The ignorance is bliss fallacy

[Topiness]

oh how I love these music theory threads

the agreeing...the disagreeing

those akward moments in-between that remind one that one does still have a pulse

So can't we put all this energy into some kind of KVR Theory wiki? It would be like a proper war, rather than just a skirmish.

[Amberience]

never heard anyone say that theory is useless

Nor have I. I did say the other day that it wasn't as important to me as just going with the flow, but I never said it was useless.

Yeah, but I have been almost called a "theory wanker" by a mod (? breaking the forums rules ?) on this board, for suggesting that not having this skill that is contained in music theory may produce simplistic music.


You put it in a more lucid way, Nuffink.

Visibly, or should I say, I believe that some people are born with an inner sense of theory/music skill and others have to study for years to do the same.

What is a theory wanker?

I don't believe people are born with theory skill. I do believe some people are naturally more musical than others, but I think theory is learnt.

No, I meant, born with an inner sense of theory and not what you said, born with theory. A major difference, me thinks. The reason I'm saying this is that I've seen people play (without any formal training) naturally following the rules of (in this example) western theory/music rules. For example, one friend of mine, untrained, can naturally select a music scale and stick to it during his improvised playing, and it's not just C Major he can 'tune' into either.

Anyone could do that though given a few minutes to play along to whatever it is that is being improvised with.

I would have to ask, what is an inner "sense" of theory? Do you mean that their ears can pickup a sequence of frequencies and go with those, or do you mean something else?

[Amberience]

But Gamelan and Tibetan percussive pieces, minimalism, serialism, drone, microtonality, alternate tunings, purely percussive aharmonic music, atonal music, etc. are all ENCOMPASSED within theory.

There's (much) more to music theory than the classical aspect. You can never go where theory doesn't apply, just where the theory YOU KNOW doesn't apply.

That's because the theory comes from the music, not the other way around, which is what I've been saying all along.

Theory started out literally as a way for performers (usually monks back in the day) to communicate how pieces should be performed.

This is all just my perspective though. I'm totally at ease with those who think you definitely absolutely positively have to know music theory. I can find value in both camps.

[The Colorado Kid]

What I've noticed w/ all my musicly untrained friends (mostly guitarists) is that they run out of ideas very quickly & always seem to have "writers cramp." I just believe that if they had studied music enough (which they were won't to do because it apparently never was important enough to do for them) they would have better luck with their compositions. As it is, I always have to say how nice I think their truly mediocre pieces are. And yet some of them spend thousands & thousands per year when there is really no sense in it.

[Amberience]

What I've noticed w/ all my musicly untrained friends (mostly guitarists) is that they run out of ideas very quickly & always seem to have "writers cramp." I just believe that if they had studied music enough (which they were won't to do because it apparently never was important enough to do for them) they would have better luck with their compositions. As it is, I always have to say how nice I think their truly mediocre pieces are. And yet some of them spend thousands & thousands per year when there is really no sense in it.

Mediocre as what though?

Mediocre in terms of money making potential? Mediocre in terms of enjoyment to yourself? Mediocre in alignment of your perception of what is good and what is bad?

They're your friends then why do you feel you have to cover up how you really feel? If my friend asks me what I think of his music, I give it to him straight.

I don't understand ragging on them on the internet when they're not here to defend themselves. I find that to be mediocre.

I think the pop charts tell us one thing: That mediocre music is the most successful.

[Toxikator]

No, that uncomplicated is the most succesful.

I find it hard to believe that the crack team of musical Rocket Scientists ghostwriting 75% of the pop music charts have no idea what they're doing. Believe me, every "simple" or "dumbed-down" musical choice is carefully weighed and planned. Those guys could hold their own against Mozart, they're industry professionals and VERY good at what they do. Perhaps not the best of all time, but don't think for a second that the people writing pop are amusical or mediocre. Those PERFORMING it, perhaps...

I think modern Rock, Hip Hop, and popular Electronica are the "stupidest" of all musical forms (the ones with the least knowledge of music being applied in their creation).

Also, knowing theory is never a bad thing. Perhaps not essential, but unless you feel that you are such a prodigy that you know EVERYTHING theory can teach you you can only gain from the process of learning it.

[Topiness]

I think modern Rock, Hip Hop, and popular Electronica are the "stupidest" of all musical forms (the ones with the least knowledge of music being applied in their creation).

if you want to say 'the ones with the least knowledge of music being applied in their creation' - then 'stupid' is the wrong English word. 'ignorant', maybe.

