I am turning into a theory slut

[james0tucson]

“Master your instrument, Master the music, and then forget all that shit and just play.” - Charlie Parker

Sound advice from a true genius.
Its a shame so many muso's only hear “Forget all that shit and just play.”

It took Bird a long time before he could actually play for entertainment. He died a few times, famously. Basically got run out of KC. Most biographies make it sound like he was a great horn player from his high school days on, but the truth is, he really sucked horribly at first. About the time that he met Art Tatum, who was playing piano in a restaurant where Charlie was a dishwasher, he had an epiphany and created his own style.

Here is a biography that doesn't try to paint the early years as glamorous and successful:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030680 ... e&n=283155

[xander]

Where on earth do I indicate or imply that I am an expert on how everyone creates? That's YOUR subtext ya pedantic trollop, not mine

Its implicit in the fact that you call it 'sideways logic' that some people claim it would cramp their creativity.

No -- not implicit at all, merely you choose to interpret it that way. It is an illegitimate argument to blame tools [music theory/notation] for one's personal limitations. In fact, it is a self-defeating argument, and therefore not a logical pursuit in this context.

Unless you have some specific insight into that creativity for all individuals, how on earth do you get to claim that it is 'sideways logic' rather than actual fact?

In the context of this argument/debate, I am taking the position that there is nothing inherent in music theory or use of musical notation that would hamper one's creativity -- that is merely the person's problem. To assume otherwise is to make the statement that learning musical theory and the use of notation inhibits creativity, which is silly. If you let it inhibit you, it's your fault.

My point is simple enough if read in context:

How is it that a set of tools & theories used for communicating musical notation from one human to another can cramp someone's musical style?

Unless the notation is flexible enough to cover all applicable musical/sound phenomena, and the theories encompass all possible arrangements of those musical/sound phenomena, then it fails to address the full range of possibilities that people might experiment with.

It is indeed flexible enough -- in fact, there is no sound or rhythm made by humans that is beyond modern notation and theory, and it is evolving all the time, it is not static.

Putting someone under pressure to adopt a system of notation or theory which does not actually cater for aspects of their creative output is certainly capable of 'cramping their style'.

No one is under pressure to adopt anything, although one may feel under pressure to defend an all too common misconception -- that music theory befuddles the mind and inhibits creativity.

I am not saying that someone cannot become befuddled and have their creativity inhibited by employing music theory & notation, I am merely saying that it is not the fault of music theory & notation that one becomes befuddled. One might become befuddled because one simply doesn't know enough theory to address their particular style of music.

Put a violin score in front of a violinist and, not only will he play what is written, he'll put *feeling* into it as well, helped along by notation as highlighted with fortissimo or pianissimo, etc. The score is a medium of communication, no more, no less.

It is just a set of evolving tools to assist in creativity, rather than a beleaguering anchor weight of depressing rules one must abide by. This is the major misconception that is a real pity, in that it may discourage one or more from learning enough to experiment with, and thus having a rather more limited, restrictive view of the wonders of music.

I take it you're concerned about using it within your style of music or similar, but many sound designers and sound-scape artists score their work. There's a whole body of work out there scored by experimental composers using modern and often inventive (unique) methods of notation, which are quite interesting and innovative.

I wonder what chefs would say if you told them they had to adopt a notation for ingredients and a theory of flavour combinations before the meals they produced were considered anything but a reflection of 'sideways logic'.

Well, there are chefs wot are better called 'short-order cooks' who no doubt need little training and no recipe books to worry about. I mean, a fried egg is a fried egg.

Then there are chefs who have attended expensive cullinary schools and make six figures annually. They actually CREATE 'recipes' and have them published.

So here, your rhetorical question is non sequitur.

They use the logical(?) argument that 'using such has an adverse effect on my creativity'?

I doubt if its an argument; I suspect its an explanation of factual circumstance. The fact that you dont give credence to it as being factual is what makes you respond to it as an 'argument'

I don't doubt the fact that it happens at all, I am saying the argument that some commonly use to justify creative inhibition -- blaming it on use of music theory -- is not reasonable. It is the use of a kind of 'sideways logic', in that it [using notation inhibits one] can be viewed as a logical occurrence, but the true source of the problem is not the fault of using notation. We can establish a kind of 'blame', but this is more an avoidance of a problem rather than addressing/dealing with a restriction.

