theory, harmony and composition
Larry Deack
> He got this kind of weird look on his face and told me that in fact,
> he could not separate the two issues. When he listened to music, his
> mind was always analyzing.
> Is it possible to turn it off?
Is it possible for you to listen to words and turn off your understanding?
Think of music as a language and think about what you ask. Children must
learn to recognize nouns, verbs, articles and other meta language tags that
help them to find ever more complex patterns in the words. The child hears a
story and hears only the most salient aspects of the here and now and does
not connect many parts across time so they do not get to enjoy the
connections in the plot or the subtleties of the characters as they develop.
They also miss out on the metaphors. You can read Moby Dick as a story about
a guy obsessed about killing a whale or you can dive into the rich but more
difficult relations that have been woven into the fabric of this story that
express not only attitudes about how people thought when the novel was
written but ideas that seem to transcend time and speak to us directly about
the human experience.
Over analysis seems to happen in the early stages of learning any subject
as an adult but it passes and then it simply becomes natural to listen and
hear the patterns. It makes it possible to think the music in a much more
flexible way if you understand the patterns. Music theory gives you a method
for understanding the patterns in the music much like grammar does for
language.
xian
appreciation of it or your ability to 'create' is one of the more common
and more ridiculous misconceptions about music that one could have.
It is of course only the ignorant that believe this. I wonder why...it
seems to me fairly destructive. A means of destruction used by the
arrogantly unknowing. A way that one can justify or rationalize one's
purposeful ignorance as a superior aesthetic path. Why would anyone want to
"turn off" understanding?
Unless you expect your teacher to be arrogant and pompous he's not going
to say, "it allows me to understand better than you uneducated fools." I'm
sure that any truely modest professional will tell you it's simply a
different manner of enjoyment.
The value judgements always seem to come from the other side; portraying
those who have spent their lives attempting to learn as much as they could
about music as stilted, impotent academics. Rather, it's those who turn up
their nose at theory and simply "emote" who are truly artists.
You've stepped in the path of a personal vendetta, and I apologize for the
vitriol, but I have put up with this for so long that I can't help but
generalize and characterize the holders of this belief. It's so common,
especially so from the mediocre. That's not a personal attack, It's simply
the result of some empirical analysis. I hope that you aren't swallowed by
this consumptive illusion.
Christian
The following is edited....
Ed Chait <ech...@fix.net> wrote in article <3740fcf2.14543598@news>...
:I asked him if when he listened to music, what he heard::
:Could he disassociate his knowledge and ability to analyze from the pure
: enjoyment of listening to good sounds?
: he could not separate the two issues. When he listened to music, his
: mind was always analyzing. I didn't push the conversation any
: further.
:
: I was taken aback. I expected him to say that his background enhanced
: and allowed him to enjoy listening to music even more than for an
: uneducated fool as I, but that wasn't the case. He couldn't turn it
: off.
: Any degree of analysis that would intrude into my experience would ruin
it.
: Is it possible to turn it off?
:
:
: Ed Chait
:
:
:
Arthur Fossum
just listen from a musical perspective??
>
Bob Ashley
> How many of us can listen to a guitarist without analyzing his technique and
> just listen from a musical perspective??
Two dogs. Upon meeting up with one another on the sidewalk will they
admire each other's artful perspectives? Nah, nod hello, smell bums. Can't
help but.
In this matter of guitar analysis, dogs demonstrate to us who we are.
We are them. What's that stink?
Regards,
Rib
Ed Chait
I'm not a naturally gifted musician. I don't have a particularly good
ear and even after years of playing CG, I have trouble tuning a guitar
without the assistance of my handy electronic tuner. Nevertheless, I
simply love playing and listening to CG music. What I bring to the CG
table is good dexterity, fairly solid and always evolving technique
and a driving passion for pieces that turn me on.
My former teacher once invited me to join a group of students and
learn basic music theory and composition. Although I had absolutely
no interest in these matters, he thought I would benefit and talked me
into joining.
I found the class completely boring and could not get involved. I
resisted the whole experience. He picked up on this, being a fairly
sensitive individual, and did not invite me back for the second
session:).
I thought about the whole episode for awhile and then one day I asked
something I had been wondering about for a long time. I asked him if
when he listened to music, what he heard. Did he hear sounds flowing
over and around him, or did he hear theory and construction? Could he
disassociate his knowledge and ability to analyze from the pure
enjoyment of listening to good sounds?
He got this kind of weird look on his face and told me that in fact,
he could not separate the two issues. When he listened to music, his
mind was always analyzing. I didn't push the conversation any
further.
