Experiential discovery vs. formal training in music theory

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Started with playing synths. Made me hungry for writing. Music line at high school, 2 years training at classical music school, 3 years at rhythmical music school. Experiment and training always went hand in hand until sequencers made me a lazy player who did not train his scales or percussion anymore as soon as school was over.

Me and me fellow make Electro Folk. Lots of room for experiments on the electro side, lots of room for trained techniques on the folk side. And if our experiements do not seem experimental enough, we can always samle a guy like Vurt

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=575938

Next we are going to work with Jan’s material for the electro side. Experimenting with experimentalists. Very inspiring.
Thus a false dilemma to me. Everything goes beyond those @#%*& mandatory exams, and stylistisk fusion is not a problem, but a must.

[BertKoor]

Regarding "ex nihilo" discovery, here's an example related to parallel movements: a three-oscillator sine wave patch that itself constitutes a "sus4" chord - that is, intervals "1,4,5" (or in 0-11 12-TET pitch range "0,5,7") - and a sequence with "1-b3-4" (0,3,5) arpeggios alternating on i and v (0 and 7) degrees, with C being i (or 0).

Maybe also note the three voices, to actually "see" the resulting structure:

Code: Select all

|       *        *        *        * |
|                                    |
|    *  *     *  *     *  *     *  * |
|                                    |
|    *        *        *        *    |
| *        *        *        *       |
|                                    |
| *     *  *     *  *     *  *     * |
|                                    |
|    *        *        *        *    |
|                                    |
|                                    |
| *        *        *        *       |

Since there's overlap you get the impression one note stays the same but the one below jumps above it. Hence no true parallel movement.

Sorry for digression off topic.

[N__K]

Since there's overlap you get the impression one note stays the same but the one below jumps above it. Hence no true parallel movement.

Well, I did use the expression "related to"

That said, here is that previous example with oscillators' intervals "decoded" into notes on piano roll (it sounds the same as previous, when this is played with one non-transposed oscillator):

0,5,7 chord sound played as 0(0,3,5) - 7(0,3,5) arpeggios, oscillators decoded to piano roll.PNG

...and this is when that "chord" is not arpeggiated:

0,5,7 chord sound played as 0(0,3,5) - 7(0,3,5) blocks, oscillators decoded to piano roll.PNG

Unless I'm misunderstanding, that movement between i and v - that is, between chord built on C and the chord built on G - can be termed as "parallel"?

Sorry for digression off topic.

No problem, I think that in this thread it is OK to illustrate at length examples of conceptual differences which can arise in ex nihilo discovery vs. being trained.

[N__K]

Everything goes beyond those @#%*& mandatory exams, and stylistisk fusion is not a problem, but a must.

I agree

I've attempted making many genres and blends of them. Some of the stuff got released to a bit of popular attention, most did not.

Part of why I started studying traditional theory is to be able to make "less weird" and "more popular" music. Predictably, my "theoretically informed", mostly-tonal tunes ended up pleasing more people than the "experiential-experimental" ones.

[jancivil]

There is literally no call for pitch class analysis in tonal music. 0 is not 1. 0 works in identification of the closest-packed structure of a set of tones in dodecaphonic music, and only gained traction (in academic circles) with analyses of Anton Webern's manipulations of (12-tone) rows. It's not the look you must think it is.

Why a dichotomy between discovery and training? That strikes me as a reaction against training, frankly.
I compose by ear, my training takes me a whole lot of new places. The more we know the more discovery is possible.
Do you want to be Columbus thinking he'd found India? It seems like there will have been maps...

https://y2u.be/tVnI-Jmu6Dk

"A" goes out there, "B" comes all the way back "in".

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Why a dichotomy between discovery and training? That strikes me as a reaction against training, frankly.

Once there was this genius at Gearslutz who asked: Trained musicians are you innovative? He thought that you could not be trained and innovative at the same time. His hero was Aphex Twin. He was full of sht but got people up in the red to an extent where the mods had to delete the whole novel. This because a famous composer in disguise had entered but was afraid that he had exposed himself under way. Absurd suggestion: Knowledge and skills will damage my individuality, better stay stupid, so I may be famous like Aphex Only at the internet.

[jancivil]

Debussy, whom I quoted as saying 'There is no theory"/"Pleasure is the law" underwent the whole classical training bit.
Satie actually returned to the academy mid-career to study counterpoint. Afterwards, came up with this early prog rock gem ca 1912:
https://y2u.be/-WWBcNhpKSU

some of that you have to blame me for however.

[jancivil]

"ex nihilo" and 'I did it with no formal theory' are not the same thing really. The example for me was a guy who to me was the best around when everyone went jazz in Charlotte, the late George Shaw, who didn't read and didn't appear to have any interest in what things were called. His ear was educated. He observed and learned.
McCartney knew no theory.
I'd done several pretty different things musically and was known for them before I took any class (the guy who taught theory in high school wouldn't let me in the class, in fact. I quit going shortly thereafter.).

out of nothing comes... complete this thought

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Well, the time before training I made ambient synth tracks by ear. I was inspired by Tangerine Dream, J.M. Jarre, Kitaro and kraftwerk. We also had a synth pop band at high school for a term. All by ear. Fine, but if I had not moved on, (electro) folk would not be something I could or would make today. Both the skills and interest came with training. One day surprising myself; “wow, I can make musik like Mike Oldfield now!” Never thought I would.