You can extend this sort of weird logic to the use of a midi piano roll -- a form of notation, in which case it could be really dangerous and screw people up bigtime...

YOu can extend it that way if you choose, but it has no relevance if you consider that a piano roll ostensibly does nothing more than demark different timing and durations for discrete sets of potentially parallel events. Its derivation from piano keys is purely incidental depending on the context of use.

I was trying to be humorous here, but in this context it is quite relevant, in that it: "...demark different timing and durations for discrete sets of potentially parallel events..." which is a form of notation, albeit a limited one. Remember that before 'Midi Piano Rolls' became popular, most of us used midi-enabled programs where you actually moved notes around on a staff (some of us still do).

Cheers,
Alex

[The Chase]

Whytrabbyt youre such a moron

How can you seriously break down what someone says into fragments like that - out of context - and respond to each fragment, taking what they say to such an extreme that it becomes meaningless. By the time youre done you're comments about someone's broken-up post are completely irrevelent, which is why afterwards the poster who's post you truncated spends the rest of the thread explaining to you what they actually meant. o rly.

[xander]

Whytrabbyt youre such a moron

How can you seriously break down what someone says into fragments like that - out of context - and respond to each fragment, taking what they say to such an extreme that it becomes meaningless. By the time youre done you're comments about someone's broken-up post are completely irrevelent, which is why afterwards the poster who's post you truncated spends the rest of the thread explaining to you what they actually meant. o rly.

Why, Mssr Le chase ... How totally and surprisingly appropo your words can be sometimes...



I reckon I'm about to get quothed to death soonly...

[The Chase]

Whytrabbyt youre such a moron

How can you seriously break down what someone says into fragments like that - out of context - and respond to each fragment, taking what they say to such an extreme that it becomes meaningless. By the time youre done you're comments about someone's broken-up post are completely irrevelent, which is why afterwards the poster who's post you truncated spends the rest of the thread explaining to you what they actually meant. o rly.

Why, Mssr Le chase ... How totally and surprisingly appropo your words can be sometimes...



I reckon I'm about to get quothed to death soonly...

Am I right though? or am i talking out of my ass? He's done it forever.

I'm about to get qouthed too. I actually thought of breaking up my post to save him time.

[xander]

Whytrabbyt youre such a moron

How can you seriously break down what someone says into fragments like that - out of context - and respond to each fragment, taking what they say to such an extreme that it becomes meaningless. By the time youre done you're comments about someone's broken-up post are completely irrevelent, which is why afterwards the poster who's post you truncated spends the rest of the thread explaining to you what they actually meant. o rly.

Why, Mssr Le chase ... How totally and surprisingly appropo your words can be sometimes...



I reckon I'm about to get quothed to death soonly...

Am I right though? or am i talking out of my ass? He's done it forever.

I'm about to get qouthed too. I actually thought of breaking up my post to save him time.

I think he revels in it mate

Well, they do say 'Beware the Quoth"

[[ xerocreep ]]

...There's a whole body of work out there scored by experimental composers using modern and often inventive (unique) methods of notation, which are quite interesting and innovative.

That makes me want to wander back through the pages of Cage's book "Notations".

[eidenk]

Whytrabbyt youre such a moron

How can you seriously break down what someone says into fragments like that - out of context - and respond to each fragment, taking what they say to such an extreme that it becomes meaningless. By the time youre done you're comments about someone's broken-up post are completely irrevelent, which is why afterwards the poster who's post you truncated spends the rest of the thread explaining to you what they actually meant. o rly.

Why, Mssr Le chase ... How totally and surprisingly appropo your words can be sometimes...



I reckon I'm about to get quothed to death soonly...

Am I right though? or am i talking out of my ass? He's done it forever.

LOL. He did it to me recently.

[Ildon]

Well like I said before, I have to agree with Xander. Theory never restricted anyone. If you honestly believe you can't express something using standard notation... make something up and put a key at the bottom of the page! It's not that hard at all.