I was taken aback. I expected him to say that his background enhanced
and allowed him to enjoy listening to music even more than for an
uneducated fool as I, but that wasn't the case. He couldn't turn it
off.
I love good sounds. They cleanse, renew and impassion me. Any degree
LONOTZ
I always loved music until I became a musician.
Reza Ganjavi
I have some gifts for music but almost no gift not liking whatsoever for theory (despite my computer science background). Sometimes
I wish I did, at the same time, I'm happy I don't because of the reasons you mentioned. Some of the greatest composers of all time -
e.g. Lennon/McCartney had no idea how to write music... at the same time there's so much boring music out there by people who are
very well versed in techniques of theory and composition. The former example is an exception. I guess great music is produced with
those who are well versed at the craft of composition AND have music inside... who knows - just some ideas. I took theory courses in
college, and now I'm trying (not hard) to improve it and learn more about classical composition.
Ed Chait wrote in message <3740fcf2.14543598@news>...
SteveDick
These descriptions can help you compare disparate types or pieces of music and
see more clearly where they overlap and where they differ (Hank Williams'
"Jambalay" v. a traditional flamenco alegrias for example). Seeing these
differences and similarities can lead to a deeper understanding of the music.
Also, if you want to write music, a knowledge of theory can suggest ways to get
out of whatever holes you've written yourself into.
Theory, however, can't give you ideas if you don't have any. Some of the worst
music I've ever heard was written to answer some conundrum presented by theory.
On the other hand, some of the best music I've ever heard (late Beethoven
comes to mind) has very elegant theoretical underpinnings.
Yes, Paul McCartney had no formal musical training. Nonetheless, "Yesterday"
is very well constructed theoretically. However, when he went to write large
form works like the LIverpool Oratorio, his fear of loosing his gift to too
much theoretical knowledge kept him from learning how to extend what he
intuitively knew about music theory to a larger form.
Vivienne McLaughlin
> Knowledge of theory helps you to put technical descriptions to what you hear.
> These descriptions can help you compare disparate types or pieces of music and
> <snip>
Excellent. I agree wholeheartedly. Its is indespensable. If you want to get from
Times Square to Tribeca, you could have somebody give you directions (like being
told how to play) and rely on their directions as the sole means for future
reference. Or you could, in addition, buy a New York City street map (like learning
theory) and then be able to navigate in and out of the sidestreets, and have a
general understanding of how New York streets are arranged. Obviously, tourists
won't need the latter method - but those who plan on staying permanently should be
well equiped.
> Also, if you want to write music, a knowledge of theory can suggest ways to get
> out of whatever holes you've written yourself into.
> Theory, however, can't give you ideas if you don't have any. Some of the worst
> music I've ever heard was written to answer some conundrum presented by theory.
> On the other hand, some of the best music I've ever heard (late Beethoven
> comes to mind) has very elegant theoretical underpinnings.
<snip>
Did you hear that a British concert is in the works to celebrate McCartney's late
wife? I understand that it will be a classical music concert with works contributed
by classical composer, and a new composition by Paul himself. Smashing.
Also, I have to agree with the part about learning theory for composing. I use to
write melody parts to blues accompaniments a while back. When I learned formal
music theory (much later), it expanded my musical vocabulary tremendously. Not
because I learned some new musical styles or sounds, but because I learned how to
express in my compositions things I had heard but had been unable categorize or
analyze. Its like learning gross anatomy for portrait artists. You can always tell
which artist has had training in anatomy and which one's are unaware of the
subtleties of the human body.
Vivienne
Cactihuggr
great photographers know the theories of light? Do great painters know the
theories of color? Do great writers know their ABC's? Well, of course they do,
but I doubt whether they think about it all the time. I think over time it
becomes second nature to use this knowledge together with your own talents.
Rick
schi...@up.net
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.990...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> Reminds me of a response I once read by an artist (name eludes me)
who, when asked what he sees when he looks at an apple, said:
Depends on whether I'm about to paint it or eat it.
Ray S.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Erik Johannesson
guitarist I'm listening to, and why he's interpreting this like that and so
on, instead only enjoying the music... But it's getting harder, I hope I'll
still be able to listen like that in a few years.
Arthur Fossum wrote in message <7hsjbu$13rm$1...@news.cuny.edu>...
Ed Chait
wrote:
>
> Is it possible for you to listen to words and turn off your understanding?
>Think of music as a language and think about what you ask. Children must
>learn to recognize nouns, verbs, articles and other meta language tags that
>help them to find ever more complex patterns in the words. The child hears a
>story and hears only the most salient aspects of the here and now and does
>not connect many parts across time so they do not get to enjoy the
>connections in the plot or the subtleties of the characters as they develop.
