Does Knowledge of Theory Help You?

[architexture]

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

Thank you Clint .

Theory is awesome . Then you realize that just because someone else did it doesn't make it "better" "the right way" or "good" these things are all dictated by your listening public . If you like sus 4th chords and a lot of B Bminor changes and you write most of your music around these 'proposals' or 'theories' then your music is great ,,,,,,, to you . The funny thing is that Bach and the other classical composers did not use the blues scale . Why ? many reasons, but at the time it was not considered musical . Then Jazz and Mr Parker (see above quote , Thanks again clint) started to play dissonant tones that were merely interplay and juxtaposition over melody . The Devils Music .
Then Rock and roll took the title over . Now we have people who can't even play music slicing sample libraries of actual musicians into shreds while retaining melody harmony dissonance and silence . It is a parlance of the times .

Learn to play . i.e. refine your craft be it DJ Samplaholic or shredmaster . the iphone is the new musical godsend (i own an n800) just waiting for a song to be produced entirely using an iphone .

Then.............. forget that shit and play . Enjoy it . After all music is an expression of emotion and feeling . Something to lose yourself in not study .

Oh yeah, How many combinations are ther for 12 notes . In the 3000+ years of human civilization , do you think you can find a new one ?


Peace and play a lot of good stuff

[Sascha Franck]

Oh yeah, How many combinations are ther for 12 notes . In the 3000+ years of human civilization , do you think you can find a new one ?

Ok, let's strictly look at melodies. Let's also assume they may cover a 2 octave range. And let's completely forget about rhythms for now (which, IMO at least, is as fundamental as the melody itself). And finally let's assume we'll only be dealing with 2 bars of 8th notes.
That alone makes up for 24^16 choices.
Add to this rhythmic choices.
Add to this that most tunes usually feature more than 2 bars.
Add harmony to the picture.

Quite something to be explored...

- Sascha

[BERFAB]

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.

Bob Dylan's real first name is Hans?

[jopy]

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.

Then why do you keep making absolute statements saying that music that was composed and performed over a span of over 300 years has not developed or changed in the least when even a cursory listening should reveal enormous stylistic changes?

You've made far more "this is the way the world is beyond any shadow of a doubt" statements than anyone else in this thread.

Music theory is useful if you want to communicate aspects of music with others, but it does absolutly nothing with you skill. If you have to "learn" how to be creative, then you shouldn't be doing music. You don't learn creativity.

Every single statement you make here is debatable.

Also, don't forget the whole of Jazz, its pretty crap too. There has never been a decent jazz song. Yeah thats pretty much my arguement, the people who make it lsiten to it are annoying, the norms and standards are horrible, and the instruments used are atrochious.

Score one for Mr. Open-minded and questioning the world. I bet a music theory class with you would be loads of fun and creative debate and discussion considering many points of view. Or perhaps not.

Mozart and Hans Zimmer make classical. Trying to differentiate them is nitpicking...Classical Music is pretty much Orchestrated music using one or more types of 'classical' insutrments, such a brass , woodwinds, strings etc etc.

Says you in yet another "this is absolute the way the world is" statement. That's just ridiculously poorly informed. You're embarrassing yourself.

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."

I've never once heard of a music theory professor making such a stupid and close minded statement, and your dates are factually wrong. 1700 was the late Baroque.

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.

Only the most introductory music theory course wouldn't include bitonality. This is old news for CLASSICAL MUSIC as you define it. Again, you have made music theory into something it isn't and are arguing against a straw man.

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"

I hope at this point there is at least some small part of you that recognizes that the terms "a minor change" are completely subjective and dependent on the perspective of the listener.

[jopy]

Bob Dylan's real first name is Hans?

Shh, don't tell anyone. It's a secret.

[bernhardtjeff]

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.

.....

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?

i can't speak for anyone else, but i see where you're going with this, and it leads straight to utter insanity. if you start talking about how everyone has their own definitions for words based on their own opinions, then you do realize that no form of linguistic communication would be possible for humans at all, don't you? surely you realize the definitions for words are agreed upon--whether consciously or not--by the community of the users of that language and that it's certainly not the case that everyone gets to define words by him/herself. if you do think that's the case, try having a conversation with someone and redefine words as you go along and see how far you get.

further, he didn't define "classical music" in that sense by himself. it's a widely used definition of the term "classical music," though it refers to the music of a more specific period of time than the way many people use the same term to refer to a much broader range of music.

further still, the music of the classical period and the music of say 20th century classical music contain vast differences. even children would be able to notice differences between mozart and bartok, for one big difference is that mozart tends to be easier for kids to sing. for more complex analyses, you'd have to make the time and effort to study these things, but you seem to prefer to not do that, hence the discussion you've provoked in this thread.

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.

i never had a music theory teacher say this, and i certainly don't go around saying it myself.

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?"

well, it's a poorly worded question to begin with. what if...? but perhaps he wasn't an astute science teacher, because he could've answered it with a simple sentence: "then a focault pendulum wouldn't appear to change it's angle of swing over the course of a day, and there'd be no parallax shift of background stars over the course of the year." these two things provide solid evidence that the earth both rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, respectively.

now maybe there's a way to debate the cause of these phenomena, but in order to do so, you'd have to understand what he was talking about, and i'm assuming that when you asked your teacher this question, you hadn't yet acquired the necessary scientific knowledge to understand him had he given this answer, so you'd have to learn about what he was talking about in order to challenge him in any serious way. a person who really wants to find out would make the effort to do this, but a person who really just prefers to live in his own ignorance would probably say something like, "well, that's just your theory, your opinion," which is pretty much what you're doing here. so if you want to debate the merits of music theory, you're gonna have to do it on its own grounds by learning more about it first so you can make more specific charges than just all this random babble about "theories" and "opinions" and whatnot.

further, if you think theories are just, like, you know, someone's opinion, then go jump off a cliff, 'cause you know, the theory of gravity is just like, you know, someone's opinion, man, and it could be wrong and stuff.

