Is predicting outcome one of music theory's strengths?

[tee boy]

I'm not sure if reflect the blues in the my playing or truely absorb it. I guess music is so subjective that it's very difficult to truely absorb a style, particularly a style which means so many different things to so many different musicians. Eitherway, I'd like to think that I'd been able to draw on some of the principles and aesthetics of the blues in my improvisations. To an extent that would probably include SOME cliches, but with a strict desire to avoid them as much as possible.

I must admit, though, that the discussion of reflection vs absorbtion is a fascinating one. I remember reading one biographer comment that amongst Prokofiev's most unique traits was his ability to reflect musical while absorbing very little - he could make anything his own.

Yet, without absorbing atleast a little of the style in question, can we ever truly 'feel' it? Can we 'get' it? Be anything more than a mirror?

Perhaps the sacrifice of our own style is the price we pay for this absorbtion of another? Much like the way an actor sacrifices a little of their own personality when adopting another?

If this is the case, can it be considered a good thing? Is it evolution? Or indecisiveness?

Questions, questions, questions...

TB

[Dean Aka Nekro]

it is indeed its greatest strength and enables more control of composition etc... but i found it hard to do things on the guitar which were in theory not correct so it can restrict and contain as much as it can open doors (keep one in theory and the other firmly out! it took me years to sort out! yes means no and no means yes??! if you see what im saying but its only my experience and reflexion so it really is of little value to anyone else)

what would frank zappa say?

[tee boy]

it is indeed its greatest strength and enables more control of composition etc... but i found it hard to do things on the guitar which were in theory not correct so it can restrict and contain as much as it can open doors (keep one in theory and the other firmly out! it took me years to sort out! yes means no and no means yes??! if you see what im saying but its only my experience and reflexion so it really is of little value to anyone else)

what would frank zappa say?

You're entire correct that attempting to writing music to unsuitable rules can restrict creativity.

However, I think you misinterpret the purpose of 'theory' a little. Theory is not a set of rules that dictates what is correct and what isn't. Theory is language and science of music. It attempts to explain why something sounds the way it does and it helps us to reproduce those effects. It never tells us what sounds good and what sounds bad (only perhaps what others thought).

If you play something which you like yet fits outside your knowledge of music theory, that is sign only of your lack of theorectical musical knowledge. Please, no offense intended. Some of the best music written the past century was done so with very little knowledge or consideration for 'theory'. But I do think that 'theory' is often thought of in the wrong context. People read a little of the tonal method prematurely come to the conclusion that theory describes a restrictive and partially redundant method of musical composition that offers little to the modern composer. This could not be further from the truth. In reality, books teaching theory often start with LESSONS on the tonal idioms, purely as these are a good introduction to understanding the principles behind our modern styles.

This is in no means the final word! What we can get from these tonal theory text books is a grasp of the music we hear today came to pass - what are the fundamental principles of the tonal system that continues to govern much of our music. However, these introductory lessons are not the holy grail of music. If one studies the music of the 20th century we can see new ideas in all aspects of music composition, many of which bend of break completely the rules we learned in 'theory' class.

I guess that inital theory could be considered analogous to basic grammer and written composition - they give guidelines for creating work in a well recognised and accepted style... they don't tell YOU how to be a creative writer! If a writer feels they can express something better outside of the standard guidelines, then there is NOTHING to stop them. They're still using grammer, still using composition... just as we're still applying music theory when we do something off the wall. The real question is, did we understand why something sounded cool? Can we reproduce and develop upon it? THAT is where our knowledge of music theory can help us!

TB

[jancivil]

I'm not sure if reflect the blues in the my playing or truely absorb it. I guess music is so subjective that it's very difficult to truely absorb a style, particularly a style which means so many different things to so many different musicians. Eitherway, I'd like to think that I'd been able to draw on some of the principles and aesthetics of the blues in my improvisations. To an extent that would probably include SOME cliches, but with a strict desire to avoid them as much as possible.

I must admit, though, that the discussion of reflection vs absorbtion is a fascinating one. I remember reading one biographer comment that amongst Prokofiev's most unique traits was his ability to reflect musical while absorbing very little - he could make anything his own.

