So why DO people get so emotional about music theory topics?

[vurt]

so which bit of that means "disregard theory"?

I think the "we can all move on" bit.

Perhaps a misunderstanding but what I took from it was "theory doesn't cover everything, it will never cover everything, and therefore there are more important things to do than to try and expand it."

It doesn't mean "disregard theory", but it IS pretty close to "give up on it", which is what I actually said I inferred from it...

it doesnt mean give up on it at all, it means we can all move on...
as in move on and incorporate the future but not disregard what happens around us as "unlistenable" just because it doesnt fit yet.

[Toxikator]

and what you said was anything theory cant explain would probably be unlistenable, ie you would disregard something you cannot explain.

You got that backwards. I never suggested that a piece which theory could not explain would probably be unlistenable, I suggested that anything listenable would probably be explainable.

the order matters, because I'm not saying that breaking the walls of theory makes something bad, I'm saying that anything I or anyone I can think of would consider good is sitting mostly within those walls already.

[Toxikator]

as in move on and incorporate the future but not disregard what happens around us as "unlistenable" just because it doesnt fit yet.

Okay.

Actually, I agree with that... though what I would hope is that, though it doesn't fit "yet", an effort will be made to make it fit (in such a way that the 'rules' can explain why it sounds good).

[eduardo_b]

If something sounds good there is a reason for it. Theory provides that reason (or attempts to, at any rate).

My question is, do we need the explanation. Yes, for those who want to know how things work, I can see the attraction of knowing why. But there's also a place for just enjoying that something sounds good without know precisely why that is -- assuming such an explanation is 1) possible and 2) meaningful. I would grant you that knowing why might make it possible or at least easier to try achieving variations of what sounds good in other ways, but I have no way of knowing if this would be true.

[metrosechual]

how does the verse of nirvana's drain you make sense according to music theory?

[Toxikator]

EDIT:

If "Drain" is the same as "Drain you", then I don't see anything particularly out of the ordinary. Common time, basic imitation... it's just a riff over a beat, what about it doesn't fit?

[liqih]

all theory does is just give you a way to communicate specific musical concepts. It's not the music you play.

Someone else (I forget who, unfortunately) said it best when they said "Music Theory is like Physics. Even if you do not study it you are still governed by its laws".

Music Theory is the academic effort to explain how music works. It is not relegated to specific musical concepts and, in a sense, it is the music you play.

looks like we have two Schools here, I totally disagree that Music Theory has "laws", it's not at all like Physics
where you have theorems and proofs of them,
you can proof nothing in Music,

of course I totally respect your School, Toxicator,
but I agree with the_nihilist that the Music Theory is a set of tools, rules and methods,

[liqih]

Theory "rules" IMO have to be taken as "advices".

It's just another tool, nothing else.

agreed, <grin>

[liqih]

Assuming that the music is good enough to warrant trying to figure it out, yes .

The key word there is "known" theory.

TBH though I think you'd be hard pressed to compose a piece that was a) listenable to any single person and b) not already at least MOSTLY covered by known theory.

mate your faith in the "truth" of the Music Theory is fashinating, (please don't take it as sarcasm, <grin>)

rather I agree with

...Because people look at the same things in different ways. What may sound technically correct to one, may sound wrong to the other. It's all a matter of personal preference, there's no right or wrong answer.

BTW I'd like to know which music theory would you apply
to the noise drones which someone composes (many of us actually here at kvr)

where you have no tempo, no harmony, no notes,
and they are very enjoyable to many listeners

[liqih]

Toxikator,

I just read the other post and it may look like we are mass attacking you, LOL

or that you are trying toi convince anyone of your "theory", (rather I'd call it School as I'm sure other folks agree with you)

anyway now it seems to me a discussion between artists and technicians,

in your motto Music Theory explains what happened, right?
"Theory isn't about telling you what to do, it's about telling you what you're doing."
so it's always behind Art, creativity, improvvisation.
Music Theory is always old.

Like in your example of the cooking course, you learn recipes and methods to recreate flavours that has been already experienced and you wish to reporduce them,

in those term Music Theory is useful to the artist.

Your vision or school of Music Theory looks rather the one of the analyst and archivist, not the artist.

[the_nihilist]

Perhaps we should change "Music Theory" to something a bit less incendiary and more accurate.

Maybe "Musical Observation" or something?

[liqih]

"Composition Tips" ?

(but aren't we convoluted old farts?, LOL)

[the_nihilist]

"Composition Tips" ?

(but aren't we convoluted old farts?, LOL)

Composition Tips! FROM THE PROS!


COULD YOU BE COPYING BACH AND NOT KNOW IT?
Find out the shocking truth!

[Toxikator]

BTW I'd like to know which music theory would you apply
to the noise drones which someone composes (many of us actually here at kvr)

where you have no tempo, no harmony, no notes,
and they are very enjoyable to many listeners

and I was just listening to rachMiel...

I was reading an article in Everything Else yesterday about the biology of music and the brain... in the article, it was brought up that music today is less about melody, harmony, and rhythm, and more about timbres.

I think that Noise Drones are an extension of music that aims to be primarily timbral, and yes it IS the cutting/bleeding edge and yes it's not fully understood. The character and nature of that sort of music is kind of new... it might be best to first consider the asian and indian equivalents (drone music), and then from there try to analyze it from a timbral perspective. Does the music "work" because of some sort of dynamic or pattern to the timbre? The drones evolve, is it a form of loudness/softness alternation? Is it a dissonance/consonance relationship, where the tones and overtones move from clashing to cooperating frequencies and back again? Does it succeed due to aleatorism (or a percieved aleatorism) in the compositional process, where the percieved or even real randomness or chance of the music keeps the listener guessing and noncomplacent?

I don't know. I write industrial and metal... but I'd be particularly interested in it as the genres can be crossed to form some cool stuff (if you've never, have a listen to Phobos or Red Harvest). My hope is that those KvRists you speak of, the ones who ARE well-versed in it, might be willing to do some analysis or give some consideration to what makes it work, because as regular composers they'd be able to do more than I ever could.

[Barf]