KVR Audio

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:23 am

sonic youth

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:24 am

mark77 wrote:in my opinion something more important than music theory is having AN EAR for music. And when you HAVE AN EAR for the style of music that you make, then the world is your oyster. Yes of course u have to know the basics, and u need experience, but there will come a time when u can produce professional quality music and progressions on your own. U just have to have a 'feel' for it. And that feel comes naturally to some people, and its also something you cant teach, you either have it or you dont. That is also what separates true artists from wannabes.

actually I think one can't exist without the other...if you have a good ear for music, it's likely you will understand theory. It's true for many it comes natural. But just having the ear isn't enough, the application of that ear is essential and that's where the theory will develop. On the otherhand, some study music and as a result develop an ear...too paths, same destination...

Cabinfever · Post by **Cabinfever** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:36 am

music theory is fine. but too often those that promote it come across as arrogant smart asses who belittle everyone who's self-taught.

music theorists also tend to get trapped by their own education. musical works are immediately categorised with implied structures. certain chord progressions will immediately suggest themselves; other progressions will be seen as weak.

and i've seen plenty of classically trained session musos who are absolutely brilliant players, but are also completely imprisoned by their education and simply can't write original material.

sontrinh80 · Post by **sontrinh80** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:37 am

Sonic Youth knows music theory. -> O'Rourke knows it inside and out.

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:37 am

I tend to think of music theory as just music knowledge. I mean, you cant learn about harmony, voice leading, counterpoint without discovering great artists like Bach, Mozart etc. The same could be said for more recent stuff - say you write film score and use loads of 20th century madness, its obvious that you'll be familar with Cage, Schoenberg, Glass etc. And this knowledge translates itself into influence.

Lets say you needed a really scary sounding atmosphere for a tense scene in a video game or movie - without knowledge of music (and the theory behind it) how will you know the devices to use? You'd be just wondering around in the dark with no clue how to achieve the results you what!

I think the problem is that fundemental theory is fairly bland. If a newbie read something like 'AB Guide to Music Theory 1' they'd probably think it pretty irrelavent to the music they're making. I mean, you dont need to know how to transpose different clefs to write a crunk tune! But what they dont understand is that this preliminary understanding opens the door to a wide range of music. Western music has a great heritige, and to disregard it because 'theory is shite' is a little feeble.

I honestly think that learning theory is fundemental to becoming a good musician. It allows people to explore and appreciate music from all centuries.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:44 am

let's put it this way...what's to lose if you do learn theory? And no one tell me improv and creativity cause that's false...

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:56 am

Thats it mate. People with no theoretical knowledge tend to think that it will somehow stiffle their creativity. They also seem to think that 'having a good ear' will compensate for actually knowledge. Sorry guys, wrong on both counts.

And then theres the 'over structured' line of argument. As if composers will somehow start making music like calculators

Ironically the classical music of the 20th century was probably the least structured music ever! But it was still foundered on what had come before, and would not have been possible without studying systems from the past.

I think it really comes down to laziness. Sorry to say that but imo its true. Now, if have no desire to be a great musician and simply want to enjoy noodling, thats fine NFP! But these guys who try to tell you that they can be every bit as good as those who've been arsed to learn... sorry but thats bs. Its like the muppet who caines it around in his XR2i without a driving license, trying to tell you he's a great driver and doesnt need leasons. The promptly wraps it around a tree

ouroboros · Post by **ouroboros** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:56 am

I agree that theorey can't hurt: it seems to me that the theorey simply amplifies the abundance or lack of talent that the artist has, much like gear.

VicDiesel · Post by **VicDiesel** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:02 am

Hink wrote:let's put it this way...what's to lose if you do learn theory? And no one tell me improv and creativity cause that's false...

But that's still the argument: if you learn a bunch of rules, then you'll only be able to write what falls inside those rules.

Who knows. There could be something to that. On the other hand, most people are not so totally brilliant that they come up with a new version musical universe every other week. Most of them get stuck in a pretty limited idiom. So if you know enough rules you can actually be more creative than someone who has to invent everything himself.

A while ago I wrote something that had lots of jazzy II-V-I, and at some point I embellished that with stuff like Am-Fm-D (for the II-V). That's of course straight out of Bruckner, but to the average listener that's a case of "wow, those are some creative chords".

