Is it always necessary to follow Music Theory rules?

[Melkor]

Why all this KVR-typical negativity again

Michael Crețu made more creative songs than most of the 90ies dance artists!

I even still love The KLF and I don't care whether they used 2 or 99 chords or samples from VHS cassettes. They even used the term "Chillout" for the first time. And I find The17 choirs boring as hell, better Bill Drummond would have continued with Punk music...

Music isn't about the amounts of chords you use, it's about feeling

Haha no I wasn't being sarcastic
I really thought that that album was creative.

Sorry if my post came off otherwise

[whyterabbyt]

Dude.. Stop it!

You know full well that there's loads of room for rebels in all arts... But the idea that any musical conformist, anarchist, agnostic or even AntiChrist can join in effectively without at least a bit of basic music theory is total bollocks!

Amazing how many of them managed, then.

[ChameleonMusic]

Dude.. Stop it!

You know full well that there's loads of room for rebels in all arts... But the idea that any musical conformist, anarchist, agnostic or even AntiChrist can join in effectively without at least a bit of basic music theory is total bollocks!

Amazing how many of them managed, then.

I'm not following this thread anymore... I unsubscribed a few days ago because it's too annoying... And this reply is a classic ( thanks to the anonymous person who DM'd me about it.. You were right... It was worth reading as it so shows the point exactly)!!!

Chords are part of music theory - simple fact!!!

Someone who's learnt to play 3 chords has some basic music theory - doh!

Especially when you add in elements like how to sequence them together in some sort of song structure + the myriad of other elements needed to effectively play together as a band.

As I said a couple of times... Some people have a very narrow and innaccurate view of music theory and just spout nonsense.

Back outta the thread again... Wurt cheers for the unicorns... Saw them above... Yeah, I'll create that Pegasus.

[whyterabbyt]

I'm not following this thread anymore...

Clearly you are.

Chords are part of music theory - simple fact!!!

Well. that's about as reductively stupid as it gets, but there you go...

Someone who's learnt to play 3 chords has some basic music theory - doh!

Because knowing of the existence of a thing means you understand the theory behind it? Is that your claim?

That's like saying someone who knows 3 words understands some basic linguistics.

I guess by your logic, anyone who's even heard of subatomic particles understand basic quantum theory, right?

Doh! indeed.

But congratulations on lowering the bar so much for 'music theory' that basically anyone who's ever played a chord qualifies as knowing sufficient music theory, thus managing to render the margin between that and not knowing any music theory completely and utterly moot, and dismantling your own argument in the process.
Pat yourself on the back.

Some people have a very narrow and innaccurate view of music theory and just spout nonsense.

Congratulations on contributing to that, then.

[ChameleonMusic]

I'm not following this thread anymore...

Clearly you are.

Chords are part of music theory - simple fact!!!

Well. that's about as reductively stupid as it gets, but there you go...

Someone who's learnt to play 3 chords has some basic music theory - doh!

Because knowing of the existence of a thing means you understand the theory behind it? Is that your claim?

That's like saying someone who knows 3 words understands some basic linguistics.

I guess by your logic, anyone who's even heard of subatomic particles understand basic quantum theory, right?

Doh! indeed.

But congratulations on lowering the bar so much for 'music theory' that basically anyone who's ever played a chord qualifies as knowing sufficient music theory, thus managing to render the margin between that and not knowing any music theory completely and utterly moot, and dismantling your own argument in the process.
Pat yourself on the back.

Some people have a very narrow and innaccurate view of music theory and just spout nonsense.

Congratulations on contributing to that, then.

Dude, there are so many holes in what you've just written that there's really no point in trying to debate...I'll try once, don't bother to reply...

I am NOT following this thread, as I tried to explain, I had a private message saying 'check out your comment' from someone else in it...they were seriously amused by it...as was I! I haven't posted / looked at this thread for days now...unsubscribed and will not be looking again as it's pointless debating with people who have an all too narrow view of MT.

I think some people (maybe) just fear that they have somehow become part of the system and are NOT quite the maverick creatives that they think they are when you point out to them that they have a lot more knowledge of MT than they ever realised? they certainly react very strongly against the idea.

There is an attitude that pervades all the Arts at times - it's all intuition and inborn talent /genius with some individuals and they've never needed to study to become successful.

