The ignorance is bliss fallacy

[Toxikator]

you got links? I can do a search, but...

Anyway, it's not my prerogative. It's the nature of music.

The misconception that everyone seems to have (and I know, you don't have misconceptions, you're all perfectly well-versed and I'm a troll) is that "Music Theory" is a term exclusively reserved for the principles employed by 17th/18th century Western European Composers.

Well it isn't that either. It is mostly reserved for equal temperment instrumentation. Anything that is outside of that field can be seperated and treated differently. If I'm wrong though, I'd like to be educated, not called an idiot.

I would never, assuming that you didn't call me one first

Actually, the theory world does extend to the world of alternate tunings, though in some ways not as far as you might like (in the ways you might like).

though alternate tunings like Just fifths/Pythagorean tuning systems are studied their application is not very common. The real study of alternate tuning systems is the (rather large) umbrella of Microtonality, an important and more recent inquest in theory into the world of alternative tunings, from different tuning systems to sub-semitonal relationships.

[Toxikator]

Just to save me and some other people a lot of flame-warring (not that it won't kick up again once Nuffink returns ) I'd like to employ an analogy (since I dearly love them).

Let's say that Tunk the Caveman has just built a simple lever in order to lift a rock up off the ground.

Now, Tunk most likely isn't aware of the fact that the rock is applying a downward force due to gravity equal to it's mass times the gravitational constant. He probably doesn't know that when he pushes down on his end of the lever, he must apply a force greater that exactly the downward gravitational constant of the rock plus the energy lost due to friction in order to move said rock. He does not know that he is applying a downward normal force which is translated via a fulcrum and the force of tension into an upward normal force on the rock greater than the gravitational force pushing down on the rock.

Tunk push down make rock go up.

That's all he knows.

However, does his lack of an understanding of Newtonian physics mean that Newtonian physics don't apply in this situation? Or that, had he understood Newtonian physics, he would have gotten so caught up in the forces applied mathematically that he was unable to invent something practical?

Music theory is the same way. Now, don't take that to mean that those who shun/don't study theory are cavemen, that's far from my point. But it does help to demonstrate the fallacy of saying that you can write music without any theory. After all, whether he KNEW it or not, our friend Tunk was applying an understanding of Newtonian Physics. He may not have been able to articulate that he was applying the normal force to counteract the gravitational force but he still knew it, that's how he knew to build the lever in the first place. Same with theory: whether you conciously are aware of the fact that you're employing theory or not doesn't stop you from doing it. You have been made aware of it by experience if you haven't studied it.

perhaps you could say "well, why should the caveman waste his time on Newtonian forces if he can make perfectly good levers?" The answer is that even simple machines benefit from understanding. A better understanding of Physics would enable him to choose better materials, with greater tension response and less friction in the fulcrum. He could employ added forces to make it more effective and easier on the person using it (like a compound bow in archery).

Music is the same: you may be satisfied with what you currently create from your unacknowledged understanding of theory but you stand to do nothing but gain from studying it.

I promise to try and be more civil this time around, I was a douche earlier.

[Hovmod]

Let's say Tunk the caveman thought he was the only man alive who understood music theory.
Assume he had internet access.
See where this is going?

[Toxikator]

Does that really help, though? I mean you can try to single me out as an idiot but it hardly changes anything (other than making it obvious you'd rather remain ignorant and belligerant than accept my apology for past conduct and try to have a productive discussion)

[Topiness]

Ah f**k it. Everything I've said is elitist bollocks. Music theory encompasses everything.

The misconception that everyone seems to have ... is that "Music Theory" is a term exclusively reserved for the principles employed by 17th/18th century Western European Composers.

Music theory SHOULD incorporate everything. And if you want to define the term like that, fine, go for it.

But the truth is that we're not in that happy-land yet. Do a search for 'Music Theory' on google. The first page of results: a load of stuff about harmony in the diatonic scale, not so much about rhythms, or timbres, or microtonality, or microsound, or feel/groove...

And the situation is even worse if you go to the music section of a bookstore.

The O.P. was saying that music theory is not useless, and that's not been contradicted (ok, it's been compared to a vegetable, but one with a useful hole...).

But the current reality is that most real sources of info are lot less useful than they could be. Which places a lot more responsibiliy on your ability to learn from practice and examples.

Let's say that Tunk the Caveman has just built a simple lever in order to lift a rock up off the ground.

Now, Tunk most likely isn't aware of the fact that the rock is applying a downward force due to gravity equal to it's mass times the gravitational constant. He probably doesn't know that when he pushes down on his end of the lever, he must apply a force greater that exactly the downward gravitational constant of the rock plus the energy lost due to friction in order to move said rock. He does not know that he is applying a downward normal force which is translated via a fulcrum and the force of tension into an upward normal force on the rock greater than the gravitational force pushing down on the rock.