Whyterabbyt just seems to be trying to stir things up. I'll never understand that behavior.

[nuffink]

I know why theory scares people.

Nope, you just assume that you do. On top of the assumption that its fear that causes people not to learn it in the first place.

You only have to listen to most prog rock to realise that knowledge of theory sounds like a recipe for boring music.

There are plenty of recipes for boring music. Genre cliches are probably as responsible as anything else.

I think that this is due to the learning process not the acquisition of knowledge.

I doubt it. I'd suggest its more to do with imagination and creativity.

There is something wonderful about naive music which the process of learning sometimes erodes.

Perhaps sometimes. Without any kind of quantification this is essentially meaningless. You might as well say there's something wonderful about obscurity and poverty which the process of earning sometimes erodes.

Most pop groups don't get better once they've been around a while.

That's not really the purpose of a 'pop group', though, is it.

But.
Naive musicians make the same easy harmonic choices all the time.

Some naive musicians make some of them same easy harmonic choices some of the time.

It's why they date so fast.

I doubt that's the only significant factor. Especially with 'pop' groups.

What the f**k's that about Sean?
That pompous, pointless juggling with sematics is what you do with the wankers, remember.
Argue with me if you disagree, but that's just bollocks.

[james0tucson]

Music theory never stops. You can even apply Set Theory and Chaos Theory to the kinds of music that elude conventional analyisis.

[Amberience]

I thought he had some good points, even if he did express them in a slightly wanky way.

[whyterabbyt]

No -- not implicit at all, merely you choose to interpret it that way.

I disagree. Whether you intended it or not, it is implicit.

It is an illegitimate argument to blame tools [music theory/notation] for one's personal limitations. In fact, it is a self-defeating argument, and therefore not a logical pursuit in this context.

That may or may not be true. However thats pretty much a logical non-sequitur, since not wishing to do something on the grounds that it will interfere with ones ability to do a thing in a specific way is not actually not the same thing as blaming one's failure on that something.
Unless you're actually making an implicit claim that not doing that 'something' would automatically cause that failure. But you wouldnt do that, would you?

So, thats not not really a logical statement in this context.

In the context of this argument/debate, I am taking the position that there is nothing inherent in music theory or use of musical notation that would hamper one's creativity -- that is merely the person's problem.

Feel free to take that position.

To assume otherwise is to make the statement that learning musical theory and the use of notation inhibits creativity, which is silly. If you let it inhibit you, it's your fault.

I disagree. The theory has limitations; its is not applicable to all circumstances. That is an automatic restriction on what can be done with it. Telling people it is their fault if an incomplete system system fails them is your fault.

It is indeed flexible enough -- in fact, there is no sound or rhythm made by humans that is beyond modern notation and theory, and it is evolving all the time, it is not static.

Then please describe how to do so using a modern notation which is in common usage. Maybe you could notate something by Sickle for us.

No one is under pressure to adopt anything

Hence the continued use of disparagement and ad hominem attacks on those who do not feel any need to do so?

Yeah, right?

although one may feel under pressure to defend an all too common misconception -- that music theory befuddles the mind and inhibits creativity.

I think the real misconception is that music theory never befuddles the mind or inhibits creativity...

I am not saying that someone cannot become befuddled and have their creativity inhibited by employing music theory & notation, I am merely saying that it is not the fault of music theory & notation that one becomes befuddled.

Ah right. The system is perfect, so all problems are caused by the end-user. You dont work in customer support do you?

One might become befuddled because one simply doesn't know enough theory to address their particular style of music.

One might. Equally one might becomes befuddled because the theory and notation are inadequate to encompass one's intentions.

Put a violin score in front of a violinist and, not only will he play what is written, he'll put *feeling* into it as well, helped along by notation as highlighted with fortissimo or pianissimo, etc.

Not necessarily. Technical proficiency with a violin is not necessarily the same thing as an actual emotional connection with the music.

The score is a medium of communication, no more, no less.

So?

It is just a set of evolving tools to assist in creativity

A method for describing a sequence of events has intrinsically nothing to do with creativity.