[shinken]

Please guys give your honest opinions when your friends ask you about their music. If you don't, you're just not helping them in any way - you're being worse than a Mr Nasty. Don't say it's "nice" when it's crap. I'm a self-taught hobbyist, and because I've improved and learned, I can now know that the stuff I made a few years ago is total crap. However, I didn't know at the time, and so I shared it with some friends, who said some "nice" things. So I had difficulty trusting them after that, because fundamentally even then I had a nagging suspicion.

[The Colorado Kid]

Not talking about people on the radio, just friends. Some of their playing is phenomenal, but composition is what I'm talking about.

Realistically, when it comes to looking at all the arts, composers are the rarest in the bunch. You really don't see too many untrained musicians capable of putting out something that truly compares to the "masters." Most of pop will be seen in the long term (I believe) as fairly insignificant.

As to not saying anything to my friends? Well, they're not going to change their approach no matter what. I think in the back of their minds, they know most of their stuff is mediocre. No reason for me to say it.

I have one friend who writes fairly mediocre stuff who is a huge Elvis Costello fan (as am I), but he's never learned anything from having every Costello album made. It's still all I, IV, V.

[Amberience]

No, that uncomplicated is the most succesful.

I find it hard to believe that the crack team of musical Rocket Scientists ghostwriting 75% of the pop music charts have no idea what they're doing. Believe me, every "simple" or "dumbed-down" musical choice is carefully weighed and planned. Those guys could hold their own against Mozart, they're industry professionals and VERY good at what they do. Perhaps not the best of all time, but don't think for a second that the people writing pop are amusical or mediocre. Those PERFORMING it, perhaps...

My point was that if you think something is medicore, it is only because of your own perspective, not because it actually is definitely medicore. I don't like pop music, I think it is mediocre. You backup my point.

I think modern Rock, Hip Hop, and popular Electronica are the "stupidest" of all musical forms (the ones with the least knowledge of music being applied in their creation).

Pretty ignorant thing to say, since the term "modern rock" covers so much musical ground that it all can't possibly be stupid. I mean, Tool are modern rock, and I wouldn't say their music is either stupid (in the main usage of the word as being intellectually inferior) or ignorant.

Also, knowing theory is never a bad thing. Perhaps not essential, but unless you feel that you are such a prodigy that you know EVERYTHING theory can teach you you can only gain from the process of learning it.

When I very first started learning theory it definitely was a bad thing. Until it all opened itself out and I felt free of the contraints of scales and chord progressions. When I first started, I was obsessed with "sticking to the rules" and whilst I don't claim everyone has the problem, it definitely was a problem for me.

But like I said, after a while it started to open itself up to me and I began to realise that it is only a tool, a method, not the be all and end all.

Realistically, when it comes to looking at all the arts, composers are the rarest in the bunch. You really don't see too many untrained musicians capable of putting out something that truly compares to the "masters." Most of pop will be seen in the long term (I believe) as fairly insignificant.

What "masters" ? Everyone has their own masters. I could compile a list of "greats" and so could you, and they might be totally different. What I learn from this observation is this: there is no need to compare yourself to others. It will only chew you up and spit you back out. Compare yourself to yourself and you will find that you progress - and I mean really progress.

I still have some trouble with it though. We're constantly bombarded with messages that make us want to compare ourselves to other people, and it just creates resentment and needless competition. I try my hardest to just be myself and to not fall into the trap of thinking I'm better or worse than anyone.

So I ask you, is it really important to be as good a composer as people commonly tell you Bach was (for example). He's dead, you're not, so it doesn't matter. There is nothing to learn by comparing yourself to him.

As to not saying anything to my friends? Well, they're not going to change their approach no matter what. I think in the back of their minds, they know most of their stuff is mediocre. No reason for me to say it.

How do you know they wouldn't change their mind? You haven't given them the opportunity to change it, you're just making an assumption - pretty much lines up with the notion of faith.

I have one friend who writes fairly mediocre stuff who is a huge Elvis Costello fan (as am I), but he's never learned anything from having every Costello album made. It's still all I, IV, V.

Not a whole lot wrong with I, IV, V progressions. It is of course what you do with them that counts. The fact that it is a common progression shouldn't be an issue. Air is common and we all breath it, so is it a good idea to try to breath water for the sake of saying "I'm original" - which I guess is the underlying principle of your attack on the I, IV, V progression.

When I was younger, I was obsessed with trying to be original. I wanted to stand out. I wanted to be special. I needed attention. So I did my utmost to be original. Then I come to discover, wait kid, you're not original. The experimental glitchy ambience that you've been making for the past few years.. actually... it isn't original. It was done in the 1930's and for all we know has been done before that too.