Chords are part of music theory - simple fact

- Your response makes no sense whatsoever, it's just silly and I can't debate with silly...no point!

Someone who's learnt to play 3 chords has some basic music theory - doh!

If someone can play the three chords then they have gone beyond just simply knowing about their existence (as you suggest) - they have understood them to the point where they can practically apply them and create some music...so again your reply is silly.

...basically anyone who's ever played a chord qualifies as knowing sufficient music theory...

Sufficient MT for what, exactly? I never used the word 'sufficient' or anything similar. Again your argument is silly! knowledge and understanding of MT evolves and develops the more you are practically involved in performing and / or creating music.

If you can effectively play 3 chords on an instrument in an organised way then you have some practically applied understanding of some basic music theory...doesn't mean you've mastered it all...doesn't mean you can't learn more and, yes, it does 100% differentiate you from a person who might have absolutely no knowledge of music whatsoever.

Alice - block that fuckin' hole up!

NOTE: UNSUBSCRIBED!!! So rant and froth away as much as you want if it makes you feel better...i ain't listening!

[vurt]

i can't listen to enigma.
funnily enough, because of a german, i worked with mid to late 90s.
one of their hits was on the radio, return to innocence, and the chant bit came on, to which he ejaculated "that is the noise julie makes when i am rimming her!" then proceeded to pull tongues while yodelling, as if mixing said act.
what made it much worse, julie also worked with us and just sat there looking embarrassed.

so i avoid enigma.

[whyterabbyt]

Dude, there are so many holes in what you've just written that there's really no point in trying to debate...

In other words, you'll just claim to be correct, instead of actually providing any logic or evidence for that.
Just about what I expected.

I'll try once, don't bother to reply...

Nah, I think I will, thanks.

I

am NOT following this thread, as I tried to explain

Very convincing. Dont bother to reply.

it's pointless debating with people who have an all too narrow view of MT.

Yes, I find that too.

If someone can play the three chords then they have gone beyond just simply knowing about their existence (as you suggest) - they have understood them to the point where they can practically apply them and create some music...so again your reply is silly.

Yes, they've understood that those three chords correlate with a specific sonic result.

But that's not music theory.

Again your argument is silly! knowledge and understanding of MT evolves and develops the more you are practically involved in performing and / or creating music.

Its more silly still that you're saying this to 'prove' your original assertions that you cant progress in creating music unless you understand music theory.

You're pretty much saying 'egg because chicken because egg'

If you can effectively play 3 chords on an instrument in an organised way then you have some practically applied understanding of some basic music theory...

So applied knowledge cant exist without knowing the appropriate existing theoretical framework?

That's amusing.

How good is your knowledge of digital signal processing and electronic engineering? You know, the stuff you clearly picked up from the practically applied understanding of poking the remote control for your TV?

NOTE: UNSUBSCRIBED!!! So rant and froth away as much as you want if it makes you feel better...i ain't listening!

Are you twelve?

[whyterabbyt]

Of course its very easy for you to support your 'argument', all you have to do is prove that humans cannot undertake any activity without intrinsically understanding the relevant theory behind that activity, and picking that up as part of the process of merely carrying out the activity.

So, you'll be able to prove, for example, that changing a lightbulb automatically starts someone in a knowledge of electronic engineering theory.
That being able to read a sentence imbues an understanding of linguistics theory.
That riding a bicycle is your entry point to mechanical engineering theory.
That eating a chicken sandwich is a viable start in zoology and biochemistry.

Should be easy, right?

[Dirtgrain]

I'm leaving this thread--I'm back--somebody never-to-be-mentioned PM-ed me that somebody was "wrong" on the internet (because we are to believe that somebody actually gives a crap to PM about this)--I'm not reading what you will write in response (fingers in ears, repeating "nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh" loudly so as not to hear a word somebody else says)--I just read your response to my response, but I'm not following this thread--your response magically appeared in my browser--I'm leaving this thre-ead, you ca-an't touch me--I am rubber, you are glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you . . . now, on to some other straw men--I won't be back

[vurt]

Why all this KVR-typical negativity again

Michael Crețu made more creative songs than most of the 90ies dance artists!