[N__K]

There is literally no call for pitch class analysis in tonal music.

I use 0-11 "semitonal" markup (among other things) because it maps directly to 12-TET piano roll.

And I use scale degree numbering to have [at least some kind of] a mental image of harmonic progression. For that, a reference point is needed, and in that example of mine - which in non-functional, but arguably tonal? - I associated C as i or 0 as that reference point.

So that there was not academic set theory analysis, just 12-pitch markup, as usual in my posts

Why a dichotomy between discovery and training?

It's merely a rhetorical method in this thread; I'm not claiming that they are mutually exclusive, or that one is objectively better than the other.

That said, formal training leads learner to internalize pre-formulated concepts - terminology, symbols etc. Whereas experiential discovery without formal training in traditions tends to lead (re)discoverers towards developing their own "dialects of music theory", similar to pidgin, creole etc. phenomena in languages.

Again, neither approach is objectively better than the other, in my opinion.


***


Interesting example could usage of the word "step" in FL Studio. It makes total sense in the context of its step sequencer, where it usually means the equivalent of 1/16th note.

But if one said to a formally trained violin player something like "play notes in that passage as steps with zero release" instead of "play notes in that passage as staccato 1/16ths", that'd be confusing.
And the other way around: to someone who has never read traditional theory but understands "steps and envelopes" paradigm, "staccato" might be the more confusing term.

So there are differences, simply by the fact that people take different paths in their musical journeys...

Do you want to be Columbus thinking he'd found India?

Good question. On some days, on levels I am not comfortable admitting to myself, probably yes. On principle, no.

That said, I prefer a balance between knowing beforehand and discovering, because I enjoy exploration as a process. As said before, sometimes I feel it more fun to just go into the forest and explore it, even if maps exist.

Another comparison might be guided tours vs. unguided wandering. I prefer the latter while having a map, encyclopedia and some history books at hand.

[N__K]

out of nothing comes... complete this thought

...the Big Bang.

Next thing after that we might drift into talking religion - or perhaps that's what we have been doing already, to some extent

[jancivil]

'out of the blue', however...

[HAL76]

I lately looked at a "play piano" tutorial at youtube. I was pretty impressed somehow by this young lady. Her snobby London accent. The way she explained all those complex things. She was a professional teacher for more than ten years and has produced many many videos over the time.

As I said - I was impressed. Until that theory monster started composing and playing an own little pop song

But yeah - I guess it´d be better to know all that like she does. But unfortunately most of us are not that patient since they don´t have that much time - ahm - over.

[jancivil]

There is literally no call for pitch class analysis in tonal music.

I use 0-11 "semitonal" markup (among other things) because it maps directly to 12-TET piano roll.
So that there was not academic set theory analysis, just 12-pitch markup, as usual in my posts

At this point I stand to be misread again as thinking I'm going to change someone's mind, but you're talking roman numerals for 5 and 1 in a tonal or somewhat context, at the same time that's 0 and 7. I tend to doubt we need to relate music theory to the piano roll per se here. Maybe standards apply in some cases.

Why a dichotomy between discovery and training?

It's merely a rhetorical method in this thread; I'm not claiming that they are mutually exclusive, or that one is objectively better than the other.

- neither approach is objectively better than the other, in my opinion.

I think I've already made the point and then some, but I'm asking what is the actual usefulness of this distinction?

formal training leads learner to internalize pre-formulated concepts - terminology, symbols etc. Whereas experiential discovery without formal training in traditions tends to lead (re)discoverers towards developing their own "dialects of music theory",

For whom? How? You've described an experience (that seems hypothetical rather than real) that disagrees entirely with my own. I can't call this objective. And it is in fact positing a dichotomy.

This is pretty high-falutin talk which to me is just false. You've asserted that training EDIT: *may* lead to something negating potential discovery. You cannot tell me that my training stops me from anything. I have my own harmonic language, mine, original. It's grounded in something, but it isn't any anchor weighing me down.

More in the edit: I'd say that internalizing the concepts everyone is using is part of developing technique which should pre-exist this notion of being utterly original and unique, which is really formulating the conceptions out of a vacuum.
(I remember well when my friend at Cinci remarked his ideal was to be able to improvise as though influenced by no one. This is like that, it struck me as goofy and still does.) It's all floating high above the actual and real: what did you discover that we poor stick-in-the-muds missed, do you feature?
You choose to use pitch class analysis against the grain of the convention, but the only point you bring is it relates better to piano roll thinking. Well, here we are again in the Music Theory subforum where the convention is notation. For reasons that I shouldn't have to get into at this point.
So, Is the argument piano roll is more apt for analysis of harmony, or of any of it? I strongly suspect this is what the rest of this looks like in reality.

[N__K]

EDIT: redacted to protect poster's privacy