can technicality kill creativity?

[Manc Chris]

"Basically, he knew everything there is to know about music theory. However, his personal opinion was that he would not have a clue how to write a pop song. He may have known how/why they work, but he could not do it himself."

This doesn't prove that the reason he couldn't write a pop tune was because he knew music theory. It just proves that he couldn't write a pop tune and he also knew music theory.

I know lots of things about music theory (although nothing like "everything") and I have written over 40 pop tunes.

I'm not saying that they are all good, but they are pop songs

And I have written 100+ pop songs. Most of them are NOT good, but a few of them have floated around various pop charts, and ..... I know very little about music theory. (Not attempting any kind of one upmanship there btw, just showing other side of the coin)

PS - You didn't know that Orchestra's don't play in tune though did ya eh? You did

Jesus dude... There is a big difference between 'playing out of tune' and having different sections 'detuned' from one another... You've been spewing out a lot of crap lately, and shlepping it off as if it were holy doctrine...

Its common practice for many different genres of music to play with different sections detuned from each other. (detuned... not out of tune!). It creates a certain level of thickness (you sort of mentioned that in an earlier post) as well as separation between parts. Two rhythm guitarists will usually have slight discrepencies in their tunings on purpose to create a 'musical bed' upon which the lead sections (vocals + lead guitar) perform.

The fact that an orchestra has detuned sections means absolutely nothing in regards to music theory... It does show an understanding of acoustic phenomenon and wave interaction...

And again, because this 'friend' knows everything there is to know about music theory, does not mean that's the reason he can't write a pop song...

Hey, just relax man. I would have thought the use of smilies would have emphasised the jockular tone. Obviously not. And WTF does 'Shlepping' mean? ...

[Manc Chris]

"Basically, he knew everything there is to know about music theory. However, his personal opinion was that he would not have a clue how to write a pop song. He may have known how/why they work, but he could not do it himself."

This doesn't prove that the reason he couldn't write a pop tune was because he knew music theory. It just proves that he couldn't write a pop tune and he also knew music theory.

I know lots of things about music theory (although nothing like "everything") and I have written over 40 pop tunes.

I'm not saying that they are all good, but they are pop songs

And I have written 100+ pop songs. Most of them are NOT good, but a few of them have floated around various pop charts, and ..... I know very little about music theory. (Not attempting any kind of one upmanship there btw, just showing other side of the coin)

PS - You didn't know that Orchestra's don't play in tune though did ya eh? You did

Jesus dude... There is a big difference between 'playing out of tune' and having different sections 'detuned' from one another... You've been spewing out a lot of crap lately, and shlepping it off as if it were holy doctrine...

Its common practice for many different genres of music to play with different sections detuned from each other. (detuned... not out of tune!). It creates a certain level of thickness (you sort of mentioned that in an earlier post) as well as separation between parts. Two rhythm guitarists will usually have slight discrepencies in their tunings on purpose to create a 'musical bed' upon which the lead sections (vocals + lead guitar) perform.

The fact that an orchestra has detuned sections means absolutely nothing in regards to music theory... It does show an understanding of acoustic phenomenon and wave interaction...

And again, because this 'friend' knows everything there is to know about music theory, does not mean that's the reason he can't write a pop song...

Hey, just relax man. I would have thought the use of smilies would have emphasised the jockular tone. Obviously not. And WTF does 'Shlepping' mean? ...

[Shatner's Bassoon]

Its common practice for many different genres of music to play with different sections detuned from each other. (detuned... not out of tune!). It creates a certain level of thickness (you sort of mentioned that in an earlier post) as well as separation between parts. Two rhythm guitarists will usually have slight discrepencies in their tunings on purpose to create a 'musical bed' upon which the lead sections (vocals + lead guitar) perform.

The fact that an orchestra has detuned sections means absolutely nothing in regards to music theory... It does show an understanding of acoustic phenomenon and wave interaction...

Interestingly enough, our 12-note musical scale originally came about because dividing the octave into 12 parts because the harmonics all line up better that way (than with most other numbers below 30 I think). Even so, some of the harmonics don't completely line up. So technically all music is somewhat detuned. The different methods of tuning such as equal temperament, etc. are designed to give a good compromise in this respect, and I believe it is even possible to tune something like a piano for example to give the perfect intervals for a particular key...

This explains it a little better (from a dsp text file that's doing the rounds):

Code: Select all

 *** Chromatic scale ***

        In music, harmonics play a very important role. The "chromatic scale",
        used in most western music, is divided into octaves, and each octave is
        divided into 12 notes. The step between two adjanced notes is called
        a halftone. A halftone is divided into hundred cents.

