Does Knowledge of Theory Help You?

[jancivil]

It would be better if musical theroy and musical fact were seperated more.

Oh REALLY?!

I know a guy called Roy, but he's only A Roy, not The Roy.

I WOULD LOVE an example of a 'musical fact' that you can't call a theory. Maybe you can formulate it after your separation of the theory of gravity versus the fact of it.

[Clint Swank]

"First, master your instrument. Then forget all that shit and play"--Charlie Parker.

People who hear me generally think I'm a pretty emotional, intuitive player, but I'm also an unapologetic intellectual. People who claim that feeling alone is the sine qua non of musical quality are merely proclaiming their ignorance and laziness. Thought and emotion are not antithetical, and only people who are deficient in one or the other insist that they are.

Learn everything.

[Sixofour]

The problem with theories. Is that they ARE most of the time accepted without question because there seems to be a large amount of "evidence" to support it. But the truth is, it can still be wrong. So theories still stand to be questioned in my book.

I once posed a question to my science teacher that he couldn't answer. "What if the earth was stationary, and the sun and moon orbited the earth, and everything else orbited the sun. So that it appeared that everything [including us] orbited the sun?"

My point is it should be clearly defined when teaching anything at all, what is questionable and what is not. Scale X can contain Y keys, there is no question about it, it is what it is. Do Y keys work together? Is a questionable issue. For some A Minor has keys that sound way off key. Like they shouldn't be there.

If everyone goes around saying "this should be this way and this can only be replaced with this, and this cannot go with this" then you can be certain no one will get anywhere. Look at classical music...its been this way since it started till now. A genera that has had very little change.

[jopy]

If everyone goes around saying "this should be this way and this can only be replaced with this, and this cannot go with this" then you can be certain no one will get anywhere. Look at classical music...its been this way since it started till now. A genera that has had very little change.

Classical music lasted from 1750 to about 1830 (depends on who you ask). So, yeah, that one isn't really moving any.

Are you talking broadly about music performed by symphony orchestras and conservatory musicians? That version of "classical" music has changed far more over the last 100 years than pop or rock music has, including variations on theory that chuck out every single one of the rules of the common practice period.

You're making a straw man argument. Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

BTW: I read and re-read your question to your science teacher and it doesn't make any sense at all. I can't imagine how anyone would respond to a question like that. It's not profound, it's gibberish.

[Sixofour]

If everyone goes around saying "this should be this way and this can only be replaced with this, and this cannot go with this" then you can be certain no one will get anywhere. Look at classical music...its been this way since it started till now. A genera that has had very little change.

Classical music lasted from 1750 to about 1830 (depends on who you ask). So, yeah, that one isn't really moving any.

Are you talking broadly about music performed by symphony orchestras and conservatory musicians? That version of "classical" music has changed far more over the last 100 years than pop or rock music has, including variations on theory that chuck out every single one of the rules of the common practice period.

You're making a straw man argument. Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

BTW: I read and re-read your question to your science teacher and it doesn't make any sense at all. I can't imagine how anyone would respond to a question like that. It's not profound, it's gibberish.

And no, I didn't set up a strawman arguement. Infact, I didn't pose an argument. Why the useless cartagorization? Classical is Classical, Mozart did classical, so did Hans Zimmerman in pirates of the carribean. A minor change doesn't make it a new genera. You have Techno, and you have Techno with acid sounds, both are still Techno. There is no "Acid Techno"

You see, case in point. Its your opinion, or your theory rather, that 1750's - 1830's classical is somehow different than modern classical. My opinion is that it is not. And that is what I am talking about. Its a fact that basedon your own opinion of what classical is, that it lasted for that time period. But your difenition for classical is not mine. You see where I am going with this?

About the gibberish, Einstien, Marx, Darwin, Frued also said gibberish, but sadly thiers got accepted by mainstream for what ever reasons.

[james0tucson]

trust me if you ask paul to play a c7 he wont flat the 3rd.

If you established that in your notation scheme, "c" is c minor and "C" is C Major, then I'm sure he would. On the other hand, in any production situation that he's involved in, I'm pretty sure he is the one doing all the "asking."

[AndreasKrebs]

Most of this discussion seems to regard knowledge, which is (maybe) something quite different than rules or theory.

Knowledge can be:
a) Definitions and conventions. That's what forms musicians language, e.g. the thing we use to call a C major chord consists of the notes c, e and g (which are also defined elsewhere). Or the structural elements that are necessary for an 18th century sonata form (regardless if we think this is a "good", a "well sounding" or whatever musical form or even if we think wether musical forms are necessary or harmful). This is quite a useful knowledge since it allows us to communicate with other musicians, which may possibly contribute to music we create.
b) Procedural knowledge. That's the "experience" part of music. It is still somewhat different if we know what is necessary for a blues improvisation or a symphony (definitions, conventions) or if we are actually able to improvise a blues or write a symphony. This kind of knowledge needs some definitory knowledge as a precondition (maybe less than we would expect?) but needs experience and will improve with experience (to a certain degree).
c) Opinions and bollocks. That's the "you must not use parallel fifths" or "this chord progression sounds GOOD" part (the "GOOD" is the bollocks part here, as well as most other theories that pretend to explain what "good music" is and some of the theories that pretend to explain what "bad music" is).

Cheers,
Andreas

[The Fex]

trust me if you ask paul to play a c7 he wont flat the 3rd.

Lower case c?

Oh, is that what he meant? Lower case t in 'trust' and lower case p in 'paul', so I assumed he doesn't have much use for the shift key. I'd still be inclined to distinguish between a cdom7 and a cm7, though....

