Yes, what about music theory

[aaastronomer]

I teach this stuff everyday

So how about positive contributions rather than general "you're all wrong" posts?

Did you read my original post (to the end)?

I did. Twice. And apart from the bit about ear training which, as MotorMind pointed out is a false dichotomy, I saw nothing positive in it.

I like this theory forum. I think it's the most interesting thing to have happened on kvr for a long time. And if there's a bit of misinformation going about there are plenty of people willing to correct it. Hopefully you'll be one of them.

I'm always looking to learn so, since you're a teacher, maybe you could tell me why you seem to consider the blues beyond the scope of theory. Because I've read a fair bit of blues theory.

Once and for all; I am NOT against theory. I am not against the theory forum. Have you done any ear training? If not do that for a couple of months. If you have done some serious ear training don't you think the ability to instantly hear chord progressions, intervals, inner vocings is very valuable - more valuable than reading about them in a book? I am against the fact that theory is often presented as THE thing to learn and I was not trying to create/advocate a dichotomy. Sorry if it sounded like that. And to all- yes english is not my first language so perhaps I can't express myself as clearly as I would like to sometimes. If there's some ambiguity people could just ask. I was just trying to show a different perspective.

if the theory's any good, i shouldn't have to go to ear training. i should be able to read a book on harmony theory, play a few examples on the keyboard, and off we go! no?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Yes, but Messiaen's 'modes of limited transposition' and stuff aren't really the same thing as the modes we are talking about here. The only thing I can think of in classical training that comes close to modality is the study of the old folk music. My memory is probably failing though, it is entirely possible I was taught about them somewhere in my classical education, but certainly they are a lot more prominent in jazz.

Modes in Jazz are not the same thing as modes in "modal music" (except when, as Toxicator mentioned, they are playing "modal" jazz). Debussy (can't believe you never noticed the modality in Debussy), and Messiaen modes are more related to what modes really are than jazz modes.

Yes, a lot of music is influenced by modality (it has been a while since I studied Debussy and Messiaen, suffice it to say I'm not really a fan). But I think we're going off the point here; I was originally talking about the posts on here about modes (in the jazz sense), like for example, how someone recently confused minor scales with Dorian and Aeolian modes.

Well, how would you define 'key' then? - It is true that scales are not the be-all and end-all of key, but they are certainly the building blocks.

Simple: V - I, or Dominant - Tonic. That's it. Someone once said that a sonata is just a long preparation for the final cadence. It's a "boutade" and again oversimplification, but it's true, in a way.

Key is defined byt the harmonic functions inherent to it. Withdraw them and you no longer have key. Of course, you can build a melody in a way that it contains the functions in itself, but nevertheless, if you don't harmonize it, it will always be week in tonal terms. Harmonize it in other ways, and you will destroy it's tonality. Bach is a very good example of how we can play with tonality, and about what tonality really IS. He takes those wonderful choral melodies, which, sometimes, are more modal than tonal, and twist the harmony to fit them, transforming the whole in a perfectly tonal piece. To do that, he creates sometimes amazing chord progressions - but everything fits so well that a less attentive listener don't even notice that. However, looking carefully at some melodies, you would have a hard time saying what "key" they are.

I agree with you. A key is meaningless without playing the hierarchy between dominant, subdominant and tonic.
However; you talk about V-I. - But V-I in what? - It works the other way around too, just as key is meaningless without certain harmony, so too is certain harmony meaningless without a sense of key. - I just don't see how you can define key without at least some reference to what we call 'scales'.

[Caleb]

This is beginning to remind me of why I lost interest in English Literature.

Lots of people gathering around to explain all the hidden depths of a novel without one person mentioning whether they liked it.



Regards
Caleb

[Barf]

This is beginning to remind me of why I lost interest in English Literature.

Lots of people gathering around to explain all the hidden depths of a novel without one person mentioning whether they liked it.



Regards
Caleb

Interesting analogy. Does a poet or writer need to know everything about literature, grammar etc? Does it make reading or writing more fun if you know all these hidden depths?

[Barf]

(already regretting replying in a music theory thread again)

[fmr]

This is beginning to remind me of why I lost interest in English Literature.

Lots of people gathering around to explain all the hidden depths of a novel without one person mentioning whether they liked it.



Regards
Caleb

Interesting analogy. Does a poet or writer need to know everything about literature, grammar etc? Does it make reading or writing more fun if you know all these hidden depths?

No, it doesn't. But would a poet or a novelist weaken his talents if he study literature, other poets and novelists, analyzing their works, etc.? Bach learned to compose by copying endlessly works of the greatest composers before him. How do you suggest one would learn and perfect composition skills? Just by "listening"? Or are you one of those that think composing is just a mater of "inspiration"?

I do ear training a lot, and I insist with everybody on that. I do listen to music a lot, and I insist with everybody on that. But for someone wanting to compose, analysis is the most important thing to do.

[Barf]

[Caleb]

I do ear training a lot, and I insist with everybody on that. I do listen to music a lot, and I insist with everybody on that. But for someone wanting to compose, analysis is the most important thing to do.

How is ear training and listening to music not analysis.

I don't understanding the differentiation here.
Are you saying there is a difference in quality between analysis with the ear and analysis with the eyes?

Regards
Caleb

[rp314]

It appears that some people may be somewhat confused regarding the context here. This is a forum not a scholarly text. If there are things that need clarifying or correcting there is an opportunity to do so within the threads. In some cases a topic may motivate some to start a new thread but it generally is more useful to state your views as close as possible to the post in question to help those who may actually be learning here.

I can't speak for everyone but I think that most folks who participate here take all the claims made in posts as being just that. I'm not going to abandon my learning just because some KVRers have degrees or huge egos, and wouldn't expect anything different when others read my posts.

The forum is titled Music Theory not Music Dogma.

[the_nihilist]

Theory isn't useless, but theory for the sake of theory is f**king useless.