can't make decent music before theory, they wont make decent music after (of course "decent" is utterly subjective but I'm saying I think it is a general rule of thumb). I'm in no way knocking theory. To do so would be stupid, and it very much can make a songwriter grow. It's kind of like what nuffink said in that one thread. Just because great music has been made by some who dont know theory doesn't mean that theory is remotely useless.

VicDiesel · Post by **VicDiesel** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:16 am

The Chase wrote:In my experience though, if someone can't make decent music before theory, they wont make decent music after

Yes, welll.... If someone can't make decent music before starting to pray to the Flying Spagheti Monster, then they won't make decent music after.

I'm not sure that your statement has anything to do with the merits of theory.

And for a lot of people who know theory there is no "making music before theory". I started learning piano at an early age, so I was reading music from the first day. Later you learn about chords and harmony, just in the course of learning to make music. So when I started to write an arrange I already had all that theory. I'm hardly unique in starting out with a classical education and then moving in freeer directions.

Anyway, if you want to argue that it's bad musicians who grasp at theory as their last straw, and then get emotional in defending theoretical correctness, fine.

Victor.

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