I understand your analogy and I find it helpful in thinking about this
stuff. I can see how formal training can bring about a deeper
relationship and appreciation of things.
I was riding my bike today and wondering how my knowledge and training
in bicycle mechanics affected my perceptions while riding along. For
me, bicycle riding is just as sublime an activity as listening to
music. Would my perception be different if I didn't understand gear
ratios, power transmission, bearing assemblies, etc? I do think about
those things while riding, but I can't say for sure whether that
decreases or enhances my enjoyment of the experience.
When I was a child riding around the block we lived on, I used to
pretend that I was a policeman, protecting the world from bad guys,
among other fantasies. Now, I'm just a guy riding along with a silly
grin.
I can also look out the window and see my neighbors 2 year old son
using words, as he runs up and down squealing unintelligibly in pure
joy. My own older children watching him and smiling, but much too
mature to do anything so childish.
Not all that's lost is ignorance. There's also innocence.
Ed Chait
Reza Ganjavi
shut up...
--
Reza Ganjavi
Reply address: gan...@dtc.ch
Ed Chait wrote in message <3743b5db.2408592@news>...
>On Tue, 18 May 1999 18:52:57 GMT, "xian" <xi...@mail.mbayweb.com>
>wrote:
>
>> The idea that analysis or knowledge of music will detract from your
>>appreciation of it or your ability to 'create' is one of the more common
>>and more ridiculous misconceptions about music that one could have.
>
>
>I don't think this is universally true.
>
>
>> Unless you expect your teacher to be arrogant and pompous he's not going
>>to say, "it allows me to understand better than you uneducated fools." I'm
>>sure that any truely modest professional will tell you it's simply a
>>different manner of enjoyment.
>
>My teacher was a very modest professional. What he told me was that
>when he listened to music, his training caused him to think of theory
>and construction. When I asked him if he could turn the analysis off,
>he said that he could not.
>
>
>> The value judgements always seem to come from the other side; portraying
>>those who have spent their lives attempting to learn as much as they could
>>about music as stilted, impotent academics. Rather, it's those who turn up
>>their nose at theory and simply "emote" who are truly artists.
>
>
>I'm not trying to portay anyone as anything. In fact, I'm very glad
>that there are so many formally trained musicians who have composed so
>many wonderful sounds for my ignorant mind to appreciate.
>
>
>
>> You've stepped in the path of a personal vendetta, and I apologize for the
>>vitriol, but I have put up with this for so long that I can't help but
>>generalize and characterize the holders of this belief. It's so common,
>>especially so from the mediocre. That's not a personal attack, It's simply
>>the result of some empirical analysis. I hope that you aren't swallowed by
>>this consumptive illusion.
>>
>
>
>
>No problem. I don't disagree with what you're saying.
>
>The fact that you're right doesn't mean that I'm wrong.
>
>In any case, at this point in life I'm being swallowed by a completely
>different consumptive illusion.
>
>
>Ed Chait
>
Bob Ashley
Erik, I submit that if you can actually listen to a guitarist in a
non-analytical mode, then you are not a dog. Guitarists are dogs; we sniff
around each other as a matter not of operant, voluntary conditioning, but
of involuntary instinct.
Ah, and you say, 'it's getting harder'; that means you are 'becoming' a
dog, yet you are in a transitional stage which manifests retrograde
symptoms of your former human self and anteretrograd sympton of the canine
you are becoming.
In a few years, you will find yourself on a knoll in southern Australia,
with your nose in the air, in a kind of 'dingo-ized' attitude, sniffing,
saying to yourself, "The air, I can smell him, I can smell John Williams!"
What you smell is another dog.
Regards,
Rib
Bob Ashley
> I was riding my bike today and wondering how my knowledge and training
> in bicycle mechanics affected my perceptions while riding along. For
> me, bicycle riding is just as sublime an activity as listening to
> music. Would my perception be different if I didn't understand gear
> ratios, power transmission, bearing assemblies, etc? I do think about
> those things while riding, but I can't say for sure whether that
> decreases or enhances my enjoyment of the experience.
Try the analogy when someone on a $6,000 custom-built bicycle pulls up
beside you. You tell me if you are 'geared' to appreciate your fellow
rider's 'sublime' pedalling cadence or rather the 'crinkum-crankum'
assembly of expensive technology he's perched on.
Ed wrote:
> When I was a child riding around the block we lived on, I used to
> pretend that I was a policeman, protecting the world from bad guys,
> among other fantasies. Now, I'm just a guy riding along with a silly
> grin.
The guy with the 'silly grin' is my kind of citizen, not the cop!
Regards,
Rib