        An octave up (+12 halftones) means doubling the frequency, an octave
        down (-12 halftones) means halving it. If we look at all the notes
        defined in the chromatic scale on a logarithmic frequency scale, we
        note that they are evenly located. This means that the ratio between
        the frequencies of any two adjacent notes is a constant. The definition
        of octave causes that constant^12 = 2, so constant = 2^(1/12) =
        1.059463.

        If you know the frequency of a note and want the frequency of the note
        n halftones up (Use negative n to go downwards) from it, the new
        frequency is 2^(n/12) times the old frequency. If you want to go n
        octaves up, multiply by 2^n.

        But why 12 notes per octave?

        As said, harmonics are important, so it would be a good thing to have
        a scale where you can form harmonics. Let's see how well the chromatic
        scale can represent harmonics... The first harmonic is at the
        note itself: +0 halfnotes = 1. The second harmonic is at +1 octave = 2.
        The third harmonic is very close to +1 octave +7 halftones =
        +19 halftones = 2^(+19/12) = 2.996614. And so on... Here's a table that
        shows how and how well harmonics can be constructed:

              Harmonic Octaves+Halftones Halftones Error(Cents) Acceptable
              ------------------------------------------------------------
                1       0       0         0         0           Yes
                2       1       0        12         0           Yes
                3       1       7        19        -1.955       Yes
                4       2       0        24         0           Yes
                5       2       4        28       +13.686       Yes
                6       2       7        31        -1.955       Yes
                7       2      10        34       +31.174       No
                8       3       0        36         0           Yes
                9       3       2        38        -3.910       Yes
               10       3       4        40       +13.686       Yes
               11       3       6        42       +48.682       No
               12       3       7        43        -1.955       Yes
               13       3       8        44       -40.528       No
               14       3      10        46       +31.174       No
               15       3      11        47       +11.731       Yes
               16       4       0        48         0           Yes
               17       4       1        49        -4.955       Yes
               18       4       2        50        -3.910       Yes
               19       4       3        51        +2.487       Yes
               20       4       4        52       +13.686       Yes
               21       4       5        53       +29.219       No
               22       4       6        54       +48.682       No
               23       4       6        54       -28.274       No
               24       4       7        55        -1.955       Yes
               25       4       8        56       +27.373       No

        Not bad at all! The lowest harmonics are the most important, and as you
        see, the errors with them are tiny. I also tried this with other
        numbers than 12, but 12 was clearly the best of those below 30. So, the
        ancient Chinese did a very good choice! The above table could also be
        used as reference when tuning an instrument, for example a piano (bad
        example - no digital tuning in pianos), to play some keys and chords
        more beautifully, by forcing some notes to be exact harmonics of some
        other notes.

Dan

[Markleford]

The creative brain needs challenges to overcome.

High technology can kill creativity because it frees you from old constraints. Without borders and barriers, sometimes it's hard to know what direction to head out in.

Music theory can kill creativity because it removes mystery and wonder. Whereas you used to strive to figure out "How the heck did they do that?", now you know that the answer is straight ahead and logical.

Technical chops can sometimes kill creativity. Often times a naive approach to an instrument produces the most character. Truly technical players can lose all feeling and become machine-like, again because nothing seems to be a challenge.

Historical knowledge of music can kill creativity if you're after something new. Knowing that practically everything has been done before puts a damper on the joy of discovery.

But we still try anyway: to me it's what separates an artist from a craftsman.

- m

[Morgaxx]

some thoughts on all this...

A freind of mine studied hardcore physics at university, to the point he could explain many things. Once while camping it was his turn to make the fire. With his knowledge of physics (why and how things burn), he still tried to light the fire from the top of the pile.

While studying composition we were asked to do some twelve tone writing. A guy in the class, classicaly trained, that had even written theory articles for a national magazine (drums mind you), struggled with this exercise. He came to me after hearing mine, asking for help with putting his theory into practice.

Music theory/notation is a language/convention. Language changes over time. Would someone speaking middle english fully "grok" what people said on the streets today? We still talk to one another, but the melody and rythm, so to speak, are changed.

So... its relatively easy to build a decent fire without knowing the physics, but to build a huge mushroom cloud confligration requires something else.

So... time and things move and change, do you do the same?

All in all, its all down to YOU. As others said, dont become distracted and learn the answers to your own questions. If you dont have a question you dont need an answer (ignorance is bliss)...

[spaceman]

some thoughts on all this...