[Mauvehead]

Theory definitely helps me in a number of ways. First off it comes as a major plus when working out layers and parts when recording various clients (organ, bass, guitar, vox, piano, strings, etc) and also I am a full-time guitar/bass instructor so theory is the angle I teach the most since it seems to tie into everything. But I always tell students that once they become familiar with all of the ins and outs of theory then they need to eschew what they know temporarily and play from the heart. Then they can use the theory after the fact to figure out what the heck they played. I also tell them to make theory serve the song/performance rather than having the song/performance serve theory.

[vurt]

gravity is a law.

[bernhardtjeff]

gravity is a law.

well, no, gravity is a phenomenon.

[vurt]

gravity is a law.

well, no, gravity is a phenomenon.

well, yes.
but there is no theory of gravity, it is a proven phenomena.
whereas music as it is is a manmade concept, which there are no rules for, only ideals born of nurture.

[Mauvehead]

C, E-flat, and G go into a bar.

The bartender says, "Sorry, but we don't serve minors." So, the E-flat leaves, and the C and the G have an open fifth between them.

After a few drinks, the fifth is diminished; the G is out flat. An F comes in and tries to augment the situation, but is not sharp enough.

A D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying, "Excuse me. I'll just be a second."

An A comes into the bar, but the bartender is not convinced that this relative of C is not a minor. Then the bartender notices a B-flat hiding at the end of the bar and exclaims, "Get out now! You're the seventh minor I've found in this bar tonight."

The E-flat, not easily deflated, comes back to the bar the next night in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes. The bartender says: "You're looking sharp tonight, come on in! This could be a major development." This proves to be the case, as the E-flat takes off the suit, and everything else, and is now au naturel.

Eventually, the C sobers up, and realizes in horror that he's under a rest. The C is brought to trial, is found guilty of contributing to the diminution of a minor, and is sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an upscale correctional facility. On appeal, however, the C is found innocent of any wrongdoing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless.

The bartender decides he needs a rest - and closes the bar.



- Author Unknown

[bernhardtjeff]

gravity is a law.

well, no, gravity is a phenomenon.

well, yes.
but there is no theory of gravity, it is a proven phenomena.
whereas music as it is is a manmade concept, which there are no rules for, only ideals born of nurture.

there is and have been many theories of gravity. talk to any high school physics professor to find out what the current one is. it changes sometimes, so i don't know how they explain it now.

as for music being a concept, i'm not sure what you mean. certainly music is conceptualized and there are numerous concepts of music, but the music itself isn't a concept. when you listen to music, you're not listening to a concept, are you? maybe you'd say you're listening to the result of someone putting that concept into sound, which is fine, but that result isn't the concept itself.

[bernhardtjeff]

C, E-flat, and G go into a bar.

The bartender says, "Sorry, but we don't serve minors." So, the E-flat leaves, and the C and the G have an open fifth between them.

After a few drinks, the fifth is diminished; the G is out flat. An F comes in and tries to augment the situation, but is not sharp enough.

A D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying, "Excuse me. I'll just be a second."

An A comes into the bar, but the bartender is not convinced that this relative of C is not a minor. Then the bartender notices a B-flat hiding at the end of the bar and exclaims, "Get out now! You're the seventh minor I've found in this bar tonight."

The E-flat, not easily deflated, comes back to the bar the next night in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes. The bartender says: "You're looking sharp tonight, come on in! This could be a major development." This proves to be the case, as the E-flat takes off the suit, and everything else, and is now au naturel.

Eventually, the C sobers up, and realizes in horror that he's under a rest. The C is brought to trial, is found guilty of contributing to the diminution of a minor, and is sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an upscale correctional facility. On appeal, however, the C is found innocent of any wrongdoing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless.

The bartender decides he needs a rest - and closes the bar.


- Author Unknown

now THAT'S more like the kind of thing you'd hear in a music theory class.

[Mauvehead]

[Sixofour]

stuff

And this is relevent after-the-fact...how? My point has already been discovered. Alot of things in theory are very questionable.

stuff

No one is saying that words have no meaning, but in this case "classical" no one is depating the meaning of the word, we are debating the meaning of the genera and what falls into it. Hanz and Bach fall into it. End of story...what is not to understand? Is it because I do not choose to nitpick? That i don't recognize the baraque era or renessance [sp?] era or what ever? Its all the same to me. Just like most country is the same, most rock is the same, most rap is the same etcetc..most classical is the same. I am sure I could listen to alot of classical and come up with an analasys, but most classical is a bore, unintresting, and without value. At most [and which also happens to be the case] alot of it can be used to see classical theory in practice. And that's it. And because of that, I am already predisposed to be biased on the subject. So what is the point?

Theories are 'just someones opinion'. Falling to my death isn't a theory. Saying its because of gravitational pull is [still] a theory. gravitational pull is still an unproven idea behind why things fall to the earth. And as someone mentioned before, the theory behind why things falls to earth changes often. Someone comes up with a conving arguement and evidence and constructs it insuch a way as to convince the masses, and thus the theory changes. That is how science works. Its a big race to have your theory accepted by "the scientific community"