, rather than a beleaguering anchor weight of depressing rules one must abide by.

Are you now trying to conflate notation and theory?

This is the major misconception that is a real pity, in that it may discourage one or more from learning enough to experiment with, and thus having a rather more limited, restrictive view of the wonders of music.

I take it you're concerned about using it within your style of music or similar

Then you take it completely wrongly.

, but many sound designers and sound-scape artists score their work. There's a whole body of work out there scored by experimental composers using modern and often inventive (unique) methods of notation, which are quite interesting and innovative.

Im perfectly aware of that thank you. Im fairly well read on the history of experimental electro-acoustic and electronic music.

Well, there are chefs wot are better called 'short-order cooks' who no doubt need little training and no recipe books to worry about. I mean, a fried egg is a fried egg.

Then there are chefs who have attended expensive cullinary schools and make six figures annually. They actually CREATE 'recipes' and have them published.

So here, your rhetorical question is non sequitur.

Sorry, it wasn't actually a non sequitur, given that it actually maintained a contextual connection with the previous thread. It was a mere parallel, which you seem to have 'addressed', if one can call it such, by relying on an enormous fallacy. (Its called 'an excluded middle' please feel free to look it up). Thats a bit sad, really.

I don't doubt the fact that it happens at all, I am saying the argument that some commonly use to justify creative inhibition -- blaming it on use of music theory -- is not reasonable.

I dont care whether or not some people use it as an excuse. I do care that it can be a valid reason.

It is the use of a kind of 'sideways logic', in that it [using notation inhibits one] can be viewed as a logical occurrence, but the true source of the problem is not the fault of using notation. We can establish a kind of 'blame', but this is more an avoidance of a problem rather than addressing/dealing with a restriction.

So you keep saying. Not providing anything factual to back it up though, just your repeated assertion that its true because you say its true...

I was trying to be humorous here, but in this context it is quite relevant, in that it: "...demark different timing and durations for discrete sets of potentially parallel events..." which is a form of notation, albeit a limited one.

I disagree, in that often it is not a description of the events, but the actual trigger mechanism of those events. There is a distinct (albeit subtle) difference between the two.

Remember that before 'Midi Piano Rolls' became popular, most of us used midi-enabled programs where you actually moved notes around on a staff (some of us still do).

I also remember that before that, the events were described in numerical form. But lines of code for Music1 were not notation; they were an intrinsic part of the actual sound generation schema.

[herodotus]

OK, I can no longer resist.

Here’s the deal: people habitually speak about “music theory” (or just plain “theory” as it is usually called) as if it were a single non-problematic body of knowledge. The underlying assumption is always that Music Theory is some sort of well-regulated academic discipline like History or Anthropology or Linguistics. People then go on to argue, based on this assumption, that theory is either good or bad or necessary or helpful or harmful or whatever.

But music theory is not a well-regulated academic discipline like History or Anthropology or Linguistics.

Not at all.

Music Theory is in part the vestige of something that is now almost completely forgotten. The historical documentation of this version of theory goes back much further than the historical documentation of music itself. It started with the mythical figure of Pythagoras (ca. 569 BCE – 475 BCE) and his putative discovery of one of the coolest facts ever: that if two simultaneously sounding pitches have vibrations that conform to some basic very basic numeric ratios (i.e. 1:2, 2:3, 3:4) it sounds really nice. This discovery lives on to this day in the fact that we call the intervals of an octave (1:2), a fifth (2:3), and a fourth (3:4) “perfect” consonances as opposed to major or minor consonances.

This is one of those discoveries that just seem really portentous. And indeed, Pythagoras became the figurehead for an Orphic mystery cult. This discovery gave birth to the vague notion of The Harmony of the Spheres that was to obsess cosmologists for centuries. This is the ‘music’ that was one of the ‘seven liberal arts’ of the Middle Ages. And it provided a cage that the church attempted to keep musical practice in for centuries.

So that is ‘theory’ type 1.

