KVR Audio

xiujk71 · Post by **xiujk71** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:48 pm

Sorry for the long post, skip the first four paragraph if u do not wish to read my rant/confusion/etc.

I've been trying to make music for sometimes but when I compared my work with commercial songs, it feels like my music turns lifeless and rot away.

I'm afraid that music theory will ruin my creativity (I've seen alot of this) but I couldn't accept that my music is so lifeless (I can't stand it when my Live loops a part of my music for more than 4 times). So I decided to learn abit of theory, hoping that there will be some changes.

Now I've learned the Major Chords, Minor Chords, and use the simple map as reference. And I thought, ok, I can go and figure out how my favorite artist creates their songs by searching for their chords in the web, just to find out that the simple map is not used all the time. The chord is E B C#m G A G-C#m F#m B E B C#m G A G-C#m F#m B E. My reaction was, what? The map says u can't go from C#m to G! (VI to III).

On another song, I decided to hear for myself (tho I don't think I have 'super ears'). Since u have to always return to I, the last note of the chord progression should be the same, right? But then, nope. This song is different. The first two chords are the same, but the last one is always different. It just leave me more confused, since the progression doesn't return back 'home'.

Thus I'm afraid that music theory will 'trap' me inside, making me unable to figure out beautiful chords outside what the theory teaches, and unable to accept them, which I thought will sort of limit my creativity.

Should I continue learning music theory? I'm confused.

In case anyone wants to hear the songs I'm referring to (J-Pop fan, if u don't mind)
Love Words by Deco*27/Hatsune Miku
Sign by Livetune adding Yun*Chi

ThoughtExperiment · Post by **ThoughtExperiment** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:02 pm

not this one again?

Yes...No....Don't care

thecontrolcentre · Post by **thecontrolcentre** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:12 pm

You need to know the rules before you can break them.

Sendy · Post by **Sendy** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:24 pm

Music theory cannot destroy creativity. This is a fallacy created to facilitate laziness, I believe. I'm no music theory expert but what little I do know is invaluable.

The trick is, the music theory should be used to correct mistakes and strengthen your music, it shouldn't drive the process. Thankfully the days of hearing that one note in the passage which sounds weak and not knowing why are more or less over

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:35 pm

You should see a therapist.

DSmolken · Post by **DSmolken** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:38 pm

I'll just copy something I said in another thread a couple of days ago.

"I also really like what Schoenberg said several times in his harmony textbook: that every rule will be broken in a later chapter when the student is more advanced."

Learn basic theory, then learn more advanced theory. Things like going from C#m to G aren't wrong or outside the scope of theory. Theory doesn't say that's wrong and can't be done; theory says that will probably sound pretty drastic and dramatic and noticeable, a "whoa, something different and unexpected just happened" kind of shift.

digitalboytn · Post by **digitalboytn** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:49 pm

Aloysius wrote:You should see a therapist.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:07 pm

xiujk71 wrote: The map says u can't go from C#m to G! (VI to III).

Since u have to always return to I, the last note of the chord progression should be the same, right? But then, nope. This song is different. The first two chords are the same, but the last one is always different. It just leave me more confused, since the progression doesn't return back 'home'.

Thus I'm afraid that music theory will 'trap' me inside, making me unable to figure out beautiful chords outside what the theory teaches, and unable to accept them, which I thought will sort of limit my creativity.

I don't know where you get these notions, "you have to"/"should be" but already you've set a limit for yourself. Understanding why someone that made such a map, which is not unlike your 'you have to/it should' stuff, would believe you mustn't go from C#m to G major doesn't have to limit you, ie., just grasping some principles shouldn't harm your 'creativity' such as it is at this stage.

In terms of a certain conventionality, that move could feel comparatively jarring, but it might have a 'punky' kind of effect suitable elsewhere. Know this, that this kind of map was made to suit a certain kind of convention or style; and generally be skeptical of these kind of things you'll find on the internet. Something about a 'map' for chord progressions seems a bit suspect to me to begin with.
Don't be forming all of these beliefs out of nothing, though. EG: Knowing things is not a bad thing.

However a half-assed, piecemeal approach to 'music theory', and the sort of ideation that it's a cart strong enough to pull the horse of musical thinking, isn't so good either.

xiujk71 · Post by **xiujk71** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:23 pm

Thanks for the replies guys. I think I got it.
and sorry for making things look very bad I guess?
really thanks!
I will continue learning the theory but I guess I should not limit myself to just the theory

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:28 pm

I' ll just chime in by quoting myself from a post earlier today

IncarnateX wrote:If [your music] sounds good to you, you should never let any music theory tell you that it does not make sense IMO. Music theory applies if you want to know what you are doing in musical terms or whether you are innovative or not according to established conventions or if you try to write in a certain conventional style or just for any other reason than letting any "expert" instruct you what to do in your own music. The latter would kill music as a free art form and may even destroy your innovative potentials.

Just my two cents.

Cheers

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:43 pm

Another way to look at it is that music theory is a lot like languages. There is a grammar and structure that is "defined". The very best authors use break rules with a purpose. The street morphs words to take on new meanings in spite of the "rules". But, the common context of the rules gives the breaking of the rules the borders that make it identifiable. A play on words, wouldn't be a play on words if the words didn't already have a shared context.

Rah · Post by **Rah** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:45 pm

I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to return to your usual way of producing music, should you dislike the results.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:52 pm

seeing knowledge as a limiting or restricting factor is so fundamentally stupid it is hard to believe that people buy into the idea so easily.

manducator · Post by **manducator** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 3:56 pm

xiujk71 wrote:I will continue learning the theory but I guess I should not limit myself to just the theory

That's it. Be creative, make music like you did before you knew music theory. But when you are stuck, you can use music theory to finish things.

With knowledge of music theory is a lot easier to harmonize your melodies, for example.

robogone · Post by **robogone** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:53 pm

The other thing that I think taught me a lot about music was sitting down with a bunch of guys and just improvising like crazy. If you have no clue what everyone else is going to play, you start to quickly learn how to lead and follow in a way that makes sense.