Tunk push down make rock go up.

That's all he knows.

I don't think physics analogy is useful. We talked about this a few pages back.

'up', 12000 years ago, is the same as 'up' today. Up is also the same to everyone.

the same piece of music does not have the same effect on everyone. That's why Music theory is not anything like theories in physics. It can't tell you about cause and effect in that way. And I think it's fair to say that makes it somewhat less valuable. (and just to be clear, NOT useless )

[metrosechual]

wow... so if a tree falls in a forest...
will toxicator be there to call it theory?

[Toxikator]

While it is perfectly true that the value and effect of music is subjective, I think that it generally tends in certain patterns. Most people, for example would associate dissonance with one kind of response/quality and consonance with another.

Does this mean that minor chords sound sad and major chords sound happy? No, that's a gross oversimplification. However, does that mean that learning that minor chords are typically associated with a sadder or more negative emotional response than major chords is equally unfair or less valuable? I'd say no. In fact, in an art form where your basic task is trying to communicate an emotion to (or elicit a response from) your listener, personal experience will never truly cut it. As you say, everyone reacts differently, so shouldn't your knowledge, then, expand beyond personal reactions and into the realm of generalities? Shouldn't you learn to see chords and ideas from the perspectives of various genres and forms and come to utilize them in new ways to communicate your message?

As for the baseness of Music Theory, that's entry-level stuff.

Do a search on Google for "Physics" and you'll find a comparably biased representation of Newtonian physics and magnetism (the "classical" ones). This is mostly because that's the entry-level for students of the subject.

However, I propose that, despite this representation, Quantum Physics is still a valid and well-respected part of the study.

[metrosechual]

this thread should be a good reason for people NOT to learn about theory no offense. But all this to sell a plugin???!?!?!?

hehe

[Deric]

Let's say that Tunk the Caveman has just built a simple lever ...

(Sorry but I just had to join the party for a second...)

Toxicator your Tunk analogy is spot on.

All this talk of 'many great musicians who didn't know any theory still wrote great tunes' etc is ridiculously simplistic - 'all those great musicians' had absorbed TONS of theory (without realising it) by, initially, emulating what their peers and idols were doing/playing. Stick 'em in an 'unfamiliar' musical setting and they would've been as lost as my neighbour's cat.

In this way they learned what sounded good together and what 'worked', even if they didn't know what it was called or 'how' it worked.

Knowing all the theory there is to know (assuming anyone could) still doesn't mean that person can do anything 'cool' with it - otherwise every person with a huge knowledge of music would be turning out fantastic music, which clearly isn't the case.

Inventing 'great' music is IMO purely about how much imagination, passion, and creativity and individual(s) posseses and therefore how much of a 'groove' they can muster - whether they only know three chords or three thousand.

The world is full of great 'musicians' but how many of them can really get a great groove together? The amount of times I'm sure we've all been bored to tears with technical wizardry and/or 'clever' musicianmanship etc. Yes we can appreciate the 'skill' and 'knowledge' that a person is bringing to a performance but, fo most of us at the end of the day, it's about what really moves us.

All this back and forth about about theory is irrelevant - a truly passionate and creative individual MUST have many more options if he/she understands the hows-and-whys (just like your mate Tunk) and will be more able to express their creativity as a result.

Theory on it own is pretty much useless and purely academic. Theory allied with great musicianmanship can be very impressive but often quite sterile, the 'novelty' wearing off quickly. Theory supporting a truly creative soul just has to increase their options and flexibility, and reduce the liklihood of them being stuck in a rut or falling back on their 'safe' cliches quite so often.

The genius is in the imagination and 'soul' of the creator, theory is a tool to help that imagination have more options.

Have fun y'all!

Ps.

But all this to sell a plugin???!?!?!?

[Lunatique]

It's probably time to wrap up this thread, as things are just going around in circles now. I have a few concluding thoughts, which I hope encompasses everyone's different point of view.

1) Knowing theory doesn't mean you'll automatically compose good music, because knowledge alone cannot replace talent.

2) Knowing theory will help you understand the how and the why of just about all the music that exists in the world. Even obscure ethnic instruments and songs from some foreign culture have their own rules, and edgy avant-garde experimental music can still be analyzed by music theory.