[jopy]

And no, I didn't set up a strawman arguement. Infact, I didn't pose an argument. Why the useless cartagorization? Classical is Classical, Mozart did classical, so did Hans Zimmerman in pirates of the carribean. A minor change doesn't make it a new genera. You have Techno, and you have Techno with acid sounds, both are still Techno. There is no "Acid Techno"

You see, case in point. Its your opinion, or your theory rather, that 1750's - 1830's classical is somehow different than modern classical. My opinion is that it is not. And that is what I am talking about.

Hans Zimmer (not Zimmerman, that's Bob Dylan) is not at all who I was thinking of. He'd mostly be a neo-romantic composer, but there are plenty of other versions of concert music that came from conservatory trained musicians that rewrote the rules of harmonization, including Debussy back in the late 1800's who used scales and chords that were completely outside the conventional rules, Stravinsky appropriated ideas for rhythm that Mozart wouldn't have recognized at all, and Schoenberg derived a totally new way of considering harmony and melody based on tone rows. That's not even considering the even more radical reconfigurations of theory that were developed in the 1950's onward. Your techno and electronica genres, on the other hand, all conform either consciously or unconsciously to a very small number of theoretical conventions.

When I say you are creating a straw man argument, it is because you are describing theory as a set of rigid rules without considering the fact that every single person in this thread who has defended the usefulness of theory has said it is NOT a set of rules. It's a descriptive framework that facilitates ear training, discussion, and sometimes encourages experimenting with new combinations of theoretical principles.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, if you can't tell the enormous differences between Hans Zimmer's composition style and Mozart you have a tin ear.

[jancivil]

trust me if you ask paul to play a c7 he wont flat the 3rd.

Lower case c?

Oh, is that what he meant? Lower case t in 'trust' and lower case p in 'paul', so I assumed he doesn't have much use for the shift key. I'd still be inclined to distinguish between a cdom7 and a cm7, though....

I do not know what he meant. I'm inclined to think he's in the same boat as me, that the kinda thing a theory person knows, that lower case = minor, a regular lad like Macca would ignore.

McCartney basically had the stance, of 'look, I don't read, I know the names of the basic chords, I just do it'.

[Sascha Franck]

that the kinda thing a theory person knows, that lower case = minor, a regular lad like Macca would ignore.

I would possibly ignore it as well, just to show the score writer that these days you simply don't use lower case letters for minor anymore. Yeah, I know, still common in classical analysis and some other things, completely irritating in any other context, though.
I even left those "-" behind for my own leadsheets, simply because under critical lightning conditions they may be the source of confusion. So for me it's always Cmin.

- Sascha

[jplanet]

...
If everyone goes around saying "this should be this way and this can only be replaced with this, and this cannot go with this" then you can be certain no one will get anywhere...

This is confusing "theory" with "form". Music theory is not a set of rules at all. Music theory is merely a way to define anything that can occur in music. You could, in fact, play a single note for an hour, or two notes a semitone apart for a millisecond - or play a Beethoven piece completely incorrectly - none of this is bound by theory.

Form, on the other hand, is bound by rules -- but even the most famous composers broke those rules, expanded them (thereby creating "variations" of the various forms)...The 12-bar blues is an example of form, not theory. The knowledge to be able to improvise over that 12-bar blues in such a way that dissonances are by choice and not accidental - that is theory.

The problem that occurs when people claim superiority by not being bound by form or theory, is that frequently the forms their music takes are quite accidentally based on extremely simplistic forms. The only way to innovate a new form of your own is to know the forms that exist - if, for no other reason, than to avoid them. If you don't want to compose traditional melodies, why go through the trouble of accidentally playing traditional melodies for hours, when knowing melodic structure can immediately guide you on what to avoid?

[Sixofour]

Mozart and Hans Zimmer make classical. Trying to differentiate them is nitpicking. Its like saying Tiesto and Armin are two different styles of music. When in reality the differences is so insignifigant that you might aswell call them the same person.

When did I say theory is a set of rules? I'm talking about aspects of theory that should be taken as is, and aspects of theory that should be questioned.

Like right now. An aspect of theory reguarding the styles of classical composers. Between Mozart and Zimmer. Wether they are similar or different is part of theory. But you have to people with two different opinions on wether they are similar or different. Thus it shouldn't be posed as Mozart being one form of classical and Zimmer being another. And you use generalizations like this because that is how you catagorize things. Catagorizes are nothing but a set of rules generalized. And something conforms to those set of rules, they belong to that catagory. Classical Music is pretty much Orchestrated music using one or more types of 'classical' insutrments, such a brass , woodwinds, strings etc etc.

Comparing Debussy, Mozart Bach or what ever is like comparing Tiesto, PVD, or BT...all have their own styles, but they are all just still Trance. Debussy, Mozart and Bach have their own styles, they are all just still classical. but this is still theory so someone else may have another theory, they may think Mozart and Bach are as similar as Bjork and Ray Charles.

For instance when your music theory teacher throws out the obligitory "classical music is the most superiour form of music ever made, and the 1700 was the golden age of music." You know to question his antics. And not to go around saying the same shit he said...is all I am saying.

[jplanet]

When did I say theory is a set of rules? I'm talking about aspects of theory that should be taken as is, and aspects of theory that should be questioned.

Many aspects of theory are debatable, that's agreed...I'm just not sure how this applies to whether we categorize composers of various genres broadly or narrowly...There are compositional devices typical of Baroque era composers that you would rarely hear in works by Renaissance composers, and vice-versa...of course all classical composers have things in common -- or am I confused, and the question of what is debatable about theory has nothing to do with how finely to divide these composers' sub-genres?

I think I'm confused...I'm not sure how observing the differences between composers has anything to do with theory...other than, perhaps, using theoretical terms to describe some of those differences...

[Sixofour]

I don't know how its related to theory either. Lol.

But you hit the nail on the head, alot of aspects of theory are debateable. That is what i am trying to communicate.