A freind of mine studied hardcore physics at university, to the point he could explain many things. Once while camping it was his turn to make the fire. With his knowledge of physics (why and how things burn), he still tried to light the fire from the top of the pile..

maybe he was smart and did it the wrong way so that no one would ever ask him again to lit the f**king fire

[Wopelka]

can technicality kill creativity?

only with an axe, provided that the aforementioned axe is correctly handled
(please refer to the user's guide)

[mystahr]

Technical problems certainly kill my creativity

[vurt]

can technicality kill creativity?

only with an axe, provided that the aforementioned axe is correctly handled
(please refer to the user's guide)

and what if i may be so bold as to ask is wrong with using the aforementioned axe as an instrument itself?

[wrench45us]

re: detuning orchestra sections

is this with woodwinds and brass as well as strings?

cause orchestral string instruments don't have frets and i would think the intentional detuning by a few cents may be compensated by the player by additional pressure in one direction or another, unintentionally by ear, by instinct.

but what do I know.
I've heard of orchestas being trained to vary their attacks from chair to chair ever so slightly to get more movement in an ensemble, but I've never heard of this detuning.

and i've heard of stretching a concert grand's tunning for particular performers who want the upper octaves ever so slightly sharp and the lowest octaves ever so slightly flat -- slight color so the solo instrument stands out a bit.

maybe it's hard for me to fathom given i've always had such trouble tuning anyway. another great use for (technical) electronic devices -- little light comes on -- bingo! in tune.

[pannewb]

And obviously, knowing and understanding theory cannot possibly physically restrain you from being creative, that is just silly! It's entirely a psychological thing based on exactly these flawed assumptions about theory.

Dan

EDIT. If you were thinking more of technology killing creativity, I think there may be a shred of truth there. I for one find it very easy to get stuck in a situation where I just have too many possible choices! Again, this is probably more of a psychological blag than any kind of causal link between technology/technicality and diminished creativity.

I was thinking more along the lines of the second paragraph. Now, iv'e got a crapload of synths I can tweak in any way I want, and a lot of different knids of tracks. (SX3 has got 12-13 ) Before
I had 50 decent soundfonts on my keyboard that I would just record to audio. I disagree that it is more of a psych thing. With a tinny piano sound, you've got little width. So what do you do to it? You either play 3 notes at a time (a chord) or you pass it through an insane number of EQs and LFOs until you get something that sounds good a single note at a time. I was trying to get at that technology can inhibit your creativity by giving so many great sounds that you play simple melodies and simple lines and they sound great. It's a bit like looking at the front of a theatre but not seeing the back where the magical altar is held up by a violin case and a two by four. Technology can give the impression of great music with a few notes and a CPU while all that's done on the composers part is to drink a pepsi and use a keyboard for a footstool.
Not to say I don't enjoy music made this way.

[Shatner's Bassoon]

Music theory can kill creativity because it removes mystery and wonder. Whereas you used to strive to figure out "How the heck did they do that?", now you know that the answer is straight ahead and logical.

*shrugs* I disagree. The mystery and wonder comes from the feeling put into the notes, and the spaces between the notes. Having a working knowledge of music theory does not affect this.

Personally, while I don't claim to know everything about music theory (by a long, long way) but what I do know has been very helpful to me. Music is, if anything, even more mysterious and wonderful to me now, and I still find it a very stimulating challenge to figure out how a song is played.

As for it being straight ahead and logical, that's nonsense! There may only be 12 different notes but there's a huge number of possibilities available when you factor in things like rhythm, timbre, arrangement, etc. The beauty of a piece of music comes from all of these things, and the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. Music theory does not, and cannot, assume to cover all of these things, some of which are quite transcendental and abstract.

Technical chops can sometimes kill creativity. Often times a naive approach to an instrument produces the most character. Truly technical players can lose all feeling and become machine-like, again because nothing seems to be a challenge.

This assumes that a technical player can't take a naive or original approach to their instrument. I think there's plenty of scope for making use of both ways of thinking, and any self-respecting artist really should try to be diverse in this way.

Historical knowledge of music can kill creativity if you're after something new. Knowing that practically everything has been done before puts a damper on the joy of discovery.

Again, my experience and common sense suggest otherwise to me. I'm hardly a scholar of the history of music, but I have an open mind and enjoy many different styles of music. And I've noticed nothing but improvement in my overall musicality the more I've listened, the further back I've traced the roots of certain genres.

I also do not feel like everything has been done before; perhaps from a music theory perspective, everything has been done before, but as I mentioned above, theory does not make any assumptions about covering every aspect of music, particularly the more abstract random side of creativity.