Yet, without absorbing atleast a little of the style in question, can we ever truly 'feel' it? Can we 'get' it? Be anything more than a mirror?

Perhaps the sacrifice of our own style is the price we pay for this absorbtion of another? Much like the way an actor sacrifices a little of their own personality when adopting another?

If this is the case, can it be considered a good thing? Is it evolution? Or indecisiveness?

Questions, questions, questions...

TB

Ooh, what a cool post. Strange Prokofiev remark, never heard that one before. Thought-provoking.

How much human endeavor is really just a mirroring?? (I made up a character for a film I wrote, she's a stripper who's a monster, who becomes an utterly ubiquitous celebrity, as clones of Godzilla are inflicted globally for realpolitik gain. The whole idea was she is a tabula rasa that only means to mirror and Transparently Illuminate what's there. Which tends to be monstrous.) I think a music that arises out of old, or even ancient culture has to be absorbed to really travel.

Right now I'm revelling in cliche, and sometimes warping it. Just for laughs. I believe that 'own style' is simply 'own personality', and whatever one eats in order to poot forth something makes a more convincing poot if the system has absorbed it enough to provide one's special aroma.

[tee boy]

Absolutely, yes. I think his first symphony is a 'classic' example (no pun intended) - it reflects the classical style perfectly, yet is unmistakably Prokofiev. Other instances could be found in his Russian folk influences that were often the basis of his stage works.

TB

[Dean Aka Nekro]

tee boy no offence taken mate, however you are wrong in thinking i do not grasp every aspect of musical theory, I was simply saying what my initial experiences of theory and its applications rather than using my ears did to my brain whilst writing! therefore i use no theory whatsoever anymore and am all the better for it i must conclude and that works for ME and yes i know exactly why something i have written/done sounds good and why. The way i viewed the question was like somebody asking me whether i want to walk through the crowded city or take the scenic route to get from a theoretical 'A to B' location so therefore posted accordingly.

[ivory1029]

>snip<
...what would frank zappa say?

On this subject, he was known to say that he learned a lot of theory about types of music he hated so that he would thoroughly understand WHY he hated it and would never use it in his compositions.

He also said, "anything, anytime, anywhere, for no reason at all", but his music was highly organized even when it seemed not to be.

[tee boy]

tee boy no offence taken mate, however you are wrong in thinking i do not grasp every aspect of musical theory, I was simply saying what my initial experiences of theory and its applications rather than using my ears did to my brain whilst writing! therefore i use no theory whatsoever anymore and am all the better for it i must conclude and that works for ME and yes i know exactly why something i have written/done sounds good and why. The way i viewed the question was like somebody asking me whether i want to walk through the crowded city or take the scenic route to get from a theoretical 'A to B' location so therefore posted accordingly.

Absolutely. I agree that to attempt writing music from a theoretical perspective is just about as uninspiring as can be. The happy accident is utterly impossible... opportunity to improvise is non-existent... basically, it sucks. The only composers who can write music on paper before playing it (that I know of atleast) are the ones who can 'hear' in their mind's ear before hand.

However, you do contradict yourself a tiny, tiny bit...

"therefore i use no theory whatsoever anymore and am all the better for it i must conclude and that works for ME and yes i know exactly why something i have written/done sounds good and why"

Purely by considering and understanding how you achieved a result you're using theory. If you discover that two chords work together nicely in a certain way, and you grasp why this is and how it can be reproduced / deveoped upon, you are thinking of your music in a theoretical way.

Contrary to what many people believe (and not insinuating you), theory tends to come after as an explanation of music rather than before. Ofcourse people give themselves theoretical 'limit's in their music... perhaps thats what we mean by 'style'? But it is in the analysis of music that theory tends to be most applicable.

I say write or play whatever you like. Make it sound as typical of as strange as you like. If nothing from the past offers adequate guidelines for composition, then do something different and completely off the wall - your knowledge of theory will later help you to understand what it was that you did!

TB

[Dean Aka Nekro]

i guess your spot on with that one friend, i suspose its embedded in my mind somewhere and will leap out always regardless of whether i want it to or not so it looks like i basically have gone full circle then

maybe like learning to ride a bike could be likened to learning theory then in my case anyway

Take care tee boy

Yeah ivory1029 aint it great