It's all the same to me. Sometimes knowing the theory suggests the solution to a problem, and sometimes I happen to write something that I know is not covered by any theory I know.

There are many roads to musical happiness.

Victor.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:04 am

tee boy wrote:Thats it mate. People with no theoretical knowledge tend to think that it will somehow stiffle their creativity. They also seem to think that 'having a good ear' will compensate for actually knowledge. Sorry guys, wrong on both counts.

And then theres the 'over structured' line of argument. As if composers will somehow start making music like calculators

Ironically the classical music of the 20th century was probably the least structured music ever! But it was still foundered on what had come before, and would not have been possible without studying systems from the past.

I think it really comes down to laziness. Sorry to say that but imo its true. Now, if have no desire to be a great musician and simply want to enjoy noodling, thats fine NFP! But these guys who try to tell you that they can be every bit as good as those who've been arsed to learn... sorry but thats bs. Its like the muppet who caines it around in his XR2i without a driving license, trying to tell you he's a great driver and doesnt need leasons. The promptly wraps it around a tree

a big problem is that they will maintain a closed mind....you don't have to have a ph.d in music, you don't need to study every aspect of theory...but I think as an artist develops it's best to keep ones mind as open as possible...I just dont see why some dont want to open all the doors...trust me, I'm not a theory expert, but I have a good working knowledge of theory, and knowledge=knowledge squared, the more you know the quicker you learn...:;

deggy · Post by **deggy** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:05 am

i won't pretend to be some theory know-it-all (because i'm not) but i did go to school for comp and i teach counterpoint and harmony. even so, i find a lot of cool electroinic stuff out there from time to time that very well could have been writtin by people without any previous training in "music theory" hehe. oh well. it works for some and not for others. it's all good i guess. just go out and try to write the next rite of spring if you know shit about orchestration and i think you'll be alright. however, i doubt that gaining an understanding of how some people work with music should be limiting in any way. if you think it is stifling your creativity, then don't be so dogmatic with it. it still couldn't hurt to learn how other people do things. you don't necessarily have to integrate these practices into your own method of composition.

AudioWhore · Post by **AudioWhore** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:07 am

If yer born with da funk then you don't need none of that theory shit..

There are many roads to musical happiness.

That should be re-worded to 'There are many Rhodes to musical happiness.'

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:10 am

Deggy,

Totally mate, there are amazing pieces penned by people with no musical knowledge. But I always think, imagine how good they COULD be if they explored a little?

Like Hink said, its about having an open mind and being prepared to learn and develop.

ouroboros · Post by **ouroboros** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:10 am

I might add that for the hobbyist, it's the immediate gratification of making music that pushes me forward into theorey. If I had to master the theorey before I just "played", I would not have sought to learn more theorey at all. -not a judgment on either, just exposing how I work.

deggy · Post by **deggy** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:11 am

Hink wrote:
tee boy wrote:Thats it mate. People with no theoretical knowledge tend to think that it will somehow stiffle their creativity. They also seem to think that 'having a good ear' will compensate for actually knowledge. Sorry guys, wrong on both counts.

And then theres the 'over structured' line of argument. As if composers will somehow start making music like calculators

Ironically the classical music of the 20th century was probably the least structured music ever! But it was still foundered on what had come before, and would not have been possible without studying systems from the past.

I think it really comes down to laziness. Sorry to say that but imo its true. Now, if have no desire to be a great musician and simply want to enjoy noodling, thats fine NFP! But these guys who try to tell you that they can be every bit as good as those who've been arsed to learn... sorry but thats bs. Its like the muppet who caines it around in his XR2i without a driving license, trying to tell you he's a great driver and doesnt need leasons. The promptly wraps it around a tree
a big problem is that they will maintain a closed mind....you don't have to have a ph.d in music, you don't need to study every aspect of theory...but I think as an artist develops it's best to keep ones mind as open as possible...I just dont see why some dont want to open all the doors...trust me, I'm not a theory expert, but I have a good working knowledge of theory, and knowledge=knowledge squared, the more you know the quicker you learn...:;

this is all right on the money here. if you want to make a living writing music, you should always be trying to develop your craft. Learning about other genres or methods will definitely be benefitial

Rant on music theory ignorance.