I think perhaps a lot of people's view on theory is skewed, possibly by boring childhood music lessons. I think the problem here (and perhaps the source of this idea that theory=bad) is that they try and teach you the theory too early; you might understand it in some way but you do not have the experience to know how and why it's useful when you're first starting to learn. What they SHOULD do when teaching a beginner a musical instrument is to get them playing stuff that they know and like straight away. Not that difficult for most kids learning guitar for example, and it keeps interest and motivation up.

Once they get to the point where they want to do some soloing for example, or knock out some jazz chords on a 335, they are likely to take more of an interest in the theory, and understand how to use it without compromising their creativity.

Another thing regarding everything having been done before... Would you not say that a lot of originality these days is coming from the actual production? Particularly electronic music; the sounds themselves are often as important as the notes they're playing. This is nothing more sinister than a natural extension of orchestras and bands. It's just that nowadays practically anyone can get hold of technology to give almost complete control over the timbres used.

Admittedly the amount of crap will increase, but the amount of quality stuff will increase too. And however much shite there is in the charts, I still manage to entertain myself with the more obscure stuff around.

Dan

[dystonia_ek]

There may only be 12 different notes

There's more than one way to divide an octave - just take a trip through Asia... I've used divisions between 4 and about 50...

[foosnark]

Technicality doesn't kill creativity, bullets kill creativity.


Like anything else, it can open new doors or close them.

[Steven West]

Here's my other thought - Technicality kills 'recreations'. I know, I know - we've got our MiniMoogs and Prophets and Amplitubes and all, that sound AS good as the original hardware, if not better. But back in my days with just a guitar, a 20w amp, and a few pedals - someone would say 'give me a chunky rock sound' turn, turn, turn... Chunky rock sound. Give my a Police sound, off with the distortion turn up Clone Theory and my spring reverb.
Give me a U2 sound, click on the Boss Delay is all...
Okay, so these might not have been the most stunning simulations, but people would say 'Yeah, that's it! Now if you could only play as good as Andy Sumners you dick!'

But now with synths and basses and beat boxes and effects and all on our computers - technically we have ANYTHING to sound like ANYONE, but how close do we get? For example, Bones did a cover of Ultravox's 'Sleepwalk' to show off a new kILLER synth or something. It was a good version, and the synths sounded reminiscent of good ol' Vienna tracks indeed. But something was lacking? And sure it was a quick demo for fun, so not alot of time was wasted no doubt - but still...

So my expectations with all this new stuff, I thought this should sound WAY better than some old 25 year old record - and it almost did... But didn't.
Could Bones or anyone here with all the software and knowledge recreate a song and make it better? Technically yes - creatively no. Another prime example is The Beatles new songs - I'm not a big Beatles fan, but was honestly hoping with all the technology available they would sound bigger, newer, better than they ever did before... And what a let down! Technically Lennon was 'brought back to life', but for what? Same old splashy snares and beefed out bass drums, gently weeping guitars, and plunky bass and Mellotron-esque effects. Whereas I was almost hoping McCartney would get on a Chapman Stick, Harrison on a Roland Midi Guitar and Ringo on some V-drums and really just let the creativity REALLY flow. But it's like they expected all the marvelous technology to recreate the 'spark' and all they'd have to do is 'phone it in'. It sounded about as worthy of Bones doing a quick demo of a Ultravox song. No offence to Bones - but I'm pretty sure he didn't labor for months to get it 'pristine'. But could he? How long would it take to make a kILLER synth or preset that sounded EXACTLY like Ultravox's, to get a sampled drum kit and program the beats and apply a realistic 'human quantizor' on it? To record and master it more sonically richer than the original album?.... The scary answer is - months. Ask Bones or anyone to do this 10 years ago, to recreate a song as good or better than the original, the answer would be 'impossible, without unlimited funds and resources' (Bones would've just said f**k Off! ) But today, Bones alone can sit at a PC, construct and design a virtual synth that looks and sounds better than what most old bands ever had, orchestrate them in Orion, master them in Cool Edit or WaveLab whatever, and have a song that sounds as good if not better than Ultravox... And I say 'Yeah, that's it! Now if you could only sing as good as Midge Ure you dick!"

But seriously, we ALL have the technology to recreate and go BEYOND our inspirations and mentors now... And I don't think we can? I mean we are doing 'our own things' now. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's bad - I'm not sure?

But one thing is for sure... There won't be any tribute band named UltraKill playing Sleepwalk at a wedding anytime soon!

(Bones is whipping out his dick to piss on me now isn't he? )