That was when I was 16 or 17. Now I'm 22. I'm still a young pup, I concede that my views can change in the future. But at the moment I'm tending to think that originality or the pursuit of originality is overated.

I think the pursuit of self exploration and expression is a lot more valuable than "originality" ... because originality dies, it fades away. Can the same be said for expression? I'm not so sure it can.

None of this is an attack on anyone btw, just the random musings of a guy sitting at his mums house drinking fennel tea, thinking about what you've all said. Picking it apart, trying to understand it. I'm not perfect, no one here is. But if we all can acknowledge that its all relative, I think we're in good shape.

[sergef50]

Music is to theory as sidechaning was to cubase....the manual (theory) says you cant do it....but we found a way and it works.

Reading and knowing the manual is good..but you can get by winging it...what you CREATE i think is seperate from the way in which you create it.

(that may all be nonesense.....merry christmas one and all)

[stk]

Taught myself substantial (tertiary level) theory back in the day.

Forgot it all through misuse, over the past 10 or so years of making music. Enough proof for me

for the record, i reckon i've had much more enjoyment listening to what some would call "stupid" pop music than chinstrokey sound art (studied it for 3 years) and "prog" twaddle

sk

[eduardo_b]

What I've noticed w/ all my musicly untrained friends (mostly guitarists) is that they run out of ideas very quickly & always seem to have "writers cramp."

This has nothing to do with music theory any more than not having a background in literature prevents one from writing orginal, compelling prose. The reality is that many people who take up music as an interest are not talented creatively when it comes to this endeavor.

It's not a bad thing, it's a reality thing. It's quite possible and actually common for people to have good playing skills, yet not have equally good skills at writing music. Without talent, music theory is not going to translate to music application.

And that, to me, is the essential issue. Success can be measured by just enjoying playing and creating music without being "good" enough to meet with the approval of those who know music theory, are critics of music or are paying listeners. If it's a hobby or avocation, then it doesn't really matter, does it? Far different than trying to make a living at it or wanting others to like one's efforts.

[The Colorado Kid]

Just to say, most of my musician friends are somewhat older than I an (& I'm pretty old), but they are definitely (one & all) set in their ways.

As to the "masters" ("chin stroky" music - I like that), it is generally conceded that certain composers of classical music are truly masters, whereas some of the old timey composers that are on the fence go in & out of fashion. And the same goes with newer composers (several of my books never mention any of the minimalist composers), so you have somewhat of a point there, but at the same time, you don't, as Beethoven will always be on a list of the "masters," whereas, someone like Arvo Part may or may not be included, depending.

As to having a "style," I think it becomes important. I've developed my own approach to melody & chord progressions, & I'm now trying to learn to use this whole electronic tapestry that is in front of me to it's best use. I do believe it has given me an original voice.

As to comparing ones self to other composers, it can be helpful, depending. If I ever got it into my head to write some crazy counterpoint, I would learn most of it from Bach (which is what I did in College). In a case like that, I found I'd just never be his equal. Still, I learned a lot & put little contrapuntal threads in the occasional piece.

[Topiness]

I think modern Rock, Hip Hop, and popular Electronica are the "stupidest" of all musical forms (the ones with the least knowledge of music being applied in their creation).

Pretty ignorant thing to say, since the term "modern rock" covers so much musical ground that it all can't possibly be stupid. I mean, Tool are modern rock, and I wouldn't say their music is either stupid (in the main usage of the word as being intellectually inferior) or ignorant.

I can understand Toxikator's view, though, if he is suggesting that much rock / dance / whatever music is often created with less deliberate reference to the music that went before it.

This century has seen 2 things that make this inevitable, i think: A massive increase in the avaliability of different world musical cultures to the average listener, and several new technologies appearing in quick succession (amplification, the recording studio, the synth, the sampler, digital recording...)

Not only is it understandable that musicians don't look to past theory too much when trying to make sense of all this - it's often the RIGHT APPROACH to be 'ignorant'. For example, imagine you're encountering an electric guitar for the first time, sometime earlier this century. you pick up the guitar, which is playing though heavily distorted amplification and try -

1) following the rules you learned on 4 part harmony, play a bunch of delicate contrapuntal lines with some witty Bach references.

2) deliberately doing things 'wrongly', 'ignorantly', and 'stupidly', play some paralllel fifths in quick succession.

guess which would be the right approach?

of course later, the theorists legitimize approach 2) by giving it a name - 'power chords'. but at the time, it was 'ignorant' and 'stupid' and 'wrong'.