3) How much theory you know and how much you employ in your own music-making is your business. Some genres of music require only the most basic understanding of music theory (or none at all), and some genres require you to have mastered advanced theory. If you try to compose in styles outside of your theory knowledge, you'll be out of your depth and it'll be obvious to those who can tell. If you choose to adventure beyond your comfort zone, then you need to learn the theory that the new territory covers--that's how musicians grow. Or, you can stay in your comfort zone for your entire music-making lifespan--many have done just that and still became successful (success means different things to different people. A hip-hop producer who "makes phat beats" on his Akai MPC will have very different musical goals in contrast to a composer who gets commissioned by the Carnegie Hall for an original concert piece, or a jazz musician who performs every night at a well-known jazz bar, or a rock band that straddles the fence between prog rock and more conventional rock..etc).

4) Whether you feel one music genre is "superior" or "inferior" to another due to the level of music theory it commonly utilizes, has everything to do with your own subjective taste and values.

5) The typical mentality of "knowing music theory will make you less original and less imaginative" is simply false. Knowing more can only provide you with even more resources to pick and choose from. Most people who make comments like that have not studied advanced theory and only know the basics, thus mistakenly believe that's all the music theory there is to know.

6) In the end, the pleasure you derive from making music is the ONLY thing that should matter. Who cares of others feel your music is crap if you enjoy every minute of making it? How advanced of a musician you want to become is your personal choice.

7) It's always better to keep an open mind--one that can empathize with all sides of arguments, and approach the argument as someone who's learned to incorporate all schools of thought into one universal school of thought that encompasses all.

[yemski]

The discussion of music theory serves two main functions, A: a means of communicating musical ideas and concepts without to actually having to hear the music in question (functional analysis);B: a means of analysing existing musical forms to see how and why they work (critical analysis). As a methodology this makes it a very useful tool,in the same way that physics is.

I don't think that anyone here would seriously propose that in order to play music one must know theory, or that music made by people without knowledge of theory is invalid or somehow "wrong". Aphex Twin makes extremely sophisticated and complex music with very little in the way of formal grounding in this area, as do many others. Having said this, in my own experience the study of music theory has helped me a great deal in opening up new concepts and approaches to music. The little I have studied has payed huge dividends, in helping me break out of my usual patterns and explore areas that break the mould of common practise, which we all tend to adopt if we are not aware of all the possibilities available to us. This also includes ignoring theory, but I think you'll find their is a theoretical analysis that applies to this.

Music has been decribed as a language, when in reality it is a set of languages with a common root.
Whilst they often have a lot of thing in common, each genre of music has a variety of idiomatic gestures which are comparable to a syntax or grammar, that is unique to that genre. Music theory in it's critical analysis form,combined with active listening (and by this I mean eartraining) can help us better understand why I particular piece works or how a style is constructed. Through studying, imitating and assimilating different styles we improve as musicians and composers and begin to find our own voice.

Nothing is ever completely original, it is only through the re-combination of existing forms that new styles and approaches appear. Everyday I use words that have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years, but I probably only create one unique sentence every day. The same applies to music.Like many people here I used to think of music theory as a straight jacket. If used incorrectly it can be. It can also be a means of increasing one's musical vocabulary.If you think of notes as letters and chords and scales as words, then theory and active listening are the language that allows you to create sentences.

For the last few month or so I have been reading some books on Modal jazz, in particular, and standard jazz changes,in general; whilst doing a lot of intensive eartraining,learning the changes to some of my favourte pieces by ear and going through all the fake books I can find. After only a short period I can see a marked improvement in my own work. Since I understand the underlying structure better I am able to go in directions and think of combinations I would'nt have with out this kind of concerted study. So for me theory is far from a constraint upon creativity.

As a sidebar it it also interesting to note that when other technical areas of music are dicussed no ones seems to get this irate. If a dev released a new effect or soft synth, with the only description being that it has a a lot of knobs that you can use to change the sound, that guy would be be flamed for an inordinate number of pages.

I do quite a bit of sound design and programming in my music and day to day work, and my knowledge in that area is pretty good, infact I programmed the latest soundset for the Albino 3 (shameless bit of spamming there I know), but I often find myself playing catch up when I go into the modular synth section. Their kung fu in that area is better than mine.
This does'nt mean that I go in and berate those guys for knowing stuff I don't know, because of some misguided inferiority complex. Instead I see my lack of knowledge as a spur to further improvement. Once I've got the time I'll get some books on dsp and see what areas I have'nt explored there. Knowledge of one's area is the key to creativity after all.

[Topiness]

While it is perfectly true that the value and effect of music is subjective, I think that it generally tends in certain patterns. Most people, for example would associate dissonance with one kind of response/quality and consonance with another.

Does this mean that minor chords sound sad and major chords sound happy? No, that's a gross oversimplification.