‘Theory’ type two is a practical form of instruction for musicians and composers. The great old representative of this type is Fux (ca.1660 – 1741). It contains a sprinkling of type 1 theory, but not much. This type of theory is where the ‘rules’ of ’proper’ composition come from. These rules were in reality a sort of codification of composition as practiced by Palestrina (who was Fux’s teacher). But the attempt was still made to derive these rules from the insight of Pythagoras, albeit in a very strange and idiosyncratic way.

For instance, there is a rule against parallel fifths (because they are ’perfect’ intervals) but not against parallel thirds.

Then there is theory type 3, which is a sort of hybrid of the first two. Rameau ( 1683 - 1764) was the greatest proponent of it. This is the beginning of the theory that most of us are familiar with. In Rameau’s “Theory of harmony” there is some discussion of acoustical phenomena as well as a whole bunch of taste-derived pronouncements concerning what should and should not be done when composing. Our contemporary concept of a triad was first codified in this book.

Now at no point do any of the above authors attempt to justify their rules based on the practice of musicians. They may derive from that practice, but the attempt was still made to give these rules a grander justification than “That’s how Pachelbel did it, so just shutup and do it”.

Finally we have the crazy German named Heinrich Schenker( 1868 - 1935)). With him we finally arrive at the notion of theory as a conscious codification of the practice of ‘the best musicians’. His method of analysis is too complicated to get into, but suffice it to say that it is rather far removed indeed from the monochords of Pythagoras.

So you may ask: ‘what is the point of all this blather’?

Well in the first place it’s to correct the idea that theory is somehow scientific. It is no more a science than alchemy. It was once a primitive science, and it has certain elements that could be worked into a science, but that is all.

In the second place, it is to correct the idea that ‘theory’ is a description of how music works. This is a gross oversimplification. At the present time there is no systematic understanding of how music works that is anywhere near worthy of being called a science. Historical musicology is a venerable discipline that has accomplished much in the past 100 years, but that is different subject. Music as a whole (assuming that that makes sense) is as much a mystery today as it was when Pythagoras was a boy.

And that brings us to the final reason for all of this blather: If we are ever to understand the mystery that is music, we must first rid ourselves of the notion that we already understand it.

There is nothing wrong with giving chords names, but there is a great deal wrong with the notion that those names are anything more than our own inventions. And there is nothing more counterproductive than an argument about whether a collection of tones in a piece by Bartok is really an augmented ninth chord, a major/minor chord, or a seventh chord with an added fourth. Because while this argument goes on in the halls of academe, a whole new world of rhythmic practice is being ignored, a whole new world of noise-music is being explored and created and neglected, and ancient musical cultures every bit as interesting as our own are relegated to that bastard offshoot of anthropology called ethnomusicology.

So learn 'theory' if you want. And don’t worry about it if you don’t. If you want to understand music certainly learning theory can help, but then again, you might just end up wasting your time learning enharmonic equivalents that used to mean things about 200 years ago, but which now are just there because no one has the guts to point out just how f**king dated some of this stuff really is.

Learn how to read music by all means. That isn't theory, it's literacy. Follow scores while you listen to stuff if you want to, play with things like Chord space, and have fun.

And rid yourself of the notion that you know what music really is.

Because at this stage of the game, all we have are guesses.

[whyterabbyt]

What the f**k's that about Sean?

I had a problem with the statements you were making, and gave my reasons as I went along. Is that a problem for you?

That pompous, pointless juggling with sematics is what you do with the wankers, remember.

'Juggling with semantics'. Yeah right, whatever. You make a lot of half-assed claims that dont stand up on their own two feet, but you're allowed to do that because you're not one of 'the wankers' is that it?

Sorry, someone needs to remind me who has special priveleges again, I seem to have lost my list.

Oh well, its a privelege to be called 'pompous' by someone who states "I was ignorant and then I learned so I can tell which is the superior state."

Argue with me if you disagree, but that's just bollocks.

I was arguing with you; the basis of your comments were unilaterally flawed and one-sided. The fact that you'd rather resort to a series of personal attacks because I chose to point that out... well... that would be the bollocks.

At least xander is entering into a dialogue, rather than just resorting to venom and spit because you got your temper piqued.