I even still love The KLF and I don't care whether they used 2 or 99 chords or samples from VHS cassettes. They even used the term "Chillout" for the first time. And I find The17 choirs boring as hell, better Bill Drummond would have continued with Punk music...

Music isn't about the amounts of chords you use, it's about feeling

no negativity here (listen to what you find pleasure in of course).

but i think bill and jimmy, did indeed continue making punk music, even if it was electronic.
in the uk, at the time we had a government who were trying to stamp out gatherings and repetitive beat oriented music. bills were passed making open air repetitive music and such.

so electronic dance music was under fire, and acts such as the klf and coldcut also made some quite overtly political statements both with their music and artwork.


again, not suggesting you should like them because of this more than someone else, just a conversation about a comment
you don't even have to agree, it is just my opinion

[Ygtorres]

Hi everyone sorry for my english, it is not my native language.
I am a music theory app developer for Android, so I know a little about it and I can tell you that if you're a genius the make music by ear otherwise theory will help you a lot but you don't have to memorize all stuff, but to know that they exits and get a tool that you can use then without memorizing them, that's what I'm working on and I have learned a great deal of Theory and it's useful I also work with fl studio, but despite all this, the magic of music comes from inspiration not from theory, and that's what makes music an "Art" and not "Math". You can explain almost anything with thoery but I have also learned that theory makes music much complicated that what it really is because too many theory stuff aren't necessary to compose.
I'm developing a free to help people like you if you're interested in be part of tester just let me know and you will improve your skill a lot.

[Paladin on a Horse]

Humble apologies for interfering in this debate as it is not my sort of thing at all as am just an old man who listens to music. I have no idea what any of you are talking about and I do not want to know either.

Sorry for the long winded explanation but i am being held to ransom by my brother who insisted at looking at Music Theory despite my trying to just show him the Music Cafe and what I have discovered over the last few weeks. He just wants to say his piece here and then I will take him away.

Good Evening, I'm a senior lecturer in Medieval Music at a UK University and just wanted to add my input here. My whole working life has been full of music theory ( I am old like my brother) and really should have retired some time ago.

Using my 43 years of experience with music theory as a starting point - the problem with these discussions is that you have people involved who just are not in a strong enough position to comment effectively as they do not have any idea what music theory actually is and what it does. The other problem is that it always polarises many on both sides but particularly those who believe that music theory is some high brow, academic activity that will somehow stop your creativity, stunt your inspiration and block your innate musicality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have never had a student at any level of musical experience who has ever found their musical growth curtailed by improving their musical knowledge. Inspiration, emotion and music theory (at what ever level) work together to create some of the great musical works in all genres.

I read here that some of you believe that basic skills such as strumming a chord on a guitar are not inherently full of music theory - you are simply and fundamentally wrong and do not understand at all how the brain works with musical activities. It may not be a very high level of music theory involved in the aforementioned activity, but it is there nonetheless. It may not even be conscious use of music theory at the very basic levels of both performance and composition, but it is there and directly linked to the musical activity.

I read quite a few of you saying that you can create original music without any knowledge of music theory - again, this is a falsehood. Research project after research project on the psychology of music making have proven this beyond any reasonable doubt.

Music theory is an extraordinarily broad church with huge scope from the incredibly simple to the amazingly complex. It is an umbrella term that compasses many scenarios. From a young child experimenting on a xylophone for the first time to a rock band in their first week rehearsing in a garage to a concert violinist performing Paganini at the Albert Hall for the 20th time.

It is a term that is extremely misunderstood by so many. It is a term that seems to cause outrage in so many who maintain (incorrectly) that it will somehow undermine the emotional content of music making. It is a term that should probably be erased from music history and replaced with something less provocative and divisive. However, it is what we have - understand it and encompass it to whatever extent you wish to enable you to continue to develop as a musician. If you want to further understand what I am saying here then search the internet for articles or books on the Psychology of Musical Activity -
Academia.edu has 1000s. Music and the brain work together in a way that is different to just about every other human activity.

From day one you have been using it and you will still be using it on your final day as a musician.


Again a big apology for all that. I am now going back to my original purpose which was showing my brother the great music in the Cafe.

[Hink]

how come your ip comes back to another in this thread...more nonsense locked...we have enough of these threads.