...But exactly the kind of thing you read in basic theory books. Confusing, unless you know enough to take it with a pinch of salt, in which case you probably wouldn't be reading that book in the first place.

In fact, in an art form where your basic task is trying to communicate an emotion to (or elicit a response from) your listener, personal experience will never truly cut it. As you say, everyone reacts differently, so shouldn't your knowledge, then, expand beyond personal reactions and into the realm of generalities? Shouldn't you learn to see chords and ideas from the perspectives of various genres and forms and come to utilize them in new ways to communicate your message?

Yes. And you could do so by learning a lot of established theory. But you could also do so empirically.

As for the baseness of Music Theory, that's entry-level stuff.

Do a search on Google for "Physics" and you'll find a comparably biased representation of Newtonian physics and magnetism (the "classical" ones). This is mostly because that's the entry-level for students of the subject.

However, I propose that, despite this representation, Quantum Physics is still a valid and well-respected part of the study.

yes, it is now.

But imagine it is the 1850's, and there is a guy interested in quantum physics. What should he do?

should he go and read up on all the existing physics literature, while at the same time experimenting with subatomic particles? or should he just say to himrself, 'hmm, this doesn't look much like normal physics, i'll just see what i can find out about this subatomic stuff.'.

If he goes studying the existing theory, who knows what would happen? Maybe he would manage to combine the two and come up with a general theory of relativity (good). Or maybe he'd get depressed about the fact that no-one else seems to understand what he was doing, and waste his time reading books that are not directly relevant (bad).

So, FOR THAT GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, at THAT GIVEN TIME, there is NO CERTAINTY that learning the existing theory would be a good thing.

This is not to say that LEARNING is not good. the guy is learning. But it may not be his job to integrate what he learns with the body of existing knowledge.

and this is my point: The statement 'Ignorance is bliss' -

- IN GENERAL, for the music community AS A WHOLE, is false.
- FOR A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, at a GIVEN TIME, may be TRUE.

[nuffink]

this thread should be a good reason for people NOT to learn about theory no offense. But all this to sell a plugin???!?!?!?

hehe

Nah. If I desperately wanted to sell a plugin I'd have new versions on the front page every other day (it works).
I started this thread as a lightning conductor. As it stands it looks like it's going to do a job of strimming some of the undergrowth as well. Bonus.

Carry on weeds.

[Amberience]

Y'know what, I just hate the idea of music being boiled down to logic. If that makes me a dumbass so be it, but I'd rather stick with my magic staff and my wizard powers. I am happy to be an ignorant imbecile in this case. I don't give a rats ass what it means to you for me to be like this.

Merry Christmas.

[yemski]

[quote="Topiness]
But imagine it is the 1850's, and there is a guy interested in quantum physics. What should he do?

should he go and read up on all the existing physics literature, while at the same time experimenting with subatomic particles? or should he just say to himrself, 'hmm, this doesn't look much like normal physics, i'll just see what i can find out about this subatomic stuff.'.

If he goes studying the existing theory, who knows what would happen? Maybe he would manage to combine the two and come up with a general theory of relativity (good). Or maybe he'd get depressed about the fact that no-one else seems to understand what he was doing, and waste his time reading books that are not directly relevant (bad).

So, FOR THAT GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, at THAT GIVEN TIME, there is NO CERTAINTY that learning the existing theory would be a good thing.

This is not to say that LEARNING is not good. the guy is learning. But it may not be his job to integrate what he learns with the body of existing knowledge.

and this is my point: The statement 'Ignorance is bliss' -

- IN GENERAL, for the music community AS A WHOLE, is false.
- FOR A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, at a GIVEN TIME, may be TRUE.[/quote]

Firstly, quantumn physics in the 1850's? What the f**k are on about their mate?
There was no quantumn physics in the 1850's.Sure it was going on all around us, but humanity at that time was blissfully unaware.

The basis of quantumn physics is Max Plank's experiments in the 1890's. The concept of atomic particles was still contentious in the middle nineteenth century, let alone sub atomic particles.
There existence was'nt established until the 1897 through the work of JJ Thompson, and the Orbital theory of Atoms was'nt consolidated until the early 1900's, by Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr. I had to put you straight there before you continued.

Secondly theory of any kind is'nt a monolithic structure unopen to debate, instead it is an ongoing dicussion and process. Newtonian physics is just as true now as it was 300 years ago.It will get you round the solar system pretty well, just ask NASA. It's just that we know more now. The same thing applies to music theory, it is a body of knowledge with some bits being abandoned, others expanded. This makes it less a set of rules or injunctions, more a set of guidelines that can be used to help you improve.